8 Labour MPs accepted corporate box tickets to the RWC from Sky City.
If they’re so evil, why did they accept?
Perhaps they could explain:
Grant Robertson?
David Shearer?
Clayton Cosgrove? Read more »
via mediaspanonline.com
Katie Bradford-Crozier writes at ZB
International interest in the Mighty River Power float was high, so 13.5 per cent of the company will now be owned by overseas investors.
The Finance Minister revealed details of the share allocation and pricing of the energy company last night.
113,000 Kiwis have bought shares, at $2.50 a pop.
Bill English says offshore institutions have been allocated $472 million worth of shares – but those were limited to ensure 86.5 per cent of the company was kept in New Zealand hands.
No wonder the share price hasn’t crashed to the $2.00 – $2.20 level that the Green Taliban and Labour were crowing about. There is genuine interest in the Mighty River Power float.
Well so much for the shonkey, donkey & lackey of foreign interests rolling over for Rio Tinto to keep asset sales on track as predicted by Clayton Cosgrove.
John Key has called their bluff.
Prime Minister John Key has called Anglo-American mining giant Rio Tinto’s bluff, saying the government will offer no more than the short-term subsidy offered last week to keep the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter open.
Key told the TV3 and Newstalk ZB networks that Rio, which owns just on 80 percent of the 41 year-old smelter, had rejected the short term subsidy over Easter weekend, saying it needed a long term deal and was returning to talks with its supplier, Meridian Energy.
“We have put our best foot forward, put our only card on the table,” Key told TV3′s Firstline. “We have no interest in a long term subsidy. If it can’t stand on its own two feet, it shouldn’t be there.” Read more »
The Herald seems to think that Richard Prosser has an electorate when they went and canvassed opinion about his “Wogistan” comments:
John Key has manned up and axed a totally useless minister. Kate Wilkinson increased union membership and had the support of the opposition Labour spokeswoman, had pissed off business and managed to have a business run a public campaign against her because she was so useless.
The problem for John Key is his one seat majority. Kate holds her seat by 642 votes. If Kate decides that she has been humiliated and would be better leaving parliament, forcing a by-election, it is highly likely Clayton Cosgrove will win the seat. Read more »
A leader with mediocre talents weighed down by a caucus whose bitterness is only matched by its shallowness. That is the plight of the Labour Party, and David Shearer’s next moves will entrench that perspective.
In light of his summary execution of David Cunliffe for failing to be a devout disciple in the face of sagging poll numbers, Shearer now faces the task of welding together a shadow cabinet. This task will be a study of the man’s ability to think about what’s best for himself and his party.
Cunliffe was arguably Shearer’s strongest asset on the front bench, a point Cunliffe himself knew only too well. Ironically he will now sit on the back benches with one man who is clearly the equal or perhaps better than most of the government’s front bench: Shane Jones.
Post Cunliffe, Shearer’s options are limited. Grant Robertson is deceptively smart, but he is the Environment spokesperson. Environment is not about green issues; rather it is about the apportionment of property rights in a world where human progress intersects with nature. What’s the point of ranking the Environment to number two in the caucus rank when Labour has no analysis of private property rights, let alone how those rights ought to be upheld?
Shearer is heavily reliant on David Parker in both Finance and now Economic Development. Parker is a clever politician, a lawyer by trade and has experience as a Cabinet Minister in the latter stages of the previous Labour government. But Parker’s is hog-tied to a party that is either incapable or unwilling to wean itself off a diet of big spending commitments. Why for example is Labour committed to KiwiBuild, a strategy that would see the state involve itself in the construction of 200,000 new homes? (More than three times the total stock of Housing New Zealand properties).
Shearer places great faith in Jacinda Ardern in Social Development. Aside from being disliked and isolated from the majority of her female caucus colleagues, Ardern is both linear and doctrinaire. Her default position is to argue every issue from an ideologically left perspective, something that more adept operators like Annette King and Phil Goff would periodically avoid. As a result Ardern has little in common with blue collar conservative voters, many of whom consider welfare to be an unfair wealth transfer from the battlers to the bludgers.
