Kiwiblog

Air NZ have done a very cute animated xmas tale. It lightly makes fun of the carbon police

I saw this on Facebook and decided to blog it here as I was bored!

SUPPOSEDLY if you’ve seen over 85 films, you have no life. Mark the ones you’ve seen. There are 239 films on this list. Copy this list, go to your own Facebook account blog, paste this as a note. Then, put x’s next to the films you’ve seen, add them up, change the header adding your number, and click post at the bottom. Have fun.

(x) Rocky Horror Picture Show
(x) Grease
(x) Pirates of the Caribbean
(x) Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man’s Chest
( ) Boondock Saints
(x) Fight Club
(x) Starsky and Hutch
(x) Neverending Story
(x) Blazing Saddles
(x) Airplane (Flying High)
Total: 9

(x) The Princess Bride
() AnchorMan
(x) Napoleon Dynamite
(x) Labyrinth
( ) Saw
( ) Saw II
() White Noise
( ) White Oleander
() Anger Management
(x) 50 First Dates
(x) The Princess Diaries
() The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement
Total so far: 14

(x) Scream
(x) Scream 2
(x) Scream 3
(x) Scary Movie
(x) Scary Movie 2
(x) Scary Movie 3
(x) Scary Movie 4
(x) American Pie
(x) American Pie 2
(x) American Wedding
(x) American Pie Band Camp
Total so far: 25

(x) Harry Potter 1
(x) Harry Potter 2
(x) Harry Potter 3
(x) Harry Potter 4
(x) Harry Potter 5
(x) Resident Evil 1
(x Resident Evil 2
(x) The Wedding Singer
( ) Little Black Book
() The Village
() Lilo & Stitch
Total so far: 33

(x) Finding Nemo
(x) Finding Neverland
() Signs
(x) The Grinch
(x) Texas Chainsaw Massacre
(x) Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning
() White Chicks
() Butterfly Effect
(x) 13 Going on 30
(x) I, Robot
(x) Robots
Total so far: 41

(x) Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
(x) Universal Soldier
(x) Lemony Snicket: A Series Of Unfortunate Events
(x) Along Came Polly
(x) Deep Impact
(x) KingPin
(x) Never Been Kissed
(x) Meet The Parents
(x) Meet the Fockers
( ) Eight Crazy Nights
(x) Joe Dirt
(x) KING KONG
Total so far: 52

(x) A Cinderella Story
(x) The Terminal
(x) The Lizzie McGuire Movie
(x) Passport to Paris
(x) Dumb & Dumber
( ) Dumber & Dumberer
() Final Destination
() Final Destination 2
() Final Destination 3
(x) Halloween
(x) The Ring
() The Ring 2
() Surviving X-MAS
() Flubber
Total so far: 59

( ) Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle
(x) Practical Magic
(x) Chicago
() Ghost Ship
() From Hell
(x) Hellboy
() Secret Window
() I Am Sam
() The Whole Nine Yards
( ) The Whole Ten Yards
Total so far: 62

(x) The Day After Tomorrow
() Child’s Play
(x ) Seed of Chucky
(x ) Bride of Chucky
(x) Ten Things I Hate About You
(x) Gothika
(x ) Nightmare on Elm Street
(x ) Sixteen Candles
(x) Remember the Titans
(x) Coach Carter
() The Grudge
( ) The Grudge 2
(x) The Mask
( ) Son Of The Mask
Total so far: 72

( ) Bad Boys
( ) Bad Boys 2
(x) Joy Ride
( ) Lucky Number Slevin
(x) Ocean’s Eleven
(x) Ocean’s Twelve
(x ) Bourne Identity
(x ) Bourne Supremecy
( ) Lone Star
(x) Bedazzled
(x) Predator I
(x) Predator II
( ) The Fog
(x) Ice Age
(x) Ice Age 2: The Meltdown
(x) Curious George
Total so far: 83

(x) Independence Day
(x) Cujo
(x) A Bronx Tale
( ) Darkness Falls
(x) Christine
(x) ET
(x) Children of the Corn
(x) My Bosses Daughter
(x) Maid in Manhattan
( x) War of the Worlds
( x) Rush Hour
( x) Rush Hour 2
Total so far: 94

( ) Best Bet
(x) How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
(x) She’s All That
(x) Calendar Girls
( ) Sideways
(x) Mars Attacks
( ) Event Horizon
(x) Ever After
(x) Wizard of Oz
(x) Forrest Gump
(x) Big Trouble in Little China
(x) The Terminator
(x) The Terminator 2
(x) The Terminator 3
Total so far: 105

