National Party MP goes on mass murder rampage

Update 1: It turns out that he didn't.

Update 2: Oh well, he's probably still evil.

Is National Really Hands-Off Then?

In David Shearer's speech on Sunday he made much of National's "hands-off" approach to governing the country, comparing it to Labour's preference for a more interventionist "hands-on" approach.

There has been some debate about what the terms "hands-on" and "hands-off" really mean, and it appears that some within National don't like it when people use the term "hands-off" to describe National's style of government.

John Key's Reshuffle Analysed

Prime Minister John Key today announced a reshuffle of his Cabinet, as well as a number of changes in the organisation of some government ministries.

The changes will come into effect on 31 January.

National's Front Bench Report Card

Since the right are trying to distract us all from the Dotcom clusterf**k by running Labour down, let's play the same game.

Matthew Hooton has ranked Labour's front bench, and not surprisingly he gives almost every one of them a savaging. Admittedly, there may be the odd kernel of truth in some of his comments.

Whose Planet Is This?

I see that Bill English has been talking about Planet Labour. It sounds like a terrible place. Imagine a place with a stagnant economy; led by a government that is anti-growth, doesn't have any plan, and is not prepared to make the tough decisions needed to ensure the future prosperity of its people; where most people struggle to get ahead; and where those who aspire for better things are probably thinking of leaving.

What a nightmare. If only it weren't real.

So tell me, how can Planet Labour be any worse?

More Futile and Cynical Policy

John Key must think the New Zealand public have the memory of a goldfish. He's put forward bold plans before, but they usually end in failure. Closing the income gap with Australia, creating more jobs, reducing the number of people fleeing to a better life in Australia. And now the promise to get back into budget surplus, which he's already backtracking on.

Key's latest bold initiative is a set of targets that he wants the public service to meet. Bosses will receive bonuses for meeting these targets, and failure to achieve targets will result in pay cuts.

Some of the targets announced today are specific, while others are woolly and difficult to measure.

These kinds of targets are blunt instruments. Performance targets often work in businesses because businesses are usually focused on the financial bottom line. So meeting revenue or profit targets, doing a certain number of deals, or cutting overheads, will often result in private sector workers receiving a bonus.

Unfortunately for Mr Key, government departments are not business units. They do not exist to make money. They exist to fulfil a range of needs within the community. In any department where budgets are tight (and in the current economic environment budgets always are) trade-offs must be made and the needs of some groups must be balanced against the requirements of others. Unlike a business, it's not all about the money.

So imposing a target on a department that must be met at all costs, at the expense of other priorities, and then using a stick and carrot approach to ensure the target is met, is almost guaranteed to ensure other important goals are not met.

This is something John Key will never understand, because he looks at everything through a business lens, where the only concern is to make a profit.

Some of the goals detailed in National's plan are questionable ones. Take the goal of reducing the number of people on the dole by 30% by 2017. If National genuinely cared about job creation the goal would have been a more ambitious one: like finding full-time work for that 30%. Instead, the hard-headed businessman Key is only interested in cutting costs. So people will be shifted off the dole, and no doubt many of them will find themselves in welfare limbo: ineligible for the dole, but unable to find work. Welfare bosses will be financially incentivised to find ways to dump people from their benefits. Think it won't happen? The same thing's already happening over at the ACC.

Some of the goals will be met just by more of the same medicine. Crime rates have been gradually dropping for years. Immunisation rates have been steadily climbing.

Other targets are meaningless waffle, while others seem doomed to failure without some gaming of the stats. National's plan to reduce the instances of child abuse seems unlikely to succeed, because its moves against those already struggling to make ends meet are putting huge pressure on vulnerable families. When people are under stress many of them snap.

But the good news for National is nobody will ever judge them on the results. It's more likely than not that Labour will form the next government in 2014, but even if the Nats win another three years the results won't be in until the end of 2017, and I doubt John Key will still be in politics by then.

If Labour returns to power in 2014, National will be able to blame Labour for everything that goes wrong. We were on track until Labour got in, National will argue.

I don't know whether the policy is a purely cynical ploy, designed to take some of the attention away from asset sales. It's entirely possible John Key actually believes it will work, because he thinks like a businessman. This may be something of a surprise to many, since the history of human civilisation tells us very clearly that governments are not like businesses.

