On The Media And Campbell v Ring

Everyone has an opinion on how the media have treated the big quake. You may as well hear mine.

In the immediate aftermath of the earthquake I thought the two main TV networks did a pretty good job. Radio NZ shone, and proved its worth once more.

On the day of the event Hilary Barry was on the telly on TV3 for hours and hours. She did tremendously well, in spite of the awful news she was having to relate. How she didn't collapse in a blubbering heap is something I will never know. I thought a couple of times that she was going to crack, but she never did.

Since then there's been an awful lot of repetition with the TV coverage, and I've largely stopped following the earthquake news on the telly. It's probably time that they scaled down the coverage. There is little news to report. Most stories seem to be individual tales of survival, bravery or tragedy. Given that there must be thousands of such stories across the city, it's possible they could draw this out for months if they really wanted to.

I've been less impressed with the newspaper coverage, which has been part good and part bad. Generally both the Herald and Stuff sites have been pretty good, although Stuff had very little to say for a couple of hours after the quake struck. That's probably understandable, considering what happened at The Press. The websites have managed to combine the human interest survival/tragedy stories with useful information about what is going on and where, and important links.

The hard copy of the Herald has just gone for exploitation. Rather than a front page telling us useful stuff about the what, where and how, we've been bombarded with images of the dead or missing. The front page picture of the baby last week was particularly unpleasant and unnecessary. God only knows how the family of the poor child must have felt when they saw the story.

And now, a few days after the event, you have to hunt quite hard to find anything in the Herald about the quake other than survival/tragedy stories.

The blogosphere has been mostly restrained and, apart from a few people accusing John Key of using the opportunity to parade himself in front of the cameras,. and a few just strange posts (like this one - WTF?), the commentariat have been mostly civilised. Provided they are not discussing what should happen to looters and burglars. The consensus among the Kiwiblog usuals is that the police should have impunity to beat and bludgeon lawbreakers into a pulp during this period. So no change there then.

******

Having just written this post I have now watched John Campbell interview Ken Ring, the wacky weather prediction guy. Although "interview" might be putting it a bit charitably. I don't like it when the interviewer  uses the opportunity to attack and belittle the subject. That's not what they're there to do. Campbell wouldn't let Mr Ring finish a sentence before jumping all over him. Now I happen to have a very dim view of people like Ring whose theories lack scientific credibility and who just end up scaring the bejeesus out of people. Ring has predicted there will be another big quake on or about the 20th of March, and a number of already-shaken people are paying heed to his warning.

But you don't bring a quack down by yelling at them. You present evidence to rebut their theories and you do it calmly. You also probe the experience and background of the subject. If you do it right the bulk of the audience will know who's to be trusted and who's a charlatan. But Campbell was so eager to "nail" Ring that he wouldn't let Ring speak, and instead just berated the man. I almost felt sorry for the guy. Imagine how Ring's supporters must have felt having watched their guy being beaten up. John Campbell is a top-notch interviewer when he's calm and collected, but this was by far the worst I have seen from him. Perhaps the emotion of being amongst the ruins of Christchurch got to him.

Update: Brian Edwards is much more scathing of Campbell that I am.

Right Thinking: Time To Nuke Global Warming

Hard-hitting conservative columnist Dr. Frank Shizenhausen takes aim at the climate change industry

I for one don’t believe a word of this global warming hoax. You have to get up pretty early in the morning to pull the wool over the eyes of this old campaigner. The proposition that the Earth is gradually warming is ludicrous and can be easily disproven. The only people who have provided evidence that any of this warming is going on are the scientists. Now why is that? Could it be because they’re all thick as thieves in their plan to steal our society away from those who have traditionally led it? If scientists are now the new prophets, what place will there be for religious leaders and talkback hosts? I don’t know about you, but when my man Leighton Smith makes a pronouncement on a topic I generally regard it as infallible as a papal decree. He’s that good.

I’m sick of being told what to do by those sandal-wearing environmentalists and tree-huggers. They tell us we need to cut our carbon emissions in order to prevent the Earth from heating up. Then they say we can’t burn all these fossil fuels. Next they’ll be telling me I can’t dump my household waste in the bushes of the local council reserve, and that I need a permit if I want to set fire to my neighbour’s house or the local daycare centre.

It’s no wonder that whenever you find a greenie scurrying around you find socialists too. They’re allies in an unholy battle against freedom and liberty. If they get their way we’ll all be wearing hemp clothes, singing folk songs, living off welfare, and forgetting about soap.

But the global warming industry doesn’t appear about to disappear any time soon. It seems as if it is here to stay. We can get all worked up about this, or we can use this reality to our advantage.

I prefer the latter course. I’m essentially an optimist, even if I do come across sometimes as despising anyone who isn’t white, male and heterosexual. My wife berates me sometimes for being so down on people, and she may have a point. Tomorrow when I let her out of her cage I may even tell her she’s right. But in my optimism I see an opportunity to get one back. Because we are now being told by the same scientists who sold us global warming, that the solution to global warming is a nuclear winter.

The boffins at NASA have worked out that a nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-level nuclear bombs would kick up about five million metric tonnes of carbon into the upper atmosphere. The effect would be a cooling of the Earth by one to two degrees in most places for several years.

It sounds like a pretty good idea to me, even if global warming is a hoax. If they can convince us that we need to avoid activities that increase the Earth’s temperature, it shouldn’t be so hard to convince world governments to drop a few nuclear bombs. And, God knows, there are a few places that desperately deserve a bomb or two being dropped on them. Like Hamilton.

I suppose the decent thing to do would be to alert the people of these places before we nuke them, so that they can make appropriate preparations. I think I read somewhere that if you survive the initial blast the effects of nuclear radiation can be quite unpleasant. I expect that hiding under a table or doorway and applying a good SF30+ sunscreen before the bomb lands ought to provide sufficient of protection.

A nuclear war would sort the Middle East out once and for all, and God knows it’s so hot over there they would probably welcome a nuclear winter. And once this global warming nonsense has gone by the wayside the Arabs will be able to sell even more of that carbon-emitting oil.

There are no downsides to this nuclear plan. None that I can see, at least. But I’ll wager my entire fortune built over many years on tobacco stocks and blood diamonds that they won’t try it. If there was no global warming, only cooling, what would the environmentalists have to bleat about then? If there was no threat to humanity then the scientists would have to go without the millions of dollars of public money currently being chucked at them. Without such cash how would they research all their other nefarious research projects, like evolutionary science and round-earthism?

Nuking much of the world is a good, sensible idea, which is why they will never let it happen.

Jesus Never Looked So Good

TVNZ reports that David Beckham has got a new tattoo in which he is depicted as Jesus.

According to the report:

David said: "It is Jesus being carried by three cherubs and obviously the cherubs are my boys and so my thought of it is that at some point my boys are going to need to look after me and that's what they're doing in the picture. It means a lot."

Discussing the tattoo - done by Los Angeles-based Mark Mahoney - David revealed he never plans to get the artwork done but often wakes up inspired with an idea.

The idea in this case being “I am Jesus.”

He said: "I had it done before I left Los Angeles. I don't plan on having a tattoo, just sometimes I wake up and I have an idea of an image I'd like on me.

"It's just something that I've found kind of expresses how I feel or thoughts I have or memories. There's not one tattoo I've got on me that doesn't mean something."

Hardly anyone remembers that Beckham is a footballer. He used to be quite useful, though nowadays he’s well past his best. But worldwide he has become a fashion icon, and his marriage to that tedious and vapid clotheshorse who used to be the member of a talentless pop group still dominates the women’s magazines.

Nowadays the crass consumerism that Posh and Becks epitomise seems out of place and inappropriate, especially when Beckham likens himself to someone who (according to the Bible) spent his life helping others and renouncing worldly things. If there was any figure in modern British society more unlike Jesus it would have to be David Beckham.

Beckham deserves a "Just Like Jesus" Achievement Award from my Hall of Shame.

Right Thinking: Finally Some Good Out Of The Quake

Hard-hitting conservative columnist Dr Frank Shizenhausen cuts through the crap and gets to the truth.

The 2011 census has been cancelled.

The earthquake that destroyed so many lives and wrecked so many buildings finally gave me something to smile about.

That hotbed of unreconstructed socialism, the Department of Statistics, can’t run the census because its building is damaged and there’s chaos in Christchurch.

It's an indisputable fact that census data is routinely misused by bureaucrats and big government advocates. Instead of population data being used to determine who may live and who must die, it is used in ways that Comrade Stalin would be proud of. Water fluoridation, welfare benefit expansion, and the Marxist indoctrination of our pre-schoolers, are but some of the things these officials have planned for us. The data gives them the tools they need to continue their reign of terror.

That's why whenever there's a census I go bush. As far as Big Brother is concerned I don't exist.

Being outside the system in every way has its advantages. I don't pay tax (or, as I call it, the stupidity levy), and when I do have the occasional brush with officialdom they have trouble pinning me down. If the shock troops ever do finally catch up with me in my bush hideaway I will have some surprises for them that will make Ruby Ridge seem like a children's picnic.

