Kiwiblog

I blogged yesterday that I thought David Cunliffe would be the next Leader of the Labour Party.

Today, I wanted to preview how I would go about “selling” DC if he did become Leader.

Some, amongst the beltway, think this is a tough sell, because he is seen to be somewhat lacking in the common touch.

However this overlooks the fact that 95% of New Zealanders will have no firm impression of Cunliffe. Most NZers are not like the blogosphere, where politics is followed on a daily basis.

The first few weeks or months of a new leader, can set a brand which will last for years if done well.

With the benefit of hindsight, Helen Clark did Phil Goff a terrible disservice by resigning on election night, and forcing Goff to become Leader three days after the election. All the media focus was on the new Prime Minister, so Goff never got the benefits of the normal “Who is ….” profiles.

So the first key step for Labour, if they lose the election, is not to allow Goff to resign straight away. He should remain in the job until at least early 2012, which will maximise publicity about the likely new leader, and allow the normal print and broadcast stories on him, introducing him to the public at large.

Then we turn to the substance – how do you sell Cunliffe as different to former Labour leaders, or in other words what would you expect from a Cunliffe-led Labour?

The major brand I would seek to establish for Cunliffe is that he is the first ever Labour Party Leader with a strong business and private sector background. He is not a unionist, an academic or an identity politician. His Labour Party is not an anti-business Labour Party, but a party that understands business.

DC spent four years working for the Boston Consulting Group as an economist and business strategy advisor. BCG is one of the pre-eminent management consulting firms and has appeared for five years in a row as one of Fortune Magazine’s top 15 companies to work for. BCG do not hire low achievers. Other former employees include Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu.

The secondary brand I would seek to establish for Cunliffe is that he is the guy who finally did something about Telecom’s monopolistic behaviour. While it was done on sound public policy grounds (supported by even NBR and Fran O’Sullivan), it was also hugely popular.

It was a ballsy call, which could have ended up in a massive war of attrition, such as happened in Australia with Telstra. But DC managed to get a parliamentary select committee to unanimously back operational separation of Telecom.

So there is an opportunity to brand Cunliffe as someone who understands and supports business, but also willing to stand up to big business when their actions hurt every day New Zealanders.

I think that would see a fair number of New Zealanders saying, hey we might give this guy a go.

Of course the challenge will be to actually deliver sensible policies, and a united team, that supports those policies. That is far from guaranteed. But if Labour do elect Cunliffe, and Cunliffe can establish a positive brand, then the 2014 election could be competitive.

Off form today. Quiz here. 58 seconds.

Sub-human was my initial reaction to reading this story:

An enraged man beat his partner with a broom handle and poured boiling water over her abdomen and legs, stuffing her mouth with a sponge to stifle her screams.

The Wellington woman thought she would die during the four-day “reign of terror” in which she suffered severe burns and a broken eye socket. …

The court was told Griffiths and his partner argued over four days last August. He punched her, leaving her bruised all over her body and with a broken eye socket. At one point he beat her for several hours with a broomstick, breaking it in two.

He pushed a sponge into her mouth and poured boiling water over her abdomen and legs.

Judge Harrop said the behaviour was “gross, barbaric and demeaning”. He could only imagine the outcry if the same treatment had been given to an animal.

Griffiths’ partner was wearing a thin nightdress that provided no protection and the pain was excruciating, Judge Harrap said.

I can understand how some people can lose it and lash out in a moment of madness. I can not and will not ever understand how someone could beat someone up over four hours, let alone pouring boiling water on them.

There has to be something wrong with someone who can do that.

The court was told Griffiths had told police his partner had made up the abuse and the injuries were self-inflicted.

Yes, she poured boiling water onto herself.

Yesterday, Judge Stephen Harrop in Wellington District Court said there had been an element of torture to Griffiths’ “reign of terror” over his partner of several years. The judge jailed him for 7 1/2 years and ordered him to serve half the term.

The length of the jail term seems about right, but hopefully he will not get parole after half the term, unless he undergoes a radical personality change.

His offending occurred prior to the three strikes law, but I do wonder what previous offences he has, so one could work out what would have happened to him under the three strikes regime.

The Dom Post has a headline and lead para of:

PM still backs Aussie plan of asylum seeker centre

Prime Minister John Key is still backing a proposed international detention centre for asylum seekers, despite Australian plans to base it in East Timor being in tatters.

