Someone on the internet says I’m a “post-modernist twit”. How would you text that insult? “U po mo”? I’ve also become an “ism”; Pagani-ism. I’d rather be a “nomics”. Do I have to destroy an economy to be known for Pagani-nomics? Those insults appeared on left-wing blogs after I defended Labour leader David Shearer when he said, and I paraphrase: “Someone who shouldn’t be on the dole shouldn’t be on the dole.” The political left needs to argue a principled case for welfare reform. People have a right to be looked after when they can’t provide for themselves, yet today if you are on a benefit, you live in poverty. You get stuck.
Friday, August 31, 2012
When You're In A Hole Part II
Josie Pagani has written in the Listener:
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Panic In Popular Café As Politician Explodes
There was panic in a busy Epsom café today, after the leader of the Conservative Party, Colin Craig, exploded in public.
Retired Epsom woman Prudence Sneedler, who was at the scene, described what occurred.
Retired Epsom woman Prudence Sneedler, who was at the scene, described what occurred.
Imperator Fish Exclusive: Leaked Government Poverty Plan
Child poverty seems to be the political issue of the moment. All parties will want to be seen to be doing something about the growing number of children living in poverty.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Some Things Change, Others Don't
1492
"Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows the Earth is flat."
1674
"How could anyone refuse to accept the existence of God? Human society has always depended upon the worship of deities, and anyone who denies the existence of a being greater than ourselves is a threat to society."
"Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows the Earth is flat."
1674
"How could anyone refuse to accept the existence of God? Human society has always depended upon the worship of deities, and anyone who denies the existence of a being greater than ourselves is a threat to society."
Monday, August 27, 2012
Will He Be Allowed To Breathe?
There is growing concern that Mr Beast of Blenheim may be planning to use the air of Whanganui residents.
Mr Beast is due to be released on parole shortly, but fears are growing that he is planning to use the oxygen, local water and other resources in an attempt to live.
It is feared that if Mr Beast is given access to Whanganui's oxygen he will commence an indiscriminate orgy of vicious and sadistic behaviour against children, animals and motor vehicles.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Am I In Or Out?
In Jane Clifton's Listener column she referred to me, though not by name, when she wrote about Labour's woes:
... a prominent leftist blogger declared this the last straw, saying he was finished with the Labour Party.At least I'm pretty sure that was me, even if I never said I was finished with Labour. What I wrote was:
I'm not renouncing my membership, or anything as dramatic as that, nor do I mean this post to sound like a prolonged flounce. I'm just going to stop helping for a while. I have many other uses for the energy that party activism requires me to expend.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Big Tobacco's New Best Friend
The Herald is going in to bat for poor oppressed tobacco companies.
Apparently we should feel some sympathy for companies whose products kill millions of people every year, companies that have gone out of their way over the years to make their products more addictive, to hook young smokers on their products, and to conceal evidence of the harm that tobacco causes.
I'm not a fan generally of prohibition, but if there was ever an industry that deserved to be obliterated it would be the tobacco industry.
Apparently we should feel some sympathy for companies whose products kill millions of people every year, companies that have gone out of their way over the years to make their products more addictive, to hook young smokers on their products, and to conceal evidence of the harm that tobacco causes.
I'm not a fan generally of prohibition, but if there was ever an industry that deserved to be obliterated it would be the tobacco industry.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
The Genius Of Shearer's Plan Is Revealed
Labour leader David Shearer today responded to heated criticism from party members about the direction his party appears to be taking.
Labour has in recent weeks suffered a series of setbacks, with reports of an anti-David Cunliffe faction in caucus, and with evidence of growing anger among activist members about the targetting of beneficiaries by Shearer and other MPs in speeches and online posts.
Labour has in recent weeks suffered a series of setbacks, with reports of an anti-David Cunliffe faction in caucus, and with evidence of growing anger among activist members about the targetting of beneficiaries by Shearer and other MPs in speeches and online posts.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge?
With all the angst and debate over New Zealand's role in Afghanistan, we appear to have overlooked one obvious thing: our troops are needed elsewhere.
Are we going to let our girl be pushed around by the representative of a small African country most of us have never heard of?
Are we going to let our girl be pushed around by the representative of a small African country most of us have never heard of?
Monday, August 20, 2012
Christchurch Must Be Full Of Ghosts
From the Press:
The tenants of a Christchurch home where three members of a family died have called in paranormal investigators.
The family of six moved into the house in January, and say coffee tables have moved, wardrobe doors slam by themselves, the shower turns on and off, they hear footsteps on the stairs, and the children have seen "apparitions".
Harry Hindenberg: A Regrettable Misunderstanding
Readers, you may be wondering why I haven't written for a few weeks. My absence from these pages is the result of a mishap I suffered last month. Let me explain what happened.
I was sitting at my desk pondering a problem. I don't remember exactly what the problem was, but I do recall that the one thing vexing me above all others at the time was the money question. The question was this: where was I to put all those wads of cash in my possession? I have so much money stuffed in the ceiling cavity that if my landlord ever gets the air-conditioning serviced he's going to have some very happy contractors.
You may be wondering why on Earth a suburban solicitor should be stuffing bundles of money in the ceiling cavity of his law offices. But let me assure you that I'm a respectable businessman, and I have a perfectly reasonable explanation for what may to you seem like strange behaviour.
You see, I provide a range of services for my valued clients. Sometimes they get themselves into difficulty and need to call on the services of a trusted legal adviser to handle their affairs. My clients are often being persecuted by the police, who more often than not take an unreasonably tough line on these people. Even if I were to accept that not all of my clients are saints, I cannot accept that their being charged with minor drug offences (e.g. possession of barely five kilograms of cocaine for the purposes of supply) should lead police to assume that all their assets are ill-gotten gains. There could be any number of legitimate reasons why paper bags filled with hundred dollar notes are stuffed under various mattresses, along with firearms and fake passports.
I tell my clients that the police, being naturally suspicious types, will never believe them when they try to explain how they came into their money. So I insist they leave their cash with me. It's not dishonest, because I have no way of knowing where the money came from. And a good lawyer never asks.
I take only a modest fee for my troubles. Twenty percent really isn't a lot, considering the specialised services I offer. To the best of my knowledge, nobody else in the legal profession in this country is doing anything similar.
Oh, sure, other lawyers will claim they're doing wonderful things for their clients. They will try to convince prospective clients that being a great lawyer is all about knowing the law and being able to find legal solutions to difficult problems. However, the narrow framework of the law is so limiting for creative problem solvers like myself.
I've always believed that petty regulation shouldn't get in the way of doing business. I don't mean to argue that we should be able to do exactly as we please, without any kind of laws to constrain our behaviour, because I can see how in some limited circumstances it might be useful to impose criminal sanctions on things like homicide.
But the humourless bureaucrats who run the Law Society don't see it that way. Their petty rules concerning professional conduct are in my opinion stifling the creativity of the legal profession and preventing innovation. For example, if I decide to withdraw fifty thousand dollars of client funds from my firm's trust account and blow it on an overseas holiday, soaking in all the fleshy delights of Bangkok, shouldn't that be a matter between me and my clients? "Theft" is such an emotionally-loaded term.
All this is to say that I've had my share of run-ins with the Law Society, almost always over trivial transgressions. Like the day I threatened to kill one of my clients after she asked why I had billed her thirty thousand dollars for a routine property transaction. Naturally, I had no intention of killing the poor woman: I was just trying to frighten her into paying me. It's ridiculous that the Law Society would poke their long noses into such an insignificant matter. When the IRD are on your case they'll threaten you with all manner of legal consequences if you don't pay up on time. But the moment I threaten to attack one little old wheelchair-bound grandmother if she doesn't cough up I'm treated like a common criminal. It's political correctness gone mad.
I'm still angry that the incident almost cost me my career. I'm just grateful that the building where all the Law Society's files were held mysteriously burned down the day before my misconduct hearing.
So the Law Society is no friend to me. Whenever I receive one of their letters I feel a moment of anxiety. And whenever I hear that the organisation's resources are going to be tied up for a while on another misconduct investigation, naturally I breathe a sigh of relief.
Anyway, back to my story. I remember picking up the newspaper on the day in question, only to read that Barry Hart, the high-flying criminal barrister, had become the subject of a disciplinary hearing. You can imagine my joy at learning that the Law Society had their eyes off me for once, and so I downed an entire bottle of vodka (a gift from a Russian client) on the spot in celebration.
When I awoke, four hours later, I was covered in my own vomit and had soiled my pants. It was a near thing, as my 4:00 pm appointment was waiting at reception for me. The woman's husband had just died and she wanted to see me about his will. What a delightful woman! If she was at all concerned about the state of my dress or the odour coming from my clothing she was kind enough to say nothing. The lady was not unattractive to look at, so I immediately offered her my standard alternative billing arrangement, but she declined my offer and told me to put my trousers back on.
