Labour polls 27.1 percent

TV3 polls are typically the most accurate of all polls; they were leading up to the 2008 election, so a poll in which Labour will get just 34 MPs should be worrying for Labour -they`ll lose both their senior and junior whips and a bunch of list MPs should this be the election night poll. Its their lowest poll result since 1996. After the election there will be just three new Labour MPs - one on a high list position and two presented with safe seats that Judith Tizard could win.The TV3 Reid Research poll puts National on 57.5 per cent support, giving them 71 seats - more than twice as many as Labour - and more than a 30 percent gap. National's highest ever poll was 60 percent.

This poll reveals that 15.4 percent are either unsure or vote forthe minor parties. In the minor parties, the Greens got 7.7 percent, NZ First 2.8 percent ( both down) , the Maori Party 2.5 percent and Act 1.7 percent ( both up). UnitedFuture remains on 0.2 percent. The poll's margin of error is 3.1 percent.

Labour's MPs seem in defeat mode already, indicating that Goff will take the bullet for Labour's election loss. If Labour had have rolled Goff a lot earlier, like in 2009 about the time I called it - its poll result would not have been so low. In fact, it would have done Labour a world of good. And for not rolling Goff back then, Labour only has itself to blame.

Minor parties may see a resurgence

Phil Goff says he is happy to work with Winston Peters in Parliament after the election. That’s easy for him to say. Phil Goff may not be Labour’s leader and Peters may not be in Parliament.

However with Goff shooting himself in the foot so much that it is expected that he will do it again will lead to many deserting the party for the Greens and NZ First. Ironically NZ First will only get into Parliament if Labours vote collapses further and bleeds votes to NZ First. The Greens are principled, NZ First has a loud leader, and UnitedFuture has an MP who is plugging away at his electorate and his ministerial job with his support pretty much constant. I wouldn’t be surprised if John Key, closer to the election, was to publicly encourage Ohariu voters to vote Peter Dunne instead of Katrina Shanks.

As Labour is an unreliable opposition and is not a government in waiting, the Greens are the left’s only hope of principled left politics until Goff is removed. Those who don’t want to vote Green are going for NZ First. Let’s see if a poll out tomorrow reflects that. The last Colmar Brunton poll put Labour on 34 percent and I’d be surprised if tomorrow’s poll puts Labour much above 31.5 percent.

It is not only those on the left that have deserted Labour. Many of the middle voters deserted Labour some time ago and voted National in 2008, and they have remained with National.[ Update Some in the Ratana Church are calling its members to abandon Labour and are not impressed with their member being 55th on the list.]

National looks like it will sleepwalk to victory in this year’s election. Will many of Labour’s activists now be foot soldiers for the Greens because they don’t want to defend a party led by Phil Goff? Or will they concentrate on certain candidates in the same way they would do in a First Past the Post election?

Labour’s list

The Colmar Brunton poll is out tonight putting Labour on 34 percent, giving it 42 seats. I think that’s a little optimistic.

Interestingly, Labour's 2011 list is out also and rather than reproducing it, you can see it here. Should tonight's poll hold on election day, Labour will have several new MP’s including Jerome Mika (who failed in his attempt to be Labour's candidate for Manurewa), Andrew Little and Deborah Mahuta-Coyle, even if National doesn’t take any seats from Labour.

Based on 31.5 percent, which I think will be more realistic, and based on every Labour MP retaining their electorate seat which may not be as realistic, Steve Chadwick will lose her seat.Incidentially, Mahuta-Coyle's husband used to be a ministerial advisor to Chadwick. Ashraf Choudhary and Damien O'Connor, who are not on the list and unlikely to win electorates, will also be out. New MPs are likely to be Little (at 15 on the list) and Mahuta-Coyle,(at 26). Michael Wood, who lost the recent Botany by-election should be the first on the list outside Parliament and will get into parliament on a resignation - or will it be Steve Chadwick,or Kate Sutton, next on the list who will get parachuted in, assuming Phil Twyford wins his seat.Who knows with Labour.

However if Labour’s vote on election day drops below 30%, Stuart Nash will be out of Parliament. Andrew Little will be Labour's sole new list MP, and Megan Woods and David Clark the new electorate MPs ( to replace Jim Anderton and Pete Hodgson respectively).

