AG rules only when it suits

A few short weeks ago Labour was demanding that the government stop the Sky City convention centre deal because of an Auditor General’s report.

The party is taking a far more cavalier approach to the report from the AG on Shane Jones’s behaviour as Assistant Immigration Minister.

The Auditor-General’s report into the Yang Liu affair is extremely damning of the way Shane Jones handled the issue, and calls into question David Shearer’s judgment in reinstating him to Labour’s front bench, Acting Prime Minister Bill English says.

“Within minutes of the report being tabled in Parliament this afternoon, we have David Shearer rushing out and reinstating Shane Jones,” he says.

“I can almost understand his haste, given the calibre of his caucus and his desire to keep David Cunliffe on the backbench. But it flies in the face of the Auditor-General’s conclusions about Mr Jones’ handling of Mr Liu’s citizenship application.”

For example, on page 66 of the report, the Auditor-General says of Mr Jones: “In our view, given that he knew there were ongoing investigations by Immigration and the New Zealand Police, he should also have consulted them before making his decision, as the investigators note of the first meeting suggested he was intending to do.”

And on page 67, the report continues: “The decision to approve an urgent private ceremony, following so closely the decision to authorise the grant of citizenship against the recommendation of officials, caused a degree of consternation among the department’s staff. It added to the impression that Mr Liu was receiving special treatment.”

“Despite the criticism by the Auditor-General, David Shearer is now standing behind Shane Jones,” Mr English says.

“This is just a few weeks after he demanded the Government stop the Sky City Convention Centre project because of an Auditor-General’s report. He should look in his own party’s backyard first.”

Labour are happy to invoke the Auditor General only when it suits.

There was nothing illegal in what Jones did but it does look very sloppy.

This is his second strike, the first being charging the cost of pornographic movies to his parliamentary credit card. He’s been given another chance but will be on notice.

The AG’s report is here.

 

Win for now or for long?

The Labour caucus is meeting this morning.

In the normal course of events the party would be hoping for media attention to focus on its policy or attacks on the government.

Instead of which attention will be on the leadership vote, required by last year’s change of rules.

It’s almost certain David Shearer will get the 60% of the vote plus one required to retain the leadership.

David Cunliffe has said he’s supporting Shearer and there’s no sign of anyone else wanting to issue a challenge, at least for the time being.

But will this be a Pyrrhic victory?

Winning because no-one else is willing, or has the support, to challenge is not the same as winning because he has the total confidence of his caucus.

Today’s vote will be a win for now but not necessarily a win for long.

Black hole & threats

Answers of the day:

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I think the black hole was what David Shearer is staring into. The other little thing was David Cunliffe getting ready to push him.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, one of the biggest threats facing New Zealand could be a Labour- Greens Government. Let us get it right. The Green Party policy—correct me if I am wrong—is that it supports a target of between 25 and 40 percent reduction in global emissions by 2020. It would demand a huge increase in the emissions trading scheme and the cost on New Zealand families. Let us be upfront. Let us have that debate when we are on TV in those debates talking about how the Green Party is going to force New Zealand consumers to pay a truckload more money every single week, and let us see whether New Zealand consumers like it. If they do, good luck; you will be Minister of Finance. 

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not agree with that, and I go back to the fundamental point. If the member wants to see New Zealand with a more significantly increased target, as he does—fair enough; that is the Green Party’s policy—then let us understand what that means. It means much bigger costs for New Zealand consumers and New Zealand businesses. That means fewer jobs, and that means New Zealand being less competitive while the rest of the world is doing very little. If that is the member’s policy, fair enough. That is why he wants to be the Minister of Finance. But in the world that we live in over here, which is the real world, we do not support his view on climate change.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is right, and that is why this Government will have a firm binding target in its long-term plan for reductions in global emissions. That is why we have an emissions trading scheme, and that is why we are investing in the greenhouse gas alliance. I go back to the point I made earlier. The member wants New Zealand to have an emissions trading scheme and a cost on its consumers way above everywhere else in the world—fair enough. He wants New Zealand consumers to pay way more than the average American, way more than the average Australian, way more than the average Canadian, and way more, actually, than people in Europe— fair enough. But he should go into the election campaign and be honest with those New Zealand voters: vote Greens; you will pay a lot more money.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have seen reports of a policy to build around 66,000 houses for $300,000 each. Then the policy got changed to be about building small apartments and terraced houses in Auckland. Then the cost went up to a maximum of $550,000. Then today I see it is back down to—I cannot actually work out whether it is $300,000, $400,000, or $485,000—which makes me tempted to think that Labour makes it up on the fly. But if I go back to my point about the KiwiBuild scheme, the example of the Housing Foundation, where the Government put in $2 million, the interesting point there is that if we were to do the same thing for an estimated price of $425,000, that would translate to 66,000 homes at a cost of $8.8 billion. That is the level of subsidy required.

