Join The Fight

People, the time has come to take direct action.

I've had enough of these so-called historians making money off the back of human tragedy. Exploiting every war or genocide in order to line their own pockets.

Writing about human misery so as to fill their coffers.

Well I'm not going to take it any more.

And you don't need to either.

Please join my Facebook campaign Let’s boycott history books, because of all the unpleasant people in them

If we all work together we can put a stop to all this unpleasantness. Because if we can't read about it then it never happened.

Defending Ian Wishart

Today this blog enters uncharted territory.

I don't get too many Christmas cards from Ian Wishart, and his style of journalism isn't quite my thing.

However, calls to boycott his latest book on the Kahui twins are absurd.

Wishart continues to insist that Macsyna King, the mother of the twins, and who collaborated on the book, was not paid a cent. We have no reason to suspect he is lying. So Ms King does not appear to be profiting personally from the book.

We should also remember that Ms King has not been charged with any offence over the death of the twins. The Crown alleged that the father of the boys, Chris Kahui, was responsible for their deaths. That case failed because the defence produced evidence that the mother may have been responsible.

But the evidence linking the mother to the deaths has never been seriously tested in court, and is not conclusive.

So why the boycott? It's certainly true that Macsyna King won't win any motherhood awards, but she has been vilified in the media on an ongoing basis for the last few years. It may turn out that such vilification was totally justified, but if Ms King wants someone to publish her story and let her have her say then let so be it. We may not approve of her, and we may not be open-minded enough to hear what she has to say, but if that's the case then all we need to do is resist buying the book. There's no need to actively boycott it, or the stores selling it.

I don't generally read Ian Wishart's books, as any longtime reader of this blog knows, but I would defend to the death* his right to publish.

* Preferably someone else's death, though. If I'm brutally honest I'd hate to be the guy who died so that the man who published Air Con could continue working. It wouldn't be much of a legacy.

NetHui!

Today is NetHui day.

I'll be there most of today and Friday, and probably some of Thursday.

If you see me there don't be afraid to say hello. The doctors have now cleared me, so you should be fairly safe in my presence–so long as you don't wear bright colours, make eye contact or use the letter "w' in any of your conversations with me.

Just remember afterwards when you are deciding whether to press charges that I did try to warn you.

Speaking The Unspeakable

Two posts in a row about ACT - what will I have left to write about when/if they become extinct in November?

Paloma Migone and Victoria Robinson of Stuff report:

An Auckland University student who was told to "get raped" by an ACT Party youth member on Facebook is demanding an apology for the "unacceptable" comment.

Tania Lim, Auckland University Students' Association treasurer and Green Party member, said the comments from ACT on Campus Auckland vice-president Cameron Browne last week were "absolutely unacceptable".

"I was shocked, to be honest, because I didn't know who he was. I've been sexually assaulted before and I didn't really appreciate that comment.

"I felt like I was personally attacked and it brought back bad memories."

The Facebook conversation screenshot, in which Browne told Lim to "get raped", was published on The Wellington Young Feminists' Collective's blog.

The beginning of the conversation has not been posted, making it unclear exactly what Mr Browne was responding to when he made the comment.

I have seen the Facebook exchange. You can see some of it on this blogpost by Act on Campus' Peter McCaffrey.
 
The comment by Browne is utter indefensible, and he ought to be ashamed of himself.
 
However, (deep breath), the entire exchange reflects poorly on all involved, including the complainant.
 
When I were a lad (Yorkshire accent etc) we didn't have social networking sites like Facebook. And thank God too, because I said many a stupid thing to people in the heat of the moment when I was of an age where everything seemed clear and when right was right and wrong was wrong (i.e. before I became a lawyer). I'm relieved there is not a written record of these exchanges. I'm pretty sure I never told anyone to get raped, though I may in the heat of the moment have called people I disagreed with racists or fascists. Oh to be young again!
 
I don't excuse the comment by Browne, but if he apologises unreservedly and shows by his later conduct that his comment was an isolated brain explosion (we all have brain explosions, though Browne's was a mighty big one) and that he really isn't just another dime-a-dozen ACT misogynist, he may get through this.
 
It's only unfortunate that the blogpost by ACT's Pete McCaffrey seeks to justify the comment by the claim Browne was provoked. Perhaps he was provoked into speaking the unspeakable, but provocation doesn't in my opinion justify such a revolting insult.
 
The complainant also comes out of this matter looking rather foolish. I have little time for people who use the "R" word as a substitute for anything meaningful, and it demeans any attempt to debate matters sensibly. Still, that doesn't justify what Mr Browne said.
 
I would add one last thing: if ACT on Campus is the future of the party then they may as well wind the party up now.

So Funny I Fell Over Before Dying of Diabetes

Yet another post on the gift that keeps giving: ACT New Zealand

It’s hardly my place to mock others for satire-gone-bad, given the excruciatingly dire work I am known to subject my readers to from time to time. But I can't help myself.

When a political party does satire it had better be good. And not needlessly offensive. Sometimes satire that offends can work, but there’s a fine line between needlessly giving offence and making a valid point.

In my view this effort by ACT, as reported by the Dim Post, fails miserably. I’m not sure how offending diabetes sufferers by recommending they don’t eat will win the party any brownie points. And what exactly is the point of the satire? That the food police demanding we eat healthier is all part of the leftist plot to enslave us and force-feed us lentils? How does offending sufferers of a debilitating disease make that point?

This is not the only failed satire by ACT in the last week, as this effort shows.

Is releasing this sort of painfully bad material really ACT's winning strategy to get 15% of the vote?  How many barking mad people do they really think live in this country? Judging by their current polling, not enough.

But this does now explain the decision by Cathy Odgers to seek to stand for ACT in the coming election. It’s obvious now that all her blogposts hating on the poor have just been elaborate satires concocted by that comedic genius and all-round funny guy Lindsay Perigo.

Now that was clever.

Hypocrisy Watch - Part XXVII

Audrey Young of the NZ Herald reports:

National and Act, the parties that kicked up a stink in Opposition about Labour's taxpayer-funded election advertising, are engaging in their own taxpayer-funded binge this month.

The aim is to spend all the money they are entitled to before the financial year ends on Thursday.

But while Act is being up-front about its estimated $50,000 spending on a one-week campaign to reinstate youth rates, National is keeping the details of its publicity burst secret.

Under Parliament's rules, party leaders are entitled to funding according to their number of MPs, but if they don't use all their money, they cannot carry the balance over to the next financial year.

So National is spending up big time around the country, producing leaflets, in the names of MPs, on last month's Budget, with a survey attached.

The survey is clearly intended as an election tool. Its questions include asking voters which party they support and it tries to ascertain if they are swing voters.

National is refusing to say how many leaflets have gone out or how much they cost.

This looks bad for National. They've been caught red-handed spending taxpayer money on electioneering, something they're happy to regularly accuse others of doing. But wait, what's this? Look away now!

See, you've forgotten already. 

But don't worry, because I'm sure David Farrar and Cameron Slater will have full reports on this extravagant and outrageous spending of taxpayer money by the Nats.

In Defence Of MMP

The Vote For Change campaign is getting a lot of publicity at present, and has recruited a number of high profile businesspeople to its cause.

The group’s spokesperson Jordan Williams was on Morning Report today pointing out how under MMP someone who loses their electorate vote can still get into Parliament on the list.

He would like us to believe that this is such a monstrous outcome that we should can MMP altogether.

The problem with that theory is that no system is perfect. If we replace MMP with another system we’ll end up bleating because the outcomes don’t reflect public sentiment.

The good thing about MMP is that, broadly speaking, the make-up of parliament reflects the party voting preferences of the public. If National gets 40% of the vote then it gets 40% of the seats. Simple.

Some people will say that MMP is unfair to minor parties because of the need to reach the 5% threshold. But without a threshold we would have a chaotic parliament. One of the most important features of a good electoral system is stability. Since our first MMP government in 1996 every government has gone to term, and no government has been forced to call an election. New Zealanders are (mostly) sensible and pragmatic people, and nobody has any appetite for unstable minority government.

Williams says that MMP gives too much power to parties, and that people who have been rejected by their electorates can still get in on the list. That objection fails to take into account the fact that even under the previous system parties had all the power. Under all of the systems being proposed it is the party that chooses the candidates, whether they be electorate or list ones. If a party stacks its list full of idiots and has-beens then it’s likely that I won’t vote for it. Just as I won’t vote for an electorate candidate I don’t like. It’s simple.