Wow that sounds like the PM has come out strongly in favour of it, even after East Timor said “not here”. So what exactly did  he say:

A spokesman for Mr Key, who was sounded out about the plan in a 10-minute phone call from Ms Gillard while on an official trip to Asia, said he would continue discussions despite the East Timor vote.

“As we said last week, we are happy to have discussions with the Australians on the idea of a regional processing centre, but Mr Key has not spoken further with Julia Gillard on this issue.”

So in fact he said well nothing at all. His spokesperson merely said his position remains he is happy to have discussions, but in fact none have occurred since the initial call.

The Herald reports:

Political momentum for removing GST from healthy food is increasing with both the Maori and Labour parties working on the idea.

But even in the event the two parties were to put aside their differences and work together on the policy they would not have the numbers to pass the required legislation since the National Party and United Future are opposed to it.

Maori Party MP Rahui Katene’s Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill is likely to get its first reading when Parliament returns from recess next Tuesday.

The member’s bill would remove GST from fruit and vegetables, bread and cereals, some dairy products, lean meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, nuts, seeds and legumes.

Yesterday, Labour Party leader Phil Goff – who has previously opposed similar proposals – said his party was close to adopting what he believed was a more workable policy to remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables.

Revenue Minister Peter Dunne said Ms Katene’s proposal wasn’t viable because of problems around defining what constituted healthy food. Furthermore, removing GST from the food specified in the bill would mean the loss of about $330 million a year in tax revenue which would have to be found somewhere else.

I can’t believe how desperate Labour are getting with its support for such nonsense. The only winners from removing GST on so called healthy food will be the tax lawyers.

The moment you start picking and choosing what goods are included, you get massive distortions and gaming of the system -and huge complexity.

Also any removal of GST may be insignificant compared to normal price movements. By coincidence the Herald reports today:

Food prices dropped by 2 per cent in the past year – the largest annual fall since records began more than 50 years ago.

The Food Price Index, released yesterday, shows that fruit and vegetables are nearly 10 per cent cheaper than they were a year ago.

So fruit and veges are 10% cheaper without fiddling with GST, which would cause the Government to borrow a further $330 million a year.

AP reports:

Roman Polanski was declared a free man on Monday after Switzerland rejected a US request to extradite him to be sentenced for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

It’s so nice that the Swiss Government is able to help out a child rapist. They get such a tough time from most Governments.

Really it is all the fault of the US. Don’t they understand that you are immune from prosecution for child rape, if your films get good reviews from critics.

A lot of people think that the sex between the then 43 year old Polanski and the 13 year old Gailey was consensual – it was only an offence because she was too young to legally consent. This is not the case.

Gailey alleges Polanski drugged her and raped her both vaginally and anally.

Polanski claims it was consenusal (apart form the age) and that she enjoyed being sodomised by him. What 13 year old wouldn’t?

Like most NZers, my thoughts last night were with the two shot police officers. It is horrific when unarmed police are fired upon, and thank God their wounds were not fatal, unlike Gage the police dog.

I think there is a case that all police cars should have fire arms in their boots, so officers can use them in self defence at least. That would require much more intensive fire arms training for police officers though. It looks like this may occur.

However it is worth noting that it is possible harm could have been minimised in this case with the use of tasers. The Herald reported:

The officers felt comfortable enough to leave their Tasers in the car as they went door-knocking.

The person they were looking for could not be found. Instead, they discovered – thanks to a strong whiff of cannabis – a nearby house being used to grow marijuana.

They used their powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act to carry out a search without a warrant.

One of the men at the house was arrested but a second man grabbed a firearm.

It is easy to criticise from the luxury of one’s own home, but on the basis of the report, it may have been prudent to have kept their tasers on them – especially once the call out changed into a drugs bust.

Once the offender is actually armed, you don’t want to try to battle a firearm with a taser. However it is possible they may have been able to taser him as he was going for the firearm.

Regardless the responsibility for what happened rests of course with the man who did the shooting, and frankly I think he should be in prison for life – even though the officers did not die. There should be a very clear message about the consequences if you open fire on police officers.The maximum sentence is 14 years, which isn’t enough in my opinion.

