Kiwiblog

This is why fewer and fewer people are trusting the media – they don’t tell the full story.

Read this story in the Dominion Post about VUWSA and VSM. Nowhere at all do they even cover the proposed illegal meeting on Friday, and the huge controversy over the retrospective declaring of the Wednesday meeting as invalid.

On the blogs you have been given first hand accounts of what happened, and even video coverage so people can make their minds up. In the traditional newspaper, you get just this:

Victoria University student president Jasmine Freemantle said the motion had since been declared void by VUWSA’s lawyer.

And this is reported without giving their readers any hint of the c0ntroversy involved in what they did.

And here is the irony – the Dom Post reports that the meeting was attended by a large group of students, yet doesn’t record any scepticism about the fact it was also declared inquorate.

Maybe it was in the original story, and a sub-editor took it out. But the story as published is woefully lacking in covering what is a very controversial situation. It doesn’t give both sides of the story – it just repeats the assertion by the VUWSA President as fact.

Goonix defends scalpers at TVHE:

Events in high demand that have limited capacity sell out. See for example the Wellington Sevens or Toast Martinborough, which sold out in three minutes and thirteen minutes respectively. These events sell out as demand far outstrips supply at the price that the seller sets. In other words, many of those purchasing the tickets would be willing to pay much more than they actually do pay in order to attend said event.

High demand events such as these are the capitalist world’s version of queuing for basic food items in a communist shit-hole. When buyers are unable to adequately express their willingness to pay, due to blunt ‘one-for-all’ pricing and an inability of the seller to price discriminate, shortage ensues.

Enter the scalper. Scalpers are typically demonised by the media in New Zealand. However, scalpers simply allow buyers to reveal their true willingness to pay. When a scalper auctions off a ticket on Trademe, buyers are able to pay exactly what they value their attendance at said event at. What ensues is the efficient allocation of resources – scarce resources are allocated to those that value them highest – an admirable economic goal. Contrast this with the lottery that is the current ‘log-in and hope’ method of ticket allocation. Rather than be vilified, scalpers should be commended for their actions that facilitate the clearing of the market!

Indeed, a commentator at the NBR goes further, calling scalpers “unsung entrepreneurs”. I tend to agree with this sentiment.

I can only agree also. My only restriction would be to limit how many tickets one can buy, so one company doesn’t buy up every ticker to resell them.

I wonder if the more efficient way might be to auction off tickets for events like the Sevens. People can bid for blocks of tickets and the highest bidders win.

Or, if there is some reasons you want to fix the maximum price, it would be better to have a proper lottery with random selection of those who want tickets at that price. That would be preferable to the nonsense of 100,000+ people all trying to buy tickets within 180 seconds online, and everything overloading.

In reference to the frequent texts from Helen Clark to her former colleagues, Geoffrey Miller e-mails me the following:

National uses Crosby Textor.

Labour uses Clarky Texter.

Heh, very good.

The Weekly Standard reports on the difference one person can make:

Pamela Key does not work for the Republican National Committee. She has no formal training in journalism. An illustrator of children’s books, she never finished college. And yet, her oppositional research, her investigative journalism, and her philosophical convictions have all come together to shape the national mood, receiving even the attention of the White House. On August 4 of this year, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House, released a video where she instructed the public, “My job is to keep track of all the disinformation that’s out there about health-insurance reform. And there are a lot of very deceiving headlines out there right now, such as this,” she reads the Drudge Report from her computer screen, “‘Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will Eliminate PRIVATE Insurance.’”

What most don’t know is that Douglass was targeting a video unearthed by Key, first released on her video news website, Naked Emperor News, and then picked up by the Drudge Report. The video, which pieces together various Obama statements, damningly quotes the president at an SEIU forum in 2007 saying, “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”

That is a truly damning quote, and this is why so many people wonder just how left wing is Obama.