So this is a particularly weak objection to MMP. It assumes that people are mugs and can’t read party lists and make their own decisions.

Vote For Change’s membership is stacked with people from the business world, including a number of the usual suspects (Roger Kerr, Peter Shirtcliffe etc). These people will no doubt argue that MMP is bad for the economy. I certainly find it difficult to believe that party-list composition issues are motivating their support for the campaign. But when we consider the sorts of reforms the likes of Kerr and Shirtcliffe have been advocating for New Zealand for many years, it becomes clear that for many of Vote For Change’s members the real problem with MMP is that it put a stop to the bulldozer-like reforms of the 80s and early 90s.

It is also noticeable how many of the members of the group (including its spokesperson) have links to ACT or its leadership. The notable exception is Bob Harvey. Why he is involved is anyone's guess. Having ties to a political party doesn't in itself signify anything, except that the same party is also pushing for "business-friendly" policies, and no doubt finds that MMP prevents things from being done (like flogging off state assets, gutting welfare and slashing taxes for the highest earners etc).

We should not change for the sake of change. MMP is imperfect, but all of the other systems on offer are flawed.

And we should question the motivations behind the people demanding a change of system.

Right Thinking: The Real Minister Of Twitter

Conservative columnist Dr. Frank Shizenhausen has something powerful to say about politicians' use of social media

When the revolution comes they'll announce it on the internet first. The socialists have even set up a site called Red Alert, so that they'll all know when its time for them to rise up and eat our babies.

That's why I keep an eye on the place. As the day of the revolution draws closer I know I'll need to increase my efforts to arm. The bunker's coming along nicely, and the courier should be along any moment now with the rocket launcher I ordered from Trade Me. Here's hoping the Russian MIG fighter arrives in the post before Red Alert announces the beginning of the Terror.

There's no call to revolution going on over there just yet, but they are deriding our finest ever finance minister since Sir Roger, and let me tell you it makes me sick.

All because of this message that Mr English posted on Twitter.

(I'm told that all the kids call these mini-messages "tweets". No doubt a word dreamed up while they were high on P)

I confess that in recent weeks I have myself dabbled in social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. It's all part of my effort to engage more with my allies, and to force my ideological enemies (women, zookeepers, Plunket nurses etc) to cower in terror. I read somewhere that effective social networking was all about sharing a part of yourself with the world. That's why every day on my Facebook wall I post a picture of my morning ablutions. I'm regular as clockwork, am I, thanks to a steady diet of bran, oats and women's panties. Do you like what you see? Am I doing this social networking thing right?

The thing that bugs me the most is that nobody seems to want to converse with me online. Why won't that Justin Bieber talk to me, dammit! I ought to go round there and take a belt to his hide, the whiny little toad.

Frivolous conversation is one thing, but when you're a responsible guardian of the nation's accounts the rules are different. That is why I have to take my hat off to Mr English for showing a suitable restraint and frugality when it comes to his Twitter output. You know someone is doing it all right when the socialists are mocking them.

Some MPs just can’t restrain themselves on Twitter. They tweet every idea that comes into their heads. But the nation can’t afford such extravagance, thanks to nine long years of Labour misrule. All this social networking will end up costing in the end, and we the taxpayer will end up picking up the bill. I wouldn't be surprised if all this incessant social media noise knocks a few planes out of the sky. That's one reason why I never fly. That and the restraining order.

So thank God for Bill English. Just like his financial management, his Twitter account is sensible, conservative and low on interventionism. Instead of going stupid with communicating to the voters and engaging with us, he wisely leaves his officials to regurgitate occasional links to press releases, while he gets on with more important tasks, like finding creative ways to claim a housing allowance.

The English plan of answering one Twitter question a week shows he is up to the task. Politicians from the left are forever clamouring for the government to intervene in the economy, to spend money we can’t afford, and to wade into the market. But National’s Twitter policy shows that this government does have a clear plan, and that frugality and restraint in tweeting are the order of the day. Bravo! Think of the hundreds of thousands of valuable tweets we could be saving every day if we all took Bill English's lead.

A finance minister who takes more than 30 seconds a week to engage with his social media followers is a luxury we simply cannot afford in these difficult times. The notion that political leadership involves listening to others may be the latest fad, but it’s a fad English and his boss John Key are happy to resist. They aren't interested in what we have to say, which is a damn relief. If there's one thing I've learned it's that democracy works best when people just do as they're told.

Key's Re-Election Plan Crisis

John Key will be reeling after the events of this past weekend. They will be a blow to his government's re-election chances.

I am not referring to the Te Tai Tokerau byelection, even if the humiliation of Key's Maori Party ally hasn't helped the cause. 

But that is just a minor blow compared to the catastrophe unfolding in the UK. It now appears that William and Kate may not be coming for a visit this year.

Key still has the World Cup, but that is a risky strategy, given our ability to choke during the critical games. Being photographed smiling and laughing with the happy couple, perhaps over a barbecue, would have cemented it. Now there is a huge void in National's re-election strategy.

Key will now be scratching around for an option, any option, to ensure the media stays away from discussing policy during this critical time. My advice to the PM is to contact the agents for Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber and get those celebrities here at any cost.

Or how about David Beckham?

Sad Sunday Lovesongs

My life is brilliant.
My love is pure.
I saw an angel.
Of that I'm sure.
She smiled at me at the meeting.
She was with that Mr Key.
But I won't lose no sleep on that,
'Cause I've been on 'ZB.

You're beautiful. You're beautiful.
You're beautiful, it's true.
I was off my face in a crowded place,
And I don't know what to do,
'Cause my career is so screwed.

Yeah, she caught my eye,
As we walked on by.
She could see from my face that I was,
Blind drunk,
And I don't think that I'll see her again,
'Cause come Monday morning my career's at an end.

You're beautiful. You're beautiful.
You're beautiful, it's true.
I was off my face in a crowded place,
And I don't know what to do,
'Cause my career is so screwed.

You're beautiful. You're beautiful.
You're beautiful, it's true.
There must a hundred women with smiles on their faces,
When they think about how I'm through.
But it's time to face the end,
I will never work again.

Next week, a Bowie Classic: Cat People (Putting Out the Fire with Gasoline)

Te Tai Tokerau: A Post-Mortem

What do we know for a fact? That Hone won, but with a much reduced majority. And that the turnout was poor.

The rest is all speculation.

Does this bode well for Harawira in November, or is it all still on? Is Labour's reduction of his majority a moral victory?

Can Labour win the seat in November?

What does the terrible performance of its candidate mean for the Maori Party?

I'm a bit too close to the campaign (having helped Kelvin Davis) to be objective. I'm tempted to say that, while Labour lost, the game's still on and Harawira's candidacy clearly didn't ignite the masses. But Labour lost, even if not by much. I can't pretend otherwise.

But what do you more objective non-party-line-repeating readers think? What does the result mean?

And what do you think this means for Labour and how it deals with the Mana Party? Phil Goff says he won't work with Harawira. I'm still inclined to agree, but does this result change anything?

ACT Candidate Selection: Genius Or Disaster?

Cathy "Cactus Kate" Odgers is going to stand for ACT in this year's election.

I've no idea how high on the list she'll be. I've never met Odgers and can only judge her by the quality of her blog outpourings.

On that basis she suffers from two major defects. The first would appear to be a likeability deficit. Her fellow ACT members may also despise the poor, but at least they make an effort to hide it. Don Brash is forever telling us that screwing the poor is for their own good.

The other defect Odgers suffers from is the fact that her own blog output will be used against her. Savaging others (including your own party members) from the safety of a computer keyboard may be great sport, but it's not good politics.

These defects seem so obvious that I can only come up with two possible reasons for her selection. The first is that ACT's leadership live in Cloud Cuckoo Land and just can't see what the rest of us can.

The other possibility is that they see some strength in Odgers that transcends those defects. As I say, I've never met her. Maybe when she enters the room babies stop crying and people swoon. Perhaps she combines the oratory of Barack Obama with the intellect of Hillary Clinton.

My totally uninformed quess though is that the ACT leadership have yet again demonstrated that while most men are from Mars, those who lead ACT live in a different galaxy altogether.

Update: The NBR is saying Odgers hasn't yet been selected but has said she wants to stand.

Te Tai Tokerau - Now We Wait

The polls have just closed, so I can now post this.

