Inventory2 blogs:

Remember Daljit Singh? Sometime before the 2010 local body elections, he was a Labour Party-endorsed candidate in South Auckland. He appeared in in the Manukau District Court on 5 October 2010, was remanded, and name suppression was refused. 

The charges related to alleged voter fraud on a massive scale.

To the best of our knowledge, Daljit Singh has not yet been tried on these charges. We do know that he was back in Court less than a month after first appearing after being accused of breaching his bail conditions.

The breach was about associating with a co-accused. In terms of the trial, I understand it is set for October this year. Four weeks has been assigned for the trial, which is why it has taken so long to bring to court.

So why the interest? Well; on TVNZ’s Breakfast programme this morning, a chap by the name of Daljit Singh appeared, representing the New Zealand Supreme Sikh Council. And we have to say this; he bore a striking resemblance to the Daljit Singh pictured above.

Interestingly, Mr Singh was talking about proposed changes to the immigration laws, which will affect applications under the family category. We wonder whether TVNZ was aware of the “other” Daljit Singh, especially given the numbers of people reportedly living at certain South Auckland addresses, many of whom claimed to be family members!

Jordan Carter has blogged on Labour’s review, with the headline:

The Hope Project: changing Labour’s organisation

Inventory2 at Keeping Stock has some fun with the title, pointing out that such a glorious title is normally used for worthy third world projects, rather than a review about how to make Labour more electable.

Jordan usefully provided a link to the interim report. As someone with an interest in party organisational issues, some comments on a few of them.

The electorate organisation (LEC) become the main administrative unit for each electorate, with members belonging formally to the electorate (rather than to a branch).

I think this is a sensible move, and mirrors what is the case now in National. This does not mean an electorate can not have branches, but recognises that electorates are the core of a party. Most members get involved in electorate campaigns.

Regional (or sub-regional) co-ordination be strengthened. This structure should be the campaign-organising unit for a coordinated/integrated Party Vote campaign. This will require realigning of some regional boundaries and the establishment of sub-regional hubs.

Agree with this also, and think this is an area National lags a bit in. I’m of the view National’s five regions are too large and for example Wellington City with six electorates has little in common with say the Hawkes Bay seats (which are part of the region). Regions or sub-regions should be small enough to reflect a common community.

That the New Zealand Council structure be reviewed to ensure that it combines broad representation with the need to be able to make key decisions quickly. This could result in the re-establishment of an Executive of the Council.

Any body that is larger than 10 or so members tends to be a poor decision maker, and inevitably an inner core develops which develops most decisions. It is better that any inner core is recognised formally as an executive committee, rather than operate informally. So I’d either shrink the NZ Council to under a dozen, or have an Executive Committee which is responsible to the Council. Note National’s Board has just nine members.

Further work be carried out to develop recommendations for the Treaty partnership within the Party.

God knows what that means.

We discuss with affiliated unions ways of optimising affiliation.

This will never happen, but I think it would be much healthier if unions per se did not affiliate and gain bulk voting rights. It would be better if they merely acted as a vehicle through which union members could join and participate in Labour should they choose to do so as individuals – and paying the same fee as non union members.

We investigate means of affiliation for groups in the community.

Maybe then Grey Power and NZUSA could formally affiliate.

We continue to develop the use of social media, both within the Party and as an external communication tool.

I don’t think they need to developed their use of social medias, as much as moderate their use of it, so there are less SMOGs.

We increase the amount of issues-based continuous campaigning, which will help to increase the number of volunteers and organisers and provide organisational readiness for the Party.

This is the big difference between National and Labour activists. Most National activists only get involved in actual election campaigns. Labour activists will be involved in half a dozen campaigns at any point in time, from Save TVNZ7 to anti asset sales to stop mining to …

On that is built a policy platform: the high level set of agreed, evidence-based policies confirmed by Annual Conference, binding on all including the parliamentary party and able to be changed only by specific amendment at conference. These may be directional goals, policy principles or defined policy frameworks, but should allow caucus to refine the specifics.

It is at the annual conference that the unions gain their bulk votes where one union official can outvote dozens of delegates.

We develop and trial a candidate-training programme before the 2014 election.

An excellent idea. I know of a Mr S Lusk who would be very happy to assist with such a training programme

All candidates should be on the list and required to campaign for the Party vote via the regional campaign.

That is a good idea from a party disciple point of view, but I expect their caucus will fight it hard as senior MPs who don’t get particularly high list rankings prefer to not go on the list at all.

A working group be established to build a People Strategy for the Party which looks at issues of representation, including developing a mechanism for increasing the number of women in leadership positions in the Party and as MPs.

They could do what the Greens do, and require around half the top ten list candidates to have a penis, and half not to have a penis.

A Selection Working Group be established to develop selection processes which reduce central Party involvement in electorate-candidate selection. (Changes could include new member thresholds for representation, central short-listing with local decision-making, local representatives on the selection panel elected in a different way, full local choice, full local choice with a right of veto, or other ideas.)

Excellent. A move in the right direction. The party hierarchy should get a veto early on to ensure quality control, but after that it should be up to local members as much as possible.

The Selection Working Group develop recommendations to improve the list selection process through processes which are more transparent and better fit the Party’s goals. (The List process should continue to value quality and representativeness (of skills, background/occupation, regional representation, gender and ethnicity), and should promote continuous renewal and reflect MP contribution and performance.)

