Clinton v Trump, round 1

There has been massive coverage of and commentary on the first US presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Will it change anything? We wil have to wait to find out.

Clinton sounds like a PC electronic checkout; Trump like a drunken uncle from a side of the family you try to avoid.

I didn’t watch the debate and have only seen small bits of it, but from what I did see and hear Clinton was a practiced, smug and smarmy establishment candidate. She won’t have lost committed support but I don’t know whether she will have won many over either.

Trump emphasised his boofishness and what must be a deliberate strategy to lie profusely.

One bizarre aspect of the debate was that Trump denied having said something (I can’t remember which brazen lie it was), and it was shown shortly afterwards that tweets from him that prove he was lying were being deleted from his Twitter account.

Prior to the debate there was interesting string of tweets from @gtiso on the Italian election of Silvio Berlusconi in 1994.

Berlusconi’s secret weapon leading into the 1994 elections was he worked out he could just lie all the time. The whopper the better.

He worked out that the state media would be paralised by the imperative to provide balance and powerless to correct him, while his opponents were left in a state of permanent impotent outrage, both at being lied about and at the fact that he was getting away with it.

So they, and the portion of the non-state media aligned with the left, just spent the campaign repeating “this man can’t be prime minister”.

Result: he won in the closest thing we could get in our system to a landslide. Hey, does any of this sound familiar?

To give you an idea of the caliber of lying: he said over and over that the communists had been in power in Italy for the previous 50 years.

This was, obviously, the opposite of the truth. But in no time at all I started hearing people repeating it in my neighbourhood.

The Brexit campaign adopted similar tactics, now Trump. But I’m shocked it took so long for such a simple idea to be exported.

How many Americans don’t care about politicians lying? Enough to turn their politics and their presidency upside down?

I’m not a US voter but I think I share a common sentiment – I don’t particularly like Clinton, nor what she stands for in politics. But I fear for the effect that a President Trump would have on the United States, and how that would flow on to impact on the world.

Credible democracy is already the loser, but perhaps we ain’t seen nothing yet.

The US election may hinge on how many of those who despair at what they are witnessing turn out to vote versus how many turn away from the election .

Greens would stand aside for Labour in Mt Roskill

Greens have announced they won’t stand a candidate in the Mt Roskill by-election, should Phil Goff win the Auckland mayoralty and resign from Parliament.

Stuff: Greens won’t stand candidate in any Mt Roskill by-election

The Greens will not stand a candidate in a Mt Roskill by-election if Labour incumbent Phil Goff wins the Auckland mayoralty and vacates the seat, the party has announced.

The deal is part of a memorandum of understanding the two left-wing parties signed earlier this year – but the Greens say the move has “no bearing” on its plans for the 2017 election.

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said the party had decided not to stand a candidate in the seat “after several weeks of internal discussions”.

“The Mt Roskill by-election will be closely contested, and we don’t want to play any role in National winning the seat.” 

Turei said the decision showed the success of the memorandum of understanding between the two parties, which includes an agreement to co-operate in Parliament and investigate a joint policy and/or campaign.

The party was making the announcement now to be clear with its supporters and the public, given the “considerable interest” in a likely Mt Roskill by-election.

I think the timing of this announcement is odd, before the results of the local body election are known.

The Greens risk a backlash over this – perhaps this is a deliberate test of what the reaction might be in advance of next year’s general election.

Last election Barry Coates stood for the Greens in Mt Roskill. He will soon replace Kevin Hague as next Green off the list in Parliament. A by-election would have given him a chance to raise his profile but he has to defer to a party decision to stay away.

The Greens may think that not standing in order to help Labour candidate Michael Wood will give them and their MoU with Labour good publicity, but it could just as easily backfire. I guess it’s best to test this now before taking a bigger risk in next year’s election.

ACT’s David Seymour is highlighting the change of attitude to electorate jack-ups by both Greens and Labour.

Mt Roskill arrangement shows hypocrisy of opposition

The Opposition’s hypocrisy over ‘dirty deals’ is brazen, says ACT Leader David Seymour as the Green Party confirms that they won’t stand a candidate in Mt Roskill as part of an arrangement with Labour.

“Michael Wood’s campaign in Mt Roskill is set to be a brazen display of hypocrisy,” says Mr Seymour. “Two years ago he was bemoaning John Key’s endorsement of a vote for me in Epsom as a ‘dodgy deal’. Now look at him.

“The Greens ought to be just as embarrassed, with Julie-Anne Genter having called John Key’s Epsom endorsement ‘undemocratic’. Clearly, this was nothing more than faux-outrage.

