Speech for bored room

Quote of the day:

Shearer’s smoko room reference about as dated as his economic ideas. A speech for the bored-room & a recipe for lower incomes. -Steven Joyce.

He was referring to a speech in which David Shearer panned the Budget which hasn’t been delivered yet as one for the board room rather than the smoko room.

Yet another reminder that labour and its leader don’t understand business and the link between successful businesses and wages,  job stability and creation.

If they can’t get the numbers . . .

Keeping Stock is running a caption competition for a photo of David Shearer and Russel Norman looking bemused.

My contribution: “If we can’t get the numbers to run a referendum, how are we going to get the numbers to run the country?”

There’s hope

Quote of the day:

. . . Before the electricity market could be replaced with a state-controlled pricing regime, two things would need to happen. Labour and the Greens would need to win the next election, and if they did they would need to carry out this policy. Neither, I think, is likely.

John Key remains the most widely admired of any New Zealand Prime Minister I have seen. National continues to lead all polls by a margin that is remarkable five years into the life of a government.

Unless something disastrous happens, he looks certain to win again next year. . . 
John Roughan.

But winning the most votes of any party isn’t enough under MMP, parties have to get above 50%, by themselves or in coalition.

Should National go into the election with no partners in prospect, an absolute majority is conceivable. Conventional wisdom says it is practically impossible because it hasn’t happened since 1951. But before then, it was not unusual.

Labour won more than 50 per cent of the vote in 1938 and 1946, as did National in 1949 as well as 1951. Since then many have gone as close as 47 per cent, including National at the last election when it became only the third post-war government to be re-elected with an increased share of the vote.

There is nothing magical about an extra 3 per cent. Conventional wisdom is destined to be surprised sooner or later.

It becomes more possible the more often David Shearer stands too close to the larrikin.

Shearer is a sensible man. To enact Norman’s scheme or Labour’s version of it, he would need to ignore all the economic advice available to him. . .

It can be very easy to ignore the soundest of advice if it doesn’t fit your policy and you’re more interested in power – or the electoral rather than the electrical kind – than people.

Yesterday’s  Roy Morgan poll showed National up and LabourGreen down after the latter’s power plan was announced.

However, that poll is notoriously unreliable.

The next few polls will be more significant but even if they do give the thumbs down to the LabourGreen policy it’s more than a year until the election.

We have few one term governments which makes the odds on winning a second term better than reasonable.

Winning a third term is much harder.

Roughan’s comment shows there’s hope. Enough voters might understand the danger of powering back to seventies socialism to scorn LabourGreen.

But hope doesn’t win elections.

That takes good people, good policy, active party members, money and a lot of hard work.

There’s hope but no certainty.

MRP good buy?

A share broker wrote to David Shearer and Russel Norman thanking them for sabotaging the Mighty River Power float because it would enable him to buy more shares.

He said one of the unfortunate consequences of the LabourGreen power play was that it was putting off first time investors.

They’d been prepared to dip their toes in the investment market with MRP but the uncertainty in the wake of the LabourGreen sabotage was putting them off.

So are MRP shares still a good buy?

I’m not qualified to give financial advice and wouldn’t presume to tell anyone else what to do with their money but I’ll be putting some of mine in MRP.

Labour’s desperate attempt at sabotage

Labour is making a last-ditch desperate attempt to sabotage the partial sale of Mighty River Power.

Shares in Mighty River Power go on sale today, but Labour is warning potential investors it plans to makes changes in the electricity sector if elected next year. . .

He won’t say what the changes will be, only that is was fair to warn potential investors.

“What we’re most concerned about is the rise in power prices and the fact that when these assets are sold the likelihood is that power prices are going to go up and that the companies are going to be increasingly held in foreign hands.” . .

The Labour leader is playing at being David Shearerpisos again.

There are no details on what they’d do because there is nothing they could do. If he’d asked his Finance Spokesman, David Parker, he’d know that.