Looking through the archives of Chicago’s public radio stations, of C-Span, of YouTube, and various other forums, Key uncovered clips of Obama saying cap and trade will bankrupt coal plants, of Van Jones calling for a revolution against “suicidal, gray capitalism,” and of congressional democrats refusing to regulate and audit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004. In one of her most viewed videos, which received nearly three million hits, Obama advocates for redistribution of wealth. In that 2001 Chicago public radio interview, Obama tells a radio talk show host, “One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was [the] tendency to lose track of political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” To this effect, he criticizes the radical Warren court (1953-1969) as not being radical enough: “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution generally, the constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what states can’t do to you, says what federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

Again, this is superb research from one person. Who knew Obama thought the Warren court was not radical enough.

I find it interesting to look at the trend in the polls, to see when it went wrong. TV3 have polled four times this year, and here is how Goff has done:

Preferred PM

1. Feb – 3.7%
2. Apr – 9.1%
3. Aug 6.5%
4. Oct 4.7%

Goff Net Positive Performance

1. Feb +16%
2. Apr +13.9%
3. Aug -7.2%
4. Oct -3.7%

So Goff was doing relatively well, and had some upwards momentum up until April, but by August he was going backwards and public opinion had soured on him going from +14% to -7%.

Why? I think it was primarily his role in the Richard Worth saga. He damaged his brand quite significantly, and the polls are showing it will take a fair while to recover.

Tv3 also asks on certain characteristics. They have asked in pre-May and post-July. What happened after May:

• Goff drops 9% as a capable leader
• Goff drops 10% as good in a crisis
• Goff drops 11% for sound judgement
• Goff drops 8% for honest
• Goff drops 9% for understands economic problems
• Goff increases 6% for out of touch
• Goff drops 4% for in touch with Maori

Now these were not Key vs Goff – this was people just rating Goff.

So his problem isn’t where he started off. He started off in the first half of 2009 with fairly good ratings. But his stuff ups towards the middle of the year damaged him quite badly, and he is looking to end the year lower than he started it on most criteria.

AP reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) – What is $1.42 trillion? It’s more than the total national debt for the first 200 years of the Republic, more than the entire economy of India, almost as much as Canada’s, and more than $4,700 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

In New Zealand dollars that is $1,920,740,000,000.

It’s the federal budget deficit for 2009, more than three times the most red ink ever amassed in a single year.

And, some economists warn, unless the government makes hard decisions to cut spending or raise taxes, it could be the seeds of another economic crisis.

Treasury figures released Friday showed that the government spent $46.6 billion more in September than it took in, a month that normally records a surplus. That boosted the shortfall for the full fiscal year ending Sept. 30 to $1.42 trillion. The previous year’s deficit was $459 billion.

Without significant budget cuts, that would crowd out government spending in such areas as transportation, law enforcement and education. Already, interest on the debt is the third-largest category of government spending, after the government’s popular entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare, and the military.

And Bush was bad enough as a fiscal disaster, but this is an all new level. And I agree if nothing is done, it will trigger an economic crisis.

“The rudderless U.S. fiscal policy is the biggest long-term risk to the U.S. economy,” says Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor and former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. “As we accumulate more and more debt, we leave ourselves very vulnerable.”

Forecasts of more red ink mean the federal government is heading toward spending 15 percent of its money by 2019 just to pay interest on the debt, up from 5 percent this fiscal year.

President Barack Obama has pledged to reduce the deficit once the Great Recession ends and the unemployment rate starts falling, but economists worry that the government lacks the will to make the hard political choices to get control of the imbalances.

Friday’s report showed that the government paid $190 billion in interest over the last 12 months on Treasury securities sold to finance the federal debt. Experts say this tab could quadruple in a decade as the size of the government’s total debt rises to $17.1 trillion by 2019.

It is worth noting that Labour in NZ are promising bigger deficits, and mroe debt.

