Kiwiblog

Paula Bennett has announced:

Child care and protection expert John Angus has been appointed Children’s Commissioner for six months while a permanent appointment is sought, Social Development and Employment Minister Paula Bennett said today.

“I have decided to make an interim appointment to allow time to find the right permanent appointee for this important position,” Ms Bennett said. “I am grateful that we have someone of Mr Angus’ ability and standing available while we work to fill the role long-term.”

John Angus is a former front-line social worker, and was later a senior public servant. More recently he worked on the review of the Children Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, and he led inter-departmental work on preventing child abuse and neglect for the Taskforce for Action on Violence Within Families.

“Mr Angus has high integrity and immense respect within the sector for the policy research and academic work he has done on child care and protection over many years,” Ms Bennett said. “He is regarded as thoughtful, considered and a safe pair of hands.”

Sounds very safe.

Ms Bennett thanked outgoing commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro for her commitment to children and young people over more than five years in the position.

“Dr Kiro has been a strong advocate for the rights of children, and she has left a lasting impression.

Well yes it has been a lasting impression. I doubt there has ever been such a divisive Commissioner before in that role, and hopefully there won’t be again.

The Children’s Commissioner should be one of our heroes. Others have done sterling jobs. Kiro, while I am sure absolutely doing what she thought was right, was a disaster. Far far too ideological, too lecturing, too divisive.

Comments are disabled as I am heading out drinking and not got time to delete and moderate the comments that will no doubt ensue.

iPredict has some Mt Albert stocks. They are its first conditional contracts where you balance up both the probability of someone being a candidate, and if they are a candidate what percentage of the votes they will get for their party. An explanation from their blog:

Specifically, we will run contracts that pay $0.01 for each percent of the vote won by National or Labour candidates in the by-election conditional on a specific candidate being selected.

For example, we will run a contract that pays $0.01 for each percent of the vote the National Party wins in the by-election conditional on Melissa Lee being the National candidate.

If Lee is not the National candidate the contract pays nothing.

The reason conditional contracts like this are valuable is that they provide a forecast of which candidate will maximise a party’s vote share before candidate selection has occurred. That tells the party who they ought to select.

The interpretation of the price of a conditional stock price in this context is as the product of a) the likelihood candidate X will be selected, and b) the party’s vote share given that candidate is selected.

For example, let’s say Candidate X’s objective chance (however defined) of winning the National candidacy for Mt Albert is 60%, and National’s vote share in Mt Albert if that Candidate X is selected is 45%. What should the conditional stock trade for? $0.6 x $0.45 = $0.27.

Now let’s look at their actual stocks. First they have a simple stock called MTA.LEE which is the probability Melissa Lee will be the National candidate. Before I purchased 200 shares, they were trading at 85.8c, so the market was saying an 86% chance Melissa would be the candidate.

Then we have MTA.LEE.NAT which is at 39c. You divide 39c by 86c to calculate the projceted vote for National if Lee is a candidate, which is 45%.

And MTA.LEE.LAB is also at 39c. So the market is saying (for now) that if Melisssa Lee stands for National, the result will be very very close.

They also have a MTA.TWYFORD. This is at 53c, reflecting greater uncertainity over the Labour nomination.

The ODT reports:

Labour MP Lianne Dalziel has called for supermarkets to “lose the right” to sell alcohol because the practice of making a loss on alcohol products in order to entice people into their stores was behind a “significant number” of alcohol-related issues, she said.

“These people are pouring alcohol into our streets,” she said.

Ms Dalziel said the 1989 decision to allow wine into supermarkets was the “most dangerous, low-reaching, appalling decision that Parliament has ever made”.

Really? Wine is our problem? I’m sorry, but I think beer and spirits play a far far bigger role in alcohol abuse and related violence and crime, than being able to buy a bottle of wine with your groceries.

I buy most of my wine direct from vineyards, but it is nice to sometimes be able to grab a bottle when at the supermarket. And Lianne want to make this illegal?

The Greens are still in mourning for the loss of the food police:

School tuckshops are selling 14 per cent more junk food such as pies and sausage rolls than last year, sparking calls for the reinstatement of healthy eating guidelines.

The Green Party released its annual school food survey yesterday.

It showed a 14 per cent rise in pie, hot dog, sausage roll and hot-bite sales compared with the year before.

More than half of the 50 schools surveyed sold donuts, cookies and cakes while 42 per cent sold chips.