Power prices went up far more steeply in the nine year’s when Labour was last in government than they have since National took over in 2008.

At a public meeting, when he was a Minister, Parker was asked about power prices and said he’d joined Labour because of Max Bradford’s electricity reforms.

In response to a question about why Labour had done nothing to reverse the changes or moderate them he said it was too late, there was nothing the government could do.

Shearer’s latest release is empty rhetoric. It displays the party’s contempt for, and ignorance of ,business and provides another reason to ensure they won’t be leading the government after next year’s election.

No good reason to vote for Labour

Anyone tuning into Q+A yesterday in the hope of finding a good reason to vote for Labour would do would have been disappointed after listening to David Shearer.

Shearer said:

” Well, what we had been saying before is a whole programme of economic development, capital gains tax, and in the short term-

. . . Well, what I’m saying is that what we need to do is to grow the economy in a way that it’s not growing at the moment, and we’ll be talking about Tiwai Point in a little while…one of the big problems about – no, no, let me finish – one of the biggest problems about that is that the exchange rate is so low that we’re seeing many of our businesses actually going out of business because they’re not being able to succeed. We’re not putting our money in the profitable sector; it’s going into the property market because we don’t have a capital gains tax that will help us direct money into those areas. And if you’re wanting to raise money, then at least put money into businesses- invest in businesses through the incentives of capital gains, and that brings, obviously, money into the government as well.

The low exchange rate was a slip of the tongue. The capital gains tax wasn’t and increasing tax is not going to help economic growth.

Wood’s final question was was what Labour would do for a 26 year-old woman living in Auckland earning $65,000 a year, paying off a student loan and renting.

To which he replied:

Well, two things – first of all, we would have a healthy home guarantee to make sure that where she’s living, in the rental accommodation that she’s living in, is actually up to scratch; it’s both heated and it’s insulated. The second thing that we would do is we’re building 10,000 houses, affordable homes, a year, and that would enable her to have an opportunity to get on to the housing ladder. So there are two specific things that I believe that would help that case.

That’s at best underwhelming and would be even less attractive with a capital gains tax which has done nothing to stop house prices rising steeply anywhere else.

Not in the same league

Quote of the day:

SUSAN          So you’re not a rich prick?

DAVID            I’m- Obviously, as a New Zealander, I’m fortunate, but I’m not in the same league as our prime minster, no.

That comes from David Shearer on Q+A  yesterday.

Not in the same league as the Prime Minister, David Shearer isn’t in the same league as John Key, and not just in terms of personal wealth.

Is his money our business?

Susan Woods pressed David Shearer to reveal on Q+A yesterday how much money is in the account he omitted to declare in his register of pecuniary interest.

SUSAN          Much made this week of the Prime Minister’s memory loss. You, of course, have had your own memory loss over that $50,000 US or more, how much was it?

DAVID            I’m not going to say. It’s my family business. I don’t talk about my savings online, but I do-

SUSAN          Tony Ryall said in the house it was a couple of hundred thousand dollars US. Is that correct, or is it more than that?

DAVID            I’m not going to say. It’s my family business.

SUSAN          Didn’t you lose your right for privacy around it when you forgot to declare it? When you broke the rules and did not declare it?

DAVID            No, I absolutely did not. I said that I made an error. I myself came forward and corrected that error. I took it on the chin and said ‘here it is’. And I expect that to be the standard by which all politicians operate if they do make a mistake.

SUSAN          That’s what John Key did this week. He said he’d made a mistake and he fessed up. Exactly the same scenario.

DAVID            I think what John Key was doing this week-

SUSAN          He came forward.

DAVID            No-

SUSAN          Yes, he did. He came forward and he said, ‘Actually, I’ve checked by records and I did call Ian Fletcher.’ He came forward.

DAVID            What he was doing this week was that he was deliberately trying to move opinion away from and deflect opinion away from his friendship and relationship with Fletcher.