Since we're stopping the census, why don't we also consider a population freeze? I’m not suggesting we stop people from breeding (the PC mob would never allow their numbers to diminish). Let’s just stop counting them. Pretty soon the state would just become irrelevant. When we're a nation of twenty million (probably some time next year, with all these foreigners coming in and with all the breeding beneficiaries), having a government that thinks there are only four million people to look after will mean the other sixteen million of us pay no tax.

The end of the census may be something worth celebrating, but there's nothing else joyous about events in Christchurch. So many have lost their lives or their homes. I watch the news on the TV and see communities coming together, pooling resources, helping neighbours out and sharing everything they have. People helping strangers. Do you know what it makes me realise? The Communists have won.

The market just isn't working properly in Christchurch. In a time of shortage and want people should be hoarding, and then holding out for extortionate prices. Water is a precious commodity, but instead of making a killing on selling it to the desperate and needy, they're giving the stuff away. It just doesn't make any economic sense.

Let me tell you that if there's ever a disaster up my neck of the woods you'd better have a wallet full of cash if you expect help from me. My bush fortress has a well, and a bunker with enough tinned food to last for five years. I may be willing to share my little stash with you, but for a price. So cough up, or stay away. And don't push me, because if you think the world would mourn another dead socialist you are surely mistaken.

In Which Police Shed A Tear For Tony Veitch

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has recommended Police to apologise to Tony Veitch. They say Mr Veitch should have input into the wording of the apology.

Someone has now leaked me a draft of the apology. It is reproduced below.

The New Zealand Police would like to apologise unreservedly to Mr Tony Veitch for releasing to the news media certain information.

This information comprised fact summaries of the six counts of male assaults female that Mr Veitch was charged with. This information was provided after police had decided not to lay charges on any of those six counts.

The police now accept that this was totally inappropriate.

The police accept that if they decide not to pursue a particular charge then details of the police file relating to that charge ought to be kept secret. To do otherwise would be to invite trial by media.

It is clear that the actions by police have caused great harm and distress to Mr Veitch. Just because Mr Veitch pleaded guilty to injuring his former partner Kristin Dunne-Powell with reckless disregard for her safety, that does not make Mr Veitch a monster, or even necessarily a bad man. He deserves everyone’s sympathy for the harm caused to him.

The media may have reported that Mr Veitch pushed Ms Dunne-Powell down a flight of stairs, kicked her in the back and broken two of her vertebrae, but those were just actions in the heat of the moment, and Mr Veitch has paid a price. Who hasn’t done something similar, or at least wanted to every time a stroppy woman won’t do what she’s told?

The release of this information has harmed a good man, a man who made one little mistake and has now paid the ultimate price by having his career temporarily put on hold, before being resumed a few months later.

What are a couple of broken bones in comparison? Broken bones usually heal. Mr Veitch’s heart never will.

Tribute To A Fallen Blogger

From the Herald:

The scope of Moammar Gadhafi's control was whittled away Wednesday…

Are they serious?

But then again, maybe I am just seriously depressive and cynical.

"Gadhafi"!

They can't even spell.

To me this is just adding insult to injury.

I guess others would say their hearts are in the right place, and post-modernists (i.e. all current educationists) would say we mustn't let such tiresome things like correct spelling get in the way of creativity.

Sorry, I just find the whole Libyan uprising terribly cruel, depressing, crushing, and awful.

Welfare Working Group Evil National Master Plan?

The Welfare Working Group report is much worse than I had imagined. But I think some folk are getting carried away when they put the extreme recommendations down to a nefarious National Party plot.

When you sit at one end of the political spectrum, rather than near the middle, it is easy to ascibe all sorts of evil motives to the actions of your ideological enemies.

So if you’re well to the left, you may believe that the government is run by a group of men who meet in smoke-filled rooms with members of the Business Roundtable, plotting the dissection of the welfare state and the dismantling of all protections against rapacious capitalism. Every move made by the government is designed to weaken the power of the workers and the poor.

The frankly brutal recommendations of the Welfare Working Group will fall into this pattern. John Key will probably disavow much of what the Working Group has to say, saying it is just too radical. But this is part of the game. Have an appointed group make shocking policy proposals, then assure the public that they go too far. When you make the changes you actually intended to make, they will seem moderate by comparison. This is called bait and switch.

This theory gives too much credit to the government. Politicians may have interests, and may have particularly strong views on matters such as welfare. But when they make appointments to a panel they don't know exactly what the people they're appointing are going to recommend. Politicians may choose people who are ideologically or politically aligned with them, but that is only natural. When someone agrees with your world view you're more likely to consider then a safe pair of hands. Still, the end product, their final report, is something the politician has no control over.

Most of the people co-opted onto the various taskforces and working groups set up by National are smart and professional folk, even if in many cases their viewpoints are anathema to a good number of us. They're not passive plants doing John key's bidding. Why would they come up with policy proposals knowing that they will see people laughing or shaking their heads? It's more likely that they are simply unaware how crazy they sound.

Anyone who thinks that "bait and switch" makes the government look good when it finally acts needs to seriously reconsider their views. Take the example of the 2025 Taskforce. Don Brash's report read like a Roger Douglas wishlist. Had John Key implemented even a fraction of the proposals he'd have been vilified. He was forced to publicly disavow much of what was on the report. He said it was too radical. Commentators and columnists then took him to task for either not following through with much needed reform, or for appointing a mug like Brash in the first place.

If bait and switch was in play with the Brash report then it failed badly. Key came out of it looking a bit stupid. So why will this tactic now work with the Welfare Working Group?

Why won't the proposal to make some mothers seek work when their babies are only 14 weeks old not make John Key look like a heartless bastard?

The fact that the Working Group would come down hard on beneficiaries would not have been a surprise to the people that appointed its members, though, even if the recommendations possibly went beyond what was anticipated.

A quick look at the backgrounds of those on the Working Group shows that the deck was always stacked against beneficiaries.

Firstly, there are members of the group who are probably just ideologically opposed or plain indifferent to the idea of a welfare state. Like Paula Rebstock. She is trained as an economist and was formerly the head of the Commerce Commission. She undoubtedly knows lots about markets and economic matters. But she seems to have no background or experience in welfare reform.

Or Profesor Des Gorman, a health academic. He is former working class lad who now wears a Rolex and drives a Porsche. It’s possible that because he’s managed to make good he figures there’s no excuse for others not to. He sounds a bit like John Key: happy to talk up his working class roots, while desperate to distance himself from them in every other respect.

Then there is Catherine Issac, former ACT Party president. Need I say more?

The group also included a number of heads of private welfare or service providers. These organisations are funded by the government to provide social or educational services to beneficiaries. These organisations stand to benefit considerably from any move by the state to push people into jobs or job training, or off benefits.

This group includes Enid Ratahi Pryor. She is the CEO of a Maori social and health service provider. Her organisation was chosen in 2009 to trial the outsourcing of social services to private providers. 

Then there is Adrian Roberts, founder and Managing Director of In-Work New Zealand, a private provider of employment services for people on benefits looking for work.

The third member of this group of private service provider heads is Sharon Wilson–Davis. She is involved in the hospitality industry, and is the CEO of the Tamaki Ki Raro Trust, which is the provider of training and education services to communities.

All of the organisations these people head stand to benefit considerably from a push towards getting beneficiaries in work and off welfare.They may have meant well, but it is hard to see how their views can be truly impartial.

There are a couple of others in the group who may have provided some counterbalance, though I really don’t know enough about these people.

Like Professor Ann Dupuis. Her Massey University bio says “Ann teaches courses in identity and culture in Aotearoa-New Zealand , gender and sexuality, globalisation and the sociology of work. Current research focuses on urban housing intensification, urban governance issues and social entrepreneurship.” I have no idea what most of that means, so I’m not clear on whether she brought any balance to the group.

And Professor Kathryn McPherson, who is Professor of Rehabilitation (Laura Fergusson Chair), AUT. She trained as a nurse and has a background in studying rehabilitation for people with chronic conditions. She ought to have provided useful input on sickness and invalid benefit issues at the very least.

So perhaps there were a couple of moderate voices on a panel clamouring for reform and for the dismantling of the welfare state. We shouldn't be surprised by the fact that we got a prescription for "get tough" policies.

But disavowing some of the group's recommendations doesn't allow Key to sneak some change under the radar. It just makes him look weak. He appointed these people, didn't he? How does rejecting many of its proposals make his government look any more credible? Bait and switch? Hardly. More likely Key just got sloppy with his appointments.

Our Man In Tripoli

Don't Let Them Get Away With This

At a time when the entire nation is in a state of shock or mourning, it just doesn't seem the right time to be engaging in politics. Some things will have to wait.

I've read a few cheap shots in the blogosphere about the appearance of John Key in Christchurch. Honestly, these people would be the first to bitch if Key had stayed in Wellington. How could he not be there at this awful time?