Ian-Lees Galloway won Labour its only seat outside metropolitan centres at the last election but has been given second lowest list spot of current MPs.Lousia Wall is not even on the list. Neither is Liane Dalziel but both are expected to win their seats. Jeremy Greenbrook Held (candidate for Helensville) has no chance - up against John Key and is not even on the list. Kris Faafoi will be out if Hekia Parata wins Mana. And as for iPredict predicting that Peter Dunne will lose his seat to Charles Chauvel, I doubt that`ll happen.

Having Jordan Carter, Michael Bott and Josie Pagani (who also failed in an attempt to be selected as a by-election candidate this year) so low in the list is just a protection of the old guard, like Raymond Huo, Rajen Prasad, Carol Beaumont and Darien Fenton.

Had Labour put talented newcomers higher up the list, it would then be seen as encouraging new talent. Also, of the top 15, all but two have a promotion. Just two have lost rankings – the sole two Maori MPs from the Maori seats. Guess if you are Maori and are planning to stand for Labour and want to get promoted, your only option is to get on the list - unless you are gay.

Don’t blame MMP for Labour’s problems

The NZ Herald has said that Louisa Wall is the most suitable candidate to replace Darren Hughes on Labour’s list. Why? Not because of any of her qualities, but because she is the next on the party list who will also be on the list prior to the 2011 election. Wall is several places below Judith Tizard, the next on the list.

Had Pansy Wong been a list MP, Conway Powell would have been an MP upon her resignation as he is next on the National party list. Does that mean he is the most suitable candidate, or would former Act MP Stephen Franks and former United Future MP Marc Alexander, the next two on the list, be more suitable, given their parliamentary experience?

Legislation does not determine which MP comes into parliament based on their suitability, but on their position in the party list. If an MP is deemed unsuitable or unwanted – as Tizard obviously is – it is not because of the vagaries of MMP, as the Herald would have you believe, it is due to an ill thought out list selection.

Labour, and the Herald, may well say Louisa Wall intends to resume her political career if she is leapfrogged by the party into Parliament. But she will stay in Parliament as long as Tizard would if she does not get a low enough list place to get into Parliament after the election. Labour has not indicated that Wall will be high enough on the list for her to return in November.

Is Darren Hughes still getting paid – and can the Speaker do something about it?

updated,
When a list MP leaves parliament prior to an election, the next MP on the party list usually takes his or her place. But there is a process to follow.

As most know, Labour list MP Darren Hughes has left parliament, and in order for Judith Tizard, the next on the list, to take his place in Parliament, the Electoral Commission has to supply the vacancy. Prior to that, the Governor General has to notify the Electoral Commission of the vacancy. The Governor General is advised of the vacancy by the Speaker. The Speaker is usually advised in writing by the party or member that has the vacant seat, and publishes that vacancy in the Gazette.

In the case of Darren Hughes, apparently, none of this has happened yet*.

From what I can gather, nobody has written to the Speaker telling him of the vacancy. Hughes may be gone, but if his seat has not been declared vacant,no one else can take it. If Hughes has not resigned, he may still getting paid by parliamentary services notwithstanding this statement indicating a decision to resign. What’s more, there is no time limit in the Electoral Act to determine a replacement for a list MP.

However, if the Speaker is satisfied that the seat of an elected member has become vacant, that Speaker must, without delay, publish a notice of the vacancy and its cause in the Gazette.

Could it be that the Speaker does not have to have a letter advising him of the vacancy. What is stopping Lockwood Smith publishing a notice in the Gazette accordingly if he is satisfied that Hughes' seat has become vacant, sans letter of resignation. Or does this satisfaction not occur until a letter is produced.Perhaps that's it - [update Yep, and it's stated in Section 55 of the Electoral Act. Missed that.Thanks Graeme Edgeler for that comment below]

So while the media wants to imply that Tizard is giving Labour the runaround by not making her mind up, she has every right not to reveal whether she wants the seat if the Speaker hasn’t written to the Governor General to advise of a vacancy.

If nothing changes, and Hughes hasn't formally resigned,he could get paid, and could even sit in his parliamentary seat until the election.