I don't recall exactly what we discussed, though she was surprised to discover that her late and beloved husband had changed his will on his deathbed, excluding her entirely and leaving everything to his trusted family solicitor. She was especially surprised because she claimed he'd been in an induced coma on the day he was meant to have signed the document.
I do recall something being mentioned about getting the police involved, and I managed to finally calm the poor grieving woman by threatening her family. Sometimes you just need to be firm when someone's being hysterical and making all sorts of wild allegations. But I'm a fair and honourable man, so I said I'd give her two weeks to sign over her share of the house to me.
I had just enough time to get to the TAB before my next meeting, but that's when it all went wrong. I knew something was up the moment I stepped out the front door and saw the police car outside my office, but I didn't have time to get back inside and start burning papers. The next thing I knew I was being jammed into the back of a police car and taken down the road. It turns out that the ungrateful widow went straight to the cops.
Naturally, this was all a huge misunderstanding, but it took me a few weeks to sort things out. The poor woman just went missing. She's not been seen for a couple of weeks now, and without her evidence they don't have enough to make the charges stick. I of course know nothing about any of this.
But it's been a useful reminder to me to be more careful in the future, because this law business is a dangerous one to be in, and one must stay constantly on one's toes. For example, I didn't know until I'd became a lawyer that they have an entire Crimes Act!
Even thinking about some of the things described in that legislation as criminal brings me out in a sweat. Or is that because of the three pies and half-bottle of scotch I had for lunch?
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Helping David Shearer
David Shearer has said on more than one occasion that he doesn't really read the political blogs. But he should. Because all the answers to Labour's problems are waiting in the blogosphere, if he will only go and see for himself.
Because there's been so much chatter in the last fortnight on various blogs about what Labour's doing wrong, and what Labour should be doing, I have compiled a summary. This will hopefully make David Shearer's job much easier.
Here's my list of things Labour needs to be doing, by all of you.
Shearer needs to step up and assert himself, and take control.
Shearer needs to be reined in. His views on key issues are of deep concern.
David Shearer should listen to others ore often.
David Shearer needs to follow his own instinct more often.
Some members of the front bench are just not up to the job.
Shearer's performance is dragging down some very capable front bench members.
Labour needs to focus on the soft centrist vote.
Labour needs to move more to the left.
Labour needs to move more to the right.
Labour should shore up the left, then move right.
If Labour moves to the right the left will follow.
Shearer's beneficiary on the roof anecdote was unforgivable and a betrayal of all that Labour stands for.
Shearer's beneficiary on the roof anecdote was a powerful message that the social contract is a two way deal.
Shearer's beneficiary on the roof anecdote was a sign that Labour understands the need to crack down on the culture of welfare dependency in this country.
Labour's policies are fine, but the messaging is the real problem.
Labour's policies are the problem, and the messaging is not really the issue. You can't sell rubbish.
Both policy and messaging are deeply flawed.
Both policy and messaging are spot on.
People are interested in policy, not personalities.
The real problem is that David Shearer lacks personality.
Labour's polling, while unspectacular, is okay, and there's really no need to panic.
Labour's polling is unremarkable, and the party should be concerned.
Labour should be panicking after the last round of polls.
The Labour Party has no future.
The Labour Party has a strong and positive future ahead of it.
David Cunliffe should be Labour leader.
David Cunliffe should never be Labour leader.
It doesn't matter what a bunch of angry blogger nutjobs think.
Labour should take note of what the bloggers are saying. There is wisdom in the crowd.
All this online navel gazing is just a beltway obsession.
This online dialogue is representative of what the broader public think about Labour.
There is really no reason for Labour to panic.
There is every reason for Labour to panic.
Got all that, David?
Because there's been so much chatter in the last fortnight on various blogs about what Labour's doing wrong, and what Labour should be doing, I have compiled a summary. This will hopefully make David Shearer's job much easier.
Here's my list of things Labour needs to be doing, by all of you.
Shearer needs to step up and assert himself, and take control.
Shearer needs to be reined in. His views on key issues are of deep concern.
David Shearer should listen to others ore often.
David Shearer needs to follow his own instinct more often.
Some members of the front bench are just not up to the job.
Shearer's performance is dragging down some very capable front bench members.
Labour needs to focus on the soft centrist vote.
Labour needs to move more to the left.
Labour needs to move more to the right.
Labour should shore up the left, then move right.
If Labour moves to the right the left will follow.
Shearer's beneficiary on the roof anecdote was unforgivable and a betrayal of all that Labour stands for.
Shearer's beneficiary on the roof anecdote was a powerful message that the social contract is a two way deal.
Shearer's beneficiary on the roof anecdote was a sign that Labour understands the need to crack down on the culture of welfare dependency in this country.
Labour's policies are fine, but the messaging is the real problem.
Labour's policies are the problem, and the messaging is not really the issue. You can't sell rubbish.
Both policy and messaging are deeply flawed.
Both policy and messaging are spot on.
People are interested in policy, not personalities.
The real problem is that David Shearer lacks personality.
Labour's polling, while unspectacular, is okay, and there's really no need to panic.
Labour's polling is unremarkable, and the party should be concerned.
Labour should be panicking after the last round of polls.
The Labour Party has no future.
The Labour Party has a strong and positive future ahead of it.
David Cunliffe should be Labour leader.
David Cunliffe should never be Labour leader.
It doesn't matter what a bunch of angry blogger nutjobs think.
Labour should take note of what the bloggers are saying. There is wisdom in the crowd.
All this online navel gazing is just a beltway obsession.
This online dialogue is representative of what the broader public think about Labour.
There is really no reason for Labour to panic.
There is every reason for Labour to panic.
Got all that, David?
Friday, August 17, 2012
Turning It Down
I would urge those people on the left currently tearing each other apart over Labour's problems to reflect on the fact that reasonable people can sometimes disagree on stuff.
We should not be afraid to engage in debate over policy or strategy, but personal attacks are almost always unwarranted. People don't become the enemy just because they have a different view on how to achieve the desired goal. They may be foolish or misguided, but they probably aren't actually evil.
I'm not going to single anyone out, because the vitriol is coming from a number of people, most of whom should know better.
So I hope you'll agree that we all need to turn down the nastiness.
And if you don't agree, it's probably because you're a fat ugly bastard who keeps a copy of Mein Kampf by their bedside.
We should not be afraid to engage in debate over policy or strategy, but personal attacks are almost always unwarranted. People don't become the enemy just because they have a different view on how to achieve the desired goal. They may be foolish or misguided, but they probably aren't actually evil.
I'm not going to single anyone out, because the vitriol is coming from a number of people, most of whom should know better.
So I hope you'll agree that we all need to turn down the nastiness.
And if you don't agree, it's probably because you're a fat ugly bastard who keeps a copy of Mein Kampf by their bedside.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Government Announces New Space Programme
The National government has released plans for a space programme designed to send a manned ship into space.
Business analysts had been expecting Steven Joyce to announce further changes to tertiary education funding, when he called a press conference for this afternoon. Instead, he unveiled the plan to send a man into space by the end of the year.
"Critics have said this government lacks boldness," said Mr Joyce. "Well let me tell you something. They're wrong. We're going to prove them wrong by sending a manned mission into space by the end of 2012."
Mr Joyce would not be drawn on the exact destination of any manned mission, but dismissed conjecture that the target would be Mars.
"Look, it'll be an achievement for us just to get our guy into space. Let's take one step at a time."
When asked by reporters whether any studies had been undertaken on the economic benefits to New Zealand of a space programme, Joyce confirmed that work was still being done.
"This is not just about economics," said Mr Joyce.
"It's about lifting the spirits of a nation wearied by years of sluggish economic growth. It's about providing hope and inspiration for our young.
"But most of all, it's about providing a home for the Beast of Blenheim."
Joyce said that the space programme had been thought up after a brainstorming session with Department of Corrections officials.
"We had nowhere to put the guy. He can't stay in prison, Whanganui's the only part of the country where he has no victims, and now the people of Whanganui are fighting hard to keep him out.
"We were scratching our heads trying to figure out where to put him, when Anne Tolley said 'if only we could shoot the bastard out into space'. That woman's a genius, I tell you."
Joyce said the estimated cost of the space programme was "somewhere between half a million and eighteen billion dollars. The top price gets us a full space programme, complete with top of the line equipment, rockets, trained engineers and scientists from the US, and a massive space complex.
"At the other end we basically just construct a rocket from firecrackers, tie the guy on, point it upwards, and then light the fuse.
"There are some potential safety problems with this, due to the explosive nature of fireworks, so we may have to consider the more expensive option.
"It goes without saying that we'd like this space mission to be a short one-way trip. For one thing, we've nowhere to put Stewart Murray Wilson if he comes back down to Earth.
"However, officials are being aggravated by the man's lawyer, who is insisting that he has rights too and can't simply be shot up into space without being given a chance of survival.
"So it's possible we'll have to build an entire space station to house him."