(x) X-Men
(x) X-2
(x) X-3
(x) Spider-Man
(x) Spider-Man 2
( ) Sky High
(x) Jeepers Creepers
(x) Jeepers Creepers 2
(x) Catch Me If You Can
(x) The Little Mermaid
(x) Freaky Friday
(x) Reign of Fire
(x) The Skulls
(x) Cruel Intentions
(x) Cruel Intentions 2
() The Hot Chick
(x) Shrek
(x) Shrek 2
Total so far: 121

(x) Swimfan
(x) Miracle on 34th street
( ) Old School
( ) The Notebook
( ) K-Pax
(x) Krippendorf’s Tribe
() A Walk to Remember
( ) Ice Castles
( ) Boogeyman
(x) The 40-year-old Virgin
Total so far: 125

(x) Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring
(x) Lord of the Rings The Two Towers
(x) Lord of the Rings Return Of the King
(x) Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
(x) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
(x ) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Total so far: 131

( ) Baseketball
( ) Hostel
( ) Waiting for Guffman
( ) House of 1000 Corpses
( ) Devils Rejects
(x) Elf
(x) Highlander
(x) Mothman Prophecies
(x) American History X
( ) Three
Total so Far: 135

(x) The Jacket
(x) Kung Fu Hustle
( ) Shaolin Soccer
( ) Night Watch
(x) Monsters Inc.
(x) Titanic
(x) Monty Python and the Holy Grail
(x) Shaun Of the Dead
(x) Willard
Total so far: 142

( ) Club Dread
(x) Hulk
(x) Dawn Of the Dead
(x) Hook
(x) Chronicles Of Narnia The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
(x) 28 days later
(x) Orgazmo
( ) Phantasm
(x) Waterworld
Total so far: 149

(x) Kill Bill vol 1
(x) Kill Bill vol 2
(x) Mortal Kombat
() Wolf Creek
(x) Kingdom of Heaven
() The Hills Have Eyes
( ) I Spit on Your Grave aka the Day of the Woman
( ) The Last House on the Left
( ) Re-Animator
( ) Army of Darkness
Total so far: 153

(x) Star Wars Ep. I The Phantom Menace
(x) Star Wars Ep. II Attack of the Clones
( x) Star Wars Ep. III Revenge of the Sith
(x) Star Wars Ep. IV A New Hope
(x) Star Wars Ep. V The Empire Strikes Back
(x)Star Wars Ep. VI Return of the Jedi
(x) Ewoks Caravan Of Courage
(x) Ewoks The Battle For Endor
Total so far: 161

(x) The Matrix
(x ) The Matrix Reloaded
(x) The Matrix Revolutions
( ) Animatrix
(x) Evil Dead
(x) Evil Dead 2
(x) Team America: World Police
(x) Red Dragon
(x) Silence of the Lambs
(x) Hannibal
Total so far: 170

Now Add them up and…

Put “I’ve seen ’170′ out of 239 films” in the subject line and repost it.

Click on it to see it larger. I bet the person who designed it, was trying to avoid doing something more important. E-mailed in by a lawyer.

Hell I don’t mind John Key hiring the odd journalist, but does he have to keep hiring the ones I like to read!

The SST reports that Carroll du Chateau has accepted a part-time job as his speech writer.

du Chateau in 2008 won the Best Government, Diplomacy and Foreign Affairs Feature Writer Qantas Award.

For the first time in decades, I watched the classic 1959 movie Ben-Hur. It is close to four hours long but never gets boring. Charlton Heston just dominates the screen in a way few actors can do today.

It is one of only three movies to win 11 Academy Awards.

The plot may be unfashionable to some, but I found it a great story of friends turned enemies, redemption and forgiveness. The chariot race was thrilling of course, but the naval scenes were also well done.

The movie cost $15 million in 1959, which is $110 million in today’s dollars. Luckily for MGM, which was facing bankruptcy, it grossed $75 million – equal to $550 million.

Matt McCarten in the HoS:

Helen Clark – It would have been a miracle if she had won a fourth term and she was always going to have to carry the can if Labour lost. To her credit, she managed a clean transition to her rival, Phil Goff. Not many political leaders exit with such class.

Michael Cullen – He and Clark were a dream team and had a dream run. But all political careers ultimately end in defeat and when she went he also rolled himself. Bill English has big shoes to fill.