The Green Party says the survey results show an urgent need for the reinstatement of the School Food Guidelines ditched by Education Minister Anne Tolley this year.

Hmmn 50 schools. What sort of margin of error do you get from just 50 responses? It is +/- 14.3%.

Tolley told The Press schools were still required to promote healthy food and drink options and she trusted school boards of trustees to make appropriate decisions.

No, no, no. Teachers must be forced into becoming the food police. We need audits, inspections, dawn raids. You can not trust the people!!

Over at NBR, I look at the winners and losers from the National-Green MOU, with that scoring Best Play of the Fortnight.

Worst Play goes to Clayton Cosgrove for his scare mongering over an initiative to reduce Maori reoffending.

And Richard Worth manages to keep the title for Scandal of the Week, and I comment on how Labour’s allies in calling for Worth to go, are some of the right wing blogs (not Kiwiblog), not so much the left wing ones.

Comments and feedback can be made at NBR.

While Labour is attacking it, the NZ Herald welcomes the Sharples proposal:

As Dr Sharples envisages it, a 60-bed unit would be established in an urban centre close to educational services and jobs. The inmates would earn places by learning to speak Maori and prove their good intentions by becoming literate and working for charitable or community projects.

Though locked in at night they would be more like flatmates than inmates, sharing facilities, learning to live together, associating with their families, the community and their victims. All going well they could be released after four months.

It sounds more like a pre-release hostel than a prison and the cultural element might be no more intensive than the Maori focus units already operating inside five prisons. They were set up with Dr Sharples’ help 11 years ago and their inmates have recorded a reoffending rate about 7 per cent lower than the general prison rate. Since the units probably attract the better-motivated inmates, the improvement does not seem startling.

Clayton Cosgrove has outraegously scaremongered that this is some sort of seperate prison that Maori would get sentenced to. As the Herald points out it would merely be a specialist unit for suitable prisoners nearing release. A number of prisons already have pre-release units where prisoners flat together and learn some living skills.

A stand-alone unit may be a long way from adoption and National may remain sceptical of its worth. But it owes the Maori Party a concession, especially after ruling out Maori electorates for Auckland’s proposed Super City.

Actually I think the quid pro quo for no Maori seats will be signing the UN declaration on Indiginous Rights.

The criminal rehabilitation unit sounds better than building another prison and probably cheaper. As Dr Sharples has said, at $80,000 a year to accommodate someone in prison it would be cheaper to put them in a hotel. The unit will sound too much like a motel for many. But it would be run by a Maori committee involving local iwi or hapu. It is the sort of initiative that can enhance the autonomy and mana of many besides the inmates concerned.

Like Judith Collins, I am pragmatic on this. Will it reduce Maori reoffending, and lead to less victims of crime? If so, then worth supporting. Just like specialist units deal with sex offenders – the final stage rehabiliation before release should be targeted as there is no one cure all method of rehabilitation.

The Herald reported yesterday on various donations to candidates and included:

A mystery entity called Toorak Chambers also gave $3000 each to National MPs Simon Bridges, David Bennett, Todd McLay, and Lindsay Tisch.

When questioned, one of the recipients said it was linked to the National Party and referred the Herald to the party’s headquarters.

They today cleared up the mystery:

Meanwhile, the mystery of $3000 donations to several National MPs from “Toorak Chambers” has been cleared up. Toorak Chambers is an incorporated society which owns a building in Hamilton.

The “donations” were effectively a dividend from profits to the members – National’s central North Island electorate branches.

As a political party is an unincorporated society, major assets such as buildings are always vested in an incorporated society as this is a legal body corporate. So basically the “donations” are rental income. Nothing sinister at all. Toorak Chambers even has its accounts online. The constitution is also online, making it very clear it is the property arm of the CNI Region of the National Party.

Nothing wrong with the Herald reporting of Toorak Chambers. It was responsible, and once they had the full info, they published it.

No Right Turn jumped to conclusions:

National’s response to the Electoral Finance Act, or any attempt to regulate political donations, is to claim that transparency is enough. Then, in practice, they evade and undermine that transparency, using corporate fronts to shield the identity of donors. These are the actions of a dishonest, hypocritical, dirty party with something to hide.

We await the unreserved apology. I am not holding my breath.