Well that is a cop out, considering the list ranking was the most heavily criticised aspect of 2011.

The Party move to a model that includes membership participation in leadership selection, and that the Selection Working Group propose possible models for further discussion.

I’ve blogged previously on this, and think it is an excellent idea. I expect the Labour caucus will block and delay it, as the ABC faction would be aghast at the thought of party members able to force Cunliffe into the leadership against their will.

Continue to seek financial support from a range of potential donors (including wealthy individuals, small and large businesses, and individuals) who share our values and/or who would benefit from our policies.

That is a very mercenary attitude. I would have said “who believe our policies are good for New Zealand”.

It will be interesting to see what actual constitutional changes are put to their conference in November, and if they get passed.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Government cronyism is being blamed for delays in Employment Relations Authority investigations, caused by a 76 per cent turn over of its members in two years. …

The contracts of seven members had expired since 2010 and a further six would expire between June and the end of the year. They are appointed by the Governor-General, on the recommendation of Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson.

Labour’s industrial relations spokeswoman Darien Fenton said some members had wanted to stay on but their contracts were not renewed.

“The minister is clearly wanting to put her own people in there, what we would describe as cronies.”

How dare Kate Wilkinson appoint different people to whom Labour appointed. Just because they won two elections is no reason they should appoint different people to whom Labour did.

Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said the organisation was consulted on appointments and had a policy of approving the reappointment of competent members, regardless of whether it agreed with their decisions.

I’m a bit cynical that the CTU doesn’t ever link their agreement with decisions with whether they think someone is competent. Are they really saying they regard someone as competent if they disagree with all their decisions?

As far as I can tell the vast majority of ERA members under Labour were former union lawyers. Now as far as I can tell, there are a few ex-union lawyers on there, a couple of ex-employers assn lawyers and the majority have just worked privately (for both employers and employees). That seems pretty balanced to me.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The comrades at Socialist International have downgraded the NZ Laboru Party to observer status because they have not paid their bills. I presume this is because they are broke or inefficient, rather than a renouncing of socialism. Presumably Jacinda Ardern (the former President of the International Union of Socialist Youth) is aghast at this downgrade. Chris Flatt may have some explaining to do.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald:

The Labour Party is considering a major change in the way it elects its leader to allow party members to force a handover of power through a no-confidence vote, or to block an attempt by caucus to roll the leader.

The group set up to review the Labour Party after its poor election result has recommended party members vote on the leader. At present only MPs elect the leader.

Party president Moira Coatsworth said it was “a significant shift” for the party.

“At the moment, because it is a caucus decision, caucus at any time can walk in and have a vote. So this would decide on mechanisms for triggering [a leadership vote.]“

New Zealand and Australia were the only Westminster countries in which the equivalent of the Labour Party did not allow members to vote on the leader. 

It is unclear to what extent it is recommended that Labour members get a say on the party leadership, but this looks to be a step in the right direction.

Of course it may create tension, if implemented, as it seems most party members backed Cunliffe for Leader, while the caucus backed Shearer. So would Cunliffe’s supporters be able to trigger a leadership vote against the wishes of caucus? It will be interesting to see the detailed proposal.

What will also be interesting if whether unions will get a block vote for the leadership. This could give them even more power within the party.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Labour is scrapping its plans to resume contributions to the Super Fund, saying New Zealanders told the party they were uncomfortable with borrowing to invest and it now understands the need to be thrifty.

Leader David Shearer this morning told the Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce Labour had listened.

“We’ve decided that until we are back in surplus, any new spending will have to be paid for out of existing Budget provisions, new revenue, or by re-prioritising.”

Labour’s insistence that you should borrow to save was idiotic. It also went against what NZSF founder Michael Cullen stated when he created the NZSF. Contributions from the Government were to come out of surpluses, not out of borrowing.

Of course it is quite another issue, as to whether we would ever get back into surplus under Labour. Their opposition to every single spending freeze or cut suggests they lack the fiscal discipline to do so.

But still it is good to see them adopting more sensible economic policies.

Captions welcome below. As usual, they should be funny, not nasty.

There is an episode of the West Wing called “Let Bartlett be Barlett” (S1E19).

The staff begin to realize that the Bartlet administration has been ineffective because it has been too timid to make bold decisions, focusing instead on the exigencies of politics. Finally, Leo confronts President Bartlet with his own timidity, challenging him to be himself and to take the staff “off the leash.” – in other words, he seeks to “Let Bartlet be Bartlet”. The President and his staff resolve to act boldly and “raise the level of public debate” in America.

This is what David Shearer needs to do also.

I agree with the NZ Herald editorial that says:

They say Leader of the Opposition is the worst job in politics. It requires unceasing, carping criticism of everything the Government does and a relentlessly negative outlook on the country’s condition and prospects under current policies. Somehow this hapless individual is supposed to be popular too.

David Shearer, elected leader of the Labour Party after the last election, has clearly decided this job description is not for him. Whatever he has been doing since his elevation he has not been out front on most of the issues that are making this a testing year for John Key’s Government. There is a view that he is to blame for the fact these issues have not dented National’s standing in two recent polls or lifted Labour’s support. The concern seems to have permeated his own office with the resignation of his chief of staff, Stuart Nash.

If the departure of Mr Nash signals a change of style for Mr Shearer, it would be a mistake. Mr Shearer is clearly not a tub-thumping politician. He seems a normal, thoughtful, cautious and fair-minded citizen. 