"Stick to Facts, sir!"

I have had a few successes since I began blogging, but having one of my posts turn up in the first page of a Google search for "lamingtons" is probably my greatest achievement. (h/t @AlastairJNZ)

However, apart from posts about lamingtons, I have been known to write occasionally critical commentary about the current National government. Okay, so "relentlessly critical" would be more accurate.

Is my ongoing negativity justified? Perhaps I simply haven't appreciated all the good work Key, English, Joyce and co are doing. Could it be that even as I criticise them for destroying our country and transferring our nation's wealth to those who already have more than they need, while ignoring the slow but steady decline of our economy, National have been getting on with saving us all?

I have my doubts, but then I'm just a partisan hack. I don't think I'm quite as partisan as some on the left, but I know it's unlikely that I'll ever find a decent word to say about John Key's government.

But let's be fair. There must be something John Key can point to proudly and say "we did that." Some achievement that made New Zealand a better or safer place or increased our nation's wealth in a measurable and verifiable way.

So all you closet Tories who read this blog, now's your chance. If John Key stepped down as PM tomorrow, what could he claim as an actual positive achievement?

I'm not interested in nebulous BS like "made the New Zealand economy more competitive" or "reduced  inefficiency and waste in government", nor do I want to hear about policies introduced to fix perceived problems the existence of which are in dispute. For example, while you may not necessarily agree with the argument, an argument nevertheless exists that reducing government spending in a time of economic stagnation is a sin, not a virtue, and that we don't have government debt levels to justify such measures. It's an argument many economists hold. So don't preach to me about the virtues of austerity.

Just give me the facts.

Maybe more kittens were saved by National than under the Clark government. Are more old dears having hip operations than ever before?

Are we safer as a society from the ever-present threat of sorcery? And if we are, was it National's doing?

Going Green For The Blue Team

David Farrar uses his latest Herald column to talk up the merits of the Green Party.

Well he would, wouldn't he?

Farrar realises that the Greens have been attracting some of the Labour vote. Labour are still the main threat to National in 2014, and so it makes sense for National Party strategists to encourage left voters to go green rather than red. A Green Party vote is not a lost vote as far as a potential Labour-Greens coalition is concerned, but an ongoing lack of support for Labour (as opposed to the Greens) would pile pressure on Labour's new leadership team.

So talking up the Greens is a sound political tactic, because if people perceive Labour's leadership to be disorganised and unfit to lead the country, a good number of voters will stay with National. Better the devil you know, and all that. Others will just stay home on polling day rather than vote Labour.

It's a strategy not without some risk, because it could encourage some National supporters to go Green. However, the strategy (if it works) will undermine Labour and attract more votes to National, or simply result in Labour supporters not bothering to vote.

Farrar is able to get away with doing this because of the slow and steady move by the Greens towards the political centre.  Their 2011 election campaign was warm, fluffy and feel-good, and wouldn't have caused soft National voters too much alarm. Remember when the Greens were angry? Like Sue Bradford. Say what you like about her, but she was one of Parliament's most effective advocates for the downtrodden.

In the lead-up to the last election the Green Party co-leaders, for all their denials, seemed to almost encourage rumours of a potential deal between the Nats and Greens. It is tempting to wonder what sort of government we might have ended up with had National been unable to form a majority with the Maori Party, Peter Dunne and John Banks. Would John Key have come calling to see Russel and Metiria?

Farrar's claim that Labour steals all good Green Party policies doesn't really bear close scrutiny. On many political issues there aren't major differences between the two parties, and there will be some sharing of ideas. It is a two-way process, and I expect quite a lot of Greens policy has at least been inspired by what Labour have done.

But it's smart to claim that Labour has no original ideas, because if enough left voters believe this they will give their support to the Greens. A weak Labour will increase the chances of National gaining a third term in office.

It's also politically smart for the right to relentlessly attack Labour policy, but stay largely silent on Green Party policy.

For all the buzz about the Greens, they are not ready to become the main party of the left. They won't win an electorate seat anywhere in the foreseeable future unless they do a deal with Labour. People who think winning electorate seats is not important in our MMP environment make a mistake, because a strong electorate presence gives visibility to a party, and by standing a strong candidate in an electorate a party will likely increase its party vote in that electorate. In most electorates in the 2011 election the Greens didn't even chase the candidate vote.

