March 2011

via the tipline

via the Tipline

A cartoon on the state of the Labour Party. Clearly I am not the only person who thinks that Labour is a Mickey Mouse outfit.

There is nothing quite like a pinko punch-up.

Russell Brown has abandoned any pretense of blogging about his mother’s fabourite lamb-chop recipes:

A leadership change six months out from polling day would not look convincing to the electorate. But neither, it must be said, would a party led by Goff. In the wake of the Mt Albert by-election – which demonstrated a terrible lack of skill in National’s lower ranks – Labour had a high point from which to operate. Instead, its leader has looked uncertain and hesitant; unable to convert political opportunities or express a convincing vision. It’s not hard to see him entering the election as hobbled as Bill English was in 2002.

The shame of it is that this is not only a time when Labour needed to execute well, but one when the country needed an effective, aggressive Opposition. What we have now is simply a shambles.

Danyl doesn’t mince words:

Goff was on Q & A yesterday arguing that he couldn’t stand Darren Hughes down because this would prejudice the outcome of the police investigation, and various pundits and commentators have argued that standing down a politician before they’ve been found guilty of anything denies them natural justice and holds them to an impossibly higher standard than other members of society.

All of which is rubbish. When the director of a hospital, or a police commander, or the principal of a school is informed by the police that one of their staff members is being investigated they stand their doctor/policeman/teacher down pending the outcome, especially if the undisputed facts around the charges cast grave doubts on the judgement of the accused person – they may even be sacked prior to charges or a court trial. The same standard applies throughout society. If a company director learns his accountant is being investigated for fraud they don’t just leave them in charge of the company books on the grounds that it might prejudice the investigation if they don’t. That’s just silly – no one else holds themselves to this arbitrary standard of justice that Goff has just invented.

and again after Clare Curran blogged about how terrible the media were:

…I guess Curran would say this is because the UK media is so fair and high-minded – but my alternate hypothesis is that in the UK they have a competent opposition party, while Curran and her colleagues are Really. Fucking. Terrible. I know this isn’t very constructive, but to stop being Really. Fucking. Terrible they need to acknowledge that they are, and make HUGE changes to the way their party formulates policy, and strategy, and communicates with the media and the public.

They seem to be stuck with Goff. Fine. Then they need to change something else. Maybe they should hire someone from the Australian or UK Labour Party to review the election loss and debacle of the last two years and have them make recommendations on how to reform the party. Maybe they should just replace King and run the party on more of a co-leader model. I don’t really know.

I do know they can’t just drift towards electoral oblivion moaning about how mean the media are. The country needs an effective opposition and we’re paying these clowns a huge sum of money to perform this role. They have an obligation to the rest of the nation to do their fucking jobs.

Lew at KiwiPolitico likewise gets stuck in:

If you don’t give the media a compelling reason to care, don’t be surprised if they don’t. If you don’t provide them with something powerful to cover, they’ll go with scandal and innuendo every time. In the fable of the scorpion and the frog, the scorpion stings the frog. Why? To do so is in its nature. Frogs, while unable to prevent scorpions from stinging, would at least be wise to deny them the opportunity.

With that in mind, some of the following in this case might also have helped:

• Have frontbench MPs not do stupid stuff which appeals to the public (not the media) sense of scandalous voyeurism;
• Have your party leader do more than the absolute minimum possible in response to said scandal;
• In doing more than the absolute minimum, have the party leader respond in just one move rather than in several successive ineffectual steps which maximise the coverage across several news cycles, including a weekend leading into a Parliamentary recess when political news is going to be thin on the ground anyway;
• Ensure the party president is sufficiently apprised of said scandal that he finds out about it by some means other than reading the papers;
• Even in the incredibly unlikely event that you can’t do the preceding, at least have your party leader and president sit down together for long enough to agree on a unified position, so as not to give credence to rumours of a leadership challenge.

It’s not that Labour didn’t give the media something to cover, so the media covered the Darren Hughes scandal by default: it’s that Labour gave the media the Darren Hughes scandal to cover, covered in juicy scandal juice, and then didn’t give them anything more compelling to cover instead. (As if there is something more compelling than a sexual investigation into a male frontbench MP’s alleged dalliance with a teenaged male youth MP in the house of the deputy leader after a Parliamentary function, which was covered up for two weeks by the party leader.)