The disaster has meant that an important report on the state of our welfare system will not get the attention it deserves. I can't even face reading the thing at this time, though the summaries I have read of the Welfare Working Group's recommendations have left me incredibly angry. When the utter meanness behind many of the recommendations is compared to the selflessness in Christchurch of so many people in helping others, it is hard to think of any way to describe the members of the Welfare Working Group that doesn't involve foul language.

When we have done what we can to help the people of Christchurch through this terrible time, we need to do something about this Working Group report and the brutal callousness that pervades its thinking. When people need help we help them. That is our way. We must not let these people get away with their plan to dismantle our caring society.

Earthquake

This is agonising.

I have family in Christchurch and don't know if they are all okay. [update: they are all safe and well]

I'm sure many of my readers will be in a similar situation. Some of them will be in the middle of the quake zone. I don't expect many people to be rushing to read my blog today.

I was almost in tears just watching the TV footage of those fine old buildings destroyed. The most distressing thing is not the loss of buildings, which can be rebuilt, but the potentially enormous loss of life.

If I had a god I'd be praying to it. Or shaking my fists towards the sky.

Anyway, I hope that everything is okay in your family, and that everyone is safe.

I had a whole heap of things to blog about, but right now who cares about the Welfare Working Group, Hone Harawira or any of that stuff?

The Gap Is Not Closing

Some people on the left (see various posts on The Standard) keep saying that the polls are improving and that support for the Nats is starting to wane.

Following my post yesterday about polls, a reader (Robin Johnson's Economics Web Page) sent me a link to the below chart from Wikipedia. It plots the main opinion poll results since the 2008 election, and it shows clearly that the gap between National and Labour is not closing.

(Author Mark Payne)

Now I don't want to get involved in a tedious debate about statistics. But this does suggest that some people are clinging more to hope than facts when they say the gap between the main parties is closing.

Of course, things could change, and the gap could close. But why should we expect a closing of a gap that has stayed wide for the last two years, unless the main parties start doing things differently? What has Labour done to justify the gap being closed?

Feeling Sad For Bernie

Pro-democracy protests are taking place all across the Middle East. They have already brought down two governments, and the Gaddafi regime appears to be tottering. There are reports Gaddafi may have fled the country.

The price being paid is a terrible one. In both Egypt and Libya military or paramilitary forces loyal to the ruling elites have fought furiously to maintain the regimes. In Libya hundreds are reported dead.

But the price being paid by brave little Bahrain is even higher. The Bahrain Formula One has just been called off.

I can only imagine the anguish this must be causing. It must be deeply wounding to the head of Formula One, Bernie Ecclestone, an admirer of Hitler, that the forces of democracy have denied him a chance to mix and mingle with many of the Arab billionaires of the region, and to parade the obscene wealth of the sport before the eyes of the region's poor.

But Ecclestone must just accept the selfishness of the pro-democracy movement. The good news for him is that this is just a short term setback. Most of the regimes that are being toppled or threatened by protest will probably revert to military rule once the protesters have been smashed. There is no history of democracy in any of these countries, and history tells us that stable democracies don't spring up overnight. So Ecclestone just needs to be patient and wait to find out which brutal strongman he will be dealing with next.

The Leaked Welfare Working Group Recommendations

Dear John and Bill

We’ve finished our work and the report is on its way. We have considered none some much all of the most reliable evidence on the causes of welfare dependency and how welfare reform can be best achieved.

Our three main recommendations are set out in detail below. I thought I’d give you a sneak preview.

Enjoy!

Love

Paula R
Welfare Working Group

PS Our invoice is attached.

Summary of Recommendations

1. Fun Camps

The image of the welfare reform movement needs to change if we are to be serious about bringing about change. The public need to understand that there is nothing frightening or alarming about reform proposals.

In short, welfare reform has to be fun.

The money spent on administering the benefits system would be better utilised in the establishment of a series of Fun Camps. These large-scale camps would house the majority of beneficiaries and provide all the daily nutritional needs of the guests. The provision of a uniform would ensure than nobody was judged by their appearances, but instead on their successes. Guests will be divided into groups and encouraged to undertake group activities and games, such as Dig the Latrines, Bash the Bludger, and our favourite If You Don’t Get Off Your Lard Arse And Start Carrying Those Rocks I’ll Flog It Till It’s Raw.

Day trips to various fun scenic locations (mines, quarries etc) will keep our guests active and ensure everyone is getting enough exercise. It really is true that healthy bodies create healthy minds! And to keep everyone mentally engaged and alert, we’ll have random wake-ups at all hours, with specially trained fun-troopers storming into the sleeping facilities in the dead of might yelling and screaming, and hauling away the luckier of our guests for a thrilling game of 20 Questions.

These camps may be all about fun, but there’s a serious side to them too. It’s all about inspiring people to push beyond their limits and achieve something fantastic with their lives. To help achieve this we’ll have motivational speakers giving talks about the purity of the market and the role of deregulation in building the foundations of a strong economy, and there will be inspirational signs up around the camp giving uplifting messages such as “Work Will Make You Free”.

There will even be a graduation ceremony, bit this too will be based around fun, rather than the receipt of a stuffy old certificate or diploma. Graduates will be encouraged to Run The Gauntlet. This will involve running in between two lines of ACT Party members, New Zealand Herald columnists and editorial staff, and right-wing bloggers. Just to spice things up we will give the people in the two rows the chance to play tricks on the runners, using any old thing that comes to hand: party balloons, knives, and clubs, for example. It is almost certain that the camp guests will be all rolling around the floor to the sound of laughter by the end of the ceremony.

2. Give Beneficiaries a Purpose

Research shows that the "keeping it fun" approach will not work for everyone, and responses to welfare-dependency will need to be tailored to meet the needs of some people. Evidence has shown that low self-esteem can be debilitating and can be one of the main reasons why someone ends up trapped on a benefit. Giving someone a sense of purpose can lead to a reduction in dependency.

Most beneficiaries instinctively know that they are bludging scum, living like parasites off the blood of the taxpayer. Those who feel the bite of this parasite the hardest are the working poor: those who earn little, but don’t qualify for state assistance (e.g. company directors, bankers, stockbrokers etc), and for whom each day is a struggle. They have been hit by the cost of fuel, so their late model European cars are now more expensive to fill, and the land rates on their holiday homes continue to rise. On top of that it has become more expensive than ever before to buy fresh food. Meat and dairy products are becoming more unaffordable.

It seems absurd that we have a group of people crying out to be of some use to society, while we also have a group demanding affordable farm produce. The solution ought to be obvious, and yet until now it has been regarded as politically impossible to introduce plans to farm beneficiaries. But if a proposal were to be packaged right we are confident that beneficiaries would be lining up to participate.

3. Keep Families Together

There are too many women with children on welfare. They are the real hardcore beneficiaries. In many cases they have simply walked out of a perfectly solid relationship over some trivial matter (e.g. domestic violence), preferring instead to raise their children at the expense of the state.

Something must be done to encourage women not to leave their partners. There will clearly be some situations where the decision to leave is the right one. But for many women the decision not to live with the father of their children in a personal choice. Choices have consequences. There may be some who find a forced reconciliation less than desirable, and some so-called experts have even suggested that imposing a punitive regime on solo mothers will only force women to stay in abusive relationships, because they cannot afford to leave and still feed the kids.

These concerns overstate the problem considerably. Amongst our professional elite athletes, such as rugby and football players, broken noses, black eyes and other fractures are commonplace. For football players, being felled by a stray kick is just part of the game. Do our sportspeople give up and quit their chosen sport the moment they get tapped around?

Does a firefighter refuse to work because he may need to be in an environment where things can get a little hot?

So there really is little excuse for women to leave their relationships. If they make the decision to leave they cannot expect state assistance. And if going without welfare means their children suffer from poverty and deprivation then, while that is regrettable, the children will certainly learn a powerful lesson.

Latest Polls Ugly For Labour

I’m not one of those number-crunching boffins who pontificate and produce graphs based on the movement changes in the fortunes of political parties in the polls. Individual polls change, and it’s more important to look at the general trend, and not get bogged down in what one particular poll says.

But there is really nothing to smile about for Labour or Phil Goff in the two latest opinion polls. They continue a very negative trend, and show that, no matter what mistakes the PM makes, and no matter what Labour throws at the Government, support for National is rock-solid.

I understand that both polls were taken after John Key announced his plans to partially-sell state assets. Although those plans have been unfavourably received by the general public, it is clear that for many the reaction is more one of mind distaste, rather than outright hostility. Otherwise we might have expected the gap between National and Labour to start closing.

It is still many months out from the election, and things can change quickly if a particular idea takes hold of the public imagination, or if John Key does something stupid. But the closer we get to November the more likely it seems that National will be able to govern alone. Both polls give the Nats a comfortable majority, and these are not rogue polls either. They continue a trend. If the numbers hold the only positive for those on the left might be that Key decides he no longer needs ACT and all the odium that comes with that particular group. It could be farewell to Rodney, Heather and Co.

