Constitutional convention blog: new agenda

With the election over (sort-of) and calm slowly descending on the politically aware, online NZ community the Convention for a Republican Constitution has finally come out with a new agenda after a delay even the Iraqis would be ashamed of - all the fault of the current chairman.

My many radical ideas will be thrashed out here before being submitted under anonymity to the convention. All comments at the convention are to be anonymous to let ideas come before personalities and avoid the inevitable side-traking and pettiness that so many reasonable and intelligent discussions can descend into without such a rule.

One of my first ideas I'll just precis here: (if I could put it in terms of our current system) is to have the list member MPs go to an upper house or Senate of 66 members. 33 are elected every two years for a term of four years on a no threshold basis (ie. effective threshold of 3.33%) and no Maori seats. The government is to be established with a majority of this chamber voting for it.

The electorate MPs are to form the lower house and to increase vastly in number to represent "communities." Iwi are to be able to form their own communities as of tangata whenua and Rangatiratanga right. Everyone else able to form their own communities as long as citizen population over 1000. Communities having the lower third of population elect one member, middle third two MPs and top third 3 MPs. (these multi-member communities could be on STV or preferential vote). These MPs are to be paid for entirely by their communities and operation of the lower house to be paid for by these communities on a population basis. If they don't pay their dues their MP(s) can't sit. There may be over a thousand - who knows.

The lower house of MPs to have a two-thirds majority needed to do anything. Would not meet very often. Would have to debate budget and have oppurtunity to reject it by way of 2/3 vote - but not required to actively endorse it. Appoints the President. Has internal system of rotating committee chairs. Can scrutinise bills as of right but can only stop them with 2/3 vote. Appoints Tribunes to act as Investigator-Ombudsmen in actively inquiring into government and ability to question and prosecute government.

Government to consist of Cabinet of 10-15. At least two must be from lower or upper house. Attorney-General to always be an independent, non-party MP. It is almost certain a government, PM etc. will come from the Senate/upper house given that that is where a government stands or falls - but it will be technically possible for a government to be patriated to the lower house - as long as over half the Senate votes for it.

MPs of communities to be elected for term of two years - alternating years with Senators. The election day to be a Saturday in Spring where the afternoon is a public holiday. So maybe upper house every odd year and community every even year - at these community meetings other community officials to be elected as well as MPs.

It may sound a bit too American for some people. It will probably offend the majority of our very simplistic voters who think a 50 seat FPP elected parliament every 10 years is too much democracy. But it allows there to be effective Maori seats at one level with parties only at the upper level (although Jim Anderton proves that parties can act as de facto "individuals" or vice versa).

Having the lower house of a very wide variety of people who are responsible and accessible at local level would be good - as is the community-funding concept - as a government cannot cut off funding or influence them, and MPs cannot over-spend or be extravagant as the electors are too close to them to allow it - quite apart from the fact that they are only part-time (unless chairmen) and may have only three or four conferences a year.

----UPDATE-----
Rotation of meetings fixtures for lower house:

The lower house could also meet in various locations when not debating the budget. The capital could contain the secretariat and a meeting house with a small staff to support the Tribunes and their prosecution team as well as support staff and meeting rooms etc. for the standing committees or forums. The budget session can be held at the capital because of the nature of the information discussed and feedback between the upper house and officials necessary. A summer session in Wellington (if not capital), Auckland in Winter, Christchurch in Autumn and a ceremonial session on Waitangi Day. Since communities are directly coughing for these services I think it will be pretty streamlined and of low cost. I can see them wanting to have it in Queenstown every other location but how can you be re-elected trying to justify that?

Growing and promoting leadership and expertise:

Having a large lower house also prevents stacking by parties as the scale of manipulation would be hurculean to operate at such local levels in enough places to ever effect a party bloc - and the wipping of hundreds of MPs almost impossible. So from this younger talents can come through. Yes, the dregs will also make it too, the busy-body/know-nothing types, the pompous, the uneducated, all the rich tapestry of life etc. etc. on display in our current 120 MMP house of representatives - only more. But there will be a few who volunteer to take on chairmanships and committee responsibilities who will gain knowledge of the accountability of governance that might have never made it under the current party system. Some very good people suitable for Senatorial roles that can cut their teeth as an MP. More the merrier. The peasant sanity to the aloof senate...

Having a smaller upper house/Senate also creates credibility in leadership and decision-making/responsibilities etc. as there is no room in a 66 seat chamber for the sort of third-rate Alamein Koopu lobby-fodder currently inside a 120 member house. The people contesting the Senate race will be on the top of their game and readily identifiable to voters in the way that the Pita Paraones and Mike Wards of the MMP world are not. Minor parties wouldn't be able to drag in people at number 7 and 8 as now, if we have a split/staggered tenure system as advocated (it could be every second year for a four year term, or every third year for a six year term), then the only people at No. 1 on the list may not necessarily be the leader - At 33 the Greens would be parading their three best candidates because that would be all that are likely to get in - probably only two. They would have to be very on to it. People could focus better on the fewer personalities - more scrutiny. There just simply isn't enough room for under-performing people in a 66 seat chamber where each election is for 33 places.

If there was a no-threshold 33 seat Senate election with the current election results then it would look like this (my maths&stats isn't to hot here):
Those not making it to 3.03% drop out, ie. Act, Prog., UF, MP. 91.2% left over to be redistributed, therefore:
Labour 15 Senators
National 14 Senators
NZFirst 2 Senators
Greens 2 Senators
Seems a little bit unfair for the little guys - but with a lower threshold than 5% and therefore a more acheivable target voters may have pushed them above 3% esp. Act. On a good day Anderton could get in - but not Matt Robson. Very difficult to get your underperformers in isn't it? Rodney could get in, Prebs could, but Muriel Newman? Would Judith Tizard make it to No. 15? Would Bob Clarkson make it to 14? I don't think so either. With no electorate (as a back-door) they are out.

Japanese eductional discipline

From our Japanese correspondent, currently under-cover as a teacher.

-----------------------Amanda reports:

Well, school here certainly is different.

Teachers don't mind students sleeping in class, and they beat them up, too.  For me, personally, I find sleeping in class a little insulting, but I sort of feel too mean to wake them; they're probably up half the night studying for all the tests.  That, or trying to get in each other's pants. 

Anyway, Sanemasa-sensei knows (from Brad) that it's not the done thing in NZ, so he wakes them up for my benefit; in one afternoon class, no fewer than 13 of my 38 students were asleep and Sanemasa thumped two of them really hard on the back with his fist, and the other students all went "oop" and shut their mouths and opened their eyes.  I didn't really know what to do.  I mean, christ, he hit them really hard; they yelled and arched their backs a bit and looked shamed out.

But I emailed a [...] staff member about it and she said there's really nothing you can do if students sleep in class or if a teacher whacks them.  Apparently some teachers really lay into them, smacking kids in the head and all sorts.  Man, I kind of like NZ schools, eh!

-------------------------Report ends.

Maybe Benson-Pope trained there? Try sleeping with a tennis ball in your gob, punku... Or a thump in the back might be classified as a sort of massage in some cultural contexts?

Immigrant-centric NZ: The colonial relic just keeps on taking

Only citizens should be able to vote in our elections. To my mind that is the definition of citizenship: the exclusive group constituting the political body of a nation state.

We allow permanent residents to vote, and even dogs to be voters (if the latest stupidity is to be considered at face value). This is part of the reason why this country is so politically dismal. It is just one of many colonial relics that continue to haunt us: an immigrant culture. The mythological status of the immigrant is prevalent.

With "We need immigrants" as a core doctrine of the country along with other facile notions like "We are all immigrants," is it any wonder that non-citizens - immigrants who have no sworn loyalty to the nation - have an equal say in determining the tennets of our sovereignty? Is it any wonder that people who have no understanding of an official language, have no intention of staying in the country more than a few years, are given - and the authorities go out of their way to facilitate - their "right" to vote. What sort of a country would do that? Would let those not committed to the destiny of the country determine it's fate? A self-destructive one. A foolish one. One not confident enough to trust themselves. One who values foreigners so much they are prepared to surrender their rights to them. One forever seeking the approval of the outsider for validation, for guidance, for instruction. One who sees improvement coming from outside instead of from within. One who is so quick to empower outsiders, and yet so ruthless in supressing natives. A colonial regime.

These non-citizen voters are courted by political parties and politicians. Promises are made. Deals are done. Ministers assisting law-breaking overstayers to get back in the country, Act's Chinese and Korean petition to abolish the language requirements, one dodgy person being able to bring in a dozen or more, potential Labour candidates (allegedly) selling offices of state to his own community... the list goes on. If you do not need the votes of foreigners then we can stop giving them undue influence over the affairs rightly determined exclusively by citizens.

We have a devalued citizenship.

As for the usual idiotic arguments about taxation and representation etc. they can be found on this blog on which I am temporarily banned. These are typical of the comments; many of whom are not citizens and yet, so empowered, currently have a right to tell citizens what to think. They seem to have absolutely no understanding of the privilege they have been given as non-citizens.:

I strongly approve of us allowing permanent residents to vote. The validity of a democracy partly comes from its inclusiveness - and people with permanent resident status are living and paying taxes here like everyone else. - Beagle

I would point out that permanent residents of which I am one pay taxes the same as citizens. I don't get off paying taxes because I am not a citizen. Why should I not be allowed to vote. There are many reasons why residents choose not to take citizenship but contribiute just as much as those born here. -Bob Howard

I'm too a permanent resident and been living 99% of my last 8 years in NZ. I've been working in the last 4 years and pay tax just like NZ citizens. Why shouldn't I vote? -Scott

and it's the same in England. I spent most of the 90's there, never became a citizen but paid my share of taxes. I took part in several elections. Why not! -Gatoh

There is some benefit to having residents vote. It's a country built on immigrants so sure they should have a place in the political system. -Stef

On taxation: Foreigners start paying tax even before they are out of the airport - so what? Some fine citizens might end up the year in a net tax surplus - should they have their vote suspended? To equate political rights with one's monetary contribution is rather an obsession of American proportions.

So if a politician wanted citizen-only voting they run the risk of being defeated by Permanent Resident voters, esp. those wanting to get the rest of the extended family in. Is this "inclusiveness"? This is a disgraceful situation that we should not be in. We have not so much lost control of our democracy, but given it away.

