2011 GENERAL ELECTION

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

What I believe will happen

Letters to the Editor - The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 25 January 2011

I PREDICT that the National Party will soon walk away from the Marine and Coastal Area Bill on the basis that it's failed to gain public or even Maori support.

The Maori Party will then feel betrayed and withdraw its support for the Government in Parliament.

Even with the ACT Party and UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne, this would leave the Government with a majority of only one once Botany MP Pansy Wong resigns.

Prime Minister John Key will take the opportunity to call an early election, arguing that, in the event National lost Botany, the Government would fall, and the uncertainty would damage the economy.

Not only would an early election avoid gambling on the result of the Rugby World Cup, it would let voters dump on the Maori Party and MMP, blaming both for the crisis.

By allowing Maori to have made the running on the foreshore issue, Mr Key will be seen to have bent over backwards to find a fair solution, and then to have shown decisive leadership when needed.

Labour saw this coming and has already distanced itself from the bill.

TRISH JANES
Mount Victoria


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/4576353/Letter-What-I-believe-will-happen

[Calliope]

Does the cartoon indicate that Key will win by a nose?

[Lovelee]

Trish Janes appears to be someone who purports to know what Maori are thinking!  However even another Maori hardly knows what the next one is thinking 

Calli .. they portray his nose to be gi normous - i dont see it that way .. so is it his jewishness they are emphasising??

[Newtown-Fella]

Pity Phil Gaffe oops Goff didnt announce his resignation in his speech to the nation ...

Labour have as much chance as a snowball in hell of getting back in in 2011 with him at the helm

and now hes promising tax cuts ... yeah will they be 60 cents plus gst this time ?

Tax at centre of Goff's focus for 2011

Tax is at the centre of Phil Goff's election year recipe for the economy.

Our political editor says the last election was fought on tax and it seems the Labour leader's determined to bring on the fight again this year.

In his state of the nation speech delivered in Auckland today, Mr Goff says the rich will be taxed more, though he does not say how rich you have to be for that to happen.

Mr Goff says Labour will not borrow for its tax cuts, instead paying for the system by putting the squeeze on tax avoiders.
He also promises the poor will pay nothing on the first several thousand dollars they earn.

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/8708765/tax-at-centre-of-goffs-focus-for-2011/

[Calliope]

Calli .. they portray his nose to be gi normous - i dont see it that way .. so is it his jewishness they are emphasising??

probably  

As for the tax cuts promised by Goff - He is promising the first $5000 of income will be tax free

[Lovelee]

in OZ the first 10,000 is free

[guest49]

As long as Fool Goof is at the helm, Labour stands the chance of a snowball in a blast furnace of winning.
Unfortunately for Labour, in her efforts to fend off any possibility of competition, Helen Clark wouldnt allow any capable person to come to the fore during her tenure.
Labour have a long period in the wilderness before they can come up with a viable package.

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

What will decide this year's general election won't actually be the popularity of John Key.

Remember how popular he supposedly was in 2008?

How come he didn't win by a landslide?

How come even a coalition with Peter Dunne and ACT only gave him a tiny majority in NZ's Parliament?

Current polling shows National at over 50% support.

Polling at various times during the nine-year reign of the last government also showed Labour at over 50% support.

However, that is a pipe-dream....when push comes to shove at a general election, that support past 50% disappears as the support for third-parties rises, as we have seen in the past several elections.

So it will be who can work with other political parties which will really determine the next general election.

John Key had better hope ACT survive the next general election or he will be in deep shit.

It is highly likely Winston will be back in Parliament with a vengence and he literally will be after vengence.

I could see Winston (and NZ First) signing a coalition deal with the Nats, but Winston would exact a humiliating penalty in an act of revenge over John Key publicly stating at the last general election he would not sign a coalition deal with NZ First led by Winston.

And that sort of relationship would be subject to self-destruction at any moment without warning by Winston, once again in an act of revenge for what happened three years ago.

