Cynical disregard for Democracy the Key policy plank.

"And, as I said before, I will govern, I will dictate, I will do as I want..... you will obey."

As predicted John, PinoKeyo, Key has resorted to the last bastion of the desperate in his demonstration of his total disregard for political democracy in New Zealand by announcing the date of the referendum on his Asset Stripping policies to fall at the end of the parliamentary year with the results to be announced after Parliament has risen for the year and well after he has launched or completed much of his fire sale to his foreign asset stripping cronies activity.

PinoKeyo's attitude to democracy in New Zealand.

In conspiring to thwart and frustrate the will of the people Key has revealed his true nature- arrogant, cynical, politically corrupt and ignorant of the nature of democracy.

Mind you, his pronouncements on the nature of MMP and coalition governments have not inspired confidence in his comprehension of constitutional matters either as these comments in the NZ Herald demonstrate.

Nats look to 2014 governing options
Prime Minister John Key is mulling his options to form a Government after 2014 following this morning’s spill in the Maori Party, including claiming the largest party would have the “moral mandate” to govern. …
National’s support parties all have problems, with ACT in decline, UnitedFuture deregistered and the Maori Party struggling after being beaten into third place in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election on Saturday. That has led to speculation National may have to rely on NZ First to govern after the next election.
Key said …”But it’s been a funny thing. Ever since we’ve had MMP in 1996 the public have had a way of finding the Government that they want. “It’s always been formed with the largest political party, so all of those things might not hold true in 2014 but they equally might.
“It’s not impossible we get 50 per cent [of the vote], it’s not impossible we get a couple of partners we work with, it’s not impossible political parties abstain. That is always possible to allow the largest party to run a minority government. Key said the largest party had the “moral mandate” to govern.

Here, Key argues, using the sort of spin we have come to expect from the Crosby-Textor manipulators,  that any coalition that gains the majority in the House and can, therefore, form a Government would not be legitimate if National-ACT  were to be the largest single opposition party in Parliament as the National-ACT bloc would have, not a legal or constitutional right to govern, but a "moral mandate". Which is arrant rubbish and political nonsense based on both arrogance and ignorance.

PS: The usual reliable sources have let slip that PinoKeyo, not helped by the slipping popularity of the National-ACT party in recent polls and internal polling indicating that his personal following has swung from a positive perception to one that is more obviously negative, was very hurt and was sporting a very burised ego at his last caucus when one of the members of the opposing camps (the ABC and ABJs) asked about the description of him as a"galloping colonial clot" by the large circulation conservative newspaper - The Daily Mail - when its journalist reported on his weekend overnighter with the Windsors of Balmoral. Even his attempt (no doubt on advice from Crosby-Textor) to make light of the accuracy of the observation was not received with the usual syncophantic applause he had been expecting.

LIVING ON PLANET KEY part 2

On Planet Key Reality never intrudes.

Tory Delegates at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester are alert to the problems coming from Cameron's policies presently facing the UK taxpayers.

While the Key family were on their taxpayer funded weekend visit to the Windsor family of Balmoral John, PinoKeyo, Key announced to the NZ media traveling with him, so that his photo opportunities could be used to boost his sagging image back in little ol' New Zelund, that the Conservative Government of Cameron & Clegg had done a really great job of restoring the UK economy and rebuilding the nation.

To anyone travelling with Key the Daily Mail's description of Key as a galloping colonial clot should have helped bring reality onto Planet Key but no PinoKeyo  blithley carried on declaring that all was right with the world and, that having met the Windsors, his credibility was at an all time high.

His breathless pronouncement had obviously been inspired from his briefing session with the Lynton Crosby of Crosby-Textor, the PR consultancy beloved of Tory politicians in OZ, NZ and the UK but without any ties to the political reality that is the UK under the Rich Boys Privilege Club of Cameron & Clegg as these news stories demonstrate.
1) 50,000 demonstrate at Tory Party Conference.
2) Britian in 6th year of economic slump.
3) Tories eject Soldiers from Conference when they complain about defence cuts.
4) Tory Party support disappearing - heading to UKip.
5) Tory Party benefit "reforms" condemned by Church of England

How Rowson sees the Tory Party Conference Top Table. A reality John, PinoKeyo, Key does not allow himself to see on Planet Key.

 These are but a few of the UK headlines that show that Key is out of touch with reality.

On Planet Key Reality Never Intrudes

John Key acknowledges the UK's  economic turnaround .

On Planet Key reality never intrudes or shows its "ugly" face as John PinoKeyo Key demonstrated in his pronouncements after spending a weekend bedazzled and bewildered with the Windsors in Balmoral.

In a report published on the Stuff Website Key is reported as saying:

"A week after Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne proclaimed that Britain was turning an economic corner, Prime Minister John Key has had a chance to witness the turnaround.
Mr Key has visited the United Kingdom almost every year since he was first elected prime minister in 2008. On each occasion, Britain and Europe's precipitous economic decline provided the backdrop.
This time, however, he has discovered a more optimistic mood as he has met with British Prime Minister David Cameron, with the foreign secretary, William Hague, and London Mayor Boris Johnson."