Immigrants "have a place in the political system" once they stop being immigrants and have become citizens.

We need a shake-up.

GUEST BLOG: New Zealand v. Nu Zeelind

GUEST BLOGGER: Martyn Bradbury

--------------------//MB//-----------------------

Playing the Deliverance duelling banjo as our new national anthem.

I think we have been damaged. This election wasn't about Tax cuts, it wasn't about silly billboards it was about Whitey.

Whitey lives outside the cities, he doesn't understand why "Maaaaaoris" get so much, he fires up that the fags can get married and wraps anything he doesn't get as bloody poofy political correctness ­ this election was about two different white cultures. One is at home with race and has a liberal social attitude because they actually live and mix with those communities in large cities, the other sees those communities as a threat, a non specific "other" who is out to destroy the social hierarchy Whitey has enjoyed uncontested since 1840.

What no one is wanting to point out is that our country cousins have actually taken a step backwards. National's policy was based on a racial fallacy, aimed at NZers intrinsic egalitarian nature. Don twisted the "why should 15% of the population get 50% of the say" garden variety pub argument and turned it into a full blown attack on the values of liberal urban New Zealand. National legitimised the chip on Whitey's shoulder into racism.  These liberal urban values have been about broadening the franchise of democracy to many groups in NZ Society who had previously had no say whatsoever. This in turn has created a tension within the white community and a fear that their values and views were no longer relevant.

The response by National voters was an attempt to re-assure themselves and re-assert their conservative social values upon the rest of us. The election result suggests that they failed; but the righteousness created in the heat of this debate has turned into a deep anger. From the cities is a genuine surprise and hurt that our country cousins would attack so viciously, and from our country cousins the embarrassed angry reaction of someone who has just spent 20 minutes raving about "bloody Maaaaoris" only to be greeted by horrified silence.

The insecurity of identity that snowballed this ugly display of race baiting is something white New Zealanders need to confront; but that's something most simply can't do. Until some resolution, the rest of us can just thank our lucky stars that we live in the city, because there really is something very wrong and very bitter wandering the countryside.
     
--------------------//MB//-----------------------

$€££ UPDATE

In the last 12 hours:

NZ Herald Report: "The Federal Reserve raised US interest rates this morning (NZ time) for an 11th straight time, signaling more increases to come...a quarter of a percentage point to 3.75 per cent."Additional report.

Stats NZ Report: "the current account deficit for the year ended June 2005 has widened to $11.9 billion, compared with a revised March 2005 year deficit of $10.9 billion and a $7.2 billion deficit for the June 2004 year... foreign investment in New Zealand of $222.4 billion and New Zealand investment abroad of $97.9 billion. In terms of the size, this means a debt of $30,355 for every New Zealander, compared with a $27,483 debt at 30 June 2004." But this is supposedly not as bad as they had thought - so what? It's chronic and getting worse whatever way Stats want to spin it.

@11:50am: NZD at 69.8c US
----------UPDATE-----------
@12:40pm: 69.6c
-------------------------------

As I have said previously we are at risk of what Treasury has called "a rapid and substantial market-led exchange rate depreciation," that they say may occur very soon because of our over-valued dollar. On top of our structural problems (inflation blow-out being a symptom rather than a cause) this seems a fair assessment by the black suits of The Terrace.

Given our political instability at the moment and the other two events mentioned above we have the beginnings of an alignment signalling Treasury's scenario. Watch also the slipping value of NZD v. AUD - this is a key indicator of our real position.

@12:20pm: 90.8c! - we were at 91.5c only yesterday.
----------UPDATE-----------
@12:40pm: 90.6c
-------------------------------

I think that NZ will benefit from our depreciation overall - despite oil becoming more expensive and the short-term inflation pressure. Our exporters need this.

----------UPDATE-----------
Savaia Stevenson, Internal Communications Adviser, Reserve Bank of New Zealand has responded (and promptly I might add) to these questions:

RBNZ forex intervention policy

1. What protocols exist for the use of RBNZ controlled funds or
instruments to buy NZD in the foreign exchange market?

The Reserve Bank (the Bank) holds foreign reserves for the purpose of
intervention in situations when the foreign exchange market becomes
dysfunctional - i.e. when it is or seems likely that market participants
will stop trading with each other - perhaps in the face of significant
economic or financial shock. Foreign Exchange (FX) intervention occurs
in consultation with, and on the authority of, the Minister of Finance,
in line with provisions in the Reserve Bank Act. The Bank has a limited
authority to intervene without prior consent of the Minister on the
understanding that the Minister be informed, and his authority obtained
as soon as possible. This limited authority gives the Bank the ability
to respond to rapidly changing events in the FX market.

2. What is the floor for it's use and for which currencies?

The focus of intervention is not on the level of the exchange rate but
on the basis functioning of the market - hence there is no particular
level of the exchange rate that would be associated with intervention.
The Bank would likely focus intervention in the NZD/USD currency pair as
this is the most activiely traded currency pair used in the markets.

3. What are the quantity of funds that can be used/are available?

The Bank holds around 1.9 billion Special Drawing Rights (SDR) or NZD
3.85 billion of reserves currently and is in the process of building
reserves to a minimum level of SDR 2.45 billion over the next couple of
years. In addition, the Treasury has access to foreign currency that
will be made available to the Bank for use in a crisis.
-------------------------------

You see from the above answers (esp. 2) that the RBNZ's policies are to ensure the smooth operation of the market, but this will necessarily put a break on any depreciation. This could be interpreted as "managing" it down. But it tends to "prop it up" and therefore cause over-valuation because it is one-sided. I say their policies that focus on market turn-over locks in a drift upward in the NZD as opposed to having the odd mini-crisis that would let the NZD find it's "real" - or to use Treasury's term "equilibrium" - value. With these policies the RBNZ will facilitate the crisis of which Treasury warns.

Farrar bans speculator

The shame. I'm banned for a week! I dared him - outski.

All I said was (and this is approximate because DPF erased it): "Tony Ryall reminds me of this gay sales rep I know, the same voice, campy mannerisms, whineyness etc. Now, does he remind me of Tony Ryall because he's a sales rep? - or some other reason?"

It transpired from the comments section of this post at David P Farrar's entitled "GAY MPs":

-----------------------
DPF: What is the point of putting this post up and then saying you will ban anyone who even dares speculate? Defamatory? Is this the dark ages? Can't I say who I think is probably gay? Would you ban people for speculating on who is hetero-sexual?
Let's find out shall we...
Posted by t selwyn at September 19, 2005 09:31 PM
-----------------------
im pretty certain that bill english and don brash are straight,as well as gerry brownlee and nick smith.
Posted by rennie at September 19, 2005 09:35 PM
-----------------------
I'd say anyone who is defacto / married and has children is a reasonably safe bet.
Posted by JamesP at September 19, 2005 09:39 PM
-----------------------
it would depend on what [name deleted - DPF] is selling,most probably a brand of coffee.
Posted by rennie at September 19, 2005 09:43 PM
-----------------------
Tim - you are banned, but only for a period of one week as you are normally a very good contributor.
Posted by David Farrar at September 19, 2005 09:47 PM
-----------------------

I think it's harmless sport to speculate about people's piccadillos/sexuality/habits etc. esp. if it's done in a jocular fashion. I don't think it is defamatory at all. I like commenting on DPF's site because of the wide range of characters who participate. Oh well, I only have myself to blame.

Thai to foul up Field

Taito Phillip Field. Christian. A regressive type Christian.

Currently having a palace constructed by cheap Thai labour in Samoa. Overstayer drama. He has threatened: "If anything [inaccurate] comes in the paper [NZ Herald] you can expect a defamation suit to be laid against the paper and you will probably be talking about millions." Well I hope that everything that follows is kosher:

Labour Party against illegal migrants... hardly.
[Lefties skip to next heading]

Aunty Helen people-smuggled the Tampa hordes (at our expense) from the Indian Ocean as a unilateral action pre-empting Australia's "Pacific solution" in a desperate attempt to gain some cred in the Swedish socialist cocktail circuit. They shouldn't be here. Simple as that. Nor should their dozens of family members that have poured in under our open-ended "family reunification" category. Nor should they (or anyone else) be able to vote after only 2 years here.

Most New Zealanders are soft-headed fuckwits who have no appreciation of the precedents it sets or the reasons for it or the alternatives that were available - I understand that. I understand that most people are simple-minded enough to be impressed with ostentatious acts of generosity and simple-minded enough not to understand anything except for the feeling of having been (and be seen to be) generous. I understand that the Labour government, after assisting these illegal migrants, who were intent on applying for asylum only in Australia after going through many other countries, then passed a people smuggling law making it an offence with a 20 year jail term, (!) ie. on par with murder and rape, to assist anyone trying to illegally enter a country. I understand that they can't see their own hypocrisy.

Now this bringing the Tampa hordes in was the biggest people smuggling operation in decades. Those people assisted each other to get here and are people smugglers as far as I'm concerned. Similarly any people who helped them smuggle themselves who have been brought in under family reunification are also people-smugglers. Aunty Helen should be doing 20 years! Imagine if one of us was to try to bring in a Tampa horde. Would we be seen as great humanitarians - even if we did it for free? Look Aunty, I brought in a couple of thousand Afghans! - I'm just following your example - why aren't I receiving a medal? Why am I looking at 20 years? It doesn't make sense.

And for the record:
I know they are classified as "asylum seekers/refugees" and not as illegal migrants.
I know some of them were children and therefore could not be criminals in any sense.
I know they came out of our meagre refugee quota - and that just makes it worse. All the real refugees stuck in a transit camp in some hell hole gets pushed to the back of the queue because of this decision. "Sorry, mate I know you've applied properly and followed all the correct channels and have been waiting for years - but you see Aunty Helen has decided that your place will be taken this year by these criminals trying to get in to Australia - you go back to the end of the queue - here's your cup of rice, piss off."
I also know that Aunty Helen had no certainty about the legitimacy of their claims to refugee status before acting.
I also know that once they got here it would be almost impossible to get rid of them.
I also know that Aunty Helen knew that taking the youngest ones would mean taking their entire extended family as well. And that was the whole point. Parents endanger their children by sending them out to reach a first world country so they can all emigrate their without having to bother with the usual immigration hassles. These parents are people smugglers.

