Kiwiblog

This is David Cameron endorsing a vote against AV in the Uk referendum. Whale wants John Key to do the same here, but in terms of our referendum.

Jon Johansson takes the other approach. he blogs:

I was staggered to hear on television Prime Minister John Key say that although he was “not entirely unhappy” with MMP, he intended to vote for change. The PM said while he likes proportionality, he “slightly prefers the characteristics of Supplementary Member (SM)”.

I think Jon’s post is a massive over-reaction. The PM was asked a question and he answered it. He said over a year ago his preference was SM, so this is no revelation or surprise.

We have a Prime Minister who wishes to vote to turn back progress for women participating in parliamentary politics, and a Prime Minister who in defiance of our dramatically changing demographics prefers not to facilitate Asian New Zealanders, Pacifika New Zealanders, or other ethnic Kiwis participating in their own democracy.

Jon is absolutely entitled to his view of John Key, but he is being rather hysterical in his tone, and is overlooking the fact that with 30 List MPs, one can still have plenty of female, Asian, and Pacific representation. It is not minorities that get disadvantaged by SM, rather it is minor parties (or parties that do not win electorate seats).

Jon’s rant is a perfect example of what I have said many times with this debate. Supporters of MMP hysterically denounce anyone who disagrees with them as anti-democratic, when in fact all five electoral systems on offer are perfectly democratic. I do not include Sandra Grey from the Campaign fro MMP in my criticism – I have found her to be very upfront about acknowledging that all systems have strengths and weaknesses, and it depends on what you value most.

If I was a woman I’d be very unhappy that my Prime Minister, one who has seemed to make MMP work rather effortlessly, has decided to favour an electoral system that will make it harder for me or my daughters or grand-daughters to pursue a political career. If I was an Asian or Pacifika Kiwi I’d be concerned that the Prime Minister wants to limit my and my children’s ambitions in the expansion of his own.

I am also, apart from being a political scientist, an ordinary citizen and I am appalled my Prime Minister supports a system that will make my vote less equal than it is now under MMP.

I think Jon makes it very clear how he will be voting. Further Jon is all but advocating people not to vote National. He is in danger of being more of a political activist than a political scientist.

I should point out here that I will  not be voting for SM in Part B of the referendum. I’ll blog in a few days on how I am voting on both parts and why. What I object to is the extremists who condemn people for daring to say they support SM or FPP or any of the five systems. My advice to Jon is to take in a few deep breaths and relax.

I don’t seem to recall Jon objecting so strongly when Phil Goff and Metiria Turei stated their preferences. In fact they have both been far far more vocal than Key on their preference.

Ali Ikram just tweeted:

will someone deface Labour’s billboards by putting their leader on them?

Think if someone went and made up some huge stickers of Phil Goff and stuck them on all the Labour billboards. They wouldn’t know whether to complain or not!

In my blog at Stuff, I label the secret tape recording issue an issue that Labour doesn’t need. Read my blog there to see my reasoning. So far a lot of commenters there agree with me (which is unusual).

I blogged yesterday regarding the vandalism by stickers of National’s billboards that it was almost inevitably done by people involved in a political party. I was right, and the Greens have fessed up today. Stuff reports:

The Greens have revealed a party member and the partner of one of its staff members were behind the vandalism of 700 National Party billboards.

Co-leader Russel Norman said Jolyon White, who is the partner of his executive assistant, co-ordinated the defacing of the billboards.

First some history, about this. Whale first blogged about the plan for the stickers on 14 October, when he heard about the call for quotes for the stickers. Despite this publicity, the arrogant Greens involved decided to proceed.

Then Whale got sent photos of two motorcycles used in the stickering. From this point it was just a matter of time until those involved were exposed. I should point out that Whale is getting more page views than me at the moment – deservedly so.

So the co-ordinator is Jolyon White, who is the Social Justice Enabler for Anglican Church. Surely the church can not condone one of its staff doing this vandalism?

He is such an arrogant idiot, that he even went on radio boasting about what he did, and it seems some recognised his voice.

But it is the Greens who have the most questions to answer, based on this report:

Norman said his executive assistant had known about her partner’s plans for about two months and he was disappointed with her for not mentioning it.

