Stuart Nash

A bigger fail than the #manban?

Given the dire situation of Labour’s leadership and state of the party at the moment, they have been needing nothing short of a miracle to turn the polls around from the reverse momentum they have been currently experiencing under the leadership of David Cunliffe. One thing that I have seen echoing from this blog to social media to talkback radio is the apparent lack of policy, which almost seems to be replaced entirely by attack politics. Two days ago Labour leader David Cunliffe released a policy that they probably thought was a ‘game changer’, unfortunately it was exposed to have more holes than a block of swiss cheese outside a rat hole.

Stuart Nash yesterday went on the offensive explaining away as to why the policy was a winner, as he responded to a reader:

I have also worked in the forestry and wood processing industry, and it is an example of a sector of the NZ economy that has so underperformed as a result of massive underinvestment in value-added processing. You say you know what the problems are, but you don’t list any… I am suspecting that you don’t really know.

I would have thought the problems were pretty obvious to someone that has worked in the forestry and wood processing industry. For the last 10 – 15 years sawmills around the country have been closing down. Why is that? It is because the overseas market wants raw logs. You meet that market, or you lose it. They don’t want our sawn timber, and Labour’s policy will squeeze New Zealand out of the international market resulting in even bigger unemployment. There is only so much sawn timber the local market will absorb,  and no half thought out idea of only constructing buildings under four storeys out of timber or the Christchurch rebuild will save this policy from failure. The silly part is it would be still optional to builders/construction firms as to the materials they used as it wouldn’t be implemented by force, in effect making the policy a dead duck and a waste of time. To suggest  that part of the economy is under performing as a result of lack of investment is foolhardy: the demand isn’t there, so neither is the investment. If private investment won’t do it, that suggests the market isn’t there and it is bad business. You know, like subsidising large car manufacturers.

Nashy didn’t much like Mike Hoskings comments on it either,

If Hosking’s commentary was based on a reasoned analysis of Labour’s forestry policy then he would be taken seriously, but as per usual, he doesn’t let the truth get in the way of misinformed bile. He is articulate and intelligent, but he absolutely has an ideological axe to grind. That’s what makes him dangerous.

And it was pretty obvious as to why he took exception, as Hosking meticulously picked the policy to pieces like a vulture to expose the bare bones of what an incompetent idea it would be.

The other significant problem was that on one hand you have CTU President Helen Kelly screaming from her office that forestry death rates are too high, the government is doing nothing to fix it, while on the other hand you have David Cunliffe wanting to create more jobs to get people off welfare and into one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. How many lazy slackers are going to want to do hard forestry work, let alone avoid getting tangled with a chainsaw or have their block knocked off by a flying log due to inattention, being stoned or hungover from the night before. It is not the kind of job that accommodates  slackers, halfwits, poor time keepers  or self inflicted long weekends.

What does Helen have to say about it? Nothing. Not a peep, not a whisper, not a murmur.

It is much like the manufactured ‘manufacturing crisis’, this policy simply does nothing but provide bad solutions to non existent problems.  If this policy was David Cunliffes big ‘game changer’ policy, he’s in for a rough campaign. Wait for the next round of musical chairs on the Labour front bench.

If Labour got in and implemented this policy the forest owners and logging contractors in Russia, Washington State and Oregon will be laughing all the way from the side of the hill to the port with double the capacity of raw logs for export.

Selection results for National and Labour

Wayne Walford

Wayne Walford, National candidate for Napier

Three people won selection over this weekend. Two from National and one from Labour.

In Whangarei National selected Shane Reti ahead of incumbent scum List MP Paul Foster-Bell, showing that a strong local presence usually sees off a carpet-bagger pretending to have local roots.

The Herald profile for Shane Reti states:

He worked in general practice in Whangarei for 17 years, and was a member of the Northland District Health Board for seven years, before being awarded a Harkness Fellowship to Harvard, in 2007. …

In April this year Dr Reti was called on by the NZ Embassy in Boston to visit the city’s hospitals with NZ Honorary Consul Simon Leeming, to see if any of the dead or injured from the Boston Marathon terror blast were New Zealanders or Australians.

Dr Reti said he was to the right of centre in his political leanings, believing in strong fiscal responsibility. “But I also believe in a social safety net, so that makes me egalitarian. I also believe in reward for hard work, which makes me centre right,” he said.