Clayton Cosgrove is a formidable debater in Parliament. But like Robertson he struggles to make an impression due in part to Labour’s lack of analysis for the ownership of assets or the future of New Zealand’s capital markets.
Maryan Street continues to be overrated and ineffective both inside Parliament and on the hustings. Labour has been completely outgunned by Tony Ryall in Health, and Street’s perseverance in that portfolio (while earnest) fails to close the yawning gap between the Labour and a historic Achilles heel for any government.
Nanaia Mahuta has never been popular with her caucus colleagues.. Nicknamed “the princess”, Mahuta has done well to hang on to her Tainui constituency. But she has performed poorly in Education, and is consistently bettered by her junior colleague Chris Hipkins. The trouble for Shearer is demoting Mahuta will send a signal to the Kiingitanga movement that their designated representative in Parliament is less valued, a tough sell coupled with the fact that Mahuta is a Cunliffe supporter.
William Sio is not to be underestimated for his links within the Pacific community. But Sio is a social conservative in a party that is seeking to redefine marriage to allow men to marry men and women to marry women. This strategy both offends and tests Labour’s ties with the Pacific community, a point that Sio himself has made publicly.
Phil Twyford has done well to dig in in Te Atatu and has scored headlines on local government and transport issues. But that in itself is small fry compared to the task of building an alternative government.
Beyond that Shearer has a caucus of candidates who are in the twilight of their careers (e.g. Parekura Horomia, Trevor Mallard, Phil Goff and Annette King), or who are simply too lightweight to be taken seriously (e.g. Sue Moroney, Moana Mackey, and Louisa Wall). Some options are simply not trustworthy (e.g. Charles Chauvel and David Cunliffe himself), or have yet to make an impact (e.g. Claire Curran).
Shearer could and probably will promote Chris Hipkins and Andrew Little. But neither man has any reason to show loyalty to Shearer long-term, particularly if Shearer is unable to reverse Labour’s sagging poll ratings.
Labour’s caucus is the by-product of a party and a selection system that rewards cronyism over talent, gender and sexual orientation over competence and union-dominated fiefdoms over political smarts. That is why Darien Fenton rather than Kelvin Davis or Stuart Nash sits behind Shearer at question time. The lack of talent means Shearer turns up to a gunfight with John Key holding a bread and butter knife rather than a loaded firearm.
It’s no wonder Labour’s rank and file members are itching to have a go at shaping that party’s leadership. Maybe they should start with their own MPs too.
Stuart Nash has blogged at Recess Monkey about Louisa Wall’s Marriage Equality bill and the impact on Labour’s strategy:
I want to start by saying that I support gay marriage and, if I had been in parliament, I would have had no hesitation in voting in favor of Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill. It sits perfectly with the Labour values of fairness and equality.
Despite that, I am not happy about it!
In a role I held earlier this year I wrote a strategic document in which I warned that Labour must not get sidetracked from going hard on the major issues that New Zealanders are telling us are important to them. The National government have a proven ability at creating side issues in order to deflect media and public attention away from the issues that matter. Labour MUST NOT get sucked into the game of responding to these periphery and/or manufactured issues because it would risk losing focus, momentum and credibility.
Little did I know that it wasn’t the Nats who would create the side shows (how ever worthy they may be), but Labour themselves. Louisa’s Bill was ill-timed. I believe it’s the sort of Bill that a Labour government introduces in its first year in government (the fact that it was drawn out of the ballot was unlucky for Labour). For the past month or so this issue has been at the forefront of the mainstream and social media. In the meantime, the state assets sales programme is in trouble, farms have been sold to the Chinese, educationists decry the rise of charter schools, the poverty gap is increasing at an alarming rate, Kiwis are heading to Australia in record numbers, our unemployment rate is climbing, and there is at least one dreadful health story a day that should be in the papers.