This is not meant to be read as an attack on the Greens, because I personally hope to see a Greens-Labour coalition in 2014. The Greens have some good people and some good policies, but it is a fact that they are now closer to the centre than they once were, and it is a fact that part of the reason for their recent success has been their ability to attract soft-National voters.

It is also a fact that, while they are a growing political force, it is hard to see the Greens taking over as the main party of the left within the next five years. Another fact that might cause the Greens some concern is the near-certainty that Labour will eventually get its act together (even if it takes another decade), and if this happens some of the left vote that the Greens have taken up might drift back to the red party.

So it's too soon to anoint the Greens as the new main opposition party, even if that's the narrative David Farrar and other National Party activists would like us all to follow.

A Plague On Both Your Polls!

Okay, can someone clever please explain the recent poll results for me?

There's no question that the Key government has been taking a hammering in the media. It's also unarguable that some of National's policies are deeply unpopular with the voters. Asset sales, the Crafar Farms issue, the Sky City pokies deal: every time there's a poll on these issues (however unscientific), the results are damning.

So if people hate these policies, why do the polls say it's business as usual for National? The possible options:

1. While the populace don't like these policies, voters think the negatives are outweighed by the good things National are doing.
2. People don't like National, but they dislike the opposition parties more.
3. The polls are unreliable/wrong.
4. It takes time for public sentiment on issues like asset sales etc. to show up in polls. People are growing  more dissatisfied with things, but it is not yet showing up in their voting choices.
5. It's all a media beat-up, and people still love Key and his government.

I don't like this government, which makes me hopelessly biased. However, if you were to ask me to pick what is going on I'd tentatively pick the fourth option. I can't see how one story after another in the media focusing on cronyism and special deals for National's mates can in the end have any effect other than to erode National's support. Good things take time!

But then I would say that. What do you think is going on in the polls?

Who Will Save Us From These Liars?

National appears to be about to break an election promise, and this one appears to be a whopper.

As Anthony Robins at The Standard reveals, National promised last year to maintain a majority shareholding stake in each state-owned enterprise, by owning more than 51 per cent of each company.

Now the plan appears to have changed. National will now insist on 51% control, but not 51% ownership.

This would allow more than 49% of the shares in some state-owned assets to be sold, if some of those shares are non-voting shares.

Non-voting shares are special classes of shares that are sometimes issued to investors. They usually prevent the shareholder from voting on matters relating to the company, such as the appointment of directors. But non-voting shares will usually allow their holders to take a share of the profits in the company proportionate with their shareholding.

The measure, if passed, would allow the majority of the profits in some SOEs to go to private investors, rather than to the government. We were told again and again that this would not happen.

If National plans to honour the promise it made in 2011 then this measure should not be required. National cannot issue more than 49% of the shares in any SOE under any circumstances (voting or otherwise) without breaking its promise.

So what's going on? Does this government really have such a low regard for the commitments it makes to the general public?

Now I'm sure some of National's apologists will be along soon to make the argument that majority control somehow amounts to majority ownership, and I very much look forward to seeing the contortions they are required to undergo in order to conflate control with ownership. The two are not the same, period.

But this measure can be stopped. It is not yet law. The man and the hour may be just about to meet. This country needs a hero, someone who will go in gangsta style in defence of reason and common sense. Is there such a man?

National's Toolbox Is Empty

Nobody will be surprised to learn that Treasury is forecasting a deficit blowout. Treasury forecasts always have to be taken with a grain of salt, but the tendency in recent times has been for Treasury forecasts to be unduly optimistic. The fact that the news is so grim isn’t promising, because if recent trends are anything to go by the next set of forecasts will reveal an even direr picture.

At the same time National’s asset sales programme appears to be ramping up, and it becomes clearer by the day that the shares sold will return much less to the country than previously predicted.

Those few protections we were told would be in place to ensure the partially-sold SOEs acted responsibly and that New Zealanders would be first in line to buy the shares, have gone missing from the asset sales legislation introduced into Parliament. Now we are told “don’t worry, we’ll make sure rules are in place to put Kiwis first in line”, though why this can’t be legislated for isn’t clear. We are expected to trust the Government that there's a perfectly sound reason for this omission.