Those in Labour who are getting so worked up about the fact they have not gone up in the polls, despite National dealing with some unpopular issues, need to realise that beyond the beltway people are not talking over morning tea about how David Shearer did in the House. Yes, he has some way to go to be a confident and authoritative presence in the House. But he will not become Prime Minister purely by being a good attack dog in the House, and nor does he need to be. That is why you have a Deputy.

Where there is fair criticism of Shearer has been his inability, to date, to articulate what he stands for and how his beliefs are different to both Phil Goff’s and John Key’s. The Goff led Labour achieved a near 100 year low for their vote. David Shearer must avoid being tuned turned into Goff-lite.

The problem, as I understand it from a couple of Labour people, is that David Shearer does have some innovative and exciting ideas around policy, ones that break the stereotype of right vs left. But the problem is he has been unable to get them through his caucus, who remain largely wedded to their current policies.

As the Herald editorial says:

 People do not follow leaders who lack the confidence to be themselves.

The role of political leadership is more than being chairman of the board, or the caucus. Don Brash did not let Caucus decide his Orewa speech. John Key in Opposition did not have Caucus vote on his agreement with Helen Clark over the anti-smacking law compromise. That show of leadership won him huge acclaim at the time.

Likewise in Government, Helen Clark and John Key did not let Caucus determine key policies. In fact one could argue they wouldn’t let Caucus determine a bus timetable!

Shearer needs to start putting out policies and ideas which define him. I probably won’t like most of them, and that is not a bad thing. But neither is it a bad thing, if his caucus don’t like 100% of them also. What is important is that he likes them, and backs them. Leadership is about telling your caucus “these are the policies I want to lead on, back them or find yourself a new leader”. Decision making by committee of 34 is not a good option.

David Shearer is genuinely nice guy, who wants the best for New Zealand (as most, but not all, MPs do). It is incredible that only two and a bit months after Parliament has resumed this year, that some in Labour are already backsliding over their choice. You have to take a medium to long-term strategic view. What matters isn’t the polls at the moment, or how the House is going. What matters is whether or not there is a three year strategy designed to get Labour and its leader perceived as the Government in waiting, and that the right steps are being taken to implement that strategy.

In my Herald column I ask the question that if you are a voter of the left, why would you not support the Greens over Labour?

Before I explore why the Greens are doing so relatively well at the moment, first let us look at perhaps the historical reasons why left voters generally did not support the Greens.

The first is policy influence. The two larger parties are the one that can shape Government the most. A party on five per cent has little influence compared to a party on 45 per cent. But this is not the environment in 2012. Labour continues to poll in the 20s only, and the Greens have started to poll between 14 per cent and 17 per cent. This means that in any future Government, the Greens could represent a third or more of the Government, which would give them massive influence – at a minimum Russel Norman could expect to be made Minister of Finance.

And the other historical reason:

The second reason why the Greens historically did not attract widespread support from the left is because they were perceived as extremists. Their defence spokesperson hated the United States. Their justice spokesperson was best known for breaking the law. Their economic policy was to argue against economic growth. Their consumer spokesperson railed against the size of easter eggs, and their welfare spokesperson was a former beneficiary rights activist. At one stage a significant portion of their caucus were actually former Marxist and maoists.

I also point out almost all new Labour policies were already Green policies:

Well if you look at almost all the new policies adopted by Labour in the last couple of years, they stole them from the Greens. Capital Gains Tax – was Greens policy. Extending the in work tax credit to beneficiaries – was Greens policy. Modifying the Reserve Bank Act targets – again Greens policy. Paid Parental Leave extension – forced on Labour by the Alliance, and pushed by the Greens. A hike in the minimum wage to $12 and then $15 – Greens and NZ First policy for many years. A tax-free threshold for all earners – again long-standing Greeen policy.

I’m interested especially in views of left voters as to why they might still be a Labour rather than Greens supporter? Is it tradition? Is it policy? Is it leadership?

David Shearer in his big speech last week said:

Tiwai point could have been an obsolete aluminium smelter decades ago, but it didn’t work out that way.

That’s because management and workers at NZ Aluminium came together and looked at what they had to do to keep the operation running.

Through their ingenuity they began producing the highest quality aluminium in the world. They identified their niche, they got the business, they scored the contracts 
and today everyone shares in the success.

They are well paid for working well and it’s an important business in a regional area.

It is good to see a Labour leader championing Tiwai Point.

But there is a problem. Labour’s ETS policy would close Tiwai Point down. Labour opposed the changes National made to the ETS to protect trade-exposed industries, and their policy is still to undo those changes.

So the poster boy employer heralded by David Shearer would close down under their policies. Whoops.

I thing politics has got to a farcical level when the Opposition complain about jobs moving from Australia to New Zealand. The SMH reports:

HUNDREDS of Australian jobs have been shifted to New Zealand as local producers try to avoid the impact of high wages, a soaring Australian dollar and restrictive labour laws.

Woolworths is the latest to transfer jobs across the Tasman. It transferred 40 contact centre jobs to Auckland this week. Imperial Tobacco has also announced it will move cigarette manufacturing from Sydney to New Zealand.

The companies are following in the footsteps of the food production industry, which has been shifting jobs out of Australia to take advantage of New Zealand’s lower wages.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Heinz Australia recently scrapped more than 300 jobs across three states in favour of its large plant in Hastings, New Zealand’s largest food processing and food producing centre.