Of course that will cause another media firestorm. It would also displease Labour as it will have one less MP on the taxpayer tit to campaign in the election, which is why Labour wants Louisa Wall, a 2011 candidate, to take Hughes' place. However Wall's selection will be a better deal for the taxpayer. Tizard, if she takes a list place, would cost the country more as she would get three month’s salary after being booted out at the election. Louisa Wall, should she be selected may well be an MP after the election.

Either way someone who is not wanted or is of no use to Labour is likely to be paid. And you’re paying.

Update Apparently he is resigning next week. I guess this will be be backdated to the date that Goff accepted the resignation.

* if Hughes has (since) resigned, this post is purely academic

Goff is Labour’s leader, and he should lead

My last post touched on Labour leader Phil Goff’s leadership, and, unlike many others, called for Goff to lead, not to be replaced by someone who doesn’t want the job – i.e. everyone else in Labour’s caucus.

As leader of the Opposition, Goff is supposed to lead a party that is intent on providing an alternative government so that when there is an election the people can decide that this alternative bunch is worth a crack at government again.

Just as the focus on the Darren Hughes affair shifted to Goff’s leadership, so the discussion is now shifting to the effectiveness of the party he is supposed to be leading. And much of this discussion is generated by Labour activists who can only be described as really pissed off. One activist asks “any suggestions on who to vote for in the upcoming election?”, implying a party other than Labour. The rest are asking for a leader other than Goff. They won't get that before the election.

Goff is now the leader, and he should lead. If Goff won’t lead - and he won’t be challenged - Labour deserve to go down the gurgler at the next election, in part because they didn’t have the balls to roll Goff earlier in the electoral cycle. I thought he should have been rolled way back in 2009 and called it.

Goff actually said the Hughes affair is bound to be bad for the party and then today said it has strengthened his leadership. Well, if it has strengthened his leadership, it needs to be a lot stronger, so, under Goff’s reasoning, let’s have another sex scandal.

The Darren Hughes debacle has actually strengthened Goff’s hold on the leadership, as the desire for anyone else to be leader has greatly diminished . Consequently, that’s bound to be bad for the party - because Goff is still leader of a caucus whose members are, in the main, talented bobble heads ( at least in front of the cameras), none of whom want to lead, including some who'd rather not be led by Goff.

Labour needs to get back to being an opposition, to hold the government to account and to provide an alternative to National. Otherwise disaffected Labour activists may end up voting Green.

What a shambles

Just wondering, can we have a Labour leader now? Forget David Cunliffe. Grant Robertson, although a fairly recent arrival in Parliament, would do a better job (and so what if he is gay) – but he doesn’t want the job. No one wants it. Phil Goff has it and he should get on and do it, because the party deserves it and needs it.

Phil Goff’s handling of the Darren Hughes allegations was terrible. If he is inept at this, how is he going to be able to run a country?

Goff has refused to return calls from party president Andrew Little on the Hughes allegations. He has refused to truthfully reveal how long he had known about the Hughes allegations. We now know he knew a day 0r two after the complaint was made to the police , i.e within a few days of the alleged incident. He has refused to accept the resignation of Darren Hughes,(twice), only to accept it, under pressure, days after the news broke. You’d at least think that he’d talk to his president to manage how this news was to be broken, or before accepting a resignation of a top MP before a police investigation is completed.

But he did neither. The immediate appointment of Goff’s old school mate David Shearer to Hughes’ education portfolio hasn’t pleased everyone. Nobody in Labour wants Judith Tizard to replace Hughes on the list, although Goff has asked Tizard whether she will take up the vacant list spot.

But Goff hasn’t spoken to Little about that, either. Goff doesn’t want Tizard to take up the list place, but feels he has to give her first dibs, and told reporters she should be the next MP. Meanwhile LIttle was telling journalists that Louisa Wall - who is several list places lower than Tizard - should be the next MP. One political journalist asked me, “Do they even talk?”.

Tizard said she`ll let Goff know in about a week whether she wants to be an MP again and get $162,020 for a few month’s work - perhaps she`ll talk to the New York branch of the party first. National MP’s, however, would love to see Tizard back.

Goff is a hopeless leader because he doesn’t generate hope, and he doesn’t have the support of his caucus. Labour MPs, rather than following him, are merely falling in behind him, unsure whether to backstab him, because no one wants to lead the Labour Party in its current state until they feel it is necessary to do so. Goff is no pied piper. There’s no way Labour can effectively run the country under Goff, when it can’t even be an effective opposition or explain its own policies.

