Kiwiblog

Hayden Donnell in the Herald reports:

Politicians and unions are calling on the Government to move public holidays that fall on weekends to Monday as workers face losing two days off in 2011.

Waitangi Day is on a Sunday this year and Anzac Day is cancelled out by coinciding with Easter Monday.

Labour leader Phil Goff says he wants to see legislation guaranteeing a day off for each public holiday, regardless of where it falls.

“I can’t think of any reason why people should be deprived of a public holiday twice every seven years.

“I think most people would feel there should be more consistency.”

Giving workers the extra days off would be affordable, he says. “It’s not an economic issue. If five out of seven years you can afford it, then you should be able to the other two.

Shock, horror – I actually agree with Phil Goff on this point. While I am loath to increase costs on employers, I know as an employer I budget for there being 11 public holidays a year. I think it is easier to have it consistent.

I will note of course that Labour never changed the law during their nine years in office.

So in principle I think the law should change to Mondayise holidays – however there are some fish hooks.

1. If a holiday is mondayised, then staff who work on the actual holiday will not get penal rates or a day off in lieu. If Christmas Day is on a Saturday, then it will be officially on 27 December. That means if you work in a service station you get no penal rates of time off in lieu for working Sat Dec 25th but would for Mon 27th.
2. One would need to clarify if the celebrations still occur on the actual date, or the public holiday. Most would want ANZAC Day I am sure to always be 25 April, but if that is a weekend, then it means that staff who work that day will again not get penal rates or a day off in lieu.
3. We’re on the verge of a double dip recession. This is probably the worst possible time to increase costs on employers. I’m still in favour of doing it – but delay implementation until at least 2013.
4. There may be inconsistencies between the shop trading hours restrictions and mondayising holidays.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

Public servants will not be forced to have a 90-day probation period but it will not be ruled out in their contracts.

Well done Kate for accurately reporting the policy, rather than the hysteria that 90 day probation periods will be compulsory.

All that has been stated is that no government agency will agree to a collective agreement that forbids probation periods. If they agreed to such a thing, it would effectively ban grievance free probation periods.

Instead each agency will decide whether or not to ask for a probation period, when hiring someone.

A spokesman for the State Services Commission said government departments were always required to enact government policy. However, it would be silly to assume the 90-day probation period would be applied to everyone in the state sector, he said.

“You go through these incredibly long and arduous recruitment processes to get the best people, you don’t then turn around to them and say: `Oh by the way, we’re putting you (on a probation period),’. It’s just common sense.”

Exactly.

Incidentially in the UK they have just extended the grievance free period for employees from 12 months to 24 months. Shows how moderate the NZ policy is.

Hat Tip: Dan News

Simply incredibly to see the cars get taken one by one as the river floods. The video is from Toowoomba.

There’s a cool little fort (and trampoline) just above and beyond the house here. The hut even has two bunks in there, so if I get too many visitors, will serve as over-flow accommodation

Behind the house we have hectares of pine forests to explore. Our sheep visitors it seems also found the pine forests and have now become mountain sheep.

We came across this old hut, called Mudd Hut. It is now abandoned, but hard to say for how long.  The name painted on it is “Mudd Hut” but I can’t find any reference on Google to it. My best guess is it was used by forestry workers once, but I’m guessing. A chocolate fish for anyone who knows anything about it.

A nice little picnic area.

We’re probably a couple of kms inland from the house here, and the forest finally has a break in it.

There are heaps of tracks around – you could spend the best part of a week exploring them all.

I like this view of the house and the section, from next to the fort.

Dean Knight blogs:

RadioNZ reports that Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce, says “more evidence is needed before the Government will consider lowering the general drink-driving limit”.  Others such have David Farrar have echoed the claim that specific evidence is needed that lowering the drink drive limit will have an instrumental effect on the number of road deaths and accidents.
Baloney.

Yes, changes to laws should be justified.  But, no, the justification need not be specific evidence.