The Dom Post reports:

Low-income earners would have to be compensated if GST was increased as a result of the current tax review, Finance Minister Bill English says. …

“Low-income earners, in particular, would have to be compensated for any increase in GST,” he said in a speech to chartered accountants in Auckland. “The tax working group will have to come up with some fairly compelling reasons to convince us of the overall benefits of further property-related taxes or an increase in GST.”

“We don’t want to go down the route of raising taxes,” he said. “The Government has a strong preference not to increase taxes to close the deficit. We prefer more efficient taxes over higher taxes.”

Most forms of income should be covered and, where possible, loopholes that allowed income to be sheltered from tax should be closed.

With one of the most mobile workforces among developed countries, New Zealand’s tax system must help attract and retain people, businesses and investment.

I of course agree that spending restraint should be used to close the deficit rather than higher taxes. But a more “efficient” tax system which contributes to higher economic growth is very desirable.

The Herald reports:

The Government has confirmed that accident victims may have to pay the first $50 or $100 of their costs.

The move is under consideration as part of a second round of changes to the accident compensation scheme next year.

Accident Compensation Corporation chairman John Judge says requiring victims to pay an insurance-style “excess” of $50 or $100 for each claim would cut ACC costs by about $1.6 billion over the next 10 years, reducing the need for further levy increases.

ACC Minister Nick Smith said he had been briefed on the proposal, but no decision would be made on it until a wide-ranging “stocktake” of the scheme, led by former Labour Finance Minister David Caygill, was completed next July.

“It’s true that there is a very large transaction cost in ACC, with more than 1 million claims a year,” he said.

“The concept [of a $50 or $100 excess] would need to be carefully balanced with regard to low income earners for whom a $50 or $100 excess might prevent them getting medical attention.”

I understand the cost of processing those minor sub $100 claims is greater than the actual claims themselves, so the problem is quite clear.

However it is worth considering more generally the issue of part fees. As a starting point, I consider almost all Govt funded services should have part fees, as you get distorted decision making in their absence.

The prime example of this is the scam tertiary courses which have diverted so much tertiary funding. When the Govt pays 100% of the course costs, then the institution will simply target signing up as many people as possible, and they will sign up if there is no cost.

Now part fees should not be high enough to discourage people who would genuinely benefit from a Government service, and this is a valid concern.

And there are some situations where there should be no part fees at all. For example kids borrowing books from a library is a classic example.

In related news, 93 year old Sir Owen Woodhouse is reported as being upset with changes:

The father of New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme, Sir Owen Woodhouse, says changes announced last week are “uncaring and predatory”.

Sir Owen, 93, says proposals to double and treble levies on heavy motorbikes and mopeds, and to push accident victims back to work on much lower incomes than they earned before their accidents, breach the principles of the scheme he authored as head of a royal commission in 1967.

I think Sir Owen has just shown us the real problem with ACC. He has spoken out against both the increase in levies and the reduction of benefits. Now you can’t have it both ways. It is quite legitimate to say there should be no reduction in benefits, but then you have to accept that that levies will increase to around $45 a week for an average family. But if you do not reduce benefits, then levies have to increase even further. There is no magic pot of gold to fund the scheme.

Sir Owen’s 1967 report proposed a single flat-rate levy on all employers and another flat rate on motorists, on the basis that everyone benefited from the work of people in risky industries such as aerial topdressing.

Sorry, but wrong an unrealistic view. Firstly industries with higher work accidents should cover those costs, so that the prices of those goods or services reflect that.

I own a polling company. Over the last five years my ACC bill has been a large five figure sum. During that time not a single accident has occurred, or claim filed by a staff member. And Sir Owen is saying we should pay even higher ACC levies to cover not just workplace accidents in other clerical type firms, but workplace accidents in freezing works.

Yesterday he disputed claims by ACC Minister Nick Smith that levies needed to reflect different accident rates in different industries and different kinds of vehicles because that would give employers and motorists more incentive to be safe.

“We are saying people are willing to risk killing themselves for the sake of a few dollars of saved premiums. That’s just ridiculous,” he said.