The International Labour Organisation says Australian manufacturing workers earned more than $US35 an hour in 2008. In New Zealand the rate is under $US20 an hour.

Average weekly earnings for manufacturing workers in Australia are higher than those in Canada, Britain, New Zealand and the United States, says a study which put Australian earnings at more than $1000 a week, versus about $700 in NZ.

Now Labour for four years has gone on about jobs. It has said that the number one priority must be more jobs. If you try to discuss welfare reform, they say “what about the jobs”. No matter what the issue, they say “what about the jobs”.

So what do they say to jobs moving from Australia to New Zealand:

“Labour does not want New Zealand to become Australia’s Mexico, yet with lower value jobs such as making cigarettes that is exactly what is happening.

“Bill English has been misdirecting his energy on praising the advantages of low wages to attract Australian jobs rather than coming up with real ideas to grow the economy.

“There are record numbers of Kiwis leaving for Australia. They are not going so they can work in call centres or cigarette-making factories,” David Parker said.

This is just bullshit elitism, that must be unique to the Wellington beltway. Go out to a provincial town with high unemployment and tell them that a job in a call centre is not worth having, and they should remain on welfare.

Anyone who buys into this sort of bullshit is seriously out of touch with reality, and reflects more their elitist views.

They are also economically ignorant also. If you argue against Australian companies creating jobs in New Zealand because our wages are lower, you don’t understand the basics of supply and demand. Remember it is the market which broadly sets wages – not Goverments.

Now if you have more jobs created in New Zealand, it increases the supply of jobs. What does increasing the supply do? It pushes wages up. Just as when the supply of jobs diminishes, then wages drop or at least do not increase in real terms.

Next time Labour complains about unemployment, remember how they think some jobs are not worth having. They’d rather people be on welfare than working in call centres.

As for closing the wage gap with Australia. There is only one sustainable way to do that – greater productivity including labour productivity. The very thing that Labour is fighting against at the Ports of Auckland, where the union is striking rather than accepting a 10% pay increase in return for greater labour productivity.

Stuff reports:

But in a speech to the Employers Chamber of Commerce in Wellington this afternoon, Dalziel lashed out at both the Government and the council.

Everyone but Lianne is incompetent it seems.

“Without a layer of governance between the Minister and the recovery authority we have decisions being made by Cabinet, implemented by bureaucrats and undermining the last remaining democratic institution in Christchurch – our city council.”

So Labour’s policy is that there should be a Board for CERA? So the Minister appoints a Board that appoints a CEO, and all decisions go from staff to the CEO to the Board to the Minister. Yes, that will speed things up.

The council itself had not responded properly to the shock of the earthquake either, she said. …

However, the mistakes of the council had been compounded by the Government’s response of “imposing a growing bureaucracy” which “must not replace the core functions that belong to the council – the only body that can offer democratic participation in decision-making”.

It is a strange argument that local government is democratic, but central government is not.

“The solutions to all the problems we face in Christchurch can be found in strengthening the council so that it can perform its proper function in collaboration with the citizens of Christchurch, not to usurp its role with a government department without any practical knowledge and experience of urban planning and design.”

So now the policy is to “strengthen” the Council. Can anyone explain to me, what exactly is meant by that?

Just being angry about everything isn’t a substitute for rational policy and analysis.

The new unit is seconding experienced staff from the Council. Unless one is proposing that the City Council be given the powers of compulsory land acquisition, it has to be done by CERA.

David Shearer in a release says:

“One area that certainly needs more discussion is in the costing the Government is using, which appears to be Labour’s costing from before the election. This doesn’t include offsets for savings from things such as reduced demand for childcare subsidies.

So David Shearer is saying the Government should not use Labour’s costings, because they were wrong!

Tracy Watkins reports:

Labour leader David Shearer’s chief of staff is apparently set to depart after just a couple of months in the job.

Former MP Stuart Nash was appointed Mr Shearer’s right-hand man after the leadership change late last year but is understood to be quitting to return to his home town of Napier.

Mr Nash could not be contacted yesterday. Sources say he decided to return to Napier to boost his chances of regaining the seat Labour lost in 2005, and to spend more time with his family.

His partner gave birth just a few weeks before he started the job on February 1.

But his departure is likely to fuel speculation over differences of opinion within Labour’s senior leadership team over strategy.

It will be interesting to see, if the speculation is correct, who replaces Nash. It is an absolutely key role, as if Labour wins the election they generally go on to become the PM’s Chief of Staff.

In his “big” speech, David Shearer said:

Any government I lead is going to be thrifty.

New Zealanders can trust Labour to manage the books.

So the question has to be asked. How would Labour find $150 million a year to fund their bill to increase paid parental leave? Will they just borrow it?

It will be very tough to get back into surplus, as National is aiming to do. But we simply can not afford to keep running deficits, as the interest on the extra debt actually makes less money available for health, education and yes even paid parental leave. We need to live within our means.

So how does an extra $150 million a year fit into Shearer’s pledge to be thrifty? Will he borrow to pay for it, or hike taxes to pay for it?

Labour voted that Winston Peters did nothing wrong when he consistently lobbied on behalf his then friend Owen Glenn to be made Honorary Consul to Monaco, without revealing that Glenn had paid $100,000 of Winston’s legal costs.

Yet Labour now say that Nick Smith writing a letter on behalf of a friend testifying to her health before an accident, is terrible, and there must be an inquiry.

Don’t get me wrong. My position all along is that Nick Smith was wrong to write that letter. And doing so on letterhead even worse.