The other absurdity is that we have troops in Afghanistan - can't we send these troops to protect the family of these refugees so that the family can be reunified in their home country - under our protection? Does that not sound logical?

Field guilty under Crimes Act sec.98C?

The story fromthis NZ Herald article raises some legal qualms for Mr Field. Everyone is thinking of corruption as an MP, but I'm seeing something else:
98B: 'unauthorised migrant', in relation to a state, means a person who is neither a citizen of the state nor in possession of all the documents required by or under the law of the state for the person's lawful entry into the state.
98C.Smuggling migrants—
(1)Every one is liable to [imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years, a fine not exceeding $500,000, or both] who arranges for an unauthorised migrant to enter New Zealand or any other state, if he or she—
(a)does so for a material benefit; and
(b)either knows that the person is, or is reckless as to whether the person is, an unauthorised migrant.
(2)Every one is liable... who arranges for an unauthorised migrant to be brought to New Zealand or any other state, if he or she—
(a)does so for a material benefit; and
(b)either knows that the person is, or is reckless as to whether the person is, an unauthorised migrant; and
(c)either—
(i)knows that the person intends to try to enter the state; or
(ii)is reckless as to whether the person intends to try to enter the state...

BUT, Michael Cullen decides:
98F (1) Proceedings for an offence against section 98C or section 98D cannot be brought in a New Zealand court without the Attorney-General's consent.


QUESTIONS:
Did Field arrange in some way the entry into Samoa?
Did Field intend to derive a material benefit (viz: assistance in constructing his palace in Samoa) from the man?
Was the man an "unauthorised migrant" because he did not have a work permit in Samoa at the time?
If the man was sent to Samoa to work, but had no work permit, is this "reckless" vis a vis (1) (b) and (2) (b)?
Other issues as to harbouring and assisting overstayers is probably an offence as well - but that is something for a proper researcher (like Idiot/Savant) to work out.

The facts according to today's NZ Herald:

"Mr Siriwan had been turned down for refugee status in New Zealand but had stayed in this country illegally... Mr Field asked Associate Immigration Minister Damien O'Connor to direct the Immigration Service to grant the Thai a work permit if he left the country and applied for it from Samoa... Mr O'Connor said last week that he had intervened to allow Mr Siriwan to reapply for a New Zealand work permit, but would be looking at the case again "given the new information that has come before me"....Mr Field said his family had paid Mr Siriwan up to 170 to 200 tala ($91 to $108) a week since March while he waited for his New Zealand permit to come through, but repeated yesterday that there was no "employment arrangement".

But Mr Field's wife, Maxine, confirmed last week that she applied for a Samoan work permit for Mr Siriwan. Officials granted it but wrote on it: "Conditional on continued employment with Field"...The Field family also paid about 5400 tala ($2900) to bring Mr Siriwan's partner, Luck, and their 2-year-old son from Thailand to join him in Samoa. Luck was deported to Thailand early this year after immigration officials found her during a raid on the house of another Thai family in Auckland.

Mr Field said yesterday he did not know about his wife's application for the Samoan work permit for Mr Siriwan.

"That is something Maxine did. It concerned her that if he was going to start looking for work there he would have to get a work permit," he said

And finally: why doesn't someone send someone to Samoa to investigate. I should think there would be plenty of volunteers given the weather lately.

¥€$, $€££ £€$$

Trading in the Kiwi dollar at the moment is a bit under the weather. More bad news with our gigantic Current Account deficit (which I and everyone else have warned of but only Winston Peters really seems to care about) today. NZ inflation will blow out to 4% next year! Hello! If the Fed hikes interest rates to counter US inflation soon (as has been talked about) AND Labour does a deal with the Maori Party and the Greens will this trigger "a rapid and substantial market-led exchange rate depreciation," that Treasury in it's pre-election fiscal update has warned us about?

It is all explained in this post of 6 Sept.: "Just passed the US$0.71c barrier in trading - buy US$ now with your Kiwi - it won't be much more affordable than this."

UPDATE@6:30pm 19 Sept.
NZD fell through 70c late this afternoon.

UPDATE@10:30pm 19 Sept.
Canary in the Mine reports:
Statistics New Zealand will release the latest current account figures, also known as the balance of payments, on Wednesday...Ten economists polled by Dow Jones forecast the median quarterly deficit for June would swell to $2.6 billion, or 7.5 per cent of GDP for the June quarter. The last time the current account deficit was higher as a proportion of GDP was in March 1986, when it was at 8.9 per cent. Any level above 5 per cent of GDP is usually an alarm signal to international investors. Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard says this is not sustainable.

UPDATE@5:30pm 20 Sept.
Independent reporting:
The euro also dropped ahead of expectations the US Federal Reserve's will raise its benchmark interest rate tomorrow, widening a gap with the European Central Bank.
Therefore:
Tomorrow, Wednesday 21 September we have a possible interest rate hike of the Fed and a possible current account blow-out being reported by Stats NZ. Add to that political instability and the alignment is beginning. I hope you have put your NZD into USD by now. We're presently at 70.2c

ELECTION BOOK: Conclusions: is Centrebet wrong?

Key differences

TUMEKE election book was on the election night % of party vote, Centrebet is on which party provides the next PM. That is a crucial difference in what we were effectively measuring during this wild ride of the past eight weeks. I was measuring it in a notional sense whilst Centrebet operates a book consisting of many New Zealand punters. My odds have already proved accurate with Labour's 1% margin of victory reflected in the minimum 5c difference in odds at close of betting. But for all of the variations we were tracking each other closely except for the first few days and the last few days - where Centrebet had National in front. I, at no point had National in front. Centrebet had to act aggresively at times to attract bets, at one point (see below) they were at $1.28 for Labour while I stayed at $1.45 and they blew National out to $3.25 and then took it all the way back to $2.30 in three days.

Centrebet over-reactions

They closed their book during TV debates (at least the first one) and then altered it on the back of it. Crazy stuff really. Sure, take note of it, analyse it, but start making big calls based on it? They did - I didn't because it wasn't really that relative beyond a wee tweak.

Being "on the ground" I could react quicker and with more confidence in interpreting the data or events than Centrebet. That was evident, I think, in the steady movement of my odds over time rather than sudden adjustments (see timeline below).

The big punter who put 50 grand on Labour at $1.50 tilted their book - and their need for National money forced them out to get it. In the last days (as I have said elsewhere) National punters were very bouyant and laid down a lot of money...

BUT,

Labour were always going to be in a better position to form a government than National (even if National was the bigger party on the night). National "strategists" - if indeed they have any - haven't grasped MMP (esp. vis a vis Act) and perhaps niether have the National punters. Since they constituted the bulk of the market at the last days then their decisions were reflected.

Can Centrebet still be right?

The only way Centrebet, with it's reputation for getting it right, can be right is if one of two things occur:
1. Maori Party strike a deal with NZ First to go with National, or
2. The Greens dive below the 5% threshold and National gets support from NZ First or Maori party
These options seem very remote - possible, technically feasible at this stage - but highly improbable. Will this be a first time for the unthinkable?

----------ODDS DATA PEAKS-----------

Shortest odds for Labour/longest National:
TUMEKE: $1.45/$2.60 -24-30 Aug.
CENTREBET: $1.28/$3.25 -29 Aug.

Shortest odds for National/longest Labour:
TUMEKE: $1.90/$1.85 -25-28 Jul & 16 Sept.
CENTREBET: $1.65/$2.10 -16 Sept.

----------ODDS DATA TIMELINE-----------

TUMEKE!/Centrebet
16 Sept. LAB-1.85/2.10 NAT-1.90/1.65
16 Sept. LAB-1.70/2.00 NAT-2.05/1.70
15 Sept. LAB-1.70/1.90 NAT-2.05/1.80
14 Sept. LAB-1.52/1.85 NAT-2.40/1.85
14 Sept. LAB-1.52/1.55 NAT-2.40/2.30
13 Sept. LAB-1.48/1.40 NAT-2.55/2.70
12 Sept. LAB-1.48/1.40 NAT-2.55/2.70
11 Sept. LAB-1.49/1.40 NAT-2.40/2.70
10 Sept. LAB-1.49/1.40 NAT-2.40/2.70
09 Sept. LAB-1.49/1.40 NAT-2.40/2.70
09 Sept. LAB-1.49/1.55 NAT-2.40/2.30
08 Sept. LAB-1.66/1.60 NAT-2.12/2.20
08 Sept. LAB-1.66/1.65 NAT-2.12/2.10
07 Sept. LAB-1.66/1.70 NAT-2.12/2.00
07 Sept. LAB-1.66/1.80 NAT-2.12/1.90
06 Sept. LAB-1.66/1.75 NAT-2.12/1.95
05 Sept. LAB-1.66/1.75 NAT-2.12/1.95
04 Sept. LAB-1.58/1.55 NAT-2.25/2.25
03 Sept. LAB-1.58/1.55 NAT-2.25/2.25
02 Sept. LAB-1.58/1.50 NAT-2.25/2.40
01 Sept. LAB-1.58/1.55 NAT-2.25/2.30
31 Aug. LAB-1.58/1.50 NAT-2.25/2.55
30 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.50 NAT-2.60/2.55
29 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.28 NAT-2.60/3.25
28 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.40 NAT-2.60/2.70
27 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.40 NAT-2.60/2.70
26 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.40 NAT-2.60/2.70
25 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.40 NAT-2.60/2.70
24 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.40 NAT-2.60/2.70
23 Aug. LAB-1.50/1.40 NAT-2.45/2.70
22 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.45 NAT-2.30/2.55
21 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.50 NAT-2.30/2.40
20 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
19 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
18 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
17 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
16 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
15 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
14 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
13 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.44 NAT-2.30/2.62
12 Aug. LAB-1.60/1.44 NAT-2.20/2.62
11 Aug. LAB-1.60/1.46 NAT-2.20/2.50
10 Aug. LAB-1.60/1.53 NAT-2.20/2.35
09 Aug. LAB-1.60/1.60 NAT-2.20/2.20
08 Aug. LAB-1.65/1.60 NAT-2.10/2.20
07 Aug. LAB-1.65/1.60 NAT-2.10/2.20
06 Aug. LAB-1.70/1.60 NAT-2.05/2.20
05 Aug. LAB-1.70/1.65 NAT-2.05/2.10
04 Aug. LAB-1.70/1.65 NAT-2.05/2.10
03 Aug. LAB-1.70/1.65 NAT-2.05/2.10
02 Aug. LAB-1.70/1.65 NAT-2.05/2.10
01 Aug. LAB-1.75/1.65 NAT-2.00/2.10
31 July LAB-1.75/1.65 NAT-2.00/2.10
30 July LAB-1.75/1.65 NAT-2.00/2.10
29 July LAB-1.75/1.65 NAT-2.00/2.10
28 July LAB-1.85/1.80 NAT-1.90/1.90
27 July LAB-1.85/1.83 NAT-1.90/1.83
26 July LAB-1.85/1.90 NAT-1.90/1.75
25 July LAB-1.85/1.83 NAT-1.90/1.83
----------------------------