Winston Peters – If he had made the 5 per cent threshold, Clark would still be prime minister. But he has had a great run and survived the past two elections by a whisker. New Zealand First, of course, dies with him.

Roger Douglas – He’s like some old war veteran who won’t fade away. It’s clear he’s spent the past decade of his forced retirement wondering where he went wrong. Then, like any old ideologue, he realised he just didn’t go far enough.

Rodney Hide – I’m not so sure Hide is as right wing as he was. At least I hope he’s not.

Jeanette Fitzsimons – The Greens have been lucky to have her. Rod Donald’s death left a huge hole. Her plans to step down this election were put on hold for obvious reasons but she will go next time. Her party, however, is spending yet another term on the opposition backbenches. It is starting to look like the Greens will always be bridesmaid. Their brand was new and sexy but they are starting to look old and tired.

Maori Party – Supporting a National government without too much risk or responsibility may prove to be a boon. Everyone knows they had to do what they did.

Phil Goff – If anyone can pull off a victory for Labour next time, Goff can. Excluding the Maori Party, he has to regain four seats to get the top job. He’s waited a decade for the chance.

John Key – National’s win has more to do with him than anything else. Clark wasn’t as widely opposed as other defeated prime ministers. And the election wasn’t decided on policy, as voters could count the major differences on one hand. Unless Key has a secret agenda, it’s starting to appear that this National Government could be the most moderate administration since Keith Holyoake. Assuming he can control the Act caucus and not do anything to alienate the Maori Party, he should sneak through the next election. Clearly he’s the political winner of the year.

A fair bit there I don’t agree with, but I do think he has it right with the Maori Party and the Greens.

Bill Ralston has the same suspicions as me:

I have the horrible feeling that Labour, had it still been in government, would have cancelled the tax cuts and thrashed the exhausted middle class for more revenue while continuing to spend big on its pet policies and boosting the bureaucracy to cope the effects of a recession. That would be a sure recipe for disaster.

2011 will be an interesting challenge for Labour. We will still be running deficits, so either Labour will have to promise increased debt or tax increases if it wants to spend more.

The Herald on Sunday has a nice focus article on Waiheke Island. If I had to live in Auckland, Waiheke Island is certainly where I would try and buy a home.

My first visit to Waiheke was in 2002, and since then I’ve visited around a dozen times. The views are magnificent, and it does have a real sense of community. There are just enough facilities – you have a few stores and cafes, a couple of newspapers but not too many commercial buildings.

I doubt I will ever live in Auckland, but if I was there for the long-term, the ideal would be an apartment at the Viaduct, a house on Waiheke and a holiday home on Great Barrier!

NZUSA is quoted in The Press:

The rise in compulsory add-on fees at tertiary institutions is under fire from the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations.

Hmmn, compulsory add-on fees – such as oh all those compulsory student association fees that NZUSA fights so hard to defend.

I’m sure what NZUSA meant is they’re against rises in compulsory add-on fees, except those done by student associations.

Charles Finny has some questions on Kyoto. They are not questions about the basic science that if emissions increase, temperatures will increase. It is about the details behind Kyoto:

Several aspects of the Kyoto Protocol really annoy me.  For a start how can we solve this problem if major emitting economies have not taken on any obligations?  It looks as though the US will take on commitments to whatever replaces Kyoto but there seems no chance off China, India and Brazil etc taking on commitments.

If China and Inida especially do not come on board, it is all a waste of time and money. China has replaced the US as the world’s biggest emitter.

Why is there such inconsistency over points of obligation?  Why are consumers held responsible to the release of GHGs from oil, gas and coal and not the producing countries, when the country that cuts down a tree is held responsible for emitting the full amount of carbon stored in that tree from the time that it is cut down?  An importing country faces the full liability for emissions from gas, oil and coal, but exporting country faces the full liability for wood.  And why does the exporting country face the full liability for its agricultural emissions as opposed to the country that is going to actually consume the product that was produced as a result of all those emissions having been made?  So New Zealand imports oil from country x and bears the full costs of releasing the GHGs from burning that oil in New Zealand.  We export meat to country x, but also face the full cost of producing all the GHGs released while producing this meat.

Kyoto was a very flawed response to climate change. Even if fully implemented, it will only lower average mean temperature by 0.07 degrees by 2050.

Charles also raises some fascinating points over stock and methane. Would be good to see a point by point response to his questions by someone who can.