As well as the blend art exhibition, there was also a Science as Art photo exhibition. It was hosted at the Otago Art Society Rooms in the Dunedin Railway Station.

The artworks are from staff and students of entered into the Otago School of Medical Sciences photographic “science as art” competition.

I love the colours in this photo by Ass Prof Grant Butt, titled “Step Ladder”

This is a photo of a Golgi-Cox impregnated neuron taken from an adolescent rat brain, taken by Mitch Hopping.

A jellyfish washed up on Ulva Island taken by Ass Prof Grant Butt.

This photo, called Nice Ice, is of ice crystals on a car’s windscreen. Superb. Taken by Dr Judith Bateup.

Not quite science like the rest of them, but I love the idea of a count of humans, cats, dogs and horses.

Called “Where golfballs really come from”, a great photo by Katrin Giest.

This is titled Aliens, and looks like it. But in reality it is an expression of vinculin and actin in mouse lens epithelial primary cultures. Taken by Dr Andrea Kwakowsky.

What a beautiful ice crystal. Taken by Liz Girvan.

And as you can see a rat intestine cell that looks like a bewildered tadpole.

It was a very cool exhibition to view.

Colin James writes:

How long will John Key stick around? Even before Kevin Rudd was suddenly rolled last month, this question was doing the rounds in the Wellington political hothouse.

The speculation goes like this: Key has not come to the top job with a burning ambition to change the world in a particular way, as distinct from a desire to do some good; he is not a career politician despite a teenage desire to be Prime Minister; he is not a loser and won’t want to go out on a loss; he has the sort of personality that could enjoy time at the top and then move on.

I think this is fundamentally correct. I don’t think John Key wants to try and break Seddon’s record as longest serving Prime Minister. He is not a Helen Clark who still seethes at being removed from office after *only* three terms.

Add into the mix the gulf between Key’s written speech notes and what he actually tells audiences. Audiences, particularly of businesspeople, often leave enthused by Key’s energy and optimism and with a much more uplifting sense of his purpose than they would get from the formal speech.

Key is definitely at his best when talking to (not at) an audience. He shares very candid assessments on issues such as Afghanistan in a way which makes the audience feel he is talking to them as equals, not lecturing them.

National has a leader who can win power, win hearts and minds and keep Labour out. And one likely to edge, term by term, in a business-friendly direction, as John Howard did in Australia.

The direction is more important to me than the speed.

This term Key has a super-majority, with ACT to support some measures and the Maori party to support others and deliver some Maori voters.

If in the next term National needs both parties for a majority (likely if, say, Labour gets 38 per cent and the Greens 6 per cent), managing their antithetical positions to pass contentious legislation will be very challenging — or paralysing.

Even if there is a super-majority again (a real possibility), can Key keep both in the tent?

He has given the Maori party some big mana wins and whanau ora. There is not much more mana he can deliver without upsetting conservative National members and voters.

This is an issue I’ve been reflecting on in recent months. The Maori Party have done pretty damn well under this Government. I don’t expect any other major policy “gains” before the election. But what few have thought about, is what will they want in a second term? It is unlikely to just be an implementation of existing policies. And as Colin James says, what they want may be just too much for National supporters. The second term will be far more challenging.

And all the while, the economy will not be flying high and might even have another bad turn, given the debt-driven turmoil and huge uncertainties in the global economy. The 2014 election might look grim. Will Key want to risk a loss?

I can’t see Key retiring in just his second term. I absolutely can see a scenario where he retires say 18 months into a third term. Key has said he doesn’t want to leave the job of PM angry considering that it is a huge privilege to be one of around 40 NZers who have held the job.

So I think Colin’s column is quite perceptive, but that he is a term too early.

No that is not a typo. From Brian’s latest blog:

Garner is extremely good ‘to camera’. He looks comfortable and relaxed and conveys a natural authority. He ‘comes through the lens’. These are rare enough qualities among television presenters and both TV1 and TV3 currently have newsreaders less professional  in their delivery than Garner.

*That when he is not trying to make his mark as the Stephen Sackur of Godzone, or trawling for headlines for the network news, he is a very good interviewer indeed. In his lengthy interview with Anne Tolley, he adopted a friendly but persistent approach which probably revealed more about the Education Minister and her policy on National Standards than the aggressive haranguing she is more often subjected to.