Politicians from other parties were quick to comment on National's ambitious project.
"There should be a public transport option if we're going to go into space," said Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei.
Labour's leader David Shearer said he thought the plan was a good one, and then he changed his mind, and then he said he didn't know.
And Conservative Party leader Colin Craig just kept saying "I have nothing against homosexuals, really."
Business analysts had been expecting Steven Joyce to announce further changes to tertiary education funding, when he called a press conference for this afternoon. Instead, he unveiled the plan to send a man into space by the end of the year.
"Critics have said this government lacks boldness," said Mr Joyce. "Well let me tell you something. They're wrong. We're going to prove them wrong by sending a manned mission into space by the end of 2012."
Mr Joyce would not be drawn on the exact destination of any manned mission, but dismissed conjecture that the target would be Mars.
"Look, it'll be an achievement for us just to get our guy into space. Let's take one step at a time."
When asked by reporters whether any studies had been undertaken on the economic benefits to New Zealand of a space programme, Joyce confirmed that work was still being done.
"This is not just about economics," said Mr Joyce.
"It's about lifting the spirits of a nation wearied by years of sluggish economic growth. It's about providing hope and inspiration for our young.
"But most of all, it's about providing a home for the Beast of Blenheim."
Joyce said that the space programme had been thought up after a brainstorming session with Department of Corrections officials.
"We had nowhere to put the guy. He can't stay in prison, Whanganui's the only part of the country where he has no victims, and now the people of Whanganui are fighting hard to keep him out.
"We were scratching our heads trying to figure out where to put him, when Anne Tolley said 'if only we could shoot the bastard out into space'. That woman's a genius, I tell you."
Joyce said the estimated cost of the space programme was "somewhere between half a million and eighteen billion dollars. The top price gets us a full space programme, complete with top of the line equipment, rockets, trained engineers and scientists from the US, and a massive space complex.
"At the other end we basically just construct a rocket from firecrackers, tie the guy on, point it upwards, and then light the fuse.
"There are some potential safety problems with this, due to the explosive nature of fireworks, so we may have to consider the more expensive option.
"It goes without saying that we'd like this space mission to be a short one-way trip. For one thing, we've nowhere to put Stewart Murray Wilson if he comes back down to Earth.
"However, officials are being aggravated by the man's lawyer, who is insisting that he has rights too and can't simply be shot up into space without being given a chance of survival.
"So it's possible we'll have to build an entire space station to house him."
Politicians from other parties were quick to comment on National's ambitious project.
"There should be a public transport option if we're going to go into space," said Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei.
Labour's leader David Shearer said he thought the plan was a good one, and then he changed his mind, and then he said he didn't know.
And Conservative Party leader Colin Craig just kept saying "I have nothing against homosexuals, really."
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
No Matter How Bad Things Get...
It's nice to know that the members of this government are helping to keep things in perspective for disgruntled people of the left like me.
Sure, I may moan a lot about Labour and what they should be doing, as opposed to what they actually are doing, but it comforts me to know that no matter how bad things get, we don't have a Paula Bennett in our ranks.
Bennett breached the privacy of someone who stood up to her, and this has now been confirmed by the Human Rights Commission. Bennett hasn't accepted that finding, but not because she has legal grounds to do so. She knows the matter has come to an end and that she is to face no legal consequences.
Bennett could have apologised to her victim, but instead the most we'll get is an expression of regret, and no promise not to do it again. Bill English is standing by her, and is warning that anyone who speaks up in the future against the government might face the same treatment. It speaks volume of this government's attitude to democracy and dissent.
But it's no big deal, right? Heck, it's only the Privacy Act. It's not like the law or anything.
Sure, I may moan a lot about Labour and what they should be doing, as opposed to what they actually are doing, but it comforts me to know that no matter how bad things get, we don't have a Paula Bennett in our ranks.
Bennett breached the privacy of someone who stood up to her, and this has now been confirmed by the Human Rights Commission. Bennett hasn't accepted that finding, but not because she has legal grounds to do so. She knows the matter has come to an end and that she is to face no legal consequences.
Bennett could have apologised to her victim, but instead the most we'll get is an expression of regret, and no promise not to do it again. Bill English is standing by her, and is warning that anyone who speaks up in the future against the government might face the same treatment. It speaks volume of this government's attitude to democracy and dissent.
But it's no big deal, right? Heck, it's only the Privacy Act. It's not like the law or anything.
I'm The Guy Painting His Roof
The other day I had a run-in with my neighbour across the road, Fred. We go way back, all the way back to primary school, and I never really liked the guy, but as a neighbour I'd never really had a problem with him. Until now, that is.
It happened just after I'd climbed down from the roof of my house. I was in quite a bit of pain, though I was determined not to let that bastard have the pleasure of seeing me wince. I'd been up there trying to breathe a bit of life into my roof. Basically, the whole thing's f**ked, but I figured it might be worth throwing some old paint onto it and seeing if it would help plug the leaks.
So I dug out the old paint tins from under the house, left there from the last time I painted the roof (back in the glory days before my illness), found a few old brushes, got a rickety old ladder, and climbed up.
The next thing I know, just as I'm having a cup of tea and trying to ignore the wretched pain in my back (Christ, I'm thinking, I've done it now. My back's truly f**ked and I'll be bedridden for a week after this), Fred comes charging across the road, striding with purpose down my driveway and demanding to know what I was doing on my roof.
"Painting it," I laconically replied. "What the f**k did you think I was doing up there? Dancing?"
"It wouldn't surprise me," he answered. "You're looking mighty sprightly for someone on a sickness benefit."
Perhaps I could have been more civil to Fred, seeing as we went way back, but then I've always taken the view that my business is nobody else's business. "Unless you're here to paint the roof for me, I suggest you f**k right off," I said, pointing an angry finger towards Fred. "Get off my property!"
Fred retreated back down my driveway and towards the road in a huge hurry. Did he really think I was going to hurt him? My back's so screwed that if I tried to throw a punch it would probably leave me in a wheelchair. But then Fred has been a coward from the day he was born.
"We'll see what WINZ have to say about this," he said loudly as he returned to his side of the road. "I'm sure they'd love to know what you're up to."
As well as being a coward, Fred was a notorious snitch. If there was ever any trouble in the playground, Fred would find it and report it. I got busted smoking once because Fred ratted on me. I didn't hold it against him at the time, because he had no friends when he was at school and I felt kind of sorry for the guy. But now I wish I'd taken a firmer line with the little nark while I was still able-bodied.
I'm not particularly worried about WINZ. Could they really make my life any worse than it already is? I told them last week that my house was falling apart, but the lady there more or less said "I don't give a shit. Just be thankful you have a roof, even if it leaks."
It's pretty typical of the grief I get every time I deal with WINZ. Despite my back condition getting steadily worse, they remain convinced that I should be working, and I've lost count of the number of medical assessments they've done on me. I think they suspect me of inventing all of these symptoms, even though they show up clearly on the x-rays. Do they think I like being on the bones of my arse and in pain almost every moment of the day?
So there was no money from WINZ for the roof repairs. And the bank's a no-go zone, seeing as how I haven't paid the mortgage since my wife died, and I'm expecting any day for the mortgagee-sale signs to go up. So what was I meant to do? Sit in my house while the water poured in every time it rained? No f**king way. I may be little more than an invalid on the bad days when the pain is at its worst, but I'm still entitled to stay dry.
And now I see the snitch has talked to our local MP about my situation. How kind of him to make me the target of the nation's scorn. I once considered myself a lifelong Labour voter, but the one time I'm down on my luck the bastards go and shit on me. Did David Shearer come knocking at my door to find out about my situation? Did he care that my dear wife died of cancer two years ago? That my degenerative back condition is incurable and will eventually leave me permanently bedridden? That I can barely pay the power bill and am probably going to lose my house to the bank?
Who the hell else was going to fix my f**king roof?
David Shearer goes on about the social contract, but I worked and paid taxes for almost thirty years, and now the staff at WINZ treat me like I'm a criminal. I always thought a contract had to have two parties.
It happened just after I'd climbed down from the roof of my house. I was in quite a bit of pain, though I was determined not to let that bastard have the pleasure of seeing me wince. I'd been up there trying to breathe a bit of life into my roof. Basically, the whole thing's f**ked, but I figured it might be worth throwing some old paint onto it and seeing if it would help plug the leaks.
So I dug out the old paint tins from under the house, left there from the last time I painted the roof (back in the glory days before my illness), found a few old brushes, got a rickety old ladder, and climbed up.
The next thing I know, just as I'm having a cup of tea and trying to ignore the wretched pain in my back (Christ, I'm thinking, I've done it now. My back's truly f**ked and I'll be bedridden for a week after this), Fred comes charging across the road, striding with purpose down my driveway and demanding to know what I was doing on my roof.
"Painting it," I laconically replied. "What the f**k did you think I was doing up there? Dancing?"