What PinoKeyo failed to note is that the discontent with the Tory government in the UK is deep and growing. The latest Telegraph poll noted that given the current disillusionment with the Tory-Lib-Dem policies Labour would have a 66 seat majority in the House. The membership of the Conservative Party has gone into nose dive since Cameron gained power as the traditional supporters desert the Party as the damage to the economy and society becomes more obvious... even to Tory Heartland. A pattern being repeated here in NZ. We can expect the outbreak of the traditional National-ACT dirty tricks attacks that were so evident in 2008 - 2011 campaigns as they attempt to disguise reality from the chief resident of Planet Key.

Housing Bubble denial

In the meantime scandal after scandal (very much like that of the Key owned National-ACT government) has been the trade mark of the Cameron-Clegg Tory Government all of which has undermined their credibility as responsible managers of the economy.. Their privatisation raiding of the State assets have been heavily criticised as fiscally and socially irresponsible,  despite PinoKeyo's contrived analogy to a speed boat and Cruise Liner economic turn around.

The BBC reports that Lord Ashcroft, a Tory MP, has declared that the 2015 election is Labour's to lose such is the depression and malase within the Tory Party as it watches the UK drift further and further into an economic and social mire. Itseems that John PinoKeyo Key had his Planet Key blinkers on and his hearing aid off as well as being blinded by his weekender with the Windsor family in isolation of Balmoral.

The Windsors ponder who and what the social climber is.

However, I presume that on Planet Key no one hears or sees reality because on Planet Key tea and crumpets with a Queen and a corgi in the hand is better than having to recognise the fact that good governance of a Country requires social responsibility and a real understanding of how a country's economy works.
Unfortunately for John PinoKeyo Key the tea & crumpets with the Windsors was not seen through the blue tinted spectacles issued to the residents of Planet Key by the UK Press. Here's The Daily Mail describing the photo-opportunity snaps and Key's behaviour while congratulating himself at Balmoral. The alliterative description is a delight.

The importance of Collective Bargaining- why the Free Market doesn't work. Part 2.

Respect And Promote Wages And Collective Bargaining

28/06/2013 by Ronald Janssen

Ronald Janssen

I regard the growth of collective bargaining as essential. I approve minimum wages and hours regulation. I was altogether on your side the other day, when you deprecated a policy of general wage reductions as useless (…).

These words were written 75 years ago. In today’s Europe, they are now even more valid as they were then. Just like the United States in 1938 was digesting its renewed fall in recession, the Euro Area economies are now expected to slowly emerge from their ‘double dip’. Just like the United States in 1938, the 2012/2013 recession of the Euro Area recession was triggered by an untimely and exaggerated policy of fiscal contraction.

Back in 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the message John Maynard Keynes had written to him in this letter of February 1938 by heart. A few months later, he signed a Fair Labour Standards Act based on the idea that goods that were not produced under “standards of decency” should not be allowed to “pollute the channels of interstate trade”. This Act outlawed child labour, guaranteed a minimum wage, limited the working week at 40 hours and introduced overtime pay. Some years later, at the end of the Second World War, a follow up act was proposed aiming to strengthen the practice of collective bargaining itself but  president Roosevelt passed away before this second act could be approved.

From the Great Depression in the US to the Great Recession in the Europe of today

Where do we in Europe stand on this? For the past half year, the different European Council formations have been discussing how to build a so called ‘genuine’ Economic and Monetary Union, a discussion that was supposed to include the social dimension and social dialogue as well.

One – optimistic – reading of this is to think that European leaders have realised that their double strategy of fiscal austerity and wage deregulation they are pursuing turns out to be disastrous and that it is their genuine intention to change course. If so, there is a not to be missed opportunity to draw up a list of demands on Social Europe.

Another – rather machiavellistic- interpretation is that European leaders have not really changed their mind but have become nervous because of the political backlash against ‘la pensée unique’ in some member states. In this case, European leaders actually remain convinced of the need to continue with internal wage devaluations by getting rid of all wage formation institutions that prevent wages from being cut. However, in an attempt to contain widespread resistance against such policies, an invitation is extended to trade unions to join the discussion table and actually assist in the implementation of these policies.

What are the facts saying? One fact is that the social dimension in the draft conclusions of this week’s European Council is minimal and limited to proposing “appropriate indicators” and “better coordination of employment and social policies”. This does not say very much.

Another fact is that the Council conclusions remain on the track of building even more new instruments of European economic governance, the idea being to force individual member states to undertake those types of reforms that weaken wage formation systems and allow employers to cut wages easily.