TUMEKE! gets it right on the money: Labour win head-to-head (@ $1.85 for Lab - $1.90 Nat at close yesterday)

It was the rain. Undecideds kept away - they didn't really know who they were going to vote for anyway! It's pissing down with rain (as it certainly was almost all the day in Auckland) so why go and vote when you are unsure? Turnout at 72-73%.. Pathetic really. [UPDATE: I take it back, that figure is from TV3 and does not include special votes which should push it just past 80% - not bad for a polling day with shocking weather and 20% undecided] .Clarkson winning Tauranga! How embarassing - for him, for the electorate, for National, for Winston, for the nation.

If this was a referendum on tax cuts then it was lost (narrowly).

So, it came down to 1% but Labour have the most party votes on election night and therefore is the winning bet for Option 2. As expected... just. Are bookies ever wrong?... not this one! Centrebet, Sportingbet and Betfair all say a National PM. They could be correct only if NZ First wills it - and I don't think they will... or will they? Could Centrebet be wrong for once? I repeat now what I said in the 8:32pm comment on the eve of this Election, a mood caught quite accurately and, in hindsight, even prophetically:

Labour will end up ahead on party votes tomorrow because they have more "in the tank". Not much, but enough. It is unusual for one bookie to be out of step with the rest like this but I believe their odds reflect confident partisan National money tipping it to favour National. I believe the incumbency advantage may be the only factor left for Labour - but that is just sufficient. I could be wrong. The other (real) bookies are statistically almost always correct, and I am the one taking a punt on my on-the-ground local "feeling" to call it. That feeling says people aren't entirely happy with Labour and they deserve a short, sharp, corrective smack, but National haven't earned quite enough trust, or displayed enough competence, to replace them as our leaders. I therefore reduce my odds for Labour and correspondingly tighten them for National to display the expected close result and, as it turns out, back to exactly what it originally started at when the book opened on the 25th of July.

And on Monday 12th this justifying why I picked Hide to take Epsom:

Hide is in the ascendency as is the Party (albeit of very low base), but Labour's self-sacrificing candidate, Stuart Nash, is directing Labour voters to vote for Worth to keep Hide out! Can a Labourite vote for a Tory? Talk about psychological hurdles and leaps of faith. I'm not sure they will. Hide could turn it in the last week - it is quite possible (with or without Brash's nod). Remember that a quarter of that electorate has voted Act before.

Other party odds: Congratulations Brian Boyko, he got all the parties correct - pretty damn good... for an American! Well, 40% for Labour was pretty much bang on. National at 37% was always going to be provocative - and I paid for that - no-one else was with me on that one. NZF was a good call - close to 5%. Greens were very weak, I was expecting them to nudge over 7% - but they are reportedly weak in Auckland and 5% on the night, Worm Future did better than expected and more than I'd have liked, Maori Party not as well as I had expected but the 3% call was always on the optimistic side. Act threw me completely - 1.5% on the night and I was sure they would push out to about 3%. Brutal. I had Option 13. Hide to win Epsom at $2.20 and Worth at $1.65 - I was thinking of evening that up in the last day and never bothered to - but I was surprised to see such a comfortable margin. And Rodney deserves it too - he's worked hard for it, and was the only Act MP who could do it, taking with him Heather Roy (PQ will be howling at this point) so it is with much delight and satisfaction that I remind you all that that racist, smug little prick who wants to be in National anyway, Steven Franks, has lost his job and I think New Zealand is a better place for that. Destiny never threatened to break 1%, yucky Matt Robson won't be back. Nandor squeeking in on specials? We'll see.

And on television it was the same instability of the polls, with National ahead, Labour seemed to be tracking back - but how hard? TV3 had the turn-out count and TV1 used the % of voting booths reporting to measure "the count" - they didn't really tell us this at the time, and so TV1 always looked more advanced because of the % figure looking higher.

For the record the way the vote count unfolded on TV:
--------------------------------
Time-TV-Party vote
8:50 TV3: L37.6% N43.4% F5.6% G5.1% U2.8% M1.6% A1.6% P1.2% (@22% turn-out)
9:04 TV1: L38.4% N42.4% F5.7% G5.1% U2.8% M1.6% A1.5% P1.2% (@25% booths in)
9:06 TV1: L38.8% N41.9% (@37% booths in)
9:12 TV3: L38.8% N41.3% F5.7% G5.1% U2.8% M1.8% A1.5% P1.2%
9:21 TV?: L39.2% N41.1% F5.7% G5.1% U2.8% M1.7% A1.5% P1.3%
9:31 Dover Samuels conceeds
9:31 TV1: L39.3% N41.3% (56% booths in)
9:31 TV3: L39.3% N40.8% F5.7% G5.1% U2.8% M1.7% A1.5% P1.3%
9:41 TV3: L39.5% N40.6% F5.8% G5.1% U2.8% M1.8% A1.5% P1.3%
9:43 TV1: L39.7% N40.7%
9:44 TV3: L39.6% N40.5% (@58.7% turnout)
9:49 TV3: L39.6% N40.3% (@60% turnout)
9:51 TV3: L39.8% N40.2% (@62% turnout)
9:51 TV3: L39.8% N40.2%
Light aircraft threatens to crash into Sky Tower
9:56 TV1: L39.8% N40.6% (79% booths in)
9:59 TV1: L40.1% N40.2% (85% booths in)
9:59 TV1: L40.2% N40.2% (86% booths in)
10:01 TV?: L40.0% N40.0%
10:04 TV1: L40.1% N40.0% (87% booths in)
10:06 TV1: L40.3% N40.1% (88% booths in)
10:07 TV1: L40.1% N39.9%
Peters on TV to not conceed
10:16 TV1: L40.4% N40.0% M1.9% (93% booths in)
10:19 TV?: L40.3% N39.7%
10:38 TV1: L40.5% N39.8%
10:40+ TV1: L40.7% N39.7% (96% booths in)
10:40+ TV3: L40.5% N39.5% (@71% turn-out)
11:00+ TV3: L40.6% N39.4% (@72.3% turn-out) FINAL
11:00+ TV1: L40.7% N39.6% M2.0% (100% booths in) FINAL
Brash, Clark etc. on TV to not conceed
------------------------------------

200,000 odd specials to be counted. A seat here or there could make all the difference. Will put coalition/government formation book up soon.

Oh, and did I mention how I called the election correctly?

ELECTION BOOK: Herald digipoll: Labour 44.6%, National 37.4%

----------LATEST NEWS-----------
@1:47am 16 Sept.
Herald Digipoll:
PARTY VOTE:
LAB 44.6%, NAT 37.4%, GRN 4.6%, NZF 4.5%, UNF 2.6%, MAO 2.3%, ACT 1.3%, PRG 1.1%, DST 0.9%, CHP 0.2%, ALL 0.1%, ALC 0.1%
PREFERRED PM:
HC 55.1%, DB 33.9%

----------COMMENTARY-----------
@8:32pm 16 Sept.
Will be checking in on the off-shore markets before closing off betting at midnight. I just watched a trotting race from Cambridge where I mis-heard a horse as "Flying Clark" (it was actually Flying Class) it was sitting at the back until half way and a horse called "That Guy" took the lead. Track conditions were worsening and the rain was hosing down. Class came up and sat just outside of Guy down the back straight and made her play coming into the turn, drawing level at about the 200 - looking like it had something in the tank - and by the time they were into the home straight she had nudged ahead of Guy and he faded. Class winning by a length or two. Similarly I draw the conclusion that Labour will end up ahead on party votes tomorrow because they have more "in the tank". Not much, but enough. It is unusual for one bookie to be out of step with the rest like this but I believe their odds reflect confident partisan National money tipping it to favour National. I believe the incumbency advantage may be the only factor left for Labour - but that is just sufficient. I could be wrong. The other (real) bookies are statistically almost always correct, and I am the one taking a punt on my on-the-ground local "feeling" to call it. That feeling says people aren't entirely happy with Labour and they deserve a short, sharp, corrective smack, but National haven't earned quite enough trust, or displayed enough competence, to replace them as our leaders. I therefore reduce my odds for Labour and correspondingly tighten them for National to display the expected close result and, as it turns out, back to exactly what it originally started at when the book opened on the 25th of July.

@3:20pm 16 Sept.
Bookies now all in favour of National right now - but, not me. I think they reflect confident National punters more than reflect the real picture at this point. We'll see where we are after the TV news and current affairs shows tonight. If you had backed the Nats a week ago (when they were at $2.40-$3.25) you could now back Labour at $2.10 and make money either way.

@12:14pm 16 Sept.
Well the NBR doesn't have a poll after all. Centrebet closing on Nats but other bookies are coming in to Labour during this morning. I'm still unchanged at this point. Unsure how last minute news will sway voters. Taito Philip Field's overstayer-Samoan palace fiasco, Tamihere's dirty, kupapa-to-the-last, paying kids money to deface hoadings scandal, Student loans projections, Brash's nuke referendum, Peters' testicular muck-racking... will it matter tomorrow when the punter's are in the booth? Labour is opportunistic - not visionary or even principled beyond catering to it's own PC cliques, but has a general economic competence. National is openly divisive and fixated on tax cuts, but despite having credible business fire-power is shifty and represents a risk. Who has earned your vote, given both parties have credibility deficits?