But let’s just remember the huge hypocrisy of Labour and Winston here. Winston actively lobbied and pressured MFAT and Helen Clark of behalf of Owen Glenn, in his role as Foreign Affairs Minister. And never disclosing that Glenn’s ties to him. This all went to Privileges Committee, and despite a abundance of evidence, Labour voted against the Privileges Committee report. This act of tolerance of corruption was so sickening not even Labour poodle Jim Anderton could bring himself to vote against – he abstained.

And we won’t even mention their months of defence of Taito Philip Field, claiming all he was guilty of was working too hard for his constituents.

Again this is not a defence of Nick Smith. This is just pointing out the hypocrisy from Labour and Winston. Maybe someone could ask some of the Labour MPs who voted against the Privileges Committee report why it is bad for the ACC Minister to write a reference for a friend for ACC, yet fine for the Foreign Affairs Minister to lobby for a diplomatic position on behalf of a friend who paid $100,000 of his legal bills.

Brian Edwards blogs:

I find myself wondering whether I want to be bothered with the Labour Party any more. Increasingly, it seems to me, the Greens reflect the philosophical and moral values to which I subscribe more accurately than the Labour Party whose philosophical and moral values are now so ill-defined as to be beyond definition.

Strong words from a (I suspect) lifetime Labour supporter.

I’m a socialist at heart and, whatever it is, New Zealand Labour is not a socialist party. It wasn’t just Rogernomics that scotched that idea; Tony Blair’s ‘third way’, a significant influence on the Fifth Labour Government, was really just a watered down version of Douglas’s ‘trickle-down’ economics. The ‘third way’ was, by definition, a ‘middle-way’, neither one thing nor the other and ill-suited to political idealism of any stripe – a Clayton’s political philosophy.  

I read that Labour’s new leader, David Shearer, wants to move the party to that ideological no-man’s-land that is ‘the centre’. National already occupies that space but, as the distinctions between Key and Shearer lose focus – both promising to deliver ‘a brighter future’ and the Labour leader ditching policies specifically directed at putting more money into the pockets of the poor – I’ve no doubt that an accommodation can be reached between centre-right and centre-left.

Personally I am glad Labour is (mainly) not a socialist party. Socialism doesn’t work. It has been tried in dozens of countries, and nationalising the means of production etc is a failed experiment.

I’m a firm believer in progressive taxation – ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,’ as Marx  so neatly put it. You can call that Communism or Socialism or pure Christianity.  It doesn’t really matter. What matters is the core principle that the strong should support the weak. So it’s good that Labour’s new leader is at least intent on keeping a Capital Gains Tax as Labour policy. The earnings of the rich should be taxed to support the poor.

They are. Families below $50,000 income effectively pay no net tax at all.  We have a massively progressive tax system. If Brian feels it is not progressive enough, well Treasury does accept donations

But I’m not comfortable with Mr Shearer’s reported intention to move the party ‘to the centre’. It’s a misnomer for one thing. Labour is already in the centre. It has already lost its working-class constituency. Any move ‘to the centre’ will merely be, as the share-brokers say, ‘a technical correction’, not as extreme as in ‘84 but a move to the right nonetheless.

What Labour politics now seem to be about is finding ‘sellable’ policies and a ‘sellable’ leader in order to regain power. (For National read ‘retain power’.) What Green politics seem to be about is persuading people to come across to policies not obviously or immediately founded in self-interest, but in the long-term interests of all of us and (there’s no avoiding it) of the planet. No doubt they’d like to be in government too. But it doesn’t seem to be their primary motivation.

So I find myself wondering…

The harsh reality is that Labour has a better chance of gaining power if they do lose left-wing voters to the Greens, so long as they pick up some centrist voters from National.

David Shearer delivered his much heralded new direction speech this morning. It was so hyped up Labour even said they were live streaming it. However the live stream was a disaster according to a number of readers. It barely worked, kept going offline and had ads running on it!

The speech text is here:

You may know that P.T. Barnum was the man who founded the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus.

He was a showman, he was a businessman, he was a scam artist.

Early in his career, he created an exhibit called The Happy Family.

It had just one cage, and in that cage there was a lion, a tiger, a panther, and a baby lamb.

It was a huge hit.

People would line up to see it.

At this point I thought David was doing an analogy about the Labour Party caucus!

And as it grew more and more popular, the newspapers would ask him what his plans were for this amazing display.

He said to them: “It’ll probably become a permanent feature – but only if the supply of lambs holds out.”

In any sense you want to put it, literal or figurative, that’s how we’re running things in New Zealand.

We’re going to keep on doing things the way we are … for as long as the supply of lambs holds out.

We’re going to go right on relying on property market bubbles and a small basket of primary produce exports to earn our living and we’re going to go on borrowing money to pay for a standard of living we can’t afford.

The old New Zealand needs to do more than just primary produce.

He’s not the first Labour Leader to say this. 26 years ago David Lange pronounced farming is a sunset industry. Helen Clark talked about the knowledge wave and economic transformation to reduce the reliance on agriculture. The reality is every Government for 25 years has been saying this.

I’ve always believed the best argument in favour of a capital gains tax was the economic effect it had.

A CGT is pro-growth. It helps switch investment from sectors such as housing, to the productive sector where we desperately need more capital.

Over time I can also see the revenue it raises being used to offset the tax you have to pay in other areas.