Meanwhile, the wage race to the bottom is ongoing. After wages have been squeezed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, it’s now France’s and Italy’s turn to put downwards pressure on wages .One – cynical-  illustration here is that financial markets, becoming aware of the fact that the Euro Area domino’s keep falling, have invented a new acronym. Markets are now referring to France, Italy, Slovenia, Holland as the FISH countries. And it will surely not end there: Sooner or later, with the export prospects of the remaining group of countries (Germany, Austria, Finland) under continuing pressure from the collapse in import demand in the rest of the Euro Area and with their relative unit wage costs increasing because of the wage cuts elsewhere, the view that the latter countries (the ‘GAF’s’?) have lost competitiveness and need to follow the example set by Spain or Greece, will gain traction. If so, GAF’s, FISH and GIP countries will then compete for the questionable title who is able to cut wages most.

A Genuine Social Dimension: Respect and promote collective bargaining on wages

If the social dimension of European Monetary Union is to be genuine, then one of its key priorities should be to ensure that currency devaluations are not being replaced by wage devaluations and that the wage race to the bottom is prevented from taking place.

As Keynes indicated in his quote above, the practice of collective bargaining is key to this. Robust collective bargaining systems with wide coverage and representative trade unions and employer organisations allow to arrive at balanced outcomes. This is in particular the case when collective bargaining is coordinated so that all bargaining parties can take the situation of the macro economy at national as well as the need to avoid counterproductive ‘beggar thy neighbour” policy at the Euro Area level into account. Moreover, one particular concern, often expressed by trade unions in CEE member states, is that a minimum wage floor without strong collective bargaining practice is not sufficient since 60% of a low average wage is still a low wage.

A first and urgent action to take is stop the ongoing attacks on collective bargaining systems, attacks that are systematically coming from the new system of European Economic Governance (‘six-pack’, competitiveness contracts, ex ante coordination, Troika programs).

This can be done by giving the social dimension side of monetary union the power to set clear limits on this system of European economic governance and its instruments to torture wages and collective bargaining systems. The almost unlimited power the masters of finance (EU finance ministers council, DG ECFIN) and money (ECB and IMF) have managed to obtain over national economic and social policy making needs to be constrained from the very beginning and from inside the system itself. One concrete example here is the wage safeguard clause in the regulation on excessive macroeconomic imbalances stating that the application of the regulation shall not infringe on the freedom to bargain and the right to take action and that national systems of wage formation are to be fully respected. Similar wage safeguard clauses should be developed and inserted into all the other regulations, contracts and programs that make up this system of economic governance.

A second line of action is to complement these wage and collective bargaining safeguards with a policy approach that supports and promotes the practice of collective bargaining.  This could take the form of introducing collective bargaining related clauses in public procurement or of explicitly imposing on employers when using posted workers to pay the collectively bargained wage (and not the lower minimum wage). In line of with the existing European Social Dialogue giving social partners the primacy over European social and labour market regulation, one could also propose to establish a platform of coordination at European level where social partners meet to discuss and take action in an autonomous way how to improve collective bargaining practice.

Finally, we insist on the fact that European Treaty does not need to be changed for the Commission and the Council to undertake the policy directions described above.  Indeed, the Treaty contains quite a number of principles that allow and even oblige European policy makers to respect and promote collective bargaining. There are the objectives to improve and harmonize living and working conditions (TFEU article 151). There’s the obligation of the Union to promote social justice (EU article 3). There’s the obligation of the Union to facilitate dialogue between social partners, while respecting their autonomy as well as the diversity of industrial relations systems. Finally, there’s the horizontal social clause forcing the Union to take, amongst others, the values of democracy and equality into account when defining and implementing its policies (article 9 TFEU). Collective bargaining has clear links with all of these objectives and values.

The Myth of the Responsible Free Market

The Myth Of The “Free Market” And How To Make The Economy Work For Us

(sourced from Social Journal Europe.)

20/09/2013 by Robert Reich 1 Comment

One of the most deceptive ideas continuously sounded by the Right (and its fathomless think tanks and media outlets) is that the “free market” is natural and inevitable, existing outside and beyond government. So whatever inequality or insecurity it generates is beyond our control. And whatever ways we might seek to reduce inequality or insecurity — to make the economy work for us — are unwarranted constraints on the market’s freedom, and will inevitably go wrong.

By this view, if some people aren’t paid enough to live on, the market has determined they aren’t worth enough. If others rake in billions, they must be worth it. If millions of Americans remain unemployed or their paychecks are shrinking or they work two or three part-time jobs with no idea what they’ll earn next month or next week, that’s too bad; it’s just the outcome of the market.
According to this logic, government shouldn’t intrude through minimum wages, high taxes on top earners, public spending to get people back to work, regulations on business, or anything else, because the “free market” knows best.

In reality, the “free market” is a bunch of rules about (1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); (2) on what terms (equal access to the internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections? ); (3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?) (4) what’s private and what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); (5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on.

These rules don’t exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don’t “intrude” on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren’t “free” of rules; the rules define them.

