NZ Herald

The Herald have posted an article today about a Twitter stoush between David Farrier and Marino Harker Smith. It was yetersdays news after Regan at Throng broke the story on his site.

Of course the Herald has failed to attribute its story or even bother with the courtesy of a link.

The mainstream news channels, print and television seem to be having a competition as to who can be more crass and show more dead bodies over the holiday period.

The NZ Herald has been running a daily body-fest almost gleefully reporting every death or serious injury in a bid to fill their website with dead bodies.

But the worst example I have seen so far is the effort by TVNZ to catch a hearse on camera. Regan at Throng thinks so too:

Sarah Batley’s live cross on One News tonight was utterly disgraceful and disrespectful to the 11 people who died tragically yesterday in the hot air balloon crash in Carterton, their families and their friends.

Desperately hoping to be live while a hearse drives past with bodies of the victims is incredibly distasteful, offensive and unnecessary.

It certainly seems so. This is from their “National” page:

 Loading ...

Quite apart from the fact that the NZ Herald thinks Helen Clark should be a finalist in New Zealander of the Year award there is this little gem buried in teh article:

From her New York base, Clark is never far from her Kiwi roots. She stays in touch using Skype, Facebook, Twitter, news websites, phones, and email.

“There’s not much I don’t hear about from family and friends,” she says.

Take it as read that she has more than a passing interest in the battle to succeed Phil Goff as Labour Party leader. Contender David Cunliffe has acknowledged that he had a discussion with Clark about the job, but she remains tight-lipped.

Asked if she had a pick, she replied: “Not for public consumption.”

No but the clues are there. Spoken with Cunners, orchestrated Brian Edwards flipflop, involvement of the Kabul office…

The NZ Herald editorial explores the need for a 4 year term. I have long thought we needed this. Conventional wisdom suggests that 3 years is too short for a good government and too long for a bad one.

Saturday’s referendum on the electoral system did more than just embed MMP, subject to the tinkering recommended by an Electoral Commission review. It also, by implication, enhanced the case for the term of Parliament to be increased from three to four years.

The argument against this has always been that in a country with few constitutional restraints on the power of the Executive, a short term affords the electorate one strong means of restraint.

If proportional representation promised to be an equally effective safeguard, its popularity had yet to be confirmed. Now, with the substantiation of MMP’s broad acceptance, the time is right to reconsider a four-year term.

The thought is not new. In the most recent referendum on the subject, in 1990, 69.3 per cent of those who voted opposed the notion. That rejection must, however, be placed in context. It was held at the tail-end of a two-term Labour Government whose disdain for the public view led eventually to the introduction of MMP.

MMP has held us back, in part because of the need to coalition governments:

Politicians were held in particularly low esteem, and people were in no mood to endorse a device that would make governments even less responsive to the electorate.

Things are different now. John Key has proved a particularly popular Prime Minister, in large part because he has kept such a close eye on public sentiment. His first term, however, provided a graphic illustration of the deficiencies of a three-year Parliament.

Traditionally, these involve a first year spent settling in, the second tackling a stack of legislation, and the third preparing for the coming election.

The work of Mr Key’s Administration was hindered further by the aftermaths of the Christchurch earthquakes and the Pike River disaster. His experience provided a compelling case for a four-year term.

The topic will be examined by the constitutional review panel set up in August at the behest of the Maori Party. But, after gauging public opinion, it is not due to make its recommendations on this and an array of other issues until September 2013.

I’d say we should have a referendum but governments have a poor habit if ignoring referenda.

There will, of course, be those who fear the surrender of any measure of voter sovereignty. But their qualms relate to the behaviour of politicians under the first-past-the-post voting system. All the elections held under MMP have resulted in no party being able to govern outright. Governments have had to consult widely and to accommodate a broad range of views. Helen Clark, who belatedly became an advocate of a four-year fixed term, and Mr Key have both proved adept at managing this and providing stable government.

Four years would provide governments with a far more realistic time frame for implementing policies. In particular, there would be fewer of the short-term policies designed to produce a quick blip in economic performance. And there would be more time for the public to assess whether particular initiatives are working.

The opening of workplace accident insurance to private competition, rushed in by National in 1999 just before it lost power, is just one example of a policy that was overturned before there was a fair analysis of its impact.

There is good reason to believe there would now be a more positive response to a referendum on a four-year term. Most of the previous objections no longer apply. It should be the next plank in the establishment of a more effective government.

The last Herald Digipoll before the election is released this morning. Again it shows Labour continues to slide rather than close the gap. Phil Goff told us to wait and see.