"It wouldn't surprise me," he answered. "You're looking mighty sprightly for someone on a sickness benefit."
Perhaps I could have been more civil to Fred, seeing as we went way back, but then I've always taken the view that my business is nobody else's business. "Unless you're here to paint the roof for me, I suggest you f**k right off," I said, pointing an angry finger towards Fred. "Get off my property!"
Fred retreated back down my driveway and towards the road in a huge hurry. Did he really think I was going to hurt him? My back's so screwed that if I tried to throw a punch it would probably leave me in a wheelchair. But then Fred has been a coward from the day he was born.
"We'll see what WINZ have to say about this," he said loudly as he returned to his side of the road. "I'm sure they'd love to know what you're up to."
As well as being a coward, Fred was a notorious snitch. If there was ever any trouble in the playground, Fred would find it and report it. I got busted smoking once because Fred ratted on me. I didn't hold it against him at the time, because he had no friends when he was at school and I felt kind of sorry for the guy. But now I wish I'd taken a firmer line with the little nark while I was still able-bodied.
I'm not particularly worried about WINZ. Could they really make my life any worse than it already is? I told them last week that my house was falling apart, but the lady there more or less said "I don't give a shit. Just be thankful you have a roof, even if it leaks."
It's pretty typical of the grief I get every time I deal with WINZ. Despite my back condition getting steadily worse, they remain convinced that I should be working, and I've lost count of the number of medical assessments they've done on me. I think they suspect me of inventing all of these symptoms, even though they show up clearly on the x-rays. Do they think I like being on the bones of my arse and in pain almost every moment of the day?
So there was no money from WINZ for the roof repairs. And the bank's a no-go zone, seeing as how I haven't paid the mortgage since my wife died, and I'm expecting any day for the mortgagee-sale signs to go up. So what was I meant to do? Sit in my house while the water poured in every time it rained? No f**king way. I may be little more than an invalid on the bad days when the pain is at its worst, but I'm still entitled to stay dry.
And now I see the snitch has talked to our local MP about my situation. How kind of him to make me the target of the nation's scorn. I once considered myself a lifelong Labour voter, but the one time I'm down on my luck the bastards go and shit on me. Did David Shearer come knocking at my door to find out about my situation? Did he care that my dear wife died of cancer two years ago? That my degenerative back condition is incurable and will eventually leave me permanently bedridden? That I can barely pay the power bill and am probably going to lose my house to the bank?
Who the hell else was going to fix my f**king roof?
David Shearer goes on about the social contract, but I worked and paid taxes for almost thirty years, and now the staff at WINZ treat me like I'm a criminal. I always thought a contract had to have two parties.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Told You So
I feel vindicated this morning.
If you ignore the fact that I said on the radio last week that we should never accuse anyone of being a drugs cheat without clear evidence, then I have been remarkably consistent in my claims that Nadzeya Ostapchuk is a drugs cheat.
If you ignore the fact that I said on the radio last week that we should never accuse anyone of being a drugs cheat without clear evidence, then I have been remarkably consistent in my claims that Nadzeya Ostapchuk is a drugs cheat.
Wrong Strategy
If you were to ask me to summarise how the Labour Party has lost its way, I would tell you to simply listen to Josie Pagani on Kathryn Ryan's Nine to Noon show yesterday.
Pagani is close to the Labour strategy team. She stood as an electorate candidate for the party in 2011, and her husband John has had various strategic adviser roles within the party. So it's reasonable to assume that she is articulating Labour's strategy.
There's nothing in itself wrong with wooing the soft "centre" vote, because major parties like Labour can only govern if they capture a sizeable chunk of the popular vote. But it seems as if someone within Labour has decided there are few votes to be had on the left, and that the party must move closer to National.
The strategy, as far as I can tell from listening to Pagani, appears to be to deliberately pander to the perceived prejudices of centre voters, at the expense of Labour's left. It's a strategy doomed to failure, for two main reasons:
Pagani is close to the Labour strategy team. She stood as an electorate candidate for the party in 2011, and her husband John has had various strategic adviser roles within the party. So it's reasonable to assume that she is articulating Labour's strategy.
There's nothing in itself wrong with wooing the soft "centre" vote, because major parties like Labour can only govern if they capture a sizeable chunk of the popular vote. But it seems as if someone within Labour has decided there are few votes to be had on the left, and that the party must move closer to National.
The strategy, as far as I can tell from listening to Pagani, appears to be to deliberately pander to the perceived prejudices of centre voters, at the expense of Labour's left. It's a strategy doomed to failure, for two main reasons:
- David Shearer's remark about the beneficiary on his roof angered many activist members of the party who follow his speeches, but will have gone largely unnoticed by the people to whom the message was meant to appeal. People like this. These activists are the people who keep the party running.
- The tactic of appealing to one group by targeting another is an age-old political ploy, but it is also a deeply cynical one. If the aim of Labour is to win at all costs, then the pursuit of that aim means anything goes, including attacks on groups that are already the target of widespread abuse and vitriol. The problem with this tactic is that it concedes that the right have won the debate on welfare, and that we do have a major problem with beneficiaries ripping off the system. It inevitably draws the party closer to National in the eyes of many voters.
I should make it clear that when I say "doomed to failure" I don't mean that Labour won't win in 2014, because they may still. I don't define failure as losing an election. A party can fail its members and still govern. The fourth Labour government was a good example of this.
Even so, it's hard to see how Labour can win well in 2014 if it burns off its supporters on the left. Many of them will go to the Greens, or just stay home in disgust on election day. Like they did in 2011.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
The Diary of ***** *******, Time Traveller And Labour Party Strategist
10 April 415 B.C: Many of those who spoke in the assembly against the campaign said it was reckless and foolish to go sailing off into distant lands while our own borders remain insecure. But one of the most fundamental rules of politics is that you should never strike where the enemy expects you to. That's why I endorse this expedition against Syracuse. The choice of three generals with entirely different strategies to lead the expedition is a brilliant one. When decisive leadership is required, establish a committee!
3 January 49 B.C: My latest assignment is proving to be a real delight. Rome's a fascinating town, and I have been deeply impressed with the way the governing classes in this Roman Republic conduct themselves. The men of the Senate are vexed by Caesar's demands, but I have assured them they have nothing to worry about. Caesar will not dare cross the Rubicon into Italy, because if he does so he will be at war with the Roman state. His men will desert him, rather than be crushed by Pompey's armies. Caesar may be a useful general, but he has neither the courage nor the tactical nous of his opponent.
1 January 43 B.C: That Cicero fellow's a genius. He's not just a great orator and writer, but a perceptive and clever politician. He's got that foolish upstart boy Octavian wrapped around his finger, and Mark Antony is running scared. I predict a long and glorious future for the Roman Republic, under the wise stewardship of Marcus Tullius Cicero.
28 May 1588: I pity the English, but they had it coming.
15 September 1801: There is always some fool predicting a new fad. Steam power? Don't make me laugh. Nothing will come of it.
20 July 1789: Those troublemakers causing so much bother in Paris ought to be ashamed of themselves. They need to take a deep breath and take a good look at themselves in the Hall of Mirrors. They want to change the world, but they're just stupidly naive. We all want reform, but most people know that slow and gradual progress is the only way to go. Thank God the French have a sensible ruler at this difficult time, a man who understands what needs to be done.
1 June 1876: Just appointed to the staff of Lieutenant Colonel George Custer. I have already drawn up a battle plan, and I'm confident of a swift victory.
June 25 1876: Although Custer and his men are now all dead, everything has gone largely to plan, which proves that my strategy was the correct one. The most effective way to defeat your enemy is to identify his greatest strength and then turn it into a weakness. After today's efforts we're halfway there!
5 April 1931: Now is not the time to be throwing money about. Times are tough for everyone, but there's no public appetite for reckless spending. We all have to tighten our belts, and that means the government too. Especially the government. Being on the left doesn't mean we should be fiscally irresponsible.
29 September 1938: I told Neville just to sign the damn piece of paper. Nobody wants to go to war over a small central European country with a name nobody can spell, least of all the Germans. It will keep them quiet, and we can be assured of gloriously ruling the waves for another fifty years. Neville demurs, and worries that the Germans may simply demand more territory; but where would they go? The Polish cavalry will overrun them if they move east, and if they attack France they'll be broken on the Maginot Line. I had to remind Neville that our staunch allies, the French, have the most powerful army in the world.
12 August 2012: Those were some times, I tell you! Now it's time to get back to work. I've got some great ideas to share with David and the team.
3 January 49 B.C: My latest assignment is proving to be a real delight. Rome's a fascinating town, and I have been deeply impressed with the way the governing classes in this Roman Republic conduct themselves. The men of the Senate are vexed by Caesar's demands, but I have assured them they have nothing to worry about. Caesar will not dare cross the Rubicon into Italy, because if he does so he will be at war with the Roman state. His men will desert him, rather than be crushed by Pompey's armies. Caesar may be a useful general, but he has neither the courage nor the tactical nous of his opponent.