“I think it’s simply shocking that they are proposing to load people on bicycles and this kind of thing with the extra amounts they are talking about.”

Well if you are saying you want less people killed on the roads, then yes the motorcycle premium makes sense as their injury rate is 16 times that of motorists.

Where I do have some sympathy for motorcyclists is if they own multiple bikes. What might be worthwhile is for the Government to look at a system for all vehicle registrations where the first vehicle per person pays the full license fee, while any subsequent vehicles pay a lower fee.

Tonight’s TV3 poll has National 33% ahead of Labour. And this poll was taken during one of the messiest periods on record for National. It is consistent with the Roy Morgan poll published earlier this week that has a 29.5% gap.

This is the equal highest in a Tv3 poll, the same as they got in Feb 2009. In Feb 2009 the Government was very much in honeymoon mode. Since then there has been a budget that cancelled tax cuts and super fund contributions, a huge by-election loss, a Ministerial scandal, the smacking referendum, investigations of two backbench MPs, controversy over the Auckland Super City, Bill English’s housing problems, infighting between Government support parties, and the Rugby World Cup fiasco. And despite all that Labour is still at 27%!

Since 1974, the only time a party has had a bigger gap than 33% was the May to Aug 1990 Heylens for National. Note this was pre multi-party MMP.

The poll also reveals that John Key is at 56% as preferred PM, and Phil Goff a very distant third at 5%, around half Helen Clark at 8%. Now there is something wrong when you have been Opposition Leader for a year, and you can just make half of your predecessor who doesn’t even live here anymore.

The 51% gap between Key and Goff is also unprecedented. The closest we have seen is a 41% gap in February 2003 between Clark and English. So the gap is 10% higher than a poll taken after National had its worst ever election result, and in the year English was rolled.

When TV3 had similar results in February 2009, I blogged:

“Now a week is a long time in politics, and the next election is 33 months away. Goff is under no threat for now. But if he doesn’t make some traction towards the end of the year, he may find the summer of 2010 is BBQ at Dave’s place”

Up until now I have consistently said that I think Goff is very likely to lead Labour into the 2011 election. I am now thinking these last two polls have changed things.

As a comparison, in Australia Malcolm Turnbull is considered unlikely to survive until their election, which is only a year away.  And the Coalition is only 15.5% behind the Labor Party – not 33%.

There is no clear successor to Goff, and there was a covenant that he would be safe until the election. However I suspect several senior MPs will be texting New York asking for guidance, as to how long they should hold off for.

Personally I don’t think Goff is the issue for Labour – he may just become the scapegoat. I think Labour continues to be massively out of touch with the electorate. They don’t realise the global recession changed the political landscape.

Issues like RWC broadcasting is a beltway issue. It may not be at the time of the RWC, but it is for now. The economy is still the number one issue.

Now Labour is on the wrong side of spending cuts. Even Gordon Brown has caught on that the public are now pro spending cuts. But Labour keep positioning themselves as the enemies of fiscal responsibility.

Likewise on ACC, they think the public are on their side on the proposed changes. They do not realise how many people resent the amount they are being forced to pay in ACC levies, for little benefit.

And even with industrial disputes, Labour has misread much of the public mood. Labour have got involved with almost every industrial dispute in NZ, supporting demands for higher wages. They do not realise that most of NZ recognises a recession with growing unemployment is a time for restraint. People are more worried about keeping jobs, than pay increases.

A couple of years ago these issues would all have been winners for Labour. In boom times with massive surpluses people did want more spending, wider ACC coverage, and higher wages for all workers. But Labour’s inability to understand that the global recession has changed things, is why New Zealanders are saying they are irrelevant.  Labour are relying on the old Muldoon adage that the average person wouldn’t know a deficit if they tripped over one. Today people are more economically literate and when you have a $10 billion deficit, policies of tax more, spend more and borrow more don’t resonate.