It was an employment issue but the party had not spoken to Parliamentary services about the matter.

Okay imagine that say Labour party billboards were vandalised all around New Zealand. And it turned out the person who co-ordinated it was the husband of the Prime Minister’s executive assistant, and that the PM’s executive assistant had known about it for two months. Would Labour (or any political party) accept that the Prime Minister knew nothing at all about it? There would be calls for resignations, and for an official inquiry.

If the executive assistant knew about it for two months, and did not tell Dr Norman then it must be a sackable offence. She has failed in her most basic duty of care to her employer. How can the Greens possibly say they are disappointed over this, if they take no action?

I have worked for four parliamentary leaders. If my partner who is a party member did something like that, and I knew about it for two months and didn’t tell anyone in my office, I would absolutely expect to leave the office the day it came out, and not return.

But what the Greens have avoided saying, is who did know. Dr Norman says he did not know, and I take him at his word unless there is evidence to contradict that. But did other staff members in the Greens parliamentary office know? Did any Green MPs know?

And also, who were the 50 activists involved, and how many of then are Green party members or activists? My guess is the vast majority.

A related question is who paid for the commercial printing, and who paid for the distribution of them?

The Greens complained bitterly about the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets in 2005. But at least the Execlusive Brethren complied with the law, and put a name and address on the pamphlets as required.

Green party member Jolyon White has broken at least two laws I would say. The stickers are a form of election advertisement designed to discourage people from voting National. Not only were they not authorised, they were put up in the middle of the night. It is as flagrant a breach of the Electoral Act rules around transparency as you can get. I have no doubt the Electoral Commission will refer the matter to the Police, and hopefully the Police will ascertain how many other people were involved and what roles they hold in the Greens.

There is also the secondary issue of damage and vandalism.

Some will try and claim this was not the Greens, just an isolated party member. But the fact remains that the co-leader’s own executive assistant knew about these plans (and presumably endorsed them), and did nothing to stop them, despite the fact it was obvious if the co-ordinator was identified it would reflect on the Greens. I find it very hard to believe that no one else in the Greens office knew about this.

Remember there is form here. The secret taping of National MPs last election was done by a green (lower g) activist who was living with a Green Party staffer, and Green staff knew he had done it before his identity was made public.

UPDATE: While it is good Russel Norman has said the Greens do not condone vandalism, this press release from 1999 reminds us that they do condone “direct action”, saying it is a right and responsibility.

The NZ Herald reports:

The Green Party has criticised the Government’s multi-billion dollar plans for more roads, saying Auckland can become an international city only if it focuses on clean, efficient transport. …

The Greens would redirect most of the funding earmarked for the $1.7 billion “holiday highway” between Puhoi and Wellsford and provide more options for Auckland Council to pay its 40 per cent share of the project.

University of Auckland economist Rhema Vaithianathan said the highway funding was equivalent to $1500 for every Northland household each year for the rest of their lives.   

Now in quoting Dr Vaithianathan in favour of the Green and Labour party policy, would it not be relevant to mention she sought Labour’s nomination for Mt Albert, and is or was a member of the Labour Party economic policy committee?

Incidentially Dr Vaitiananthan is reported as being in favour of more congestion:

But Rhema Vaithianathan shocked more than a few of us, pointing out that while we perceive the opposite, Auckland congestion is by world standards, actually amongst the lowest in the world, and how good it would be if we had much more of it!

So we can only assume Labour and Green policy is to increase congestion to punish people for having cars. This graph from AKT shows the impact of the CBD rail loop:

So the rail loop’s projected  impact on congestion is extremely minor. This is not to say it is a bad thing to do, but it is not the silver bullet some portray it as.

The blog post below appeared briefly on John Pagani’s blog last night. It disappeared very quickly and I suspect it was unintentional. You can e-mail posts into Posterous, so an e-mail meant for someone else that you send to your Posterous address will automatically appear on the blog.

johnpagani’s posterous: Mate, you are going to love this – an actual policy

Monday, 14 November 2011

Labour will tackle barriers to Iwi, Hapu, Whanau and Maori progress head-on with a holistic approach to snuffle snooze snore

“In many ways the past three years have been an up-hill battle for Māori,” Parekura Horomia waffled, taking tike only to make sure all Maori problems are fixed by applying that irritating and vaguely North Korean macron to the “a”.

