Unintended Consequences

Written By: - Date published: 10:09 am, April 1st, 2015 - 148 comments
Categories: labour, nz first, Politics, Shane Jones, winston peters - Tags: ,

There’s strange rumour going around about who will fill the NZ First list seat vacancy created by Winston Peter’s stunning win in Northland. Ok, it kinda started from Matthew Hooton, but it’s grown legs in the last couple of days.

Next on the list is Ria Bond, a hairdresser from Invercargill. National made much of the fact that electing Winston would actually mean getting an extra MP from Southland, not Northland, but that may not turn out to be the case. While, technically, Bond is next in line, there is no guarantee that Winston won’t move in another direction. The Greens did something similar after the resignation of Nandor Tanczos, ignoring the list to parachute Russel Norman into parliament.

What I’m hearing is that NZ First are seriously considering bringing in a former MP, with strong links in the north and who might have a reasonable shot at winning Te Tai Tokerau now that mana have effectively collapsed. The person concerned is said to even be an odds on bet to take over the leadership when Winston retires in around 3 years.

So who is the ex MP?

Shane Jones.

Yep, the rumour is that Jones will either return to parliament immediately for NZ First or wait until the next general election to stand in TTT, with the backup of being number two on NZF’s list. I’m told the reason he may choose to wait is that his current gig is so lucrative he doesn’t want to drop down to the poverty level income of a mere backbench MP for the next couple of years. But if he wants back in immediately, according to the rumour, the list seat is his. Peters is poised to make the announcement in the next couple of days.

Now this presents an interesting dilemma for Labour. When Jones stood for the NZLP leadership he got significant support from the affiliated unions members. He struck a chord with blue collar workers in particular, including those within Andrew Little’s old union, the EPMU. While there are no guarantees in political life, it does seem likely that Winston will go into a coalition Government with Labour at the 2017 election. But would Shane Jones agree to do the same if he is NZF’s leader going into the election in 2020? Would he even try and talk Winston out of it in 2017 and push for a deal with his new blue mates in National?

And what would it mean for the Greens if Jones pushes for a return to the position Peters used to hold, which was that NZ First would not share the cabinet table with them?

Ok, folks, it’s only gossip and today is April Fools Day, but stranger things have happened. And I haven’t even mentioned the bit in the rumour about what this means for Stuart Nash 😉

Update: Thanks to wtl for looking up the legislation around replacement list MP’s. Shane Jones cannot be parachuted in to replace Winston as he was not on the NZ First list at the 2014 election. Which raises another question. Why can’t a party choose whoever they want to fill such a vacancy? It’s a party vote, not a vote for the individuals on the list.

 

148 comments on “Unintended Consequences ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Stephanie Rodgers 1
    1 April 2015 at 10:12 am

    April Fool’s or not, the problem with this scenario is Shane Jones isn’t on the NZF list. The only way the Greens “parachuted” Norman into Parliament was by convincing Mike Ward and Catherine Delahunty, who were ahead of him on the list, to stand aside.

    Running for Te Tai Tokerau, now that would be another matter.

    • Hayden 1.1
      1 April 2015 at 10:16 am

      Yeah, he’d have to be on the list as declared at the last election.

      Although, what would happen if everyone on the list declined? Or, in another scenario, if a party had already been through their list?

      • Stephanie Rodgers 1.1.1
        1 April 2015 at 10:53 am

        I suspect – much like the situation of a list MP winning a seat in a by-election – that our law doesn’t specify. But it’s a fascinating question!

      • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 1.1.2
        1 April 2015 at 11:26 am

        if everyone on the list declined?

        ok, let’s see who those ‘everyone’ are:

        12 Ria Bond
        13 Mataroa Paroro
        14 Romuald Rudzki
        15 Jon Reeves
        16 Asenati Lole- Taylor
        17 Brent Catchpole
        18 George Abraham
        19 Ray Dolman
        20 Hugh Barr
        21 Anne Degia Pala
        22 Steve Campbell
        23 Edwin Perry
        24 Bill Gudgeon
        25 Brent Pierson
        26-31 It was supposed to be a list of 31 but press releases and news stop at 25.

      • Lanthanide 1.1.3
        1 April 2015 at 11:32 am

        I recall reading an opinion about what would happen if a party won enough party vote to get more MPs off it’s list than were on the list.

        It was specifically raised in relation to the Bill and Ben party that contested the 2008 election, which had only two list candidates.

        If B&B had somehow gotten 5% of the party vote, they would still only be entitled to the two people on their party list becoming MPs – once a party list has been submitted and vetted, at nomination day it is frozen until the next GE.

        So if everyone on the NZFirst list declined, NZFirst would simply fail to bring another MP into parliament and the size of Parliament would reduce to 120.

        It would also mean however, that should another NZFirst list candidate resign (for whatever reason) and fail to win an electorate, that NZFirst would then not be able to bring in a replacement from their list, so they’d lose the list MP and the size of Parliament would drop to 119.

        • Hayden 1.1.3.1
          1 April 2015 at 11:50 am

          National may find it’s cutting it a bit fine with a list of only 65, if it’s going to shed MPs at this rate (probably not) and depending on how many of its MPs stood for electorate only. Meanwhile, ACT had a list of 41, which in hindsight was probably a bit optimistic (and they’ve no list seats, so irrelevant).

        • Hayden 1.1.3.2
          1 April 2015 at 11:58 am

          It was specifically raised in relation to the Bill and Ben party that contested the 2008 election, which had only two list candidates.

          So if the whole country had gone mad and voted Bill and Ben for party vote, parliament would have been 72 MPs, until 2009, anyway.

      • wtl 1.1.4
        1 April 2015 at 11:35 am

        Although, what would happen if everyone on the list declined? Or, in another scenario, if a party had already been through their list?

        It’s easy enough to find out. Electoral Act 1993 Section 137:

        If—
        (a)no candidate signifies his or her willingness to be a member of Parliament; or
        (b)there is no candidate lower in the order of preference on the party list than the member of Parliament whose seat has been declared vacant,—
        the vacancy shall not be filled until the next general election

        Frankly, I’m of the same mind as Lanthanide below (3) and think that some fact-checking about the legal situation prior to posting about ‘rumours’ would not go amiss. It took me less than 5 minutes to find the relevant information in the Electoral Act.

