But let’s back up for a moment. In the general election of 2005, Labour and Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party formed a Centre-Left coalition with a combined share of only 42.26 per cent of the vote. Funny, but I don’t recall the democratic purists of the Left protesting then that the Clark government had no mandate.
The truth is, of course, that it’s mightily difficult for any party to secure an absolute majority under the MMP system. If National can’t even do it with 59 seats to the combined 48 seats won by the two main Centre-Left parties, chances are that no party will ever pull it off. This is the very reason so many anti-MMP campaigners complain that it can lead to political paralysis.
Of course, it suits the Left to argue, now that we have a Centre-Right government, that it has no mandate. It must be a bitter disappointment that MMP, which the Left saw as a way of weakening the National Party’s traditional dominance in New Zealand politics, has let them down. The exquisite irony is that Mr Saxby was one of the original promoters of MMP, but cries “unfair!” when the system delivers a Centre-Right coalition. Well, he asked for it.
Clare Curran made good on her promise to look at regulating ad volumes by incorporating it in Labour’s broadcasting policy. Labour once again showed that when it comes to nanny statism they rule supreme.
I blog about the defining moment of the election. The defining moment of the election was on Wednesday 2 November 2011 at about 8:30 PM. That was the moment that Phil Goff lost the election.
I complained to the Electoral Commission about Jim Anderton’s illegal letter to constituents. The Electoral Commission referred it to the Police. The Police are yet to announce any progress.
Labour and Trevor Mallard counted on their massive use of social media to win the election for them. unfortunately it involved Trevor Mallard talking to people which usually resulted in him abusing them. Like small business owners.
I leak an email from Chris Flatt where he tells Labour supporters that “the shift has begun” off of the back of one poll. The next day more polls are released showing that Chris was a bit premature with his joy.
National’s signs are vandalised across the country one month after I suspected this would be the case. The day after I surmised that the vandals were Greens.
“We will take a breather for the next few days and make a decision in due course whether or not we go through with an electoral petition.”
She said she would go to Parliament on Monday to collect her belongings and meet the party to make a decision on an electoral petition. But it was unlikely.
Highly unlikely. For a number of reasons.
Firstly Labour are broke. They only just paid for their election campaign and only after Jim Anderton rescued them by arranging some large donations. Electoral petitions cost around $200,000 and are time consuming and heavy on legal resources. Despite the claims of a third rate flea lawyer from West Auckland to the contrary, Labour didn’t have a lawyer present at the judicial recount. Instead they tapped former president Mike Williams to witness the damage. If they couldn’t afford counsel for a judicial recount then they sure as hell can’t afford an electoral petition.
Then there is the history of electoral petitions in New Zealand. They do not go happily for Labour, and always benefit National. In 1978 Winston Peters overturned the result in Hunua to turf Malcolm Douglas out in an electoral petition.
In 2005 Winston Peters took and electoral petition against Bob Clarkson in Tauranga. He lost that petition.
National would like nothing better than for Labour to decide upon an electoral petition. They will then be able to challenge a considerable amount of “special” votes and some of the election practices they have gathered evidence on. Labour have only a very remote chance of succeeding against Paula Bennett in an electoral petition, but a high chance of having their unwanted attention focused on their behaviour.
If Labour sought an electoral petition I will predict right here, right now that they would lose it, and Paula Bennett would have her majority increased and there would be the distinct possibility that Carmel Sepuloni would be convicted of a corrupt practice.
Is David Shearer willing to have Labour die in a ditch for a David Cunliffe supporter?
Alamein Kopu, the politician whose defection from the Alliance prompted the “waka jumping” legislation in the late 1990s, has died, aged in her early 70s.
Mrs Kopu prompted constitutional head-scratching when she quit as an Alliance list MP in 1997 to become an independent MP.
It was the first term of the new MMP electoral system, and raised the question of whether list MPs could remain in Parliament if they quit the party, under whose banner they were elected. Mrs Kopu turned up the heat when she then used her vote to prop up an ailing National government, in effect switching her vote from the Left side of the House to the Right.
While it was a serious issue, Mrs Kopu was often painted as a comical figure, whose attendance was sporadic and workrate low, and who was seen as taking an MP’s salary for doing little.
Her defenders saw her as a victim of the adversarial British-model political system, and hailed her as a worker for Maori, who improved the lot of her constituents.
In the 1996 election, Mrs Kopu had contested Te Tai Rawhiti, and was ranked 12th on the Alliance list – a mish-mash of minor parties under leadership of Jim Anderton.
The Alliance received enough party votes for her to enter Parliament off its list, for the Maori rights party Mana Motuhake. But only nine months after her election she resigned from the Alliance.