Both Joyce and Farrar are ignoring the precautionary principle.  In general terms, this principle says that, in relation to risky activities where there is scientific or empirical doubt about the nature and extent of the risk, policy- and law-makers should favour the course of action which avoids the risk.  That is, in the face of uncertainty, the burden shifts to those undertaking the risky activity to demonstrate it is not harmful. 

I call baloney on Dean’s baloney.

First of all, transport policy is not about eliminating risk, it is about balancing it – a point he admits later. Without that balance, then one would easily conclude that driving at faster than 30 km/hr is dangerous (and it is) and should be banned.

So, we know that drink driving is a risky activity.  That’s why we prohibit driving above the current blood-alcohol level (80mg).  If there’s doubt about whether driving while above a reduced limit of 50mg (which I not sure there is doubt about when looking at international practice), then the precautionary principle would favour lowering the limit anyway and collecting data to demonstrate it is not risky or has no instrumental influence on road accidents and deaths – not the other way around!

Dean ignores one crucial point – if you lower the limit now, you will never ever be able to collect data on the prevalance of legally driving at a BAC of 0.05 to 0.08, and its associated risk.

Ultimately, these things involve a cost-benefit calculus. There are seldom king-hits in law- and policy-making. A balance must be drawn.

Joyce and Farrar et al are, however, underplaying the benefit (risks avoided) of lowering the limit by proclaiming uncertainty about their nature and extent.  In this context, though, we’re entitled to assume there is a risk associated with driving with a blood-alcohol of over 50mg, unless evidence shows otherwise.  This means, for the purpose of the cost-benefit calculus, we can assume lowering the limit is beneficial   

Yes there is a risk driving with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.05.  Lowering the limit would lower that risk. But there is also a risk in allowing people to drive at faster than 30 km/hr. There is a risk at allowing people to drive with passengers in their car, as they can be distractions.

Banning passengers and lowering the speed limit to 30 km/hr would also be “beneficial” if you only are focused on the road toll.

Of course, on the other side of the ledger, we can also say there is negligible cost associated with lowering the blood-alcohol limit. 

That is nonsense. There is significant cost associated with such a lowering. It could mean that many more people will be unable to legally drive, and in rural areas especially could even lead to the closure of pubs, where public transport is not a viable option. It may also impose extra costs on people who then take taxis home. Now you may think that is a good thing, but it is also a cost. And again I’d like to know the costs before a decision is made.

And here is the problem – we currently do not measure at all what the “cost” would be of lowering the limit, because we do not know how many people currently drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08, and hence we can’t calculate what the cost will be of a law change.

I want the Government to be able to answer a few simple questions before they make a decision:

1. What is the current prevalance of drivers with BAC between 0.05 and 0.08
2. How many drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08 are involved in accidents
3. What then are the accident rates for drivers with a BAC below 0.05, betwene 0.05 and 0.08 and above 0.08
4. How many accidents and fatalities are caused by adult drivers with a BAC betwene 0.05 and 0.05

Once you have that data, then you can make a sensible decision about whether the benefits of reducing the BAC to 0.05 is worth the cost.

If you go down Dean’s path, then we will never ever be able to gain that knowledge. His precautionary principle plea, is in fact a cloak for making a decision that one could never later challenge.

A classic skit with Ronnie Corbett.

UPDATE2: And now Maggie Barry has confirmed she is seeking the nomination. If she gets a waiver for length of membership, then I would assume she will be one of the final five.

UPDATE: I’ve heard from two sources that broadcaster Maggie Barry may soon announce she will seek the nomination, if she can gain a board waiver for not being a member long enough.

Belinda McCammon in the SST reports on the latest in the Botany race:

With days to go before nominations close, 12 people are vying for National’s nomination in Botany – including former Labour Party member Daniel Newman.

The 34-year-old Property Council policy director and Auckland Council local board member said he was approached by a number of National Party members to stand.

Newman, who once shared close ties with Manurewa MP George Hawkins, said he had been a National Party member for four years and had been active in Judith Collins’ Papakura seat.