@9:52am 16 Sept.
Centrebet weakening on Nats, Betfair back to Labour. Since no-one else has reported the NBR poll, I'll do it myself. Be back soon.

@1:47am 16 Sept.
NBR poll also due out today! I'm sticking with my odds. NZF on 4.5%! Winston waits on specials in Tauranga?! Balance of government decided at Supreme Court? Maori Party higher in this poll than others because it is more accurate? Greens probably higher, surely? Is National really this low? Herald poll was most accurate of them last time from memory.

See the TV3 debate? The first thing Brash mentions when asked about who is "mainstream" is that it isn't Maori. Thanks for clearing that up, Don. Hypocrite Prime Minister waffling on about inclusivesness after telling us that she passed the foreshore and seabed Act so "our people" wouldn't be "excluded." That's interesting. Maori aren't "our people", thanks for clearing that up, Helen. Or does "our people" mean the public and all farmland will become public access? She protects the rights of Pakeha to exclude Maori but not the other way around. Maori have not sought to exclude anyone. My own proposal that they refused to hear at the select committee was exactly that - a public right of access over all property, including freehold property in the tidal zone- that would be fair - but no. That's not good enough. "Our people" have a right to exclude the other people? Why is it that only Maori property is "public" but Pakeha never is? Why are Pakeha being treated differently, as if their views or "feelings" on what someone else owns has superior merit and must be enforced without discussion? Why does she treat the local, native, land-owners as the enemy? Yet she and Don agree on continuing to freehold Crown leases to white farmers in the South Island with no qualms whatsoever - not even an issue? Why? At least Don Brash is open (and after hearing last night's debate, even proud) about his bigotry.

Didn't Brash look shifty.

All the off-shore bookies must have received large bets for National yesterday I should think. And still more, the odds on National have tightened significantly. Brash supporters will assume he won the debate because he mentioned tax cuts several times... and will bet accordingly, but it was the calibre of what he said that was dissappointing to swing voters. When given a chance to reach out to people and act like a statesman and a consensus-builder he, instead, began to list all the sorts of people he doesn't like, starting with Maori. How many people really think that is appropriate leadership material? "Derrr, but I'll still get my 20 bucks though, right!?"

-----2005 New Zealand General Election-----

----------CURRENT ODDS: TUMEKE!-----------
@8:32pm 16 Sept.
HEAD TO HEAD
Option 2: National-Labour head-to-head largest party vote.
$1.85 Labour
$1.90 National

@00:30am 15 Sept. (UNCHANGED @1:50am&12:14pm&3:20pm 16 Sept.)
Option 2: National-Labour head-to-head largest party vote.
$1.70 Labour
$2.05 National

----------CURRENT ODDS: OFF-SHORE-----------
@12:14pm 16 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $2.10 NAT $1.65
Sportingbet: LAB $2.00 NAT $1.72
Betfair: LAB £1.65 NAT £1.85 LAB £1.94 NAT £1.65 @3:20pm 16 Sept.

@9:52am 16 Sept.
Centrebet: LAB $2.00 NAT $1.70
Sportingbet: LAB $2.05 NAT $1.67
Betfair: LAB £1.75 NAT £1.80

@1:50am 16 Sept.
Centrebet: LAB $2.10 NAT $1.65
Sportingbet: LAB $2.05 NAT $1.67
Betfair: LAB £2.02 NAT £1.80

ELECTION BOOK: New TV polls/I'd give my left testicle to pick this one.

----------LATEST NEWS-----------
@6:15pm 15 Sept.
TV1 poll/TV3 poll
PARTY VOTE:
LAB 38%/40.5%
NAT 44%/38.7%
NZF 5.5%/6.8%
GRN 5.1%/6.9%
UNF 2.5%/3%
MAO 1.7%/1.4%
ACT 1.9%/0.9%
DST 0.9%/-
TV1 MOST PREFERRED PM: HC 40%, DB 30%

@00:30am 15 Sept.
ODT poll from yesterday as reported by Bren:
LAB 39.2%, NAT 43.1%, NZF 4.6%, GRN 6.2%, ACT 1.7%, UNF 2.5%, MAO 1.6%, PRG 0.5%

----------COMMENTARY-----------
@6:15pm 15 Sept.
TV1 poll continues to favour right parties and TV3 poll to favour left parties - so it's perhaps about 39% apiece for the big parties. Act will be infuriated with the paltry performance. Sainsbury on TV1 says undecideds are 5% but that 20% don't know how they will vote on the day! Which is why the polls are all over the place as I have repeatedly said, repeatedly, repeatedly when people have wondered aloud why they are so. Because, and let me spell it out one more time: THE POLLSTERS KEEP PRESSING UNDECIDEDS INTO MAKING A CHOICE AND THEN RECORDING IT AS A HARD VOTE WHEN THEY ARE REALLY UNDECIDED and therefore should not be added to decided numbers. Brash has not closed the gap as most preferred PM and as I have said before, I will call the election for National if Brash draws level with Clark on this measure... THEREFORE: My odds remain unchanged. Let's see what the debate has in store.

@00:30am 15 Sept.
This is getting crazy now. TV3 are rumoured to have a poll out tonight. Then Friday has TV1, NBR and the most accurate one from last year, the Herald's digipoll. Wow. That incumbenct advantage to Labour built into my odds is beginning to melt away under sustained polling putting the Nats ahead. Labour, typically and as I have repeatedly said, only responds to National with dirt. Nats are useless at conveying competence (because they aren't) but people seem to want tax cuts regardless of how bumbling they are. The student loans evasion will hardly help Labour. Centerbet have gone evens yesterday afternoon - reflecting the intense uncertainty of the polling and probably some big bets going on National at the very good odds on offer. Sportingbet's $2.75 that lasted until that time too was too good - and I have been directing readers of the Blue persuasion to put some money on that before it came in - they should be rapt if they did.

@5:46pm 15 Sept.
Centrebet has Nats ahead! Mainly because of large bets for National I should think. TV3 says Campbell Live will have a piece on Centrebet punters tonight. TV1 & TV3 polls due 6pm. Will change if necessary thereafter. Need something monumental from the Leaders Debate on TV3 for that to come into play.

-----2005 New Zealand General Election-----

----------CURRENT ODDS: TUMEKE!-----------
@00:30am 15 Sept.
HEAD TO HEAD
Option 2: National-Labour head-to-head largest party vote.
$1.70 Labour
$2.05 National

----------CURRENT ODDS: OFF-SHORE-----------
@2:02pm 15 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.90 NAT $1.80
Sportingbet: LAB $1.80 NAT $1.90
Betfair: LAB £1.75 NAT £2.10

@00:30am 15 Sept.
Centrebet: LAB $1.85, NAT $1.85
Sportingbet: LAB $1.80 NAT $1.90
Betfair: LAB £1.81 NAT £1.90

Centrebet just gives up

Centrebet is now at $1.85 all. National and Labour are now evens. They started off this way after the date of the election was announced and now we've come full circle -as it were - to parity. What a wild ride. I will move out a bit tomorrow if the polls justify it, but right now I'm staying put.

Very, very interesting. I didn't pick they would throw their hands up in the air like that!

ELECTION BOOK: Put up or shut up time bloganistas/Epsom odds

Punters are invited to grow some balls and make their selections in the comments section.

New special book on Epsom now open. Hide is in the ascendency as is the Party (albeit of very low base), but Labour's self-sacrificing candidate, Stuart Nash, is directing Labour voters to vote for Worth to keep Hide out! Can a Labourite vote for a Tory? Talk about psychological hurdles and leaps of faith. I'm not sure they will. Hide could turn it in the last week - it is quite possible (with or without Brash's nod). Remember that a quarter of that electorate has voted Act before. But at the moment (Monday 12 Sept.) the member for the Northern Club is ahead.

Option 13: Winning candidate, Epsom electorate
$1.65 Worth (National) BR
$2.20 Hide (Act) MS/TS
$50.00 Nash (Labour)

-----2005 New Zealand General Election-----

---------HEAD TO HEAD---------
Option 2: National-Labour head-to-head largest party vote.
LAB $1.48 @11am14/9 $1.52$1.70@00:30am 15/9
NAT $2.55 @11am14/9 $2.40 $2.05 @00:30am15/9

----------PARTY VOTE----------
Partyvote %...Punters
Option 3: Labour party vote.
40%+ DC/BB/MK/WK/BR
40%- TS/MS/AS/MT/DR/MB
Option 4: National party vote.
37%+ DC/MS/AS/MT/BB/MK/DR/WK/BR/MB
37%- TS
Option 5: NZ First party vote.
5%+TS/DC/MS/AS/MT/BB/MK/DR/WK/BR
5%- MB
Option 6: Greens party vote.
7%+ TS/DC/MT/MK/DR/WK/BR/MB
7%- MS/AS/BB
Option 7: Maori party vote.
3%+ TS/MB
3%- DC/MS/AS/MT/BB/MK/DR/WK/BR
Option 8: United Future party vote.
2%+ DC/MS/AS/MT/BB/DR/WK
2%- TS/MK/BR/MB
Option 9: Act party vote.
3%+ TS/MS/MT/MK
3%- DC/AS/BB/DR/WK/BR/MB
Option 10: Progressives party vote.
1%+ AS/MT/BB/MK
1%- TS/DC/MS/DR/WK/BR/MB
Option 11: All others party vote
2%+ TS/MS/BR
2%- DC/AS/MT/BB/MK/DR/WK/MB
Option 12: Destiny party vote
1%+ MS/BR/MB
1%- TS/DC/AS/MT/BB/MK/DR/WK
--------------------------------------
Bet closes: 16/09/2005 Results: are for election night % of total vote (excluding informals). TAB disclaimer: this is simulated only.
--------------------------------------
Punters:
TS=Tim Selwyn
DC=DC_Red
BB=Brian Boyko
MT=DenMT (via frogblog)
MK=Mikaere (via frogblog)
AS=Andrewudstraw
MS=Emmess (via this comments section)
DR=DR (via frogblog)
WK=Wekaontheroof (via frogblog)
BR=Bren
MB=Martyn Bradbury

ELECTION BOOK: Snap polls say close/Act up/Odds static/Fairfax poll Nats up 6%!