Even Chris Trotter now feels compelled to speak: (for some reason the post has disappeared, but no matter RSS still has it)

IT’S STAGGERING, the unabashed cynicism of so many of Labour’s defenders. As rumour builds on rumour and the indefatigable ferrets of the Blogosphere bore down deep into the political laundry basket, Labour apologists dismiss the political ramifications of the Hughes Affair with a Gallic shrug. “Goff’s perfectly safe”, they say with world-weary certitude, “because who the hell would want to take over the job now? Far better to let Goff lose the election and pick things up from there.”

It’s only when you begin to deconstruct this statement that the true extent of these apologists’ cynical indifference to the fate of labour’s supporters becomes apparent. All that appears to matter to the Labour caucus and its mouthpieces is who gets what in the aftermath of John Key’s crushing default victory in November.

And be in no doubt, it will be a default victory. Key will win: not because he has the best policies (or, indeed, any coherent policies at all); not because he’s got the best team (between them the parties of the Centre Left could bring together a Cabinet of outstanding quality); not because he’s in some mystic communion with the zeitgeist (Key and his colleagues represent a view of the world that is fast disappearing everywhere except among the rump rightists of the Anglo-Saxon world); he will win because, bluntly, his principal opponents in the Labour Party are too tired, too timid, too inexperienced or simply too selfish to take the fight to him.

Trotter is clearly imploring a putsch against Goff. Forcing the shirkers in caucus to join the rebellion for the good of the party.

Those Labour politicians with both the capability and the will to lead should recoil from any suggestion that their best response to the Hughes Affair is to simply bide their time. As social-democrats, as promoters of democratic socialism (which is still Labour’s official political mission) they should assess as dispassionately as they can the full ramifications of Goff’s handling of the Hughes Affair, on Labour’s election prospects. And if they come to the conclusion that it was inept, and that keeping him on as leader will significantly reduce Labour’s chances of success, then they should start counting heads.

Because, even in the most selfish and deeply cynical terms, allowing National to win by default is a disastrous strategy. A Labour Party which begins to be perceived (justifiably or unjustifiably) as morally compromised will attract the votes of fewer and fewer New Zealanders. And a caucus driven by nothing more than personal ambition is bound to become increasingly reckless in its internal jockeying for power.
If all that matters is climbing to the top of the greasy pole, then increasingly the only skill that Labour politicians will seek to master is how to ascend. New Zealand Labour will become more and more like Australian Labor: a mechanism for the identification and elevation of alternative political (but not ideological) leaders. Its days as the people’s first choice for securing social and economic justice will be over.

In a great voting winning strategy Len Brown has decided to tax the crap out of private transport, meaning only the wealthy will be able to afford to drive. he has many nefarious schemes to do this including congestion charges, taxes on private transport, regional fuel taxes and perhaps most nefarious of all he will stop funding roads.

The Auckland Council’s spatial plan proposes funding public transport improvements with congestion charges, network access charges, a regional fuel tax and levies on private parking spaces.

Sure, this will win him a lot of votes in the chardonnay socialist parts of central auckland but will cost him a lot in his power base of South Auckland.

Phil Goff says that his leadership is under no threat because of the Darren Hughes affair and that he has nothing to be sorry for in his handling of the affair. I wonder perhaps if he has thought through all the implications of the timetable and all the events involved in this.

1. On March 2, after a night of drunken debauchery in various bars around Wellington, a young man is seen running naked from the Deputy Leader, Annette King’s house, a house where the Chief Whip, Darren Hughes, also lives.
2. The Police become involved in an investigation and Phil Goff says he was informed “shortly thereafter”.
3. Some three weeks later when media become aware of the impending scandal Goff’s office at first denies a Labour MP was involved.
4. Then under increasing scrutiny Phil Goff and Darren Hughes announce some of the details. Phil Goff says he has known for just two weeks. He later retracts this.
5. Phil Goff says he stands by his man.
6. On Thursday 24 March Phil Goff says he won’t accept Darren Hughes resignation after it is offered.
7. On Friday 25 March Phil Goff does accept Darren Hughes resignation after the “naked man” details become public.
8. During all of this he has not said one word about it all to party president Andrew Little.