“Strategic voting is a reality of MMP, but hypocrisy is optional. Labour and the Greens have shown how cheap their words are by participating in a deal that far eclipses the electoral arrangements they criticise every election.”

Wood stood for Labour in Epsom last general election and has been selected as Labour’s candidate in Mt Roskill should Goff resign.

It will be interesting to see if ACT stand a candidate in Mt Roskill. That would give them more opportunity to bash Greens and Labour with a hypocrisy hammer – but it could also jeopardise the National candidate’s chances.

ACT didn’t stand a candidate in Mt Roskill in 2014.

UK Labour ‘chaos’

More from Missy in the UK.

This morning the UK woke up to some of the media discussing the ‘chaos’ of yesterday at the Labour Party Conference with the media focussing on the allegation that the Shadow Defence Minister (sorry not Secretary as I reported yesterday) punched a wall in anger after he gave his speech in response to it being changed at the last minute by Corbyn’s aides (as reported yesterday) .

Corbyn this morning cancelled all of his media appearances for today, officially due to diary management issues, but speculation is rife that the real reason is so that he isn’t questioned about yesterday, and in particular Trident.

Yesterday it was announced that Labour’s policy for energy will be to completely ban fracking – this is in opposition to the unions who say many of their members will lose jobs, today the replacement policy was announced. Corbyn has indicated that under Labour the UK will return to coal mining – presumably to return to coal fired energy. Nothing reported as yet on how the environmentalists see this, nor has it been explained how this will be de-conflicted with Labour’s stated clean air policy.

McDonnell yesterday indicated that if Labour were to win the next election there would be a return to 70’s style socialist economic policies. This combined with the idea of returning to coal mining has some in the media talking about a return to the past under Labour.

Today has been no less eventful, so just some highlights below.

Sadiq Khan addressed the conference, I won’t go into the details, but the gist of his speech was how he is the most successful Labour politician at the moment, and the party need to follow his lead to become electable.

The NEC voted on whether to allow representatives from Scotland and Wales Labour Parties to join the committee, this is opposed by Corbyn and his supporters as it is seen as potentially reducing Corbyn’s power in the NEC, as he fears that the Welsh First Minister (Labour) and the Scottish Labour leader will choose moderates, thus diluting and reducing his already small majority. This move is part of reforms by the respective Labour parties which will give them greater autonomy in having an independent voice on the NEC. The vote went in favour of the reforms, and the Scottish and Welsh Labour parties will now be able to have a representative on the NEC.

Labour has provided their support to a referendum on the terms of Brexit. This is seen by some as a concession to Owen Smith who supports a second referendum on the EU. This will not be popular amongst many voters, nor is it a policy that they will have to follow through on, as Brexit is expected to be pretty much completed (if not fully completed) by the time the next General Election rolls around in just over 3 years.

Tom Watson addressed the party this afternoon, and in it he launched a passionate defence of Blair and Brown – something that won’t go down well with Corbyn or his supporters, who hate Blair and Brown.

When political debates go crazy

A raging verbal fight broke out at an mayoral candidate meeting, promoted as The Anti-Debate, at the University of Auckland on Monday night.

AUSA and the Daily Blog present The Anti-Debate

Tonight we’re proud to put on the debate that no one else will – the Anti-Debate. Come to Shadows at 7 to watch some of the 14 OTHER mayoral candidates give you their vision for Auckland.

CAN’T MAKE THE DEBATE? No problem! We will be LIVE STREAMING the event from the Daily Blog – also at 7! A copy will be available afterwards too, but if you’re stuck at home tonight make sure you go to so you don’t miss out!

It lived up to it’s ‘anti-debate’ billing in an unexpected way.

Stuff: Auckland mayoral debate turns into shoving match between screaming candidates

Auckland mayoral candidates came close to “a brawl” at a debate on Tuesday night, after a screaming war of words descended into a shoving match.

David Hay was abused by rival Alezix Heneti as he tried to make a speech at the debate, which was hosted by Auckland University Students’ Association at university bar, Shadows.

Hay arrived late from another meeting, but was given permission by a students’ association representative to make a 30-second statement.

However, Heneti took umbrage, and a fracas ensued.

The debate was MC’d by Martyn Bradbury and all he seemed concerned about was that it was being live streamed.

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party candidate Adam Holland – dressed in a kaftan – then commandeered the mic to yell “vote for me! Vote for me!”.

Not good for the ALCP credibility nor good for the pro-cannabis lobby.