Ignorant or shameless?

Supporters of David Cunliffe criticise David Shearer for erring towards the centre rather than the left.

That says more about their place on the political spectrum than Shearer’s, but how different are the policies of the two men anyway?

Rob Hosking  says they’re not:

Nothing in Labour leader David Shearer’s Sunday speech was at odds with anything economic development spokesman David Cunliffe has been saying, not only this year but before the election, before his demotion from the finance spokesmanship. . .

But there is a problem:

. . . It should be stated that all these policies or goals are not bad in themselves. Some are highly desirable.

It is just they do not hang together as a coherent programme. Economically, they are contradictory and they will cause more problems than they solve.

And this is the first difference between the two. Mr Cunliffe is economically qualified enough to know they are incoherent and will strain against each other. Mr Shearer has no such knowledge and probably believes what he is saying. . .

What’s worse – a party leader who is ignorant of economics doesn’t understand economics or one who wants to be leader and pretends ignorance?

. . . As noted, Mr Cunliffe is economically savvy enough to know all this, and is shameless enough to peddle it to people who do not know any better. It is one of the ironies of all this that many of those who do not know any better are in the Labour Party and include its current leader. . .

Many of those who don’t know any better support the party too.

The only other reason they could favour policies which would increase spending, taxation, and welfare for people in greed rather than need is putting their short term interests before the longer term interests of the country.

Old Year Honours

The Homepaddock panel has awarded the 2012 Old Year Honours:

Dotbomb Award - The media for far exceeding the bounds of public interest with positive stories on Kim Dotcom. The man himself gets an honourable mention in this category for believing the stories.

Icarus Award -Russel Norman. Buoyed by hopes of being named Opposition MP of the Year and a future Finance Minister he flew too close to the sun with his plan to print money.

Political Amnesia Award – The Labour Party for forgetting it’s supposed to be opposing the government not itself.

Toastmasters Recruitment Award – David Shearer for failure of fluency when it was most needed.

Humpty Dumpty Numbers Award – David Parker for thinking numbers could mean whatever he wanted them to when costing his party’s housing policy.

Mirror Mirror Award – David Cunliffe for failing to convince enough of his colleagues he’d be the fairest leader of all and sabotaging his party’s conference in the process.

Once Was Warrior Award – Winston Peters for doing very little.

 

 

 

 

Building in Fantasyland

Questions are being raised about the practicality of Labour’s plan to build 100,000 houses for around $300,000.

Acting Minister of Finance Steven Joyce explains some of the flaws in the proposal:

One of the big issues in Auckland is the availability and price of land. The median cost of an Auckland section is nearly $320,000, which is around 60 percent of the cost of the house, and that compares with around 40 percent in the rest of New Zealand. That is why the Government is putting a big emphasis on land section availability in our biggest city. I have heard there are some people who believe there are thousands of sections around Auckland available for around $50,000, apparently. That is news to most people. I actually suspect we would have to zone all the land to Taupō as residential before we would get to that sort of price.

John Hayes: Has he received any other proposals on housing affordability?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have received a proposal that would take $1.5 billion of borrowed money, magically build $30 billion worth of houses with it, provide those houses to people at low interest rates but apparently at no cost to the Government, and then get the $1.5 billion straight back again. Under this particular “back of the envelope” plan, apparently, two-thirds of these houses will be built in Auckland on all those widely available sections that sell for $50,000. A very esteemed colleague of mine has referred to this plan as Fantasy land.

Section prices in Fantasy land must be considerably cheaper than those in Auckland.