I broadly agre with Stuart on that…and a case in point was the drawing of Jacinda Ardern’s bill the very next day where Labour was all at sea in responding to it.
Both David Clark’s $15 minimum wage bill and Clayton Cosgrove’s bill on state asset sales were both drawn in the same ballot as Louisa’s bill (how many knew this?). Both these bill’s represented headline Labour policies at the last election, and were very popular across a wide range of voters. These are prime examples of Labour concentrating on issues that matter to a significant number of good hard working Kiwis, yet many of those same struggling Kiwis have no idea that we are still fighting hard on their behalf. Both issues have, by-and-large, been lost in the mele caused by the marriage equality bill.
Labour only has itself to blame. They, for all intents and purpose, appear to be a bunch of individuals running individual strategies. Take Clare Curran’s latest foray into focussing on the things that matter by taking photos outside Bill English’s office.
Yesterday in the General Debate Labour’s Clayton Cosgrove really showed the nasty underbelly of the nasty party:
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I am very glad that the National Party are talking about their so-called glorious, Nuremberg-like rally that happened at the weekend, because the Prime Minister came out of that, triumphant in his own mind that the National Party faithful, of course all of whom—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a completely unacceptable reference that was made by that member. He should be made to withdraw and apologise for it. You cannot use words that relate to that particular regime in this House in other contexts, and it should not be used in the context of this debate when it is reference to another party as well.
Mr SPEAKER: I think—
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw and apologise if any offence was given, but I would just say this for the record: I think the member has got it completely wrong, but I withdraw and apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Had the member referred to something to do with a Nazi-style conference, that would have been out of order. I am loath to keep all the time ruling words out of order. I appreciate the member’s preparedness to withdraw it, but I think we have just got to be careful to not be ruling words out endless over the years.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is not the words; it is the reference he made.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member should not be interjecting, although I understand the depth of feeling around some of these issues. The reference is made through words. I thank the member for withdrawing his comment, and let it lie at that. I appreciate that. I thank the member.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: With no link to that, I think the member has gone troppo, but we will not go there.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not helpful.
Politicians lie…we all do, show me someone who says they don’t lie and i’ll show you a liar. Sometimes the lies are little…”yes dear, that was really good”, and then there are the whoppers…”no Dad, it wasn’t me that put that massive scratch down the side of your car by driving along the pillar”.
But somehow we allow politicians to lie to us…all the time. One of the best ever lies was the superannuation lie…that if you all put 1 and 6 aside then in your retirement the government will look after you…followed up with another lie that superannuation will be universal for all for ever.
Doug Mataconis examines political lying:
Lying in order to cover-up a potential crime, for example, is still political suicide, as are the kind of lies that John Edwards told about his personal life. Fourteen years ago, Bill Clinton learned that lying under oath could lead to an Impeachment proceeding, though most Americans came to believe that his particular form of lying should not be punished by removal from office. But when it comes to telling a “lie” about a piece of legislation, or misrepresenting the facts for political purposes, which we have come over the last two decades or so to refer to as “spin,” though, the American people do indeed seem to have just decided to accept the fact that politicians lie and there isn’t a whole lot they can do about it.
I am sure we all believe that Phillip Field and Clayton Cosgrove are guilty of nothing more than being helpful to their constituents…I eman Helen Clark and Grant Robertson have told us so.
And Winston Peters really did mean NO, when asked about receiving donations. But perhaps the movie line is right…we can;t handle the truth:
There’s another side to this, though, and I noted it above. Sometimes, Americans want their politicians to lie to them about certain things. Do voters really want to hear the truth about how painful its going to be to fix our fiscal and entitlements crises? Do they want to hear that there are some problems in the world that America can’t, or shouldn’t fix, or that the economy isn’t going to return to the boom days of the 90s any time soon? I’d argue that they most definitely don’t want to hear the truth about these and many other subjects, so we let our politicians lie to us about them all the time.