SUSAN          Is your problem with this money- Is your problem with this more than $50,000 US in the bank, is your problem that there is so much money there that it would not resonate? You would not resonate? I mean, Michael Cullen very famously called John Key a ‘rich prick’. Are you, Mr Shearer, a rich prick?

DAVID            Look, I worked for my money working for the United Nations in Iraq. I put it in the bank. It’s my family’s savings. I didn’t put it on my pecuniary interest. I declared that and I came forward and I was honest about it.

SUSAN          And you were very well paid in that job, sometimes up to half a million Kiwi dollars a year.

DAVID            No, I think you need to do your research on that, quite frankly, Susan. But, look, working in Iraq, where we lost 25 people, there was a- people do get paid hazard money in those situations.

SUSAN          What’s the money sitting there for?

DAVID            Look, it’s my family- Look, people put money in the bank for any- Look, this is my private savings, my family’s savings. Do you ask John Key what he does with $50 million when he comes on to your show?

SUSAN          John Key actually does have scrutiny over his money all the time. There are reports about how much money he has; he’s on the NBR Rich List – all those sorts of things. So, yes, he does have the same sort of scrutiny.

DAVID            Well, I haven’t heard you asking the same sorts of questions-

SUSAN          I haven’t had him on the programme yet, but when I do, I will ask him. So, are reports that it’s around $1 million correct or incorrect?

DAVID            Look, I am not going to put a figure on it, and I resent the fact that you are asking me to reveal how much is in my bank account. Nobody needs to do that. I have done-

SUSAN          You do need to.

DAVID            I have done what I was obliged to do under parliamentary rules, which is to declare any account that had more than $50,000 in it. I did do that. I regret, obviously, not putting that on my pecuniary interests, and that’s where it stops.

In the normal course of events it is none of our business exactly how much money MPs have.

They have to declare anything more than $50,000 and Shearer didn’t.

That he could forget he had that much when filling in his register of pecuniary interest although his memory didn’t fail him when filling in his tax return is peculiar.

Even if the account has $50,000.01 which requires it to be declared, it is more than a great many people would ever have saved and a lot more than most would ever forget they owned.

Shearer has opened himself up to questions. Many people will be very interested in exactly how much is in the account he forgot about. The greater the amount, the stranger his memory lapse, but is it in the public interest to know the total?

Woods says she’s going to ask the PM the same questions but Shearer’s memory lapse and refusal to divulge the amount in the forgotten account doesn’t give her any reason to dig into anyone else’s personal finances.

Providing it was made legally and anything that has to be declared is, how much an MP has, is not our business.

“Failed policies” struck from Labour lexicon

The Labour Party has directed its MPs and members to stop referring to the failed policies of the 80s and 90s.

The lack of negative publicity the party attracted from its decision to ditch its 2011 election policy to remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables has emboldened Labour strategists who are charting a new direction.

“I might have a propensity for overlooking bank accounts, but I can not lead a party which refuses to take pride in its past achievements,” Labour leader David Shearer said.

“I wasn’t in parliament at that time nor during the 1999-2008 when “failed policies’ became part of the Labour lexicon.

“It was stupid then and it’s even more stupid now when it’s obvious that the hard decisions taken were the right ones even though the first ones came from the left.

“Those decisions pulled the country up by its bootstraps so it could stand tall on its own two feet, and the four feet of the cows and sheep to which we owe so much of our export income.

“If it hadn’t been for that we’d be wallowing in the depths of depression with the PIGS.”

Mr Shearer admitted to journalists he faced some resistance from a hard-core within caucus but he was standing firm.

“We’ve had a free and frank discussion and we’re united, on this, or as united as a Labour caucus ever could be,” he said.

The left-outers are a wee bit peeved but the careerists are prepared to put potential jobs before flawed principles and the right, well they’re right behind me.

“Failed policies will no longer be part of the Labour lexicon. Instead, we’re getting ready to deliver shiny new lines.”