----------LATEST NEWS-----------
@00:26am 14 Sept.
Fairfax poll reportedly puts Nats up by 6% over Labour. Will file details when available:
@11:10am 14 Sept.
LAB 37%, NAT 43%, NZF 7%, GRN 6%, ACT 1%, UNF 3%, MAO 1%

@11:40pm 11 Sept.
TVOne poll 11 Sept.
Party vote:
LAB 39%, NAT 41%, NZF 6%, GRN 6%, ACT 3%, UNF 2%, MAO 1%, DST 1%
Preferred PM:
HC 42%, DB 30%

@ 3:10pm 11 Sept.
Sunday Star-Times poll 11 Sept.:
Party vote:
LAB 37.2%, NAT 44.1%, NZF 4.7%, GRN 6.2%, MAO 0.4%, UNF 2.6%, PRG 0.2%, ACT <0.2%??

----------COMMENTARY-----------
@11:10am 14 Sept.
Centrebet came out to $1.55 - within the middle of the expected band. I will have to let Labour out too with the polls running this way - even if Fairfax tends to overstate Nat/UF support (too polite to tell pollsters to F off?/People who want a change more likely to want to tell someone?)

@00:26am 14 Sept.
Just when Centrebet had come back to me the Fairfax poll puts Nats 6 ahead! I think Centrebet will jump on this and push Labour out to $1.52-$1.58, even more. I must say I'm waivering a bit right now. I'll have to see the full poll results before moving... maybe later this morning. You true blue Nats better get some cash on @$2.75 with Sporting bet while it lasts.

@11:40pm 11 Sept.
Well, Labour doesn't even lead at all, so that's the last commentary put to rest. Amazed at National's staying power given their leadership line-up. Brash is still 12% adrift in the personal ratings so I doubt he can overcome that unless Clark gets caught eating babies. Does the One poll favour National? Is there any mid-week polling? May change odds tomorrow.

@3:10pm 11 Sept.
SST poll typically overstates National - and in this poll also United Future - and was a Friday night snap poll too, so I doubt if National are in front. This pro-National bias is despite today's editorial leader endorsing Labour conditionally for a third term. Electorate still forgiving Brash for all manner of dim-witted and deceptive tactics (perhaps because of Labour's dirty tricks). Tonight's TV poll may be a catalyst for a significant movement if Labour leads by more than 7%. Will hold my odds unchanged until then.

-----2005 New Zealand General Election-----

----------CURRENT ODDS: TUMEKE!-----------
@11:10am 14 Sept.
HEAD TO HEAD
Option 2: National-Labour head-to-head largest party vote.
$1.52 Labour
$2.40 National

@00:44am 12 Sept.
HEAD TO HEAD
Option 2: National-Labour head-to-head largest party vote.
$1.48 Labour
$2.55 National

@3:10pm 11 Sept.
HEAD TO HEAD
Option 2: National-Labour head-to-head largest party vote.
$1.49 Labour
$2.40 National

----------CURRENT ODDS: OFF-SHORE-----------
@11:10am 14 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.55, NAT $2.30
Sportingbet: LAB $1.40 NAT $2.75
Betfair: LAB £1.40 NAT £2.72

@00:26am 14 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.45, NAT $2.55
Sportingbet: LAB $1.40 NAT $2.75
Betfair: LAB £1.37 NAT £2.96

@3:10pm 11 Sept. UNCHANGED @11:40pm 11 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.40, NAT $2.70
Sportingbet: LAB $1.40 NAT $2.75
Betfair: LAB £1.58 NAT £2.30

Private radio networks back how-to-vote ads by right-wing lobby group.

Soft money outrage.

I'm listening to Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust who has just explained to Paul Henry on Radio Live that they are spending no more than $20k on ads but that radio stations are giving them heaps of free ads as "a charity of choice". What!? These ads say vote for either: National, Act, NZ First or United Future. And radio stations like Live are giving these political broadcasts for free! So the radio stations don't want to back say environmental charities or workers' charities, or religious charities etc. - oh no they are playing these conservative right-wing ads on high rotate. Unbelievable. No Right Turn - are you on to this?

The SST from what I understand consists of grieving parents who have not really come to terms with their child's death and seek maximum and perpetual vengence, and on the other hand the usual law&order hang-em-all, police-can-never-be-wrong-should-carry-machineguns type nutters.

Calling all Lefties...

ELECTION BOOK: TV1 Debate: Labour $1.49/Centrebet now @$1.40! Unity on the Left/Peters unhappy with Nats

----------LATEST NEWS-----------
@ 02:30am 11 Sept.
Herald On Sunday poll 11 Sept.:
Party vote:
LAB 42.1%, NAT 38.5%, NZF 5.5%, GRN 6.0%, MAO 2.3%, UNF 1.8%, ACT 2.1%
Most preferred PM:
Clark 41.6%
Brash 30.2%

@ 00:30am 9 Sept.
NZ Herald poll 9 Sept.:
Party vote:
LAB 40.6%, NAT 40.1%, NZF 7.1%, GRN 5.6%, MAO 2.8%, UNF 0.7%, ACT 1.9%, PRG 0.4%, DST 0.3%

----------COMMENTARY-----------
@02:30am 11 Sept.
HoS poll shows Labour nudging ahead on party vote but Clark and Brash only 11% difference in leadership stakes - Don should be hit hard by his idiocy and deception but seems to be weathering it in this poll which was taken Friday and Saturday. Go figure? SST poll due out in a few hours. If Labour are ahead there too I will tighten on Labour by at least 7c and wait to see what the TV poll due out on tonight's news says before moving again.

@5:00pm 9 Sept.
Off-shore have come in to $1.40! Given there has been nothing else except bad news for National in the last 48 hours, perhaps. But I suspect that what has caused this sharp adjustment is a large amount of very serious money coming on to Labour as they sense victory. The timing in the dramatic odds change was this afternoon when the Kiwi punters would have been active. I don't have that punter pressure so I will not move it until something else quantifiable happens. But as I said before it will probably narrow for Labour. You guys who back National should start thinking about the $2.75 on offer at the moment if you're true blue. This is where my odds diverge too as it is increasingly clear that Labour will have enough partners to govern even if National pipped them in the party vote. My odds are for the party vote - not who will govern. Keep that in mind as Labour have a good 5-10c minimum governing advantage regardless of exact party vote at the moment due to the "unity of the left" I mentioned earlier post-debate.

@12:30pm 9 Sept.
Was right to tighten Labour significantly - others following. Reluctant to push National out beyond $2.40, but may happen soon. As speculated in TV debate post, Brownlee is running defence for Brash which could make it worse as outlined.

@00:30am 9 Sept.
Unity signalled from the Left in the TV1 Leaders' Debate and in-fighting sensed amongst Dunne and esp. Peters on the Right. Add that to the unsightly spectacle of Brash's own exclusive interpretaion of Nixon and we have someone who looks just as tarnished and tawdry as the current PM. Well there goes that advantage. Will the NBR have a poll today? Talk about neck and neck - insert cliché here. Momentum is with Labour due to Brash's pamphlet recollections. Also Brash will find using Maori-bashing as a tool counter-productive from now on - it will just sound a bit too desperate as he needs to sound like a wise and safe Prime Minister. Same too with any paintergate/speedgate/Doonegate etc. as this will sound a bit hollow now. Having said all that, National may have one single golden arrow left in it's quiver and Labour may fumble. But that opportunity is narrowing exponentially - and I think the odds in the other markets are going to reflect that soon. I expect to be tightening on Labour in the near future.

-----2005 New Zealand General Election-----

----------CURRENT ODDS: TUMEKE!-----------
@00:30am 9 Sept.
HEAD TO HEAD
Option 2: National-Labour head-to-head largest party vote.
$1.49 Labour
$2.40 National

----------CURRENT ODDS: OFF-SHORE-----------
@5:00pm 9 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.40, NAT $2.70
Sportingbet: LAB $1.40 NAT $2.75
Betfair: LAB £1.44 NAT £2.12 LAB £1.35 NAT £2.38 @02:30am 11 Sept.

@12:30pm 9 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.55, NAT $2.30
Sportingbet: LAB $1.50 NAT $2.45
Betfair: LAB £1.44 NAT £2.12

@00:30am 9 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.55, NAT $2.25
Sportingbet: LAB $1.60 NAT $2.25
Betfair: LAB £1.56 NAT £2.10

TV1 Leaders' Debate: reflections

What a great debate! Pita Sharples led by example, reached out and prompted the other leaders to express some positive things about race relations and a multi-cultural New Zealand. It was as if he had lifted some sort of a tapu. I thought that was easily the highlight with the burden of cringing and shame gone.

Clark: has learnt to shut up - kept her nose clean again.
Brash: more confident, sounded reasonable - but struggled.
Anderton: acts as an extra Labour speaker and played his part of attacker competently.
Fitzsimons: sounded reasonable - made strong value statements.
Hide: indefatigable - strong on tax message.
Sharples: positive - but no detail.
Dunne: we've heard enough about families for this election.
Peters: melancholy - negative and openly divisive.

I noticed that everyone support's Cullen's Superannuation Fund except, seemingly, for Hide. The irony being Act's main establishing policy was a super fund. From memory it was Roger Douglas himself who helped enact the Kirk government's one and later devoted books to arguing for a fund (privatised but state supervised - a key but not insurmountable difference). The fund can be individualised later on - but Hide didn't say that - he had the chance of sounding positive and missed it. Oh well.

At one point Peters asked Sharples: "Are Maori part of the Crown?" Now is that a loaded question or what? Which is why he didn't answer it. He should of perhaps said "Are Pakeha?" Can an ethnic group be "part of" the State itself? Which is why I personally love Peters' Treaty bill that will get rid of the "principles" and supposedly supplant it with the actual text! Great! That's what Maori and many Pakeha think should of happened a long time ago. "Part of the Crown" must therefore mean "partner" correct? Does it not follow? Can you be a part of it but not a partner in it - and if you are not a partner then what is your status vis a vis being a "part"? Winston is a classic, but I seriously doubt that he knows what he is saying when he suggests that Maori are part of the Crown. Unless of course he is giving his classic double-signal to two polar opposite groups which simultaneously feel he's on their side because he asks things in terms of rhetorical questions rather than hard answers. His supporters just fill in the gaps with stuff they think they would like to have heard from him.