As 22-year-old mayoral candidate Chloe Swarbrick stepped in between Hay and Heneti, Holland continued his commentary: “There’s going to be brawl! Ooh, I can feel a brawl!”

Swarbrick tried to placate the mayhem and was the only one to come out of this with any credit.

The AUSA president was understandably disappointed.

AUSA regrets the incident that occurred at the end of the Anti-Debate. This unnecessary conflict between two candidates marred an otherwise enjoyable and informative debate in which a wide range of mayoral contenders were given a platform to have their views heard. AUSA encourages peaceful and democratic resolution of all issues, and appeals to mayoral candidates to maintain a standard of behaviour expected of the Mayoralty.

Unfortunately, one of the candidates present chose to waste the opportunity given to him and attend the debate in a highly offensive costume. AUSA is fundamentally opposed to racism and bigotry in all its forms. We are sure that Aucklanders will see this and be able to exercise their best judgement in choosing which mayoral candidate will earn their votes.

The day before Hay had conceded his campaign and said he supported Phil Goff for mayor:

MEDIA RELEASE 25 September 2016

Speaking at a mayoral panel debate for the African Community, in Mount Roskill on Saturday afternoon, mayoral candidate David Hay threw his support behind Phil Goff to be the Mayor of Auckland.

Another view:

I’m reluctant to suggest that non-serious candidates be excluded from standing for elections, but this makes a mockery of the democratic process. Electing the mayor of a major city is a big deal.

Hay  said the debate turned out to be the most exciting one so far on the campaign.

“Great political theatre!” he said.

No, it trashes what should be a serious process. Democracy is turning off too many voters as it is.

Managing the number of candidates – there are 18 standing for mayor in Auckland – is a problem. The AUSA tried to give the ‘lesser’ candidates a forum and some of them blew it.

I wonder if some sort of democratic pre-selection process would help.

Social chat – Wednesday

A post for social chat. You can still chat socially on other posts if it happens in relation to other discussions but if you simply want a bit of social chat start here.

The usual guidelines apply as to respecting others, behaviour and avoiding legal exposure. An emphasis on ‘social’, not ‘anti-social’.

Media watch – Wednesday

28 September 2016


Media Watch is a focus on New Zealand media, blogs and social media. You can post any items of interested related to media.

A primary aim here is to hold media to account in the political arena. A credible and questioning media is an essential part of a healthy democracy.

A general guideline – post opinion on or excerpts from and links to blog posts or comments of interest, whether they are praise, criticism, pointing out issues or sharing useful information.

As usual avoid anything that could cause any legal issues such as potential defamation or breaching suppression orders. Also remember that keeping things civil, legal and factual is more effective and harder to argue against or discredit.

Sometimes other blogs get irate if their material is highlighted elsewhere but the Internet is specifically designed to share and repeat information and anyone who comments or puts anything into a public forum should be aware that it could be republished elsewhere (but attribution is essential).

Open Forum – Wednesday

28 September 2016

Facebook: NZ politics/media+

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is for you to raise topics that interest you. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts.

Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.
  • Debate hard if you like but respect people’s right to have varying views and to not be personally be attacked.
  • Don’t say to a stranger online anything you wouldn’t say to their face.

Moderation will be minimal if these guidelines are followed. Should they ever be necessary any moderator edits, deletes or bans will be clearly and openly advised unless obviously malicious from anyone breaching site protocols, or spam.

Labour jump, National slump in Roy Morgan

The September Roy Morgan poll has the main parties bouncing around.

  • National 41.5% (down from 46.0)
  • Labour 33.5% (up from 25.5)
  • Greens 12.0% (down from 14.5)
  • NZ First 8.5% (down from 9.5)
  • Maori Party 2.0% (up from 1.5)
  • ACT Party 1.0% (no change)
  • Conservative Party 0.5% (down from 1.0)
  • Mana 0% (down from 0.5)
  • United Future 0% (no change)
  • Other 1.0% (up from 0.5)

Who knows why National has dropped from 53% in July to 46% in August to 41.5% in September.

Or why Labour laboured on 25.5 for both Julu and August and then jumped 8% to 35.5 this month, when Andrew Little was hardly visible.

It would be wise not to get hopes up or down to much over this result.




Boardroom rates Ministers and MPs

The ‘mood of the boardroom’ survey has rated the Cabinet Ministers, scoring them out of 5. Finance Minister Bill English was rated the best, scoring a fully 5 out of 5 for 55 chief executives.

1=Not impressive to 5=Very impressive – where known the 2015 rating is shown.