Take employment for example. Labour’s employment strategy is that it is telling people that it has a plan for jobs, and that National doesn't. That’s it. No mention at all as to what that plan actually is.

We deserve better than that. If we don't have an effective opposition, who is going to provide checks on democracy - the fourth estate?

Rod Oram on Labour’s game plan

A while back I commented on Phil Goffs speech at the Labour Conference. Now Labour has attempted to be a lot more proactive recently, e.g OpenLabour, but one of the things Goff said in his speech was:

John Key has no game plan for our cities and our farms so that we can compete and win in the global economy.

I do.

Can any one tell me what that game plan is? Can anyone tell Rod Oram, because he doesn’t believe Labour has got a game plan.

National has a six point economic plan: regulation, taxation, infrastructure, science and innovation, skills and public service are the elements in the order it lists them. What’s Labour’s plan, apart from modifying monetary policy ( somehow), create (somehow) government involvement in economic strategy (unspecified), and removal of GST on fresh fruits and vegetables?

Labour Party conference: Goff has a game plan – but won’t tell us what it is

Occasionally, on Big News we like to praise both Labour, and National. Both parties have done great things in previous years –and both parties have done terrible things.

Phil Goff wants to do great things. But he needs to tell us how he wants to go about it. In his speech at the Labour Party conference, he did the former, but not the latter. He said

John Key has no game plan for our cities and our farms so that we can compete and win in the global economy.

I do.

In business, game plans are only effective if the CEO is a leader. If Goff wants the country to believe him, he is going to have to lead, and state what that game plan is, otherwise voters will conclude that he does not have a game plan – but a dream.

National won’t bring unemployment down. But Labour did.

I’d like to know how Labour is going to bring unemployment down to record lows, without pushing the sickness benefit up to record highs.

We will work with people who keep ownership and jobs onshore in New Zealand rather than exporting jobs overseas.

I’d like to know how Labour will work with people before they export jobs overseas, not just those who want to keep jobs onshore.

Labour is fighting to put government back on the side of hardworking New Zealanders, so that we don’t have two New Zealands any more.

How?

We must be the party of "We can do this."

How about being the party of 'We will do this'?

Or don’t you know how, just yet?

Dunedin North is another Ohariu

With ACTs David Garrett resigning from Parliament, Hilary Calvert enters Parliament. She contested Dunedin North at the last election, which means that four candidates who contested Dunedin North at the last election will be sitting in Parliament after recess: Pete Hodgson, Michael Woodhouse, Metiria Tuei and Calvert.

The only other electorate like this is Ohariu. Four current MPs also contested Ohariu in 2008: Peter Dunne, Charles Chauvel, Gareth Hughes and Katrina Shanks. It would have been five had Heather Roy not shifted to contest Wellington Central.

Labour Party members get two votes out of seven to select a candidate for Dunedin North. And today they did so. As expected David Clark won and will be the new MP for Dunedin North after the election. His brother Ben is likely to be Labour's North Shore candidate.

As with Kris Fa’afoi, the candidate that Goffice, unions, and the local MP wanted prevailed. But unlike Fa'afoi, at least Clark appeared to have a history of involvement in the electorate.

I’m wondering why local party members in various electorates that are not associated with unions don’t have more of a say as to who their candidate is.

Rules on parliamentary sick leave

Righto. Chris Carter wants two weeks months sick leave and is applying to the speakers office to do so.Fair enough, he's sought medical advice, but, unlike the plebs, he doesn't have to supply a sick note.Parties can only give 14 sitting days sick leave - that's just over four and a half weeks. Carter can get more sick leave if he applies to the speakers office. He could get about three and a half weeks to make up the two months.

If it is not granted, Carter could lose $10 a day off his pay. At a salary of $145,000 that's about 10 minutes pay per day. The most he can lose is $150 off his pay ( at a maximum of $30 per week as there are three sitting days each week).

Does that mean that he can take sick leave on practically full pay even if the speaker doesn't grant it? If so, why, when the rest of us have to take annual leave when sick leave runs out.

Oh and Chris Carter has got some supporters who have a blog now. Nice, too, apart from the spelling.At least they got rid of the " hello world" post.Finally.