However, the Prime Minister has found somewhere else it would be possible to build a less expensive house:

Michael Woodhouse: Has he heard of any reports that would encourage the building of at least one house for $300,000?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have. I have seen the reports that there would be interest to build one house for $300,000 in Lumsden. The advice I have had is that it is possible to build a house for $300,000 in Lumsden. That house would contain David Cunliffe and it would be called the doghouse.

I suspect it would be possible to build a house for less than that in Lumsden, and of a much higher standard than the average doghouse.

Harder to control story with fast news

It used to be so much easier for politicians to control a story when communication was so much slower.

If a vote of confidence had been held for party leader he (and it would have been he then) would have made a pronouncement afterwards. That would have been written down by reporters and appeared in the following day’s paper.

It’s so much harder to  keep control of a message now that news is spread at a much faster speed.

Within minutes of David Shearer’s media conference yesterday the story was on radio, TV and the internet in various forms – news sites, Facebook, Twitter and blogs.

Unlike the old days, it wasn’t just what Shearer said, but people’s views on it . Much of that was far from supportive and the critics weren’t just coming from the right flank.

No matter what he says, yesterday’s vote wasn’t the end of the matter.

The Labour Party is under attack from outside and inside.

David Cunliffe is down but he’s not out and the leadership issue will fester through the summer.

How low will he go?

David Shearer has called David Cunliffe’s bluff.

Today’s leadership vote is almost certain to give Shearer 100% support.

But what does he do with it?

If he demotes Cunliffe to the back benches with no hope of redemption, the aspiring leader will have nothing to lose and will continue to destabilise caucus.

If Shearer allows Cunliffe to retain his portfolio or at least gives him the hope that he could return to the front bench, there will still be no certainty about his behaviour.

Either way, questions over leadership will rumble, at least until February when the next vote will take place.

Shearer wins – for now

Labour leader David Shearer called David Cunliffe’s bluff and has won – for now.

Shearer said he would call for a vote of confidence in the next couple of weeks rather than waiting until February.

Cunliffe has said he’d vote for Shearer in that first vote but won’t confirm his intentions for February.

That means he hasn’t got the numbers now but is not giving up on his leadership ambitions.

However, Shearer has come out of this looking strong and Cunliffe has come out of it looking stupid.

His assessment of his own ability is obviously several steps ahead of that of his caucus colleagues. He might have had support from unions and other Labour members for a coup, but that isn’t enough if Shearer calls for a vote of confidence soon.

Cunliffe might still win a challenge in February but he’ll be trying from a much weaker position after his antics at the weekend.

There are few good times to show you’re disloyal to your leader and the party conference certainly isn’t one of them. It shows you’re putting yourself before the party.

That could well be enough for  waverers in caucus and the wider party to turn their backs on him.

Shearer has signalled a reshuffle of caucus responsibilities. Whether or not this is the time to send a message to non-performers, he has no choice but to demote Cunliffe.

That still won’t  take the heat out of speculation on the party’s leadership, the rule change at the weekend will keep it bubbling until February.

That speculation won’t just be over whether Cunliffe will give up his leadership ambitions but whether he can stay in the party.

 

 

A tale of two Davids

David spent the weekend at the Labour Party conference.

David did too.

David leads the Labour Party.

David wants to too.

David has the support of some of the caucus.

David does too.

David isn’t so popular with unions and other lesser members.

David is more popular with unions and other lesser members.

David wants to put the leadership to the vote.

David does too.

Could David work with David afterwards and would he want to?

If David wins will David go or will he stay and try again?

If David loses will he stay or will this be the end of his political career?

 

 

 

 

The enemy within

Labour Party leader David Shearer probably doesn’t look to Margaret Thatcher for advice, but he would do well to mark her words: “ . . . We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty.”

Shearer is facing an onslaught from the enemies within – his party, the left leaning commentariat in blogs and the media.

Thatcher was talking about unions and given the power they wield in Labour it’s probable that they too are working to undermine Shearer’s leadership.

That isn’t a difficult job because after nearly a year in the position he’s failed to gain traction in the party or in opposition.

As Tapu Misa says:

Some people grow into the role of party leader; others seem somehow diminished by it. . .