So I can see a role for CGT in transforming our economy.

Now this is potentially good. Goff promoted a CGT to fund extra spending – a new version of tax and spend. That I do not support. But I do support a broad base low rate tax system. If Labour propose a CGT which is broadly fiscally neutral, and allows tax on labour and savings etc to be lowered, that is more credible.

On the other hand, I would want to ask whether a tax-free zone that gives everyone the same sized tax cut is going to be as much of a priority.

Everyone should not get the same sized tax cut. Tax cuts should broadly be proportional to the tax you pay.

But the reality is that any overall reduction in the level of taxation can only occur once we are back in surplus.

Any government I lead is going to be thrifty.

New Zealanders can trust Labour to manage the books.

I’d like to believe that. But Labour has opposed every spending cut done by National. They were even against capping the number of civil servants, let alone reducing them.

Instead of the distraction over national standards, we need to focus on how we get the highest quality teachers in the world and the best performing students.

National standards are not a distraction. They are key performance indicators. But I welcome a focus on quality teachers and look forward to Labour’s policy on performance pay.

Study after study shows that the most important ingredient is the quality of teachers.

We need to value teachers.

We need every teacher in our classroom to be a good one.

The vast majority are. But the truth is some are not.

We will work with teachers to develop their professional skills, but ultimately we can’t afford to have bad teachers in our classrooms.

Good rhetoric from a Labour leader. It is an encouraging sign. But we will need policy to back up the rhetoric.

UPDATE: Rob Hosking reports:

Candyfloss is not a particularly nutritious breakfast.

But that is what Labour leader David Shearer delivered to a Wellington business breakfast this morning.

In a speech long on fluffy words and not-particularly original aspirational ideas but virtually policy-free, Mr Shearer set out his vision for New Zealand.

It involves having more nice things, and having fewer bad things, apparently,

New Zealand should have more companies like Nokia, Mr Shearer urged his audience, as if it were a new idea.

Sorry, but there are kids at university who were not born when politicians started talking about how New Zealand having a company like Nokia would be kind of a neat idea.

National MP Maurice Williamson used to do it in the 1990s.

And

A fair chunk of the speech was devoted to education, but, again, it was all empty calories and empty words, with no policy meat at all.

” I want the best educational achievement in the world,” Mr Shearer said, as if this makes him and his party any different from anyone else.
How to do this?
“We need to value teachers. We need every teacher in our classroom to be a good one. The vast majority are. But the truth is some are not.

“We will work with teachers to develop their professional skills, but ultimately we can’t afford to have bad teachers in our classrooms. “

How would Labour do this?

The only answer Mr Shearer put up was that this would be done by “focusing” on it.

Ouch.

I’m probably going to regret doing this – defending a Labour politician from her peers. The last time I did it was in the late 90s in 3.2 (Beehive Bar) as a number of Alliance supporters were weighing into the then President of Young Labour and basically abusing her and calling her names for not being pure enough. They said she was just the smiling softer face of capitalism etc and there was little difference between her and the Nats – she wasn’t a true revolutionary etc.

I started to intercede on her behalf, pointing out that Labour needs to have a broader appeal than the Alliance etc. I thought I was doing a good job , until she punched me in the arm and hissed in my ear that on what planet do I think having someone who works in the National PM’s Office defending her actually helps her with the left. She had a fair point, and I desisted my efforts to argue on her behalf.

The old saying is that National is a broad church, and it is. You have people who would happily sell every asset that moves, and you have people who think we should ban private land sales to foreigners. You have those who support gay marriage, and those who think it is the end of civilization.  On almost every issue there will be a fairly wide range of views – even within caucus. I’m someone who is generally in the minority on both economic and social issues in the party, but never have I been made to feel unwelcome due to my political views, that views like mine have no place in National.

But it has been my observation that Labour does not tolerate much diversity of opinion. Social conservatives in Labour are despised by most activists, and almost no longer exist. If you tried to debate the accuracy of climate change models, you’d be seen as in the pay of someone, and in recent years if you express any views that are not in line with union thinking, well let’s just say you struggle to get selected.

A great example of this has come up this week, with Josie Pagani. She stood for Rangitikei last election – a seat she had no chance of winning, and was in an unwinnable list place. Despite that, she would have spent hundreds of hours unpaid trying to increase the party vote for Labour.

Now Josie facebooked comments she made on radio, which were:

Talking about the ports. ‘Casualisation’ scares us because it sounds like short hand for bad hours, low pay and no annual leave. It sounds like life in the early industrial revolution pre-unions. In some jobs it is. The only reason we have a 40 hr week and weekends is because unions fought for us. But I’ve spent my political life as a working mum, calling for more flexibility. And flexibility has to work both ways. Sad that by the time MUNZ accepted this (why did it take them so long?), the Ports wouldn’t budge. They should have. Lesson from this – if casual labour is the future, we have to work out how to protect the advances made for working people, while accepting that future. Nurses union did it. So did the pilots in the USA.

So Josie said flexibility is not always bad, but has to work both ways. She said POAL should have accepted the eventual position of MUNZ, and says that one has to protect working people while accepting that the future is more flexiblity.

You can certainly agree or disagree with that position. But it is not a right wing or radical view. It is a moderate left view, explicitly pro-union.  A healthy party would say lets debate the proposition – they may not agree with it – some may say flexibility is not inevitable and should always be oppossed. But’s let see what happened:

Soraiya Daud – “With these kinds of sentiments the Labour rosette on your label means nothing.”