Chris Carter has been suspended from the Labour Party caucus

updated
Chris Carter has been suspended from the Labour Party caucus after admitting to sending an anonymous letter claiming there is a plot to overthrow leader Phil Goff.

There isn't.

You can read the letter here.

This letter was reported earlier today, before Carter's name became public. The letter also says Manurewa MP George Hawkins is being challenged by a union member for nomination, understood to be a EPMU member, and is threatening a by-election.

"There are no more chances. His future in the Labour Party is at an end," Goff said.

Goff said he recognised Mr Carter's handwriting on the envelope of the anonymous letter addressed, as I recall, to Vernon Small at the Press Gallery.( update: it was sent to other media outlets also). Carter may be expelled from the party as early as next weekend and nominations will be reopened for the Te Atatu electorate - of which Carter's partner, Peter Kaiser, is the electorate chair.

Of course, Carter can stay on as an independent, or resign and force a by-election. Either way, it's a sad day for the Labour caucus, but they'll bounce back.

Chris Carter, I guess, is wishing that Helen Clark was still the leader of the Labour Party. The rest of the caucus are supportive of the current leadership.

Jones wants Māori Party gone: Māori Labour voters want Goff gone

Nearly half Māori voters who vote Labour do not believe Goff is the man to be leading the Labour Party. Just over a third (36%) say he is and just under a half (49%) say he isn't. However, of Labour voters not on the Māori roll the vote was pretty much 50/50 thanks to the expected overhangs..

It’s a pity the pollsters didn’t ask who is the person that should lead the Labour Party. The answer would have been interesting, given that Shane Jones, who wants to get rid of the Māori Party, is the least preferred PM after Key, Goff, Sharples, Turia and Harawira - and even Helen Clark and Winston Peters who aren't even in Parliament.

In fact Māori electorate voters would rather have Harawira as PM than Goff - but they’d also rather have Goff than Jones. Perhaps some Labour Maori voters would rather have Harawira as leader of the Labour Party.

Yep, Jones is at the bottom of the preferred PM pile, and is the only Labour MP in the list other than Goff. The poll of 1001, constituted 68% on the Māori roll and 32% from the General roll - and of those on the General roll, 51% would vote Labour. About a third of those on the Māori roll would vote Labour,despite a proportion of them preferring someone other than Goff as leader.

Why would Māori vote for a party if they want that party to have a change of leadership, and don’t believe that the leader is providing good leadership on Māori issues? Perhaps because a vote for the Maori Party is perceived to be wasted due to an expected overhang.

Phil Goff has said that he will work with a party “if we think that is in the interests of the country”. Personally, I don’t believe Labour considers the Māori Party is in the best interest of the country, purely because it is more friendly with National. That’s an incorrect position to take, because imagine the mess the country would be in if National was in full coalition with ACT, with Roger Douglas as a cabinet minister, and the Maori Party arguing with Labour from the sidelines?

Ratana wants four Labour list seats

In the 1940's the Ratana Church had four seats in parliament. All we aligned to Labour, all were Maori seats, all its representatives joined the Labor caucus. Most of them didn't do much, a bit like some of the unionists that have got list seats in recent years. Some, like Matiu Rata, joined Labour and became more effective.

Now that the Maori Party has most of the Maori seats, the church knows it cannot win most of the Maori seats: to do so would mean it would have more Maori seats than the Maori Party. It knows it can't get any Maori seats off Labour. So the church has publicly asked Labour for four safe list seats to be aligned to Labour in parliament. The Maori Party has never had a list seat. If the Catholic or Presbyterian Church made such a request, they'd be laughed at.

It was a strange request, particularly as Ratana Church Minister Joe Everett earlier told John Key "In the short time that you have been in power you've done so much more than what others have done for the ... Maori people."

Ratana should take its support elsewhere. Most if it already is.Its current leader supports Labour but many of those in the church, particularly the younger ones, support the Maori Party.

Phil Goff's Ratana speech is here Ratana is no longer relevant as a political force.

The Rise of the Maori Party?

Marae has published the results of a poll done by Digipoll between 18 October and 3 November 2009. It is of 1,002 voters of Maori descent – 700 on the Maori roll, and 302 on the General roll. It is an endorsement of the Maori Party arrangement with National, although Maori voters would have preferred Cabinet posts for Maori Party ministers.