Ironically, a National majority might be the opening for a party to the right of National to stake a claim. Key has displayed little in the way of political bravery, and even his asset sales plan was watered down. This will not satisfy many on the right who yearn for the heady days of the 80s and 90s, when everything that wasn’t nailed down was flogged off, and when proponents of small government dominated policy debates. It may be that a resurrected ACT returns like a zombie from the grave, or we may see a new party from the right.

It remains to be seen whether a move is made to roll Phil Goff. My completely uninformed prediction is that the main contenders know it’s too late to make a difference now, and that they are waiting for Goff to fail in the election and then retire gracefully.

Update: apparently the polls aren't a complete disaster after all and everything wil be fine. You have to admire the optimism of some people.

Hide Pays Tribute

As the people of Christchurch continue to recover from the effects of the September earthquake, ACT leader Rodney Hide took time today to pay tribute to the quake.

Mr Hide, who was visiting the city, said there was no doubt that few natural disaster have had such an influence on the direction of Christchurch as September's Canterbury Earthquake.

"The earthquake shook the foundations of this region, and its effects continue to this day.

"The impact the earthquake has had on the infrastructure of Christchurch places it in a special position that few other disasters can hope to emulate. Its contribution to the destruction of the region is recognised by both insurance assessors and civil defence staff."

Mr Hide said that the impact of this earthquake would be felt for decades to come.

Earlier this week Mr Hide paid a special visit to the city of New Orleans. In a moving public speech there he paid tribute to Hurricane Katrina.

"No other hurricane has had such a lasting impact on the city of New Orleans," Mr Hide told a gathered crowd estimated to be in the thousands.

"Though Katrina has bowed out, we wish her well. She has changed the landscape of this city irreparably."

Sir Roger's Greatest Hits

It's a sad day when one of our greatest ever finance ministers decides to bow out of politics.

I sure do miss Dr Michael Cullen.

Another former Labour finance minister announced he will retire this year. As a tribute to the man who, for better or worse, reshaped our nation, here are some of Sir Roger's Greatest Hits from previous Imperator Fish posts. 

Sir Roger Apologises For Recipe Confusion (16 May 2009)

ACT MP Sir Roger Douglas was forced to apologise today after his Recipe to Grow the Economic Cake went disastrously wrong.

In case you missed it, here is Sir Roger's recipe:

Yield: An equitable serving for all

Ingredients
2½ cup Productivity
1½ cup Fiscal Responsibility
1 cup Sound Infrastructure Investment
6 eggs Full of Savings
3/4 cup Free Trade
6 tablespoons of Choice in Health and Education
2 teaspoons of Skilled Migration
1 teaspoon of Government

Ingredients for Icing
9 tablespoons Tax Cuts (more to taste)
7 oz sweet Economic Freedom
½ cup Entrepreneurial Spirit

Method
• Preheat economy oven
• Combine all ingredients liberally, taking care to restrain the amount of Government as too much will prevent the cake from rising and will create a bitter taste.
• Take a laissez-faire approach to cooking time, avoiding the temptation to adjust the settings.
• Once the cake has cooled, apply icing liberally.
• Enjoy the extra large servings – Bon Appetite!

Variations
• If you want a smaller cake as Labour delivered, increase Government expenditure, restrict trade, increase taxes and introduce Government central planning.

Douglas's apology came after numerous people complained of uncontrollable poverty, social dislocation and severe pain to the finances.

"I got it wrong," Sir Roger explained. "I mixed my recipes up. That was my Poverty Pie recipe. I hadn't used it since some time back in the 1980s. I'm sorry if people didn't like it."

Sir Roger has now sworn to stay out of the economic kitchen. But he did let this reporter in on one of his other concoctions. "Rodney and the boys tell me this stuff is dynamite," he said, speaking about his Special Economic Rat Poison formulation. "It kills almost everything. Apply this liberally to your country and I guarantee only the biggest meanest rats will be left alive."

Sir Roger's Special Economic Rat Poison

Yield: Generations of poverty and social upheaval

Ingredients:
4 cup discredited economic theories
1/2 cup tax cuts for the wealthy
5 cups of asset sales
3 heaped tablespoons of Choice in Health and Education (note: this ingredient is hard to find. It may also be known as "If You're Rich Enough You Get Genuine Choice, but if You're Poor then Tough Luck")
500 gms of cuts to welfare
1 packet of mass unemployment
liberal doses of meanness

Method
Throw the ingredients together as quickly as you can. Speed is essential. Don't worry if you get it wrong - you don't have time to consult or check whether you're doing it right.

When the toxic fumes are almost overpowering, let the mixture rest on a Round Table for a while.

Now your mixture is ready to use. Remember that the more you use the better the results will be.

Happy hunting!
 
Douglas: Deregulate Sterilisation Sector Now (4 March 2010)

ACT MP Sir Roger Douglas has expressed support for David Garrett’s plan for bad parents to undergo voluntary sterilisation.

“At first I thought ‘hello, David’s been into the turps again,’” said Douglas. “But then I went away and had a think about it. David’s plan needs some work, but it could just be what the sterilisation sector needs.

“Incentivising people is what ACT is all about. But we are also about freedom of choice. I like the idea of putting $5,000 back into the hands of ordinary hardworking Kiwi child-abuser battlers. But we need to give those molesting monsters real choice about what to do with that cash.”

Douglas said it was important for the state not to interfere with consumer choice.

“Let the patient choose the sterilisation provider. Give these hardworking deviants the right to decide for themselves who is going to have their nuts off. We’ll give them the $5,000 and they can then use that money to find the most appropriate service provider.

“Some people will choose the premium surgical service, while others will be content to keep the cash and just use a couple of bricks or a pair of scissors. I also expect we’ll see a range of providers competing against each other for work. You will see a number of full medical facilities springing up, together with the back-of-the-van operations involving straps, a knife and a bottle of brandy.

“Consumers benefit when there is competition in the market. And it is high time the sterilisation market was deregulated.”

Douglas said he did not know whether his other colleagues supported the plan. But he believed that the plan was consistent with ACT’s core principles.

“We have no business telling hardworking child-abusing parents what’s right for them and their families. This is an area the state should not get involved in. It is a matter of personal choice.”

A New Right Party And A New Hope For The Left

Derek Cheng reports that a new right-wing party has been formed.

The name "Reform Party" is a tired retread. The National Party was formed in 1936, when the United and Reform Parties merged. The Reform/United coalition showed ineptitude in managing the economy during the Great Depression, so perhaps the name is apt.

They have a website up, but it’s hardly inspiring stuff. It’s pretty clear Reform’s just an ACT spinoff, pedalling more of the same failed far-right policies, and rehashing much of the hatred against beneficiaries and the poor we have heard so often of late. Perhaps they figure that when we bomb out in the Rugby World Cup this year we’ll need a new national sport, and we’re already world-class at beneficiary-bashing.

I don’t know if anyone notable is behind the new party, but if they don’t get any big names they’ll just fade into obscurity or irrelevance. Names like Don Brash are often floated when a new party of the right is suggested. The neoliberal policies being proposed by the new party would fit nicely with Brash's own small-minded small-government philosophy.

The only name I can find associated with the party is an Andrew McLennan, although former ACT candidate Peter Tashkoff designed their website. Derek Cheng’s article describes McLennan as a lawyer, though there is no Andrew McLennan listed on the Law Society’s register of practising lawyers. So I don’t know anything about him. [update: I searched again today and found an Andrew Macalister McLennan who is Christchurch-based. I assume he's the guy. I'm not sure why when I searched the register on Friday I didn't come across his name. Odd. But I probably just screwed up in my search, although it's tempting to put it down to a vast right-wing conspiracy. Anyway, apologies to Mr McLennan]

There have been murmurings for months about the formation of a new right-wing party. I expect Reform will be talking with a few past and present Actoids (Muriel Newman, John Ansell, and the like), if indeed those folk aren’t already involved. And there are enough unhappy people within ACT to add further support, thanks to the inept leadership of Rodney Hide.

If all the people who believed in far-right economic policies voted for the same party then that party would most likely exceed the 5% threshold needed to win seats in parliament. The trouble of course is that some of these people vote National, and some of them vote ACT. There just doesn’t seem enough space at the moment for both ACT and a new far-right party to survive. If Reform does get a leader or candidates with some prominence it could be a disaster for ACT. A spilt right-wing vote might further reduce the already-marginal chances of ACT winning any seats this year.

Without ACT providing any seats, and with his other allies engaged in civil war, John Key may have to rely on gaining an outright majority or near-majority to rule. So the formation of a new right-wing party is potentially good news for the left, and bad news for Key.

It’s been a terrible week for Key. Dogged by revelations about wasteful government spending (i.e. those BMWs, Community Max), and having to deal with an opinion poll that reveals that the public really don’t like his asset sales plan, he now has to deal with the possibility that a crucial support partner will be further undermined.

