July 2011

Couldn’t hurt…could it?

Watch for the surprise at the end.

Citizen A this week Martyn Bradbury hosts the debate between Scoop Co-Editor Selwyn Manning and Whaleoil blogster Cameron Slater.

Issue 1: Discussions on suicide and child poverty this week saw the Maori Party’s MP Te Ururoa Flavell suggest those who take their own lives should be buried away from others. Is there any merit to this seemingly awful approach that Flavell advocates? And are those on the bottom being looked after or not?

Issue 2: Prime Minister John Key visits Washington and all he got was the lousy US Marines – The panel assesses Key’s romp around the USA and analyses his comments regarding Norway and Afghanistan.

Issue 3: Is the Rugby World Cup going to be an economic fizzier for Auckland, and New Zealand?

Plus there’s a final word from each of the panel.

Citizen-A broadcasts on Sky channel 89 & Freeview channel 21 on Thursday and Sunday evenings. Also, check out Bomber onFacebook…

The show broadcasts weekly on Triangle/Stratos TV and on Scoop.

Israel’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon explains the historical facts relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The video explains where the terms “West Bank”, “occupied territories” and “67 Borders” originated and how they are incorrectly used and applied.

A continuation of the series thinking ahead until after the Election.

The current polls mean anything other than a massive National victory is about as believable as the fairies at the bottom of Phil Goff’s garden. This opens up at least three places for new ministers after the election, and perhaps more in the event that ACT fail to get enough MPs to have influence or chose to have a big sook and sit on the cross benchers.

Three current Ministers, Mapp, Te Heu Heu and Power retire at the election. This theoretically opens up three gaps, and perhaps more if John Key decides to demote any under performing ministers, or those caught up in ethics or sex scandals.

John Key chooses the National Cabinet, and from what this blog can gather there are going to be a large number of very disappointed people who entered parliament before or at the 2005 election.

Chief Whip Chris Tremain appears likely to take the step up after a solid tenure in the Whips office. Chris’ actual business ownership background helps when considering how few of caucus actually have put their own money on the line and employed people at their own risk. He has built strong links across the house through the parliamentary rugby team, and could well be the go to guy if negotiations with other parties are required later in the term.
Chris’ fantastic ability to turn a red seat very blue was noted by David Farrar and points to him potentially having a role selling tough National policies, as he is one of the few that actually understands strategy and front foots difficult issues rather than hiding.

The liberal media have been talking up Chester Borrows, who is very much on the wet/pinko/blue liberal faction of caucus, because he will replace media darling and pinko standard bearer Simon Power, although Tony Ryall seems to have the front running as the leader of this faction and it is my bet that the media will start talking about him as the next best hope for national after John Key. This blog remains unconvinced that National needs more pinkos or wets in cabinet when they are borrowing $380m a week and being tough on crime has been shown to be popular and to work.

Chester came up with a sensible compromise on the anti smacking issue, but around the house his stature is probably greater in the eyes of the media than in the eyes of his colleagues. Wanganui is a seat Labour need to win back if they are to win power, and Chester could lose his seat in 2014.

The Prime Minister will have to look to bring in more women so he doesn’t get criticised in the same way National will be hammered for having only 16 women out of 58 MPs, and so few new women entering parliament. This gives both Jo Goodhew and Amy Adams a potential head start on their competitors.
Jo is similar to Chris Tremain in that she can win votes and get swing voters backing her. She had the single biggest swing in the 2005 election, ousting Jim Sutton by close to 7000 votes, after Jim won it in 2002 by 6500 votes. Unfortunately for Jo she may be asked to run the Whips office so someone with experience remains there if Chris Tremain is elevated.

Amy Adams has managed to impress many, especially in the media where she has apparently masked her right wing tendencies to come across as very much part of the wet/pinko/blue liberal wing. She is known to be close to Simon Power, which is part of Amy’s real problem. Given her high positive ratings it is likely she will be promoted, but how far she goes is a unsure. Her indiscretion is legendary. At the beginning of her first term she was telling caucus colleagues what role they would play in her administration in her first term as Prime Minister, and openly talking of backing Power over Collins in a leadership battle. Unlike many successful women politicians Amy also seems more in touch with the modern ladette culture, and can drink and curse with the best of them and often remaining the last one standing.

As highlighted earlier, this term is likely to become unruly for National as there will be many who see themselves as perfect for Cabinet who are passed over for peers. Almost all of those in parliament before 2005 fit in this category, and it is easy to see objections to most of the rest of the 2005 in take. None of these people have really seized the day and made an indelible impression in politics.

Unfortunately the same can probably be said about most of the rest of the 2005 intake. Almost all came in with good credentials and high hopes but have probably not done enough to inspire promotions. Many are simply too old, and others faces don’t fit. David Bennett may be an outside chance but his womanising when colleagues are working is apparently a huge point against him in the eyes of the PM.