Mr Shearer said the caucus wasn’t quite ready to go public with those lines yet.

“We’re still chewing a few dead rats and as it’s rude to talk with your mouth full we’ll have to wait until we’ve swallowed them before we’re able to make any further statements,” he said.

 

 

 

 

Schadenfreude

Prime Minister John Key resisted the temptation to attack David Shearer for  his memory lapse:

It is “unfortunate” Labour leader David Shearer forgot to declare an offshore bank account with at least $50,000 in it since he became an MP, Prime Minister John Key says. . .

Key said the oversight was “unfortunate”, but mistakes could be made.

However, National had not had much support from Labour when that was the case in the past, he said.

“In the end he’s [Shearer] got to make peace with the New Zealand public,” Key said.

He had “tried not to” forget about investments worth $50,000, and he said Shearer’s bank account could hold quite a bit more than that.

Key had been criticised for failing to declare Tranz Rail shares. . .

Act leader John Banks was unable to resist the temptation.

Hon John Banks: Could the Minister for State Owned Enterprises tell me whether funds could be used from a secret bank account in New York to purchase shares in this initial public offering? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A legitimate question.

Hon TONY RYALL: That is a very good question, because if a New Zealander was one of the pre-registered 400,000 and they were able to get the benefits of that pre-registration in terms of their shares, they would have to pay for them. We would be unclear of whether the bank account was secret or not, but we would presume people would actually know they had a bank account.

Given the delight Labour took in criticising Banks for his memory lapse he could be excused this schadenfreude.

Whoops

Having an overseas bank account is unlikely to endear a Labour party leader to his constituents.

Having one and forgetting you’ve got it is even less likely to be understood by then.

Labour Leader David Shearer’s dobbed himself in for forgetting to declare a foreign bank account held in his name.

The New York-based Chase cash account, which was used to collect Mr Shearer’s United Nations salary, hasn’t been included on the Register of Pecuniary interests since he became an MP in 2009.

Dobbing himself in gets a point for honesty but doesn’t cancel out the carelessness of overlooking it in each return since 2009.

WIll it be a bottom line?

In a speech typically high on emotion and rhetoric Winston Peters says:

We will use every ounce of influence after the next election and all the financial measures available to us to buy back Mighty River Power shares at a price no higher than originally paid for them.

The only way he can do this is to make it a bottom line in negotiations over supply and confidence with the party which will lead the next government.

It would mean that New Zealand First makes full state ownership of an energy company a higher priority than schools, hospitals, roads, irrigation and other assets.

It would mean that the party isn’t troubled by the prospect of sabotaging the value of public and private shareholdings and destabilising the share market.

It would mean that if New Zealand First held the balance of power, there would have to be another election.

The re-natonalisation of MRP would be a bottom line National wouldn’t accept.

And although David Shearer hasn’t quite ruled out buying back the shares in Mighty River he knows the cost and it’s one no party which wants to be regarded as a careful steward of the economy could contemplate.

If Peters is making it a bottom line he’s ruling his party out of government.

If he’s not then it’s just another example of his hot air.

 

Who’s leading the Opposition?

Last year the Green Party had a higher profile than Labour.

This year, as Lew at Kiwipolitico points out,  Winston Peters is leading the charge:

David Shearer says he won’t rule out buying back shares in state-owned power companies sold by the government. He won’t rule it in, either. Why? Does he need to consult his leader?

There’s so much wrong with this that I scarcely know where to start. This buyback agenda has been set by Winston Peters; it’s now two years since the 2011 election campaign kicked off with a pledge to sell these assets, and it’s like the boffins in Labour haven’t yet had an original idea about it. The problem with old generals is supposed to be that they fight today’s war with the strategies of yesterday’s war, but this is worse — it’s fighting yesterday’s war with the strategies that lost the one before that. . .

Peters will never be in a position to act on his threat to renationalise any energy companies which are partially sold.