The interesting question is what the rules should seek to achieve. They can be designed to maximize efficiency (given the current distribution of resources), or growth (depending on what we’re willing to sacrifice to obtain that growth), or fairness (depending on our ideas about a decent society). Or some combination of all three — which aren’t necessarily in competition with one another. Evidence suggests, for example, that if prosperity were more widely shared, we’d have faster growth.
The rules can even be designed to entrench and enhance the wealth of a few at the top, and keep almost everyone else comparatively poor and economically insecure.

Which brings us to the central political question: Who should decide on the rules, and their major purpose? If our democracy was working as it should, presumably our elected representatives, agency heads, and courts would be making the rules roughly according to what most of us want the rules to be. The economy would be working for us.

Instead, the rules are being made mainly by those with the power and resources to buy the politicians, regulatory heads, and even the courts (and the lawyers who appear before them). As income and wealth have concentrated at the top, so has political clout. And the most important clout is determining the rules of the game.

Not incidentally, these are the same people who want you and most others to believe in the fiction of an immutable “free market.”

If we want to reduce the savage inequalities and insecurities that are now undermining our economy and democracy, we shouldn’t be deterred by the myth of the “free market.” We can make the economy work for us, rather than for only a few at the top. But in order to change the rules, we must exert the power that is supposed to be ours.

The captions tell it all- From surplus to debt since 2008. From success to failure since 2008.

The facts speak for themselves. The photos illustrate the attitude to New Zealand and its peoples. They also demonstrate the competence and intellect of the two Prime Ministers.

Following on from the Crosby-Textor supplied one liner jokes used by PinoKeyo in the House on Tuesday allegedly Key did receive a phone call from the chorus that is Camp Collins (the ABC group in the feuding National caucus) telling him that he needs to sharpen up, cut the blokey-jokeyism and start to demonstrate that he actually "knows" about economics and the National_ACT policies as the ABC group are afraid that Cunliffe's more knowledgeable and aggressive attacks, backed by a united and cohesive caucus will really show the NZ public that the joker's cap is the reality.

KEY REVEALS HITLER COMPLEX - CONTINUES ASSET STRIPPING

KEY, RYALL & JOYCE REVEAL DEEP SEATED HATRED OF DEMOCRACY

Key gives the NZ public the message...."When I say SELL I mean let's have a FIRE_SALE!!"

Following the 2nd September success of the Keep NZ's Assets petition the Key government had two alternatives - (1) dance on tne head of a pin and over ride the demands of the people and continue with the asset stripping and (2) accept the petition as a genuine indication by the people that they had not given Key, Joyce and Ryall carte blanche to strip NZ of ownership of its assets and invest them in the hands of the foreign based corporate raiders. 

The real winners of the Key driven demand to sell the state assets will not be the NZ public.

The National Party bloggers went into over drive testing the specious argument that the Keep NZ Assets Petition was invalid because it wasn't a "genuine" citizens initiated referendum but was a "politically motivated" referendum. On the basis of this pin head dance argument Key, Ryall and Joyce were convinced that they had the god given right to disregard the success of the petition calling for the referendum. 

Then, using the second specious argument that the Referendum was "non-binding" (despite earlier National Ministers arguing, when introducing the CIR Act, that the process would call a halt to controversial legislation and force the Government of the day to rethink their policy.

At the time the law paving the way for citizens-initiated referendums was being debated, National MPs were confident that governments would take the results of referendums on board. 
And Sir Douglas Graham said in parliament in 1993,

“The Citizens Initiated Referenda Bill gives the freedom to engage the entire nation in any topic of our choosing... any Government that fails to respect the outcome of a non-binding referendum will have to convince us at the next general election that its decision was justified. It is my belief that we will rarely witness by Parliament the rejection of a referendum result.” 
and Murray McCully said,

"I am absolutely sure that the moral force of public determination by way of referendum will be enormous and overpowering as far as the Government is concerned." ....... Murray McCully's optimism has proved to be misplaced, however. 

The John, PinoKeyo, Key attitude to the NZ public and desire to preserve NZ assets from foreign asset strippers.

And so it has proved. The Key owned government has no regard for the democratic process as Key, with his "leader in waiting" mate, Joyce and his Lance-Corporal Ryall have decided that rather than follow the democratic process of waiting for the results of the referendum, required as a result of the successful petition, the asset stripping of the New Zealand state should be put on the front burner and proceeded with greater rapidity and, no doubt, increased carelessness and disregard of the economic and political consequences. (It appears that we should add Minister of Conservation: Nick Smith to this wall of infamy as well.)

The New Zealand Taxpayers and voters are now being given a clear demonstration of the arrogance that economic ignorance and a desire to drive the economy into an ideological cul de sac has reduced the government of New Zealand to.Key's attitude to the assets of New Zealanders is, however, in keeping with his constant use of the tax payers' money to prop up his corporate mates with "sweeteners" and in the back of the closet shonkey dealings so much a reflection of the practises of the money speculators responsible for the rise and collapse of the global finance industry.