Some of the 2008 intake may make the step up straight after the election, but may be told to wait their turn. Some will likely never get a turn as they have blotted their copy book badly, including Nikki Kaye for getting off side with the party line and giving Nick Smith a hard time in the house, and Melissa Lee for the shambolic Mt Albert by election.

Men like Simon Bridges and Todd McClay have been talked of as potential candidates to step up, and may well do so but not immediately post election.
This all assumes that the Prime Minister decides not to demote anyone else from cabinet to bring new blood through for the good of the people.

George W. Bush was a good president in many respects but in others he was a wasteful, free spending looter of the economy.

The graph below from the New York Times shows why. A similar graph here would look really sick for Labour. It would highlight Clark and Cullen screwing up our economy badly by locking in spending and blowing large cash amounts of white elephants that need comprehensive feeding plans like Kiwirail.

Of course harden trolls and pinko apologists will attempt to describe tax cuts as spending. They aren’t. And this post is about the validity or otherwise of tax cuts. It is about locked in spending forcing the hand of future government.

Winston Peters, New Zealand’s most corrupt politician, has endorsed MMP:

MMP has the approval of New Zealand First, ahead of its annual conference in Auckland this weekend.

The system will be the subject of a referendum at this year’s election which could see it retained, or lead to voters having a chance to choose a new approach.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says MMP is the system his party believes in because it’s so much better than the alternatives.

Great, now more than ever there is a reason for Kiwis to vote for change at the referendum.

from Boing Boing

Graham Linehan (co-creator of such beloved TV as Father Ted and The IT Crowd) asked Channel 4 why they hadn’t aired the most recent Daily Show in the UK, given that the episode deals with the News of the World scandal. The answer he got floored him: as it is against the law in the UK to use Parliamentary footage for satirical purposes, the Daily Show episode in question couldn’t be aired here.

The issue is Parliamentary Copyright, a weird concept in UK law that gives Parliament (not the public) ownership over its publications, utterances, and so on. Parliamentary copyright means that it’s illegal to print books containing complete records of Parliament without Parliament’s permission (contrast this with the US, where anything produced by the federal government is presumptively in the public domain, belonging to all people).

We tend to think of Parliamentary Copyright as a kind of innocuous peccadillo — after all, the Clerk of Parliament gave a license (retroactively) to the activists who made They Work For You, the best-of-breed Parliamentary tracker and activist tool. But this shows what happens when politicians, and not the people, own the record of government: Britons are denied access to commentary on their national news because there’s no way an American TV show will know or care enough about Parliamentary Copyright to get a license to use clips in its shows in case the shows are exported to the UK.

Here is the episode.

This blog shall be taking a close look at trustworthiness in the National Party over the next few weeks.

This is because this blog has discovered and learned of some disturbing acts of untrustworthiness inside National over the last 6 months.

In fact, from what I have gathered over this time, it may well be some of the most untrustworthy behaviour seen in the National Party for the better part of 25 years.

What do I mean by untrustworthy?

Well, perhaps a score might be useful to help show the gravity of the situation.

I have come up with the “Whaleoil Un-Trustworthiness Scale” to help readers understand, with 1 being completely trustworthy, and 10 being despicably untrustworthy.

A score of 1 would be someone like John Key. Voters trust John Key. He has compromised the speed of some reforms in order to not break promises, such is the value of trust to him.

So who then, would be a ten?

Who would be Mr or Mrs Infinity? Far exceeding even a despicable ten.

Would it be the sort of person who abuses the office they hold within the party?

More to come….

The latest Herald Digipoll is out and Labour has again got itself spanked. This is the 5th poll in as many weeks that shows us that labour and their CGT policy are dead meat. This is the second full after the release of CGT policy. Remember what Mallard said at the time of previous polls.

The Herald though says what everyone but Labour seems to have grasped.

Jon Johansson, a politics lecturer at Victoria University, said the poll showed that even when Labour had ideas that met with public approval the voters were not receptive to the “current messenger.”

“There’s no hiding the fact that the public are not responding to a Phil Goff-led Labour.”

Mr Johansson said Mr Goff needed to give up on a head-to-head popularity contest with Mr Key and let other caucus members take a greater role.

“They really need to run a campaign that de-emphasises leadership because so long as the overriding comparison in voters’ minds is Key versus Goff, that is not good for Labour.

And what does the hapless Phil Goff have to say about that?

Mr Goff believed Labour’s message was now getting through, as evidenced by the support for the new policies. He believed people would vote based on policies rather than personality.

As Daryl Kerrigan would say, “Tell him he’s dreaming“.

Labour has lost the election, now it is just a matter of badly they lose and it appears with Phil Goff ‘leading’ that is going to be a severe beating.