Given all that has happened and all we know so far it is almost inconceivable that Goff can believe that his hands are clean. Firstly his office lied to the media, then they attempted to cover it all up. All the while they were hoping it would go away. All of that is pretty dire but then you have to also look at what happened the night of 17 March at the Press Gallery fundraiser where a debate and auction were held to raise funds for the Red Cross.

This is 15 days after the events that have brought about the downfall of Darren Hughes, it is after the time that Phil Goff originally said he knew about it and it is also after the time of his revised recollection of when he was told. So what I hear you say. Well the moot of the debate was “Politics is a grubby business” and Annette King and Darren Hughes were on the affirmative team that won.

What on earth was Goff, King and Hughes thinking. Participating in a debate with the moot “Politics is a grubby business” when there is an active Police investigation under-way into a rather tawdry and sordid occurence some two weeks earlier? Not only that, the debate was performed in front of the entire press gallery, a gallery that later Goff’s office would lie to about the investigation underway.

i wonder if there is any video footage of the fateful night, in particular the arguments the Annette King and Darren Hughes put together to help affirm that indeed, “Politics is a grubby business.”

While we can all laugh at watching the tragedy that is Phil Goff, have a reall good laugh at this comedy sketch of John Key and Shaun Wayne.

I love the jokes about the BMWs and Helen Clark.

Watch the pinkos snarl and spit over this.

via the tipline:

I have been wanting a .17HMR rifle for some time and have been looking around and canvassing opinion.

I also have one preference now I am a bit older and more fussy and don’t like sharing. I wanted a left-hand rifle.

After much discussion, some helpful, most not, I decided to listen to “Zee” and the good folk at Hamills Manukau and get a Savage 93R17GLV. Basic specs are:

• Left Hand Rimfire Rifle
• 17 HMR
• 21″ Heavy Barrel
• Bolt Action
• Walnut Stock
• Blue Finish
• Accutrigger
• 5 Rds

On top of this I got the fellas at Gunworks Canterbury to add a suppressor package to it. They did a fantastic job on the barrel including creating, in the unlikely event I will dispense with the suppressor, a nice cap to go on the thread and also created a nice target crown to the end of the barrel.

The can adds a bit of weight but it isn’t noticeable on the end of the heavy barrel.

I also added a Remington Bi-pod and a Tasco World Series 4-16c 40mm Scope with a Vital Zone Reticle.

This is the end result.

The rifle has an AccuTrigger. I haven’t used one of these before but after spending the afternoon sighting it in I must say I am now a fan.

The AccuTrigger gives the shooter the flexibility to set the trigger pull to individual preference without have to pay a gunsmith to adjust it. Also, even when adjusted to its lowest setting, the AccuTrigger is completely safe and cannot accidentally discharge during normal use from being jarred or dropped when maintained and adjusted as intended. A newly designed teardrop safety is an additional feature on rifles with the AccuTrigger. It provides for better acquisition of the safety button and operates smoother and quieter. Enhanced accuracy is another benefit of the Savage AccuTrigger, is the crisp, clean light trigger pull allows the shooter to maximize the accuracy potential of the rifle.

Yes, I like the AccuTrigger. The break after the AccuTrigger is depressed is crisp with no discernable jerk. Having gotten used to the apalling trigger on my old Ruger 10/22, this trigger is pure pleasure.

Sighting in was straight forward and right out of the box the groups were acceptable at 100m. The more I shot the better it got. I was running the rod through after each shot at the start but eventually I put 20 shots through uncleaned.

I was still getting used to the sight picture and the AccuTrigger when I posted this little group at 100m (left).

The rifle was tight to start with but as more sots went through items like the bolt travel, mag release and magazine load got easier.

I found one little annoyance, but that may be me, and that was the last round in the mag seemed to hang on the load as the bolt travelled forward. I will fire a few more rounds though before saying that it is a problem.