Far too nice a day to be blogging – I’ve been flying kites and doing other activities with various nephews and nieces. The weather is a cracker.

Anyway for those who are staying online, use this thread for general debate.

I suspect there will be no shortage of people applying to be White House interns!

Photo from news.com.au

Disney has pulled out of the third Narnia film. Hopefully it won’t delay it, as the Narnia books were childhood favourites, and I do want to see as many of them as possible on film.

Voyage should be a fairly easy one to film as it is is a series of adventures on different islands.

Some of the others will be more difficult. The two prequls could well be left out of the movies. The Silver Chair is an easy enough adventure story. The Last Battle though would be pretty difficult to do – both the scale of the film, and the actual story it is telling.

Hope everyone is having a Merry Christmas today. I am heading to Marton to my sister-in-law’s farm for a couple of days.

A take-off of the Mariah Carey hit – All I want for Christmas is You.

Hat Tip: Dave Gee

Further to my blog this morning complaining the Police have been unable to make a decision on the most simple electoral complaints, despite having had the Electoral Commission refer them as far back as June. Well it gets even worse than that.

One of the complaints was made not under the Electoral Finance Act but the Broadcasting Act. This is in relation to the allegedly illegal election programme on NewstalkZB, where Shane Jones and Winston Peters advocated for their parties.

Now this is a breach of s70 of the Broadcasting Act and has a possible $100,000 fine. But it may be too late to prosecute. Why? The alleged offence happened in early June 2008. That is over six months ago. And the Broadcasting Act states it is a summary offence.

And if you turn to s14 of the Summary Procedures Act 1987, you find:

Except where some other period of limitation is provided by the Act creating the offence or by any other Act, every information for an offence (other than an offence which may be dealt with summarily under section 6 of this Act) shall be laid within 6 months from the time when the matter of the information arose.

It is one thing for the Police to decide not to prosecute. But yet another to have no prosecution occur, simly because they missed the deadline.

I hope there will be multi-partisan support for removing the prosecution of electoral offences from the Police. They obviously don’t want it, and would rather concentrate on other crimes. The challenge is how to reorganise the electoral agencies to allow for the different services of advice and enforcement.

Amazing. The Herald reports:

Auckland bus drivers are being advised by their union to “borrow” cash from their passengers today, after being shocked to learn they will not receive their weekly wages in time for Christmas.

Tramways Union president Gary Froggatt said he suggested they withhold cash takings until receiving wages into their bank accounts from NZ Bus tomorrow, to ensure they and their families will not miss out on Christmas trappings. …

He said that as long as drivers did not admit to depot managers why money was missing from their fareboxes, they had 24 hours to repay it.

“But the problem is that not many passengers are travelling today and the drivers are not taking much cash.”

Just incredible. Gary is complaining that there may not be enough cash to steal. And let there be no mistake, “borrowing” cash from your employer without permission is theft.

The union leader said the company was more in tune with the yuletide spirit last year, when it paid drivers two days before Christmas Day, which fell on a Wednesday.

Of course employers should be flexible with pay dates around Xmas, but nothing excuses encouraging “helping yourself” to the cash.

I blogged on Monday my thoughts on the fiscal crisis, and talked about the stupidity of borrowing money now, as a means of saving for the future.

Michael Littlewood has sent me a response to my post, which I’m delighted to publish. Michael is an expert on superannuation policy and is with the Retirement Policy and Research Centre of Auckland University.

My initials comments are shown in italics and quoted below, and Michael’s comments in normal text below them. My thanks to Michael for his contribution:

The Cullen Fund

The Cullen Fund was based on a premise that as we are going to have surpluses for the next 30 years, then we should save some of those surpluses to meet the future cost of superannuation, so we won’t have to borrow money in the future.

The fatal flaw was always the assumption about surpluses

Not the only flaw – there were at least three others: one that New Zealand in 2020 onwards could not afford to pay for NZS from tomorrow’s economy (there is no evidence of that, despite the ageing population); that somehow, partial pre-funding was better for the economy than the previous PAYG approach; finally that having higher taxes now (to create today’s surplus) was cost-free. This all evidences the previous government’s cookie jar approach to financial management. In fact the Cullen Fund does not change the cost of NZS by $1 but, as has now been demonstrated, can add significantly to New Zealand’s financial risks. And, if I wanted to appoint an investment manager to look after part of my future retirement savings, the government would be last on my list of contenders mostly because no Chinese wall can ever insulate the Guardians from the political process.

but as the years went on and they continued unabated, the opposition to the Fund diminished, and even National signed up to it

Only because it was one of those memorable “dead rats” they had to swallow. Bill English said that you have lost the argument on this kind of policy if you have to explain it. Somehow, New Zealand has to grow up so that we can sensibly discuss this kind of thing.