If Goff wants to survive, he needs to reposition Labour into a more realistic position. I think he personally may understand this, but whether he can carry his caucus with him is the challenge.

AFP reports:

AN interracial couple in Louisiana have been denied a marriage license by an official who considers their union morally wrong, according to local media.

“I’m not a racist,” Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in rural Tangipahoa Parish, told the Hammond Star.

“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children.”

Mr Bardwell told the paper that he believes interracial marriages do not last and that the children of such unions are not accepted by either the black or white community.

Now of course Bardwell is bonkers to think it is his job to decide whether or not a couple should be able to get married, based on his beliefs. He does the classic groupist error of applying a generalisation to everyone (and of thinking it is his decision anyway).

It did get me interested in what is the prevalance of “mixed race” marriages and whether or not their divorce rates are higher than “same race” marriages.

In NZ we have traditionally had a high rate of mixed race marriages, as all modern Maori New Zealanders have at least one European ancestor. I do wonder if we have current stats on this – presumably the census data could reveal this.

In the US, only 2.8% of black women and 6.6% of black men had a white spouse. While 41% of Asian women have a white husband and 36% of Asian men have a white wife. So a big difference in prevalence depending on the races involved.

In terms of divorce rates Wikipedia says:

Marital stability studies published on the Education Resources Information Center found that White female-Black male unions are more prone to result in a divorce than White-White marriages are, while Black female-White male marriages show similar or lower risks of divorce than White-White marriages.

So Bardwell is wrong with his generalisation also.

As I said, I would be interested to see what the prevalence of mixed race/culture marriages are in NZ, and if there are differences in the divorce rates. Anyone know of any studies already done?

From the BBC:

Around the world millions of children are not getting a proper education because their families are too poor to afford to send them to school. In India, one schoolboy is trying to change that. In the first report in the BBC’s Hunger to Learn series, Damian Grammaticas meets Babar Ali, whose remarkable education project is transforming the lives of hundreds of poor children.

At 16 years old, Babar Ali must be the youngest headmaster in the world. He’s a teenager who is in charge of teaching hundreds of students in his family’s backyard, where he runs classes for poor children from his village.

The story of this young man from Murshidabad in West Bengal is a remarkable tale of the desire to learn amid the direst poverty. …

But Chumki is now getting an education, thanks to Babar Ali. The 16-year-old has made it his mission to help Chumki and hundreds of other poor children in his village. The minute his lessons are over at Raj Govinda school, Babar Ali doesn’t stop to play, he heads off to share what he’s learnt with other children from his village.

At four o’clock every afternoon after Babar Ali gets back to his family home a bell summons children to his house. They flood through the gate into the yard behind his house, where Babar Ali now acts as headmaster of his own, unofficial school.

Lined up in his back yard the children sing the national anthem. Standing on a podium, Babar Ali lectures them about discipline, then study begins.

Babar Ali gives lessons just the way he has heard them from his teachers. Some children are seated in the mud, others on rickety benches under a rough, homemade shelter. The family chickens scratch around nearby. In every corner of the yard are groups of children studying hard.

Babar Ali was just nine when he began teaching a few friends as a game. They were all eager to know what he learnt in school every morning and he liked playing at being their teacher. …

Now his afternoon school has 800 students, all from poor families, all taught for free. Most of the girls come here after working, like Chumki, as domestic helps in the village, and the boys after they have finished their day’s work labouring in the fields.

Is that not simply an amazing story?

The EFF report:

As we reported in June, ASCAP believes that when your cell phone’s musical ringtone sounds in a public place, you’re infringing copyright. A federal court yesterday firmly rejected that argument, ruling that “when a ringtone plays on a cellular telephone, even when that occurs in public, the user is exempt from copyright liability, and [the cellular carrier] is not liable either secondarily or directly.”

The greed and stupidity of some is almost beyond comprehension.