The Herald has an example of the media censorship now occurign in Fiji. It is like they are in Orwell’s 1984:

THE REAL STATEMENT

Statement by Commissioner Louis Michel on the situation in Fiji:

Louis Michel, the European Commissioner for Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Aid, expressed deep regret and disappointment regarding recent regressive developments in Fiji; in particular the abrogation of the Constitution, the sacking of all judges, the delay of general elections until 2014 and the curtailment of freedom of speech.

Commissioner Michel said: “These developments are unacceptable for the international community. Commitments must be respected. An early and inclusive domestic political process leading to a return to constitutional order and democracy in Fiji will allow us to provide assistance to Fiji, at a time when global economic prospects are becoming increasingly difficult.”

THE CENSORED REPORT

EU ready to assist Fiji
Fiji’s largest donor the European Union has again extended a helping hand.

Louis Michel, the European Commissioner for Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Aid, today said the EU wants to assist Fiji “at a time when global economic prospects are becoming increasingly difficult”.

The EU is looking to provide substantial financial support to rescue the sugar sector and help restore the economy.

Once again it does not matter how much one does or does not agree with the Commodore’s purported aims. This sort of censorship should and must be resisted. Media and press freedom is even more important than the right to vote in my books – the right to communicate, the right to just know the truth is paramount. A Government that arrests journalists (and bloggers if it could work out who they are) for reporting the truth has no redeeming qualities.

The Wellingtonian has used a panel to do mid-term ratings of the Wellington City Councillors.

I don’t agree with all the ratings, but it is excellent the paper has done them. We don’t get enough reports on how our local elected representatives are doing.

Hat Tip: Gonzo

I’ve been thinking about what I would do if I was the Greens, in Mt Albert.

My strategy would be to actually try and win the seat. There is no party vote at stake here  – it is about the electrate only. No prizes for honourable second.

Mt Albert is already one of the strongest seats for the Greens. So how would they get Labour voters to vote for the Green candidate? Apart from the fact it won’t bring Judith Tizard back into Parliament?

You make two cases to the voters of Mt Albert:

1. It is almost impossible for Labour to be able to form a future Government unless the Greens are in Parliament. Former partners such as the Alliance and NZ First have disappeared and United Future and Progressive and one MP parties now. The Maori Party is currently very hostile, but even with the Maori Party, Labour without the Greens would need more votes than it has ever got before. Bottom line is Labour needs the Greens in Parliament.
2. The Greens need the safety net of an electorate seat. They are the only party in Parliament without an electorate seat. In two of the last four elections, they have just scraped in above 5%. If they drop below 5% with no electorate seat they are out of Parliament, and may never return.

Voters can grasp how to be strategic in MMP. They did it in 1996 in Wellington Central and 2005 in Epsom. No reason Mt Albert can’t do it in 2009.

So the Greens should go all out to win the seat. So who do they stand? The next candidate on their list, David Clendon, lives in (or near) Mt Albert I think, but he isn’t a heavy hitter. A by-election is like a mini general election in just one seat.

Normally I would say stand a co-leader. But we don’t know who the female co-leader will be in time for the by-election, and Russel Norman is too well associated with Wellington (and Australia!).

So ideally the Greens want a high profile Greenie, who has a strong association with Auckland. Someone who would appeal to more than their traditional younger and wealthy supporters, but also working class Labour supporters.

I think I have it.

Robyn Malcolm for Mt Albert!

I am getting confused on which Twitter accounts are parodies and which are not. Take two Green MPs.

The Sue Kedgley twitter account is a parody. The comments seem a bit too extreme, even for Sue, such as:

is off to find schools that sell kiddy killing food made by National Party supporting multinational fast food capitalists!

wants to ban anyone selling children unhealthy food. It should be like tobacco and alcohol. Kids don’t know what’s good for them! I do!

shocked that 84% of schools are still selling hot dogs, sausage rolls, hot bites or pies – no wonder kids are become fat, we need action!

is wondering if she could be elected Mayor of a Wellington supercity

Is sad that so many children were abused over Easter by the multinational chocolate capitalists that seduced their parents.

So I am pretty sure this is a parody account. Mind you Sue does go on about easter eggs a lot.

Then I saw Liberty Scott complaining about Catherine Delahunty’s twitterings. And my first reaction was that he has fallen for a very good parody.

But then I went and looked at Catherine’s twitter account, and I am not so sure it is a parody. Examples:

Gorgeous day in Te tairawhiti unless you want to appeal something to enviro court and dont have five hundred bucks just for filing fee

My mate Grant hawke has it right. Maori have been on the advisory commitee since eighteen forty enough already!

