“More  than  four percent of voters at the last election voted for New Zealand First,” Dr Norman said. “I am confident that a large proportion of those voters would give their support to the Greens with Winston on board.  It would give us the chance to break through 10%.”

Dr Norman praised Mr Peters’ political appeal: “David Garrett with ACT has proven the effectiveness of frequent foaming at the mouth and the value of being constantly on the offensive.  Winston would be able to perform that role for us.”

The Greens are also considering changing their Constitution as an incentive so Peters could succeed as Co-Leader when Jeanette Fitzsimons steps down at the Party’s Annual General Meeting on Queen’s Birthday weekend. 

“Having two male Co-Leaders would help dispel the image that we are too pro-feminist,” Dr Norman said.  “Of course Winston would be Co-Leader outside Parliament like I was when I was first elected.  But he has immense expertise in fundraising and managing electoral donations and already has a strong relationship with the media, so working as Co-Leader outside Parliament should be easier for him than it was for me.

According to Colin Espiner:

Mr Key was due in the Tauranga suburb of Greerton for a walkabout at 11.30am but left his supporters standing on the sidewalk after discovering Mr Peters planned an ambush.

Key’s minders are obviously more vigilant now. But it looks like if you were to vote purely on ambush efficacy you’d have to say that’s one for the Greens.

Image Credit: roadkillbuddha

Miss Clark noted several times that NZ First may not be back in Parliament – and yesterday acknowledged it was facing “a tough fight”.

“I think everyone’s reluctant to draw firm conclusions but obviously it’s looking tough.”She also moved yesterday to anoint the Greens as her preferred partner – a prospect that would make any deal with NZ First, even if it does return, difficult.

“The Greens have waited a long time to be in Government. Their time is here,” Miss Clark said.

It’s not like we were deliberately standing around making sure everyone else had a turn.  Clark’s last minute attempt to conveniently change dancing partners reflects what many of her local candidates have been saying around the country – that they would personally prefer to work with the Greens than NZ First.  I’m left with the impression that, ethically, individual Labour members would prefer to deal with the Greens, but institutionally Labour finds NZ First easier and less demanding to cut a deal with. In the end it will be uncommitted Labour voters, rather than Clark, who will make the decision by showing Clark which of the two parties they would rather see her work with.

A box of documents sent to the newspaper this week shows that Vela interests made donations to NZ First as early as 1999. Mr Meurant suggested to Mr Vela that this provided the opportunity to give “input” into policy areas in which the family had business interests.

Mr Meurant sought money from Vela interests to travel as required in his taxpayer-paid job to liaise with Mr Peters, and for when he was “required to provide NZ First with material for debates in Parliament”.

He wanted help from Mr Vela “when required to show my face in Parliament to thrash out policy positions which I will have already developed with your people on taxation, fishing, thoroughbred with Winston’s bunch”.

I’m sure Peters will rightly argue that this latest evidence has not been tested in a court, but on the face of it is appears damning. Labour has stood by Peters throughout this ongoing and evolving scandal and it seems clear that he and his NZ First party is Labour’s first cab off the rank this election if it is afforded that choice. That adds increased weight to the argument that Labour voters have to use their party vote tactically to decide weather they want Peters and company at the cabinet table, or Jeanette and the Greens.

Interestingly Winston’s $80,000 donation from the Spencer Trust now shows up on the party donation returns to the Electoral Commission for 2007. And when you go to look for it you also get to see the $230,000 that the Labour Party took from lawyers representing undisclosed clients and the $500,000 that the National Party took from anonymous sources including the Ruahine and Waitamata trusts. 

When she was asked at a meeting with Foodstuffs workers if they should vote strategically to ensure a Labour coalition, she said the best way was to vote for Labour.

But the choice many Labour voters face is not just National vs Labour, but Labour-NZ First vs Labour-Green.  Which means that strategically, the best thing they can do is vote for the support partner they want for Labour, not for Labour itself. The relative strength of those two parties is likely to decide which one has the most bargaining power to shape the type of government that Labour might be able to put together. Labour has said it is an election about trust, and many former Labour voters don’t trust Winston Peters and New Zealand First. They will see the logic on voting Green.

Or, as Audrey Young noted yesterday:

I have lost count of the former Labour voters I know who are voting Green this election. They trust Labour, but only as far as they can kick them.

The TV1 News coverage of its own poll is hilarious. Watch for the Green Party billboard that randomly wanders past in the background of Jeanette’s interview. Trust me, I hear it was entirely unplanned.

So, which event will the media give the bulk of its coverage to on Sunday evening and Monday morning? On all criteria except scandal and gossip I would think the choice should be obviously leaning in one direction.