I regularly observe in these posts that the heckling style of interview almost invariably produces more heat than light, frequently degenerating into little more than a ‘did/didn’t’ exchange. By the end of Garner’s interview I had changed my opinion both of the Minister and of the value of National Standards. And that (Trust me!) is remarkable.

High praise indeed.

At the moment The Nation is being taken to the cleaners by TV One’s Q & A.  Paul Holmes’ strong and often entertaining performance as host/interviewer on the TVNZ programme against the lacklustre Steven Parker on Three  will certainly have been a factor. The Nation would be wise to hold on to Garner, perhaps even to give him his head a little [God, am I really writing this?] if they want to make inroads into Q & A’s audience.

Almost a love fest.

Oh, and before you ask, I have not altered my view of Mr Garner’s previous conduct. But credit must be given where credit is due.

One of the reasons why I always read the Edwards and Callaghan blog.

The Southland Times reports:

Bronwyn Fox knows where she is from but has no idea where her accent originated.

The Invercargill woman believes she has foreign accent syndrome – a rare condition believed to be caused by damage to the part of the brain that controls speech.

Fewer than 100 people in the world have been officially documented as suffering from the syndrome, which leaves them speaking with an alien accent.

In the case of Mrs Fox, it is a mixture of Welsh, Scottish and North London accents.

Jim Bolger was famous for subconsciously adopting the accent of whichever foreign leader he was speaking to. Maybe this is the reason why – he had “foreign accent syndrome”

Before I deal to the latest whines from Bethune, first I’ll share this document which a reader sent to me.

SS Application Ady Gil

Note Paragraph 11 which states:

11. The Ady Gill must not interfere with vessels of the Japanese whaling fleet i n ways that may entail risk of collision or other consequenc that might result in marine pollution and with it risk of more than a minor or transitory effect on the Antarctic environment, as well as risk to human safety

This was in the official Ministerial notification to Sea Shepherd.

Two letters from Murray McCully also worth reading – Bethune letter McCully 4 Dec 2009 and Bethune letter McCully 18 Dec 2009.

We all know what happened of course – there was a collision – which is exactly what Sea Shepherd wanted. They have a long history of collisions, and we now have it confirmed that they have no problems lying to further their cause.

But the Herald also reports a statement from the PM in response to Bethune’s whining:

At a press conference today, he said Foreign Minister Murray McCully had instantly sided with the Japanese, saying he should have known what he was getting himself in for by boarding the vessel. …

Mr Bethune should remember that he got himself into the situation, Mr Key said.

“He had a letter that said ‘I do not want to be taken off the boat under any circumstances and I do want to be taken to Japan’ and he was.

And further to this, Paul Watson is quoted as saying:

“I think what the Japanese have on their hands is a hot potato and they’re going to want to get rid of it, because this is going to make Pete Bethune a national hero in Australia and New Zealand and a hero for conservationists worldwide,” he added.

Watson also mentioned that Bethune is fully prepared to engage the Japanese court system and state his case that what is happening in the Southern Ocean is wrong. “I’m prepared to go all the way, I’m prepared to do whatever time it takes,” said Bethune.

So McCully was absolutely right that Bethune knew exactly what would happen, when he boarded – he wanted it to happen. He is whining about someone telling the truth – a foreign concept it seems.

And as further proof, we have this story from after when he boarded but before he was arrested:

“Sea Shepherd anticipates that the Japanese will hold Captain Bethune as prisoner onboard the Shonan Maru 2,” the group’s statement added.

Personally I think Bethune should be sent a bill for the cost of all the consular assistance he got.

As I blogged yesterday, the chances of there being a Labour-led Government after the 2011 election is very remote. Not just because of the gap in the polls, but also because of their failure to rejuvenate, but more importantly their failure to mend bridges with the Maori Party who might hold the balance of power after the election.

So unless there is some big event such as a second recession, or a major scandal, Phil Goff is unlikely to become Prime Minister. So who will replace him, when and why?

When?