1 January 43 B.C: That Cicero fellow's a genius. He's not just a great orator and writer, but a perceptive and clever politician. He's got that foolish upstart boy Octavian wrapped around his finger, and Mark Antony is running scared. I predict a long and glorious future for the Roman Republic, under the wise stewardship of Marcus Tullius Cicero.
28 May 1588: I pity the English, but they had it coming.
15 September 1801: There is always some fool predicting a new fad. Steam power? Don't make me laugh. Nothing will come of it.
20 July 1789: Those troublemakers causing so much bother in Paris ought to be ashamed of themselves. They need to take a deep breath and take a good look at themselves in the Hall of Mirrors. They want to change the world, but they're just stupidly naive. We all want reform, but most people know that slow and gradual progress is the only way to go. Thank God the French have a sensible ruler at this difficult time, a man who understands what needs to be done.
1 June 1876: Just appointed to the staff of Lieutenant Colonel George Custer. I have already drawn up a battle plan, and I'm confident of a swift victory.
June 25 1876: Although Custer and his men are now all dead, everything has gone largely to plan, which proves that my strategy was the correct one. The most effective way to defeat your enemy is to identify his greatest strength and then turn it into a weakness. After today's efforts we're halfway there!
5 April 1931: Now is not the time to be throwing money about. Times are tough for everyone, but there's no public appetite for reckless spending. We all have to tighten our belts, and that means the government too. Especially the government. Being on the left doesn't mean we should be fiscally irresponsible.
29 September 1938: I told Neville just to sign the damn piece of paper. Nobody wants to go to war over a small central European country with a name nobody can spell, least of all the Germans. It will keep them quiet, and we can be assured of gloriously ruling the waves for another fifty years. Neville demurs, and worries that the Germans may simply demand more territory; but where would they go? The Polish cavalry will overrun them if they move east, and if they attack France they'll be broken on the Maginot Line. I had to remind Neville that our staunch allies, the French, have the most powerful army in the world.
12 August 2012: Those were some times, I tell you! Now it's time to get back to work. I've got some great ideas to share with David and the team.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
So How Many Golds Did Your Knowledge Economy Get You, Finland?
David Shearer keeps saying New Zealand should be more like Denmark or Finland, but has he seen the Olympics medal table?
We're kicking their arses!
[note: anyone who mentions the Winter Olympics WILL BE BANNED! As soon as I work out how to ban people from this site]
We're kicking their arses!
[note: anyone who mentions the Winter Olympics WILL BE BANNED! As soon as I work out how to ban people from this site]
Thursday, August 9, 2012
The Rockets Are Primed
All this seismic activity reminds me for no particular reason that all the worst and most despicable super-villains live underneath volcanoes.
If I were a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur, who just happened to have a team of rocket scientists working for me, I wouldn't be able to go past White Island. The place looks so nasty and inhospitable that it just cries out for some insane power-crazed madman to take possession of it, and install a huge dungeon, an underground airpstrip, a wall of TV screens, and a swimming pool filled with sharks.
But it takes serious cash for that kind of thing. Being a villain is one thing, but pay your people below the minimum wage and you'll have the Labour Department all over you. Those rocket scientists and security goons don't come cheap, and then there's all the gear: weapons, boiler suits, and food for the cat.
Even if you can find all the cash, and you manage to find an island volcano that some reptilian monster has not already claimed, your work is not yet done. You see, there's a lot of racism and prejudice within the villain community. They don't accept black people or women, and if you're not from central or eastern Europe your only hope is if you can pull off a posh accent. When was the last time you heard a super-villain speaking in a Geordie or Spanish accent? They're very particular about who they'll allow in their club.
When you look at all the barriers in the way, it's a wonder that anyone manages to achieve true villainy. We probably tend to focus on the negatives, but villains are actually productive members of society. They employ people, and make use of resources in inhospitable locations that would otherwise go unused. Their scientific advances, especially in the fields of lasers, rocketry and chemicals, have the potential to help all of mankind, even if their immediate goal is usually to hold the entire planet to ransom.
I know these people often tend to be vicious psychopaths, but who can honestly claim to be perfect?
I really think it's time our politicians cut these guys some slack. The current regulatory regime makes it extraordinarily difficult for someone to start an innovative murderous criminal business involving rockets and other bizarre weapons of mass destruction. The Crimes Act is so full of red tape that it's a wonder anyone even bothers to try.
It's high time something was done about this pressing issue. As Edmund Burke might have said, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to die painfully while strapped to a slowly-moving instrument of torture in the underground volcanic chamber of a megalomaniac madman.
Please, please, lobby your local MP on this issue. It's critical that our politicians respond. Because if lobbying doesn't work we shall have no choice but to release our rockets.
If I were a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur, who just happened to have a team of rocket scientists working for me, I wouldn't be able to go past White Island. The place looks so nasty and inhospitable that it just cries out for some insane power-crazed madman to take possession of it, and install a huge dungeon, an underground airpstrip, a wall of TV screens, and a swimming pool filled with sharks.
But it takes serious cash for that kind of thing. Being a villain is one thing, but pay your people below the minimum wage and you'll have the Labour Department all over you. Those rocket scientists and security goons don't come cheap, and then there's all the gear: weapons, boiler suits, and food for the cat.
Even if you can find all the cash, and you manage to find an island volcano that some reptilian monster has not already claimed, your work is not yet done. You see, there's a lot of racism and prejudice within the villain community. They don't accept black people or women, and if you're not from central or eastern Europe your only hope is if you can pull off a posh accent. When was the last time you heard a super-villain speaking in a Geordie or Spanish accent? They're very particular about who they'll allow in their club.
When you look at all the barriers in the way, it's a wonder that anyone manages to achieve true villainy. We probably tend to focus on the negatives, but villains are actually productive members of society. They employ people, and make use of resources in inhospitable locations that would otherwise go unused. Their scientific advances, especially in the fields of lasers, rocketry and chemicals, have the potential to help all of mankind, even if their immediate goal is usually to hold the entire planet to ransom.
I know these people often tend to be vicious psychopaths, but who can honestly claim to be perfect?
I really think it's time our politicians cut these guys some slack. The current regulatory regime makes it extraordinarily difficult for someone to start an innovative murderous criminal business involving rockets and other bizarre weapons of mass destruction. The Crimes Act is so full of red tape that it's a wonder anyone even bothers to try.
It's high time something was done about this pressing issue. As Edmund Burke might have said, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to die painfully while strapped to a slowly-moving instrument of torture in the underground volcanic chamber of a megalomaniac madman.
Please, please, lobby your local MP on this issue. It's critical that our politicians respond. Because if lobbying doesn't work we shall have no choice but to release our rockets.
A Day Later
Just a short update on the reactions to my post yesterday expressing disillusionment with the Labour Party. It has attracted a bit of attention in various places, so rather than try to deal with every comment I thought I'd respond to some of the feedback generally.
"This is why I joined the Greens"
I've heard a bit of this in the last 24 hours. I like the Greens, and they have some good people and policies, but I'm not tempted to join their party.
The Greens have a huge advantage over the other main political parties: they have never been in government. Should they find themselves in power in 2014 (which, despite my pessimism about the let's prospects generally, remains a strong possibility), they will be forced to make daily compromises, and to back policies that their party members dislike. They will probably be accused of being sell-outs more than once. If the Greens can deal with the unrealistic expectations of many of their supporters, they may thrive. But they are yet to be tested.
I shall watch all of this with interest, but I will be happy just to spectate and comment.
"You're harming the left's chances of winning in 2014"
I've had a bit of this too, though not as much as I expected. I accept that some party faithful won't like what I have said or written, and some will take the view that even if they agree with what I say, I should have addressed my concerns internally.
The trouble with that theory is I sense a real disconnect between the rank and file and the caucus generally. I don't mean everyone in the caucus, because Labour has some fantastic MPs who go out of their way to listen. But I don't have the ear of Labour's leader, and I'm not sure I have the strength or patience to fight these battles at the committee level, nor am I convinced anyone would listen.
I am also wary when people argue that it's for the greater good that I say nothing rather than stand up against injustice. But when David Shearer in his recent speech to Grey Power went on the attack against beneficiaries, some of the most vulnerable people in our society, I realised he wasn't speaking for me. Why should I pretend it didn't happen? I accept this probably doesn't make me a good party man, but I'm fine with that. I'm not tribal about my politics. I don't owe anyone my unquestioning loyalty.
And calling someone out when they have done wrong is not sabotage.
"You're being overly dramatic"
Sure. Guilty. I just write what I feel. Maybe Labour's supporters should all just pretend everything's fine, and we'll see how that goes.
"This is why I joined the Greens"
I've heard a bit of this in the last 24 hours. I like the Greens, and they have some good people and policies, but I'm not tempted to join their party.