Jill Ovens – “Flexibility for them is just another form of exploitation. It is the ultimate ‘f’ word.”

Enzo Giordani – “Josie, this is a politician page that says you are a member of the Labour Party and in the profile picture you are wearing a Labour Party rosette. This is not the policy of the New Zealand Labour Party. You should either delete this or change those settings. Friendly warning before I start writing e-mails.”

Giordani is a union official. Note how he demands Pagani deletes her post, or remove any reference to her being Labour. Even worse, he threatens her that if she does not he will start writing e-mails – presumably to get her expelled, or disciplined.

Joel Walsham - You show that you are not Labour because being Labour is about standing with those, in complete solidarity, who are going without pay for them and their families in an effort to achieve better working conditions for them and all of their colleagues.

In all my years in National, I don’t think I have ever heard someone described as being “not National”. Well, maybe Winston.

But the pilloring of Josie also occurred on the Facebook page of her fellow candidate, Jordan Carter. Note Jordan himself did not comment significantly.

Joseph Randall - A hell of a lot more than Josie’s value add

Joe McCrory -  I assume Josie has resigned from the party?

The expectation that a different view on an issue is grounds for resignation. This is, in my opinion, one of the major challenges Labour has – to be an inclusive party with broad appeal, rather than one where different opinions are seen as heresy – especially when you are in opposition.

Now my blogging this has probably condemned Josie to an even worse fate within Labour. In some ways that is a good thing. I’ve seen her in action at campaign meetings in 2008. She was the only left wing candidate I’ve ever seen that actually won an elderly conservative audience over to her view in support of the anti-smacking law. She’s one of those who can actually appeal to people outside the traditional base, and they’re dangerous as they are the ones who can win votes for Labour.

Many on the right sometimes think that Labour wants to get a majority of the population dependent on the state, so that they will have a majority who will always vote for greater state spending and dependency.

This story gives fuel to that suspicion:

Immigration categories are to be changed in an effort to “reduce the number of unskilled migrants who find it difficult to get jobs and are more likely to get benefit payments”.

Who could be against that?

Applications from parents seeking residency to be with children already in New Zealand will be placed in the slow processing lane if their children-sponsors are not “high-income” people.

Parents will no longer be able to bring in dependent children and applicants who are poor in English will be required to pre-pay for language lessons.

The changes are outlined in a Cabinet paper obtained by the Labour Party, which says the plan creates a divide between the rich and famous and ordinary migrants wanting to move to New Zealand.

Labour is.

Let’s be very clear about this. Migrating to NZ is a privilege. We absolutely should be favouring migrants who have wealth, skills, education etc. We allow a quota of refugees in, where income or wealth is not a factor. But to suggest wealth should not be a factor for migration is economically stupid.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Labour will begin a series of nationwide meetings next week as part of an organisational review into the party’s election trouncing.

The party will hold 18 meetings for members and the wider public to have their say on how Labour can enhance its campaigning, communications, policy process and fundraising.

It has also established an advisory group containing what it calls “critical friends” such as technology entrepreneur and party donor Selwyn Pellet, who last year called for former leader Phil Goff to stand down, political scientist Rob Salmond, and former Waikato University vice-chancellor and United Kingdom Labour MP Bryan Gould.

An advisory group is a good idea. Those who were inside the tent don’t always see the failings the way others do.

Coatsworth said Labour expected there would be calls for party members to have a say on who led the party and there was likely to be some opinions on how Labour set its list.

Labour’s list at the election was criticised for placing fresh talent too low and returning the same old faces when its MPs where slashed from 43 to 34.

It is understood Labour is not overly concerned about its finances because donations last year were similar to those in recent elections and there has been no major dent in its 55,000-strong membership.

Ha the vast majority being union affiliates, where the union pays a small fee on their behalf. The actual number of people who have positiviely said “Yes I wish to be a member of the Labour Party”  and paid a membership fee is understood to be well below 10,000.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Opposition parties are outraged National is using the members’ bill ballot to advance laws updating old statutes which could be put through Parliament as government legislation.

Oh what a beat up by Labour and NZ First. Almost every members’ bill ever put up by a Government MP could be put through as government legislation in theory. But it is good for backbench MPs to gain experience of being in charge of a bill, and more importantly often law reform can occur quicker through the members ballot.

Labour and NZ First say their democratic right to progress their own legislation is being hampered by frivolous legislation.

The irony, after Labour fucked over the Greens and all other opposition MPs in 2008 2011 by fillibustering the VSM bill all year blocking all other members legislation. The hypocrisy as always is immense.

I mean Labour even fucked over their own private bill on behalf of the Royal Society of NZ, with their filibustering. Again, what effing hypocrites.

And Labour and NZ First are effectively arguing that National backbench MPs should not have the democratic right to enter bills into the members ballot. They are just sour because a National MP won one of the two spots.

Let us look at how many members (not Ministers) had bills in the last ballot from each party.

• National just 9 bills from 35 backbench MPs
• Labour had 15 bills from 34 MPs – so not even half their MPs bothered to submit a bill and they complain they are not winning the ballot
• Greens had 14 bills from 14 MPs – excellent
• NZ First had 1 bill from 8 MPs – again what hypocrisy complaining when someone else wins
• Maori Party – 1 bill from 1 backbench MP
• Mana Party – no bills from 1 MP

So maybe Labour and NZ First would be better spent submitting more bills to the ballot, rather than whining that National MPs are entering in bills they don’t like.