Shearer seems a decent man. Unwilling to engage in the unwholesome side of politics, he projected himself as the anti-politician politician – reasonable, pleasant, honourable. His made-for-television back story (brave, selfless aid worker saving the world’s starving millions) looked like the perfect foil to John Key’s.

But it’s a punishing gig being Opposition leader, and Shearer is, sadly, out of his depth. . .

Helen Clark handed Phil Goff a poisoned chalice when she resigned on election night in 2008.

 

Shearer won the leadership at least partly by default – because he wasn’t the other candidate David Cunliffe.

That meant he didn’t start with a huge vote of confidence. His first job was to get that and he hasn’t.

He also needed to unite his caucus, get the slackers working, ease the deadwood out, revitalise the volunteer base and be an effective opposition leader and he hasn’t done that either.

His caucus is still divided, the slackers are still slacking, the deadwood is still comfortably ensconced, volunteers are disillusioned, and both Winston Peters and Russel Norman are far more effective at attacking the government and getting public attention than he is.

He’ll have to work miracles at the party conference this weekend, but even if he does, it’s possible few will notice. There’s a royal visit, the All Blacks are playing Italy, it’s Show and Cup weekend in Canterbury, heritage celebrations in North Otago and all sorts of other events around the country that will be competing for public attention and media space.

This weekend will be Shearer’s big chance to really shine but even if he does the strength of the enemy within means it is almost certainly too late.

Labour wants more power to meddle

Labour finance spokesman David Cunliffe wants to give politicians the power to meddle in commercial decisions:

“The threat of an overseas takeover of Fisher and Paykel is now very real and the likelihood of excellent skilled jobs going overseas is worryingly high. 

“Fisher and Paykel is a Kiwi innovation icon. It is the sort of company we need more of in New Zealand, not less. But National is just waving it goodbye.

“The implications of its sale to New Zealand are too important leave the takeover approval to officials. Such a major decision must be made by Ministers. That’s Labour’s policy.

If that’s Labour’s policy Heaven help the share market when they get back in government.

Who’d want to risk their money in the share market when they know that politicians could devalue their shares at whim?

 

Winning takes team effort

Election campaigns have become a lot more presidential.

With MMP it’s the party vote that counts and its the party leader who becomes the focus.

Between elections the party leader still gets the focus but winning, between or at an election, is still a team effort.

National is still maintaining reasonable levels of support for several reasons. One is the popularity of leader John Key, another is that its caucus is working well and equally importantly working together. Another is that the volunteers are motivated and because of that they too are working well and together.

Winning takes a team effort and that’s what National is giving.

Contrast that with Labour.

Its leader is invisible and when he stands up he’s sabotaged from within – as happened last week when his speech launching a campaign to win the regions was overshadowed by attacks on David Cunliffe.

Its caucus is divided – the attack on Cunliffe shows that as does Mangare MP Su’a William Sio’s call for Louisa Wall to withdraw her gay marriage bill.

The caucus isn’t working together and Matt McCaretn reckons it’s not working at all:

Labour’s problem is not its leader, it’s the caucus. The Green Party in Parliament is less than half Labour’s size yet day after day they prove how lacklustre our main opposition party is. . .

And the volunteers? The party doesn’t have many any more and who can blame those who remain for losing heart?

I’ve reached the point where I really can’t be bothered fighting for a Labour government any more. I don’t really know what the party stands for, and there is an immense amount of crap going on behind the scenes. It’s coming to the fore and it looks ugly. . .

If the parliamentary wing of the party can’t motivate itself it won’t be motivating its volunteers and if its committed members are giving up it won’t make any traction with less committed supporters and swinging voters.

Divided they fail

Pundits studying the entrails of recent polls which show National and its leader are still popular and Labour and its leader aren’t have overlooked one significant difference between the two parties.

The National caucus continues to show a united front while Labour looks divided.

Whatever differences might be aired internally – and I know nothing of any – National MPs continue to sing from the same song sheet and in harmony.

Meanwhile, Labour MPs have several different scores and are talking about it, if not publicly at least to the media in the knowledge it will become public.

Duncan Garner made the most of that yesterday in a column which asked why Labour hates David Cunliffe.