The Greens have a huge advantage over the other main political parties: they have never been in government. Should they find themselves in power in 2014 (which, despite my pessimism about the let's prospects generally, remains a strong possibility), they will be forced to make daily compromises, and to back policies that their party members dislike. They will probably be accused of being sell-outs more than once. If the Greens can deal with the unrealistic expectations of many of their supporters, they may thrive. But they are yet to be tested.
I shall watch all of this with interest, but I will be happy just to spectate and comment.
"You're harming the left's chances of winning in 2014"
I've had a bit of this too, though not as much as I expected. I accept that some party faithful won't like what I have said or written, and some will take the view that even if they agree with what I say, I should have addressed my concerns internally.
The trouble with that theory is I sense a real disconnect between the rank and file and the caucus generally. I don't mean everyone in the caucus, because Labour has some fantastic MPs who go out of their way to listen. But I don't have the ear of Labour's leader, and I'm not sure I have the strength or patience to fight these battles at the committee level, nor am I convinced anyone would listen.
I am also wary when people argue that it's for the greater good that I say nothing rather than stand up against injustice. But when David Shearer in his recent speech to Grey Power went on the attack against beneficiaries, some of the most vulnerable people in our society, I realised he wasn't speaking for me. Why should I pretend it didn't happen? I accept this probably doesn't make me a good party man, but I'm fine with that. I'm not tribal about my politics. I don't owe anyone my unquestioning loyalty.
And calling someone out when they have done wrong is not sabotage.
"You're being overly dramatic"
Sure. Guilty. I just write what I feel. Maybe Labour's supporters should all just pretend everything's fine, and we'll see how that goes.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Why I'm Out
I've reached the point where I really can't be bothered fighting for a Labour government any more. I don't really know what the party stands for, and there is an immense amount of crap going on behind the scenes. It's coming to the fore and it looks ugly.
I also sense a leadership void at the top. I thought David Shearer was the answer to the party's woes, but now I wonder. I don't have any inside knowledge, but the perception is growing that he can't control rogue members of his caucus team. A leader who can't control his team doesn't deserve to lead. I know Shearer's new to the leadership role, but he has to step up. Maybe he will, and perhaps this latest crisis in Labour will bring out some previously unseen strengths in the man.
But I am no longer the optimist. When I hear David Shearer speak he sounds to me more like a National Party leader. I'm sure his advisers are telling him to chase the middle vote, but all we seem to be promised is a slightly softer version of what we already have, and without asset sales. Why is he off chasing the votes of business groups and rural voters, when the main reason why Labour did dismally in 2008 and 2011 is the failure of traditional urban Labour voters to get to the polls? They are typically the poor, the young, Maori and Pasifika. They don't give a crap about the knowledge economy or reforming the Reserve Bank Act. Many of them have figured Labour just doesn't care about them. I'd like to assure them they are wrong, but are they?
I have a fine local MP in Phil Twyford, and I will continue to support him. There are also a lot of amazing and dedicated people within the party, many of whom are immensely frustrated by what they see going on. I admire their commitment and energy, and the huge amount of patience they have. Many of them remain fiercely optimistic in situations where I just fall into despair.
I've only been a member of the party for a short time, so I can perhaps be criticised for being naive. I'm not renouncing my membership, or anything as dramatic as that, nor do I mean this post to sound like a prolonged flounce. I'm just going to stop helping for a while. I have many other uses for the energy that party activism requires me to expend.
I also sense a leadership void at the top. I thought David Shearer was the answer to the party's woes, but now I wonder. I don't have any inside knowledge, but the perception is growing that he can't control rogue members of his caucus team. A leader who can't control his team doesn't deserve to lead. I know Shearer's new to the leadership role, but he has to step up. Maybe he will, and perhaps this latest crisis in Labour will bring out some previously unseen strengths in the man.
But I am no longer the optimist. When I hear David Shearer speak he sounds to me more like a National Party leader. I'm sure his advisers are telling him to chase the middle vote, but all we seem to be promised is a slightly softer version of what we already have, and without asset sales. Why is he off chasing the votes of business groups and rural voters, when the main reason why Labour did dismally in 2008 and 2011 is the failure of traditional urban Labour voters to get to the polls? They are typically the poor, the young, Maori and Pasifika. They don't give a crap about the knowledge economy or reforming the Reserve Bank Act. Many of them have figured Labour just doesn't care about them. I'd like to assure them they are wrong, but are they?
I have a fine local MP in Phil Twyford, and I will continue to support him. There are also a lot of amazing and dedicated people within the party, many of whom are immensely frustrated by what they see going on. I admire their commitment and energy, and the huge amount of patience they have. Many of them remain fiercely optimistic in situations where I just fall into despair.
I've only been a member of the party for a short time, so I can perhaps be criticised for being naive. I'm not renouncing my membership, or anything as dramatic as that, nor do I mean this post to sound like a prolonged flounce. I'm just going to stop helping for a while. I have many other uses for the energy that party activism requires me to expend.
On The Panel
So I was on Radio NZ's The Panel today. It seemed to go fine, until towards the end my co-panelist made a remark about "PC gone mad" or something similar, and I then got so grumpy I lost my train of thought and started blathering nonsense.
Anyway, the podcasts are below if you want a listen.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
How Not To Win Friends And Attract Voters
Duncan Garner asks why does Labour hate David Cunliffe so much?
It appears that a number of Labour caucus members loathe Cunliffe with such a passion that they would prefer he didn't return from his overseas holiday.
Garner reports that sources within the Labour caucus have told him that Cunliffe will never be leader, no matter what happens.
I have no idea what the heck is going on within Labour's caucus. The David Cunliffe I know is affable and personable, and happens to be the most effective communicator within the entire party.
I suppose it's possible he's playing some kind of despicable Machiavellian game, and is actively stirring and causing trouble, and that he's also good at hiding his character flaws from schmucks like me.
But even if everything people are saying about Cunliffe turns out to be true, isn't that something that ought to be dealt with internally within the party, rather than on the pages of a news website?
Maybe some bright sparks within Labour's caucus have figured that the only way they'll get rid of Cunliffe is if they make it known publicly that he'll never lead the party.
It's a bit of a problem, though, when Cunliffe appears more closely ideologically aligned to the party's activist base than the rest of caucus. How exactly do those bright sparks in caucus with their knives out for Cunliffe think the party's base will treat such a brazen attack?
And what about those soft Labour voters who might conclude from all of this that their party is a dead loss?
Or maybe being in opposition is such fun that some within Labour's caucus are keen to do it for another five years.
It appears that a number of Labour caucus members loathe Cunliffe with such a passion that they would prefer he didn't return from his overseas holiday.
Garner reports that sources within the Labour caucus have told him that Cunliffe will never be leader, no matter what happens.
But Cunliffe is not only disliked by his caucus - he is not trusted. So many have told me he never delivers on his promises and is sneaky and lazy.
Sources have told me Shearer was advised to demote him when he became Labour's leader, but Shearer resisted and said he wanted to work with Cunliffe.
That hasn't worked apparently - my sources tell me Shearer is deeply disappointed with Cunliffe and he feels let down. This relationship cannot last.Garner of course will not name his sources, and we could hardly expect him to.
I have no idea what the heck is going on within Labour's caucus. The David Cunliffe I know is affable and personable, and happens to be the most effective communicator within the entire party.
I suppose it's possible he's playing some kind of despicable Machiavellian game, and is actively stirring and causing trouble, and that he's also good at hiding his character flaws from schmucks like me.
But even if everything people are saying about Cunliffe turns out to be true, isn't that something that ought to be dealt with internally within the party, rather than on the pages of a news website?
Maybe some bright sparks within Labour's caucus have figured that the only way they'll get rid of Cunliffe is if they make it known publicly that he'll never lead the party.
It's a bit of a problem, though, when Cunliffe appears more closely ideologically aligned to the party's activist base than the rest of caucus. How exactly do those bright sparks in caucus with their knives out for Cunliffe think the party's base will treat such a brazen attack?
And what about those soft Labour voters who might conclude from all of this that their party is a dead loss?
Or maybe being in opposition is such fun that some within Labour's caucus are keen to do it for another five years.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Prestigious Literary Journal To Get A Makeover
In a surprise move, lawyer and blogger Cathy Odgers has been appointed part-time assistant editor of Landfall, New Zealand's most prestigious literary journal.
Odgers, who is better known by her blogging name Cactus Kate, came to the attention of the journal's publishers after she wrote a scathing blogpost about the literary pedigree of the late and much-loved children's author, Margaret Mahy. In her post Odgers suggested that Mahy was an unremarkable writer whose passing was barely worth noting.
Landfall's editor, Dave Eggleton, confirmed the appointment today.
"To be honest, I was surprised when Ms Odgers accepted our invitation," said Mr Eggleton. "She's a successful lawyer who doesn't even live in New Zealand, and her disdain for our literary heritage suggests she wouldn't even have known who we were.
"When I made the offer to her I had no idea she would accept the role. I'm shocked, actually. Shocked but delighted."