In Napier National selected Wayne Walford to replace Chris Tremain’s sudden departure.

Walford is a former CEO of the Waikato Chamber of Commerce. He is currently a business mentor and trainer, and has an MBA from Waikato. He has a womble profile on Linkedin as well as a hippy pony-tail!

Amazing people and brilliant organisations have lead me to a point where working with people, empowering potential and adding value to organisations through people spin my wheels, and fast.  Read more »

Stuart Nash responds to media bias claims coming from the left

shoot-self-in-foot copy

The main cry coming from left wing commentators and paid bloggers and spin weasels is that the media is bias and hates David Cunliffe.

They claim this is the media’s fault without critically examining why such a situation may exist in the first place.

Stuart Nash responds to Chris Trotter’s attempts to blame media in the comments at The Daily blog. [Edited as to formatting, not content]

Chris, this is an interesting piece (and I am going to write my own tonight), but complaining about the media is the same as MPs complaining that MMP has added a rural hump into their once-safe electorates. So what.!

The stories in the media piss me off as much as they do the next person, however, we know this is now the game. If you don’t like the heat then get out of the kitchen.

We all know the media hunt as a pack, and if they smell blood they go hard.  Read more »

Has Nashy been getting campaign advice from Scott Simpson?

Stuart Nash must have been talking to my good friend Scott Simpson about how to get some traction on the campaign trail.

His signs have been vandalised and he scored the whole front page in the Hawkes Bay Today

Napier Labour Party candidate and anti-amalgamation campaigner Stuart Nash believes a defacing campaign of his “No To Amalgamation” signs was not random vandalism and there were “political motives” behind the attacks.

The words “No To” had been obliterated by black spray paint.

“This kind of vandalism does no good to those on the other side of the debate, and I hope this action was not sanctioned by those running the pro-amalgamation lobby – but it’s hard to imagine they didn’t know,” Mr Nash said.

“This doesn’t appear to be the random actions of some yob on the way back from town, but rather a deliberate attempt to manipulate the message.”

Three of the signs, at the intersection of Hyderabad Road, Carlyle and Thackeray Streets and Georges Drive, were damaged during the weekend but Mr Nash’s stance was not shaken and he had replaced them.   Read more »

Nash knows…the Greens are toxic

Stuart Nash as written about Labour’s problem with being too cosy with the Green taliban…simply put they are toxic.

We always hear about the Labour-Green coalition v the National government.  I cannot remember if this was coined by the National party and adopted by the media or vice versa, but however it came about, it’s damaging to Labour’s brand.  Labour has to start talking about ‘the next Labour-led government’ and get right away from talk of a Labour-Green coalition.  There are three reasons for this:

1. it is not a certainty that a Labour led government would be in coalition with the Greens.  While any Labour-led government would certainly need the Greens support on supply-and-confidence, the nature of politics means that Labour may end up entering into a coalition with NZ First at the expense of the Greens.  There is, of course, a very recent precedent for this.  If the Greens did opt to form a coalition with the Nats (most unlikely but not inconceivable as Russell Norman and Met Turei don’t have the philosophical or political courage of their convictions that Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons had) then the likelihood of their long-term survival as a party is minimal.  Ref the Lib Dems in the UK or even the Maori Party in NZ – both likely to disappear at the next election due to their support for parties (and power) against the wishes of the majority of those who gave them electoral success in the first place.  Read more »

Man Ban as popular as a pork chop at a bar mitzvah

Labour’s Man ban isn’t popular, nor is it moving the swinging voters.

The NZ Herald continues their series of polls over summer by looking at the Man Ban.

Labour’s target of selecting candidates to ensure women make up at least half of its caucus by 2017 has been given the thumbs down in the latest Herald-DigiPoll survey – and more than half of the women polled said it was too restrictive.

The survey asked respondents whether they believed Labour’s target of achieving 50 per cent by 2017 was a good idea, or too restrictive.

Overall, 54 per cent said it was too restrictive, while just 38 per cent believed it was a good idea. Among the women respondents, 52 per cent said it was too restrictive while 42 per cent believed it was a good idea.

About 57 per cent of men did not like it, compared with 33 per cent who said it was a good idea.  Read more »

Time for Labour to have a cleanout as well

Under Helen Clark there was almost no renewal…after 9 years of her government pretty much the same faces existed…then there were the 3 years of Phil Goff again with no renewal.