“Institutions such as Te Kōhanga Reo, the Māori wardens, Hauora and the Māori Women’s Welfare League have been systematically undervalued by the National Government.’

“Systematcially undervalued.” Who wouldn’t vote against that two-macron sentence.

“This is on top of an unprecedented increase in the cost of living. With an unemployment rate of 16 per cent Māori Whānau in rural towns and cities are feeling the pinch more than most.

Whanau gets one with a capital W!

“Labour has concrete – fucking concrete man, not just your flimsy fucking balsa wood -  policies on the table that will have tangible benefits for Maori, growing the Māori economy to equip rangatahi with the skills they need to secure a job.

Tangible benefits. Who doesn’t want a tangible benefit?

“Tamariki are the foundation of our whānau and make up a significant chunk of the Māori population at large.’

And a significant chunk of our cliches. Therefore we have to do something. But what?

Too many Māori children are living in homes where people struggle to make ends meet as the cost of living outstrips wages.

“Labour will address this encouraging participation in Positive Parenting programmes, making access to medical care and early childhood education easy and affordable, and expanding support for Te Kōhanga Reo.

“Importantly, Labour will immediately restore $2 million to the Training Incentive Allowance so people on benefits can expand their own and their children’s horizons.

Yay. In the 85th par, an actual policy.

“All New Zealanders agree that we must look after our young people to look after our future.

, so if all nzers agree, is it necessary to mention it? All NZers shit. somethings are best left unsaid.

“Labour has a host – a fucking host maaaan - of policies which target Māori youth to ensure they get the best out of extracurricular activities, are insulated from the risks of drug and alcohol abuse and have opportunities for training, work experience and employment.

Hang on, that’s: Getting the best out of extrafuckmeisthisaword?; 2: insulating from risks associated with things you cannot insulate from the risks of; and opportunities for waffling. Wow. IN one sentence. But where are the macrons?

“Labour is staunch supporter of the Maori economy and will invest more in Maori tourism as well as looking into iwi collaboration with private investors to boost Maori productivity.

“Labour will also develop a mentoring programme to develop better Maori governance and executive strategies which span obligations between community and commerce.

“executive strategies which span obligations between community and commerce.” How are these people not smacking the Maro seats?

“Labour has strong policies to lift the prospects of the Maori nationwide, ”Parekura Horomia said.

What the fuck happened to my macron there?

Parekura

HOROMIA 

Māori Affairs Spokesperson

 

14 November  2011                                                          MEDIA STATEMENT

Labour tackles Maori progress head-on

Labour will tackle barriers to Iwi, Hapu, Whanau and Maori progress head-on with a holistic approach to the cost of living, with policy that puts our kids first, supports rangatahi development, invests in jobs, skills, and grows the Maori economy, says Labour’s Maori Affairs spokesperson Parekura Horomia.

“In many ways the past three years have been an up-hill battle for Māori,” Parekura Horomia said.

“Institutions such as Te Kōhanga Reo, the Māori wardens, Hauora and the Māori Women’s Welfare League have been systematically undervalued by the National Government.

“This is on top of an unprecedented increase in the cost of living. With an unemployment rate of 16 per cent Māori Whānau in rural towns and cities are feeling the pinch more than most.

“Labour has concrete policies on the table that will have tangible benefits for Maori, growing the Māori economy to equip rangatahi with the skills they need to secure a job.

“Tamariki are the foundation of our whānau and make up a significant chunk of the Māori population at large. Too many Māori children are living in homes where people struggle to make ends meet as the cost of living outstrips wages.

“Labour will address this encouraging participation in Positive Parenting programmes, making access to medical care and early childhood education easy and affordable, and expanding support for Te Kōhanga Reo.

“Importantly, Labour will immediately restore $2 million to the Training Incentive Allowance so people on benefits can expand their own and their children’s horizons.

“All New Zealanders agree that we must look after our young people to look after our future.