Despite the pretty words and new clothes am hoping new puppy at white house will stop killing afghanis and funding Israel wars on Palestine

Awesome Tairawhiti sunshine a good to start our own banks instead of trusting the white boy club

If it wasnt for almonds and dark chocolate I would go crazy here. As for Michael laws gang Bill who needs It?

Those QPEC people defending public and free education are awesome and palmy north was balmy today

I think it might be genuine.

The NZ Herald editorial makes an astute judgement:

Nothing foreign diplomacy can do, however, could be as effective as the regime’s economic destruction. The arrest of Reserve Bank Governor Savenaca Narbue has been described as an “act of vandalism”. It is certainly an act of idiocy. Nobody can have the slightest confidence in the currency or the resilience of the desperately declining economy if the soldiers have usurped the country’s financial management.

In the absence of an explanation for his arrest it can only be assumed Governor Narbue was being ordered to take steps he knew to be economically disastrous. Commodore Bainimarama’s monetary expertise is probably no better than his diplomatic sense, which we know to be inept.

Exactly. The Commodore is now determining monetary policy.

Changes of government in Australia and New Zealand presented him with an opportunity to reconcile them to his coup. Sanctions applied by previous Governments had brought no sign of progress towards a restoration of democracy. The Key Government was plainly prepared to try a different approach. But it was barely in office before the commodore was threatening to expel New Zealand’s ambassador over a refusal to renew a study visa for an official’s son.

Foreign Minister Murray McCully’s response was notably mild, but the threat was carried out. Even now, in his comments on the country’s constitutional destruction, Mr McCully’s remarks do not ring with the righteous indignation that used to be heard from Helen Clark and Phil Goff.

The change of Government gave Bainimarama an opportunity to get sanctions lifted. All he needed to do was make some minor steps twoards elections – such as set a date for the census.

Instead he throws out the NZ High Commissioner over nothing. And now he rules elections out for at least five years.

It is easy to criticise Australia and NZ’s responses. But I don’t actually think the Commodore is entirely rational, and am not sure any policy change from NZ or Australia would in any way change what he does.

The Dom Post reports:

Business studies lecturer Hamish McCracken, Auckland city councillor Glenda Fryer, Auckland University politics head tutor Meg Bates and employment lawyer Helen White have all confirmed their candidacies.

I would be surprised if McCracken has much of a chance. Not based on any specific knowledge, but the reality he has stood many times before for Labour and never been ranked highly. In 1999 he was no 60, in 2002 no 52, in 2005 no 49 and in 2005 no 50. I can’t see a fifth time lucky.

Bates is well regarded and well connected as a former electorate agent. Her age will be a factor though. Helen White could do very well too – she has a professional career established, and has union support.

Fryer is more unlikely, but not as unlikely as McCracken. She doesn’t particularly represent rejuvenation, and her Auckland City Council junket draconian attempt to ban sign billboards will be fresh in some minds.

But the potential candidate cited as Miss Clark’s favoured successor, list MP Phil Twyford, is still deciding whether to put his name forward a week before nominations close. Mr Twyford said he had discussed the matter with senior party members, but declined to comment further.

Twyford is a popular and respected MP for Labour. Definitely one of the stars of the future, and no doubt wants a safe seat as security. But by pure bad luck the Tizard issue is a real factor, and no one knows how much. So his choice is does he go for Mt Albert in 2009, or wait for another safe seat to come up, such as Mt Roskill in probably 2014?

At Backbenchers last night they discussed the Tizard issue, and it is fair to say no one was wamly welcoming the possible return. In fact there was a hilarious moment as Wallace Chapman went up to the loudest noisiest most partisan pro-Labour table, and asked them if they wanted Judith Tizard back in Parliament. One of them fell mute, while another could only repeat the official script that the issue is about the best candidate, not about who comes in on the list. You know there are problems, when not even your most partisan crowd supporters will say on camera they want Judith back.

And over on Labour Grassroots, members and supporters are not keen. Some quotes:

Suzanne says:

Headlines that say “Goff: Happy to have Judith Tizard back” says nothing to me about a party that wants to revitalise, bring in some new faces, get behind some issues that central Aucklanders care about.Like the Supercity, the environment. If Labour is behind Tizard it makes a mockery of the party recreating getting more in touch with its grassroots.