I devoted a couple of hours to the "getting out the vote for Kelvin" campaign today. I'd have loved to do more, but other things got in the way today (childcare etc). Still, even if my assistance was limited, the day was still educational. I've always been interested in politics, but have never quite understood the operational details of how parties mobilise on election day. Now I have a better picture of how the "get the vote out" operation is conducted.

The Labour Party machine is an impressive thing to see when it's in operation. If Labour squeaks in it will be because of the sheer number of activists and volunteers who have been canvassing for the last few weeks, and who were out there today getting people to the polling booths or knocking on doors reminding people there's an election on.

This one's hard to pick. I suspect it will be close, but even if Labour doesn't get across the line a solid effort will still give the party a lot of heart. One thing you learn when you doorknock is that most people you talk to don't give a stuff about what snooty bloggers (including me until recently!) and know-all journos have been saying about the party and its leadership. That's not to say there aren't issues (as anyone who looks at the polls can see), but at the grassroots level there is still a very strong following for Labour.

I was fortunate enough to meet a number of my new overlords today, including Phil Goff and David Cunliffe, so hopefully they will remember me when they're in power after November and looking for IP lawyers to bestow honours upon.

Right Thinking: Call That Sexism? I'll Show You Sexism

Conservative columnist Dr Frank Shizenhausen with another blistering takedown of political correctness.

I don’t know what all the fuss is about. I thought Alasdair Thompson had some good things to say about the modern workplace, but he’s been disgracefully bullied and harassed.

The poor man’s even been accused of intimidating and standing over a woman reporter. What nonsense. I’ve seen the interview footage and it’s obvious what Thompson is doing. He is behaving with gentlemanly and chivalrous intent, attempting to cover one side of the female woman reporter from public view, so that those men who might be looking on from that particular direction are not distracted from their work by thinking impure thoughts and regarding her as a piece of meat to be devoured.

But covering her from only one side was of no use when the camera was pointing from the other direction. What the reporter should have done was lay on her back, so that Mr Thompson could lie on top of her and so shield her completely from the intrusive camera. He may have got it wrong, but his heart was in the right place.

The whole episode demonstrates why women can’t expect equality at work. The presence of women leads to a loss of productivity in the men around them.

Now I should make it very clear that I have a lot of respect for women, and that I do not mean to suggest that they are in any way inferior to men. But they are different, and we should not pretend otherwise. I know for a fact that women take more sick-days than men, and not just because of that unseemly monthly business that I dare not speak of. I know this because I employ a number of women. I should clarify that I use the word “employ” loosely, and not in the “pays money in return for services” sense. I offer something much more valuable to the women I employ than mere cash. What I offer is freedom. Freedom for a few minutes each day from the steel cage I keep them in under my house. What use is money to those girls?

I find that my women employees are constantly sick. Malnutrition, dysentery, scurvy and other diseases are rife amongst my employees, even though I feel as fit as a fiddle. The fact that they’re all female and I’m a male can’t be a coincidence.

Not only are women always sickly, but they drive the menfolk to distraction, and this affects workplace productivity. I speak from experience as an office manager. I spend upwards of an hour each day locked in my office with the blinds down and a box of tissues at hand, all because one of the female office administrators likes to occasionally show an ankle. This is time that could be better spent on more useful tasks, such as discussing the Super 15 with my male colleagues or plotting my election-day bombing spree. But I just can't focus on my work with all that flesh about. I’m not to blame for reacting in an entirely natural way to such environmental stimuli.

But it’s not just women causing problems in the office. I mean this in a totally non-racist way, but we have a serious problem with Jews and Muslims in the workplace. Not only because their religious holidays fall at inconvenient times, but also because I find myself shouting torrents of bilious abuse whenever I see one of them. This is again affecting staff productivity. Usually when I begin to scream abuse at their deviant ways, their evil murderous religions and their smelly foods my immediate vicinity clears out and before I know it the HR people and employment lawyers are descending from every direction. Meanwhile nothing in the office gets done, because everyone’s watching the theatre unfold as I'm led away in handcuffs by a policeman. None of this would have happened if we’d just employed white protestant men.

One thing I’ll say for the Muslims though is that they know how to dress a woman so she doesn’t cause bother in the office.

So it’s obvious that Mr Thompson is the victim of a witch-hunt. I enjoy hunting down witches as much as the next man, and the sound of them crackling on the bonfire is like a symphony to me, but this has got out of hand. We shouldn’t be vilifying a good man who spoke truth and who just tried to do the right thing. He doesn’t need to apologise for anything, and it should be us, society, apologising to him.

Now you’ll have to excuse me, because I’ve got important work to do and have got to get this office supplies order form away tonight. It looks like we’re run out of tissue boxes again.

A New Career Beckons

It seems fairly obvious that EMA Northern's head Alasdair Thompson will have to resign.

Unless he can prove someone drugged his breakfast cereal yesterday morning. And his lunch. And his afternoon tea.

Thompson's idiotic comments on breakfast radio were bad enough, but it is his subsequent behaviour in media interviews afterwards that is truly appalling.

The man presented as a bully, and his behaviour towards the two women from TV3 who interviewed him was intimidating and obnoxious.

For someone who appears in the media a lot (though mostly on tame networks, like Newstalk ZB), he clearly has a lot to learn about conducting an interview. If you're going to be obnoxious and arrogant you might want to first check the camera's not rolling.

Had Thompson just issued a brief apology for his initial brain explosion we'd have forgotten already. The initial comments were awful and sexist, but they arguably weren't front-page news. But Thompson's clumsy efforts in the media to justify what he said while offering a mealy-mouthed apology that clearly wasn't even remotely sincere, have made this a fascinating media trainwreck story.

Luckily for Thompson there are plenty of other job options around. I hear these guys may be looking to expand their show.

And there's plenty of work in Christchurch for someone who's handy with a spade.

Harawira Again Disgraces Himself

Hone Harawira managed to keep himself under control for most of the byelection campaign.

Last week I tipped Davis to beat him, but this week I'm just not so sure. Davis is doing all the right stuff and talking about issues of importance, but Harawira is such a "personality" that he gets most of the attention.

But yesterday Harawira lost the plot. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

Yvonne Tahana of the NZ Herald reports:

Maori Party candidate Solomon Tipene sent an apology to a Te Tai Tokerau byelection debate last night because he was in hospital. 

This prompted Mana candidate Hone Harawira to accuse his former Maori Party colleagues of "bulls*** tactics".

In response, Labour candidate Kelvin Davis said Mr Harawira was throwing a "tantrum" that did a disservice to the hui, organised by primary teachers' union NZEI Te Rui Roa.

Mr Harawira was late arriving at the West Auckland venue. Then he let rip to the audience that he was up against two former teachers - his former Maori Party colleague, Waiariki MP Te Ururoa Flavell, and Mr Davis.

Mr Flavell filled in because Mr Tipene was in Whangarei Hospital on antibiotics for a stomach ailment, party co-president Ken Mair said.

To a stunned crowd, Mr Harawira said Mr Flavell and co-president Pem Bird could have called him to let him know the change of plans.

"I don't like these sort of bulls*** tactics ... It's supposed to be a debate for the candidates ... but now I am up against a teacher and a teacher.

"I'm driving [from Kaitaia] because I don't have any money to do it any other way.

Mr Solomon may not be the strongest candidate who ever stood for office, but to attack someone for a no-show because they are in hospital getting treatment is disgraceful, repellent behaviour.
 
I'm tired of reading or hearing about this sort of thing from Harawira. Earlier this year I criticised Phil Goff for saying he wouldn't work with Hone Harawira. But I was wrong, dead wrong. Goff got it right. Harawira's a loose cannon whose brain explosions make him utterly unreliable. More importantly, he's almost genetically programmed to offend people. How could you have a political relationship with this guy? Anyone who thinks Harawira can make any difference at all is dreaming. He can't even be relied upon to turn up to Parliament on time.
 
For all that Harawira may still win on Saturday. My pick is that it will be close, but such is the difficulty with polling Maori opinion that no-one really knows. Not even Bomber Bradbury, who continues to pour scorn on people for suggesting Harawira may not have in the bag just yet.
 
But even if Harawira wins he has shown us all that he isn't leadership material, and if he ever manages to get the Mana Party on-track and running my guess is it won't get far before people start to leap off. It's pretty easy to see there's a trainwreck just ahead.
 
Some people have suggested that a vote for Kelvin Davis is a wasted vote, because he's already an MP. But what exactly will voting for Harawira achieve? He's become so toxic that no-one will work with him.