A coalition deal with the Maori Party without being able to play them off against ACT would be like a poison chalice for the Nats, because Hone will have a lot of Maori Party support behind him so will pull strings to get things his way. The current Maori Party leadership know that and they will no doubt know that if push comes to shove and they get rid of Hone, then he will win as an independent and many of the other Maori seats will go back to Labour.

If the Nats rely soley on the Greens, then the Green Party will demand policy that grassroots Nats membership wouldn't be able to swallow.

So John Key will really need ACT's return to Parliament, or he could easily find himself having to agree to all sorts of unpalitable stuff that could blow up in his face at any time in order to continue to head a government.

I reckon the 2011 election and its aftermath is going to be one of the most fascinating general elections for many decades.

[Lovelee]

Nationals last few heads have been people whove come out of the blue, punny!!

Ohh God his name escapes me now .. the bank dude LOL & Key were both unexpected 'leaders'. 

I still worry about the personal wants behind Keys stand - why would he want to be a PM when he can get some much more for doing so less and being even less in the limelight?

I dont think this election is going to be fascinating in any area at all - if the Labour party can find a suitable replacement for Goff, maybe, but if not it will be drab, boring and predictable.

[AnFaolchudubh]

Trish Janes appears to be someone who purports to know what Maori are thinking!  However even another Maori hardly knows what the next one is thinking 

Yes and seeing as the majority that voted for the Nat MP in our local town were Maaori, and has been for a number of years, I'd say you were right there.

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Bryan Gould: Economic inertia hurts election hopes

The New Zealand Herald | 5:00AM - Monday, January 24, 2011


Prime Minister John Key. — Photo: Herald on Sunday.

A THREE-YEAR electoral cycle may have its detractors — and, many would say, with good reason — but it is usually popular with first-term governments.

The record shows that three years is not really long enough for voters to reach a definitive view that a recently elected government has failed, and the benefit of the doubt will usually mean a second term.

Add to that a Prime Minister with an unusually acute instinct for the popular gesture and the 2011 election might reasonably be thought to be a shoo-in. There is, however, one possible fly in the ointment.

"It's the economy, stupid," might not be such an obvious determining factor as it seemed to be in Bill Clinton's run for the presidency. But the way Kiwis feel about their economic situation on election day will clearly have a bearing on how they vote. And on that issue, the Government's record may not bear too much close scrutiny.

The Government inherited an economy which had already been in recession for most of a year, and which had then been assailed by the global financial crisis. Dealing with that recession and building an economy which would — as we emerged on the other side — reverse our decades-long comparative decline, was surely the most pressing task facing the new Government.

How, after three years in office, will the Government be judged to have done?

It has, after all, had its fair share of good luck. Record commodity prices have helped the economy and the balance of trade.

Our banking sector has remained, by world standards, remarkably stable — though the same can't be said of our finance companies. Our major export markets — Australia and China — have been beacons of light in the recessionary global gloom.

Yet — our unemployment remains stubbornly high, the retail trade is flat on its back and the housing market has stalled.

Business confidence is low and business investment equally so. The protections that the vulnerable depend on in tough times have been reduced, and the talk is all of further cuts.

The early flush of energy and enthusiasm — remember the Jobs Summit? — seems to have evaporated.

The recession has lingered on well beyond what the forecasters predicted.

There is precious little to show that the Government has done more than hold the ring.

We look in vain to see where the lift in demand and employment is to come from.

And, most seriously, if and when we do recover, there is no evidence that anything will have changed. The problems that have dogged us for decades will remain unresolved.

That, after all, was the central point made by Standard and Poor's before Christmas. When they warned of a credit downgrade and placed us on negative watch, they pointed the finger specifically at the prognosis that, as we eventually do emerge from a protracted recession, all of our entrenched problems will also re-surface.

They predicted that we would return to our bad old ways of failing to save and invest and wondering why our productivity does not improve faster, of bingeing on artificially cheap imports and expecting to be able to borrow overseas to fund our excessive consumption. Also of wringing our hands while our counter-inflationary policies force up interest rates and an over-valued exchange rate.