        [I’ve updated the post to reflect your research, wtl. Cheers, TRP]

        • Lanthanide 1.1.4.1
          1 April 2015 at 12:54 pm

          trp evidently stands behind the article as-written, and couldn’t even be bothered doing the research you just did. Thanks for that.

          • te reo putake 1.1.4.1.1
            1 April 2015 at 1:02 pm

            You couldn’t be bothered either, Lanth. It’s a rumour. I said so several times and reminded readers in the last sentence of the post that it’s both gossip and April Fools Day. And, of the two of us, you’re the only one who seems to be taking it seriously.

            • Lanthanide 1.1.4.1.1.1
              1 April 2015 at 1:04 pm

              “You couldn’t be bothered either, Lanth.”

              Not my responsibility to fact-check your articles, sorry.

              “And, of the two of us, you’re the only one who seems to be taking it seriously.”

              You took it seriously enough to write an article about it.

              [It’s a rumour, not a fact. Enough telling me what to write. TRP]

        • Tracey 1.1.4.2
          1 April 2015 at 2:08 pm

          you think Hooton didnt know that when he started it? He’s doing his bit to preserve the right from any long term fall out but painting everyone up north as being right leaning and so further knee capping Labour. Nanely the only way to turn against Nats is to shimmie slightly left of them which is still right of most of the Labour Party.

          Also Hooton… well he is in the political strategy game… he is probably touting for business as we type.

      • Steve Withers 1.1.5
        1 April 2015 at 12:45 pm

        If everyone on the list declines…they don’t get another MP.

        End. of. story.

        If people didn’t vote for someone via the list at the last election, they can’t be “elected” via a resignation. They have no standing…and can’t be MPs.

        This serves to highlight that people on the list ARE actually voted for…and can be “elected” via a resignation.

    • Tracey 1.2
      1 April 2015 at 2:04 pm

      I was thinking the same thing. The other difference is the membership decided on parachuting Norman in, I think. Peter’s makes the decisions in NZF.

      • alwyn 1.2.1
        1 April 2015 at 6:30 pm

        No the party membership did not decide on parachuting Norman in. They may have elected him leader but after Nandor resigned it was the Electoral Commission who go about filling the vacancy.
        They work down the list of those who didn’t get in checking that they are alive (truly) and ask the party secretary whether they are still a member. They then ask the person.
        Thus two people would have been asked before Norman was. If either of them had said yes they would have got the seat.
        Mind you I bet the Green Party insisted on some pretty iron-clad guarantees before Nandor quit that the other two would say no.

    • Kenya 1.3
      1 April 2015 at 2:57 pm

      Stephanie, any idea what the EPMU vote was for the leadership campaign in 2013? TRP’s comments don’t look accurate to me.

      • te reo putake 1.3.1
        1 April 2015 at 3:25 pm

        Six affiliated unions voted. Jones was the second pick of three of them. The EPMU held a series of delegate forums and, in a FPP vote, the majority of the forums chose Cunliffe. I don’t know what the tallies of each meeting were for each individual candidate, just the actual winners, but I do know Jones had significant support and topped the poll in two of the forums.

  2. cricklewood 2
    1 April 2015 at 10:18 am

    I guess regardless of who they do or don’t bring in a strong NZ First would act as a hand break to any meaningful progressive reform that the likes of a Lab Green coalition could bring…

  3. Lanthanide 3
    1 April 2015 at 10:20 am

    Pretty stupid article because this is not legally possible, as per Stephanie.

    • te reo putake 3.1
      1 April 2015 at 10:40 am

      I think you mean pretty stoopid rumour, Lanth. Even if it’s not possible for Jones to come in on the list, the substance of the rumour is that he’s going to be a NZ First MP and it’s leader in the next term of Parliament. That has real significance for the chances of forming a progressive Government, if it’s true.

      • Lanthanide 3.1.1
        1 April 2015 at 11:16 am

        Your article does not say that this is illegal, when it clearly is, therefore your article is stupid.

        There are *a lot* of people that read The Standard that aren’t sure on the details, specifics or laws around what does and doesn’t happen in Parliament. Even before the 2014 election there were a good number of regular commentators here that didn’t understand that Kelvin Davis winning TTT didn’t actually give Labour an extra MP.

        So this sort of article, that repeats a “rumour” that is clearly preposterous and does not make it clear that it is preposterous, is stupid.

        If this had been written in the MSM, I’m sure there are many on this site (and twitter, and other sites) that would be lambasting the MSM for such a stupid article. I don’t differentiate my response by messenger.

        • te reo putake 3.1.1.1
          1 April 2015 at 11:21 am

          It isn’t illegal, lanth. It may not be permitted, which is a different thing altogether.

          The post clearly refers to both aspects of the rumour; first that Jones will be an MP now, and second that he will be an MP eventually. If you don’t like the first bit, feel free to comment on the second, which does seem to be far more likely.

          • Lanthanide 3.1.1.1.1
            1 April 2015 at 11:23 am

            Thanks, I’ll comment on any part of your article that I choose.

            “It isn’t illegal, lanth. It may not be permitted, which is a different thing altogether.”

            Enlighten me.

            • te reo putake 3.1.1.1.1.1
              1 April 2015 at 11:28 am

              Illegal means breaking the law, not permitted means unable to be done. If you’re that exercised about it, feel free to look up the legislation. I’m happy to add an addendum to the post clarifying the position.

              • Lanthanide …
                1 April 2015 at 11:34 am

                If Shane Jones were made a list MP, he would be breaking the law, by doing something that the law doesn’t permit as possible. Hence, illegal. Actually it may not be him breaking the law per se, but whoever it was that said he was allowed to be an MP and recommending that he take the vacant list seat.