The poll reveals some pretty interesting stuff. I asked for and received a breakdown of the roll split,as this was not published, although I haven't got an electorate split in the Maori electorates. I was sure there would be an increase in support for the Maori Party in the Maori electorate at the expense of Labour. I was right; 62% of those on the Maori roll would vote the Maori Party, up from 27.4% at the election. That's a huge increase.

Furthermore, of Maori in the general electorates, 10.8% will vote National, up from 7.6% at the election - but take that with a grain of salt as there are only 23 votes in it, due to the 302 sample.

But look at Labour - it is way behind on 23.3%. On election night Labour got more than 50% of the vote in the Maori electorates. Labour's vote in the Maori electorates has reduced by more than half since the election. That's a staggering drop. For the first time in living memory Labour is not topping one question in a poll in the Maori electorates.

On election night nearly 55,980 voted the Maori Party, nearly 33,000 of those were in the Maori electorate. Now it looks more like 74,500 in the Maori electorate support the Maori Party. It is possible that the Maori Party could get more than 85,000 votes in an election - but they`ll still only have 5 MPs in Parliament, as all it will do is wipe the overhang by lowering the number of Labour MPs, while giving at least one extra list seat to National.

But while the deck chairs would not have changed in the Maori Party, this poll is also encouraging for the Maori Party. Why would National ditch the Maori seats on these figures?

In the general electorate, 42% of Maori indicated they'd vote National; just 33% would vote Labour, with 15% voting the Maori Party. Low numbers were polled, but it certainly shows a trend.

No wonder Hone Harawira's constituents want him to be within the Maori Party as a current MP.

Labour and reconfiguring breaking MMP

Post updated Monday
Did I hear correctly that Labour is discussing, in the context of electoral reform, whether the electorate/list seat mix should be reconfigured by reducing the numbers of list MPs, and replacing them with electorate MPs?

If so,the Greens will not be supporting this "SM/MMP" measure.

Here's why.

The Greens, who rely on list seats, will lose have a lower proportionate number of list MPs. Labour and National will of course lose more list MPs, but they'd be replaced by electorate MPs, probably from the land of the "wrong white crowd". Fewer women, fewer Maori, and the potential for overhang within major parties if the number of list MPs is too low.

update Actually its worse than that. I've since been following the discussion at Red Alert, after I got wind of the proposal and felt it stunk to high heaven. Delegates at the Labour Party conference were discussing the reduction of the size of electorates, by increasing electorate numbers, leading to the decrease in the number of list MPs. Figures of 90 electorates and 30 list MPs have been suggested. There will not be the "potential" for overhang, it will be a reality, and I can't understand why Labour is even suggesting this. Lianne Dalziel is even suggesting that such a move will retain proportionality! Granted, she did mention an 80/40 split, but if the minor parties were to get a substantial share of the vote she`d be wrong in saying the proposal retains proportionality.

In reality the proposal could perversely benefit Labour by giving the party a handful of overhang seats to make up for the lack of list seats.Even more so than it would benefit National. I think it is a worse proposal than the Supplementary Member system that the party opposes. Assuming the intended size of Parliament remains constant, overhangs will be a reality if the minor parties, with a system of more than 80 electorate seats, get a large combined vote of over 30 percent - and they did in 2002, in fact they got a bigger vote than National.

This proposal is something that should be rejected outright in any discussion of our electoral system. Back to the drawing board, folks - and this time, engage your brains.

And I see from this mornings paper that Labour also wants to prevent minor parties that get one electorate seat from getting more than one seat unless it gets more than 5 percent of the party vote. Another move intended to screw minor parties of the Right. Either that, or Labour simply gets its ideas from the media.

Labour's hypocrisy

Nobody has seemed to have pointed out the hypocrisy of Labour going to the Privacy Commissioner because National released details of the income of two beneficiaries on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. Turns out that Labour - well David Benson-Pope - did exactly the same thing in April 2007, when he detailed the benefits Ms Fuller was receiving and compared them with the pittance she would have received under Nationals tax cuts.The story was on Prime News tonight.