More Books That Should Be Banned

The Christian lobby group Family First has called on booksellers not to sell the bestseller Go The F**k To Sleep.

The book is written in the style of a children’s story, but is liberally sprinkled with the word “f**k”, such as in the following passage:

The cats nestle close to their kittens now.
The lambs have laid down with the sheep.
You’re cozy and warm in your bed, my dear
Please go the f*k to sleep

Family First’s Bob McCoskrie said he was concerned that the language in the book was inappropriate and could harm children.

“Kids should be reading more appropriate material,” said Mr McCoskrie. “There’s plenty of good books out there.

“We shouldn’t be exposing our young kids to damaging content, be it foul language or graphic violence.

“Unless of course the content is Bible-related. I’m totally relaxed with our kids going into churches and seeing depictions of Jesus nailed to a cross. Crucifixion stores are also totally okay. So is the bit in the Bible where Abraham decides to murder his son, and the bit where God floods the Earth and kills almost every living creature, including babies.

"And the book of Leviticus is just full of good family values messages, especially the part where anyone who curses their parents is to be killed. That section of the Bible also has some very practical solutions to the homosexuality problem."

Mr McCoskrie said the children's book market was already cluttered with inappropriate books, and that it was time for the industry to clean up its act.

“Some of what we discovered left us shellshocked," said Mr McCoskrie.

"Books with talking animal characters are distressingly common, though the animal books we've seen never adequately explain how the creatures understand human language. The subject of animal demonic possession shouldn't be so lightly glossed over."

"They even have storybooks about dinosaurs. Do they have no shame?"

 An example of the depravity being taught to small children

Mr McCoskrie rejected accusations that his organisation was overreacting to the book.

“This book is totally irresponsible. It’s never okay for a parent to swear at their child,” said Mr McCoskrie.

“But we’re okay with hitting them.”

 Despite the inconvenience and bother the Romans put him to, Jesus didn't once feel the need to curse.

Tweeting For Victory

The Electoral Commission is warning politicians about their use of social media sites during the election campaign. They can publish on the internet whatever they want, provided it is personal opinion. But if they publish something that is party advertising they will need to comply with the rules, which will include the use of authorising statements.

I’m not sure how one can differentiate between personal opinion and stating the party line. For example a tweet that says “I think such-and-such policy is a good idea” might arguably be opinion, while a tweet that says “I’m campaigning for such-and-such policy to be implemented” might not be, even though the message is essentially the same.

If politicians are going to have to analyse every tweet or post for compliance it may reduce much of their online activity. This isn’t necessarily a totally bad thing. If Tau Henare can’t tweet every brain-fart for risk of breaking the rules, he may have to start doing some actual work.

The rules published by the Electoral Commission don’t seem to be of much assistance in determining how politicians can use social media. The term “social media” appears in only three places, and there is no mention in the rules of Twitter or Facebook.

So I’m not sure whether an authorisation statement on a candidate’s Twitter page would suffice to enable them to post “advertising”, or whether the tweet itself would have to contain such a statement. If tweets themselves need to contain authorisation statements then there won’t be much space left for actual content, other than maybe “vote me” of “govt sux”, or similar profundities.

At least with Facebook posts you have more characters to work with.

Massey University's Claire Robinson believes that the Twitter avatars of many Labour MPs should be considered election advertising and should require an authorisation statement. Robinson is referring to the “Stop Asset Sales” avatars used by many Labour MPs. Whether or not she’s legally right (and I don’t know, not being an expert in electoral law – though I also note Ms Robinson is not a lawyer) isn’t clear to me, but it seems to me that the law becomes a bit of an ass if even the smallest use of a party logo (e.g. on an avatar or a pen) needs an authorisation statement.

But while restrictions on the way our politicians can use social media may be regarded by some as an intrusion on freedom of speech, of much more serious concern is the ban being imposed by All Blacks management on their stars’ use of Twitter and Facebook, because (as I am sure you'll agree) rugby always trumps democracy.

It seems we haven’t learned anything about previous World Cup campaigns. Every time we go into the tournament we’re more prepared than ever, more mentally focused than the others, and destined this time to win. Then we meet France or Australia, our famed mental toughness disintegrates, and we play like chumps.

Perhaps if our players were less stressed, less wound up, and less focused on winning at all costs 24 hours a day, they might be able to relax a little in between games and training sessions, and in fact be better prepared for the big games.

So if the All Blacks fail yet again at the World Cup it will boil down to the fact that our stars weren’t able to tweet their deepest feelings to us.

And if we win the thing despite the social media ban I will quickly delete this post, and in the elation of victory you will have forgotten I ever wrote it.

Voting With Their Feet

Lincoln Tan and Jarrod Booker in the Herald report:

The Kiwi exodus across the Tasman has hit a 32-year-high, swelled by people fleeing quake-ravaged Christchurch. 

Statistics NZ figures show 3300 New Zealanders left for Australia last month, topping the record of 2900 set in 1979.

The number who fled Christchurch last month was 800 - up from 500 in May last year, said Government Statistician Geoff Bascand.

"Since the earthquake on February 22, the city has experienced 1300 more departures and 400 fewer arrivals than in the same period in 2010," he said.

So, while many have fled Christchurch, it's clear that the earthquakes are only partially responsible for the huge lift in departures. If you take out the 300 additional departures from Christchurch when compared to the same month last year, the result is still a record high.

Remember how Mr Key promised that we were going to close the income gap with Australia?

And remember this billboard from National's 2008 election campaign?

Just consider them yet more broken election promises from our clueless government.

General Debate: 22 June 2011

Today marks the 70th anniversary of perhaps the largest military invasion in history.

On 22 June 1941 the German army launched Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia. It was to end not quite four years later with the death of Hitler and Soviet flags flying over the Reichstag. The Eastern front was a calamity in terms of human suffering and death. Some 15 million combatants lost their lives, while civilian deaths were at least that many again.

It is worthwhile pondering grisly statistics like these whenever we debate military strategy. It is all too easy to forget that each arrow on a campaign map represents almost unimaginable slaughter and misery. The Russian campaign was brutal and savage, with atrocities committed on both sides.

That said, this wouldn't be a General Debate without some discussion about matters martial. So the question is this: was the campaign winnable for Hitler? What could he/should he have done differently?

From Delight To Despair In Less Than Two Weeks

Politics is cruel, and success one day can just as easily be followed by failure the next.

A couple of weeks ago the Roy Morgan poll showed a big lift for Labour. The party faithful were excited at the news, after months of dire polling, but were counselled by wise heads not to get carried away.

And just as well too, because the latest Roy Morgan shows that Labour's support has fallen back to where it was before the last poll.

If this result is carried into the election then clearly Labour's dead meat.

But how can this poll jump around so violently? The answer's not clear. Is the electorate really that capricious that they would desert Labour in droves as quick as that?

Admittedly, Labour's not had a good couple of weeks, but I'm not sure that's the reason for the poor polling. The poll might be showing the effects of the Darren Hughes affair, although that came towards the end of this particular polling cycle. The fiasco over Labour's website also post-dates the poll. So don't ask me what's going on.

I don't know when the next round of TV1 and TV3 polls are due out, but it must be soon. They may tell a similar story, or they may not...

What's clear is that any gains Labour makes are quickly eroded. It's easy to criticise the leadership for not having a better grip on things, and there sure have been a few issues with head office in the last 12 months. But I'm not sure that explains the apathy towards Labour entirely. All the polling is saying that people dislike asset sales and the attacks on Kiwisaver. But their love for John Key seems to transcend rational self-interest (if I can borrow an Objectivist phrase).

Another possibility is that the polls are wrong. It's certainly the case that a lot of the people in poorer suburbs don't have landlines, so the pollsters miss them out. These are the people more likely to vote for Labour and other parties of the left. A counterargument of course is that they are also more likely not to vote at all, but just because someone can't afford a landline doesn't mean they don't intend to vote. So there might be a slight bias in the results. It's just a theory, and I'm no polling expert.

But even a slight bias doesn't explain the poor result. What it does tell Labour activists is that they need to work harder. I've little doubt that the gap will close closer to the election. Labour have always been better at the grassroots stuff in communities than other parties, and if they can combine that activism with some compelling policies they may still have a shot.

Hubbard Possibly Not A Sinner But Definitely No Saint

The Serious Fraud Office has announced it is charging Allan Hubbard with 50 offences.

Hubbard has lived a frugal life and has spent much of his money trying to help others.