And Tanya:

Still, the voters are pretty MMP savvy these days, and I believe will be annoyed at Goff for backing Tizard back into parliament, after the voters said no.

And Darren:

Well said, Suzanne. I could not agree more. Labour needs ‘new blood’ everywhere, and to be SEEN to be bringing new faces in at every opportunity. Ms. Tizard did not strike me as a particularly effective MP. Certainly her hand on the on the intellectual property tiller steered it way off course and into the sea of stupidity…. witness the mess of s92a!?!

Her electorate obviously didn’t think she did a good job either, so why the hell would Phil want her back? Regardless of his motivation, which was obviously to keep Tizards’ supporters happy in touchy electoral times, it just makes our Parliamentary leader look horrendously out of touch.

And finally Caitlin:

This whole hullaballoo about Judith Tizard was started by media rumours (probably started by political opposition) and while some Labour activists and supporters may have qualms, we have to continue to pull together as a party to make sure we win this seat. We can’t be complacent – an assumption of victory was one of the problems with the Auckland Central campaign.

Caitlin is right that a party needs to be unified to win, but how motivated will supporters be to bring Judith back into Parliament?

There is also an associated danger with all this. The media will cover the by-election, and the media always have to have some big issues for the by-election. In TKC it was Stratford Hospital. In Tamaki it was send Wellington a message. Now with Mt Albert there may be no big issues on policy – National has just won an election and has gone so centrist it is probably going to even cancel the future tax cuts a couple of weeks before the by-election. So it is hard to see that there will be major policy issues at play in the by-election (unless the Govt decides to knock down 400 local homes for a motorway). But if there are no major policy issues, then issues such as the Tizard dilemma will become a major issue, because the media will make it an issue. They’ll do vox pops on the street asking people about it. They’ll do electorate polls and publish them. People will ask questions at meet the candidate meetings.

Now maybe Mt Albert voters won’t give a damn, even if the media do. They might only care about who will be their local MP, not who will enter Parliament as a result of their vote. But this is the fun thing with by-elections – they are notoriously unpredictable – and with the Greens planning a vigorous campaign, it really will be interesting.

UPDATE: Today’s Dom Post editorial talks about the Tizard issue, noting:

Though the parliamentary party is in capable hands leader Phil Goff and deputy Annette King are respected for their knowledge Labour must nonetheless now find a new generation of leaders to carry the party forward.

How ironic, then, that the departure of Miss Clark and Dr Cullen might reopen the door for two has-beens, Damien O’Connor and Judith Tizard. …

A party that is poised to welcome back Mr O’Connor and Ms Tizard is far from positioned to resume the Treasury benches.

Good to see the Auckland Mayors getting some sense about the Auckland Super City.

They seem to have stopped trying to protect their old job, by demanding the proposed six local Councils be retained. The model of 20 – 30 community boards is far better for local representation than six huge local Councils with no community boards.

What they are now focusing on is having all the Auckland Council seats done through wards, instead of 12 wards and 8 at large. On this issue I support them.

The Royal Commission proposed 10 at large seats (the Govt reduced this to eight), and proponents of at large seats have noble intentions. They want Councillors who will put the entire Region first, not their ward. I can understand the rationale for at large seats.

Having said that, I don’t think Councillors get too influenced by their ward. On Wellington City Council you rarely get people voting on ward lines – it is almost always on ideological grounds. And I don’t think Auckland Regional Council has a lot of divisions based on current wards.

There is some risk in not having at large seats, as the new Auckland Council will be very powerful, if all the Councillors do get tribal and try to represent the old cities. But having ward boundaries that are very different to the old cities and districts are a way around this.

So why do I think at large seats are a bad idea, even if well intentioned? The main issue for me is that you will not get well informed voting. Having to pick 8 or 10 Councillors out of what maybe 30 – 50 candidates will be a simple game in name recognition at best. It will not lead to good governance.

Picking one Mayor out of 10 candidates will be okay, as that race gets lots of publicity, and you probably will know enough about your preferred candidate to make an informed choice.

Likewise a ward election will mean picking one (maybe two) Councillor only – few enough to be an informed choice.

The other issue is cost of campaigning across the whole region.

Sending one letter to the region’s 500,000 ratepayers will cost a candidate $250,000 in postage alone.

Spending limits should be high enough to allow a direct mail letter to every voter and $250,000 while suitable for the Mayoralty will be too much to expect people to raise just for a City Council spot. You could get away with spending under $50,000 on a ward spot, which is about right.