So who are those seeking the nomination:

1. Aaron Bhatnagar, former Auckland City Councillor, an electorate chair
2. Jami-Lee Ross, current Auckland Councillor, co-leader of C&R
3. Denise Krum, was No 3 on United Future list in 2008, a party regional deputy chair
4. Ram Rai, restaurant owner, an electorate chair
5. Darron Gedge, regional policy chair, teacher at Elim Chris­t­ian Col­lege
6. Youngshin Watkins – no 69 on 2008 party list
7. Ken Yee, former Manukau City Councillor, former candidate
8. Daniel Newman, Chair of Manurewa Local Board
9. Michael Williams, current Howick Board Chair

I’m not sure who the other three are.

Nominations close in a few days. After that nominations have to be approved by the National Board. One has to have some seriously nasty skeletons in your closet not to be approved.

Then the next step will be pre-selection. A nine person committee interviews all the candidates, and whittles the field down to a maximum of five.

I would be astonished if Aaron Bhatnagar, Jami-Lee Ross and Denise Krum are not three of those five. All are good people, who would be good MPs.

I think it is also highly likely Darron Gedge would make the final five.

So to some degree, the main focus may be on who gets the fifth slot.

Once pre-selection has occured, the names are officially released and they start the meet the candidates meetings.

Deborah Coddington writes:

What a mean-spirited bunch of commentators we’ve seen in this country, crawling out from under their rocks to spit upon the news that Sir Elton John became a father on Christmas Day. …

Karl du Fresne, in his aptly named “Curmudgeon” Dominion Post column, curiously finds it abhorrent that a 63-year-old “jaded, ageing but fabulously wealthy pop singer” amuses himself with a surrogate child – “the ultimate gay fashion accessory when the hits stop coming”.

Ouch. Du Fresne hopes Sir Elton doesn’t dump the baby at the SPCA like those who tire of the puppies they get for Christmas.

His colleague, Linley Boniface, has a minor tantrum that Sir Elton, a “shopaholic” at the best of times, goes out and spends about $200,000 on Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John. …

It’s not the father’s sexuality that “sends my alarm bells ringing”, she wails, it’s that Sir Elton “appears to have no clue that raising a child is more of a commitment than buying another mansion, football club or sequinned Edwardian frock coat”.

Coddington points out

My first point is, in all these cruel criticisms, no one has paused to consider someone else of importance in this little family – that is, David Furnish, Elton John’s wife, or husband, or whatever you like to call the spouse of a civil union. Furnish is 48, a former advertising man from Ogilvy and Mather, now film-maker and writer. He has said of their marriage: “We love each other very much and take our relationship very seriously.”

So, Mr and Mrs Elton John, who, as far as we can tell love each other very much, really want a child. If you’ve never experienced the desperate yearning for a child, and the inability to have a child, you have no idea of the heartbreak a person, or a couple, experiences.

In an age when children are abused on a daily basis, shouldn’t we celebrate that some babies are still wanted?

Yep, we need good parents where we can find them.

Furnish is also on record as saying they had delayed having a child until Elton’s international touring days slowed down so they could devote more time to being full-time parents. They didn’t want their child raised by nannies.

I seriously doubt this couple’s family completion would be so criticised if Elton had been with a 48-year-old woman for 18 years. Somehow I can’t see baby Zachary being dismissed as the ultimate heterosexual accessory.

And where is the evidence that two parents, one of whom won a junior scholarship to the Royal Academy of Music when he was 11, have no clue about the commitments involved in raising a child?

And here’s something else about Elton John that I admire enormously. When he was 43, he went into rehab and kicked his lifelong addiction to drugs, alcohol and bulimia. If he can do that, he can raise babies all right.

So why shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to have a baby?

Indeed. So long as they will be good parents, the sexuality isn’t an issue for me.

An excellent op ed by Glenn Reynolds in the Wall Street Journal:

Shortly after November’s electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews’s TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday’s tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner’s killing spree might fill the bill. …

There’s a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn’t derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu Akhbar!” the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. “Where,” asked Mr. York, “was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?”

I find that comparison very apt. An army major starts slaughtering his own colleagues while crying out “Allah Akhbar”, and many media say one can’t jump to conclusions about his motivations, while in the Arizona shooting, they concoct rationale on the spot.