Ideally, the opposition parties should simply scupper Key's fire sale of NZ assets by announcing that on coming to government the shares sold by Key and his cronies will be compulsorially repurchased at either the initial sale price or the current trading share price whichever is the lower - then waych as the asset strippers fold their wallets and cheque books and head back to raiding and stripping their mates rather than the taxpayers of NZ.

The New Labour Leadership

 DAVID CUNLIFFE ELECTED 

 NOW FOR A REAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN

The Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party - David Cunliffe

 After an intensive campaign for the Leadership of the Labour Party, fought between three strong, ariculate and well informed candidates, David Cunliffe, Grant Robertson and Shane Jones,  the membership of the New Zealand Labour Party elected, on first preference votes, David Cunliffe to the position.

The election results from the NZ Labour Party website

The result was, as predicted by the real constituency, decided by considerations other than the personality and sexuality politics posited as being "real" by the self appointed, self interviewing pundits like Patrick Gower, the ill informed and offensive right wing bloggers (much referred to by the opinionistas) the Bar room eaves-dropper Chris Trotter and the increasingly politically schizoid opinionistas writing for The Herald.

The Party membership voted for David Cunliffe for several reasons:

1) They wanted a Leader who has had long time experience in The House as a back bencher and as a Cabinet Minister with an established solid reputation.

2) They wanted a Leader with a demonstrable ability to organise and motivate a supportive campaign team that could transfer that organisation and expertise to the wider Party and thus reactivate the campaigning machine that Labour had honed and developed during the late 1970s and through the 1980s.

3) They wanted a Leader who was seen and heard to clearly articulate and present the policies and ideology of the Party without equivocation on the radio and television channels and whose comments would and could not be "misunderstood" by the opinionistas who dominate the NZ media.

4) They wanted a Leader who could communicate and connect with the membership across the spectrum - from the ordinary branch members, from the members representing the different ethnic groups, from the members in the affiliated Unions and on to the wider public.

5) The wanted a Leader who will not allow himself to be beaten down by over bearing, self opinionated TV " interviewers" who, following on in the tradition of Paul Holmes and Paul Henry, believe that an interview should be conducted between the interviewer and himself with the "interviewee" being merely a stage prop to be ridiculed and belittled.

6) They wanted a Leader who would and could take the fight to preserve the New Zealand society, the New Zealand social fabric, the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand tradition of supporting the aspirations of all regardless of social class, of income and of where they live to the floor of Parliament, to the hustings and to the public.

While all of the contenders demonstrated these abilities in various ways through out the Leadership campaigning it was David Cunliffe who demonstrated all of these qualities to the level expected by the Party Membership and for that he is to be congratulated.

Grant Robertson and Shane Jones have certainly demonstrated that there is a depth of talent and political aggression within the New Zealand Labour Party that has been, for too long, quiet and quiescient.

Now, let the real election campaign to rebuild New Zealand after two terms of"I'm quaite relacsshed about that" and behind closed doors questionable dealings government that has characterised the John PinoKeyo Key doublespeaking government.

Paula Bennett on comments on welfare beneficaries as Key leaves the country again

"John Key to spend a weekend with beneficaries to understand how the other half live." says Paula Bennett.

Paula Bennett displays her awesome sympathy with beneficaries in this photo-opportunity she had with Key as he hastens to leave the country (on yet another holiday break ) just when the Labour Party re-enters the House with a fired up caucus all baying for his blood.

Paula Bennett declared that the wealthy people her policies favour are just poor people with money. Just like the lovely Windsors, from Balmoral, whom John and Bronagh are going to spend a weekend with.... grouse shooting.

Thanks to:  BotanyLabour facebook page for the clip.

John Key on warning from Camp Collins

 Key advised to "act macho" in the face of a revitalised Opposition.

What? I'm on notice to perform? Key ponders a future as a Talk Back jock.

John Key is on warning from within the National-ACT party organisation as the closeted feuding camps within the caucus campaign to become his successor according to our informant within the National-ACT organisation. In the face of continued negative personal poll results that reveal that the public perception of Key is that he is arrogant, out of touch, and turning off the female voters from the National-ACT party the forces within the party have told him to "act more macho" and be prepared to go head to head with more substance than Crosby-Textor scripted jokey one liners against the Opposition. The increasingly obvious ABC (All Behind Collins) camp, supported by the National Party bloggers,  has, allegedly, been at the forefront of the campaign.

The informant said that the feeling within the National-ACT party is that for too long Key has been resting on his laurels, secure in the PR spun belief that he is "popular" with the voting public and that because of his arrogant belief in his own infallibility he has been turning off the voting public.