The Herald reports:

Broadcaster Tony Veitch is to appear in court this morning for a hearing expected to resolve allegations that he beat up his former partner.

It is understood he will make a guilty plea, but it is not clear to which charge or charges.

Thank God. I could not handle another 18 months of Sunday newspaper stories about him or Kristin.

Obviously some sort of deal has been done. I expect he will avoid any jail time as part of the plea bargain.

Further comments when details known.

UPDATE: Veitch has pleaded guilty to one charge of “injuring with reckless disregard”. The maximum penalty is five years jail, but for a first offence a jail term would be surprising I would say. Not sure when he will be sentenced, but am glad this brings the media battle to an end.

UPDATE2: Veitch has been given nine months supervision, 300 hours of community service and a $10,000 fine.

I hope Kristin is able to go on with her life now, and can put this behind her. Being kicked in the back while on the floor sounds horrifying, and something that should never have happened to her. It doesn’t matter what provocation there may have been.

Veitch has an opportunity to move on with his life, but will always be known as someone who kicked a woman in her back, while on the floor.  It is good for both parties that the trial by media has ended. From where I stand, it risked destroying both their lives, and maybe the lesson in all this is the assault should have been reported to the Police at the time.

AAP report:

A Norwegian man faces a heavy fine and a driving ban after police caught him having sex with his girlfriend while speeding on the motorway.

Police say the 28-year-old man and 22-year-old woman were caught in the act late on Easter Sunday by traffic police on a highway 40km west of Oslo.

Officers clocked the couple’s silver Mazda 323 racing at 133kmh in a 100kmh zone, veering from one side to the other.

They say he couldn’t see much because her back was in the way.

That is very dangerous. Everyone knows you should slow down to 50 km/hr whle having sex.

The video does not allow embedding, but follow the link to watch and listen to Susan Boyle on Britains Got Talent. She looks like she’ll be awful, but just wait and see.

Once upon a time public sector staff got paid less than those in the private sector. This was because they didn’t have the challenge of actually generating revenue, had better conditions such as study costs covered etc etc.

The situation in the last few years has reversed. Surveys have shown public sector CEOs now get paid more than private sector ones. And a study has shown that there is now a premium of just over 20% for public sector jobs.

So in 2003, the premium was under 5%. Over the next four years it has increased to a massive 22%. And the study adjusted for other variables.

Now this is not an accident. Part of it was that Labour had no fiscal discipline at all with the state sector. Part of it is a deliberate strategy. Ministers encouraged Dpeartments to sign off on higher wage levels or bonuses if people joined the PSA. So taxpayers would pay higher wages to public servants if they joined the PSA. So of course more people would join the PSA, and then the PSA has more money to spent in election year telling people not to vote National. They were the 2nd largest third party spender last election.

Now that her valedictory speech is done and dusted, I thought it was timely to do my own review of Clark’s years at the top. This is not going to be based on whether or not I agreed with her policies, but on how successful she was at advancing her agenda, and managing Government etc.