Incidentally I nearly couldn’t link to New Zealand First’s Campaign Launch because the only upcoming event on its official website was and address by Peters on Friday 11 July. Luckily Winston Says is on the ball with news that his campaign launch has John Rowles – I hope the Greens’ musician can compete with that:

This time, with the exception of the Maori Party, we pretty much know the answer, or will know the answer before the election for all of them.   But what we don’t know is who will Labour go with. This is an important question that people should probably take the time to ask Labour.

We know for instance that there are a lot of voters that sit somewhere between Labour and the Greens.  I’m guessing before they make their choice they would really like to know whether Labour will continue to tie itself to New Zealand First and Winston Peters. And I think they probably have the right to know that important piece of information. I’m sure there are other undecided voters on different parts of the spectrum that feel similarly about either or both of the two big parties.  John Key has been more upfront than you would usually expect from a major party leader – seemingly ruling Roger Douglas out of his cabinet and definitely ruling NZ First out of any government he is part of. By comparison Labour currently appears to be presenting different preferred coalition scenarios to different audiences.

So, if you are out and about attending candidate meetings during the campaign, why not ask the Labour candidates, rather than the MMP parties for a change, who they want to get with.  Put them under the same pressure we get every election year.  And send me some video footage or quotes so we can see if the answers match up.

Ok, so as speeches go the atmosphere is not quite Barack Obama in front of faux Greek pillars, but it’s a pretty clear annunciation of why Russel voted to censure Winston Peters.

It was disappointing to see that the committee voted along party lines.  It would be nice to think that our leaders could sit down with legal advice and weigh evidence impartially, but their vote suggests not.  It’s interesting though that the three parties that are politically disinterested in the outcome, United Future, the Maori Party and the Greens, all voted the same way and, in the end, seem to have been the deciding votes.  To me Russell Fairbrother’s defence to Radio New Zealand this morning of Labour’s bloc vote on the committee was a weak one – further implications that Owen Glenn was lying, but without anything to indicate that to be the case.

It does make me wonder weather the Team LPG fanboiz should really be getting so grumpy at Green supporters for not wanting to declare our undying love to Helen Clark and Labour. Because it seems from its recent behaviour that Labour has already found its preferred coalition partner, and it’s Winston Peters, come what may. But then I guess Labour doesn’t have so much to gain from a internet campaign for Team LNZF?

Leave your TV or radio switched off, save that money you’d otherwise spend on a newspaper.

Vote uninformed? No if you must know what’s going on he gives further advice:

Or, if you’re interested in politics and want to make an informed decision this election, go to your local candidates’ meetings. Read the parties’ policies on their websites. Reclaim this election period for yourselves.

It’s a shame for him that Christine Dann pointed out in the Press yesterday in an article on how to make an informed vote, that:

National Party and New Zealand First supporters who want to pick out the top performers will find it impossible to do so from the information on the websites of these parties, however. The National site is very disappointing, with only very recent (last two months) speeches and releases for each MP. Plus the speeches are the ones they give outside of parliament, not their contribution to law-making. The New Zealand First site also ignores parliamentary speeches, and it is impossible to track what each MP has been doing outside of parliament from the site without opening each speech to see who gave it, and when and when it was given.

Incidentally Dann also rates the other parties websites for accessibility of information too. But if you want to shortcut all that research and hard work you could also try theyworkforyou.co.nz, where our favourite word conservationist Bob Clarkson has upped his output yet again; 65 words since the 3^rd of July.

The whole thing stinks of rotten scampi, but nevertheless, the burden of proof lies with the accuser in such cases.  As I write the committee is still in committee, so I am not making any insider’s announcement here. I just think that Peters’ tale is about to become the classic tale of the big one that got away.

What remains to be seen is whether or not the electorate sides with the black and white condemnation of Mr Key or the innocent until proven guilty style of Helen Clark come November 8th. It will also be interesting to see how harshly Peters is judged at the polls.

Whatever happens, I have no doubt that the size of the fish that got away will grow with every telling of the story, from now until November!

It wasn’t my job to hold a press conference and say I’ve had two private conversations… This is a matter between Mr Peters and Mr Glenn.

Now, I don’t know whose side of the story I believe or what the Privileges Committee will or should find.  But surely the reason the issue is before the Privileges Committee at all is because it is more than just a private matter between Mr Peters and Mr Glenn.  It is a matter of public interest. I’m not at all convinced the Prime Minister can credibly run the ‘it was private and it was none of my business’ defense.