Meanwhile, numerous finance company directors, many of whom were like drunks behind the wheel of an out of control car, and who used their companies to fund their extravagant lifestyles, have so far evaded prosecution.

Is there a moral to all of this? Has Hubbard brought this onto himself? Whether or not he has committed fraud, he had no business going around giving out low-interest or no-interest loads using other people’s money.

If only Hubbard had read Atlas Shrugged…

I don’t mean to suggest there’s anything untoward about Hubbard’s prosecution. People sometimes do bad things even with the best intentions. If evidence exists that Hubbard has indeed committed fraud, then he should be prosecuted. The scale of the bailout of South Canterbury Finance makes this a matter of public interest.

The people of South Canterbury who continue to insist Hubbard did no wrong are deluded. Regardless of whether or not Hubbard has committed any crime, he clearly allowed a major business to fall apart, and his failure has cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. We are entitled to be pissed off at him.

Even if we charitably assume that Hubbard was just a well-meaning old duffer who lost control of what he was doing, that doesn’t mean he’s blameless. He was playing with other people’s money.

Claims that Hubbard is the victim of a vendetta by the SFO, and that the prosecution is politically motivated, should be ignored. One of Hubbard’s supporters was on the radio this morning claiming that the SFO had been bullying and blackmailing Hubbard. It’s quite possible that Hubbard and his supporters have mistaken the SFO’s typical aggressiveness for something personal. Anyone who’s ever dealt with the SFO knows that their modus operandi is not to request information, but to demand it urgently and on pain of criminal prosecution. “Please” is not in their vocabulary.

Hubbard may well be innocent of any criminal wrongdoing (that is for the court to decide), but he is not blameless.

Medical Shock As Bomber Bradbury Runs Out Of Opinions

In a shock announcement, radio and TV host and blogger Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury has announced he has run out of opinions.

Bradbury is well known for expressing strong opinions on just about every topic. Bradbury regularly uses his radio and TV appearances to castigate right-wing politicians, and to push his strongly leftist views on multiple issues.

But on Friday morning Bradbury was rushed to hospital after experiencing a sudden opinion failure.

Speaking from his hospital bed, Bradbury explained what had happened.

“I was in the midst of typing a scathing blogpost eviscerating John Key’s evil National government for the steaming pile of dog-turd it has become, and explaining why we needed a Mana Party world government, when suddenly my hands dropped from the keyboard and I felt an overwhelming sense of numbness.

“I knew something was wrong, because I felt this sudden release, as if all the seething righteous indignation was being voided from my body. That’s when I called 111.”

There is little doubt that the experience has changed Bradbury immeasurably. When shown a photograph of the Prime Minister, Bradbury said “he’s got a nice smile.”

And when asked what he thought about the Business Roundtable, Bradbury visibly shrugged, saying “I’m sure they’re a decent bunch of blokes.”

Doctors say there is no cure, and treatment options are limited. Bradbury’s condition, known as Opinion Deficit Syndrome, is seldom fatal but is difficult to treat.

But sufferers of the disease can be managed back into the community, and can lead fulfilling lives.

Dr Sinead Erbeck of Auckland University Medical School said that the most effective treatment for Opinion Deficit Syndrome was an opinion transplant.

“The medical literature shows that the most effective course of treatment is for the patient to be encouraged to take the opinions of others and adopt them as if they are their own," said Dr Erbeck.

“The risk of opinion rejection can be extremely high in the early days of the operation. However, given time patients can look forward to a full recovery and a rewarding new career as a politician, PR consultant or lawyer.”

Bradbury said he had not thought much about a career outside opinion-based broadcasting.

“I never thought I’d feel this creeping sense of numbness, of nothingness. It’s like someone has taken my soul.

“Public relations, you say?”

The Software Patent Exclusion Shambles

Tom Pullar-Strecker reports in Stuff:

The Government may need to go back to the drawing board over the way software patents will be treated under its proposed Patents Bill, after guidelines drawn up by officials to safeguard hi-tech manufacturers were slated by legal experts.

Parliamentarians delighted the open-source software movement and troubled large corporates such as Microsoft last year by including a clause in the Patents Bill that says software is not a patentable invention.

Microsoft New Zealand legal counsel Waldo Kuipers hoped dissatisfaction with the separate guidelines, which are designed to accompany the legislation and address the specific issue of embedded software, would open the door to a fundamental rethink.

Putting aside the question as to whether or not software ought to be patentable (let's not even go there, people!), the whole rationale for the guidelines is deeply flawed. The intention is for the guidelines to clarify what can be patented and what can't. But the wording of the draft legislation (which the guidelines will be subject to) seems to provide for a blanket ban of all software patents - for embedded and non-embedded software. This is a basic statutory interpretation issue. The guidelines can say what they like, but they can't override legislation.

Patent attorneys, being reasonable sorts (of course!), suggested that the legislation should be amended to bring it more into line with practice in other parts of the world that don't allow software patents, such as in Europe. For reasons that escape me those suggestions were not adopted.

The whole process has been fraught with problems and they should probably just go back to the drawing board and look at the issue again. During select committee hearings a number of organisations now opposed to the software patent exclusion failed to make submissions, because they did not expect the issue to be raised at all. So many of these companies feel as if the select committee heard only one side of the story on software patentability. Since the matter is the subject of such debate and recrimination it might be prudent for the government to open the matter up again for debate.

Review of John Key’s Speech To The Australian Parliament

What a truly astounding speech.

I wish I could have been there, because to feel the atmosphere would have sent a shiver down the spine and left me mute with astonishment. But I had to watch the speech on the television, just like most other people.

It would have been something else to be there, to be in the midst of great events and the making of history. To see in person how Mr Key left the entire political leadership of the Australian nation spellbound.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone with an unkind word to say about our great leader. Even so, in the lunchroom at work where I was watching the speech things got completely out of hand. People were cheering and pumping fists with every piece of soaring Key rhetoric, and I worried for a while that the entire building might collapse from the force of the roaring and applause going though every floor of the office tower I work in.

We’ve known for a long time about Key’s power to astonish. His powerful Cicero-like oratory regularly leaves tears in the eyes of those who are fortunate enough to experience it. But the Australians got something special today.

Key only talked for a few minutes, but it was enough. My God, was it! Who didn’t feel a lump in their throat when Key talked about the people who inspired him as a boy: the men and women whose legacy shaped our PM’s determination to make a difference. Great figures in the human rights struggle of the 20th Century, like Colin Meads, and just about every other brave warrior who ever wore the black jersey. When Key spoke about his inspiration to seek political leadership, saying “I figured it would be nice to have on my CV”, I admit I choked back the tears. Such is the cynicism of politics that we seldom hear such passionate heart-felt honesty.

And by God, didn’t the Australians lap it all up! They were on their feet at the end of just about every Key sentence, cheering and clapping, stomping their feet. The only time the room went quiet was when Key gave a powerful and emotional tribute to the lobbyists who had assisted him to power, and when the only sounds to be heard were the quiet sobs of those overcome by the emotion of the moment.

You don’t often see so many people swooning at a political event, but boy that Mr Key sure can drop ‘em! I counted at least a dozen parliamentarians being carried out by staff, having been overcome by the raw power of Key’s speech.

It was too much even for Key’s counterpart, Julia Gillard. After the speech she held a joint press conference with Key, but she was a real mess and looked bewildered and distressed, as if it had just been too much for her. It was only when Key gave her a comforting Tran-Tasman hug that her emotion exploded and she wept inconsolably for ten minutes or more. Afterwards she said “Thank you, John. You are an inspiration to all Australians.” That pretty much summed up how I felt after listening to the speech. I’ve often felt deep distress after hearing John Key talk.

I am certain that Key’s speech will be one of those turning points in the history of civilisation. Like the Gettysburg Address, or the Sermon on the Mountain. One of those critical moments that determines the course of empires and nations. I wish I could have been there, though I feel privileged enough to have seen it live via the medium of television.

John Key’s catch-cry “Yes we can, but only if we have a mandate from the voters and the economic environment allows it, given the tight fiscal constraints we are under!” will ring in every ear today and in the years to come.

So let us all step forward and take the next few steps on the bold journey Key has mapped out for us, before stepping back and then stepping to the side, before stepping back again. Our destiny awaits us!

General Debate: 20 June 2011

Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Chalons in 451 AD, where Atilla the Hun's army was defeated by a combined force of Visigoths and Romans. Atilla's defeat signalled the decline of the Huns as a dominant force in Europe.