Achievements/Strengths

• Winning three elections. At the end of the day, this is what it is about and the only PMs who won more elections were Holyoake (4) and Seddon (5). Clark is also the only Labour Prime Minister to have won three elections – Savage and Fraser only won two each, Nash one, Kirk one and Lange two.
• Staying in office for nine years. Linked to the above, but as Jim Bolger found out, winning office and retaining office are not the same thing. Clark’s 8 years and 350 days is the 5th longest of our 38 PMs.
• Uniting the Labour Party. Labour was bitterly divided up until around 1996. This had been the situation since around the 1970s. Kirk was paranoid and divisive. Rowling kept fighting off the fish and chips brigade. Lange wasn’t in charge of his own Government and the Moore/Clark hatred was legendary. But Moore made up in 1996, was bundled off to the WTO and Labour has been basically unified ever since. Yes there are still  some very loose right/left factions but they are a shadow of their former selves and more social than political.
• Total dominance of the party. Clark gained dominance not only over the parliamentary wing, but also the organisational wing. Total loyalty.
• Master of all portfolios. Clark was no hands off Chair of the Board. She was involved in portfolios whenever they posed a danger to the Government. Her competence was rarely challenged (her judgement being another issue)
• Attracted good staff. Heather Simpson may have been feared, but that is what Clark wanted. Simpson was an extraordinarily effective operator, and Clark attracted some very smart operators such as Timms and Robertson. Good staff make a world of difference.
• Changed the political balance. She moved the political pendulum seriously to the left, and has ensured successor Governments can not move it very far back. Sure she never reversed the benefit cuts, but nine years of her Government locked in many left wing gains.
• Initially showed a commendable willingness to replace Ministers who were either not performing or had ethical lapses. This did not last, and will be dealt with later under weaknesses. But she started well.
• Smartly associated herself with nation building activities such as arts, culture, veterans, tomb of unknown solider
• Used Cullen smartly so that most of the time she was working almost as a President – foreign affairs, big ticket stuff, nation building, and Cullen ran the day to day mechanics of Government sorting out issues such as Foreshore & Seabed.
• Smart manipulator of the media – her coverage in her first term especially was almost hagiographic as she would ring selected journos and gossip with them. No way did they want to lose the inside edge. Very smart (from her point of view).
• In first two terms, showed pragmatic streak when needed. Backed down on certain employment law changes in 2000 facing Winter of Discontent. Dropped Closing the Gaps. Now in reality the work streams re-engaged at a later date, but from a political management point of view that is superb – you appear to back down even if you only delay or retitle. Remember this is judging Clark on achieving what she thought was best for NZ.
• Very sound on international affairs. Never seriously put a foot wrong. Dragged Labour to the mainstream on trade issues
• The FTA with China a massive achievement, and also getting the US to the table on one involving them.
• Managed good relationships with world leaders, despite differences – good with Howard and even Bush. Very close to Blair and Brown.

Failures/Weaknesses

• Never quite got the vision thing. The closest she came was her speech about how NZ should aspire to be the first carbon neutral country on Earth. People will vote for leadership and vision, even if it is not one they 100% agree with – Howard got re-elected despite majority opposition to Iraq War, because people respected him for doing what he believed was right. The one time she did get visionary, she never backed it up with substance – her record on carbon emissions being one of the worst in the world.
• A certain meanness of spirit. Her description of Don Brash as cancerous and corrosive. Her “haters and wreckers” description of foreshore and seabed protesters. I could go on.
• Loyalty above talent. Clark kept Tizard as a Minister for nine years. Even Hawkins lasted for six years. Samuels was twice made a Minister. While talented MPs such as Tim Barnett and Charles Chauvel were kept out.
• Over time she confused criticism of her Government and her, with criticism of New Zealand. Not the only PM to do this.
• A near total inability to say sorry and apologise.
• The culture of Helengrad – where civil servants, board members etc were all afraid to give dissenting views.
• Treatment of the Greens – took them for granted, and locked them out of Government three times.
• Ethical lapses – lying about Peter Doone to force him out of office, Paintergate and the associated coverup etc. More worrying is seemingly unaware did anything wrong.
• Maori Party – did not even try to negotiate an agreement with in 2005, calling them last cab off the rank. A strategic blunder that had long term consequences.
• A tendency to blame others and distance herself. There is no way she did not know what Mike Williams was up to in Australia, yet puts him out to hang. Another example is when she let her DPS drivers get prosecuted for getting her to the rugby on time. Pretended she never even noticed the speed of 180 km/hr. Would have got huge kudos if she had fronted and said “I’m horrified that my drivers are being prosecuted for just doing their job”. Many Police never forgave her for not sticking up for them.
• Failed to rejuvenate in time. The 2008 list rejuvenation should have happened in 2005, and the 2007 Cabinet reshuffle in 2005.
• Seriously lost her judgement in third term on numerous issues – almost every decision forced out of her at a stage when too late to stop harm – Benson-Pope sacking, pledge card paying back, anti smacking law compromise. Let these drag on for months more than they should have.
• Electoral Finance Act – need more be said. Will always stain her record.
• Winston – despite massive evidence that Winston had lied numerous time, she would take no real action. Her decision to have Labour vote against the Privileges Committee report was a disgrace.

This isn’t comprehensive. It is just off the top of my head thinking about it for a couple of hours. There are probably more you can add to both the strengths and weaknesses.

If I have time, I’ll do a Michael Cullen one also.

I’ve been with Powershop for around a month now, and I have to say it is a very good experience.

First of all, I just love the fact they are an online company, and deal with me online. If I am late paying the power bill, I get a useful e-mail – not someone turning up to disconnect me.

Powershop have no fixed daily charge – you just buy units of power. That is especially good for someone like me, who doesn’t use a lot of power. I once went three years without turning a heater on

But what I like most is estmating my power usage, and then being able to buy blocks of power more cheaply.