Set aside as inconvenient, apparently. There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill. …

So as the usual talking heads begin their “have you no decency?” routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?

Blood libel – a nice turn of phrase.

To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

Also a strong piece from Jay Nordinger at National Review:

After the Kennedy assassination, John Tower and his family had to evacuate to a safe place. The early word was that right-wingers had killed the president. Tower was associated with Goldwater for President. There were death threats against his family. It transpired, of course, that a left-wing nutjob who had “defected,” briefly, to the Soviet Union was the killer. A liberal was quoted as saying, “Now our grief can be pure.”

When Reagan was shot, there were not many political recriminations, or any. Just a lot of Jodie Foster jokes.

A few months ago, an eco-extremist took hostages at the Discovery Channel building, threatening to kill them and blow up the building. He was shot by the police before he could kill anyone. I don’t recall any comments from the right-wing peanut gallery. …

If an Islamist blows up or guns down 50 people, shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he does it, you’re not supposed to say that the act has any broad implications at all. It is simply an individual act, end of story. But if a young psychotic in Arizona kills a lot of people, we’re supposed to examine the state of Sarah Palin’s soul.

The Press reports:

Labour youth affairs spokeswoman Jacinda Ardern said yesterday there was no link between youth rates and joblessness.

No link? I’m sorry Jacinda, but that is a grossly illiterate comment to make, economically. Are you really saying the cost of labour has absolutely no impact on whether said labour is hired?

This is like saying there is no link between the cost of cars and the numbers of cars people buy.

“The current youth unemployment rate is at similar levels to those reached in the recession of the early 1990s when youth rates [existed].”

But they key difference is that overall unemployment is far less than in the early 90s. For most age groups, it is only half what the peak was in 1991. It is only the under 20s which have reached the same peak.

This graph show the total level of employment (in 000s) for the two youngest age groups. Now do you really want to say there is no link, considering when it was youth rates were abolished?

Labour and Jacinda could argue that they would rather have say 110,000 young people earning $12.75 an hour than say 130,000 young people in work where some only earn say $9 an hour. That sort of trade off is what setting minimum wages tends to be all about.

But to claim there is no link at all between the cost of hiring a young worker, and the number who are in work, is just not possible.

2010onsc65681

I’ve just spent an hour reading this 45 page judgement, and it is hilarious. It comes from Justice Quinn in the Ontario Family Court, in the case of Bruni v Bruni.

The Familylib law blog lists their 15 top quotes:

1. Justice Quinn commences his Reasons for Judgment with the first paragraph simply stating: “Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.”
2. “Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment.”
3. “The source of the difficulties is hatred: a hardened, harmful, high-octane hatred. Larry and Catherine hate each other, as do Larry and Sam. This hatred has raged unabated since the date of separation. Consequently, the likelihood of an amicable resolution is laughable (hatred devours reason); and, a satisfactory legal solution is impossible (hatred has no legal remedy).”
4. “Catherine and Larry were married on October 7, 1995. If only the wedding guests, who tinkled their wine glasses as encouragement for the traditional bussing of the bride and groom, could see the couple now.” And then later in an endnote “I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.”
5. “Some family trees have more barren branches than others.”
6. “As can be seen, Catherine and her relatives are one-dimensional problem solvers.”
7. “I find that Sandra does not exert a positive gravitational pull in this dysfunctional family constellation.”
8. “The legal system does not have the resources to monitor a schedule of counselling (nor should it do so). The function of Family Court is not to change people, but to dispose of their disputes at a given point in time. I preside over a court, not a church.”
9. “I come now to the issue of spousal support, historically the roulette of family law (blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional).”
10. “While Larry’s access-conduct has largely reflected nothing more than inept parenting, Catherine’s parental-alienation behaviour has been evil. Is there a remedy? Dollars cannot replace the father-daughter relationship that Catherine has destroyed. However, in the circumstances of this case, justice has only a Hobson’s choice. Catherine’s alienation of Taylor and Larry must be condemned and, an effective method of expressing that condemnation, is by way of a reduction in spousal support.”
11. “It is likely that, in the period 2004-2006, Larry was having one or more extramarital affairs. Interestingly, Larry’s father was married five times, in addition to going through several relationships. Perhaps there is an infidelity gene. “
12. “When the operator of a motor vehicle yells “jackass” at a pedestrian, the jackassedness of the former has been proved, but, at that point, it is only an allegation as against the latter.”
13. “The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “dickhead” as “a stupid person.” That would not have been my first guess.”
14. “I do not know why courts find it necessary to alter the meaning of words. One would think that if the legislators had intended “shocking” they would have used “shocking.”
15. “On another occasion in July of 2009, Larry said to Taylor: “You put shit in this hand and shit in this hand, smack it together, what do you get? Taylor.” And the endnote “I gather that this is Larry’s version of the Big Bang Theory.”