The Romans were led by Flavius Aetius, often called one of the "last of the Romans". Was he the greatest Flavian general?

The Electorate Battle Where Everyone Knows Everyone

The battle for the Epsom electorate is looking more uncertain than ever.

John Banks is the ACT candidate, but the two leading contenders for the National Party candidacy have previously worked closely with Banks.

Aaron Bhatnagar, one of the candidates, was John Banks' mayoral campaign manager, while the other candidate, Paul Goldsmith, was Banks' biographer.

To make matters more confusing, Goldsmith also wrote the biography of Don Brash, the leader of ACT.

It is yet to be seen whether National will push hard to win Epsom. If the gap between National and Labour closes before November (as I suspect it will), the Nats will be tempted to do a deal with ACT and campaign solely for the party vote. But the people putting their hands up for National are potentially strong candidates.

Even if Banks wins, on current polling he won't bring more than a couple of others into Parliament. They will likely all be rich old white guys. Not exactly the party for the future. Don Brash's promise of getting ACT to 15% looks even more preposterous than when he first made it. It must be heartbreaking for a politician like Brash to discover that most people actively hate him.

If one of Banks' mates gets the nod for National it will make an accommodation all that much easier.

A couple of other factors make the race even more uncertain. One is the left-vote factor. If I were a Labour voter in the electorate (and in the 2008 general election the Labour candidate got over 5000 votes) I'd vote strategically for the National candidate.

The other factor is Winston Peters. There has been speculation that he could run in Epsom, for no other reason than to make life difficult for ACT. But that was before Rodney Hide was dumped. With Hide gone I don't see any great benefit in NZ First running a strong candidate in Epsom, because it's likely NZ First would take more votes off National than it would ACT. Given that National won't work with Winston Peters, NZ First is in the perverse position of wanting National to win Epson so as to ensure National has few other options to form a government.

So the Epsom race will probably be the most fascinating of all electorate battles, barring Te Atatu, of course. But then I would say that.

General Debate: 19 June 2011

Napoleon v Wellington

(This should have been posted yesterday, since it was the 196th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo (as TerryB reminded me))

Reading The Spirit Level

I've been reading The Spirit Level for the last week and a bit. It's not a long book, but it's dry reading, and at the end of the night when I picked the book up I'd find my eyes closing within five pages.

So it's not a good bedtime book. But it is important. It systematically shows, using evidence, not ideology, that societies that are more equal have better outcomes for people: better health, less crime and fewer social problems.

The book debunks the neoliberal myth that we are all better off when people are encouraged to make money. New Zealand does not do particularly well in the statistics, and is shown as one of the countries with a high degree of income inequality.

People have attacked the book because they don't like the message. And it's possible to raise some questions about some of the analysis. It feels at times as if the authors are making rather too much of some of the more inconclusive data.

But the fact remains that, even if we accept some of the data may be inconclusive, there is just too much statistical evidence in favour of their argument that equality is good for us.

The book is weakest in the closing chapters when the authors try to make sense of the data and offer suggestions about some possible alternatives to our unequal societies. In my view the book would have been more powerful if the authors had simply stuck to analysing the data on inequality, rather than advocating solutions to create more equality. Some of those solutions don't to me sound as if they've been well thought out, and that fact detracts from what is otherwise a powerful body of work.

It's one of those books you should read, however. But make sure you read the 2010 edition, or a later edition if one comes out, because the 2010 edition devotes a chapter to addressing criticism of the work. Much of the criticism has been politically motivated, which is no surprise when one considers the damning verdict it delivers on neoliberalism.

The right in NZ have taken strong exception to the book. Most of the arguments they make as to why the book has no merit (e.g. David Farrar in this post, who appears not to have actually read the book, else he'd not have made such a fool of himself) stem from a misunderstanding as to how the 23 countries studied were chosen and how the data was analysed. Or they could be simply cherry-picking data in an attempt to show that because one or two of the graphs are inconclusive or questionable, therefore the entire theory falls down. This is the standard tactic used by people like climate change denial cranks.

Anyway, I'm now off to read a trashy novel. Something with fewer graphs and more car chases. And hopefully a secret agent or two and gratuitous amounts of sex. There wasn't much of that in The Spirit Level (do teenage pregnancy statistics count?).

General Debate: 18 June 2011

Not a comparison today, but instead a question: who were the most effective military leaders of World War One? Or were they all lousy?

Minister Explains Kronic Decision

Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne AKA MC Pete Dogg

Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne, AKA MC Pete Dogg, has announced a crackdown on "cannabinoid" substances, such as the synthetic cannabis product Kronic.

The announcement came at the end of a gruelling tour for MC Pete Dogg and his backing group The Dead Possum Posse.

Mr Dunne explained why he had taken the decision to impose restrictions on the product.

"These Kronic cluckers bin depriving yo brother here of his rightful cheese," said Mr Dunne.

"I'm a respectable gangsta and this is ma hood, bruva. Where they respect? I done with they dissin me", said the Associate Health Minister.

Mr Dunne explained that the overall effects of the substance Kronic were not known, and that restrictions on its sale should be imposed.

"When I is chillin in my hood with my homies and the sounds is flowin, I don't want no brother hustlin me with this shit. Give me some of that real hydro, not some lowdown dirty stunt-dummy wannabe ganja, man," Mr Dunne said.

"Bullshit," said Mr Dunne.

Responses to the Government's announcement have been mixed. The Opposition said they were still studying the announcement and would not comment in the meantime.

But the Law Commission, which undertook a detailed study of drug laws, congratulated Mr Dunne.

"Respect," said Dr Warren Young of the Law Commission.

Rule Of Law Survey: We're Number One, Baby!* (In Your Face, Nigeria!)

In my relentless crusade to drive the Nats out of office, whimpering and yowling like miserable beaten dogs, I may sometimes be guilty of losing focus on the good things in life.

Our government may aspire to run our nation into the ground and make our children beggars in their own country, but in at least one important area we are managing to maintain first world standards.

For all our faults we remain an orderly, peaceful country with a good and functioning democracy.

The latest confirmation of this comes from an academic grouping called the World Justice Project. Its study, the Rule of Law Index 2011, ranks New Zealand as one of the best performing countries in the world when it comes to adherence to rule of law.

The report defines the rule of law as a rules-based system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:

• The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law.
• The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.
• The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
• Access to justice is provided by competent, independent, and ethical adjudicators, attorneys or representatives, and judicial officers who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

The report measures eight factors derived from these universal principles

Limited Government Powers: This is the extent to which the government is subject to the law. This factor measures the extent of the checks on the powers of government, for example institutional checks on government power by the legislature, the judiciary and independent auditing and review agencies; what the sanctions are for government misconduct; and whether transfers of power occur in accordance with the law.

Absence of Corruption: The presence or absence of three forms of corruption is measured: bribery, improper influence by public or private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources.

Order and Security: i.e. how well the society assures the security of persons and property. This factor measures the absence of crime; the absence of civil conflict, including terrorism and armed conflict; and the absence of violence as a socially acceptable means to redress personal grievances.

Fundamental Rights: this factor measures protection of fundamental human rights. In particular it measures the effective enforcement of laws that ensure equal protection; freedom of thought, religion, and expression; freedom of assembly and association; fundamental labour rights (including the right to collective bargaining, the prohibition of forced and child labour, and the elimination of discrimination); the rights to privacy and religion; the right to life and security of the person; and due process of law and the rights of the accused.

Open Government: this measures the opportunity to know what the law is and what conduct is permitted and prohibited. Adherence requires that the law be comprehensible and its meaning sufficiently clear, publicised, and explained to the general public in plain language, for them to be able to abide by it. Open government also encompasses the opportunity to participate in the process by which the laws are made and administered.

Regulatory Enforcement: this factor concerns the fair and effective enforcement of administrative regulations. It seeks to assess how well regulations are implemented and enforced, including the absence of improper influence by public officials or private interests; adherence to administrative procedures that are fair, consistent, and predictable; and freedom from government taking of private property without adequate compensation.

Access to Civil Justice: adherence requires that the system be affordable, effective, impartial, and culturally competent

Effective Criminal Justice: this measures how effective the system is in addressing and adjudicating crimes, how free from corruption and improper government influence the criminal justice system is, and whether the system accords the accused due process of law.

The data covers 66 nations, including most of the OECD countries.

We rank very highly in the study.

When our performance under each of these factors is ranked out of ten, we come tops for one factor, second for two, third for three, and fourth for another. The only factor where we don’t perform as well is in Order and Security – we're “only” 11th.