Right Thinking: Sorry

Dr. Frank Shizenhausen's latest post shows that even hard-hitting and searing columnists can cross the line

Yesterday I wrote a post suggesting that beneficiaries should turn to prostitution and crime to supplement their incomes, rather than rely on food bank handouts.

I was wrong and I unreservedly apologise.

I know a lot of drug dealers, pimps, petty criminals and streetwalkers. They are all good people, doing their bit to improve their lot, give their clients a buzz, and put food on the table. That I would even suggest their noble trades be opened up to those wastrels on benefits fills me with regret and shame.

Rest assured that I'll be careful not to make inappropriate comparisons next time I post something about vermin.

Right Thinking: Some People Can't Be Helped

Dr. Frank Shizenhausen returns with a hard-hitting attack on the ne'er-do-wells who suck the taxpayer dry.

I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister's response to questions by Labour in Parliament about the increasing burden on food banks.

Mr Key told the House that "anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly, one can pay one's bills."

He went on to say that the reason why some people had no money left for essentials was because of the poor choices they made.

When Mr Key speaks on the subject of food banks he speaks with authority. Key's expertise in this area is inarguable. The man's worth $50 million, so if there's one thing he knows something about it's banks. Even if the bank he goes to is filled with money instead of food - his money, loads of it.

If our Prime Minister is so loaded he can afford to sprinkle ground-up hundred dollar bills on his breakfast cereal, and to have his briefing papers printed on gold leaf,  then it's no more than he deserves. Mr Key made his money the hard way, through old-fashioned toil and honest endeavour: shifting money from point A to point B and then shifting it back again. Like a farmer carefully nurturing his stock he watched his money pile turn into a mountain.

If you look at what a beneficiary earns it's clear that they can easily afford to live a comfortable lifestyle without the need to queue outside their local food bank. There are plenty of options available for those who struggle. Any prudent person put in a difficult financial position would turn to crime and prostitution to supplement their income. I will always be prepared to help a vulnerable young woman who is prepared to help herself in this way.

But most of these slackers would just prefer to mope around at home doing nothing.

The fact of the matter is that with a bit of sensible budgeting, and by eating grass instead of bread or meat, anyone on a benefit can easily get by.

But the do-gooders and welfare apologists keep saying "but what about those unexpected costs? Doctors, dentists and car breakdowns?"

Even a fool can see how entirely unnecessary and avoidable such expenses are. Take dentists' fees as an example. Beneficiaries complain because they don't have enough to eat, and then they complain because their teeth are rotten. But tell me this: if they have nothing to eat then why the hell do they even need teeth? You see how illogical their arguments are?

And why do they need to repair their car? Don't they have feet? They didn't have cars in the 18th century, and people lived very well back then, if they survived infancy and the constant warfare.

Medical bills can also be easily avoided. If you have no money then you can't afford to get sick. So don't. It's simple. Just as people on welfare should not live beyond their means, they should not be careless with the number of illnesses they have.

But the poor are so often extravagant with their illnesses. They live in their damp houses, spending their lives in bed coughing away while racked with debilitating depression and pain. Luxury! If only I could spend my days lying down and doing nothing. Yet they still moan. If they want a bit of sympathy from the rest of us then let them try budgeting their sicknesses a bit more sensibly.

The truth is these people deserve what they get. They get laid off and then bleat because they paid taxes all their life and now discover they get next to no support from the government. More fool them. No sensible person pays taxes nowadays. If you haven't wrapped up your financial affairs in a maze of LAQCs and trusts, and if everything you do, breathe and crap is not tax deductible, you really are bringing it upon yourself. Next we'll be told these people don't employ legions of tax lawyers and accountants to manage their affairs.

Some people just won't help themselves.

Update On The Beamers

David Farrar says it's not the minister's fault, because the department of Internal Affairs didn't tell him. Apparently the concept of ministerial responsibility doesn't apply to National Party ministers.

Trevor Mallard has claimed on Red Alert that there was no obligation to purchase the 32 additional vehicles. Given that he was a cabinet minister at the time the deal was made, his version of events ought to be reliable.

Bill English also admitted on Radio NZ that the Government hadn't looked at the cost of breaking the BMW contract.

I said earlier that we should not judge the Government until we had all the details. The details are now coming in now, and they don't look pretty.

Big Government Destroyed Rome

In trawling the internet for material for a post (that I decided not to write - don't ask) I found a little gem entitled How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome on the Cato Institute’s website. For those who don’t know what the Cato Institute is, it is a US-based think-tank beloved of libertarians and anyone who hates big government. It's intriguing that a libertarian institute should be named after one of the most pigheaded Romans that ever lived, but that is probably just coincidental.

The work is quite old (1994), but still eyebrow-raising.

The analysis is an extremely daring one, putting the fall of Rome solely down to the demands of excessive taxation, regulation and high inflation.

Followers of ancient history will also be most surprised to learn that Antony and Cleopatra were socialists at heart.

But the denouement is truly breathtaking.

In conclusion, the fall of Rome was fundamentally due to economic deterioration resulting from excessive taxation, inflation, and over-regulation. Higher and higher taxes failed to raise additional revenues because wealthier taxpayers could evade such taxes while the middle class--and its taxpaying capacity--were exterminated. Although the final demise of the Roman Empire in the West (its Eastern half continued on as the Byzantine Empire) was an event of great historical importance, for most Romans it was a relief.

So Rome's fall had nothing to do with any of the following:

• the enormous strain to Rome's frontiers caused by vast population migrations and powerful incursions by tribes from the north and east
• a political class in Rome that was corrupt, venal and deeply dysfunctional
• political institutions that were unrepresentative and inflexible
• the rise of Christianity
• the lack of government institutions capable of keeping generals and governors in check
• the fact that as the dangers to Rome's frontiers increased, the army became all-powerful and generals decided who was to be emperor, thus leading to civil wars between rival generals.

There are probably a dozen or more other contributing factors. Some people have even suggested lead poisoning as a contributing factor.

Many examples in Roman history exist of extortionate taxes destroying communities or causing revolts. But in many cases the problem was not that the tax burden on the average citizen was too much, but that the burden was borne unevenly.

It is also a bold claim to make that for most Romans the fall of Rome was a relief. The disintegration of Rome led to chaos throughout Western Europe for centuries afterwards. For example, Italy became a backwater as Rome weakened, its population ravaged by one enemy incursion after another. We don't refer to them as the Dark Ages for no reason. Some may have been better off, but most?

So the Romans fail the libertarian test. Thankfully there are many great figures in ancient history for libertarians to admire. Attila the Hun, one of Rome’s greatest enemies, was very effective at cutting through red tape. And necks too. He got things done, and wasn’t constrained by excessive regulation. If Mr The Hun wanted to undertake a new business activity (say conquering a territory, enslaving or slaughtering its entire population), all he had to do was jump on his horse and get on with it.

Actually, Attila sounds more like an objectivist than a pure libertarian.

Trim The Fat? Why Not Cut The Crap Instead?

John Key and Bill English have stated many times that our state sector is bloated, and that if state spending is not slashed we risk a credit rating downgrade.

This has now been exposed as a falsehood.

Here is the text of a press release from Standard and Poor’s (h/t Bryce Edwards):

Wellington, Feb 16 NZPA - There is little fat in the state sector to find savings from, international ratings agency Standard & Poor's says.

S&P sovereign rating analyst Kyran Curry told the New Zealand Herald the agency welcomed Prime Minister John Key's state-of-the-nation speech, in which he indicated plans to hold increases in government operational spending at $800 million to $900 million a year and return to surplus by 2014 or 2015.

"We acknowledge the Government's fiscal position is in a cyclical weakening point and the sooner it returns to surplus the better. This Government has articulated a fiscal consolidation strategy and we believe it's credible."

However he did not agree with Mr Key that the state sector was "bloated and inefficient".

"Generally, we look at the government in New Zealand as being relatively small and compared to its peers it's quite efficient."

Mr Curry said New Zealand was "relatively light" in government related entities.

He noted the Government's plans for partial asset sales, "but if you look at what's left, the sorts of government related businesses in New Zealand are quite minimal compared to a lot of other countries".

The agency last year put New Zealand's AA+ credit rating on "credit watch negative". A downgrade in New Zealand's credit rating would lead to higher interest rates for government and private sector borrowing.

Ratings agencies always like to see evidence that governments have costs under control. But S&P is saying that the state sector is already lean. It doesn’t appear there’s much fat to trim.

Those who understand such matters have long maintained that the crown accounts are in pretty good nick, and that household debt is the real reason why a credit downgrade might occur. S&P’s analysis appears to back this up.

It’s also interesting to read that S&P doesn’t appear that excited by asset sales. We’ve already flogged off many of the best assets, and there’s bugger-all left.

On Those BMWs

It feels wrong to not be flogging the government on its purchase of a new fleet of BMWs, but let me explain before you ready your clubs and pitchforks and begin to assemble your angry mob.