                And no, I’m not going to do your research for you. If you’re happy to have a stupid article posted here under your author tag when its blatant shortcomings are pointed out to you, that’s your choice.

                • te reo putake …
                  1 April 2015 at 11:41 am

                  Yeah, nah. It’s not illegal if it simply can’t be done. If electoral law says it can’t happen, it won’t happen, therefore nothing illegal occurs. You may be right about that part of the rumour and there’s no need to have a tanty over it. The idea that Shane Jones may lead NZ First in the future is the interesting part, not the technicalities of how or when he actually becomes a NZF MP.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    1 April 2015 at 12:37 pm

                    “If electoral law says it can’t happen, it won’t happen, therefore nothing illegal occurs. ”

                    It won’t happen, precisely because everyone involved is *following the law*, because to do otherwise would be *breaking the law*, AKA *illegal*.

                    I’m not “having a tanty”, I’m telling you that this part of your article is stupid.

                    Sorry if that comes across as emotional to you, but there’s no emotion involved (on my end) whatsoever.

                    “The idea that Shane Jones may lead NZ First in the future is the interesting part, not the technicalities of how or when he actually becomes a NZF MP.”

                    Yes, and that is what your article should focus on, not the irrelevant sideshow that takes up the majority of it, and stands only to confuse those who don’t know the actual rules around Parliament.

                    Your post could instead simply say:
                    “There’s another part of the rumour that Winston wants to install Shane Jones as a list MP right now, but of course that isn’t allowed by electoral law so won’t happen”. Instead it draws it out for 5 1/2 paragraphs and muddles it up with the substantive, relevant and interesting topic that Shane Jones may become a high-ranked member of NZFirst at the 2017 election.

                    Everyone likes to bemoan the poor quality of MSM political reporting, where trivialities are manufactured into smears and prime-time news, even if there’s no basis in fact behind them. I don’t see this post as doing anything different.

                    • te reo putake …
                      1 April 2015 at 12:43 pm

                      Actually, this is the first time you’ve slimmed it down to ‘this part’ of the article. And that’s still wrong. I’m reporting a rumour. I’m not saying it’s correct in part or at all (though the second part seems a distinct possibility).

                      So, the rumour, or part of it, may be ‘stupid’, but the article itself isn’t. As Galeandra wrote below, lighten up.

                    • felix …
                      1 April 2015 at 12:58 pm

                      “reporting a rumour” is a pretty pompous way of saying you’re spreading a rumour, especially since you know the rumour itself is stupid.

                      Waste of pixels at best. Malicious shit-stirring at worst.

                      [Grow up, felix. It’s a rumour, though the second part (Jones in NZF) does seem to be a real possibility and far from stupid. TRP]

                    • Lanthanide …
                      1 April 2015 at 1:06 pm

                      I guess trp is just channelling Slater and his rumour-mill.

                    • felix …
                      1 April 2015 at 1:20 pm

                      I know it’s rumour trp, that’s why I said so.

                      And you’re spreading it.

        • Galeandra 3.1.1.2
          1 April 2015 at 11:59 am

          Lighten up.

      • weka 3.1.2
        1 April 2015 at 11:25 am

        Even if it’s not possible for Jones to come in on the list, the substance of the rumour is that he’s going to be a NZ First MP and it’s leader in the next term of Parliament. That has real significance for the chances of forming a progressive Government, if it’s true.

        Yeah, but the timing of pointing this out is off. It’s speculation, and what good does this do at this time? For people who see Peters as a direct block to a left wing govt, it would mean that NZF are beyond redemption post-Peters and there is no point in trying to build relationships there, which means a change in strategy. But why go through all that if it’s just a rumour that’s not true or real?

        Are you taking it seriously?

  4. Skinny 4
    1 April 2015 at 10:43 am

    No need for speculation it’s Rita Bond, no question of that.

    Bit of a dilemma surrounding the Greens, they rolled Norman in order to elect someone who could work with Peters. Guess Jones in NZF would make things problematic.

    My read on their thinking of a new male co-leader, is one that gives the option of swinging both ways so to speak. Took a shine to the little Aussie battler bit disappointed they rolled him. Seeing the wannabe’s on the Nation the other week, had me at a loss as too did they really have a replacement from that line up?

    • te reo putake 4.1
      1 April 2015 at 10:50 am

      You may be correct that it’s Ria Bond, skinny (note spelling). Her wikipedia page is already wildly optimistic!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand/politics/New_MPs/Ria_Bond

      • Skinny 4.1.1
        1 April 2015 at 11:04 am

        *Ria
        It is her I have been told OK cobbah, and I’m just relaying the message, no drama will unfold.
        Yeah well it won’t be Jones as LA has pointed out, probably slot in at 2ic next election, if Key hasn’t killed him off.

        • Lanthanide 4.1.1.1
          1 April 2015 at 11:21 am

          Last time you had important inside information about NZFirst, you said that Winston had decided not to stand in Northland.

          • Skinny 4.1.1.1.1
            1 April 2015 at 12:02 pm

            Well at the time I was told that was the word, subsequently the calls kept coming for him to stand, myself included. Many felt he would have stood the previous election, however he refused to stand against his sister Lynnette who stood for Labour. His arch enemy was Sabin, so that made sense.

            Actually thought he would have a crack at the Whangarei Seat last election, especially with Phil Heatley’s retirement/dumping. He did setup offices here 5 years ago.

            Oh for goodness sake Weka you silly bird, stop ya squawking. The same Green friend said they rejected HQ’s request in standing a candidate in Northland. Why should I dispute their co leader opinion. No need to get your feathers all ruffled.

            • weka 4.1.1.1.1.1
              1 April 2015 at 12:19 pm

              Right, so the GP didn’t roll Norman because they wanted someone who could work with Peters. You and someone in the party gossiped, and you decided to bring that online as a fact when it’s actually just a load of shit the two of you made up.

              “The same Green friend said they rejected HQ’s request in standing a candidate in Northland. Why should I dispute their co leader opinion.”

              No idea what that means.

              You obviously have connections. I’m suggesting you use them ethically and competently rather than playing stupid games.