We are also assured that big corporations already act in a socially responsible manner, meaning that legislation entrenching this obligation is not necessary.

If big corporations are already behaving as good corporate citizens, then what would National have to lose by including a social responsibility obligation?

Could it be that some large companies do in fact act in a socially irresponsible manner, and that when the need for profit clashes with social responsibility the profit motive often wins? This should be no surprise, because most corporations exist for the purpose of maximising returns to shareholders.

I can see how removing constraints on the operations of the partially-sold SOEs might potentially make them more attractive to investors, especially overseas investors who might be nervous about investing in a market they are not intimately familiar with, and under conditions where participants can’t just maximise profits.

I can also see why the government would want to hoodwink us into thinking that such restrictions are not important and that social responsibility obligations don’t matter, and that the main recipients of the shares will be “Mum and Dad investors”.

But the desire to maximise the return on the sale of assets will come at a long-term cost. It seems likely that a large proportion of the shares sold to private investors will end up in overseas hands, meaning that much of the profits of these companies will go offshore, worsening our current-account deficit.

The good news for opponents of this government is that it is doing a lot of quite unpopular things, at a time when the economic news just gets worse and worse, and it appears to be showing in the polls. The bad news is that by the time we finally get rid of these incompetents a lot of the damage will already be done.

A conspiracy theorist might conclude that the further the public accounts worsen the easier it will be for the government to justify urgent and drastic measures, such as extending the asset sales programme and gutting public services.

But it’s much more likely that this government just doesn’t have a clue how to grow the economy. National’s only tools appear to be the knife and the box of matches.

Meet The Firebugs

John Key's Cabinet meet to discuss the economic situation

Widespread industrial action, economic growth projections revised downwards, more job losses, attacks on the welfare safety net, selling our strategic assets, and no strategy to grow our economy.

For those of you who thought John Key's "brighter future" was something other than a roaring bonfire upon which the hopes and aspirations of all but a privileged few are being thrown, how are you feeling now about your voting decision?

Kicked Into The Right Net

Cactus Kate claims that Labour’s politicising of a study highlighting a rise in infectious diseases is an own goal.

A study by the University of Otago has found that the hospital admission rate for infectious diseases rose 51% between 1989 and 2008.

The study also note that between 2001 and 2005 there was an improvement, before the rate again rose.

The study found that Maori and Pacific peoples are more than twice as likely as European people to be hospitalised with a serious infectious disease. It also found that people who live in the most deprived neighbourhoods have almost three times the risk of being hospitalised with an infectious disease when compared with those living in the most affluent areas.

The main contributions to the increase have come as a result of a rise in the number of respiratory, skin and gastrointestinal infections. They include illnesses like childhood pneumonia, rheumatic fever and meningococcal disease.

Many of these infectious diseases are linked with poverty and the problems of poor housing, overcrowding and a lack of access to affordable medical care. They are most certainly not “middle class diseases”, despite what Cactus Kate claims. That is not to say that middle class people can’t contract these diseases. The reality though is that most sufferers are poor. This cannot be a coincidence.

So is Labour to blame? In part, yes. The reforms of the Fourth Labour Government started New Zealand down the road towards rising inequality, but the drunken joyride to neoliberal nirvana in the ‘90s was National’s doing. Despite some progress being made by Labour in the 2000s to alleviate poverty, most Labour people would agree that not enough was done. What we did as a nation in the 1980s and 1990s left so many people on the scrapheap that even with the best will in the world and the desire to actually fix these problems (something entirely lacking in the current government), it would probably take a generation to turn things around.

Cactus Kate can blame Labour if she wants, but if anyone is to take the blame for starting us out on this ruinous path it is surely ACT founder Roger Douglas, with the policies he introduced in the 1980s to shift the nation’s wealth from the many to the few.

This Should Not Have Surprised Anyone

The Maori Party is threatening to walk out of government, over National’s plans to exempt partially-sold SOEs from section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986.

It sounds as if the section, or a provision similar to the section, may yet survive as a result of yesterday’s threats by the Maori Party co-leaders Turia and Sharples to walk out.

Yesterday John Key claimed that the section, which says:

Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi

was “largely symbolic”, but this is demonstrably false. The well known and important case New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 considered the section, and as a result of that case the government of the day amended the SOE Act. If section 9 was a mere symbol then why was that action considered necessary?