It was the prospect of the resultant deficit — the country's rather than the Government's — and our reliance on overseas borrowing, that caused them real concern. Unusually, a credit-rating agency seems to be taking a longer-term view than that of our own government.

Their message seems to be that, unless we grapple with those long-term problems, our credit rating is at risk.

If all of this remains true on election day, if the remnants of recession still linger on and we are poised to resume the unsustainable rake's progress that has held us back for so long, how will the voters mark the Government's report card?

It has to be said that, as the outcome of three years in office, it would not look good.

The Government would surely not want to face the voters with a record that shows that nothing had really changed. Changes to the tax system, a renewed and welcome emphasis on research, and largely administrative fiddling with the delivery of education and health services may have their proponents but are hardly the stuff of fundamental economic reform.

The Prime Minister is nothing if not a pragmatist.

As he approaches the election, he will figure that he has most bases covered. He would be uncomfortable, therefore, with any vulnerability on his Government's economic record.

Can we expect that he will understand the need — however belatedly — for an "agonising re-appraisal" when something isn't working and to strike out in a new direction?

• Bryan Gould is a former vice-chancellor of Waikato University and member of the House of Commons.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10701560

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Top salesman faces his stiffest sell on assets

By MATT McCARTEN - HERALD on SUNDAY | 5:30AM - Sunday, January 30, 2011

THE OPENING SALVOS of the election were well and truly launched this week. Phil Goff was out of the blocks first with an excellent repositioning economic statement aimed directly at his party's core vote.

This makes good strategic sense. Labour has obviously decided any personality contest between John Key and Goff is a lost cause.

Instead, it has launched an election framework with three main economic points of difference with National.

Firstly, a flat tax cut for everyone on their first $5000 of earnings and raising tax on income over $120,000. It's simple populism and is going down well with the party's base.

Second, amending the Reserve Bank Act — a cornerstone of Rogernomics — is the clearest acceptance that Labour's adherence to economic neo-liberalism is over. Given that Goff was one of Roger Douglas' right-hand men, it's a big step.

But the third issue that may well define this election year is that Goff has promised there will be no asset sales. After the sale hysteria of the 1980s and the embarrassing, and necessary, government buyback of some of them, New Zealanders are in no mood to have their family silver hocked off yet again.



WHEN Key followed Goff and gave his economic positioning statement he was on the back foot over his announcement of restarting public asset sales.

Trying to market the idea of selling off minority stakes in our profitable assets will be hard work. Convincing people selling public, profitable assets to those with spare cash so the Government can fund its tax cuts to the rich is near impossible, even for a likeable salesperson like Key.

It's a great circular money-making roundabout to get on if you're rich but most New Zealanders will see it for what it is — the theft of profit-making assets that is funding tax cuts to the wealthy.

There's little doubt that asset sales will be a dominating factor in the election. It may determine that Key, despite his popularity, will be the first one-term prime minister since Walter Nash.

To avoid that, he will have to win over the public on his asset sales programme but also keep his Maori Party coalition partner intact and on side. That's a Herculean challenge.



HONE HARAWIRA's ongoing criticism of the Maori Party caucus' willingness to be the plaything of National has finally come to a head. If Harawira is expelled (there are no actual grounds for it, but this is politics) National will have its compliant junior partner to guarantee Key his second term.

However, if Harawira survives then there's a real possibility that Labour may be able to put together a broad coalition after the general election that includes the Maori Party.

But putting that distraction aside, the real disappointment this week was that neither Labour nor National, in their economic statements, was able to explain how we will get back the 50,000 jobs we have lost this term, let alone place the 100,000 other jobless.

That's because neither of them has a jobs plan. The truth is our so-called job creation policy is "cross our fingers and hope".

There is no doubt capitalism is in crisis and the world we have known is in freefall. The closing of the gap policy by both main parties with Australia is nonsense. Neither main party wants to tell us the truth.

Instead, we will have to rely on the Greens to come up with some intellectual heft about our future. Its leader Russel Norman will today present a comprehensive blueprint called "smart green economics".

It reminds us there's no such thing as unlimited growth; that we have to live within our means; that market forces must be regulated; that income equality through taxation is necessary; and we have to stop borrowing unless it's for sustainable infrastructure.