              • Skinny …
                1 April 2015 at 12:38 pm

                Well what they are saying is Norman obviously couldn’t. Peters was given as an example, you can take it that probably includes National too.
                I guess you could compare Mana & Labour, the latter not being prepared to work with Hone.

                • weka …
                  1 April 2015 at 12:50 pm

                  Norman couldn’t what?

                  • Skinny …
                    1 April 2015 at 12:53 pm

                    Bring the party’s together I guess.

                    • weka …
                      1 April 2015 at 1:32 pm

                      Oh good, so we’re guessing now 🙄

                      Next time I’ll just call you a liar and be done with it. Like I said, you have some degree of power because of your connections, but times like this you seriously misuse them. Expect to be called on it. Or just make your slurs more honest instead of making out you have good inside information to share.

    • Sacha 4.2
      1 April 2015 at 10:59 am

      Rolled him? Nice april fools joke.

    • weka 4.3
      1 April 2015 at 11:21 am

      “No need for speculation it’s Rita Bond, no question of that.”

      In the same way you were absolutely sure that Peters wouldn’t stand for Northland?

      “Bit of a dilemma surrounding the Greens, they rolled Norman in order to elect someone who could work with Peters”

      Please stop making things up. Link or back it up in some way or I start to call you a liar who has an anti-Green agenda.

      • outofbed 4.3.1
        1 April 2015 at 1:32 pm

        what would be the mechanism within the Green Party to Roll a co leader
        apart from the yearly vote by members?
        I would love to know just in case Vernon gets in 🙂

        • weka 4.3.1.1
          1 April 2015 at 1:37 pm

          lolz.

          Maybe Skinny imagines some dark Dirty Politics underbelly to the GP where Norman was forced to resign 😉

          • outofbed 4.3.1.1.1
            1 April 2015 at 1:43 pm

            Yeah I talked to Russel the other day he seemed remarkably happy, probably all that extra time with his young family.

            • weka 4.3.1.1.1.1
              1 April 2015 at 2:31 pm

              “Yeah I talked to Russel the other day he seemed remarkably happy, probably all that extra time with his young family.”

              Very glad to hear it, thanks. He deserves some happiness.

          • te reo putake 4.3.1.1.2
            1 April 2015 at 1:43 pm

            Well, as the Pistols said, never trust a hippy. If there was a knife used, I hope it was ethically sourced; nothing with an ivory handle for starters.

            • outofbed 4.3.1.1.2.1
              1 April 2015 at 1:53 pm

              I think that you can actually trust them, they have morals.
              That’s the problem!
              Unsettles the other teams me thinks.
              eg 1 Can’t imagine the Greens criticizing the the Sky city deal whilst accepting complementary tickets from Sky like another Party I can name

              eg 2 Returning Cabinet ministers found briefcase left on plane without opening

              Nice people

              • te reo putake …
                1 April 2015 at 2:04 pm

                Yep, I think the Greens have the most personally principled caucus by some margin. Mind you, the nice guys came second on Sunday and politics is tougher than cricket in a lot of ways. Wittier sledging for starters.

                • Tracey …
                  1 April 2015 at 2:17 pm

                  the second best team came second. The black caps could have been wankers but would still have lost to a far better australian side on the day. I liken it to wales and AB’s in rwc 2011.

                • weka …
                  1 April 2015 at 2:33 pm

                  “Mind you, the nice guys came second on Sunday and politics is tougher than cricket in a lot of ways”

                  Cricket is harder though, because winning relies on talent, practice and some luck without the aid of all the PR, MSM tricks, and structural lying (mostly). Plus it’s not depending on the whims of voters.

          • Skinny 4.3.1.1.3
            1 April 2015 at 3:27 pm

            No ‘my opinion is a mix of both’ Norman has had a fair suck of the sav. And he is too left in order to broker the blue/green deal. The potential of a red/green/silver deal was, now, so last year, Labour were the weak link on that deal not the Greens, however they expected more a lot more, and after specials got the same. Someone had to pay and it was Fanta Pants.

            • weka 4.3.1.1.3.1
              1 April 2015 at 3:32 pm

              So how was this coup achieved exactly?

              On second thoughts, don’t bother, it’s just bullshit smearing and lying. You’ve had your chance to produce some backup and you haven’t.

            • KJT 4.3.1.1.3.2
              1 April 2015 at 10:18 pm

              Sorry to tell you there was no coup.

              We were sorry to see Russell stand down, but were entirely sympathetic to his reasons.

    • Tracey 4.4
      1 April 2015 at 2:13 pm

      they have a female and male co-leader skinny. there is nothing calculated or unusual that the male co-leader is being replaced by another male.

      others have addressed your rumour so need for me to.

      • Skinny 4.4.1
        1 April 2015 at 4:09 pm

        If it ain’t broke was fix it. Ambition of others felled the Greens mighty Blue Gum tree. It was a sad day when the news broke, I recall giving him a open man hug during last years campaign. We were diggers in the trenches in that embrace and that night he led the charge over the wall, the troops present still talk of the speech that inspired them to give the Greens utmost respect, all because of Rusty.

        The End

    • KJT 4.5
      1 April 2015 at 10:03 pm

      Russel wasn’t rolled. He needed time with his young family.

  5. Skinny 5
    1 April 2015 at 11:08 am

    Well that’s comes from within the Greens and it wasn’t told today. Never been lied to by that person before, make of it what you want.

    • weka 5.1
      1 April 2015 at 11:21 am

      rumourmonger.

        • weka 5.1.1.1
          2 April 2015 at 10:51 am

          The Greens being willing to work with Peters is not a new thing. I fail to see how you telling lies about them advances that in any useful way for the left. It certainly doesn’t build bridges.

          • Skinny 5.1.1.1.1
            2 April 2015 at 11:52 am

            If you bothered to listen instead of slagging people off you might learn something. The Greens give reviewed the 2014 general election result and have
            made a chance in the rear guard which is a new male co leader is required. The reason I put it out there is so people get a handle that the party wants to bridge
            the divide so the spin merchants can’t easily say the likes of NZF won’t work with them.