It’s not clear whether Key was dissembling or just badly-advised on this point. It is certainly easy to see why the government would want to remove from the ambit of section 9 the state assets to be partially-sold. Any limitation on the activities of a business has the potential to impact on its market value, and the government will be aiming to get a good price for the shares to be sold.

The most surprising thing is not that John Key was palpably and egregiously incorrect, but that the Maori Party leaders let it get to this point before throwing a tantrum. How is it that something as fundamental as section 9 of the SOE Act was never discussed when the Maori Party were negotiating their support arrangements with National?

Why did nobody in the Maori Party think to ask John Key about National’s intentions regarding section 9? Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of Maori-Crown legal interactions over the last 30 years ought to have been able to figure out that the provision would create issues that needed to be addressed.

So why do Sharples and Turia now appear shocked at National’s “surprise” move? Does nobody advise them? Any first year law student could probably have warned them about the section 9 problem.

And what exactly do Sharples and Turia want? From some of the confusing and contradictory waffle emitted by Sharples yesterday, it seems he may be expecting section 9 to be expanded to cover private shareholders of the partially-sold SOEs. If that is indeed what Sharples expects from National (and I cannot be certain what Sharples expects, as I suspect he is making it up as he goes along, having never turned his mind to the issue until now), then anyone with the remotest understanding of our nation’s political history would have been able to figure out that such a move would be a bit controversial to say the least.

So why weren’t these things discussed? I am tempted to look for some ulterior motive behind the reaction by Sharples and Turia, some strategic reason why the Maori Party may be trying to distance itself from John Key’s government.

But I keep coming back to what I think is really behind this whole shambles: incompetence and ineptitude. In its dealings with Hone Harawira to date the Maori Party has proved adept at making the worst possible decisions, and this fiasco merely continues a trend of bad decision-making, disorganisation and poor leadership. Supporters of the Maori Party really ought to be asking Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia some tough questions about their performance, because over this issue it has been embarrassing.

Not Irony #1

David Farrar applies some wonky logic in order to blame everything bad the Nats do on the left.

If all the lefties had not tactically voted NZ First to get them over 5%, then National would have 63 seats and not need ACT and United Future to govern, and hence it is far less likely that ACT would have got agreement to have a trial of charter schools. When the main party *needs* you, you will get far more wins than when they simply *want* you.

What's wrong with this analysis?

1. "All the lefties". NZ First got 6.8% of the vote. How many of those people were "lefties?" I'd be guessing, but maybe half at most. So that's maybe 5-10% of those "lefties" who voted. Most "lefties" have little time for Peters.
2. "hence it is far less likely that ACT would have got agreement to have a trial of charter schools." That assumes National reluctantly conceded to ACT's demands and was not in fact a willing participant.
3. If John Key and his proxies had not spent the fortnight before the election shrilly denouncing Winston Peters and all his evils, we might have had a majority National government. Even if we assume National is being forced to concede anything it doesn't really want, it's an own-goal. Farrar can't really blame the left for the horrendous tactical blunder he and others made in giving Peters publicity.
4. If charter schools really were unpalatable to National they could have said "no deal" and just given John Banks a win with something else. It's not as if ACT campaigned on charter schools, so I'm guessing it was never going to be a deal-breaker.

If any group of voters is to blame for the National/ACT deal, it's those voters who gave National their party vote and/or John Banks their electorate vote.

Did You Vote For Charter Schools?

I wonder if it has ever occurred to John Key or John Banks that the fact so many people leave school without an adequate education might not always be the school's fault.

Now they are embarked on an ideological crusade to introduce Charter Schools in an effort to improve the lot of children. Unfortunately for Key and Banks, the answer is not to set up schools with public money but no public accountability (I thought National were meant to be the fiscally responsible ones...), but instead to help lift families out of poverty.

In general there's not a lot wrong with our school system. It's not perfect, but it is miles ahead of the education systems in many other countries. Education is one of the things we do well, even if the results aren't always obvious.

But when the kids you're trying to educate come from broken homes, have behavioural issues and are coming to school hungry, it doesn't really matter what you try to teach them, because it probably won't make a difference.