From the signals and korero of the televised courtship ritual and based on current odds these possibilities present themselves.

Government formation scenarios:
(in following order of likelihood + = on confidence)

#1. Labour-Progressive-Greens Coalition+NZ First

#2. Labour-Progressive-Greens Coalition+Maori Party

#3. Labour-Progressive Coalition+Greens+Maori Party

#4. Labour-Progressive Coalition+Greens+NZ First+United Future

#5. Labour-Progressive-Greens Coalition+NZ First+Maori Party

National-Act coalition would have United Future support... but probably not Winston's support. I just can't see that panning out at the moment. It is a possibility if National is the biggest party - but, as Brash is given to say "that's far from clear."

I think Rod Donald really wants to get into Cabinet... I think he's ready, and I think Labour are ready to have that if it means only relying on one other party for support.

The line up in the debate of Sharples-Fitzsimons-Anderton-Clark on the one side of the moderator, seemed a lot more coherent and harmonious than the negativity and equivocation of the other side, represented by Dunne and Peters. Right side had infighting, Left side had agreement. And yes, I know the Maori Party's flax roots empowerment ideas are hard to put on the spectrum, but I'm chalking them up to the Left.

I will have to revise my odds away from National in light of this unity of the Left regardless of how superficial it is in practice. (Sharples joked about being a cab that hasn't gone yet). Perception is everything.

Labour can now confidently and credibly assert stability whilst the Nats must defend their risk of "structural" instability (ie. NZ First) in any government they could form. This is where the incumbency advantage of having run a reliable government for six years starts to accrue.


Brash faces, perhaps his most difficult personal challenge ever over the next 8 days

He's 64 years old. This is his one and only shot at Prime Minister. Contrast Clark's detail with Brash's evasiveness or refusal to answer because he doesn't know what policy or even what city he is in. I do not wish to be unnecessarily unkind to the man, but I think his age might be showing. He has said before that being the Leader is far more demanding than what he was used to as Governor of the Reserve Bank. Well it's now ten sleeps to the election and the pressure is between x10 and x100. If he cannot mentally cope because of the physical necessities of the schedule he will either get caught out in a mental lapse so hillarious he will become an instant but of every joke long after the election - or, abandon some of the lesser diary items and be seen, as soon as he misses/defers/delegates his second scheduled item the pressure will go on immediately from the media that his campaign is lagging - spun by Labour and Winston, it becomes "terminal" or "in free-fall" - at which point the media have turned it into reality. Brownshirt will have to step in to front for Brash and answer questions about "free-fall," at which point National's swinging female vote may become terminal. Brownlee will have to deal with rumours of how soon he will take over the leadership after Don did his duty and lost "less badly" than last time.

The only way National could form a government (at this point with the usual caveats) would be if Act was there, United Future had a few, and they could all agree with compromising to NZ First's position on immigration and exports and the Maori Party's position on substantial devolvement of government services to overtly-Maori organisations and not-abolishing the Maori seats. It's one hell of an outside possibility. How badly do the Nats want it?

Are Exclusive Brethren "mainstream," Dr Brash?

Really? A fringe group of control-freak, wife-abusing, bible-bashing, pathologically insecure white men are linked to the National party? You don't say.

Asian girl-on-girl action

Excellent post. The language is shocking, the probing intensive and the older one is spanked mercilessly.

ELECTION BOOK: TV3 poll - hugely volatile

----------LATEST NEWS-----------
@ 6:20pm 7 Sept.
TV3 poll 7 Sept.:
Party vote:
LAB 45%, NAT 36%, NZF 5%, GRN 7%, MAO 1.7%, UNF 1.5%, ACT 2.4%, PRG 0.3%

----------COMMENTARY-----------
@6:45pm 8 Sept.
The off-shore books are dumping National rapidly following Brethren controversy. I'll wait to see Brash's defence on Close Up and the debate tonight on TV1 before altering the odds - and they ought to be tightening on Labour too.

@2:30pm 8 Sept.
My odds fully vindicated at this point with entire market aligning. And I'm going to keep it there too, until there is a measurable movement that confirms a trend to my satisfaction.

@10:30pm 7 Sept.
Both of the off-shore bookies have tightened towards Labour, but not as much as I would have expected - those strong National polls earlier in the week must be weighted quite heavily in their thinking.

@6:20pm 7 Sept.
I'm not moving, don't have to. The off-shore markets overstated the last poll that put National ahead. Maybe they'll overstate this one too? This significant Labour lead illustrates the volatility in polling I wrote about last time, whereby the pollers press people who say "don't know" for an answer and they tell them whoever had the best headlines for that day and that response (which could easily change tommorow) is counted as being a firm vote rather than a don't know. $1.66 - I'm happy with that... until tomorrow.

Explanation: If I was operating this book in real terms I would have gone down to one point above the best National Party rate rather than have stayed at $2.12 for the last week.

-----2005 New Zealand General Election-----

----------CURRENT ODDS: TUMEKE!-----------
@6:20pm 7 Sept.
HEAD TO HEAD
Option 2: National-Labour head-to-head largest party vote.
$1.66 Labour
$2.12 National

----------CURRENT ODDS: OFF-SHORE-----------
@6:45pm 8 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.60, NAT $2.20
Sportingbet: LAB $1.60 NAT $2.25
Betfair: LAB £1.72 NAT £2.10

@2:30pm 8 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.65, NAT $2.10
Sportingbet: LAB $1.67 NAT $2.10
Betfair: LAB £1.72 NAT £2.00

@10:30pm 7 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.70, NAT $2.00
Sportingbet: LAB $1.77 NAT $1.95
Betfair: LAB £1.73 NAT £1.57

@6:20pm 7 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.80, NAT $1.90
Sportingbet: LAB $1.82 NAT $1.88
Betfair: LAB £1.72 NAT £1.80

Politicalbetting.com also has some relevant information.

"A rapid and substantial market-led exchange rate depreciation"

Treasury says our currency valuation is 17% overstated, "as a consequence we have revised down our exchange rate assumption by bringing forward the fall in the NZD by one quarter..." Maybe it's time to take advantage of that information now when the Kiwi is at almost 71c US.

The Pre-election fiscal update says quite clearly in the summary:

A continued build-up of these imbalances - through, for instance, domestic demand growth not slowing as expected - would increase the risk of further monetary policy tightening and/or a rapid and substantial market-led exchange rate depreciation. In either case a much more pronounced growth cycle may eventuate.

and:

B.16 | 15
Assumptions Underlying the Economic Forecasts

Oil prices. Brent crude oil prices... assumed trise from their estimated level of US$56.00 per barrel in the September quarter 2005 to US$59.10 per barrel in the first quarter of 2006, before declining gradually over the remainder of the forecast period to US$53.60 per barrel in the March quarter 2009.

Monetary conditions. The New Zealand dollar exchange rate as measured by the TWI is assumed to depreciate from its level of 70.8 in the second quarter of 2005. The TWI declines steadily to its estimated equilibrium level of around 59. A neutral short-term interest rate of 5.8% is assumed.

and then this:

"Should the recent high level of the exchange rate have a greater impact on export volumes, or if the exchange rate does not depreciate as is assumed, it is possible that the economy may face a more protracted slowdown period with the recovery pushed further out... any adjustment may occur in a less orderly manner with the potential that economic growth could prove more volatile than the profile incorporated in these forecasts."

And earlier the "market-led" scenario seems in a context that implied the RBNZ, or at least the Treasury does not advise any intervention above 17% of current value ie. US$ 0.57-60c. AND that is exactly where it should end up very shortly according to Treasury, BUT have they told the Reserve Bank?

They seem to think we need it to stay high enough to attract currency traders and maintain foreigner's value in NZ. The 0-3% target for inflation has effectively exported inflation as a problem to deal with from the Treasury to the Reserve Bank - and the only way they can do it is through only two tools: 1. interest rates and 2. the creation of credit - this has led them to create an inflation in the exchange rate because that is not controlled and effectively acts as a yet underestimated third tool. The use of the second tool has created a huge surge in the inflation of real estate and the first a huge inflation in interest rates. So be it? This is the price of cheap food, plasma screens and the $2 shop?

The Governor of the Reserve bank's key performance indicator is a consumers price index rating AND managing the money markets and banking. And they do too good a job. There is no inflation target for the exchange rate. This has externalised the inflationary pressure. RBNZ can create credit for overseas market and not create internal inflation - which is their job description. And a good manager can create enough external inflation to create the markets and Brash did this. But not including an "exchange rate target" or TWI target means they will keep operating their perfect system of markets steadily until... crunch. Because they can't manage a crisis where stability is important but they have to maintain a high interest rate to attract capital and the value of that capital and also have low inflation. The 4% sudden depreciation in early July should have been a warning (it was predicted in this blog just beforehand.)

Treasury seem amazed it doesn't each time it gets worse. The underlying value is slipping because of our entire economy's high debt as expressed in the declining terms of trade and a current account deficit. Our interest rates are high to attract overseas currency and keep our credit rating high. Why? In whose interests? The economy is mortgaged up the ya-ya to foreign finance and they pull their profits out at terms that they have effectively set, whilst our exporters suffer a high exchange rate.

Our system, as operated legally and within all KPIs with targets met is pushing the max. CPI rate of 3% and is expected to go slightly over for a short period. Interest rates are the highest in the Western world and property values are inflated and the exchange rate is almost one-fifth over-valued by the Treasury's own figures and they predict every likilihood of an extreme "market-led" adjustment downwards if the conditions don't improve very soon. We are very close to that very soon priviso. At this point my ears prick up. Our national investment base is so weak and our thinking so short-term that when we have all these inflationary things in alignment I must ask: what is the Governor to do?

He can't go over 3% CPI inflation or he'll get fired and there will be a financial crisis and our triple AAA international credit rating that the Governor defends as the de facto benchmark KPI is up the ya-ya. So he cannot push inflation above 3% - even to ask will send jitters through the market and could trigger a crash. We are operating the machine at full tilt according to the PREFU:

consumer price inflation is predicted to peak at 3.1% in the September quarter of 2005 and remain near 3% for much of the next two years.

So he has no room to move at all. Can't touch it.