When measured regionally the result is even better: first for six of the eight factors (beaten by Hong Kong in the other two).

The results for each of the eight factors (divided into four main categories and with each factor then divided into sub-factors) are depicted below:

(click the above image to enlarge)

The New Zealand result is based on a sample of 1006 people surveyed this year in our three biggest cities, using computer assisted telephone interviews (called the CATI methodology). The report indicates they also spoke to a large number of legal luminaries, so the results ought to be reasonably robust.

So there’s something at least to be grateful for. We're not a banana republic just yet.

* In our region, and globally in one category.

Sort Your Own House Out First

David Farrar is currently on his high horse denouncing Labour Party corruption. He’s alleging on Kiwiblog that a Labour Party advertisement in a magazine broke the rules.

I don’t know whether any of what Farrar is alleging is true, and I’d certainly be reluctant to take the word of an attack blogger who spends most of his blogging activities attacking the opposition.

But if Farrar wants to find examples of rule-breaking he need only look to his own party.

Tau Henare, the National list MP and many-time failed candidate for Te Atatu, has been forced to take down a number of signs outside his electoral office, because they breached local authority bylaws.

His electoral office is situated in a residential area, and therefore any signage much comply with strict rules.

He’s now bleating, when Henare instead should be apologising for breaking the law.

These signs have been up for three years. So for three whole years these signs showing Henare’s name and face and party colours (on one of the busiest roads in West Auckland and with plenty of visibility) have been in breach of the bylaws. In the meantime I’m sure Henare’s got a nice bit of exposure thanks to these signs.

Were I a rabid right wing blogger I’d probably start throwing around words like “corruption”.

But the only word that seems to fit perfectly is “hypocrisy”.

National: clean up your own act before blaming others.

Update: Henare is now claiming he has been told the signs can stay up while he gets a resource consent. Watch this space. Clearly the Nats have been caught out.

If a party can't even sort out something as basic as this, then they're clearly unfit for office. [Wait, who do I sound like when I say that?]

General Debate: 17 June 2011

McClellan v Montgomery

The Mature Person's Youth Wage

National's new genius strategy to close the income gap with Australia has been revealed - cut wages!

Patrick Gower at TV3 reports:

The government looks set to propose the re-introduction of special lower pay rates for young workers.

here are signs it may even extend the definition of a youth so that workers into their early 20s may be forced to accept lower pay rates.

and:

When asked what her definition of a ‘youth’ was, Wilkinson said the bracket used was "15 to 24," but she had no view as long as they got jobs.

24? This is a youth wage for people who aren't youths. It's a youth wage for adults.

It's no surprise that whenever National look at ways to grow employment the first thing they do is look at cutting wages. They don't know what else to do, because they have an imagination deficit and can't look beyond the short term balance sheet. If they had their way and didn't have pesky opposition parties, unions and the media nipping at their heels, I've little doubt they'd drop all minimum wage protection, and many people would now be earning $4-5 an hour.

One of the problems we have as a nation is our low level of worker productivity. That's not because workers are lazy: far from it. We work some of the longest hours in the OECD. But our work is not efficient because it's cheaper to hire workers at low rates than it is to spend money on new equipment and plant. This means we stay less efficient and our economy doesn't get the benefits of high productivity.

Surely, then, if our productivity problems stem in part from the low cost of labour, it makes no economic sense to make it even cheaper to hire staff.

John Key and Bill English often talk about the importance of productivity as a driver of economic growth. But talking up productivity while allowing employers to cut wages is like telling a junkie to clean up their act while giving them a bag full of heroin.

But some good may come of this madness. If the Nats really intend to introduce a youth wage rate for 24 year olds then they really have lost the plot. I almost hope they have the hubris to try it, because if they do I expect young people will flock to support the opposition parties.

Time To Get Tough On Natural Disasters

Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesperson Garth McVicar has accused the Government of being soft on crime, after a third major earthquake rocked the Canterbury region this week.

Monday’s two quakes inflicted further damage upon a region struggling to recover from the events of September and February, and caused further distress to people already seriously traumatised.

Mr McVicar said that the people behind the three major earthquakes had caused untold misery and suffering.

“Whoever is doing this has to be stopped, for the good of our people. How can our politicians just stand by doing nothing while our second largest city slowly dies? Do the tears in the eyes of the children of Christchurch mean nothing to these people?

“It’s time we got tough on natural disasters. Let’s send a message to the people behind earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, cyclones and other callous natural disasters, that their violence won’t be tolerated anymore.”

However, Auckland University Law Professor Jill Tamarillo cautioned against any sudden law change, saying that evidential issues would make any prosecution for committing a natural disaster problematic, even if laws were passed to prohibit earthquakes.

“In many cases it won’t be clear who’s responsible for an earthquake,” said Professor Tamarillo.

“We often call these events ‘acts of God’, but which god? The prosecution will have an almost impossible task trying to prove that a particular disaster was committed by say Jehovah rather than Allah.”

Professor Tamarillo also questioned the deterrent effect of any sentence imposed on a natural disaster offender.

“How does one punish God effectively? Our prisons just aren’t suited to housing deities. We also know that for many criminals prison is little more than a finishing school, and that when they finish their sentence they are even more dangerous.”

But Garth McVicar has slammed critics of the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s call for “get-tough” policies.

“We’re been told for years by these liberal pointy-headed ivory tower types that it can’t be done and that it shouldn’t be done, and the end result is a society where people live in constant terror of natural disasters attacking them in the dead of night.

“You ask anyone in Christchurch right now what they think about the wave of natural disasters hitting them, and they’ll tell you that they’re sick of it.

“If politicians, academics and liberal do-gooders would just get off their high horses and meet some of the victims of these crimes, they’d see for themselves how much our current legal system panders to criminals and how utterly broken it is.”

Mr McVicar also said that further earthquakes could have been prevented had the Government adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards natural disasters several years ago.

“A broken-windows intervention strategy could have saved a lot of lives. But more importantly, if a magnitude six or greater earthquake had been included as a ‘strike’ offence when the three-strikes legislation was passed in 2010, we could right now be throwing the book at these criminal scumbags.”

General Debate: 16 June 2011

Hannibal or Alexander?

Moral Panic Update: Forecast Cloudy

If we expended on early childhood prevention strategies even a quarter of the effort and resources that we currently expend on worrying about our teens, we probably wouldn’t be in the grip of a moral panic about what our children are drinking, smoking or snorting.

Whenever kids are caught drinking too much or taking drugs, the inevitable call is for something to be banned, or for the law to be changed to make it harder to get.

But kids being kids will always find a way to do what they want. Drug prohibition has been, and continues to be, a miserable failure. In years to come law reform and health experts will look back on our efforts to fight drugs and conclude “were our politicians all on P?”

The debate over our drinking age (actually, Garth, it’s a purchase age, not a drinking age) obscures the real problem that by the time many of our kids are in their teens they are ill-equipped to deal with many of the risks and temptations facing them, such as booze and drugs.

The reasons why teenagers and young adults do stupid things are complex, but there’s plenty of evidence that getting the first few years of a child’s life right can make a big difference. Children who are bought up in dysfunctional environments and who are not exposed to quality early care are more likely to end up seeking substances like drugs and booze when they are older.

The messages the beer companies tell us are also critical. Young men are encouraged by the breweries to think that if they’re not drinking the brewery’s product they’re not “one of the boys”, they are in thrall to womenfolk, or they are sexually inadequate. It’s no wonder our boofhead culture is thriving.

If there’s one area that regulation could work it’s in the way we allow alcohol to be promoted. But trying to stop people from accessing the substances themselves won’t work. It hasn’t worked anywhere in the world, and it sure as hell isn’t working now.

Policy, Policy, Policy!

I'm inclined to go with John Stewart when he rolls back in his chair in mock horror at the prospect of discussing New Zealand politics.

Perhaps he's been reading some of the blogs and newspaper columns. Leaked party membership information, the Hughes affair, etc etc.

The obsession in the media and blogosphere with scandal and tripping politicians up has enabled a government bereft of ideas to sail on, untroubled by serious scrutiny over its policies.

Sideshows like Hone Harawira and the ACT fiascos may well be compelling viewing, but they don't really matter in the scheme of things. We ought to be focusing on the policies that will get this country out of the mess it's in.

I've been guilty at times of falling into the trap of targetting the insignificant, and will probably continue to do so, especially when it's good for a laugh. But I like to think that in these parts I will at least occasionally post something about policies and not personalities.