            People such ad myself work across the party’s trying to push for a common key
            policy platform so there is no uncertainty for the voters.

            In unity sister 🙂

            • Skinny 5.1.1.1.1.1
              2 April 2015 at 12:02 pm

              *few typo’s sorry kinda multi tasking and edit lasped.

              *have
              *change

            • weka 5.1.1.1.1.2
              2 April 2015 at 12:14 pm

              It’s an interesting theory Skinny. Unfortunately you too often assert things without backing them up, and sometimes get them completely wrong eg the Peters standing in Northland thing. I would have less of a problem if you said something like “I’ve heard Peters isn’t going to stand”. But that’s not what you did, you baldly claimed he wouldn’t.

              So when you come here now and claim that Norman was rolled somehow, and you can’t even say what mechanism that happened by, let alone provide any evidence that it’s true apart from you talked to some GP member you know, it just looks like bullshit. I can’t tell the fact from the fiction and you use your position of power to say stuff that’s misleading. I have no idea what the agenda is this time, maybe it’s ego mixed with you trying to do something good.

              The reason I put it out there is so people get a handle that the party wants to bridge
              the divide so the spin merchants can’t easily say the likes of NZF won’t work with them.

              People such ad myself work across the party’s trying to push for a common key
              policy platform so there is no uncertainty for the voters.

              Fine, but I don’t understand why you need to smear the GP in order to do that. The GP are by default willing to work with whatever party they have things in common with. Support that. But don’t bring in bullshit rumours that have no real bearing on the situation. There’s no need.

              • Skinny …
                2 April 2015 at 12:38 pm

                Cut it out you use the Peters standing thing against me. The info came from one of his candidates, in hindsight Peters probably keep it secret and was getting a jump to catch the the Nats napping, his bus, hoardings sign written up. Meanwhile the Nat’s were thinking they didn’t have to prepare Willow Jean was hardly a threat nor Robin Grief of ACT.

                However the Greens info came from more than a mere member, from someone in a power position, someone who doesn’t lie who I work with.. It was said openly as if it’s not on the quiet, presumably so I can pass the info on, so when I mix with LP & NZF teams they know the skinny.

                Your being way too precious IMO.

                • tracey …
                  2 April 2015 at 12:42 pm

                  If it isn’t on the quiet, name the person skinny.

                  • Skinny …
                    2 April 2015 at 12:54 pm

                    Like that political guy who says “I never reveal my sources.” nor will I and nor should you expect me to Ms Parker.

                    • tracey …
                      2 April 2015 at 1:22 pm

                      Then you can’t keep getting upset when people don’t accept it just cos you said it. Remember you are a pseudonym on a blogsite claiming an anonymous source. It’s your right but don’t be so precious when people don’t get how connected you are and how reliable your sources are.

                      Journalists are known and it is through their being known and their accuracy over the past that trust is put on their right to have anonymous sources.

                      Just cos you are a voice from the left doesn’t make you immune from a demand for proof.

                • weka …
                  2 April 2015 at 1:17 pm

                  You’re missing the point Skinny. It’s about how you use the inside information you have access to.

                  You claim to have an inside source with the GP. Yet, you still can’t say what the mechanism would be for rolling Norman. It doens’t add up. If what you say is true, it shouldn’t be that hard to find something to back up what you claim, unless you are suggesting that it was a secret coup and no-one else in the party knows.

                  I’m not being precious. I’m calling you out on your bullshit. At the moment you are coming across like Paddy Gower. The GP has been undermined by this sort of shit for too long and I’m not willing to let you use your influence in this way without challenge.

                  If you genuinely want to build bridges, this isn’t the way to go about it. Stop telling lies.

                  • Skinny …
                    2 April 2015 at 1:52 pm

                    Question time today q 1 & 2 the very capable Green MP Ms Genter gets an opportunity ahead of the pack. We can’t have Winston stealing all the headlines 🙂
                    *wink plenty more coming her way too.
                    In unity.

                • Sacha …
                  2 April 2015 at 2:30 pm

                  Problem with your unsupported theory is that Russel Norman is the one who shifted the Greens towards the right, wearing suits and talking economics.

                  Getting rid of him is hardly going to make them more appealing to Winston First – unless it’s just some petty personal thing in the way.

                  • Skinny …
                    2 April 2015 at 2:45 pm

                    Incorrect that is not my view at all. Norman had the balance about right and certainly not on the Right side, Left if anything. I would have not rolled him, hardly inspired by the wannabe’s lining up. 2 are okish the others not a fan of.

                    • Sacha …
                      2 April 2015 at 9:41 pm

                      I’ve now been told there actually is a personal beef between them. Can’t say who told me of course. But unless you have some evidence, claiming Norman was ‘rolled’ is just fanciful nonsense.

                    • Skinny …
                      3 April 2015 at 9:05 am

                      I did observe a bit of tension between Peters & Norman first hand myself back stage during the election forum I hosted. I ust shrugged it off as ego’s getting in the way. I actually had to choose which order they spoke at the political forum. In the end Norman spoke first, against my intentions as I wanted Peters up first in case he took exception to anything Norman said. However Peters was a bit of a drama queen and protested on the grounds of seniority. Of course last speaker gets the advantage of time, which he did, I was concerned Peters would have a crack at the
                      Greens, so layed the law down to Winston, stick to your policies and don’t have a crack at him, pointing to Norman. I reiterated you accepted the invitation on these grounds please stick to it, and too his credit he did, instead launching a scathing attack against a no show Bill English/National instead.

                      A couple of days later Peters took exception to Norman mooting the idea of becoming the finance minister position should the L/G coalition win the election. So I guess there is some grounds that the Greens may have bit a little upset with Russ, and there were a few disgruntled people within the party.

                      If that is the case I think it is a bit harsh, every second Peron at that forum thought Norman outshone Winston Peters and David Parker, myself included. Both Norman and Peters gave a sterling political performance, and got rousing applause from the hundreds present.
                      It was film by the local TV station and screens from time to time, really is worth a watch. Not often the MC wears a suit 🙂

                    • Skinny …
                      3 April 2015 at 9:23 am

                      * multi tasking and edit lapsed, sorry about that.