The footnotes are the best part. Read them all. We needed a judgement like this in that local case of the evil woman who stole her son (Jayden I think) and tried to brainwash him against his father.

Some other great quotes:

At one point in the trial, I asked Catherine: “If you could push a button and make Larry disappear from the face of the earth, would you push it?” Her I-just-won-a-lottery smile implied the answer that I expected.

And:

“Larry gave evidence that, less than one month later, Catherine, tried to run me over with her van.”, with a footnote that “This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart.”

Heh. Catherine threatened Larry with the Hells Angels, and the Judge noted:

The courtroom energy level in a custody/access dispute spikes quickly when there is evidence that one of the parents has a Hells Angels branch in her family tree. Certainly, my posture improved. Catherine’s niece is engaged to a member of the Hells Angels. I take judicial notice of the fact that the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club is a criminal organization (and of the fact that the niece has made a poor choice).

But later he notes a niece Donna who three times threatens Larry with a bullet in the head if he doesn’t sign some papers, so the Judge footnotes:

Donna is a devotee of the literary device known as, repetition for emphasis.” I do not know whether Donna is the niece who is engaged to the Hells Angels member. If she is, they may be more compatible than I initially surmised.

Wonderful. The Judge also directs his sarcasm towards himself:

I confess that I sometimes permit a lengthier hiatus than the schedule of the court might otherwise dictate, in order to afford the parties an opportunity to reflect on the trial experience, come to their senses and resolve their difficulties like mature adults. It is touching how a trial judge can retain his naivety even after 15 years on the bench.

Oh how he must have enjoyed writing that. Certainly many thousands have enjoyed reading it.

This is the view from my holiday home. And it is pretty much the same view in every direction. You can’t see a single road, house or person from here. Of course got a hell of a shock when a possum knocked over a chair around 11 pm last night, as I had just been saying that if anyone knocks on the door, there is no way it is a neighbour – it would be an escaped serial killer.

The house is great. The entrie front half is a big kitchen/dining/living area with all day sun, and four bedrooms make up the back half.

One can sun-bathe on the lawn, or relax in the hammock in the shade. So far I’ve been going for the sun.

The Mangaone Track starts literally at our letterbox. It’s a nice three hour walk one-way, which I’m going to do a few times.

Last night possums were the visitors, this morning it was half a dozen sheep. They just strolled up the driveway (goodness knows from where) and onto the back lawn. They’re now mulling about, and I’m thinking of a roast for dinner

For the next week I am out of cellphone coverage, except for the odd visit to the local town. So phoning or texting my mobile is unlikely to get a useful response.

I *should* be able to access e-mail, but no guarantees. The landline where I’ll be is 04 293 7845, if somone needs to talk to me.

Reuters reports:

A gunman shot a congresswoman in the head, seriously wounding her, and killed six other people in a shooting rampage at a public meeting in Tucson Saturday.

The shooting took place outside a supermarket where Gabrielle Giffords, a 40-year-old Democrat, was meeting with constituents. Among the dead were a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl. A Tucson fire official said six were killed and 13 wounded in the attack.

It is too early to know the motivations of the shooter – he may be insane like Raegan’s shooter was, or he may have had political motivations.