The ruling is an important victory for consumers, making it clear that playing music in public, when done without any commercial purpose, does not infringe copyright. That’s thanks to Section 110(4) of the Copyright Act, which exempts public performances undertaken “without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage.” In the words of the court, “customers do not play ringtones with any expectation of profit.” This ruling should also protect consumers who roll down their car windows with the radio on,

No doubt they will propose you should have your car confiscated if you wind down your window, and allow people to hear the radio.

remember, ASCAP once demanded royalties from Girl Scouts for singing around the camp fire!

And this is why they are becoming so hated. They beat a retreat on that one at least, without going to court.

The court also found that cell phone carriers do not publicly perform when they download a ringtone to a phone (the carriers already pay 24 cents in royalties for the reproduction of the ringtone, but ASCAP was hoping to double dip by charging a public performance royalty on top of that).

This is key. They had been paid for use of the song as a ringtone. They wanted to also be paid if the phone rings in public!

Adam Smith at The Inquiring Mind blogs on confidence in Obama in 25 different countries, and notes that despite his Cairo speech (cited as part of the rationale for the Nobel Peace Prize), he still ranks negatively in the Muslim world.

As always I am interested in the raw data. The question asked was whether they were confident Obama would do the right thing in world affairs. His net ratings (positive less negative) are:

1. Kenya +89%
2. Germany +88%
3. France + 83%
4. Canada +79%
5. Nigeria +78%
6. UK +76%
7. Japan +76%
8. South Korea +69%
9. India +68%
10. Brazil +56%
11. US + 50%
12. Spain +50%
13. Indonesia +49%
14. Poland +41%
15. Argentina +35%
16. Mexico +22%
17. Russia -3%
18. Lebanon -4%
19. Egypt -5%
20. Israel -13%
21. Turkey -19%
22. Jordan -27%
23. Pakistan -38%
24. China -39%
25. Palestine -52%

So Russia, Muslim countries and China not persuaded yet.

Another question asks about overall favourability of the US, and tracks it from 1999. The data below shows the change between 2009 and 2008 (or 2007 if not polled in 2008) which presumably reflects the Obama effect.

1. France +33%
2. Germany +33%
3. Indonesia +26%
4. Spain +25%
5. Mexico +22%
6. UK +16%
7. Argentina +16%
8. Nigeria +15%
9. Brazil +14%
10. Canada +13%
11. India +10%
12. Japan +9%
13. South Korea +8%
14. Jordan +6%
15. China +6%
16. Egypt +5%
17. Lebanon +4%
18. US +4%
19. Kenya +3%
20. Palestine +2%
21. Turkey +2%
22. Poland -1%
23. Russia -2%
24. Pakistan -3%
25. Israel -7%

So Obama has had US favourability rise greatly in Western Europe and South America. Asia had had a modest improvement, and Middle East countries a very small improvement only.

One thing I found interesting is that the US under Bush had a 87% favourability rating amongst Kenyans. Bush actually delivered huge aid to Africa.

The 2010 Pew data will be interesting.

1. Nandor Tancos says Keith Locke’s Head of State bill should go to a select committee to generate debate, but does not want it passed without an exploration of wider constitutional issues.
2. Bryce Edwards has a comprehensive piece on the splintering of the Greens, and how the Greens have become more centrist with their mission being to “save capitalism” as Russel Norman put it.
3. Tim Watkin blogs on the significance of what US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said on Q&A. The media all missed that he effectively said Obama will announce his position on trade at APEC.
4. Cactus Kate has fun at my expense.
5. Liberty Scott blogs on how Geert Wilders was greeted in the UK with chants of “burn in hell”, “Sharia for UK” and a banner saying “Sharia is the solution, freedom go to hell”.
6. Busted Blonde is abused by Bob Jones.
7. Whale Oil finds look a like logos for Telecom.

Nope not Gordon Brown, but Len Brown. His spending is already into six figures it seems, and he is planning a million dollar campaign.

Where are the Labour Party and Green Party people condemning big money in politics, and demanding law changes to stop him “buying” the election?