Fleet purchase agreements usually provide for a discount on the condition that the customer buys a minimum number of vehicles.

If the minimum number is not purchased then the price goes up. In some cases the failure to purchase the minimum number may even amount to a breach of contract, leaving the customer vulnerable to a damages claim, or a loss of discount.

It all depends on what the terms of the contract are.

The contract with BMW was signed by the previous government. We don't know what the terms of the contract say, due to commercial confidentiality.

Before we start ripping the current government to bits for this, here are some questions that we need to have answers to:

• Was the government contractually obliged to acquire these vehicles?
• If so, and if the government had failed to purchase them, what does the contract provide for? Termination? Breach? Monetary penalties? A clawback of discounts previously given?
• If a failure to purchase the vehicles amounted to a breach of contract, what were the likely damages BMW could have claimed?

I would have some sympathy for the Government if it turns out that to refuse to buy the vehicles would have been more costly than to buy them. But I don't know if that's the case.

In any event, this is not a good look, as Bill English would say. But he is blaming Labour and I expect that, after the initial outrage subsides, the media will do so too. This government is superb at deflecting blame onto others.

In this case, however, it might turn out that English is right. But I don't have enough information to properly judge. Nor do the partisan hacks who are climbing into the government on this issue.

Update: Bill English has apparently told Radio NZ that the government did not look into the cost of getting out of the BMW contract. That suggests that no serious effort was made to look at alternative options, which is pretty bloody poor.

Giving Boot Camps The Boot

So it turns out that boot camps don't really work that well.

The Nats like the idea of putting kids in uniform and having people yell at them. Give 'em a kick up the bum and a bit of discipline, eh?

The Right wants boot camps to work, because if they do that would prove that people who commit crimes are not themselves victims of circumstances, but are instead personally weak. It would only be a short jump to concluding that people on welfare, or with addiction problems, just need to get off their arses.

If that were true we could slash spending on social programmes, rehabilitation and welfare, and everyone (well not everyone, obviously - just those who earn more) could pay less tax. And we'd be doing these miserable people a favour, right? Cruel to be kind, tough love, etc.

But boot camps don't seem to work for most kids.

Why would yanking someone out of a problem environment, yelling at them for a few weeks, then throwing them back where they came from, work? Okay, so boot camps are a bit more sophisticated than that, but you can't impose structure and discipline on a disordered and troubled person in a few weeks. Many kids from broken homes, where most of the boot camp candidates come from, are struggling to deal with enormous psychological problems, or have been abused.

When National's plan for boot camps was announced the experts said they wouldn't work.

They are not working. Which means that we can expect the usual response to a law and order measure that isn't working: it will work. Just give us more time. We need more camps. Repeat cycle until message thoroughly absorbed.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"

Almost all successful politicians are weasels. But most at least pretend that they aren‘t, because being motivated by the pursuit of naked power does look rather grubby.

For a few politicians some residue of the principles that saw them enter politics may still be extant. I will also be charitable and assume that for many of them the decision to enter into politics was based on the desire to change the world and improve the society we live in. Unfortunately, most of them get chewed up by the system and end up making so many compromises that they lose sight of why they are even there for.

I have tried to understand what drives our Prime Minister. When you consider John Key’s recent utterances it is hard to think of any bedrock principles that he won’t budge from.

For example, Key went to the Big Gay Out in the weekend, but clearly didn’t like it when someone brought up the fact that he voted against the Civil Unions Bill. This is what the Herald reports:

Radio host Steven Oats invited Mr Key to his stall and asked him whether he would support civil unions if a conscience vote were held tomorrow.

"I voted against it last time. It was a very marginal call. But we're not going to face that again, so ..."

Mr Oats persisted, but Mr Key would not reveal his cards.

"I'm leaving it until my book. I know the answer, but just wait until my book," he said.

It’s an odd exchange that may reveal something about Key. He is happy for photo opportunities, while refusing to be pinned down on whether he supports civil unions or not. Key has undoubtedly perceived that a lot of his more conservative voters might not be in favour, so he won’t express an opinion either way.

Having only read Key’s remarks I can’t be sure whether he was joking when he said “wait until my book”. His words, however, reflect an attitude that the past is malleable and can be distorted or even buried to suit the political needs of the moment.We'll find out what he really thought about civil unions once he has decided in ten years' time.

This is not an isolated incident. Key has publicly said he cannot recall where he stood on the issue of the 1981 Springboks Tour. It is extremely difficult to imagine that anyone with even the slightest degree of political awareness could have failed to have an opinion at the time, or could fail now to remember what that opinion was.*

Mr Key also told Parliament in 2005 that climate change was a hoax. He later claimed he changed his mind on seeing the evidence and that he now believes in the existence of climate change. It could be that he never had any opinion on climate change that didn’t suit the political moment, and that he “changed his mind” because being leader of a major political party while espousing crackpot climate change denialism would have put him in an impossible position when dealing with the media and with world leaders.

Key’s willingness to slide in any direction that suits makes him hard to pin down. How can you accuse someone of betraying the principles that saw them elected when it’s not even clear what those principles are? It is tempting to put Key’s elevation as PM down to some kind of currency trader ego trip. He has the millions, and now he’s got one-up on all the other currency traders. Who would imagine the elevation of such a man to the leadership of an entire nation during the midst of the global financial crisis, when the prevailing sentiment towards bankers, traders and financiers was one of loathing?

But all that’s speculation, because nobody but the man and perhaps a few close confidants can be sure why he is in politics.

It’s interesting that Key's already talking about his “book”, though that could just as easily be a throwaway line designed to get an annoying questioner off his back. Key’s eventual autobiography will be either the blandest, most anodyne memoir ever (“I smiled at this event, I met celebrities, I smiled some more, I met Obama and he shook my hand. Cool.”), or a blockbuster revealing the epic extent of Key’s Machiavellian machinations.

I fear it may be the former. That doesn’t mean Key isn’t bright. Too many people in Labour have written him off as a flake. He’s clearly driven and calculating. We just don’t know what his end game is and what he's driving towards. We may never know. People aren't tidy things that you can easily map out or pigeonhole.

Our Prime Minister hasn't yet been called upon to make any truly difficult calls. In fact, it is probably fair to say that he's landed on his feet and has enjoyed a reasonable amount of luck. He is up against an opposition that is timid and unsure of its direction, and that keeps kneecapping itself. He also leads at a time where the news media is crying out for a warm and photogenic leader after nine frosty years under Labour, and when fluff stories are more newsworthy than policy analysis.

And Key has been able to blame everything to date on Labour.

While he could not of course have planned them, Key has been smart enough to know that when disaster strikes (the Canterbury Earthquake, Pike River) the people want strong visible leadership. It doesn't matter what you do, so long as you are seen doing it.

Key is a smooth operator with the media, and his relaxed demeanour can be contrasted sharply with the wooden appearances of his rival. When Phil Goff laughs during a media appearance his eyes often betray the fact that he's trying to be relaxed but isn't. John Key usually manages to pull it off.

With all of these advantages, it is no wonder that Key is looking and sounding so cocky nowadays. He has a momentum that is almost unstoppable (I say “almost” because his coalition partners are looking increasingly fragile). The question is whether, once Key is re-elected, he will allow us to see more of what drives him. Is there anything more to see? Perhaps there isn't.

* For the record, I also had no opinion on the tour at the time, but my excuse is a good one: I was nine years' old.

Not Petty

The decision by the Greens not to let Julia Gillard address Parliament while it is in session is being treated by the usual blogosphere suspects as an act of pettiness.

It is nothing of the sort. No foreign leader has ever addressed a sitting session of Parliament, and it would be highly unusual for one to do so now. The Greens' Kennedy Graham has explained why the decision not to allow Gillard to speak during session was made.

The NZ House of Representatives, sitting in session with the mace, is the symbol of national sovereignty. No one apart from New Zealand MPs has ever been allowed to address a sitting session of Parliament, not even our own Governor-General. The reason for this is that sitting sessions of Parliaments are for New Zealand law makers to exercise their democratic powers.

The idea that we would only invite our ‘closest friends’ to address Parliament in session is problematic.  Who might they be, and where might the line be drawn?  Australia might be seen as no. 1.  Perhaps the US would be no. 2, and the UK no. 3.  Which other countries might fit in the top ten?  What would be the criteria?  Where could the line be drawn? Such decisions are intrinsically political, and therefore subjectively influenced by the colours of a particular Government of the day – whereas the issue must be seen as having constitutional implications independent of politics.

Nobody is saying Gillard can't speak. And she will speak - just not during session. This is not an issue of freedom of expression, as some have suggested. Nobody is being censored.

Our politicians are often all too eager to break with parliamentary and constitutional traditions (witness the CERRA disgrace of last year). We don't have a written constitution, which makes our parliamentary conventions all the more important. That's why there's nothing petty about the Greens' decision not to allow Gillard to speak during session. Parliamentary traditions should not be broken without good reason. I've not heard a good reason why this one needs to be.