    • Kenat 5.2
      1 April 2015 at 12:20 pm

      That’s daft and can’t be true. It’s not in Winston’s interests to work with the Greens no matter who the leaders are. It’s Green policies he hates, plus the threat a Labour/Greens alliance is to his own power.

      • tracey 5.2.1
        2 April 2015 at 12:21 pm

        To be honest I think it is the idea of being seen as anything close to “Green” that he hates. Some of his policies are much more closely aligned with green policy than, say, National.

  6. Stuart Munro 6
    1 April 2015 at 11:17 am

    But… but… who will be ambassador to the fishes?

  7. Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 7
    1 April 2015 at 11:20 am

    Haahaa Haa.

    How about actually the guy who was previously MP, had the mandate and can win back Te Tai Tokerau?

    Hone Harawira himself.

    [You heard it here first. Only on The Standard.]

  8. Karen 8
    1 April 2015 at 11:39 am

    I am sure Shane Jones is enjoying the status and salary of his present position too much to contemplate returning to parliament this term, and my understanding of electoral law is that it isn’t possible anyway. I could imagine him joining NZF before the next election to stand for Northland though.

    The other person I could see jumping ship and joining NZF is Stuart Nash.

  9. Wynston 9
    1 April 2015 at 1:25 pm

    “Next on the list is Ria Bond, a hairdresser from Invercargill. National made much of the fact that electing Winston would actually mean getting an extra MP from Southland, not Northland”.
    Interestingly Ria Bond spent the first 14 years of her life in Northland, is related to Pita Paraone and Tau Henare, and currently lives in Wellington where she works for parliamentary services as an executive assistant for two NZ First MPs. The latter makes one think she might be being groomed for a role as a future MP.

    • Tracey 9.1
      1 April 2015 at 2:19 pm

      Funny how the media find it so hard to get facts like these. Thanks for your effort to post them.

    • weka 9.2
      1 April 2015 at 3:13 pm

      Thanks for that detail (don’t think she needs to be relegated to “the candidate from Invercargill” anymore).

      • KJT 9.2.1
        1 April 2015 at 8:44 pm

        I rather liked the idea of a “hairdresser from Invercargill” myself. A small business person with practical skills.

        • weka 9.2.1.1
          1 April 2015 at 8:55 pm

          I agree, it’s just that it’s not true.

          • KJT 9.2.1.1.1
            1 April 2015 at 8:57 pm

            Yeah. I don’t know where they get “Russell rolled” when, in reality, he resigned to spend more time with a young family. A really good reason in my book. 🙂

  10. northshoreguynz 10
    1 April 2015 at 1:34 pm

    Would Ron Mark’s nose be out of joint if Jones was parachuted in in 2017? What about Tracy Martin? Mummy might not like it either.

  11. vto 11
    1 April 2015 at 3:16 pm

    The only good thing about the Northland by-election was that the Nats got squashed and shat on.

    Having Peters in such a strong position is not good. It will backfire. He is not trustworthy. He is a wild card.

    Shane Jones is therefore a good match for NZ First and Peters….

    • weka 11.1
      1 April 2015 at 3:25 pm

      I wish TPR had written this post straight, because the Jones things is a concern 🙁

    • felix 11.2
      1 April 2015 at 3:29 pm

      The way I see it NZF has two possible paths ahead, post-Peters.

      One of those paths involves promoting considered practical policy to benefit ordinary NZers.

      The other involves Shane Jones.

      • weka 11.2.1
        1 April 2015 at 3:35 pm

        + a zillion.

        It’s NZF’s intent to do right by NZ, or it’s individuals who want to keep on with the powermongering and games. I don’t know much about NZF, but if you have a leader like Peters for so long it would be hard to maintain ethics in the face of a macho political culture like Peters lives.

        • felix 11.2.1.1
          1 April 2015 at 3:46 pm

          Yep I’d guess that even compared to the weird environment of politics in general, NZF would be a very weird universe to exist in.

          And yet, Dep. Leader Tracey Martin…

          • weka 11.2.1.1.1
            1 April 2015 at 3:59 pm

            Tracey Martin might be the only good thing I know about NZF (apart from some of their policies).

            • felix 11.2.1.1.1.1
              1 April 2015 at 5:02 pm

              I posted this video the other day. It’s from last year’s debate on the West-Coast windblown timber issue: http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/33769

              Not excusing anything else he’s ever said, but he nailed all aspects of this issue very succinctly. Environmental, process, employment, and regional development issues among others. Well worth a look.

              And he’s the worst one!!

              • weka …
                1 April 2015 at 6:07 pm

                Thanks, I had seen that but had forgotten about it. It was good. It’s those things that make me more relaxed about a left wing govt supported by NZF and instead see Peters as the major obstacle. Or Jones 🙁

        • KJT 11.2.1.2
          1 April 2015 at 9:06 pm

          I like Peters. At least you know he is a bloody rogue!

          Anyway. Look what National have done for the BOP, because of Peters.

      • Tracey 11.2.2
        1 April 2015 at 3:35 pm

        My sense is Ron Mark wouldn’t have come back if he didnt have leadership aspirations.

    • KJT 11.3
      1 April 2015 at 8:40 pm

      Peter’s achievements so far.

      10 bridges.
      National realising they cannot continue to ignore Northland.
      National’s announcement they are looking at raising welfare payments.

      And that is before he even sets foot in Parliament, after the “buy” election.

      Go Winnie!

  12. felix 12
    1 April 2015 at 3:18 pm

    “Why can’t a party choose whoever they want to fill such a vacancy? It’s a party vote, not a vote for the individuals on the list.”

    A party vote is a vote for the people on the party list. That’s exactly why they can’t just add people after the election.

    What the feck did you think you were voting for?