A member’s bill by National’s new MP for Tamaki Simon O’Connor was one of two to be drawn from the ballot yesterday.

The Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill seeks to abolish a 1964 law protecting the family home.

O’Connor said the Law Commission recommended scrapping the old law which “afforded the family home protection against the winds of financial adversity” because it was unused as the same protections were afforded in more recent legislation.

Asked why he had taken up the cause, O’Connor said there was a number of bills the Government had suggested its MPs look at adopting in their names.

“This one was suggested to me and I was happy to put my name to it.”

This has been the practice for Government MPs for as long as I can recall. Not all members bills are like this, but many are. In this particular case, this bill has been on the ballot for around two years – previously under the name of Jo Goodhew.

The Law Commission actually recommended in 2001 (off memory) that this law be repealed. The reality is that it is highly unlikely to ever be deemed a high enough priority by Cabinet to be given legislative priority. Hence a members bill means the law actually gets repealed.

Note again – the law was recommended for repeal in 2001.

Labour’s shadow leader of the House, Trevor Mallard, said it was “outrageous”.

“That sort of bill can be progressed through a statutes amendment bill or omnibus bill, where there is no argument about it.”

It was an unnecessary use of parliamentary time to do something that would have happened anyway, he said.

A simple question then. Why did Labour not repeal the law in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008?

“Someone who just signs on the dotted line to introduce legislation is effectively saying ‘at the moment there’s nothing more important in my electorate that this’.

“I feel quite sad for him.”

Trevor shows how he is a dinosaur of the past, who should stay there. First of all List MPs get to submit members bills also. Secondly, Very few members bills relate to an MPs electorate.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said it was an inappropriate use of the members’ bill process.

“This is just a device where (National) has used private members’ facilities to prosecute government policy.”

It blocked up the ballot, which limits MPs to one bill each, by increasing the number of National bills.

This comes from the leader of the party who submitted only one bill out of 8 MPs. Stop being a whining loser and go submit more bills into the next ballot if you want to improve your chances of winning.

Think if National adopted Labour’s tactics? They could filibuster a members’ bill all year long, so there are no more members ballots in 2012. That would really give them something to complain about. Yet, it would be exactly what Labour did in 2008 2011.

Chris Trotter writes at Stuff:

At the risk of being branded a “traitor”, I’m declaring my support for the Crafar farms sale. Not because I like seeing productive New Zealand farmland pass into the hands of foreigners, I don’t.

The reason I’m in favour is because I believe New Zealanders should keep their promises and fulfil their undertakings.

In 2008, this country ratified a free-trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China. It was hailed as the most important foreign policy and trade achievement of the 1999-2008 Helen Clark-led government. Not only was it the first such agreement to be signed between China and a Western-style democracy, but it also offered New Zealand businesses immense economic opportunities. …

It was all the more perplexing, then, to hear Opposition leader David Shearer declaring his and the Labour Party’s opposition to the sale. It’s simply inconceivable that Mr Shearer is unaware of the MFN prohibition against denying China the same right to buy land as the nations that bought upwards of 650,000 hectares of our national patrimony exercised when Helen Clark was Prime Minister, and Mr Shearer’s friend (and former boss) Phil Goff was the Minister of Trade.

To avoid the inevitable charges of rank hypocrisy and populist opportunism, Mr Shearer needed to accompany his statement opposing the sale with an announcement that Labour was committed, immediately on regaining office, to repudiating the New Zealand-China FTA and tightening up the legislation regulating overseas investment.

I’m still waiting for those other shoes to drop. And, frankly, I think I’ll go on waiting. Why? Because I simply don’t believe Labour is about to abandon its long-standing commitment to free trade. Nor am I confident Mr Shearer is any more willing to court the fury and retaliatory trade restrictions of the Chinese government than Mr Key. Both are well aware that this country’s future prosperity is inextricably bound up with China’s.

I actually see the deal as an exciting one. A partnership between Shanghai Pengxin and Landcorp has huge potential opportunities. The combination of their market contacts and capital, and our land and expertise could be golden.

An interesting look at the election results of National and Labour since the first election they both contested.

Up until the 1990s, the gap between the parties was never that huge. A 10% gap was around as big as it got. Then in 1990 one had the first gap of well over 10% – almost 13%.

Then of course in 2002, there was the blowout to Labour who beat National by 20%, much the same as National beat Labour by in 2011.

There was also an interesting trend of declining support for both parties from the 1950s to 1984. We then saw both increase in support as Social Credit died, and then the volatility of MMP.

National’s growth over the last three elections under Brash and Key is quite remarkable.

Tomorrow we’ll look at the various third parties.

APNZ report at NZ Herald:

A reporter from the website Scoop will resign from Parliament’s press gallery after being caught photographing documents in Labour leader David Shearer’s office.

Lyndon Hood was among a number of journalists waiting in the office for an interview with Mr Shearer yesterday afternoon, and was spotted taking photos of documents on the leader’s desk by a Labour Party press secretary.

That is a real shame – both for Lyndon whose better judgement deserted him, but also for media/politican relations generally.

Just as MPs should be able to have a conversation without worrying if someone has a concealed recorder at their table, MPs should be able to have media come into their office and not worry about if they may photograph any documents on their desk.

I understand Labour have recently removed access for journalists to enter their corridors in Parliament. If this is correct, you can’t criticise them for that.