A Special Day

February 14 is an important day in the calendar. I am of course referring to the Roman festival of Lupercalia, held in honour of the she-wolf that suckled Romulus and Remus. Today is day two of the three day festival.

Lupercalia is most famous for the running of naked men through the city streets, as they hit anyone they meet with thongs. The ancient writer Plutarch says that those who do the run are magistrates and young noblemen. I really hope no High Court judges get their kits off, because, well, I just don't want to see some things. Might be a good day not to be a barrister.

All in all this day might be one for the ladies. Fair enough. The gents get Boobs on Bikes every year.

Another festival which appears to be one for the ladies is Valentines Day. On this day the menfolk make their annual pilgrimage to the florist, and finish the journey with a quick stop at Whitcoulls. Unless they're single, in which case they cower at home in fear and self-loathing, willing the day to pass more quickly.

I am trying to convince my beloved that we don't need a special day each year to celebrate my love, because we have 365 of them. This strategy is not working, however.

I fear I may be required to make a romantic gesture.

It Could Happen Here Too

The wondrous spectacle of revolutionary passion in Cairo has made me ponder what could occur here to launch a similar uprising.

It is clear that the apparatus of the state has one glaring chink in it, a chink large enough for a big long pointy thing to get inside and cause a bit of bother. That big long pointy wiggly thing is brown, radical and angry.

The state's perception of its powers has become confused, thanks to all this dialogue with the dispossessed. Confronted with an aggressive and powerful challenge from Maori it is possible, just possible, that events could spiral out of control and we could end up with a crisis to match that in Egypt.

It might begin with something simple. Someone has bought a DVD recorder. He goes out to the Cosmopolitan Club for his usual Saturday night entertainment (beer, meat raffles, and Marxist dialogue) unaware that the repeat episode of CSI Milton Keynes being played on The Box at 8.30pm won't record, and so he misses a critical episode of his favourite show.

Enraged at the failure of his shiny new piece of hardware, he gathers an angry mob the next day and marches on Wellington. Soon he has hundreds of followers: irate students disappointed by the quality of their trim flat whites, real estate agents who just can't close the deal, factory workers who think the All Whites winning the Halberg Award was a disgrace, and a small bespectacled Irishman who is fed up with being told by his wife that the rubbish must be taken out. All of these people are fed up and disgruntled, and they want the Government to fix everything now.

The protesters fill the streets of Wellington, and they gather a surprising number from those who are usually silent in times of protest. A large group of penguins has been flapping about in Cook Strait, but they hear of the protest and decide to join in. The Penguin King seizes the moment to take control of the protest. He leads the group to Parliament and they demand immediate action. Their list of grievances is long: more fish, more snow and ice, and an end to whales and seals. No reactionary government can possibly consent to these demands without being fatally weakened. A crisis brews.

The Prime Minister addresses the crowd and tells them that they must go home. Just then a huge bomb explodes in Parliament Square and the Penguin King disintegrates in the flames. There is nothing left of the fearless protest leader. There is a riot, and the Prime Minister and his security people are left holed up in the Parliament Building.

Just as all seems lost a reactionary mob led by Sir Peter Jackson storms into the crowd. Sir Peter is in the very thick of things, his Elven blade glinting in the sunlight as it slices through the protest mob. The protesters look like they are about the break when there is a flashing in the sky and a strange object descends from the heavens. Awestruck, the protesters and reactionaries give way, allowing this strange space object to land in Parliament Square. It is a silvery spaceship, curved and mysterious. A door opens and someone - or something - waddles out. The Penguin King is not dead after all!

The forces of reaction now realise that all is lost. Sir Peter leads his host to the steps of Parliament as they fight off wave upon wave of protesters. "To me! To me!" cries mighty Sir Peter, his armour resplendent and his sword raised.

The Penguin King is determined to crush his enemy, and he chooses this moment to launch his secret weapon: super flying slugs! The host atop Parliament's steps is rocked by this new horror. These slimy creatures cling to the faces and hair of their targets, causing distress and terror. The Prime Minister had emerged from Parliament to witness the triumph of the forces of reaction, but now he hides behind Sir Peter's vast shield. It is clear that Sir Peter's men cannot hold out much longer. Help must come, and soon!

The Penguin King sees now that his opponent is ready to crack. Realising it it time for the final assault, he prepares his special shock force for action, briefing them on what is required. They are his finest troops, his Maori radicals. When the Penguin King is ruler of the Penguin Republic of Aotearoa, the men of the Maori Radical Legion will be his governors and lieutenants. All the lands of New Zealand will be theirs.

At the Penguin King's command the Legion charges forward, even as Sir Peter's brave men try to wipe away the slug slime. "You must hold!" calls the defenders' general. "For Capital! For welfare reform! For economic freedom!"

His words have an instant power - or so it seems. The charging hordes are halted in an instant. Before them stands a man, a solitary man in camouflage gear. They gasp collectively, feeling a sudden fear in their hearts, and a loosening in their bowels. Corporal Willie Apiata!

Corporal Apiata is unarmed, except for a sharpened toothpick in his right hand. In the hands of such a killer that toothpick could turn the tide of the battle. What is his business here, they wonder? Have the forces of reaction co-opted him? Has he sold himself out to Whitey?

"Nah bros, I'm with you guys!" Corporal Apiata shouts. "Let's clean up these honkies!"

Meanwhile, the hobbits realise there is no escape this time and that this will be their last battle. As the battlelines smash together, and as the screams of man and penguin merge into one terrible violence of noise, the two little people ready their swords. If die we must then let them sing songs about us in the Shire, they decide. They fly into battle and are immediately in the thick of it.

Sir Peter is knocked off his horse. He is set upon by an angry radical horde. As his eyes close and he prepares for the sudden sensation of steel ripping life from him, he hears a burst of noise.

"The eagles! The eagles!"

Now the protesters are running. They have become a ragged mob as giant birds plunge at them from the sky, their sharp beaks and talons too much for even the most vicious of penguins. Astride the backs of these great coursers of the sky come Spiderman, Superman, Batman and a host of other superheroes. Soon Parliament Square is cleared of protesters, the bodies of the radicals everywhere in heaps. The Penguin King attempts to flee, but is accidentally stood upon by one of the human protesters and is mortally wounded. "Remember this day!" he whispers. "You must avenge me!" he gasps before expiring in the arms of his only son.

His son has no time to consider his new position. He may be king now, but if he does not escape now he will have no kingdom left, and there will be no possibility of a sequel. He must escape and now! Flapping his flippers, the young penguin clears a path through the chaos and boards a bus heading to Upper Hutt. He disappears.

Just then, as Sir Peter and other corporate cronies are sharing their cigars with the Prime Minister, the ground shakes. Buildings collapse all around them, and they are crushed to death by hundreds of tonnes of rubble.

This is the signal for a new wave of protest action, and this time the protesters occupy what remains of Parliament. They declare the day a national day and decree that anyone who is white must say that they're very very sorry and won't do whatever it was that they did ever again.

And so the revolution begins.

Except for one small bespectacled Irishman nothing has changed. He returns home from the protest jubilant, only to be greeted by a bitter wife and the rubbish piled up. He gets angry and decides to take direct political action against the new regime...

Sometimes It Is Better To Be A Mad Dog

You have probably read by now that media commentator Brian Edwards is being threatened with defamation proceedings, after he published a blog post* casting doubt on the veracity of a story in the Sunday Star Times by Jonathan Marshall. Marshall’s story claimed that Mark Hotchin’s wife made disparaging remarks about Hanover investors, a remark reminiscent of Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake” line.

Amanda Hotchin has disputed that she said anything of the sort, and she has obtained signed affidavits to back up her account. The post by Edwards that drew the ire of the SST’s lawyer suggests that Marshall’s story may not be accurate.

There was nothing remarkable in Edwards’ post. So it seems extraordinary that the SST editor would get so worked up over what at first glance appears to be perfectly reasonable speculation on Edwards’ part.

I’m not a media lawyer, but I’ve written a few demand letters in my time, and it struck me as I read Edwards’ description of the threatening letter he received that I would not have chosen to write a letter in that way.

For starters, you would have to question the wisdom of writing such a letter to a well know media figure. The issue is all over the blogosphere now, and thousands more will now see what the SST didn’t want Edwards to publish as a result of the publicity. I don't know what Edwards' normal readership is, but I bet it's gone up tenfold over this affair. So had I been acting for Fairfax I would have challenged my client to explain exactly what they hoped to achieve by the letter.

But if you’re going to issue threats, make them hurt. Give the sucker a deadline to comply with your demand and make sure they know that if they don’t comply all hell will break loose. Litigation’s a dirty business, but if you have to fight then do it properly. If you're the client's angry rottweiler struggling to break loose from the leash the other side might just think twice about picking a fight. But don’t pick a fight unless you really have to.