However, I hold no real hope that the dumbing down in our media of politics will be reversed any time soon. 

I know that a lot of people in Labour are convinced the media are out to get Phil Goff. I'm not so sure it's as simple as media bias. Goff has certainly made a few mistakes, but so has John Key. Key's skill though is that he can smile and charm his way through pretty much anything and people will believe him, even when he's talking complete bullshit. It's a real skill to be that two-faced and get away with it, and I take my hat off to him. But when Goff is caught on the defensive he's not always as smooth and unflappable as Key. This only attracts further media fire.

It is important to remember that those are matters of style, not of substance. It may be tempting to think that someone who fluffs his lines occasionally must be unfit to lead. But that's a very high standard to hold someone to. I recently came to the conclusion that, despite my numerous frustrations over some of the communications emanating from Labour, those were not issues of substance. They only become issues of substance because political journalists and bloggers like me make noise about them. The issues most people outside the beltway are interested in are jobs, growth and the wellbeing of their families and communities.

Ultimately it's not fruitful to just blame the journos when your party's in disarray in the polls, because it gets you nowhere. When the Opposition manages to get on the news talking about policies the polls seem to lift. In the wake of the Budget there was much talk about how the Budget failed to do just about anything. The next poll saw a lift in Labour's support. Now the talk is all Hughes and the failures of Labour's online security, so I half-expect the next poll to go down.

So the challenge for Labour is to just keep talking policy, keep disciplined, and keep focused on the endgame. They should forget the sideshows, like whose residence needed painting and how much it cost. They should also just stop engaging with enemies like Cameron Slater and David Farrar. These people will never be your friends, so just ignore them. Don't complain to the media about them and don't challenge them to bike rides or any other contest. The best weapon against attention-seekers like Cameron Slater is silence.

The other thing Labour needs is luck and a quiet spell where they aren't tripping up. The Hughes affair was bad luck, although it perhaps could have been handled better. But the fact it blew up at all was out of Phil Goff's hands. The website issue was more bad management, but you're going to get that sort of thing in a party run by enthusiastic volunteers.

If Labour focuses on policy and gives its enemies no opportunity to smear it, doesn't engage with the bullies, and just gets on with telling its story, it may yet prosper.

Sounds easy, doesn't it? Of course, in politics nothing is easy.

Who's To Blame For Student Behaviour?

I'm no fan of elitist institutions, but much of the condemnation being heaped upon the private school Kings College is unjustified.

It's all too easy to blame a school when its students run amuck or kill themselves. But the school can only do so much.

The real problem is our drinking and drug culture. This is so embedded in our society that many kids are being tanked up by their parents before going to social events such as school balls.

The Kings College parents may well be business leaders and rich-listers who are regarded as pillars of the community, but if the parents organising pre-ball booze-ups for their kids were brown there'd be outrage and demands for arrests and for CYFS to intervene.

I'm not really sure what more the school can do when it comes to out of control drinking and drug taking, short of banning all social events associated with the school. That wouldn't stop the drinking and drug-taking, though it might prevent the school from being blamed.

A Long Overdue Post About Garlic

There's a new site that rates your social media presence. It's called Klout. It's all the buzz amongst marketers and that new breed of parasite, the "social media consultant/expert".

Have a go if you want a laugh, but don't get carried away when you see the results. You will probably come to the conclusion that you are more influential than The Christ, that is, until you find out what you are influential about. I'm apparently influential about garlic and Kenya. I don't recall ever mentioning Kenya in any tweet, blog or other social media format, and as for garlic, well it's entirely possible I may have mentioned garlic in relation to some of the more frightening elderly members of the ACT Party. In that case I should also be influential about crucifixes and holy water. So what gives?

Being influential about garlic probably isn't all that much of an achievement. Who else is talking about the stuff online?

My overall ranking of 50 out of 100 apparently puts me ahead of several notable politicians, and only slightly behind a couple of people who are madly active in all forms of social media and have about 20 times the followers and friends I have. Apart from tweeting more than I should, and blogging (which I'm not sure they even counted), I don't have a very active social media presence. I am on Facebook and LinkedIn, but am not especially active in either.

So it's just possible that the entire thing is a load of bullshit. You decide.

Byelection Going Down To The Wire

A Native Affairs Baseline poll of Te Tai Tokerau voters has indicated that 41% say they will vote for Hone Harawira, and 40% say they will vote for Kelvin Davis.

The Maori Party candidate, Solomon Tipene, is wallowing at 15%.

These kinds of polls can be notoriously unreliable, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Harawira isn't well in front. His strategy of resigning and forcing a byelection always looked like a strange one, because it didn't seem as if there was too much to gain from it, but everything to lose.

Harawira has the veteran Matt McCarten working for him, but has also surrounded himself with activists and people on the political fringe. I'm not sure how effective McCarten has been, or how much of Harawira's campaign reflects McCarten's advice. I'm willing to consider the possibility that Harawira just says and does what he wants, regardless of what those around him are telling him.

Harawira is telling people that the poll is unreliable because a lot of Maori people don't have landline phones. There may be some truth in that. But it would be dangerous to assume that Harawira is further ahead because people without landlines are more likely to vote for Harawira. Some of them (especially the young) may also be less inclined to vote at all, or may be unenrolled. Some of them may be Labour supporters.

There's no doubt in my mind that much of the shine has gone from Hone Harawira. He has stumbled and bumbled at every step of the way in forming his new party, and in the events prior to that. Harawira may be a powerful activist and voice for Maori, but I don't think being leader of a poltical party is his natural position. Parties need discipline, something Harawira lacks. His association with a group of hardcore activists like John Minto and Sue Bradford will also be of concern to middle class Maori voters, of which there are many.

And then there is the "anyone but Harawira" vote. The Maori Party chose badly in its candidate, Solomon Tipene. He may have mana and be well respected in the community, but he's got no profile and is getting no publicity. It didn't help that he declined (!) to be part of the candidates debate on Q+A during the weekend. It's quite possible that a core of Maori Party people, seeing their party doing so badly, will switch to Labour to get rid of Harawira.

The final factor that may tip it for Davis is the Labour Party organisation. McCarten may be good at mobilising people, but he won't be able to compete with the numbers Labour can put out if they make a concerted effort to win this seat.

I'm tipping a narrow contest, but my money's on Davis. But regardless of who wins, if the margin is a narrow one it will be all on again in November.

Stupid Dog

It has been a day of terror: throughout Christchurch and throughout the Labour Party.

But I'm sure you'll agree that the biggest news story of the day concerns the altering of history.

One of the big questions hanging over Sir Peter Jackson's Dambusters film has finally been answered - the dog Nigger will be renamed Digger as it might offend Americans.

Only Americans?

The film's script writer, actor Stephen Fry, revealed the change to British newspaper The Daily Mail.

In the original 1955 film the name of pilot Guy Gibson's black Labrador is spoken 12 times as a code word to report successful dam breaches to the RAF's bomber command, The Daily Mail reported.

Fry said: "there is no question in America that you could ever have a dog called the N-word. It's no good saying that it is the Latin word for black or that it didn't have the meaning that it does now - you just can't got back, which is unfortunate ... Digger seems OK, I reckon".

However some historians and aviation enthusiasts were unhappy with the name change. 

The dog is buried at RAF Scampton in Britain, where the Dambusters 617 squadron was based. Curator of the RAF Scampton museum accused Fry of trying to "rewrite history".

"It's not a problem with coloured people, it's the people in power creating the problem. Sod their political correctness and sod human rights," said Mervyn Hallam. 

Quite. This PC nonsense must stop. We didn't fight two world wars to preserve human rights Tolerance? Bah!

I'll wager that the film ends up depicting a great many things other than as they occurred. If you seek historical authenticity in your blockbuster films then expect to be perpetually disappointed.

As any aficionado of Hollywood cinema will know, when it comes to historical pieces the British are almost always the villains. So the old buggers bleating about authenticity ought to just be grateful that for once the Brits are the good guys. If the film was being made in Hollywood it would probably have Mel Gibson as the lead, and he'd be playing a heroic Nazi saving the Fatherland from those evil Jew-loving Englishmen. A role Gibson was born to play, incidentally.

But despite the many liberties to be taken by the makers of the film, the only complaint we'll hear is that they changed the name of a stupid mutt from one that is utterly offensive.

The bigger question is whether it will be a serious enough offence for Murray Deaker to boycott the film.