. . .  Labour MPs have openly joked with me that Cunliffe, who is  away on a lengthy family holiday overseas, should stay there.

Two very senior MPs have told me they would like an internal  travel fund set up to keep Cunliffe out of the country for as long as possible.  How nasty is this caucus? He is clearly not missed.

But Cunliffe is not only disliked by his caucus – he is not  trusted. So many have told me he never delivers on his promises and is sneaky  and lazy.

Sources have told me Shearer was advised to demote him when  he became Labour’s leader, but Shearer resisted and said he wanted to work with  Cunliffe.

That hasn’t worked apparently – my sources tell me Shearer  is deeply disappointed with Cunliffe and he feels let down. This relationship  cannot last.

According to Shearer’s sources, the Labour leader no longer  trusts Cunliffe. That view is shared by the majority of the caucus. . . .

This is bad for Cunliffe but it is at least as harmful to Labour.

Labour MPs have openly joked with me . . .  two very senior MPs . . . So many have told me . . .  Sources have told me . . .  my sources tell me . . .  According to Shearer’s sources. . .

Each and every one of those phrases is a sign not just of a divided caucus but one in which its members put their enmity for a colleague ahead of loyalty to the party.

When a caucus is divided the rest of the party doesn’t function properly either.

That has an inevitable impact on polls because the public isn’t keen to trust running the country to a party which isn’t able to agree on how to run itself.

While National stands united, Labour is divided and that’s one of the reasons its failing to gain traction in the polls.

Has Labour had a leadership change?

Critic, Otago University’s student magazine has a biased look at the state of the nation which includes this statement (p27):

. . . Law and politics student/tutor Sam McChesney believes that “this National government is basically a placeholder while Labour sorts its shit out. They’ve taken us backwards but not too far backwards, and in 2014 a Robertson- and Cunliffe-led Labour will rise like the phoenix to take the country into a new, enlightened age of social democracy.” . . .

Has Labour had a leadership change or is this supporter living in hope?

All that’s “green” isn’t good

“Green” might be the new black but all that is “green” isn’t necessarily good as this exchange from Question Time last week shows:

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his recent statements as Minister for Economic Development in relation to the Pure Advantage report New Zealand’s Position in the Green Race; if so, why?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Yes, especially my statements that it is important that New Zealand take advantage of all its opportunities for economic growth within sensible environmental and safety protections.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why, then, did he say that he fundamentally disagrees with New Zealand getting a slice of the $6 trillion world market export opportunity in the move to a clean economy, and why does he believe this would be “far too value-destroying” for the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Because the Pure Advantage** people promote shifting a whole lot of resources, particularly Government resources, into subsidising those industries as a way of actually achieving that level of growth, and although* we of course support and encourage our high-tech* and cleantech* industries—and some of them are doing a fantastic job—there is a limit to how much you can support them without being value-destroying for other parts of the economy. Also, saying that certain industries should not be invested in when they represent between them roughly 80 percent of our exports would be value-destroying.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why will he not heed the actual call by Pure Advantage, as clarified by chairman **Rob Morrison, to level the playing field so big pollution has to play by the same rules as innovative Kiwi cleantech* start-ups?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not quite sure what the member is alluding to, but I presume he means that industry should pay higher costs around, for example, emissions than they currently do. Of course, that would mean that they would be paying costs that their competitors in other countries do not face, which would be value-destroying. The challenge for New Zealand as a country trying to grow its exports is to make sure that it does not hobble its exporters with tests and costs that other countries’ exporters do not have to face.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why did he describe the Pure Advantage group of business leaders as self-interested and accuse them of bias in asking for “very big subsidies into industries and firms that would … not be economic …”, when its recent report does not call for specific subsidies; and if he cannot substantiate those claims, will he now withdraw and apologise to Pure Advantage chairman Mr Rob Morrison and trustees such as Mr *Phillip Mills, Mr *Jeremy Moon, Mr *Mark Solomon, and Sir Stephen Tindall*?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sure that Rob will be quite capable of the robust debate, as I am sure he has been in the past, and I have had good discussions with him about it as well. The point I was making is that in the report it talks a lot and in very positive terms of countries that make very, very big subsidies to industry, such as Spain and the Nordic countries—and also, for example, America with the Tesla Motors** company—and suggested that would be a model for New Zealand to follow. Obviously I disagree. . . .