  1. Bill English 4.51 (down from 4.60)
  2. John Key 4.04 (down 4.28)
  3. Steven Joyce 3.51 (down from 3.65)
  4. Amy Adams 3.47
  5. Nikki Kaye 3.36
  6. Paula Bennett 3.24 (down from 3.85)
  7. Chris Finlayson 3.23 (down from 3.41)
  8. Health Minister Jonathan Coleman 3.17 (down from 3.28)
  9. Energy Minister Simon Bridges 3.12
  10. Social Development Minister Anne Tolley 3.09
  11. Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse 3.06 (down from 3.22)
  12. Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy 2.91
  13. Trade Minister Todd McClay 2.90
  14. Education Minister Hekia Parata 2.85
  15. Police Minister Judith Collins 2.85
  16. Foreign Minister Murray McCully 2.77
  17. Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee 2.66
  18. Environment Minister Nick Smith 2.52
  19. Seniors Minister Maggie Barry 2.34 (up fromn 2.22)
  20. Local Government Minister Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 2.15

Opposition MP ratings – Labour:

  • Jacinda Ardern 3.37
  • Annette King 3.10
  • Phil Twyford 2.93
  • Grant Robertson 2.86
  • David Shearer 2.72
  • David Parker 2.55
  • Chris Hipkins 2.46
  • David Clark 2.35
  • Andrew Little 2.22

Not flash for the Labour leader.



  • James Shaw 3.21
  • Julie Anne Genter 2.42
  • Metiria Turei 2.37

NZ First:


  • Winston Peters 2.90
  • Ron Mark 2.13



UK Update – Labour and Corbyn’s leadership

Update #1 from Missy in the UK:


As Pete reported the other day, to no-one’s surprise – except the most politically obtuse – Corbyn won the leadership election, with an increased majority, so let the re-unification begin…. or not.

The Party Conference is bringing out all sorts of opportunities for MP’s to get in digs to Corbyn, but I am not going to cover them all here, but there have been some controversies, and a couple of main points to raise.

Corbyn hinted in his opening speech that he would not rule out de-selection, and Corbyn supporters have been more open stating that any MP who criticises or opposes Corbyn will be labelled a traitor and action will be taken against them.

On Sunday Corbyn was interviewed on Sky, and amongst his points one that came out was around an issue that is quite big here at the moment – that of the inquiry into soldiers conduct in Iraq.

Just some quick background, this has been ongoing for years, and some soldiers who have been cleared are being re-investigated, and for many the accusers are being actively sought out by lawyers who are making a lot of money off legal aid to bring these cases, even though many of the complainants have been shown to be lying, and in some cases members of the Taliban – or even ISIS. The soldiers are having to foot their legal bill themselves. There is a campaign to get the Government to stop the investigations and inquiry – and Tony Blair has also come out in support of it being stopped, despite being the reason for them being conducted.

During his interview on Sky, Corbyn has said that the inquiry should continue, and that he supports soldiers being investigated for their actions in Iraq – despite the fact that many of the complainants have been proven liars. This has not gone down well with many in the community – including a large number of Labour voters. Corbyn also stated that the Armed Forces needs to be scaled back – though to be honest if the persecution of the soldiers continue no-one will want to join, so therefore that will happen naturally.

Another thing that many are in disbelief at is that Corbyn does not understand why MI6 need to be recruiting more people. It was announced last week that MI6 will be looking to recruit up to 1000 more people by 2020. Corbyn is baffled as to why so many are needed for MI6. This has angered many in the Labour party – and outside it – saying it shows that Corbyn doesn’t understand the threats faced in the UK. The UK is currently on a Severe threat level, meaning an attack is highly likely, the only level higher is critical, meaning a threat is imminent.

Today the Shadow Defence secretary gave his speech, he was reported as being angry when Corbyn’s aids altered his speech, removing the sentence saying that there is no reason to oppose a replacement for Trident, and suggesting that Labour may still yet make it policy to abolish Trident, and not replace it.

A number of Labour MP’s have taken the opportunity of fringe meetings at the Conference to criticise Corbyn, and his supporters, many have warned that unless they move away from the hard left they risk losing very badly at the next election, and losing support to UKIP. In response to the new Labour Policy of opposing fracking, one MP said that there is no point in Labour just opposing Government, they need to be able to say what they will replace it with. Some have noted that polls indicate that Corbyn is not trusted on security matters, and they see this as an issue for the party.

Anti-semitism, sexism, and misogyny also continue to be themes from some MP’s in their speeches attacking Corbyn.