I just purchased around 20 days worth of power at the Easter price of 16.46c/unit which is good value. It has to be used by 30 June 2009, so you don’t buy too much.

The cost of power goes up in winter, reflecting the spot prizes. But you can buy May to August power in advance at a fixed rate of 22.96c.

And for those who are into sustainability over price, you can choose to spend a little bit more to have power from renewable sources etc, or have trees planted to offset your usage.

So far I can honestly say I have no complaints. I can even log in at anytime and supply my own meter reading, so the estimates don’t get way out of kilter from reality. The website is very easy to use.

I won’t know until a few months have passed, how much money it is saving me, but my ballpark estimates are that the savings will be double digits compared to what I was paying. Consumer says they are going to monitor Powershop and report back how it has gone for one of their staff.

Wow, National has been in office over six months, and it has already solved climate change. Nick Smith announced today that previous Kyoto deficit (which had been getting as high as $1 billion) is now a Kyoto surplus of $240 million. We can all relax now – the world has been saved.

Okay I am being sarcastic, but the change in forecast shows how much uncertainty there is – even counting the level of greenhouse gases is no simple thing.

We are now forecast to be 9.6 million tonnes under our Kyoto target of 1990 levels of net emissions. So what has happened?

The 2007/08 drought and better information on carbon captured in forests. I always said we should simply shoot one in ten cows, but instead a drought is just as good it seems. Now here is an interesting idea – global warming is predicted to cause more droughts, which will lower our carbon emissions – so maybe it is self correcting?

Now the figures may be a bit dodgy, as they are done by the Ministry for the Environment. They are being checked, rechecked and audited.

But whatever the figures really are, even the possibility of a surplus completely undermines Labour’s claim that its Emissions Trading Scheme was about “who pays New Zealand’s deficit?”

The truth is that Labour’s ETS was always about one of the biggest illicit tax grabs in New Zealand’s history.

According to David Parker himself  (see attached document letter-from-minister-re-revenue-and-cpr-30-may-20081 which a friendly Kiwiblog reader dropped me) Labour always knew that it would receive a $21 billion windfall from households and firms. Colin Espiner wrote about this before the election but it never really took off as a story because everyone was distracted by Winston Peters and the election.

The $21 billion windfall was why Michael Cullen was so keen on the ETS – he could raid our wallets by $21 billion without us even noticing. It was taxation by stealth at its worst. This is also why Cullen was so willing to pay billions in policy concessions to New Zealand First and the Greens – it was nothing compared with the $21 billion he knew was on its way.

National has always promised to make the ETS fiscally neutral but here’s the problem. Cullen designed the scheme to take money from households and firms and deliver it to him – how can you modify it to turn a $21 billion tax grab into a fiscally-neutral scheme? Or even one that hands the $241 million back to the public?

It is looking more and more likely that a carbon tax is the superior way to go, as the Greens originally proposed.

AP report:

The President of Paraguay has admitted that he is the father of a child conceived while he was still a Catholic bishop.

Whoops.

But it gets better.

This is the mother, aged 26. But the relationship has been going on for a decde – since she was 16!

The Herald reports:

Police checks on parents and volunteers in schools and early childhood centres will no longer be required under legislation introduced to Parliament by Education Minister Anne Tolley.

Yes Labour were planning police checks on parents and grandparents who turn up to help out at a childcare centre.

Last week Mrs Tolley introduced a replacement bill which kept new rules for part-time staff and contractors, but dropped the requirement for vetting of parents and volunteers.

As is sensible.

The primary teachers’ union, New Zealand Educational Institute, welcomed the news as “common sense”. National president Frances Nelson said the vetting of parents would have led to a drop in parents helping out, especially if they were needed at short notice.

The union had objected when Labour introduced it, arguing it was ridiculous for parents and grandparents helping with a sports team at lunchtime or an individual child with reading in school to be vetted.

Ridiculous indeed.

Ms Nelson said most schools had sensible policies for parental involvement and kept a watchful eye on what was happening around them.

“It would have narrowed the things parents could do in school for no good reason. It didn’t seem sensible to require police vets for every person that helps out just in case they might spend 30 seconds alone with a child.”

NZEI said the problem was small – of 35,000 non-teacher police checks between 2004 and 2006, only seven people were found to have criminal records that caused concern.

That is a 0.02% incidence rate.