Labour's woes are self-inflicted - but linked to the Maori Party's success

Labour Party activist Tony Milne has written an interesting piece eight months on from the election.

No one wants to hear from Labour. The public had 9 years to hear from Labour and Labour is well aware of that. But that doesn't mean that Labour isn't rebuilding. Labour is quietly rebuilding membership and organisation. Labour MPs are quietly reconnecting with the community, listening, debating, engaging. The online presence is a good example.Over 800 activists have joined the new Grassroots Labour site - a site for Labour members to chat, debate, and organise in an open forum. Red Alert (the Labour MP blog) has quickly become one of the most popular political blogs But such rebuilding takes time to filter through into public support and political polls.

I don't expect to see much movement in Labour's polling for at least another 12 months. The question is, can Labour do enough in the next 28 months to increase its support by the 6% or so needed to form a coalition Government with other partners? And will there be any partners?

That last sentence is the money one and the answer is no. Way back in April 2005 I predicted that the Maori Party would be a real force and that Labour may end up shunning the Maori Party. That was months before the 2005 election and the Maori Party was on the up.

Indeed, Labour shunned the Maori Party, describing it as last cab off the rank. Now they are a indeed a real force - or in Hone Hariwira's words a "limousine" - as it holds most of the Maori seats. It is co-owner of the rank. The reason this is a problem for Labour is because it lost the election and the support of Maori. Nationals arrangement with the Maori Party is proving positive for Maori, and is increasing support for the Maori Party. The Maori Party could be come National's Ratana. If Labour does get the 6% increase suggested by Milne, there will be no one to form a coalition government with if the Maori Party are not onside and Jim Anderton goes.

This is Labour's biggest problem. And it is of its own making. Blogging and grassrooting wont solve that as all this is doing is preaching to the converted activists like Milne, and communicating with the blog readers and grassrooters. Neither will needling the Maori Party for going with National. Duncan Garner wrote a good blog post last week which pretty much sums up what some blogs, including this one, have been saying for a long time.

The most powerful coalition partner at the moment is the Maori Party. The holders of the Maori seats have been in government for decades. There is no reason why Labour will gain the support of the holders of most of the Maori seats in 2011. Therefore Goff will be Labour's most unsuccessful leader in modern times.

Neelam Choudary hoped to remain anonymous

So Phil Goff was trying to ensure Choudary's name remained anonymous Why? Because Choudary has been campaigning and canvassing for the Indian vote for the Labour candidate for the Mt Albert by-election to be held on Saturday.

A person who is known for seeking nomination as an candidate fir a general election while her husband was scamming people is not really the sort of person Labour wants to be associated with in a by-election campaign.Which is also why she was not the Labour nominee for Botany in the last election. Just ask someone who is involved in the current Mt Albert campaign. Like this woman.

So why did Goff she was "strikingly beautiful"? To uplift her given that her husband was strikingly criminal?Why now that Choudary is outed does Goff want to move on?

Update And Goff knew about the meeting in the cafe between Worth and Choudary last year all along before one text message was sent.

What I saw

I was looking at this profile of a Labour activist last night and wondered how " strikingly beautiful" she would appear to a certain person who is one of her Facebook friends.

Then I saw this.

One was a married woman who had stood unsuccessfully for selection as a candidate for Labour Party nomination in last year's election, so presumably knows which way is up.

Then this.

After the meeting Koro Tawa was warmly congratulated by Labour List candidate, Mr. Raymond Huo and by fellow nominee, Neelam Choudary.

Even my wife things she is strikingly beautiful.

Then I saw this from Whale Oil. He beat me to it.

Also a Neelam Choudary is married to a Kumar Akkineni Choudary who was found guilty of an immigration scam last year. Neelam Choudary was also in the know and you can read about that here. Is this the Neelam Choudary Richard Worth has been sending text messages to, if she is married to Kumar, Worth has hit on a woman who tried to get selection as a Labour candidate into Parliament while her husband was conducting an immigration scam.

update Here's an article about Choudary's sari demonstration.

Red is regarded as an auspicious colour and is commonly worn by brides because it has several emotional, sexual and fertility-related qualities.White is regarded as pure. black is the colour of sorrow and ill omen while yellow is traditionally regarded as the colour of religion and asceticism.

Anybody know Richard Worth's favourite colour?

More on the story here.