Turning to the when, and I still maintain that Goff is safe until the election – even if Labour stay below 30%. There are three reasons for this:

1. Lack of enthusiasm for the alternatives
2. The shared delusion that the public will wake up to its mistake and restore them to power once they prove that John Key really is a nasty nasty man
3. The impact of MMP, sheltering Caucus more than FPP did

The last point is quite important. Under FPP MPs got more panicked by the polls. If the polls showed they were in trouble in their seat, then they were facing the end of their political career, so they would desperately vote to change leaders to try and hold on to their seats – as Labour did in 1990.l

But under MMP, MPs can be protected on the list, so they do not fear bad polling so much. And even though the polls may show Labour losing as many as seven List MPs, the fact is no one knows which seven MPs may be toast until Labour ranks its list, and by then it is too late.

So I am quite confident that Phil Goff will remain Leader until after the 2011 election. But if they lose, I would expect he will retire from the leadership and politics within 6 – 12 months of the 2011 election.

Who?

I believe the next leader of the Labour Party will be David Cunliffe. And yes, of course I have my money where my mouth is and am backing that stock on iPredict.

Why?

It isn’t exactly a closely guarded secret that David Cunliffe isn’t the most popular MP with his colleagues. He probably isn’t the first choice for Leader of more than a handful of MPs. But he will become Leader, because he is basically everyone’s acceptable second choice.

Being the acceptable second choice can be a better position than a faction’s first choice. Similiar politics happened in the Waitakere selection – one faction was backing Twyford strongly and one faction (union) backing McCracken. Carmel Sepuloni came through the middle as the choice acceptable to all sides who could unify the electorate – either Twyford or McCracken would have left a significant minority disgruntled.

It is also worth remembering that Helen was positioning Cunliffe as a future leader, if she got a fourth term. She wanted to keep Goff out, and after Maharey retired and Mallard imploded, Cunliffe was her favoured candidate to succeed her. The 2008 loss, meant that Cunliffe did not have enough experience to be viable at that stage, so she let the leadership temporarily transfer to the man she she had worked so hard to keep away from it.

Why Not?

Cunliffe is basically the only acceptable alternative to the caucus. One can ascertain this by going through the others known to want the job.

Shane Jones – even before the hotel porn saga, Jones was not going to become leader. The women in Labour would rather slit their wrists than elect Jones, and while they are not a majority in caucus, they are a minority too powerful to ignore. Also Jones hasn’t shown the required hard work to become leader – he overly relies on his (quite considerable) natural talent. He is also too right wing economically to become Leader.

Andrew Little – Andrew has made a tactical mistake by combining the three roles of party president, union leader and aspiring MP. There is considerable resentment of this in the caucus, and he is blamed for the lacklustre fundraising to date. One Labour person commented to me that how can you expect the President one week to be getting donations from CEOs, when the next week he is delivering strike notices to them. Add onto that the resentment from List MPs that Andrew will be automatically given a high list ranking, knocking them down the order.

So Andrew will enter caucus with a degree of pre-existing hostility. While he may one day become Leader if he proves himself, he will not be given a Bob Hawke type coronation after just a year in Parliament.

Ruth Dyson – John Key would start going to church (to thank God)  if Labour elected Ruth Dyson as Leader. Nothing against Ruth’s skills, but she is a polarising figure strongly associated with the former Government.

Maryan Street – I rate Street as one of the smartest MPs, and she has the ability to be a strong Minister and maybe even Deputy Leader.  But I don’t see at all the charisma to become leader or prime minister. Maryan being elected as Leader would also see John Key, if not start attending church, at least sending his kids to Sunday School!

Grant Robertson – Grant is a very smart political operator. Too smart to try and become leader after just one term in Parliament. He has what I expect will become a fairly safe seat for him, and time is on his side. I think the bastard might even be younger than me! If Grant stood in 2012, he might do surprisingly well, but I think he knows he is better to wait his time and get more experience before he tries to ascend.

Ashraf Choudhary – just kidding

Then what?

It is dangerous to look too far ahead, but my best pick at this stage is David Cunliffe become Leader in 2012, and he contests the 2014 election.

Labour will have a challenge in replacing him as Finance Spokesperson, with a so few MPs having the necessary skills or background. To my mind, the only credible option would be David Parker. So the leadership team could be Cunliffe as Leader, Street as Deputy and Parker as Finance.

Like Goff, Cunliffe will probably be a one shot leader unless he wins the election. They call this the Mike Moore slot. He doesn’t have (at this stage anyway) the loyalty of enough MPs to keep him in the job if he loses.

If National wins the 2014 election (and no predictions this far out), then Labour will have another leadership change. I believe their post 2014 leader will be their long-term leader – like Clark they will be in the job for 10 – 15 years or so, and they will become Prime Minister.