“Green” jobs are supposed to be good but they come at a considerable cost:

Hon Tim Groser: Is the Minister aware that the Pure Advantage report suggested that a very good model to follow would be the Birmingham City Council** green growth strategy, which produced 270 jobs at a cost of nearly $2 million a job, and does he think that is a sensible model to follow for New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I am aware of that and a number of other models cited in the report. I think that illustrates the problem with the approach. The debate has actually moved on and in the New Zealand economy we are focused very much on greening our successful export industries and developing new industries, and not just trying to pick winners, as Mr Cunliffe seems to be advocating.

We have only one world and it behoves us to take care of it for those who follow us but sustainability is supposed to balance economic, environmental and social factors.

All that’s “green” isn’t good when it’s based on emotion rather than science and if it doesn’t stack up economically and socially.

Two versions

David Cunliffe’s no-show on The Nation  at the weekend was originally blamed on a decision from his leader’s office.

The story wasn’t quite so clear last night:

“I consulted – we reached a team decision we offered our finance spokesman to  talk about Budget issues it appeared to be a broader interview than economic  development,” Mr Cunliffe says.

“I didn’t stop David Cunliffe appearing it was his own decision,” Mr Shearer  says.

Which version is correct isn’t as significant as the fact there are two versions and both men are giving theirs publicly.

It’s a sure sign that the current leader is trying to assert his position and the aspiring leader isn’t over keen on helping him do it.

Quote of the day

The most distracting political battle will be over who leads the opposition. Elbow work between Winston Peters and David Shearer has already begun, and although the Green Party has been slow to start it will not be long before Russel Norman’s Australian accent will be heard decrying foreign ownership of NZ land. If the battle turns up the heat on the Govt, democracy will be served: if not, the only winners will be Key – and, probably, David Cunliffe. – Trans Tasman

Complimenting, complementing or competing?

Is it a a compliment to Finance Minister Bill English that Labour has not now has a Finance spokesman and four associates opposing him?

The four could complement the work David Parker will do but Dene Mackenzie points out they will also be competing with him:

Labour finance spokesman David Parker faces a daunting task of not only taking on Finance Minister Bill English in the House but in also keeping his four associate spokesmen in line. . .

While it can be argued Mr Shearer sees finance as the main focus of his new line-up, Mr Parker will need to rein in the substantial egos of the four other men. It could also be seen  as a lack of confidence in Mr Parker, that he has four associates to back him up.   

Mr Cunliffe was defeated as leader and is unlikely to have  too many warm feelings for Mr Parker. Mr Jones completes his rehabilitation back to the front bench and will want to make his mark during debates in the House.   

Mr Cosgrove, although defeated in his treasured Waimakariri      electorate, is not short of confidence.   

Mr Mallard, who actively worked with former leader Phil Goff and former deputy Annette King to have Mr Shearer elected,      has worked in associate finance roles previously, with former finance minister Michael Cullen.   

Mr Parker will find himself competing for speaking time with Messrs Cunliffe, Cosgrove and Jones.

He’ll also be competing with Finance spokespeople from other opposition parties and his leader didn’t give him a ringing endorsement when announcing the caucus line-up:

“. . . I’m not saying it will be better or worse, I’m saying it will be very different. . . “

Different but not necessarily better on top of the imposition assitance of four associates is no compliment and it’s hardly a ringing endorsement of Parker when the associates are less likely to complement him than compete with him.

Shearer fails first test

The first big test for David Shearer was to get his caucus line-up sorted in-house and without trouble.

He’s failed.

An embittered David Cunliffe is refusing to rule out quitting Parliament altogether as leader David Shearer moves to finalise his front bench.

It is understood Mr Cunliffe has been offered a front bench seat and a senior portfolio but has balked at his proposed ranking.

It doesn’t reflect well on Cunliffe that he’s gone public just a couple of days after pledging his loyalty to the new leader.

But if Shearer had managed to organise his caucus well he wouldn’t have provided the opportunity for any toy-tossing from his disgruntled rival.

The man who prides himself on his international experience, ought to have known, and heeded, the words of Chinese general and military strategist Sun-tzu: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.