While Ms Odgers has refused to give interviews explaining why she has decided to take up the role, those close to her say she had been looking for an opportunity to contribute to cultural life in New Zealand.
Odgers' admission that she was influenced more by accounting and mathematics textbooks than anything Mahy had written, delighted the publishers of Landfall, Otago University Press.
Editor David Eggleton said they had been looking to broaden the appeal of the journal for some time.
"Landfall has always been known as a bit of a high-brow journal, much loved by the literary set, but barely read by the average man on the street.
"The pages tend to be full of essays, literary commentary, reviews of important local works, and poems by obscure people.
"My god, some of it's dense wordy stuff. I can see why an accounting textbook would appeal more to some. Sometimes I'd just much rather read a Wilbur Smith."
Mr Eggleton said he hoped bringing Odgers in to assist with editing duties would help widen the appeal of the journal.
"If you look at what sells it's generally Harry Potter, or Fifty Shades of Grey, or pulp airport bookshop thrillers written by the likes of James Patterson or Clive Cussler.
"Our focus on New Zealand literature prevents us from celebrating the achievements of these blockbuster authors, so we've decided to break with tradition and focus entirely on popular American and British authors.
"I know some of our traditional readers will be up in arms, but, while someone like Dan Brown may not have the literary finesse of a C K Stead or Patricia Grace, his books are fast-paced and full of action.
"I have read The Da Vinci Code eight times."
Mr Eggleton confirmed rumours that the look and format of the journal would change dramatically.
From September the journal will be published in a new weekly tabloid format, and the publication will include regular columns from a number of literary icons, including Bob Jones, Michael Laws and Murray Deaker.
A new sports section is expected to further broaden the appeal of the journal. Younger readers will also be catered for, with regular features on celebrities and All Blacks.
Mr Eggleton said that Odgers' talents would be utilised in writing reviews on technical textbooks, and essays demolishing the reputations of New Zealand's literary greats, like Katherine Mansfield, Janet Frame and Frank Sargeson.
"Our readers will have no difficulty with our new focus on best-selling foreign authors, once they discover how average and talentless all our great literary heroes actually were.
"We made it very clear in our contract with Ms Odgers that we don't actually expect her to read any New Zealand works. We can hardly expect her to waste her time reading such trash, can we?"
Odgers, who is better known by her blogging name Cactus Kate, came to the attention of the journal's publishers after she wrote a scathing blogpost about the literary pedigree of the late and much-loved children's author, Margaret Mahy. In her post Odgers suggested that Mahy was an unremarkable writer whose passing was barely worth noting.
Landfall's editor, Dave Eggleton, confirmed the appointment today.
"To be honest, I was surprised when Ms Odgers accepted our invitation," said Mr Eggleton. "She's a successful lawyer who doesn't even live in New Zealand, and her disdain for our literary heritage suggests she wouldn't even have known who we were.
"When I made the offer to her I had no idea she would accept the role. I'm shocked, actually. Shocked but delighted."
While Ms Odgers has refused to give interviews explaining why she has decided to take up the role, those close to her say she had been looking for an opportunity to contribute to cultural life in New Zealand.
Odgers' admission that she was influenced more by accounting and mathematics textbooks than anything Mahy had written, delighted the publishers of Landfall, Otago University Press.
Editor David Eggleton said they had been looking to broaden the appeal of the journal for some time.
"Landfall has always been known as a bit of a high-brow journal, much loved by the literary set, but barely read by the average man on the street.
"The pages tend to be full of essays, literary commentary, reviews of important local works, and poems by obscure people.
"My god, some of it's dense wordy stuff. I can see why an accounting textbook would appeal more to some. Sometimes I'd just much rather read a Wilbur Smith."
Mr Eggleton said he hoped bringing Odgers in to assist with editing duties would help widen the appeal of the journal.
"If you look at what sells it's generally Harry Potter, or Fifty Shades of Grey, or pulp airport bookshop thrillers written by the likes of James Patterson or Clive Cussler.
"Our focus on New Zealand literature prevents us from celebrating the achievements of these blockbuster authors, so we've decided to break with tradition and focus entirely on popular American and British authors.
"I know some of our traditional readers will be up in arms, but, while someone like Dan Brown may not have the literary finesse of a C K Stead or Patricia Grace, his books are fast-paced and full of action.
"I have read The Da Vinci Code eight times."
Mr Eggleton confirmed rumours that the look and format of the journal would change dramatically.
From September the journal will be published in a new weekly tabloid format, and the publication will include regular columns from a number of literary icons, including Bob Jones, Michael Laws and Murray Deaker.
A new sports section is expected to further broaden the appeal of the journal. Younger readers will also be catered for, with regular features on celebrities and All Blacks.
Mr Eggleton said that Odgers' talents would be utilised in writing reviews on technical textbooks, and essays demolishing the reputations of New Zealand's literary greats, like Katherine Mansfield, Janet Frame and Frank Sargeson.
"Our readers will have no difficulty with our new focus on best-selling foreign authors, once they discover how average and talentless all our great literary heroes actually were.
"We made it very clear in our contract with Ms Odgers that we don't actually expect her to read any New Zealand works. We can hardly expect her to waste her time reading such trash, can we?"
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Why The Polls Are Bad For Labour
Another round of polls is upon us, and the news is all good for National and dire for Labour and the Greens.
With the last Roy Morgan Poll also showing National up, it's fair to assume that public opinion has shifted once more in favour of National.
Why is this? Everyone will have their own theory, but I'm not particularly surprised that Labour are down. They haven't really done much in recent weeks to justify a rise in the polls, and their leader's performances to date have been tentative and unconvincing.
David Shearer may well grow into the leader's role, and I have previously written that he needs to be given at least a year to perform, so I'm not about to call for his replacement. On the other hand, it would be nice to hear him speak about something, anything, with a bit of conviction. When David Shearer gives one of his big speeches about how New Zealand could be like Finland or Denmark, he may as well be talking about Narnia. It means nothing to most traditional Labour voters.
Above all Labour must focus on the issues that influence voting decisions, if they wish to win in 2014. Most people hate asset sales, but they hated them in 2011 when National announced the asset sales policy. It's clear that most voters in the 2011 election weren't motivated by the issue of asset sales, because if they had been National would not have been returned to office. Labour's decision to focus most of its energy on forcing a referendum on asset sales, rather than on winning back the people who didn't bother voting for Labour last time, seems risky.
Labour Party strategists will be hoping the reality of the asset sales plan eventually dawns on voters, and that opposition to the plan results in a shift in support towards the centre-left. But many of the people who traditionally vote Labour but didn't in 2008 or 2011 will have more important things on their minds. Things like affordable housing, the rising cost of living, and unemployment. Those are the issues Labour must target relentlessly.
I don't subscribe to the view that Labour is ultimately doomed, but the party has lost its way and appears to be unable to clearly explain to voters what it stands for. What it needs now above all else is strong leadership, and a renewed focus on the things that matter to those traditional Labour supporters who didn't bother to vote in 2008 or 2011.
With the last Roy Morgan Poll also showing National up, it's fair to assume that public opinion has shifted once more in favour of National.
Why is this? Everyone will have their own theory, but I'm not particularly surprised that Labour are down. They haven't really done much in recent weeks to justify a rise in the polls, and their leader's performances to date have been tentative and unconvincing.
David Shearer may well grow into the leader's role, and I have previously written that he needs to be given at least a year to perform, so I'm not about to call for his replacement. On the other hand, it would be nice to hear him speak about something, anything, with a bit of conviction. When David Shearer gives one of his big speeches about how New Zealand could be like Finland or Denmark, he may as well be talking about Narnia. It means nothing to most traditional Labour voters.
Above all Labour must focus on the issues that influence voting decisions, if they wish to win in 2014. Most people hate asset sales, but they hated them in 2011 when National announced the asset sales policy. It's clear that most voters in the 2011 election weren't motivated by the issue of asset sales, because if they had been National would not have been returned to office. Labour's decision to focus most of its energy on forcing a referendum on asset sales, rather than on winning back the people who didn't bother voting for Labour last time, seems risky.
Labour Party strategists will be hoping the reality of the asset sales plan eventually dawns on voters, and that opposition to the plan results in a shift in support towards the centre-left. But many of the people who traditionally vote Labour but didn't in 2008 or 2011 will have more important things on their minds. Things like affordable housing, the rising cost of living, and unemployment. Those are the issues Labour must target relentlessly.
I don't subscribe to the view that Labour is ultimately doomed, but the party has lost its way and appears to be unable to clearly explain to voters what it stands for. What it needs now above all else is strong leadership, and a renewed focus on the things that matter to those traditional Labour supporters who didn't bother to vote in 2008 or 2011.
Friday, August 3, 2012
The Macdonald Trial: What The Jury Didn't Know
With news that Ewen Macdonald is unlikely to win the Manawatu Farmer of the Year Award in the foreseeable future, the question people are now asking is whether the jury got it wrong in his murder trial.