The detail will be announced today but it's ironic that serious long-time solutions to our economy will have come from the Greens.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10702942


Greens push capital gains tax to reduce NZ debt

Newstalk ZB | 10:32AM - Sunday, January 30, 2011



A CAPITAL GAINS TAX is part of the Green Party's solution to reduce New Zealand's debt.

Co-leader Russel Norman has included it in what he calls the "smart green economics" he's outlining in the party's State of the Planet speech today.

"The Greens are advocating a capital gains tax, excluding the family home, because we think that's an essential component of the tax system which is present in just about every developed country apart from New Zealand", he told Newstalk ZB."

"(It) would make a significant impact in fixing up the governments books."

Mr Norman says a capital gains tax would bring in over four billion dollars a year, enough to make a significant reduction to debt, and is also advocating capping government borrowing.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10703038

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

[nitpicker1]

Just in case yas haven't noticed,  pollies are falling over themselves and each other in efforts NOT TO APPEAR TO BE AVOIDING RE-ELECTION.

Seems to me us plebians knew long before them that their bubble had to burst in their faces; Helen knew it, she escaped. John thinks he can sell his way out, Goff wants to disappear into oblivion, Green are the shadow of their former self and Act is the orchestra's conductor while privatisation and globalisation is their common bete noir. 


I ain't joking

[Newtown-Fella]

The National Party has surged in popularity according to the latest ONE News Colmar Brunton poll, as voters praised its handling of the Canterbury earthquake.

But the Labour Party was trailing and the Act Party was nearly dead and buried.

The poll was heavily shaped by the collapse of South Canterbury Finance, the Canterbury quake and the near collapse of the Act Party following MP David Garrett resigning from parliament after revelations that he once forged a passport using the name of deceased toddler.

But troubles with Act have not sullied National, with the party up five points to 54% from the last poll.

Labour is down three points to 32%, the Greens are up on 8%, New Zealand First up at 2.4%, the Maori Party, with no change, at 2.3% and the Act Party's support almost invisible, down at 1.1%.

With those numbers, National could govern alone with 67 seats, Labour would have 40 seats and the Greens nine.

Assuming electorate seats are held, the Maori Party would have five and it would be one seat each for Act, United Future and the Progressives.

And with a seven point gain from last time, Prime Minister John Key is still the favoured leader with New Zealand voters.

About 52% preferred Key as Prime Minister while Labour leader Phil Goff is down, languishing on 8%.

http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/one-news-colmar-brunton-poll-sept-2010-3801507

[Lovelee]

I dont believe any other party should be in power for the next 6 years anyway .. Nats need to really stuff up the rebuilding of CHCH and the country so the blame can be solely laid at their feet.

I suspect many of those who vote for JK as preferred PM are doing so because its his fault, the state we are in.

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Yep....by the end of another three years of the Nats (by which time they will have started to flog-off what remains the family silver), and the aftermath from the earthquake and all sorts of other stuff mis-managed by the Nats, they will disappear back into the political wilderness for a minimum of nine years.

The Greens appear to be becoming more pragmatic and moving closer towards the centre, very cunningly not ruling anything out, which will mean that as time goes by they will become a larger political force in NZ and will be able to play the two major political parties off against each other.

And naturally, as the natural political corruption that goes with National continues (such as Stephen Joyce using taxpayers' money to prop up his mates in the private radio industry — with a company that owns radio stations formerly owned by Stephen Joyce), then that corruption and other sordid dishonest stuff will eventually help to bury the Nats for a long time.

As Yak posted....they are only doing well because the main opposition party doesn't have a proper leader. Wait until Andrew Little is the leader....he'll totally annihalate John Key and all associated with him.

And that 50%+ support will disappear at the general election....just as it did each time the last government polled at greater than 50%.


Age of Austerity? We're still spending on plastic!

John Armstrong on Politics

The New Zealand Herald | 5:30AM - Thursday, April 07, 2011


The Waka Pavillion.