Regardless it is tragic six people are dead, including a nine year old girl, and Giffords is in critical condition.  To some degree political violence is worse than other violence – it is basically a form of terrorism. The impact is not just on those targetted, but can have a chilling effect on what people will say and do.

The suspected gunman, identified by a federal law enforcement official as Jared Loughner, 22, opened fire at point-blank range with a pistol with an extended magazine. Loughner was tackled after the shooting and was in custody.

Giffords, a supporter of Obama’s healthcare overhaul, had warned previously the rhetoric had prompted violent threats against her and vandalism at her office.

“The rhetoric is really heated. Not just the calls but the e-mails, the slurs,” Giffords told MSNBC at the time.

She referred back to a map of electoral targets put out by former Alaska Republican Governor Sarah Palin, each one marked by the crosshairs of a rifle sight.

“Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action,” Giffords said.

While I don’t think crosshairs are an appropriate way to indicate the political targeting of someone, neither do I think that crosshairs on a website cause someone to decide to start shooting people. Also Michelle Malkin points out that both the Democratic Leadership Council and Daily Kos have had websites with bullseyes or cross-hair targets on them. It is sad that some people’s first reaction to a tragic shooting is can we blame it on Sarah Palin.

The fact the shooter shot six people, including a young girl, strongly suggests he was simply bad or mad. If he had just shot at the congresswoman, then one would suspect a stronger political motivation.

Malkin has extracts from stories which pretty conclusively put him in the nut category:

A former classmate of Loughner at Pima Community College said he was “obviously very disturbed.”

“He disrupted class frequently with nonsensical outbursts,” said Lynda Sorenson, who took a math class with Loughner last summer at Pima Community College’s Northwest campus.

Sorenson doesn’t recall if he ever made any threats or uttered political statements but he was very disruptive, she said. He was asked to leave the pre-algebra class several times and eventually was barred from class, said Sorenson, a Tucson resident…

…The online accounts also contain bizarre discussions of a new currency and literacy, as well as threatening and despairing messages.

“WOW! I’m glad i didn’t kill myself. I’ll see you on National T.v.! This is foreshadow …. why doesn’t anyone talk to me?..” he posted on MySpace Dec. 14.

On Dec. 13, he wrote: “I don’t feel good: I’m ready to kill a police officer! I can say it.”

The killer is in custody, so given time we may learn more about why he did this – but frankly it just looks like a tragic combination of a nutter with a gun.

Labour’s abolition of the strike wing of the air force, was one of the things they did I most disagree with. Sadly, it was also one of those decision almost impossible to reverse – the pilots have mainly left, and I doubt one could recuit new ones without a bipartisan commitment to keeping a strike wing.

Stuff reports:

Since the fleets went out of service in 2001, it has cost $34m in maintenance and other costs to keep them to a saleable standard.

 

The Aermacchis are now partially dismantled and in crates, while the Skyhawks are under plastic wrapping and stored at the Woodbourne base near Blenheim.

As I say, a terrible decision. And here’s what’s left:

The Air Force employs 3195 staff with key equipment, including:

• Five naval helicopters (Super Seasprite)
• Six maritime patrol aircraft (Orions)
• Five Hercules (transport)
• Two Boeing 757-200s (transport)
• 13 Iroquois helicopters (transport)
• Five Sioux helicopters (transport)
• Five Beech King aircraft (transport – training)
• 13 CT-4E aircraft (transport – training)

Most of the air force is now transport, and it makes me wonder whether it is justified keeping it as a full service wing. Would it not perhaps be better (and free up money for equipment) if the remaining planes and choppers were divided up between the army and the navy, and integarted into their operations? Do we one day want an Air Vice Marshall, whose only air experience has been flying some Hercules?

How would one divided it up. My initial assumptions would be:

• Five naval helicopters (Super Seasprite) – Navy
• Six maritime patrol aircraft (Orions) – Navy
• Five Hercules (transport) – Army
• Two Boeing 757-200s (transport) – Army
• 13 Iroquois helicopters (transport) – Army
• Five Sioux helicopters (transport) – Army
• Five Beech King aircraft (transport – training) – Army
• 13 CT-4E aircraft (transport – training) – Army

Here’s a little guide to trusting polls, which media and readers may find useful, when they see other media trumpet a poll they have commissioned. This is not a comprehensive guide – that could fill up many scores of pages.