All in all though I am very impressed with the accuracy of this rifle out of the box, and i haven’t even started playing with the trigger yet and certainly haven’t yet mastered all the foibles of the scope and rifle at various distances.

With a rifle that is capable of hitting rabbit sized targets out past 200m it will pay to have a decent rangefinder though and also to practice shoots at that range so I can better judge the required reticle alignment.

The suppressor cuts out the sound of the rifle discharging but because the 17g and 20g bullets still travel at super-sonic speeds there is still a noticeable crack.

Very happy with the first outing though and I will pop in and tell “Zee” and folk at Hamills all about it. If you want good friendly expert advice without the poor attitude of some in the industry the Hamills in Manukau is the place to go. There is no snobbery nor is there the chain-store attitude of some other outlets. basically they are bloody good blokes…and Zee’s missus a good bloke too!

Apparently the Herald on Sunday has learned of previous claims about Darren Hughes.

Former Labour MP Darren Hughes has been the subject of allegations about another late-night incident after a boozy evening out.

The Herald on Sunday has learned of claims about Hughes and a worker from a party leader’s office who were in a group drinking at a 2009 Christmas party.

The staffer is understood to have been asked by Hughes to carry on drinking, and was then the subject of a sexual approach. The young man objected and left.

Well probably because David Fisher bothered to read Whaleoil and use Google.

On December 24 2009 I blogged about the “Private Dancer” episode.

Par­lia­ment has wound up and the annual free drinks, well free to peo­ple the likes of Dar­ren, are to be had at the Press Gallery Piss Up. This is leg­endary this piss up and rules are the usual, what goes on tour, stays on tour. Except the “tour” was wind­ing up when our young day-walker Dar­ren spied a likely can­di­date for a night of passion.

He sug­gested to the young impres­sion­able staffer that they join him in his room for drinks, the oth­ers will be along shortly. The young impres­sion­able staffer thinks this great, free drinks paid for by an MP, fan­tas­tic, and tags along with Darren.

They arrive at the room and enter, the young impres­sion­able staffer has a drink, Dar­ren has a drink, no-one else has turned up. More drinks are had and more time has elapsed, the impres­sion­able young staffer is start­ing to think this is a bit strange, still no one else has arrived. A few more drink and then surprise!

Our young day-walker decides that the time is right and plops him­self down in the lap of the impres­sion­able young staffer, who is now sit­ting bolt upright with alarm.

You see the impres­sion­able young staffer thought he was there just for drinks, lit­tle did they know that the day-walker Dar­ren had other thoughts. The impres­sion­able young staffer makes hur­ried excuses and bolts out the door shaken by the encounter.

On 31 December 2009 in my annual awards I awarded Darren Hughes:

The Fred Astaire Award: for ser­vices to danc­ing — awarded to Dar­ren “Pri­vate Dancer” Hughes.

In my Politicianary of Politician nicknames DarrenHughes has been called “Private Dancer” since then.

So when David Fisher says in the Herald on Sunday he has learned of previous claims, what he means is that he read it on Whaleoil over a year ago. What he could have said in the article is that the staffer concerned now works for a Labour MP and may well be on leave in order to shut him up.

One thing this does show however is that the modus operandi hasn’t changed.

One of the really effective campaigners on the left agrees with this blog and what Labour should be doing. A half decent operator would have the National Party’s collective goolies in the mangle and winding up the pressure. New Zealand’s economy is rooted, and the men in charge, Bill English and John Key have not been put under any pressure.

If Labour was doing an effective job, Key and his ministers would be under pressure to explain why we borrow billions to cover up the fact there is no economic plan. They would rather put the boot into the 350,000 Kiwis on benefits who are expected to compete for the 20,000 mostly minimal-waged jobs on offer.

Any fool can see it’s not the people on benefits who are to blame but this useless Government, which hasn’t got a single decent idea on creating employment.

It really beggars belief that Phil Goff and his staff have been so inept they haven’t managed to hang the lack of job creation on National. National are like a house of cards, kept up in the polls due to the popularity of the leader, not the competence of the administration.

If Labour want to win back power they need a new leader, a president who is full time and fills the coffers for the campaign, and someone like Matt or Conor Roberts running the campaign.