This could see a Grant Robertson vs Andrew Little battle. That would be very interesting. I’ve been pretty impressed with David Shearer also, and wouldn’t rule him out as a contender also. Kelvin Davis has potential also – but I see him more as a future Education Minister.

Of course a John Key or Don Brash type candidate may enter Parliament for Labour in 2011, and also by 2014 become a potential leader. However the fact almost all their Caucus is standing again, makes it harder for them to parachute any stars in.

Time will tell if my predictions come true.

Tomorrow, I will blog on how I would “sell” David Cunliffe once he is Leader.

Vote! Kean for Columbia

By David Farrar, Keith Ng, Rob Salmond, and Tim Watkin.

Many people are concerned about the quality of public affairs journalism in New Zealand. Being concerned is a good start, but how can you take the next step? How can you help make it better? Yes, you.

Here is one way. Follow this link and vote for Nicola Kean in the AMP “Do Your Thing” Scholarship competition.

It is an online popularity contest, and the winner gets $10,000 to help them pursue their dreams. Voting is quick, easy, free, and for a good cause. Of course, there are many, many fantastic applicants for this award, and we are not opposed to any one of them winning the money. We’re just especially in favour of Nicola winning, because of the value that her dream holds for all of us.

Nicola’s dream is to go to the US for postgraduate study in journalism. She’s already done the hard part and got accepted to Columbia University, one of the best and most selective programs in the world. Now she just needs a lot of cash.

Nicola, 24, is already a prize-winning journalist, winning an ASPA award in her second year as a Salient staffer and being selected for a global student journalism award handed out by the UN. She is also a prize-winning student, winning a Fulbright scholarship this year and earlier winning three of the big prizes offered in Victoria’s political science department (best first year student, best BA, best Honours student).

She is going to go far (when you start in Upper Hutt that is sometimes a good idea), and could well become one of New Zealand’s very best public affairs journalists. That is what motivates her:

“In one of my research papers…, I described the impacts of political journalism becoming increasingly leader-focussed at the expense of policy. In the paper, I found that the increasing focus on leaders and leadership, and the reporting of the ”game” of politics, in the media was one of many contributing factors in the ”trivialisation” of New Zealand politics. My medium-term goal is to help counteract this trend in my own reporting…”

How good could she be? That depends partly on whether she gets to learn the state of the art from the world’s best in New York. And that is where you can help by voting for her.

And if you want to help even more, go to her website and give her some money.

This post is going up simultaneously on Kiwiblog, Public Address, Pundit, and The Standard. It is a non-partisan effort. We’re all backing Nicola’s campaign because we, left and right, partisans and non-partisans, all want what you want. We want top quality journalists in New Zealand holding the people in charge, whoever they are, to account for their actions and the consequences.

So let’s all club together and help Nicola get to Columbia.

AP reports:

A 47-year-old American man’s friends set his prosthetic leg on fire after he lost a drinking bet, causing him to suffer severe burns to his buttocks and lower back.

New Mexico sheriff’s deputies found the man naked on the side of US Route 70 with his prosthetic leg in flames.

Deputies learned that the man and his friends were drinking and bet that whoever drank the least would be set on fire.

The man told investigators that at six beers, he drank the least, and agreed to let his friends set him on fire.

He said his friends ignited his prosthetic leg, and the flames spread to his body.

What is surprising is that after only six beers, he would agree to being set on fire. Normally you need at least a dozen beers before being set on fire seems like a good idea.

Peter Shirtcliffe from the Put MMP to the Vote Campaign is running a caption contest.

Submit your caption or captions (you can use one or both blank spaces) either as a comment on this post, or by e-mail to Peter.

The winning entry (as judged by Peter) will win a bottle of quality Champagne or an iPod Nano – you decide.

The Herald reports:

A motorist involved in a “cycle rage” incident claims cyclists squirted water through her window and threatened to punch her after refusing to budge off the road.

Mosgiel police are trying to get to the bottom of an incident near Outram on Saturday in which the occupants of a car took a $12,000 road bike off a cyclist and dragged it several hundred metres down the road.

New Zealand cycling representative Logan Edgar, 19, and Otago teammate Shane Melrose, 30, had an row with two female motorists who ended up dragging Edgar’s $12,000 bike into their car and along the road.