So if there’s no deadline for compliance, why issue the demand in the first place? And why phrase it in such weak terms, i.e. “Our client expects you to immediately remove the defamatory material…” etc. It all suggests that the threat is an empty one and that the client is letting off steam. Sometimes a client will have no intention of taking action, but will want to make the other party think otherwise. This kind of bluff tactic is common. But if you don't want your bluff called then why issue such a weak and waffly letter?

The other thing I wouldn’t put on a letter are the words “not for publication”. I understand this is common practice with some types of demand letters (e.g. defamation and take-down notices), but, really, what does it achieve? It is unlikely that the recipient is bound by any obligation not to disclose information that was unsolicited and which the recipient has no good reason to consider as being genuinely confidential. Most successful actions for breach of confidence arise where there is some relationship between the discloser and the recipient, and where the nature of the relationship means it is reasonable for the discloser to expect the information imparted to be treated as confidential. There is some case law suggesting that the receipt of unsolicited information that is marked as confidential might in some situations impose an obligation of confidence on the recipient, but I really would be surprised if publication of an unsolicited and unwelcome threat letter of the sort received by Edwards would amount to a breach of confidence.

But, most of all, the “not for publication” wording tells the recipient that the complainant doesn’t want this story hitting the media. If you’re going to insist that someone doesn’t publish a threatening letter you send, you should make sure the recipient is so shit-scared and intimidated by the letter that they immediately comply, and do so with their tail between their legs. Otherwise they’ll just end up pissed off and will do the exact opposite of what you intended.

This is not meant to be an attack on the lawyer who sent the letter. I don’t know what the lawyer’s instructions were from her client, and for all I know she may have told her client all of these things, but the client may have refused to be reasoned with. Clients can be like that.

So now everyone knows about the allegations by Mrs Hotchin, and the threat to sue Edwards still looks empty. It’s all over the blogosphere. That doesn’t mean that bloggers like Edwards should have immunity from defamation. I don’t subscribe to Cactus Kate’s view that there is an “NZ Bloggers Union”, and if there is one I sure as hell am not a member (compulsory union membership? Ugh!). Bloggers who cross the line should be held to account. But, though I am not a media law expert, it is hard to see how Edwards’ blogsite musings could be genuinely regarded as defamatory.**

* You’ll have to find the post yourself. In the unlikely event that Edwards is sued for defamation, I don’t want to be a party to proceedings because I linked to what he said. If you can’t find it on Google within 30 seconds you don’t deserve to be using this internet thing.

** Steven Price, who is a media lawyer, sees potential for a defamation action, but agrees that the tone of the letter suggests the SST won't sue.

All Whites Were Worthy Winners

The decision by Dick Tayler to resign in protest as a judge of the Halberg Awards strikes me as petty. Taylor has said he resigned because the other judges decided to award the All Whites the top honour.

According to this TV3 news report, Tayler has said he doesn't want to be associated with an award where the recipient hasn't actually won anything.

The All Whites, as anyone who wasn't buried for months last year in an ice cave in Antarctica will know, went to the World Cup and drew all three games.

While some of the hype and excitement surrounding the team's efforts went way over the top, with some suggesting it was our greatest ever sporting achievement, it would be hard to argue that their achievement wasn't a very fine one indeed. Such is the level of competition in football worldwide, and so limited are our resources, that it was a massive feat for the team to even get to the World Cup, let alone come back undefeated.

Some people will probably say that awarding the prize to a team that didn't win anything is another example of PC madness, where even losers get to go home with trophies. But we are not talking about the fat slow kid who came last in the running race and then got a ribbon by the teacher for trying so hard.

Getting to the World Cup and then not losing a match is more like when double amputee Mark Inglis climbed to the top of Everest. He wasn't the first person to reach the summit, but with all the natural disadvantages he suffered it was still an achievement worthy of admiration.

People who say that another team should have won the prize are entitled to their opinions. Sports awards like these are always open to argument and debate. But suggesting that the All Whites are unworthy of the award goes too far.

Why Have A Maori Party?

The Maori Party were formed over opposition to Labour's Foreshore and Seabed Act. The legislation caused Tariana Turia to leave Labour and form a new political party. Opposition by the new Maori Party to the legislation was fierce and uncompromising.

The bill drawn up by National to replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act is not radically different to Labour's law. There are some additional provisions designed to protect iwi, but the fundamentals are the same.

And yet despite the new bill not really changing the current law all that much (a law that inflamed Turia and others so much it spawned a political party), despite the bill being littered with flaws (for example, the Law Society's submission picks up dozens and dozens of drafting issues), and despite Chris Finlayson promising to amend the bill to clarify that public access is guaranteed, the Maori Affairs Select Committee has decided that the bill should proceed without any amendment at all.

Not only that, but the Select Committee reported two weeks early, leaving Labour, the Greens and ACT scrambling to get their minority reports out.

So beholden to National have Turia and others in the Maori Party become, that they now realise how important it is to get the law passed before the election. The bill may be riddled with problems, be highly contentious, and be counter to the principles that saw the establishment of the Maori Party in the first place, but both National and the Maori Party want to "move on", in the hope that the issue will settle down before the election, and that they can continue their cosy relationship after the election.

It would be nice if our politicians stood by the principles that saw them elected. But Turia is now talking about compromise, rather than holding out for a better deal. In politics everything is compromise. But when she was outside government she wasn't talking about compromise or about finding any middle ground. The original Labour law was their very raison d'être. The Maori Party compromising on this issue would be like the Greens deciding that the environment was no longer a big issue for them.

But principles come and go in politics. As Groucho Marx famously said, "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others".

Time To Leave?

I've argued previously that the decision whether to leave our troops in Afghanistan or to withdraw them is a difficult one, and I'm personally glad it's not me making the decision.

On the other hand, we now have the president of the country, Hamid Karzai, saying that foreign troops should leave.

Nobody knows what will happen if the armies of the West leave. It may result in massive bloodshed. Maybe Karzai will come to some accommodation with the Taliban and other insurgents.

But if the leader of the country (even if his mandate is questionable) is saying we shouldn't be there, then maybe it is time we got out.

The New Zealand government has not set a timetable for the withdrawal of the Provincial Reconstruction Team. But we shouldn't stay where we're not wanted.

Too Much Waffle

Bill English is absolutely right when he says there's too much waffle coming out of the public sector.

Such meaningless good-intentioned waffle includes gems like:

• talking about "step changes" and "a brighter future" while doing nothing new
• establishing a 2025 Taskforce to do something about closing the income gap with Australia, while doing nothing to close the income gap with Australia
• talking up economic growth as our economy slides towards a second recession
• talking up job growth while sacking public servants
• talking about good economic stewardship while planning to flog off assets that make a good return
• telling people this government is not interested in ideology but in what works, while targetting public servants, beneficiaries and the working poor, and while ensuring that the most wealthy in society get the biggest tax cuts.

Yes, there sure is a lot of waffle in the state sector. Most of it comes from the Beehive.

On Boofheads

It surprised me to hear Sue Bradford of all people defending the institution of marriage on the radio this evening. She was interviewed on Radio Live about a "win a wife" competition being run by the radio station The Rock.

Bradford has been in the media today attacking the boofhead male culture that predominates in this land. She may have a point, but she may have gone too far when she suggested that this culture leads to Once Were Warriors style domestic violence.

The Herald reported today:

Ms Bradford said The Rock's competition, alcohol ads, and Prime Minister John Key's recent labelling of actress Elizabeth Hurley as "hot", signified a cultural shift in New Zealand.

"It feels like there's a zeitgeist around right now, which obviously the alcohol companies are picking up on, the Prime Minister is picking up on, and this particular radio station is picking up on," she said.

Such advertising and promotions took New Zealand back to a "Once Were Warriors psychology", where men got drunk and came home and abused their wives.

I certainly cringe whenever I see some beer ads. The ads for some of the most undrinkable types of New Zealand beer (e.g. Lion Red, DB Export etc*) tend to pander to a particular tribal mindset, where men are rugged simpletons, heterosexual (no gays thanks) but harassed by their wives and girlfriends. Solace can be found only in the company of other rugged male simpletons, and in sport. This image no doubt appeals to many men, and helps to create brand loyalty.

And commercial radio is often little better, as the "win a wife" competition demonstrates so clearly.

But Bradford may be drawing a long bow when she suggests a direct linkage between our tribal boofhead culture and domestic violence. Most aspects of this male culture are harmless, however juvenile and tasteless they may be. For some men a spot of male bonding over a few cans of "Red" may even be a source of tension release.

I don't condone, however, the behaviour of the Prime Minister in appearing on Tony Veitch's show.  Key's conduct in discussing who was hot was hardly dignified, but the far greater offence was in having this discussion with a man convicted after pushing his partner down the stairs and breaking her back. Key's interview went beyond bad taste and ventured into the creepy.

Do you agree that our fascination with this bloke culture contributes to violence against women? Is Bradford right? Or is she out of line?

* I don't mean to sound like a beer snob, but I've drunk a lot of beers from different parts of the world in my time, and both of these beers are shit.