While National cut dead wood and encourages retirements Labour is looking like going into the next election with the same old tired faces.

Labour leader David Cunliffe has been crowing about the growing number of National MPs who have decided to stand down in 2014, likening it to rats deserting a sinking ship. Instead of seeking to make political capital out of his opponent’s obvious drive to bring in new talent at the next election, he would do better to follow suit and start sending the underperformers and time-servers in his own caucus the message that it is time to move on.

Rejuvenation is critical to all political parties. It allows them to bring in new blood to remain fresh in the eyes of voters. However, all too often it is not the parties themselves that do the job, but the electorate, via crushing defeats which see large numbers of sitting MPs turfed out of Parliament.

That is what is so significant about the rejuvenation underway in National. So far, seven of its 59 MPs – nearly an eighth of its caucus – have indicated they will not seek re-election, and there was talk last week that up to six more are considering whether to stand again.   Read more »

National’s Rejuvenation

Our pinko mate cuts and pastes parts of Tracy Watkins article, adds a few sentences and posts it without much analysis.

What he doesn’t point out is that there appears to be no clear strategy to National moving people on. Individuals have chosen to leave of their own accord, or ambitious new people have stacked electorates so they can successfully challenge sitting MPs. Lets look at the seven that have retired.

Phil Heatley – Was given the arse by John Key from cabinet a year ago, couldn’t see much point in hanging around. Off to a new career.
Cam Calder – Successful man going nowhere in politics, better off doing something else.
Paul Hutchinson – Difficult missus. Was going to get hammered by a well organised selection challenge.
Chris Tremain – Difficult missus, wanted to make more money, internal polling was showing he would get beaten in Napier by Stuart Nash.
Katrina Shanks – Electorate stacked against her for selection so getting out with dignity.
Chris Auchinvole – Dodgy ticker, no real future in politics and lots of interesting things to do outside of politics.
Kate Wilkinson – Got the arse at the same time as Heatley, mainly for being far too cosy with the unions.   Read more »

Bye bye Shane and Andy, Labour’s man ban will axe Cunner’s opponents

Shane Jones stands to lose big time as Labour has voted to introduce their man ban.

Audrey Young writes at the NZ Herald:

Labour leader David Cunliffe says it won’t be very hard for Labour to reach its newly adopted target of at least 45 per cent women MPs after next year’s election and at least 50 per cent women after the 2017 election.

“I don’t think it’s going to be too difficult knowing the calibre of the women candidates and nominees that we have around and the fact that our vote share is likely to be significantly higher this time than it was last time,” he said today.

“There won’t be difficulty at all for us to reach 45 this time and I’m confident we’ll reach 50 next time – I will be personally backing it.”

The constitutional motion adopting the targets was passed in a closed session debate today at the party’s annual conference at Wigram.

It has become the party’s main vehicle for achieving gender equality in representation after a controversial remit allowing some regions to have women-only selections for candidates was withdrawn by the New Zealand Council at the request of former leader David Shearer.

Party president Moira Coatsworth told reporters the way the party would try to achieve the targets was through the list ranking process of the moderating committee, after it had made an assessment of which electorate seats it thought it could win.  Read more »

Bob Jones on Capital Gains Tax

Bob Jones is derisory of the efforts of Labour in pursuing rich prick envy taxes, and in particular capital gains tax.

I reminded my friend Stuart Nash of that three years ago after, as shadow revenue minister, he telephoned me triumphantly about gaining the front page of Wellington’s Dominion Post newspaper. His plaint: farmers pay little or no tax.

“There’s a bloody good reason for that,” I told him. “They don’t make any money.” Their constant reinvestment of their income in productivity enhancement to stay up with the play, be it fertilisers or whatever, benefits us all.

Much of the current clamour arises from the false perception that residential investors are creaming it, buying and selling houses and paying no tax on profits. If they’re doing that, namely trading, then their gains are taxable. Permanent investors, however, are akin to farmers, constantly reinvesting in their properties and achieving lousy net returns but looking to long-term security. Show me a rich residential investor and I’ll eat my arms uncooked. As with farmers, be grateful for residential investors, for if they didn’t exist we’d all be paying to meet the cost of the state filling the ensuing rental housing gap.  Read more »