He’s not stupid enough to make it a bottom line in a coalition or confidence deal. He’s just whistling to his dogs.

But he’s also showing up David Shearer and Labour who are in a no-win position.

They’re not stupid enough to promise to renationalise the companies, that would really scare the business horses and push moderate, wavering voters to towards national. But that just makes Labour’s continuing campaign against the policy redundant.

If they’re not going to change the policy they are neutering their opposition.

The party and its leader need to find another policy to help them make some traction because until they show they can lead the Opposition they’re not going to be able to convince enough voters they could lead a government.

There’s already been a referendum

The petition seeking a referendum on the government’s policy to sell minority shares in a few energy companies was presented to parliament yesterday.

Parliamentary Services staff will now have to waste their time and our money ensuring the validity of the signatories.

They shouldn’t have to do it because Keeping Stock shows us there’s already been a referendum.

Labour’s then leader, Phil Goff said so.

Mr Goff said Prime Minister John Key had made this year’s election a referendum on whether New Zealanders wanted to see their most important assets being sold.

Perhaps the current leader, David Shearer, could explain why he’s wasting public money on another referendum when the 2011 was decisive.

And apropos of waste – does anyone know who paid for all those boxes in which the petition pages were delivered and the delivery?

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.

 

Private investors are ordinary Kiwis

My father arrived in New Zealand in the 1930s with almost nothing.

He was hoping for a better life here than he was able to have in Scotland and he got it.

When he returned after active service with the 20th Battalion during World War II he got a rehab. apprenticeship as a carpenter and spent the rest of his working life in that trade.

My mother was a nurse but, as most women did in those days, she gave up her profession when she married.

There wasn’t much to spare from a single income with three children to raise but Mum and Dad saved what they could and invested when able. By the time they retired they had a mortgage-free home and a small nest egg which gave them a bit more security and a few more choices than they would have had if they had nothing more than their pensions.

They were ordinary Kiwis who had worked and saved and were able to enjoy the fruits of that in their retirement.

The Labour Party doesn’t appear to recognise people like this.

Leader David Shearer reckons the partial float of Mighty River Power is another win for private investors over ordinary Kiwis.

Silly man, many private investors are ordinary Kiwis like my parents.

They’re the ones who work hard, save what they can and are looking for good investments.

No shareholding comes with a cast-iron guarantee but utility companies like MRP are usually good, safe, long-term, investments for ordinary Kiwis who are able and prepared to save and invest.

Critisicm but no alternatives

The Opposition has been quick to criticise Hekia Parata’s proposals for education in Canterbury but have offered no alternatives.

Labour leader, David Shearer doesn’t even seem to understand the issue:

David Shearer: Does he not concede that closing schools in Christchurch following a natural disaster, where kids require and rely on stability and security from their schools, is manifestly different from closing schools under the Labour Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This is the logic that the Leader of the Opposition is wanting New Zealanders to believe: that on the back of a catastrophic earthquake in Christchurch that has dramatically changed the demographic patterns of where Cantabrians live, where there is huge damage to the schools involved and where the land is substantially damaged, nothing should happen. . .

Some schools have had extensive damage, others have lost large numbers of pupils.

Leaving the schools open wouldn’t be in the best interests of the pupils nor would it be best use of public money.

The opposition might think damaged buildings and under utilised facilities isn’t a problem but the government does and has a $1 billion dollar programme of investment to solve it.

Unequivocal or not

Spot the difference in responses to New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser’s vitriolic attack on people from “Wogistan”.

Judith Collins was unequivocal:

Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Justice, and Minister Responsible for the Human Rights Commission, Judith Collins says comments by New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser are extremely disappointing and may cause international embarrassment for New Zealand.

“New Zealand values diversity and prides itself on being an inclusive society.

“Muslims in New Zealand are also a diverse community – it is simply appalling to profile people based on their religion, skin colour, country of origin, or a perceived stereo-typed ‘look’ as Mr Prosser has done.