Andrew Little was so ineffective as President of the party that he failed to raise a single dollar for the party. He left Moira Coatsworth with an impossible task of finding nearly a million dollars to fund their campaign.
The unions snapped their wallets shut and it was only the last minute intervention of Jim Anderton that raised the cash to fund the campaign.
The last thing Labour wants right now is a couple of by-elections. They got spanked comprehensively in the election, they have no cash and Anderton has retired.
The leadership has already fallen on its sword, now the campaign team and strategists need to atone for their sins. Grant Robertson can probably escape as he is a relatively new MP, but Trevor Mallard has death stalking him for his inept handling of everything.
If Mallard had any decency he would resign from parliament immediately.
Progressive leader Jim Anderton has launched an extraordinary attack on the Electoral Commission for referring him to police for a possible breach of the Electoral Act.
The referral follows a complaint, brought by right-wing blogger WhaleOil, about a letter the Wigram MP sent to voters endorsing the Labour candidate Megan Woods in November’s election.
If found guilty, Mr Anderton could face a fine of up to $40,000.
But Mr Anderton, who was referred to police over election advertising before the 2008 election, said he had done nothing wrong.
“Nonsense, rubbish, waste of time, waste of police resources, waste of space. It’s just as ridiculous as the referral I had to police at the last election. They threw it in the bin then and they’ll do it again now.
“I’m authorised to send my constituents any message I damn well like. This is my electorate.
“And if the Commission wants to start stopping electorate MPs from communicating with their electorate, they’d better get prepared for a breach of privilege complaint, because that’s what it amounts to.
They are interfering with the regular work of an MP.”
The man is deluded. He clearly doesn’t know the law, can’t follow logical progression of facts and better start saving his pennies. The only thing that concerns me is that the Police are actually woefully ill-prepared to actually investigate let alone understand electoral law so they will probably just kick everything to touch.
We seriously need to look at how electoral law is enforced because if there isn;t a single prosecution from all the complaints that have been referred then one could surmise that the law is in effect toothless and that there is actually nothing stopping political parties continuing to break the law with no fear of prosecution.
Meanwhile I’ll just enjoy in succeeding in winding up Anderton yet again.
Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker is suggesting that New Zealand should bid to host the 2022 Commonwealth Games with a rebuilt Christchurch City hosting the opening and closing events.
“We have seen how well Rugby World Cup 2011 worked having Auckland as the central venue for what was truly a stadium of four million people. I can envisage the same scenario for Christchurch’s role in hosting the 2022 Commonwealth Games,” says Mr Parker. “I am suggesting that Christchurch would host the opening and closing ceremonies along with both the track and field and swimming events, with other events spread throughout the country.
“To host the 2022 Commonwealth Games would be a wonderful goal for the city. The city needs an aspirational target and in 2022 we will have a stunning new city to introduce to the world. Let us, along with our Government, embrace this challenge. We have to rebuild our sports facilities anyway and will have the greater part of the budget to do this from insurance payouts.”
Please find attached a scan of a letter sent by Jim Anderton to voters in Wigram. You will note the letter says “I urge you to give Megan your vote”.
This clearly makes it an election advertisement. The letter says it is authorised by Jim Anderton of 286A Selwyn Street, Christchurch, so he is its promoter as s204F(2) requires the name and address of the promoter of the election advertisement.
Under s204G(1) any advertisement encouraging voters to vote for a candidate must be authorised in writing by the candidate. I do not know if there is or is not written authorisation, but that issue may be one the Commission wishes to verify.
The main purpose of the letter is to complain that Mr Anderton is not eligible to promote an election advertisement, and it appears has committed an illegal practice under the Electoral Act.
S204(B)(1) states a person can be a promoter if they are a party secretary, a candidate, a registered promoter or an uregistered promoter.
Mr Anderton is not listed on the Electoral Commission website as a party secretary or a registered promoter. Mr Anderton has also confirmed he is not a candidate in this election, indeed he says as much in his letter (attached).
This means that Mr Anderton can only be a promoter if he is a unregistered promoter. However s204A defines an unregistered promoter as someone who is NOT a person involved in the administration of the affairs of a party. A party under s3(1) means a registered political party. The Electoral Commission website lists the Progressive Party as a registered political and Mr Anderton is the leader of that party, and hence heavily involved in in the administration of the affairs of a party.
So as Mr Anderton is ineligible to be an unregistered promoter, and is not a party secretary, candidate or registered promoter, I believe one can only conclude Mr Anderton has promoted an election advertisement without being eligible to do so, and has committed an illegal practice under s204B(3).
Prisoners with alcohol and drug addictions have to deal with it. We don’t offer alcohol to prisoners with alcohol addictions or P to prisoners with methamphetamine addictions. This is a prison, it’s not a home. — Judith Collins, http://bit.ly/dCYt9E