SO MUCH for Bill English's much-heralded Age of Austerity. The close to $2 million in taxpayers' money for Auckland's "plastic waka" suggests the Old Age of Waste is still with us.

National is certainly consistent when it comes to cutting spending. It consistently fails to practise what it preaches — be it the purchase of replacement chauffeur-driven BMWs for Cabinet ministers or this latest exercise in excess.

If anything falls within the Finance Minister's definition of a "nice to have" that can be lost then surely it is the waka on the waterfront.

You do not have to look far for more pressing demands. What about legal aid for the company that owns the Pike River mine so it has no excuse for not fronting up at inquiries?

The Government's priorities seem to extend no further than supplying an over-priced drinking venue for rugby fans in an area where there is no shortage of drinking venues.

As for the Maori dimension, the politics are as transparent as the emperor's new clothes.

This is a sop to the Maori Party — cheap for the Government, expensive for the taxpayer. It is the sort of self-indulgence you might expect from a Government enjoying a $16 billion Budget surplus — not one expecting such a deficit.

The waka, we are assured, will be "world class" and "showcase New Zealand". We are only fooling ourselves if we believe that claptrap. Its economic value is zilch. It will not draw one extra rugby fan from overseas simply because it will not be finished within sufficient time to do so.

Some might argue the cash for the waka is no worse than the $33 million in government money for Team NZ. Indeed. English yesterday revealed he had wanted to withdraw that funding but the contracts negotiated during Labour's tenure were watertight. So canoes are okay but yachts are not?

There might be some defence if the waka was being retained after the World Cup. But ownership will revert to Ngati Whatua seemingly because the Government cannot be bothered to look after it. The plastic waka will sink faster than the Titanic in National's heartland.

The foreshore and seabed argument may have been impossibly complex to comprehend — this is easy.

Above all, the funding of the waka is nothing short of an abdication of fiscal responsibility on National's part.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-government/news/article.cfm?c_id=144&objectid=10717664




Two Dollar Shop kitsch triumphs

Brian Rudman on Auckland & National Issues

The New Zealand Herald | 5:30AM - Saturday, April 09, 2011



IT SEEMS a bit one-eyed criticising Ngati Whatua for lack of taste when they come up with a plastic-coated "tupperwaka" in which to host their Rugby World Cup guests.

The local tribe is just sticking to the Two Dollar Shop theme that's already been kicked off, by the Rugby Union with its giant blow-up rugby ball, and by the Government with its undulating, plastic-sheathed Queens Wharf slug.

Whatever memories our guests take home about the new Super City of Auckland, having visited a city with style won't be among them.

We've seen to that.

Tackiness will be waiting to greet them at every turn.

At the spaghetti junction entrance to the motorway system they'll encounter motorway architect Rod Slater's endearing monument to Two Dollar Shop kitsch, a 7m-high illuminated model of a pohutukawa flower.

Erected by Transit New Zealand in 2006 as a parting gift after a four-year, $195 million phase of construction, it was the sort of farewell present you slip under the bed after a visiting aunt has left town.

But this one was so firmly in place, and so public, that the old Auckland City gritted its teeth and tried to ignore it.

Now comes news that Transit's successor, the NZ Transport Agency, has dismantled it but not to lay it to rest.

It's restoring the faded stamens, all 105 of them, to their full yellow and red glory, complete with new LED lamps and fresh uplighting.

But for any visitor who might miss the glowing floral sex organs, there'll be no missing the larger-than-life bronze statue of rugby great Michael Jones diving heroically across the line to score a magnificent try against Italy in 1987.

This piece of 1930s super-realism has just got the go-ahead from park authorities and will greet visitors to Eden Park Stadium.

Like the pohutukawa and the temporary waterfront waka, this piece of "art" seems destined to be dropped into the city landscape without recourse to the usual community checks and balances put in place by civic authorities to try to ensure that we have a liveable city.

Just a few weeks back, Mayor Len Brown hosted an "Unleashing Auckland" talkfest that centred on the need for planning if the city was to achieve his goal of regional leadership.