Added to these concerns has been the obvious increased vitality of the Labour Party caucus in the wake of the Leadership hustings meetings and campaigning by Robertson, Cunliffe and Jones with the subsequent media coverage previously denied to them. The distinct probability of Key having to face a front bench of a highly articulate, well informed and politically aggressive Labour Leadership team has shaken the normally complacent Party officials who are now demanding that Key proves that he has the intellectual and ideological ability to engage in real debate. As a result Key was forced to claim that he would postpone his regular off-shore jaunts and be prepared to make a sustained appearance in the House which explains why Key has been seen on TV posing in sort of Michael Jackson- Borat swimsuited- moonwalk position declaring "I will be in the House on Tuesday when the Labour leadership team are in action" and claiming he has the equipment to perform in the debating chamber. ( a quick look at Key's planned itinerary (Stuff- Today in politics Thursday 12th 2013) showed that Key was playing fast and lose with the truth again as his plans, published before the Labour Leadership campaign, showed him leaving NZ for his Balmoral sojourn late on Tuesday evening. )

The threatened attacks, not just on Key, but on his poorly performing ministers like Hapless Hekia, Wilful Williamson, Blustering Brownlee and Eregious English, whose poor grasp of managing theNZ economy has been causing concern, has also unsettled the up till now closeted feuding camps  within the caucus.

The Borat bluster from Key has shown that he is increasingly nervous and jittery about, not only his grasp on the leadership of his caucus and the increasingly negative feedback from the personality perception polling but, the prospect of the threat of a united, cohesive and increasingly politically aggressive Labour front bench.

Our informant reckons that Key has been closeted with his expensive spinmeisters from Crosby-Textor ever since David Shearer stepped down from the Leadership of the Labour Party seeking advice and commissioning his joke writers to provide him with one-liners that could, with a sound-bite beside him, give him some exposure on TV and on his Talk-Back radio programme.

Unfortunately for Key his increasingly slurred pronunciation and agitated body language has been betraying him in such a way that there has been greater voter turn off than the questionable dealings, most of which have seen Key playing fast and loose with the taxpayers' money to sweeten the deals, like ($265 million)  Sky City, ($60 million)  Warner Bros, the RMA eviseration, ($600 million) Broadband pricing subsidies (which even the National Party blogger opposes as being "corporate welfarism".) and the ill advised ($30 million) Rio Tinto bribe he has been involved with since becoming Prime Minister. (PS: It has now been revealed that Joyce, the other contender for PinoKeyo's job was following in his mentor's footsteps by getting involved in the "wheeling & dealing" and interference in the Broadband subsidy to Chorus business bribe.)

Camp Collins draws a bead on Key in caucus.

The question now is: "When will the ABC- Camp Collins group make their move on Key?"

From the Social Europe Journal - discussions on austerity and why Labour should focus on the Living Wage

Austerity and Living Standards.

This article, from Social Europe, provides some good arguments for NZ Labour to focus on the need to make paying  a living wage a central campaign issue.

It also reveals why the National-ACT party is such an advocate... it allows a cynical manipulation of growth figures once the austerity controls are released... the dead cat bounce so much loved by money speculators and market manipulators.

The Labour Party Leadership Contest

Thoughts on process and perception

Shane Jones, David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson on the hustings

For the first time in living memory a NZ political party has opened up the election of its Parliamentary leader to the wider constituency of its members and affiliates.

The decision has created consternation among the opinionistas employed by the NZ media as many of them have no real idea or understanding of democratic electoral processes. 

In fact, Paul Little, an opinionista employedby The Herald on Sunday, opined, from a position of abysmal ignorance, that the process was of little value as it acknowledged that the elected Leader was obliged to articulate and work to implement Labour Party policy developed and framed by the membership through its annual conference rather than the Leader dictating policy as of individual right.

The TV networks, not to be out done, deployed their cameras around the streets of South Auckland to solicit voting intentions and attitudes to the contenders from any one who could be stopped by a thrusting microphone and intruding camera with no regard to the fact that the only people who could vote for the Labour leadership were card carrying members of the Labour Party orthe affiliated Trade Unions. However, as the TV networks were looking for a story based not on leadership or policy but on the candidates' personal lives reality was to be sacrificed in the quest for salacious comments that could be used in a sound bite and could be construed by the opinionistas  to be a reflection of the Labour Party membership.

Then, in pursuit of "scientific data" the media commissioned "research companies" to conduct surveys of the public to "discover" the voting intentions of the Labour Party members. However, conveniently ignored by the opinionistas, the surveys did not canvass the intentions of the voting constituencies within the Labour Party which, of course, rendered any data and subsequent opinion of little value.