But we are now in a very different situation. We have a structural deficit, and face massive borrowing for at least a decade.

So the Cullen Fund is now based on borrowing heaps of money today, so we do not have to borrow heaps of money in 25 years? Anyone else see the fatal flaw? Borrowing money to save money is the sort of stuff that caused the credit crisis.

Yes, I agree that leveraging the Crown’s balance sheet to invest in financial markets is a silly idea. But increasing taxes to do the same thing (and creating apparently costless ‘surpluses’) is only marginally less silly.

The Government should seriously consider suspending contributions to the Cullen Fund. We can’t save money we do not have.

And we should also seriously discuss consider selling the Cullen Fund’s investments, even in today’s market. If it makes sense to stop contributions then it makes just as much sense to sell. Not selling in the face of increasing debt is similar to borrowing to invest.

KiwiSaver

KiwiSaver has much the same problem as the Cullen Fund. It is all well and good to help subsidise people’s savings

There is no credible international evidence to support the notion that tax subsidies increase saving. Your statement assumes that, in good times, subsidies are a good thing. They aren’t – tax subsidies to saving are complex, regressive, expensive but, worst of all, seemingly don’t work – based on the best evidence available.

but not if the taxpayer is having to borrow money to do so

No, having to borrow to pay for the subsidies is just a worse idea than having the subsidies in the first place – the need to borrow to pay for them should call their wisdom into question more dramatically.

Because who is going to have to pay back and pay the interest on all that borrowing?

The same argument applies to the higher taxes needed to create the ‘surpluses’ that paid for the incentives in the first place. The counterfactual should be no incentives/lower taxes. Apart from anything else, you ignore the deadweight costs of higher taxes to pay for the incentives.

Those same savers

No, all taxpayers, some of whom are savers.

So once again we have the stupidity of borrowing money today, to help people save. That is not sustainable.

So is having everyone, including the poor who can’t afford to save, paying higher taxes to feed richer citizens’ retirement savings.

I like KiwiSaver

see below

If we were going to continue with record surpluses, it would be great to have a scheme which provides massive incentives for people to save

especially if they don’t actually increase saving (as opposed to savings)?].

But we don’t. Does anyone think Labour would in 2009 have announced the KiwiSaver subsidies they did in 2007? Of course not.

National has wisely already cut the cost of taxpayer subsidies to KiwiSaver. Arguably they need to go further and also look at whether the employee subsidy is affordable. If we need to borrow to find it, then it isn’t.

And what about the tax incentives through the PIE tax regime? That should be up for debate as well.

You see the employer matching contribution is a 1:1 subsidy already, which is massive

but not cost-free to employees. All employees, including the poor who can’t afford to join KS, will help pay for that through lower future pay rises.

Hell most people are happy to get a 10% return on investment and the employer contribution gets you an instant 100% return

Actually no because the 100% is spread over the life to age 65 – you can’t get the money until then.

Now the employee subsidy gets you a further 100% return

No, for the same reason.

so those earning up to $52,000 get a 2:1 subsidy or a 200% return on investment.

Unless the fiscal fortune improves, maybe the employee subisdy has to go also. Sure that means only a 100% return instead of a 200% return, but that is a lot better than the standard 10% return and I doubt it would discourage people going into KiwiSaver. Maybe raise the employer contribution rate to a maximum 3% so the total saved isn’t decreased.

A bad idea for the reasons already given.

We need, as a country, to discuss the retirement saving issue. We never had a proper discussion about these sorts of things in the nine years of the last government. What about the evidence that, before KiwiSaver, most New Zealanders were saving ‘enough’ or ‘more than enough’ for retirement? If you want to see some of the evidence, here is a sample from www.PensionReforms.com – you can see more by sorting the abstracts by New Zealand as the country:

New Zealand’s taxpayers will be spending a lot of public money on new retirement income saving initiatives after nearly 20 years of spending none. Was this decision based on sound analysis of data on New Zealanders’ savings behaviour? Is this policy shift likely to meet any of the stated objectives? Probably not.

Changes to the way retirement incomes are financed should be based on good evidence that is subjected to robust investigation over time. New Zealand missed those steps with its new KiwiSaver scheme, justifying its existence on seemingly dubious economic analysis.