I have a theory that John Key is more than happy to be seen to cave in to John Banks' demands, because they're things he'd quite like to do but doesn't have the political courage to announce as National policy. Now he gets to have his way while the other John looks like the villain.

Did you vote for this?

Can This Snail Be Saved?

United Future leader Peter Dunne has unexpectedly been appointed the Associate Conservation Minister.

The announcement came today after the National and United Future parties signed a confidence and supply agreement.

Dunne says he is looking forward to the new challenge presented by the Conservation role, and cites preservation of the endangered Giant Grey Snail as his main priority.

“Saving this animal from extinction is my number one task”, said Mr Dunne.

The Giant Grey Snail’s numbers have declined rapidly over the last decade, to the point where the species is now regarded as critically endangered.

The snail is particularly slow and sluggish, and is vulnerable to predatory attacks. It has only survived so long because its dull colour allows it to blend in with the environment and remain largely unnoticed.

The species leaves the relative safety of its home to mate every three years, and it is during this mating period that it is at most risk of being devoured by a predator.

Conservation experts have questioned Mr Dunne's commitment to saving the Giant Grey Snail.

"It is too late," said Dr Simon Tapwell, an expert in snails and other gastropods. "Action needed to be taken ten years ago. No matter what the government does now, it's obvious that the Giant Grey Snail will be no more by the end of 2014."

But Dunne has dismissed such predictions.

“They’ve been saying for years that the Giant Grey Snail is on the brink of extinction. And yet this resourceful little creature just won’t give up.”

Dunne says he is also committed to putting substantial resources into a sustained campaign of pest eradication.

“We have a lot of work to do to ensure creatures like the Giant Grey Snail are protected from predators. I'm referring to predators like the Silver-Tongued Snake.”

The Silver-Tongued Snake is known to prey on animals like the Giant Grey Snail and the Yellow-Tailed Poodle. However, efforts to eradicate the pest to date have failed

The Department of Conservation said in 2008 that it believed the Silver-Tongued Snake had been eradicated. However, a colony of the noxious reptiles was discovered just over a week ago.

Dunne says he is thrilled and excited to be able to pursue a lifetime passion.

“Conservation has been a hobby of mine for many years,” said Dunne.

“I have worked tirelessly towards conserving my status and privileges ever since I became a parliamentarian in 1984.

“I know more than most people about conservation. I have managed to ensure that, no matter who the government is, and no matter whether it leans to the left or right, I always get to sit at the top table.”

An Exclusive: Is National's New Caucus Harbouring A War Criminal? UPDATED!

An investigation by this blogsite has revealed that the new National Party caucus may be harbouring the infamous Nazi war criminal Martin Bormann.

Bormann was one of Hitler's top henchmen, but his fate is unknown. Many believe he was killed while attempting to escape the fall of Berlin in 1945, but no solid proof of his death has ever been established.

This has led to speculation over the years that Bormann escaped and made a new life under an assumed identity.

We put to the National Party the claim that Bormann had come in on the party list as a result of Saturday's election, and we asked if someone from the party would be prepared to talk to us about the matter.

However, the party has refused to respond to our requests for an interview.

When we rang the party's head office yesterday we whispered very softly into the phone and mumbled a lot until the person at the other end of the phone hung up in disgust. Yes, that's right, they hung up on us when we started to ask the hard questions, albeit in a very muffled and indistinct voice.

Why would the party be so reluctant to talk if there was nothing to hide?

What makes this matter even more serious is that Bormann would have been ineligible to stand as a candidate under the Electoral Act, because he is not a New Zealand citizen. 

So if National has nothing to hide then it's time the party came clean. National needs to answer some tough questions, like:

• Is Martin Bormann one of National's new MPs?
• If so, how long has the party known it has been harbouring a notorious war criminal?
• Martin Bormann was born in 1900, so would be 111 years old. It would be difficult to hide that sort of decrepitude, unless there has been a concerted plot by the National hierarchy to conceal the truth from the voting public. So exactly what measures have been taken to conceal Bormann's age?
• Have the National Party or any of its financial backers been funding medical research to prolong Bormann's life? Or plastic surgery to conceal his age?
• What other Nazi war criminals, if any, is National hiding?
• What influence has Bormann has on National Party policy? 
• Does National condone the deliberate flouting of electoral laws by its candidates?