To further confusion about a very clearly written and laid out electoral process and to boost his ratings the TV3 opinionista, Patrick Gower, deliberately chose to construe an answer to an open ended question about perceived public attitudes to homosexuality as being an attack on Grant Robertson from David Cunliffe. Then, in the blogsphere, Chris Trotter wrote a piece based on an overheard conversation in a local bar between two unidentified and unnamed "activists" that accused the parliamentary wing of the Labour Party of trying to hi-jack the election  by circumventing the process in some undefined manner. However, as neither the drunken conversationialists or the eavesdropping Trotter had bothered to refer to the Labour Party constitution or the readily available election process being followed one must conclude that, like Gower's attempt on TV3, Trotter was engaging in an exercise in ego boosting political mischief making in order to "secure" his reputation as the "prime opinionista of the Left." 

For the Party membership the choice of Leader has been difficult as they have been faced with choosing between three very articulate and informed candidates. Each one presenting the Party policy in different ways. Shane Jones in his blokey, rough hewn manner. Grant Robinson in his Norman Kirk inspired and acid humour laced manner and David Cunliffe with a presidential style, politically aggressive and articulate manner.

For the members these contrasting styles and candidates has called for earnest, well informed consideration and debate uninfluenced by direct lobbying by the contenders or their supporters. 

While the media, like the English Rugby Football Union in the 1990s which was asking itself - "Who can defeat Jonah Lomu?" rather than "how can we organise to defeat the All Blacks?",  has directed itself to the simplistic question of "Which man can defeat John Key?" the membership, recognising the fact that when John Key declared, on coming to office, that the economy was on the edge of a precipice took a giant leap forward and who, when wrestling with his conscience, can only secure a draw, has been debating far more fundamental issues - like:

Which man can articulate the Labour Party policy clearly, succinctly and positively in such a way that there can be no misinterpretation, no misconstruing of principle by opinionistas or self serving bloggers.

Which man can connect to the voting public through the radio talk back, TV and print media in such a way that their statements cannot be manipulated to meanother than what was said and, more importantly.

Which man will be able to organise and focus the Labour Party in Parliament and at large to recaptureand develop  its organisational skills and systems to defeat the National-ACT party in the electorates and for the Party vote for these are the real factors that will impact on the Labour Party as a political force in an MMP parliament.

For me, the decision was based on the evidence of solid Labour Party policy articulation, of obvious organisational skills and campaigning ability as well as a desire to get on with taking the fight to preserve New Zealand's society, New Zealand's education and welfare systems and New Zealand's economy from the asset strippers and from ideologically flawed policies imported from the play books of discredited theorists and incompetent right wing administrations either from the USA or the UK rather than the interpretations of the opinionistas whose knowledge of constitutions and democracy are always shaky if not shonkey.

The Charter School Con- yet another ACT of economic vandalism.

 YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PINOKEYO'S ECONOMIC VANDALISM- THIS TIME IN EDUCATION

John Banks, the sole member of ACT and it's MP leveraged into power with yet another shonkey PinoKeyo deal over a cup of tea, has landed NZ with the biggest education shill and worst bit of economic vandalism other than John PinoKeyo doing behind closed doors deals with casino operators, smelter operators and film companies that end up loading the taxpayer with the cost over rides and risks. That educational and economic vandalism is the ACT conspiracy to sell off the state school system to the Charter school companies hovering to asset strip one of the best performing education systems in the world.

The UK experience coming from the Tory Party's attack on the State school system is best summed up in this cartoon.

Like Gove in the UK, Hekia is hell bent on dismantling a high performing education system.

The research currently coming out of the USA and the UK proves how dangerous, educationally unsound , socially irresponsible and economically dangerous the policy is.
In the USA the involvement of the Gates family trust determined to foster the Charter School businesses has raised concern among researchers especially as the activities of such "philanthropy" is seen to be negatively influencing education delivery in the USA and in the UK.
In the USA the prime advocate for Charter Schools has now turned around and declared that they are detrimental to the delivery of education because they turn education into a commodity for the benefit of the for profit Charter School businesses instead of concentrating on the real purpose of schools - to educate the community.
Unfortunately for NZ the ideologically blinkered and education philosophy challenged Hekia Parata has not had the political clot in the National-ACT cabinet to slap Banks down and challenge his unresearched allegations and assertions about the NZ education system probably because she is struggling to keep her limited credibility with PinoKeyo alive as the rest of the cabinet conspire for the putsch that will elevate either Collins or Joyce into Key's already questionable hold on the control of the National-ACt party machine.

Joyce attacks Living Wage Pledge ...Key joins in.

Living Wage Pledges from Contenders for Labour Leadership attacked by National Party leadership.

The real reason why Joyce & Key don't want a living wage being paid to the workers who keep NZ afloat.

The campaign for a living wage heated up when, after David Shearer resigned from the leadership of the Labour Party, the main contenders for the role pledged support during their "hustings meetings" with Party members in the lead up to the membership vote.

Immediately the pledges became public the"Minister for everything Key can't deal with", Steven Joyce, launched into an all out attack on the policy and campaign calling such a campaign economic vandalism and irresponsible especially as the National_ACT govt had a plan to keep selling the country's assets off to foreign asset strippers which depended on keeping NZ as a low wage country.