For the last 20 years, New Zealand has had a two-pillar retirement income system – an elegant, universal, PAYG state pension plus voluntary saving. There have been no tax incentives or compulsion for the second pillar of private provision. So, how have New Zealanders responded? Apparently, mostly quite rationally. So what’s the problem?

Strongly negative household ‘saving’ might tell us something about the behaviour of New Zealanders but not whether they are saving for retirement, let alone saving enough. A ‘stocks’ measure of wealth is much more useful than the ‘flows’ of income and spending. more

And here is a report that shows how the existing retired are faring – the answer is “quite well thank you very much”:

The living standards of different types of households cannot be adequately measured without asking the people affected how they are managing and how they perceive their living conditions. That must be done in a systematic way. A new measure allows living standards to be compared across groups and over time. more

I do not favour the government rushing to change things (as it has done with KiwiSaver III). I do favour a full-scale, research based debate on all the things that should matter when we talk about financial preparation for retirement. And the objective of this process must be nothing short of consensus – on the evidence, on the things that matter and on the appropriate public policy settings. Anything less than consensus will sow the seeds for future policy uncertainty. We have had far too much of that over the last nine years.

The Parliamenary Library has done a 17 page analysis of the election. It’s got some very interesting comparisons with other Parliaments back to 1981 and a demographics analysis.

From Monday’s Dom Post:

Just 67.5 per cent of category 2 patients including those suffering serious head injury, moderately severe trauma and suspected heart attacks were treated within the recommended 10 minutes.

Fewer than half of patients categorised as triage 3 those with fractures, breathlessness, bleeding or other conditions requiring urgent treatment but not considered life-threatening were seen within the recommended time of 30 minutes.

This result was “the worst performance bar one since they started recording data in 2001″, Mr Ryall said.

During their nine years in office Labour increased health spending from $6.1b to $11.6b. That is an extra $5.5 billion, yet still barely half of emergency patients get seen within recommended times.

Cactus Kate announces her blogger of the year:

In my years of blogging, in fact in all my years being involved in politics I have never met anyone who cares so little about what those on his side or against him thinks of what he writes. A man so passionate that he is right that he will argue an entire day on a blog with every nutcase placed in front of him. …

A man who devotes his entire energy into blogging, has his own business cards for his blog and in my entire time knowing him, regardless of where he is going to meet you, will wear only his own merchandise. [He] is a true beast of conflict. Sometimes with the loudest and boorish of potty-mouths yet in a milli-second can say or write something so poetic, meaningful and intelligent that you can only burst out laughing wondering just who the fuck this guy is.

A man who when told to stop by his own people, calmly tells them to combine speed, sex and travel.

If you can’t work out who she is referring to, you must be new here

A very politically incorrect christmas carol from last year. Has been viewed over 15 million times!

Twas the night before Christmas …

The Herald reports today that the Police have rejected the NZ First complaint against the Director of the Serious Fraud Office. They were very upset that he told the truth to the Privileges Committee about the funding of the $40,000 Peters paid Clarkson. It showed that both Peters and Henry had given false evidence to the Privileges Committee, so no wonder they were upset.

But this got me thinking about the Police, and the election. The Electoral Commission has referred multiple alleged offences to the Police this year, and with one exception (the false donation returns from NZ First) it has not announced an outcome for any of them.

The earliest referral was on 27 June in relation to unauthorised banners in Tauranga. This was as simple a case as you can get. How is it the Police have not been able to reach a conclusion in six months?

There was also the Progressive adverts referred on 1 August, the EMA adverts on 26 August, the late Social Credit donations return on 4 Sep 2008, and a further Progressive ad on 18 Sep 2008.

It is difficult to not conclude that the Police just have no interest in enforcing electoral law (as they showed in 2005), when they can’t even make a decision within six months on an unauthorised billboard.

There is now nothing “technical” recession. In the first three quarters of Labour’s final year in office, the economy shrunk 0.9%, with the third quarter contraction being a large 0.4%.

Agriculture is keeping us going with 6% growth last quarter. However fishing and forestry declined by 6.6% and construction by 1.2%. Govt Admin went up 0.6% however!

Will the 4th quarter also extend the recession? I’d say it probably will.

With no economic growth, less tax is paid. With less tax revenue, there is less money for stuff such as schools and hospitals. Remember this the next time the Greens rail against economic growth.