    • weka 12.1
      1 April 2015 at 3:23 pm

      Someone made this argument here the other day (that the list is valueless), but for the GP at least, the list is selected democractically and is a big part of the importance of the party vote. If NZF (or any party) wants to choose whoever, why bother have a list pre-election? Vote for the party you trust (ha ha) and then let them decide who they’re going to have running things. Doesn’t really work though, eh?

    • te reo putake 12.2
      1 April 2015 at 3:30 pm

      Fair point, felix. But its a party vote and I’m pretty sure nobody actually reads the lists before making up their mind (political obsessives and green party members possibly excepted). People just party vote the party they prefer, no matter who’s on the list.

      So why shouldn’t Winston have the ability to pick someone for the future, instead of being restricted to those he preferred in the past?

      • Tracey 12.2.1
        1 April 2015 at 3:34 pm

        hmmmm

        you are pretty sure no one reads the lists before making up their mind…

        i think media and parties collude (indirectly/ on this point.

      • weka 12.2.2
        1 April 2015 at 3:36 pm

        lots of GP voters are involved in the list selection, so it matters.

        “So why shouldn’t Winston have the ability to pick someone for the future, instead of being restricted to those he preferred in the past?”

        Because it’s MMP and we’re trying for better democracy not worse (although I can totally see why Peters is the great example for doing whatever the hell he likes).

      • felix 12.2.3
        1 April 2015 at 3:40 pm

        Because we actually vote for our representatives in parliament, not for coloured flags.

        If you’re right that most people don’t fully grasp this, then that’s an argument for more and better education, not for less democracy.

      • te reo putake 12.2.4
        1 April 2015 at 3:53 pm

        I don’t think this helps democracy. It just seems to be a construct designed without much thought. The question of how to fill the vacancies has to be in the legislation, I guess, but why restrict the options a party has to decide who the newbie should be? Why not ‘last years list’ or ‘whoever the party executive want’ as options?

        I’ll be helping select the first eleven for the new season tonight. It won’t be on the basis of who was good last year, it’ll be ‘who’s good now?’.

        Edit: And in parties like the Greens and Labour, wouldn’t a membership vote be the way to go?

        • felix 12.2.4.1
          1 April 2015 at 4:52 pm

          “Who’s good now” might be fine for your kick-the-ball team, but unless your starting line-up is standing in a constitutional democratic general election it’s not in any way relevant.

        • Lanthanide 12.2.4.2
          1 April 2015 at 5:25 pm

          “The question of how to fill the vacancies has to be in the legislation, I guess, but why restrict the options a party has to decide who the newbie should be? ”

          For fairly obvious reasons, I’d have thought?

          You thought Roger Douglas’ takeover of Labour was bad? He at least stood as an MP in the general election.

          The alternative you’re allowing here is for a party to win seats in parliament, only for everyone to be replaced with an entirely different set of people which could have radically different policies and goals.

          Of course there’s nothing stopping a party from being elected now, and then breaking all of their promises once they’re in government (National have at least kept a few – even if the ones they kept are bad for the country as a whole).

      • Lanthanide 12.2.5
        1 April 2015 at 5:19 pm

        “But its a party vote and I’m pretty sure nobody actually reads the lists before making up their mind (political obsessives and green party members possibly excepted). People just party vote the party they prefer, no matter who’s on the list.”

        I already shot down this facile argument the other day, I’ll re-post in full:

        This is obviously not true.

        The only people who get to vote for John Key are those who are in the Helensville electorate. Everyone else has to vote for National if they want John Key to be Prime Minister.

        Or are you suggesting that the National Party would have achieved exactly the same electoral outcome in 2014 if Steven Joyce was the leader? Or if Winston Peters was the leader?

        I doubt that is what you are suggesting; therefore, people most assuredly *do* vote for a party based on who is on the party list.

        • te reo putake 12.2.5.1
          1 April 2015 at 9:23 pm

          I kinda think your example proves my point, Lanthanide. Voters know who’s number one on the list for sure, but No2? No3? 10, 11, 12? Nah. It’s mostly irrelevant in the decision making process of a pseudo presidential election.

          • Lanthanide 12.2.5.1.1
            1 April 2015 at 9:52 pm

            You said “no matter who’s on the list.””, that’s not true. Sorry if the facts bother you.

            • te reo putake 12.2.5.1.1.1
              1 April 2015 at 10:09 pm

              Doesn’t bother me in the least. Pedantry aside, do you accept that most voters don’t care who’s on the list?

              • weka …
                1 April 2015 at 10:20 pm

                Not in the way you imply. I think lots of people would care if the list were to become meaningless in the way you are suggesting.

          • weka 12.2.5.1.2
            1 April 2015 at 9:58 pm

            You haven’t addressed the point I’ve made about the GP though. People can trust the party to set the list and then honour it. If the list is malleable, how can people trust the party?

            • te reo putake 12.2.5.1.2.1
              1 April 2015 at 10:12 pm

              The Green Party didn’t honour the list when they wanted Russel Norman in Parliament.

              • weka …
                1 April 2015 at 10:19 pm

                yeah, they did. Two others on the list were asked to stand aside, which they did. The GP exec didn’t just bring in any old person they wanted, which is what you are suggesting.

                Anyone on the list might decline to become an MP for a myriad of reasons. Then it goes to the next person on the list.

                • te reo putake …
                  1 April 2015 at 10:39 pm

                  But the GP exec did bring in the person they wanted. They ignored the list. Did the members get a say? Nope. The voters? Nope.

                  The point I’m making is that there’s no reason it can’t be left to trustworthy people like the GP exec to choose the person they need now. Or ask the membership to decide. In fact why not have a nationwide election? All voters get to pick the GP candidate they’d prefer. I don’t think it’s a fundamental part of democracy, generally, or MMP specifically, that requires a replacement list MP to be on the old list. It’s just one way of deciding the matter. There are others.

                  • weka …
                    1 April 2015 at 11:16 pm

                    The members chose the list, it wasn’t ignored.

                    “The point I’m making is that there’s no reason it can’t be left to trustworthy people like the GP exec to choose the person they need now.”