Immediately after Joyce's pronouncement John Key, whose reputation as being trustworthy and truthful has come under intense scrutiny after the last Fairfax-Ipsos poll showed that NZers were increasingly disenchanted with his frequent brain fades and inability to be totally truthful about his dealings with foreign corporates, chimed in to add his increasingly strident voice to the attack. 

This Bruce the Barbarian cartoon sums up the Joyce-Key reaction to the Living Wage campaign and the support being given to it by Cunliffe, Robertson and Jones as they campaign for the leadership of the New Zealand Labour Party.

This cartoon may be dated but the response to the Living Wage campaign by Steven Joyce and PinoKeyo hasn't changed.

Asset Sales Petition for Referendum Approved - Key to dance on head of a pin.

 PINOKEYO ON DEATHWATCH AS FEUDING TORIES HOVER!!

The approval for the Referendum puts PinoKeyo, Joyce and Collins into feuding mode immediately.

PinoKeyo's reputation is now the focus of this referendum.

This interpretation has been confirmed in Brian Rudman's column in the increasingly politically schizophrenic NZ Herald (4/9/13) in which he argues that Key has been badly rattled by the success of the Petition and is not looking forward to being mauled in Parliament (on the rare occassions that he does appear) and then, later, during the 2014 General Election when the issue will be even more live that it presently is as it will be the election issue grenade in Key's campaign room.

If Key ignores the demand for a referendum and continues with the discount selling of the State Assets his reputation as being disingenuous, arrogant and untrustworthy will be re-enforced.

If he accepts the outcome his reputation as an economic genius based on selling the State assets at firesales is in tatters because no one will believe him any more. Least of all those in the caucus manouvering to grab power as soon as they can force PinoKeyo to take himself back to the USA where he maintains his more permanent home.

This will allow the ABCers (the Collins camp) and ABKers (the Joyce camp) to break into even more open feuding and jockeying for position to over throw Key and send him back to Hawaii especially as the pressure to have the referendum mounts on social media, the public forums and even in the Herald and other MSMs.

As was expected Key has opted for the arrogant dictatorial mode when faced with a public revolt against an unpopular and economically unsound policy direction.

As a money trader (high stakes gambler) this sort of arrogant bluffing is all he understands. Remember that money trading requires the "trader" to bluff "investors" into taking a gamble that his pin through the trades book picks will give huge returns on a series of jumps on and off an unbalanced round about. For many speculating investors the advice coming from such "traders" results in being badly burnt while for a minority the returns are huge. Like the owner of a ponzi scheme it is, of course, the "trader" who takes most of the cream from both the winners and the losers and so it is with the PinoKeyo flog the state assets policy direction... a scheme with lots of losers, a few winners and cream for those that do the "trading".

The dictator in PinoKeyo is revealed. Further arrogance and ignorance of the principles of democracy revealed.

Noticeably, the boiler room trolls, commissioned by the National-ACT spinners, were busy on facebook and different blog sites trying to dance on pin heads as they attempted to paint the success of the petition as being
(a) politically motivated because it was supported and coordinated by a coalition of Grey Power, Labour and the Greens and is therefore not a true citizens' initiated referendum.

(b) invalid because Labour and the Greens used monies from their parliamentary services budgets to support or provide adivice to the petition organisers. This is to be seen by the Nat-ACT spinners as an infringement of the democratic processes of parliament... to the trolls the role of the opposition is to support the Nat-ACt party in government and not criticise or subject their actions to scrutiny.

(c) economically irresponsible because it will cost about $9million to run the referendum which the PinoKeyo govt can ill afford.
Totally ignoring the fact tat PinoKeyo has already squandered hundreds of millions of dollars on "incentives" to cajole speculators to undermine NZ labour laws (Warner Bros), buy Meridian Energy shares ( Fire sale 60% down 40% in the future + profits before final purchase), prop up Rio Tinto ($30 million to keep buying Meridian electricity for at least a year.) plus, of course, the trader profits in commission to the Money traders contracted to sell NZ off to foreign asset strippers.

(d) irresponsible - because PinoKeyo has a"mandate" from the endorsement of the discredited and solitary ACT member - John Banks and the "I'm yours for 30 pieces of silver" Peter Dunne, the often party less member for Ohariu and therefore Nat-ACT has every right to ignore the referendum and carry on selling the country to whoever comes brandishing a cheque book.

These arguments appear to have been taken as being valid by John Armstrong , a Herald opinionista, who in Tuesday's column, argues that Labour and Green should claim the victory in succeeding with the referendum petition but then bow to PinoKeyo and the "economically irresponsible" argument and not have a referendum and thus save the country $9 million. If one takes that view then Paul Little's Sunday Herald call for NZ to accept the premise that NZ should be governed by a "leader" who develops, makes and implements all policies without reference to the membership of the political party he "represents" is how a democracy operates makes perfect sense and demonstates that these "opinionistas" have no real knowledge of either history or politics.