Yet in the space of a few days we learn, in quick succession, of a large temporary waterfront venue and two large public art works, all of which seem to have bypassed the planning processes — and in the case of the sculptures, gone nowhere near the council's Public Arts Panel.

Labour Party associate Maori affairs spokesman Shane Jones' fiery attack on "a plastic faux waka", which he dubbed a tupperwaka, has to be seen in the context of his coming battle with Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples for the Auckland seat of Tamaki Makaurau in the November general election.

A week ago, a Horizon Research Maori Panel poll showed Mr Jones, on 42.1 per cent, rapidly closing in on Dr Sharples on 47.8 per cent. Dr Sharples was behind the $2 million Government waka expenditure.

Personally, I've got nothing against $2 million of Government assistance to ensure the Maori presence at the World Cup is somewhat wider than the onfield manpower and the haka.

It is, after all, less than the cash Prime Minister John Key suddenly found available to returf the Christchurch stadium.

What the waka row does draw attention to is that, with only a little imagination and taste, the Government could have adapted the two old wharf sheds on Queens Wharf and done away with the need for both the controversial $10 million slug and the $2 million waka.

Between them, Sheds 10 and 11 had a combined floor space approaching 7000 square-metres.

The temporary slug-like structure the Government calls the Cloud has an inside floor area of 4455sq m and room for 5960 people.

The planned waka will hold a further 1000 people standing.

In other words, the old sheds, imaginatively renovated, could have more than handled the same size crowds and then some, in an environment much more spacious and redolent of Auckland's history as a trading port.

Not only that, both of them would still have been there after the party was over, not packed off to some storage facility, which will be the fate of the new structures.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/brian-rudman-on-auckland/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502866&objectid=10717941




Greens find way to keep options open

John Armstrong on Politics

The New Zealand Herald | 5:30AM - Saturday, April 09, 2011



THE PARTY is coming out of its [economic] ivory tower. The Greens have long enjoyed the advantage of having a clearly defined brand. They have long had the policies to give that brand real substance.

But for too long the Greens assumed the logic and their assumed correctness of what they were saying was so persuasive they did not need to do a proper sales job.

At long last, the party has worked out that this take-it-or-leave-it attitude towards voters is a prime reason why it has not attracted more support.

The Greens have realised purity of policy principle can sit comfortably with a pragmatic strategy which gets voters on board and those policies ultimately implemented.

In short, the Greens are getting more serious and more professional about how they market themselves.

This week witnessed just such an example of this strategic thinking on the part of Parliament's third-largest party.

Somehow the Greens managed the impossible. They left the impression they might be willing to work with National after November's general election. They then effectively ruled out any likelihood of that happening.

The two positions would seem to be contradictory. But voters are capable of taking the message they want to take and happily ignore any inconsistency in doing so.

The net result is the party has taken a crucial first step in expanding its voter catchment beyond its traditional home on Labour's left. It is now encroaching on the far more vote-rich political centre.

The key is not to overly frighten those supporters who cannot abide dealing with National, yet hint of just such a possibility to attract the interest of voters who likewise do not want Labour back in power.

The mechanism for doing this has been a draft proposal on how the party should handle post-election negotiations.

The Greens made a real hash of that at the last election. They finally expressed a reluctant preference for Labour less than three weeks before polling day.

The announcement followed an in-depth analysis of the compatibility of other parties' policies with the stances taken by the Greens. It was an anti-climax. The analysis was always going to find National's policies were fundamentally at odds with the Greens' objectives.

The Greens consequently formally ruled out any deal with National. In the process, they removed themselves as players post-election and fell back under Labour's shadow for the rest of the campaign.

The Greens are not going to make the same mistake this year. The draft proposal, which follows extensive consultation with party members last year, will go before the party's annual meeting in June for ratification.

In its current form, the proposal says the Greens "have a preference" to consider supporting a Labour-led government "in the right circumstances".

It then says the Greens "could" work with a National-led government to advance Green policies. But based on current National Party policy positions, it was "extremely unlikely" the Greens could give National their backing on confidence and supply.