However, the motorists, a 17-year-old passenger and her mother who was driving, contacted the Otago Daily Times yesterday with a different story.

The teenager, from Outram, said they came across the two cyclists riding on either side of the centre line.

“We tooted the horn … and called out some verbal abuse that was only out of frustration.” She said the cyclists responded by squirting water bottles in the window.

She said anger and frustration took over. She pulled the bike into the car and they drove off with the bike dragging alongside.

“I wanted to teach them a lesson.”

Even if the allegation over the water squirting is true, the appropriate response is not to grab the cycle and steal it.

Personally I doubt the squirting water allegation, unless they have some proof for it. But again, even if true, that does not excuse what was criminal behaviour.

What shocks me most is not that a 17 year old would act like a selfish moron. But that they would do so with their mother in the car, and the mother does nothing to stop her. Indeed, it sounds like she was encouraging her on.

UPDATE: The ODT has a story that confirms the girl is a liar, as she claimed to be with a friend in her 20s, and in fact it was her mother.

Blend is called an Art-Sci exhibition, and was part of the International Science Festival in NZ. The exhibits are in the ROCDA Gallery at 73 Princes Street, and remains open this week also.

These three artworks are by Nicola Gibbons. On the right is “Kidney Cells”, the middle is “Connective Tissue” and the left is “Defence Force”.

I really liked these. They capture the complexity and the beauty of human cells. The artist statement says:

It is important that my work conveys the power and health of the human body, and to challenge people’s awareness of their inner workings and majestic biology.

The paintings are acrylic on canvas.

This piece is by Claire Beynon (her blog is here), and is titled “Oil and Water do not Mix”, reflecting on the disaster still uncapped in the Gulf of Mexico. Very powerful.

This piece is by Robyn Webster, reflecting how nanotechnologies may work at a cellular level. The art work is designed as both a warning and a celebration of the sophistication of the science.

The piece is called “Intervention” and made of ‘Harakeke fibre, glass fibre and dyes’. Webster has been working with Scientists at Lincoln University in Christchurch to find a sustainable substitute for fibre glass.

In total there are 25 pieces on display ranging from a Noahs Ark made up of test tubes to paintings to photos. If you are near Princes St in Dunedin and enjoy modern art, go check it out while you can.

Channel Nine also has a two minute news item on the exhibition.

The Telegraph reports:

A Tory MP was so drunk during a late night debate about the Budget in the Commons that he was unable to vote, it has emerged.

Mark Reckless was one of a number of MPs accused of being “well-refreshed” and “convivial” during the late night sitting which finished at 2.48am on Wednesday.

The 39-year-old new MP for Rochester and Strood had been drinking alongside scores of MPs on the Commons Terrace and was not the only one said to be worse for wear.

Mr Reckless, who became an MP at the general election in May, was understood to have had difficulty standing and has scant recollection of the night.

“I feel very embarrassed,” he said. “I’m terribly, terribly embarrassed. I apologise unreservedly and I don’t plan to drink again at Westminster. It was a mistake I will not be repeating. I have learned my lesson.

“I don’t know what came over me. It was a long day and I’d had a very early breakfast meeting.

“I normally have just one or two and know when to stop. I don’t know what happened. I don’t remember falling over.”

Mr Reckless said he decided not to take part in the vote because of the amount he had had to drink.

He must be a new MP if he can’t come up with a better excuse than he had a very early breakfast meeting!

The Libertarianz say:

Libertarianz leader Richard McGrath today nominated the British octopus known as Paul as replacement for ex-All Black Andy Haden, whose utterances could not be kept under tight government control.

“Paul is the sort of useful idiot Lenin would have loved,” said Dr McGrath. “A spineless creature of subhuman intelligence who can only choose between options selected for him by his masters. Ideal fodder for the political ends of John Key and Murray McCully.”

That’s not  bad idea. Paul could do all the draws etc. The only problem is I’m not sure Paul is expected to be alive by the time of the RWC.

Paul ended up with a perfect record of 7 from 7. The chance of him having just guessed randomly is 1 in 128.

Curia’s monthly newsletter summarising the public polls will be out later today. You can subscribe to it here.

A full month has gone by since the 2010 budget and National is as strong as ever in the polls, and Labour in a very weak position.