1. Is the poll a random selection poll (normally done via phone or in person) or is it an Internet panel poll (less reliable) or a website poll (of almost no reliability)
2. If the poll is a random selection poll, then how big is the sample size. Note this is less important with other polls.
3. Has the company got an accurate track record of polling? How many years have they been polling for? What did they predict for the last election? Have they not only predicted results (who wins) which can be fairly easy but also got the actual percentage vote gained correct?
4. Is the result they are proclaiming in line with any other public polling company? If during the last couple of months four other companies have all independently said Party X is at around Y%, then how likely is it every other company is wrong, and this poll which says they are much higher (or lower) is correct?
5. Consider also if the other polling companies have a long history of public polling, and were very accurate at the last election, but this new poll with incredibly different results, is done by a company that did not exist at the last election? Does that make it even easier?
6. Finally consider then whether giving undue prominence to such a poll, is reporting the news, or inventing the news?

Some media take this stuff very seriously. I know in the past that the TV networks have had polls re-done, and methodologies audited, when they have had a poll result totally at odds with all the other public polls. In fact there have even been times when a poll may not even be published, because the broadcaster sees it as so far out of line with other polls, and indeed upon redoing the poll, a more credible result has occured (remember 1 out of 20 polls will be outside the normal sampling margin of error).

Other media seem content to trumpet highly suspect results – results unmatched by an other company or outlet, as exclusive front page leads. I suppose they have to, as you are loath not to use something you have paid for as a story. But other media, should be very cautious, especially in election year, as to how they report such polls, especially when they are Internet panel polls, not random selection phone or in person polls.

Tim Watkin looks at 2010, and annoints his minister of the year:

But it’s Dr Mapp who had the best year of all government ministers, to my mind, capped off with his announcement that he will make a dignified exit at this year’s election.

Mapp handled two crucial reviews in 2010, in defence and science. Neither gave into ideology, nor over-reached. Both showed real nous.

The defence white paper got our future focus about right in terms of naval and regional priorities and didn’t compromise our growing independence in foreign policy while keeping us close to Australia.

And if there’s that the government did in 2010 that will benefit to country in the long-term, it’s the reform of our Crown Research Institutes, which moved their energies away from competing with each other and back to science and ideas. The changes to how we do science here were over-due, could genuinely boost our economy, especially growth and innovation, in the medium-term and were “ambitious for New Zealand”.

Wayne will be getting out on top.

Labour have only two tax policies – remove GST off fresh fruit and vegetables, and reintroduce a rich prick tax.

To help them with their policy development, Cactus Kate has proposed ten tax policies for them:

1. Reduce GST to 10%
2. Require all trusts in New Zealand to be registered with the IRD with the name of the settlor and beneficiaries
3. Farmers, the largest of polluters (according the the numbnuts measuring of carbon) should be taxed per head of animal per year with the cost that New Zealand has to pay to the invisible pie in the sky
4. Anyone with assets or is a beneficiary or settlor of a trust with more than say $500,000 can no longer receive Superannuation.
5. Reduce the deductible amount to 20% of the total interest expense on real property (land) such that land owned by farmers, property “investors” and the like cannot pay less or even no tax by increasing the interest deductions based on leveraging property.
6. Reintroduce gift duty
7. Introduction of a 20% duty for the sale of all property including primary residence and all forms of land.
8. A new top tax rate of 45% on those rich pricks earning over $120,000 and an increase of the current top tax rate for income between $70,001 to $120,000 from 38 cents up to 40 cents.
9. Abolish Marshall clauses (which excludes the shortfall in interest as a “gift”) where the loan is repayable on demand
10. Taxing New Zealand citizens (passport holders) at a 45% deemed disposal rate on expatriating their wealth at the date of departure if they become non-resident and a 15% inbound transaction tax on their assets coming back in even while they are still non-resident.

I’m worried that they may adopt a few of them.