Secondly she repeatedly said throughout the interview that this election would be about trust.  That worries me, because I inferred from that that she intends this campaign to be a dirty one where Labour will go out to prove that National is not trustworthy (and the PM says as much in the interview).  The last thing New Zealand needs after the 2005 election is an attacking, dirty campaign. Labour could still still, if it wanted, run on its record without turning this campaign into a nasty, personalised and muddy one.  I hope it will (and likewise other parties).

And, talking about running on your record, the Prime Minister says something like (apologies I didn’t manage to write down the full quote as she was talking):

It frankly isn’t credible for the National Party to spend years attacking Kiwisaver, Working for Families, 20 hours free early childhood education, cheaper doctors’ fees, and then turn around and say ‘we like all that now’.  That’s serious.  People who do that cannot be trusted.

Except that this is exactly the approach that Labour is taking on important environmental policies. It has spent three terms overseeing increased carbon emissions, deforestation, intensifying industrial dairy and worsening water quality.  And is now saying it is the ‘sustainability’ party. It may want to be careful about the emotive terms it uses to frame this election.

[T]he perfectly legal means by which, according to Audrey Young’s Herald story, $80,000, probably from the Vela family, was split into eight chunks and channelled through linked companies to avoid declaration, does demonstrate quite what could be got away with under the old electoral law. You can easily enough make the case that the Electoral Finance Act is a mess, but the old way of doing thing was indefensible.

And also this question.

And with the revelations of The Hollow Men, and now this, it seems reasonable to ask whether the racing industry has anything else it would like to tell us. Because the big money that swings around there seems like a malign influence on the body politic.

No matter what the findings of the three Peters’ inquiries, we’ve seen the negative influence that big private money can have on our democratic system.  The Electoral Finance Act tried to address this but it is struggling, not least because of repeated attacks from parties that are deliberately misinterpreting it to help it fail.  That’s fine, and it’s the job of some opposition parties. But I don’t get why those same parties are rejecting out of hand the Greens’ non partisan citizens’ assembly proposal to sort this all out. Clearly politicians all have too much perceived bias to make fair electoral funding law.  The decision needs to be made by an independent group like the citizens’ assembly.

Image Credit: Chris Slane

MEMORY loss is widely considered as one of the banes of old age, but a world-first Australian study suggests that people over 50 who walk for just 2 1/2 hours a week can halt and even reverse it.

West Australian researchers found that over-50s with mild memory problems experienced improved brain function after a six-month exercise program based on walking, compared with other people who lived their lives as normal.

In the same country as the study’s authors Queensland Premier Anna Bligh (who is only 48) can’t remember how more than a dozen children kidnapped from Indian slums have ended up being adopted in Australia during her time as Child Safety Minister.

“Not to the best of my recollection, but there is material being gathered by the department about the child concerned so there may well be something that I don’t recall, but as you’ll appreciate it is a long time ago,” she said.

In two years time researchers could be forcing her out for a few brief walks to see if they can get to the bottom of the controversy.

Meanwhile 66 year old Thabo Mbeki who does not remember meeting the bosses of Thomson CSF, the French arms company, despite the fact that his ambassador to France, Barbara Masekela said he did, could find his memory inconveniently improved with some pedestrian activity too.

And here in New Zealand Winston Peters (63) will be grateful that he has the excuse that he still has his ministerial limo to ride in so that walking won’t accidentally endanger him during any upcoming SFO or privileges committee questioning.

He may or may not have done something illegal or against the rules of Parliament. The SFO enquiry and the Privileges Committee will attempt to find answers to those questions, and we shouldn’t prejudge the result. Regardless of the outcome of those enquiries, the public would be justified in feeling it had been held in contempt by Peters, when answers to the allegations are supposedly available and would clear up the issue in five minutes. The SFO has the power to compel these answers, but doesn’t the public have a right to them anyway, without weeks of evasion and prevarication?

What is proven is an element of hypocrisy, in claiming to be the nemesis of big business, while taking very large donations from them. But should this be the key issue of the election?

We’ve had several whole pages in most major dailies rehashing this story, when anything new could have been said in a couple of hundred words. Isn’t it time the media got over this person? (there you are: it took me 233 words)

The tragedy is that this is what passes for news, when we ought to be debating what is happening to our economy with rising prices for food, petrol, power and mortgages at the same time as economic contraction and loss of jobs? Shouldn’t we be debating the causes of this, and linking them with peak oil, resource limits and climate change?  Most of all, shouldn’t we be debating what to do about it?

I was invited on to TV’s Agenda yesterday morning – a three hour return drive for me – to discuss the effects of the Emissions Trading Scheme on households, industry and climate change. Instead the debate was solely about Peters. Politicians are fair game, but isn’t the voting public the loser here?