On the latest Roy Morgan poll, Labour would get just 36 seats – a decline of seven. This creates massive problems for not just 2011, but also 2014. With so few of their MPs retiring, they will get almost no new blood coming in, in 2011 unless they are prepared to sacrifice up to a dozen of their List MPs.

If one assumes the Greens will get 10 MPs (a record if they do), and you need 62 MPs to govern, then Labour need to get 52 MPs, not 36. It means they need to increase their party vote from around 29% to 42%. Now you might think hey that is only 13%.

But in fact that is 300,000 voters that need to change their votes from National to Labour. In each electorate that is 4,000 voters who need to change their mind.

It is not impossible, and events can always change things, but it is highly unlikely. This is seen in the iPredict stock which has the price for a National victory in 2011 at 83.2c. If the election was tomorrow that would imply an 83% chance of a National victory. However the election is 16 months away and the cost of locking up capital for 16 months is around 10%, so really the iPredict price is saying the market expects a National re-election with around 93% probability.

This graph gives a good idea of why National is doing so well, and Labour so badly in the polls. Certainly there are factors such as Labour’s line-up looking like a return to the past, not a march into the future – but most of all people are saying they are happy with the direction NZ is heading in.

To have only 20% saying the country is heading in the wrong direction is an incredibly low rating. I can’t recall any other time it has been so low, and more remarkably during the worst global financial crisis in 70 years.

There was some increased grumpiness during the first few months of this year, but it has declined for the last four months in a row.

A useful contrast is that in the US, the wrong direction sentiment sits at 62%.

So unless some major event (a scandal, a second recession etc) occurs, I can’t see 300,000 voters changing their minds before the election and saying essentially they want Phil Goff to be Prime Minister, instead of John Key.

Assuming that this happens, tomorrow I am going to look at who will be the next Labour Party Leader, when, and why.

The Waikato Times reports:

A Hamilton city councillor’s suggestion that meetings be televised to connect better with ratepayers hasn’t impressed her colleagues.

Angela O’Leary has suggested web cameras be installed in the council chambers and committee rooms. She said it would make meetings more accessible and get more people involved. Her proposal comes after Taupo District Council’s decision to start filming its meetings later this month.

She said people often missed out on heated debates at the full council meetings at night because much of the debating was done in committee meetings during the day when people were at work.

“There’s still a chance that items from the committee meetings will be called and debated during the full council meetings. Still, no-one shows. And really, why would you? They’re on a Wednesday night at 7.30pm. We’re competing with Packed to the Rafters and Cougar Town.”

Ms O’Leary said when she raised her suggestion privately with colleagues on Tuesday she was shocked by some of their reactions.

“Some refused to be on camera.

“Comments like `crap’ and `stupid idea’ even. When I asked what they were afraid of they just scoffed at me.”

Councillor Glenda Saunders told the Waikato Times it was a “non issue” and branded it a “cute little publicity stunt”.

She wanted questions answered around price, technology and who would watch it before she made a decision about it. Councillor Peter Bos said it would be like watching paint dry.

They don’t get it. It is not about entertainment value – it is about accountability and scrutiny.

Taupo District Council, the first council in New Zealand to install a web cam, will broadcast its first meeting on July 20. The council has signed up to a six-month free trial and, if it decides to continue live broadcasts will pay $4500 for the initial set up and $400 a month for operation costs.

Mayor Rick Cooper said it was a small price to pay for transparency and he thought the idea was going to spread like “wild fire” across the country.

Incredibly cheap.

I’d love to see it in place at Wellington City Council. Some Crs might behave better if their temper tantrums were open for all to see on You Tube.

The Dom Post reports:

Rugby pundits are urging Murray McCully to bring back Buck, as the Rugby World Cup minister considers whether to replace departed rugby ambassador Andy Haden. …

However, veteran broadcaster Keith Quinn, who labelled Haden’s resignation “unfortunate”, suggested Shelford as a candidate.

“He was one name I looked for on the [original] list and was surprised he wasn’t there. Shelford was, after all, vice-captain of the team that won the World Cup in 1987.”

Sky Sport commentator Grant Nisbett agreed.

“Buck’s given a lot to rugby since he retired. I think he’d be absolutely ideal.”

It’s not a bad idea, if for no other reason the headlines of “Buck is back”