Bormann (circled) with other members of the Nazi regime

It may be that the party inadvertently selected the geriatric genocidal monster, in which case the best thing to do would be to just own up.

In any event, it is obvious that the longer National waits to answer these questions the worse it will be for the party in the end.

National also needs to agree to fully co-operate with war crimes investigators, in order to ensure Bormann is finally brought to trial for his many crimes.

The millions of victims of Nazi atrocities cry out for justice.  National, you owe the public an explanation!

UPDATE: No.

New North Shore MP Denies Leadership Plot

Speculation is mounting that North Shore MP Maggie Barry will seek the leadership of the National Party, after she told reporters there would be no CBD rail link.

The gardening guru's decision not to proceed with the rail link, only a couple of days after being elected in a safe seat, surprised many commentators. This has in turn led to speculation that Barry may have the numbers to replace John Key, and that Barry is confident she will shortly have the power to kill the rail project.

While Key is regarded as a strong campaigner and a crucial asset to the National Party, it is understood that some caucus members prefer a leader with more hands-on gardening experience.

Critics have been impressed by Barry's campaign for the North Shore seat, and credit her winning the seat to the fact that she was a member of the National Party.

"Had Ms Barry decided to contest the seat for Labour she would have lost, " observed right-wing blogger and newspaper columnist Hansell Le Rou.

"Joining the National Party was a brilliant tactical move that ensured she delivered the North Shore seat safe and sound to National. As opposed to any other National candidate, who would have done the same thing.

"Well done, Maggie. You have pulled one out of the bag for the party!"

"Barry's decision to be both sentient and human has saved the party a lot of potential grief," said former National MP Donald Grout.

"Had National stood a mule or a chicken for the North Shore seat, the inevitably victorious animal may have been subjected to a messy legal challenge following the election.

"We might have seen much the same thing had the party stood a jar of marmalade as its candidate. I've no doubt the jar of marmalade would have won comfortably, but some litigious busybody may have objected.

"Having a living, breathing human as the North Shore MP avoids such an unnecessary distractions. We owe Ms Barry a debt of gratitude."

Ms Barry denied she was looking at the National leadership.

"I have only been in the job a couple of days," she told reporters from her garden as she planted a row of Imperial Hubris flowers.

"I'm still finding my feet and there's so much to learn. I won't have time to think about the National Party leadership until later in the week."

Request For Urgent Assistance

Greetings to you!

Allow me introduce myself to you. My name is Hon Steven Joyce, and I am top official National Party.

The leader of party, His Excellency Right Honourable John Key came into a great deal of power three years ago after many battle with enemy forces, but due to numerous of complications and legal issue pertain to electoral laws, his power has been unable to exercise fully.

These various bureaucratic and administrative complexions mean that the power His Excellency would wield must be subject to coalition partners. If full majority obtain in Parliament, these difficults would dissipate.

Hence, good sir, I am write to you on entire confidential basis in the hope of solicit your most generous assistance.

To enable His Excellent's power unleashed unbridle we humble and sincere request that you honour us with your party vote this Saturday.

In returns for party vote, I can assure that you will be most grievously reward.

I am instruct to inform you that in returns for party vote, you will receipt a Brighter Future, as well as benefit of Strong and Stable Government that Have Ambition for All New Zealands.

His Excellently also instructing me to assure that, despite holes on the government budget projectings big enough for walking flock of goat through, his government are Pay Down Debt Faster.

Lastly, Rt Hon Mr Key’s government will Rebuild Christchurch. It in fact main party at war with His Excellency government, Labour, vowing to destroy that magnificent city and all the peoples within.

This may sound too good for be true, and you may wondering why you trust the wording of man who so blatantly braked promises over GST, and who now trying to conceal informative about shading deals with ACT, and about advising he got from officials over fact SOE shares ending up mostly in foreign hoardings.

But you may rest assured, good sir, that this is not a scam! I give you my wording as a Man of God.

So give us your party vote if you want good things happen. In return for which the Brighter Future you so rightly desire be yours in abundant.

What have you lose by giving one tiny little vote to the National Party?

I am most confidence you will see this for the once in lifetime opportunism it is. A chance to enrich yourself and your family, while at the same time help a good and honourable man come into his powerfulness.

Many thankings for your time, and I await most eager your response.

May God be with your.

Steven Joyce