He can drag interest rates higher and kill off growth and drive the currency up even further that would keep the CPI under control?!! But all of Treasury's forecasts are shredded if that happens because of the expectations that the system can only come right with low rate of inflation, steady growth and a low exchange rate. Well that's all up the ya-ya too because Treasury thinks interest rates should be about 1% less. Something must give.

He could let the exchange rate find it's new level as people cash in their revalued chips at the exotic Casino Zealandia. And that's what I think will happen - and soon.

This is where I can't work out whether Cullen is a fool or a genius. By stashing away so much loot in overseas currency - $6b (?) (90% odd of it) in the Superannuation Fund and bolstering the RBNZ stealthily over the last year when the dollar has been so high has improved it's real long-term value to us in NZ$ despite not investing in the country's internal capital. Making hay while the sun shines? If so, does it mean that he will use it to defend the NZ$ in an emergency to keep the exchange rate up, or not? I think not. Others might think differently. Others might say @65c, or $60c some would say @50c? Who knows?

The EU solved many of these problems by agreeing to fix the exchange rate with a majority of their trade partners. Maybe we could investigate doing the same?

I don't want to rain on the parade, but when we hit 0.71c US and Treasury thinks we're only worth 0.60c US we do have a problem.

--------UPDATE---------
@12:30am 7 Sept.
Just passed the US$0.71c barrier in trading- buy US$ now with your Kiwi - it won't be much more affordable than this. Esp. in oil futures.
Kiwi buys €0.57c is at the moment that's also too high.
--------------------------

P Wong, MP

12 sleeps to the general election

Early spring air, Grey Lynn villas, quiet street.

John A Lee and Richard Prebble, and fast Eddy Isby* may have stood where we stand, and addressed the faithful as local MP. Now I stand alone waiting for the scheduled street corner "powwow" and for the sub five foot Chinese carpet-bagger from Christchurch to tell me why she's National.

Wong was in full chinglish imperspicuity, in search of the perquisite street corner mob represented entirely by someone intent on heckling her. She said she got ten in Herne Bay at the weekend. Whatever.

All three of the casual Pakeha small business owners listened and questioned. "Nothing from Judith Tizard," complained the woman with the large dog - and of course I nodded having had the underwhelming occasion to have been graced with her presence and nothing at all in the letterbox from her despite 12 individual pieces of political material from everyone else. It seems the crank parties are more organised than her.

We departed assured her tokenistic representation afforded us lower rates, and amidst the concern for where we'd be if we built Robbie's system, some vague promise about finishing the motorways in eight years time.

31 years - that's her level of spoken English! As a native English speaker I find it insulting she only uses it as a minimal tool of necessary communication with the locals - no need to learn syntax or plural terms for words when you can use a txtg versn stble locl wht pepl. ok? Y

No votes changed here.

*I worked for Prebble as an electorate agent, did political studies at Auckland University with Isby and was a Grey Lynn bookshop proprietor as John A Lee once was. With that awareness of history and therefore, I think, an adequate judge of local moment I venture to say this was not a moment.

GUEST BLOG: The mask slipped

Introducing special guest blogger, Martyn Bradbury.

-------------------MB------------------

The Mask slipped

America is the Pop Culture super power. No other county has the type of cultural penetration that the United States enjoys over the entire planet. American values, pop culture and consumer morality has found itself merge with an idea of freedom that finds appeal in restricted democracies and places of poverty where the dream of liberty lives not for Big Macs, but for something as everyday as clean water and basic housing.

Last weekend, that First World mask of Freedom slipped horribly by what was exposed in Mississippi and Louisiana. When the call to evacuate was made, those that could afford to flee Hurricane Katrina, fled. Those who could not afford to flee; the black, the poor, the weak and the elderly became a reflection of the hidden reality within the United States.

While pursuing the American Dream, white middle class America have left no American Pie for those living below the poverty line. In a country of such disproportional social equity, where 5% of the population own 90% of the wealth, the world was exposed to the other America, the America that never learned from it's 246 years of Slavery. An America that never acknowledged the near genocide of the Native American Indians during their founding years, an America that has turned a blind eye to the suffering of the nearly 30 million Americans who live below the Poverty line. This refusal to even contemplate their position of luxury at the expense of vast swathes of their own citizens is the resentful feeling that boiled into searing reality as the lack of leadership for those most vulnerable, face after face of whom were African American -  spoke black and white volumes.

The complete lack of preparation or planning for evacuation is however not a racial issue, this is an issue of social inequity. Those with nothing have no power, where as those with wealth do, it's as simple as that. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that if a natural disaster the scale of Hurricane Katrina had hit somewhere affluent like Beverly Hills, the reaction would be any less immediate than what was displayed during the September 11th tragedy? One commentator declared that America has an amazing tolerance for the pain of Black Americans. I know that if CNN had been beaming out live pictures from Beverly Hills with White People staring back in pain and fear, the rescue mission would not have taken 6 whole days to finally save those desperate huddled masses.

When the mask of how you want to see yourself slips, deep national soul searching is mounted, America needs to ask itself some very big questions about what social equity in the year 2005 really means. Is America still the land of the free, home of the brave?

Judging by the incredible generosity of the American people in Katrina's aftermath, there is no doubt it is still home of the brave, but the land of the free? You would need to ask one of it's citizens who was left to fend for themselves in their own waste because that was all the options their constitutional 'freedom' could afford them.

-------------------MB------------------

ELECTION BOOK: National narrows

----------LATEST NEWS-----------
@ 12:30am 5 Sept.
One News poll 4 Sept.:
Party vote:
LAB 38%, NAT 46%, NZF 5%, GRN 6%, MAO 2%, UNF 1%, ACT 1%, DST 1%
Preferred PM:
CLARK 40%, BRASH 31%

----------COMMENTARY-----------
@12:30am 5 Sept.
National getting traction from rednecks. Latest One poll is proof of that being after Orewa III or IV or LXXIX or whatever it was - one Pavlov's race-baiting is much like another. Public statements about not liking Maori are still considered Prime Ministerial by many Pakeha. How embarassing. If Brash can beat Clark on the preferred Prime Minister stakes then NATIONAL WILL WIN. He's gained a lot of ground but still has some way to go. BUT Nat's have poorly polling partners so will have a hard time forming a government even if they get more party vote. Therefore we shall probably see a slight difference in my odds compared with the others as they are on the party to provide PM question and not largest party vote. Very interesting times. Expect labour to get even dirtier! More "leaked" this and that and more negative ads like the one in today's NZ Herald claiming that National's tax cuts are "crazy."

-----2005 New Zealand General Election-----

----------CURRENT ODDS: TUMEKE!-----------
@2:00am 5 Sept.
HEAD TO HEAD
Option 2: National-Labour head-to-head largest party vote.
$1.66 Labour
$2.12 National

----------CURRENT ODDS: OFF-SHORE-----------
@4:23pm 5 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Sportingbet: LAB $1.77 NAT $1.90
Betfair: LAB £1.65 NAT £1.70

@11:50am 5 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.75, NAT $1.95

@12:30am 5 Sept.
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.55, NAT $2.25
Sportingbet: LAB $1.57 NAT $2.20
Betfair: LAB £1.45 NAT £1.70
Politicalbetting.com also has some relevant information.

ELECTION BOOK: Consolidation - full market

Here is the consolidated betting market for the election.

-----2005 New Zealand General Election-----

----------CURRENT ODDS: TUMEKE!-----------
@4:01pm 04/09
HEAD TO HEAD
Option 2: National-Labour head-to-head largest party vote.
$1.58 Labour
$2.25 National

----------CURRENT ODDS: OFF-SHORE-----------
@4:01pm 04/09
PARTY TO PROVIDE NEXT PM
Centrebet: LAB $1.55, NAT $2.25
Sportingbet: LAB $1.57 NAT $2.20
Betfair: LAB £1.45 NAT £2.40
Politicalbetting.com also has some relevant information.

----------ODDS DATA TIMELINE-----------

TUMEKE!/Centrebet
03 Sept. LAB-1.58/1.55 NAT-2.25/2.25
02 Sept. LAB-1.58/1.50 NAT-2.25/2.40
01 Sept. LAB-1.58/1.55 NAT-2.25/2.30
31 Aug. LAB-1.58/1.50 NAT-2.25/2.55
30 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.50 NAT-2.60/2.55
29 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.28 NAT-2.60/3.25
28 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.40 NAT-2.60/2.70
27 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.40 NAT-2.60/2.70
26 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.40 NAT-2.60/2.70
25 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.40 NAT-2.60/2.70
24 Aug. LAB-1.45/1.40 NAT-2.60/2.70
23 Aug. LAB-1.50/1.40 NAT-2.45/2.70
22 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.45 NAT-2.30/2.55
21 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.50 NAT-2.30/2.40
20 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
19 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
18 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
17 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
16 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
15 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
14 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.46 NAT-2.30/2.50
13 Aug. LAB-1.55/1.44 NAT-2.30/2.62
12 Aug. LAB-1.60/1.44 NAT-2.20/2.62
11 Aug. LAB-1.60/1.46 NAT-2.20/2.50
10 Aug. LAB-1.60/1.53 NAT-2.20/2.35
09 Aug. LAB-1.60/1.60 NAT-2.20/2.20
08 Aug. LAB-1.65/1.60 NAT-2.10/2.20
07 Aug. LAB-1.65/1.60 NAT-2.10/2.20
06 Aug. LAB-1.70/1.60 NAT-2.05/2.20
05 Aug. LAB-1.70/1.65 NAT-2.05/2.10
04 Aug. LAB-1.70/1.65 NAT-2.05/2.10
03 Aug. LAB-1.70/1.65 NAT-2.05/2.10
02 Aug. LAB-1.70/1.65 NAT-2.05/2.10
01 Aug. LAB-1.75/1.65 NAT-2.00/2.10
31 July LAB-1.75/1.65 NAT-2.00/2.10
30 July LAB-1.75/1.65 NAT-2.00/2.10
29 July LAB-1.75/1.65 NAT-2.00/2.10
28 July LAB-1.85/1.80 NAT-1.90/1.90
27 July LAB-1.85/1.83 NAT-1.90/1.83
26 July LAB-1.85/1.90 NAT-1.90/1.75
25 July LAB-1.85/1.83 NAT-1.90/1.83
----------------------------