Brown has already spent between $150,000 and $200,000, according to his rival, Auckland Mayor John Banks – but Brown has dismissed this as at least $100,000 too high.

Brown also denied that his funding had come principally from former Auckland City mayor Dick Hubbard – however the cereal king has paid a small sum.

Brown predicted yesterday that his campaign would reach the million mark.

So who is funding Brown? Surely this Labour Party member will reveal all.

While there will be a cap of $70,000 on all campaigns, that only covers the last three months before the election.

Now think about this. A national campaign has a spending cap of $2.4 million for the last three months and the fact National ran some billboards just ahead of that time period worth around $250,000 saw Labour force through a law change to stop such a thing. So National spent an extra 10% of the regulated period budget before the regulated period. While Labour Party member Len Brown is planning to spend an extra 1300% before the regulated period.

Trevor Mallard blogs:

Anne Tolley will announce a progressive introduction of bulk funding for schools starting soon with the staffing component for guidance and careers counsellors being abolished and a small increase going into the bulk operations grant.

Now it comes from Trevor, so it is hardly reliable, but we can all keep our fingers crossed that it is actually true.

Bulk funding is in fact how almost every other part of society operates.

Hospitals don’t have their staff paid out of one budget on a fixed scale, and an operations grant for everything else.

Universities don’t have their staff paid out of one budget, and an ops grant for everything else.

It is pretty much only in the school sector that you have this abnormal arrangement.

A good editorial:

The grief of parents who have lost sons and daughters, killed in high-speed police chases, is wholly understandable.

But, in the wake of an Independent Police Conduct Authority report questioning the value of many police pursuits, one fact needs to be borne in mind.

Drivers have a choice when they hear a police siren. They can pull over to the side of the road as the majority do. Or they can try to escape police.

And parents should wonder about their role in the tragedy that ensures, if their kids even consider trying to outspeed the Police, let alone actually doing so.

When chases end in death or serious injury, as occurred 137 times in a five-year period studied by the authority, it is the drivers who tried to outrun the police who bear responsibility for the human toll. That is not something for which they, or their parents, can shift the blame.

And a policy of let them get away if they drive fast enough actually just encourages people to drive even faster when fleeing.

Those with the power to take the risk out of the equation are the individuals tempted to depress the accelerator pedal rather than the brake when they hear a police siren.

It is a power the parents of all driving-age children should remind their offspring of. The consequences of a wrong decision can be tragic for them, their families, their friends, police and complete strangers.

If the Police were allowed to shoot at fleeing vehicles, I’m pretty sure that would reduce the number of police chases also!

The Southland Times reports:

Queenstown’s Pig and Whistle pub will be opening on Labour Day but its 10 workers will not be getting paid statutory holiday time-and-a-half rates.

In fact, they will not be getting paid at all. Instead, staff will take control of the pub for the day, splitting everything in the till after expenses have been paid.

Owner Barry Ellis has offered the same deal to staff at Craft Bar in Dunedin, in a move to circumvent the restrictions of the Holidays Act.

“We would normally close on the day and we thought let’s do something a little bit novel and let them find how it is to run their own business.” …

The staff will have to cover the rent, alleviating Mr Ellis of one expense if he had closed, but he said the real benefit would be strengthening the relationship between staff and managers.

Pig and Whistle duty manager Daragh Cantwell said he was sceptical when the idea was first mooted, realising it would mean waiving wages for the day, but then he had a look at the trading figures supplied by Mr Ellis. “It depends on the day but we think we’ve got a really good chance of doing well.”

He declined to speculate on what riches might be on offer, but said many patrons had already indicated they would be in on Labour Day to prop up the bar.

Seven front-of-house staff and three chefs had democratically planned the menu, entertainment and opening hours, and would evenly split any profit based on how many hours they worked.

I hope they report afterwards, how well it went.

Fran compares John Key to Barrack Obama, and not in a good way!