                    Afaik, the GP doesn’t allow for the exec to make such decisions except in exceptional circumstances. That’s the whole point. You’re basically arguing against the kaupapa of the party.

                    As a member, I sure as hell don’t want the general public picking the GP list. FFS, if that happened we never have progressive change.

                    “It’s just one way of deciding the matter. There are others.”

                    So? There’s nothing wrong with the current one.

                    This is a daft conversation.

                    • KJT …
                      2 April 2015 at 8:23 am

                      TRP has no idea how the Green party works, Obviously!

                    • te reo putake …
                      2 April 2015 at 9:51 am

                      The list was ignored. The members chose Mike Ward. Mike Ward wanted the job. The exec ignored the members, and Ward, and choppered in Russel Norman.

                      More importantly, why do we have to use this method of all the ones available. What’s so special about last years list? There are many ways of filling vacancies, why not trust the parties to choose who they want, as the Greens do?

                    • KJT …
                      2 April 2015 at 10:16 am

                      I rest my case.

                    • tracey …
                      2 April 2015 at 10:23 am

                      TRP

                      Do you know as a fact that the membership wasn’t consulted and didnt agree to Norman moving up the pecking order?

                    • te reo putake …
                      2 April 2015 at 10:47 am

                      KJT; Case dismissed for lack of evidence. You’re wasting the courts time. 😉

                      Tracey: Strange question. My original reply was to weka who claimed that the GP would honour the list. I gave an example where, actually, in real life, they didn’t.

                      The party members were consulted. They voted for a list and a guy they wanted to be an MP was overlooked when the opportunity arose. The Greens exec ignored the list the members had voted for, and skipped the next candidate (who actually wanted the job) and the one after that as well.

                      The real question is why do we have to have this weird restriction? I trust the GP exec to make the right decision, with or without consultation with the members. They clearly got it right when they picked Norman and that proves they made the correct decision to not honour the list and the members’ expressed wishes.

                    • weka …
                      2 April 2015 at 11:03 am

                      +1 KJT.

                      TRP, stop with the spin. Helicoptered in? Please. Norman was on the list.

                      More importantly, why do we have to use this method of all the ones available. What’s so special about last years list? There are many ways of filling vacancies, why not trust the parties to choose who they want, as the Greens do?

                      Fuck off. The GP didn’t do whatever they wanted to do. It’s not last year’s list, it’s the list for the next three years at the time it’s voted on. How about you put up a post with some clear proposals on alternatives and see how people respond.

                    • te reo putake []
                      2 April 2015 at 11:05 am

                      Weka, you’re the one who claimed the Greens would honour the list. They didn’t.

                    • weka …
                      2 April 2015 at 11:35 am

                      “Do you know as a fact that the membership wasn’t consulted and didnt agree to Norman moving up the pecking order?”

                      I don’t know tracey, but I do think that TRP is misrepresenting both how the list processes work within the GP and what happened in the instance with Norman.

                      Norman was already co-leader for a few years. Tanczos left and the next two people on the list were asked to stand aside so that the co-leader could be an MP. According to wikipedia Mike Ward initially refused (so it’s not a matter of the exec just doing what they want), and then agreed. Catherine Delahunty also agreed.

                      Also according to wiki, in the same year that that happened there was a general election. In the list selection process that happened pre-election, Norman was placed 2nd on the list. I don’t know what the timeframes were, but if Norman was made a list MP on June 27 2008 and the election was in November, the time period between him being made MP and a new list being drawn up must have been pretty small.

                      I’m just pulling that all off the internet quickly, and haven’t double checked the dates.

                      From what I remember of the list selection process, the exec has the right to slightly adjust the list the members voted on, at the time.

                      TRP is making out the exec can do whatever they want. They can’t. Even if you argue that the exec put pressure on Ward, shifting Norman up two places isn’t completely out of the bounds of what can happen with the list selection process itself. To suggest this is somehow akin to what TRP is suggesting in the NZF context is just wrong.

                      Hopefully GP members how know the system can comment.

                    • weka …
                      2 April 2015 at 11:39 am

                      “Weka, you’re the one who claimed the Greens would honour the list. They didn’t.”

                      In the real context of what I said, they did. You are taking my point out of context and misrepresenting what actually happened.

                      Let me play the daft semantic game then. The GP honour the process of how the list selection and practice works. If you think they didn’t in the case with Norman, prove it. Asserting that Norman was choppered in, isn’t evidence. Thinking that the only relevant thing in terms of honouring is that the members choose the list is inaccurate in more than one way.

                    • te reo putake …
                      2 April 2015 at 11:45 am

                      My position is nearly the same as the Greens. Like the GP, I believe parties should be allowed to select the most appropriate replacement, wherever they are on the list. I go further though and think there is no reason why parties should be able to pick the best candidate, even if they weren’t previously a candidate.

                      There is nothing sacred about the list after election day. It serves a function then, but why should it be binding after the voters have made their decision? Once the election is over, what’s the problem with going elsewhere for replacements, if they are needed?

                      Edit: just seen you latest comment. To repeat, the Greens didn’t honour the list. The next candidate wanted the gig and but was, ahem, convinced to stand aside. As was the next ranked candidate. Norman was the one they wanted and Norman they got. No honour, just pragmatic politics. They did the right thing by ignoring the list.

                    • tracey …
                      2 April 2015 at 11:48 am

                      TRP

                      Only strange if I didn’t write it clearly enough i guess.

                      “The Greens exec ignored the list the members had voted for, and skipped the next candidate (who actually wanted the job) and the one after that as well.”

                      Do you know this for a fact, namely, that no referral of the promotion of Norman went back through the membership?

                    • te reo putake …
                      2 April 2015 at 11:53 am

                      Still a strange question. If you think it’s a fact, say so. To repeat for the nth time, there was a claim that the GP would honour the list. In real life, they didn’t. I agree with them that they shouldn’t be tied to the list.

  13. Sable 13
    2 April 2015 at 9:43 am

    Peters might as well burn his party HQ down and throw cow pats at his supporters. I would think he’s far too astute to make such an obvious blunder.