So what has changed since 2008? National's flagging of a second-term agenda which would include drastic welfare reform measures and part-privatisation of state companies would seem even more alien to the Greens' dogma. The critical wording is "highly unlikely". Although this would seem to rule out any arrangement with National, the media almost universally took the view that the Greens had not slammed the door shut to a deal with National.

The unstated corollary was that this was the first step towards the Greens ultimately taking a pre-election stance that the party could work equally well with Labour or National.

That may well be a misconception, yet one that the Greens' leadership may be happy to see take hold, even if it raises the hackles of some members.

In that respect, the leadership has gone about as far as it can in hinting at the possibilities of working more closely with National. The draft proposal also makes much of the Greens' current memorandum of understanding with National which has seen both parties co-operate on matters of common interest, such as cycleways and home insulation.

The draft proposal makes it very clear that this limited engagement with National, which includes regular meetings between Russel Norman and Metiria Turei, the Greens' co-leaders, and John Key and other senior National Party figures, should continue regardless post-election.

It is highly debatable, however, whether the leadership can ever realistically take things much further unless the party dumps its social justice agenda and positions itself solely on environmental values.

The constraints on a deeper relationship with National underline the need for the Greens to market themselves more vigorously.

With all of the party's original MPs having departed or about to do so in November, the party has a problem. The refusal of the likes of Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Kedgley, Sue Bradford and Keith Locke to buckle on their principles did not always make them popular, but it raised their profiles and won the Greens huge respect.

That continues to pay dividends in terms of voter support. But it will do so only for so long.

The departure of those MPs has left a vacuum which is not being filled by their replacements.

With election campaigns being about leaders, priority is being given to bolstering voter empathy and rapport with Turei and Norman.

At the same time, the party is coming out of its ivory tower, particularly with regard to economic policy.

The average voter has little appreciation of what the Greens would do to the economy bar introducing a capital gains tax. While it is unlikely the party would ever be in a position to dictate economic policy, it is accepted the lack of understanding about how the party links economic policy to environmental policy is a serious block to voters backing the party.

To solve that, the party is distributing an explanatory flyer to about 300,000 households.

In that vein, Norman's push for a temporary levy on those with incomes above $48,000 to meet the cost of the Christchurch earthquake is designed to demonstrate the Greens are as capable of partaking in mainstream economic debates as any other political party.

Being election year, all of this would be happening anyway. But the Greens have an even bigger incentive for being more in voters' faces.

For no other party stands to gain more than them from voter disillusionment with the current turmoil in Labour.

All eyes will be on tomorrow's One News-Colmar Brunton poll to see whether the Greens are benefiting accordingly.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10718075

[nitpicker1]

Maggie Barry wins North Shore candidacy seatNewstalk
ZB
May 12, 2011, 5:28 am

National has chosen Maggie Barry as its candidate for the North Shore electorate.

The former radio and TV presenter won selection last night.

She replaces Defence Minister Wayne Mapp who's retiring in November.

Maggie Barry says she'll move to North Shore - if elected.

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9360075/maggie-barry-wins-north-shore-candidacy-seat/

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

[Newtown-Fella]

You've had time to absorb Budget 2011, how do you think Bill English did?

Well, under the circumstances
161 votes, 32.1%
     
It's too early to tell yet
67 votes, 13.3%
     
He didn't take enough risks
48 votes, 9.6%
     
He focused on the wrong areas
161 votes, 32.1%
     
He did a great job
31 votes, 6.2%
     
I don't really know
34 votes, 6.8%

Related story:


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5029103/Budget-2011-Battlers-asked-to-give-back
     

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

[reality]

yeah ...in the past helen would just lick arse to stay in power

yeah.....now Bill and John want to do the best thing for the country...get the economy right for our childrens future

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

I don't know why Jonkey licks the arses of Standards & Poors.

They don't know shit!

They gave AAA ratings to heaps of capitalist wanker companies just before they crashed.

In other words, not only do Standard & Poors not know shit, but they are FULL of SHIT.

If Jonkey had any balls, be would point out to them how they fucked up big-time and tell them to fuck off!