“Mr Prosser’s anti-Muslim rant has let New Zealand down and as a Member of Parliament he should know better.

“New Zealand First Leader, Winston Peters, needs to do much more than to hide his MP – he needs to explain why Mr Prosser’s behaviour is acceptable to New Zealand First.

“The Office of Ethnic Affairs works closely with the Muslim community in New Zealand – a community that denounces terrorism and has vowed to work with authorities to counter any terrorism threat.

“We have a strong tradition of human rights in New Zealand. Our Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race and religious belief, and our Bill of Rights Act affirms the right to freedom of religion, including the right to hold views without interference.

“As far back as 1978, New Zealand ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which underlines the right to freedom of religion.

“I suggest Mr Peters and his caucus familiarise themselves with this legislation to avoid causing further embarrassment to New Zealand,” says Ms Collins.

Prosser’s leader, Winston Peters, made a very brief statement:

I have spoken with Mr Prosser regarding the Investigate magazine article.

He wrongfully impugned millions of law-abiding, peaceful Muslims.

Mr Prosser agrees that the article did not have balance, and does not represent the views of New Zealand First.

Peters would be the first to call for a government MP to resign for a statement far less damaging than Prosser’s.

However, he has been a strident critic of immigration and is no doubt careful about not alienating the supporters attracted by his xenophobic stance.

Labour’s Foreign Affairs spokesman Phil Goff was much firmer:

“Mr Prosser’s statement is unacceptable from an MP and he and New Zealand First should consider whether he has any future in politics,” Phil Goff said.

Labour leader David Shearer was somewhat more equivocal than Ms Collins:

David Shearer says Richard Prosser’s comments were “offensive and completely inappropriate” but wouldn’t say if he would stand him down.

A war of words on Twitter between Green co-leader Russel Norman and Labour MP Trevor Mallard point to problems with one of Labour’s potential coalition partners.

Maybe Shearer’s initial reluctance to take a stand on this was because any tension between his party and the Green Party increases Labour’s reliance on Peters and his party.

Or maybe it’s just another example of Shearer being quick to criticise but much slower to commit himself or his party to action.

Leadership requires the ability to be unequivocal when it matters, Shearer has yet to show he has it.

Herstory of Waitangi

Trans Tasman has suggests the history of the Treaty of Waitangi might be being re-written as a herstory:

There’s a generation of school kids growing up under the impression the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between Governor Hobson and Titewhai Harawira.

This is not so much an indictment on our school system: more on the way Harawira manages to plant herself at the epicentre of our annual national day.

It isn’t clear quite how this happened. True, she managed to make Helen Clark cry, and for some of us there’s always a hope Titewhai – who has become a sort of Kiwi version of a fierce Wodehousian aunt as imagined by one of the more bizarrely gothic Dutch painters – would have a similar impact one of Clark’s successors. There doesn’t seem much chance with the current lot.

If she were to try such a stunt today, John Key would either declare himself relaxed about it, or just have one of his memory lapses. Labour’s David Shearer probably would not notice, unless a staffer or his autocue told him about it. NZ First’s Winston Peters and Act’s John Banks would respond with inarticulate belligerence, and United Future’s Peter Dunne probably with a milder, if more articulate, form of same.

The only ones discombobulated would be Green co-leaders Russel Norman and Metiria Turei: they are more used to being part of protests than being on the receiving end of them.

So what does Waitangi Day, our national day, tell us about ourselves – you know, apart from the fact we are suckers for being bullied by stroppy old ladies?

Well, we’re still working on this treaty stuff, and we’re not very comfortable about the whole race issue. But also we’re not ignoring it and we’re kind of muddling our way through it all, if a little noisily and apologetically.

Apropos of understanding the history of the treaty, I have to confess that I went through school under the impression it ended the land wars.

It was only when I did a New Zealand history paper at university that I learned that wasn’t the case.

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.