The “Mr Nice Guys” like Prime Minister John Key – and US President Barack Obama – who have soared high on the basis of personal popularity and feel-good vibes – are now finding out the hard way thatthere is more to making a good political hamburger than mere sizzle. …

Less than one year into his reign as New Zealand Prime Minister, Key’s popularity – like that of his party’s – is rocketing high in the opinion polls.

Much more so that Obama incidentially. Obama has only a net 11% positive rating, and the Democrats are polling only 4% ahead of the Republicans nationally.

Like Obama, Key has succeeded in one critical area: changing “the vibe” around his nation’s capital. Like Obama he is perceived as a Mr Nice Guy in large part because he is not his predecessor: Helen Clark in Key’s case, or George W. Bush (Obama).

That is a fair point. Of course John Key hasn’t won the Nobel Peace Prize simply for not being his predecessor!

It is a political truism the crucial strengths that underline a leader’s popularity are also their weaknesses.

Key – like his alter ego – is now in desperate need of the vital machine skills to ensure his Government does make progress on controversial flagship policies.

Key will be hoping he doesn’t have another week like the last one. The public are fairly forgiving of stuff ups, if they are corrected quickly. But if they start to form a pattern, then confidence gets shaken.

The Herald reports on the organisational leadership of the Maori Party:

Maori Party president Whatarangi Winiata’s plans to retire from the post today appear to have been scuttled after several people within the party asked him to stay on.

Dr Winiata had announced his intention to stand down at today’s annual general meeting in Auckland.

He is two years through his three-year term, but had proposed resigning to allow his successor two years in the position before the next election.

Asked if he had changed his mind, he said he had been approached about it and would stay on if the membership decided it was the best option.

He would wait to hear what the meeting wanted before deciding.

The party’s co-president, retired Maori Land Court judge Heta Kenneth Kingston, was tipped to succeed him.

Dr Winiata has led the party wing of the Maori Party since it was formed in 2004 and having him stay on will help the party’s stability.

The party also has a challenge ahead with its parliamentary leadership. At the 2014 election, Turia will be 70, and Sharples 73. I would expect both will retire at that election.

That means they need to have their successors in place at the 2011 election, and they may struggle to find people of matching profile and mana nationally.

The most high profile current MP is Hone Harawira, but Hone is not seeking leadership and would be an unlikely one. Some say his wife Hilda would be an excellent Leader, but is Parliament ready for two Harawiras?

Te Ururoa Flavell is considered able to potentially step up if he lifts his profile in the next few years. But even if that happens, the Maori Party will still need a new female co-leader and unless they pick up the final two seats off Labour, no way to get them into Parliament in 2011.

Claire Trevett also has a very insightful article on the two current co-leaders and their strengths and weaknesses.

I have not followed the bus dispute in Auckland very closely, but find this story interesting:

The Employment Relations Authority has made public its recommendations to settle the pay dispute between NZ Bus and Auckland drivers.

The ERA suggested a wage increase of 4.2 per cent for the first 16 months, back-paid to July this year, then 3.9 per cent for the next 14 months from November next year.

Both increases amounted to 70 cents an hour.

The collective agreement would expire on December 31, 2011 after the Rugby World Cup, ERA recommended.

NZ Bus agreed to the recommendations and requested they should be released to the public.

So the employer is willing to accept the ERA recommendation, but it is the union that is not.

I note inflation is now running at 1.2%.

National actually won an election mandate for introducing competition and choice to ACC. It shouldn’t need ACT to push it in that direction.

The 1998 changes were a win-win. Not only did employers get choice, and lower levies, but workplace accidents fell as other insurers provided incentives to employers to have safer workplaces.

The Herald writes about Telecom’s new logo, and the debate about whether it is a snowflake, or a spark.

The best suggestion I have seen was on Twitter, where someone suggested it represents the small print in the contracts, which is normally denoted by an asterisk

To be fair, I do prefer the new logo to the old one, which was very dull and corporate.