National: 50.9 (up 1 point in a week)
Labour 28 (down 1.1)
Greens 11.8 (down 0.8)
NZ First 5.2 (up 0.3)
Act 1.8 (up 0.1)
Conservatives 1.3 (up 0.7)
Maori Party 0.4 (down 0.3)
Mana 0.3 (down 0.1)
United Future 0 (down 0.1)

On this poll it shows again why National needs John Banks to win Epsom. Winston Peters is also looming there but int he range that sets up my dream scenario that would see his party fall below the threshold on special votes.

Today’s poll also throws up a bizarre possible outcome – National winning more than 50 per cent of the party vote but still needing Act, the Maori Party or United Future to give it a majority in Parliament.

This could happen if today’s poll results were translated to votes.

The revival of New Zealand First – which National won’t deal with – could make the survival of Act crucial.

The Maori Party could be in the box seat to negotiate a confidence and supply agreement to give National a cushion of comfort if Act and United Future don’t make it.

The reason National could get a majority of party votes tomorrow but not a majority of seats in Parliament is the overhang factor.

If today’s poll figures were translated to votes, United Future, the Maori Party and Mana would get more electorate seats than their party vote entitlement.

When that happens, the size of Parliament expands beyond 120 seats, and the parties are allowed to keep the extra seats.

In this case, the “overhang” seats would take Parliament to 126 seats.

In that scenario, a Government would need 64 seats for a majority and in today’s poll, National would have 63 seats – based on the assumption that Act, Mana, United Future and the Maori Party will keep their electorate seats.

Once again we see another bizarre feature of MMP and another reason why we need to kick it in the guts. Overhang distorts the “perfect” system supporters say it is and in this case distorts it by 6 seats the largest distortion ever. Vote for Change in the referendum and Vote for Sm to get rid of the silly excesses of MMP.

Can you all now see why Labour, NZ First, Greens and 9 trade unions support MMP? The system benefits them. They look set to control parliament despite not one of them securing anything more than 30% of the vote and in some case far less.

via the tipline

I found the graphic on the NZ Herald hard to make sense of and find out who will work with who.

There’s also quite a bit of repetition in the minor parties area.

So I redid it if you’d like it on your site.  I hope this helps clear up who will work with who (assuming that the Herald has their information correct, of course!).

The Herald on Sunday, in particular Bryce Johns their editor, is gutless.

Last week they talked about game-changers and explosive details of the illegally recorded tea-tapes. This week complete silence. Nothing, no transcript, nothing.

They should have published and be damned if the tape was such a game changer. But neither they nor the other gutless cowards who have paid for the recording and who pushed so shamelessly all week have had the temerity or gumption to publish the tape or the transcript.

That can only mean one thing, that John Key was right. The tape is “bland”.

The polls show John Key was right, better still for the first time in a long time a politician has stared down the media and when the pressure came on it was them who cracked not the politician.

Paul Holmes has a column in the NZ Herald today about the appalling media frenzy over an illegally recorded conversation between John Banks and John Key.

I don’t join lynch mobs and I don’t intend to now. For that’s what it’s been this week, a sanctimonious, high and mighty news media lynch mob baying for John Key’s blood.

…I would hold this view no matter who was talking, whether it was Phil Goff talking to the Greens or whoever. A private conversation is exactly that, private.

If John Banks had met John Key in the latter’s ninth-floor office and it was known a tape recording had been made of the meeting no one would be demanding the tape be released. It is absurd.

There is no suggestion that they were in any way conspiring to commit a crime. One or the other it is thought as I write this may have spoken derisively of the age of Winston Peters’ voters.

So what. Everyone speaks derisively of Winston Peters’ voters. We all know they’re the rump of Rob’s old mob and that Winston is their master manipulator.

This morning on NewstalkZB he talked with Kevin Milne of Fair Go fame about the same issue. Have a listen, well worth it.

NewstalkZb – Paul Holmes and Kevin Milne talk about the tea tapes by whaleoil

Winston Raymond Peters, 65, pensioner of St Marys Bay was on the NZ Herald Live Chat and as is usual from him he lied through his teeth:

This is an outright lie from the get go.

Refunding Parliamentary Services for illegal spending isn’t a gift. National paid back its GST oversight with a donation of paid airtime for community groups. Those community groups actually got the benefit of National’s refund. In stark contrast the NBR shows that Winston’s “gift” was nothing more than a sham. Worse he manipulated a victim of crime for his own political purposes.

Winston Peters has much to answer for. The problem is the man can’t tell the truth. When he says anything yo simply can’t trust him.