Thanks to numerous crime and forensics TV shows we are all now experts in criminal investigations. As a result of shows like Criminal Minds we now know that a person who commits cruelty against animals and likes to set fires is a high risk of turning into a serial killer.
If we apply this reasoning it is clear who killed Scott Guy. Special Agents Hotchner, Morgan and Rossi would be in no doubt as to who the murderer was.
It's a shame that jury members don't get the opportunity to watch episodes of shows like CSI and Criminal Minds while they are deliberating. I know some people say they're only TV shows, and that the real job of investigating crime is not even remotely as efficient or speedy as it appears on the telly, but I reckon that's just a cop-out. The make-believe crime-fighters on our TV screens are making the real ones look bad, so it's time the real ones lifted their game. We expect immediate turnaround on those DNA results, and we expect each lab person to be an expert in every field of science and technology.
And another thing: why are most of our real cops and detectives so average-looking? I don't wish to sound sexist, but it can't be a coincidence that the women characters on CSI solving crimes in record time are all slim, well-dressed and sexy. Maybe the police need to review their recruiting practices.
Back to the Macdonald jury. They knew about the damage to the Guy home, but they didn't know the full extent of the charges Macdonald was facing. They were only entitled to consider the evidence before them, and that evidence did not point to Macdonald being the murderer. So while the verdict was arguably "correct", it doesn't mean Macdonald didn't kill Scott Guy.
It now seems as if the Crown case was lost when the Crown failed to convince the judge that details of Macdonald's various nefarious activities ought to be admissible. Had the jury had evidence of all the offences Macdonald has now pleaded guilty to, their verdict may well have been different, but that is mere speculation and we won't ever know for sure.
But let's not lose sight of the real villains here. If the police had been as efficient as the CSI guys they would have nailed the killer of Scott Guy within a day.
Thanks to numerous crime and forensics TV shows we are all now experts in criminal investigations. As a result of shows like Criminal Minds we now know that a person who commits cruelty against animals and likes to set fires is a high risk of turning into a serial killer.
If we apply this reasoning it is clear who killed Scott Guy. Special Agents Hotchner, Morgan and Rossi would be in no doubt as to who the murderer was.
It's a shame that jury members don't get the opportunity to watch episodes of shows like CSI and Criminal Minds while they are deliberating. I know some people say they're only TV shows, and that the real job of investigating crime is not even remotely as efficient or speedy as it appears on the telly, but I reckon that's just a cop-out. The make-believe crime-fighters on our TV screens are making the real ones look bad, so it's time the real ones lifted their game. We expect immediate turnaround on those DNA results, and we expect each lab person to be an expert in every field of science and technology.
And another thing: why are most of our real cops and detectives so average-looking? I don't wish to sound sexist, but it can't be a coincidence that the women characters on CSI solving crimes in record time are all slim, well-dressed and sexy. Maybe the police need to review their recruiting practices.
Back to the Macdonald jury. They knew about the damage to the Guy home, but they didn't know the full extent of the charges Macdonald was facing. They were only entitled to consider the evidence before them, and that evidence did not point to Macdonald being the murderer. So while the verdict was arguably "correct", it doesn't mean Macdonald didn't kill Scott Guy.
It now seems as if the Crown case was lost when the Crown failed to convince the judge that details of Macdonald's various nefarious activities ought to be admissible. Had the jury had evidence of all the offences Macdonald has now pleaded guilty to, their verdict may well have been different, but that is mere speculation and we won't ever know for sure.
But let's not lose sight of the real villains here. If the police had been as efficient as the CSI guys they would have nailed the killer of Scott Guy within a day.
Community Law Centres Under Threat
The Government has decided to change the way it funds Community Law Centres. There are 26 Community Law Centres, and they provide legal services to those who can't afford a lawyer.
The Justice Ministry wants to establish a "two tier" system, by reducing the number of Community Law Centres to 10, and setting up an 0800 number and website.
One of the centres threatened with closure is the one closest to me, the Waitakere Community Law Centre. Poverty is a real problem in parts of West Auckland, and the closure of the centre would be a blow to the community.
The funding changes will probably save money, but may result in some people losing access to legal services.
Many people who use the Community Law Centres don't have access to a phone or the internet. Many have language difficulties, disabilities, or mental health issues. An almost inevitable result of these changes will be a reduction in the quality of service being provided.
The changes are being driven by the desire to cut costs, but they also tell us a lot about the Government's priorities. They are happy to pay tens of millions of dollars to Australian investment bankers to help sell our public assets, and to give billions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthy to help them pay for the shares they will buy in those assets, but can they spare even a few million dollars to ensure those already at the bottom of the heap have access to basic legal representation?
If the Government cared about protecting the legal rights of the poor and disadvantaged, then the money would be found to maintain the chain of Community Law Centres.
The Justice Ministry wants to establish a "two tier" system, by reducing the number of Community Law Centres to 10, and setting up an 0800 number and website.
One of the centres threatened with closure is the one closest to me, the Waitakere Community Law Centre. Poverty is a real problem in parts of West Auckland, and the closure of the centre would be a blow to the community.
The funding changes will probably save money, but may result in some people losing access to legal services.
Many people who use the Community Law Centres don't have access to a phone or the internet. Many have language difficulties, disabilities, or mental health issues. An almost inevitable result of these changes will be a reduction in the quality of service being provided.
The changes are being driven by the desire to cut costs, but they also tell us a lot about the Government's priorities. They are happy to pay tens of millions of dollars to Australian investment bankers to help sell our public assets, and to give billions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthy to help them pay for the shares they will buy in those assets, but can they spare even a few million dollars to ensure those already at the bottom of the heap have access to basic legal representation?
If the Government cared about protecting the legal rights of the poor and disadvantaged, then the money would be found to maintain the chain of Community Law Centres.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
The Slippery Slope
Minutes of Meeting of Aotearoa Man/Bunny Love Association
(AMBLA)
Held at Grey Lynn Community Hall on 31 July 2012 at 3:00pm
Present: A. Spanks (President), B. Thizbandall (Treasurer), S. Chung (Secretary), T. Lupus, X. Wangbanks, P. Peacock, D. Smilley, N. Tako, B Hitler.
Apologies: A Khan, L Lemburstraveras, N Osferatu.
Approval of Minutes:
The minutes of the previous meeting were unanimously approved as a true and accurate record.
President’s Report:
The President, A. Spanks, reported to the meeting on progress to amalgamate AMBLA with the North Auckland Citizens and Ratepayers Association. He explained that despite some initial promising developments, progress had slowed. He said he suspected this was due to suspicions by some Citizens and Ratepayers Association members that AMBLA was not wholly committed to animal welfare best practice.
Treasurer’s Report:
The Treasurer, B. Thizbandall, reported that AMBLA reserves as at 1 July 2012 were $3,670.20. The Bunny Love Picnic held in the Auckland Domain in the first weekend of July also raised $532.00, and resulted in much publicity for the association. After court fines, vets’ fees and lawyers' bills, the net loss from the event was $13,243.66. Once again, members will be asked to make up the shortfall.
Other Business:
The Marriage Equality Bill before Parliament was discussed at length at the meeting. A number of views were expressed, and members were generally of the view that the passing of the bill would open up the opportunity for man/rabbit relationships to achieve full legal status.
T. Lupus said it was a disgrace that his beloved black pet rabbit, Mr. Wiggles, was not permitted to adopt children, or to apply for government benefits. T. Lupus then became emotional, and claimed that AMBLA had a shameful history of only standing up for the rights of lovers of white rabbits, not black ones. T. Lupus was removed from the meeting, and subsequently self-immolated in the lobby of the hall using a lighter and can of petrol.
N. Tako proposed that AMBLA lobby the local government MP to advocate for man/rabbit relationships to be given equal legal status to marriage under existing laws. D. Smilley said this did not go nearly far enough. He said that anyone who wanted to marry anything or anyone should be entitled to do so.
S. Chung then pointed out that the sanctity of the man/rabbit bond was profound, and that anything less than everyone being forced to marry their animals, at gunpoint if necessary, would be selling AMBLA members short.
A vote was then called for.
Members also held a minute’s silence in memory of a recently deceased member, T. Lupus.
Meeting Closed:
Motion: That the AMBLA executive lobby the government to demand the forcible marriage of men to animals, and the legal dissolution of all non man-animal marriages, and that a campaign of terror, including attacks on shopping malls and kindergartens, be waged if AMBLA's equality demands go unheeded by politicians.
Moved: S. Chung
Seconded A. Spanks
The motion was unanimously carried.
Members also held a minute’s silence in memory of a recently deceased member, T. Lupus.
Meeting Closed:
The meeting was closed at 4:07pm, and members then descended into a vile and despicable rumpus involving naked flesh and animal fur, amidst much squealing, groaning and cries for mercy. Tea and biscuits were then served.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)