“Labour has a host of policies which target Māori youth to ensure they get the best out of extracurricular activities, are insulated from the risks of drug and alcohol abuse and have opportunities for training, work experience and employment.

“Labour is staunch supporter of the Maori economy and will invest more in Maori tourism as well as looking into iwi collaboration with private investors to boost Maori productivity.

“Labour will also develop a mentoring programme to develop better Maori governance and executive strategies which span obligations between community and commerce.

“Labour has strong policies to lift the prospects of the Maori nationwide, ”Parekura Horomia said.

Contact:  Parekura Horomia xxx xxx Authorised by Parekura Horomia MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington

Vikki Carter

Press Secretary

Office of Hon Phil Goff 

xxxx

facebook.com/philgoff.labour | twitter.com/phil_goff | labour.org.nz

Maori_Devleopment_policy.pdf Download this file

________________

JOHN PAGANI

johnpagani@me.com  |  021 570 872

http://johnpagani.posterous.com/mate-you-are-going-to-love-this-an-actual-pol

I think this may be John’s best blog post ever, albeit unintentional. He skewers Labour’s waffle posing as policy, expertly.

KB reader Nik has sent in an updated version of his graph measuring the difference between the average of polls released in the two days before an election, and the actual results. His changes are based on reader comments.

You can see that the difference have been fairly minor – generally within 1.5% each way. National and Greens tend to do worse than the polls show by around 1% to 1.5%.

Despite what Winston claims, the polls for the last two elections have had him within 0.5%. In fact in 2005 his result was slightly less than the polls.

Went for a walk along the ridgeline of Tinakori Hill today. Magnificent views, and very enjoyable on a hot sunny day like today.

Everytime I go up there and I look at the above structure and wonder what the hell was it meant to be, and why is it up there. Sometimes I think it looks like a basketball scoreboard. At other times I think it is the back of a hoarding. Others, maybe it could be a screen for a drive-in movie.

However it is on top of a hill with no vehicle access and stuff all passer-bys. Why would you have it there?

Someone out there I reckon knows what it is, and the history of it. If you do, please leave a comment.

Oh yes, and could the owner please clean the graffiti off it.

UPDATE: Thanks to some smart readers, the mystery has been solved. It is a passive microwave repeater. I would have never guessed that due to the lack of electronics or electricity to it, but of course it doesn’t need any.

Stuff reports:

Protesters are claiming to have made 700 National Party billboards “more honest”  by adding their own slogans overnight.

A statement released this morning from the unnamed organisation said stickers were added to billboards around the country in a “coordinated operation”.

About 50 people were involved in the operation.

Worth thinking about this. This was done in around a dozen cities, which would have involved someone centrally professionally printing the stickers up, having a network of 50 people to deliver them, the ability to send them to key contacts in each area, and then to all have them do it at the same time.

I think it is fair to conclude this is not the work of a couple of students. It is almost inevitable that it was done by people involved in a youth wing of a political party. No one else would have the contact and resources to do this.

A funny article in the Waikato Times by Joshua Drumond. He writes on what you would know about the political parties based on blog comments, Facebook and columns from Michael Laws:

New Zealand First is the only party in this country made up entirely of zombies. Having been buried once already, it seeks popular support to help it rise from its electoral graves. Leader Winston Peters, it is said, feeds only on eels and oil, the better to grease his way back into politics.

UnitedFuture is a party of one man, Peter Dunne, notable only because he has a kind of symbiotic relationship with a weasel that lives on his head that can hypnotise people into voting for him. Otherwise useless.

The Greens are Plant Supremacists who hate humans. They eat only chlorophyll and drink only wheatgrass, strengthening themselves for the glorious slaughter. Its leader has two heads that speaks with the voice of one, and it favours renewable resources and caring for the environment – Green-speak for “an army of unstoppable robot army that will kill all the humans”. …

Labour are communists, and also Nazis. Communazis. Formerly led by famous Femmecommunazi Helen Clark, who is now destroying the United Nations.

The only thing Labour hates more than success is freedom. It wants to destroy the economy by taking money from job-creators and giving it to dole-bludgers. The more beneficiaries there are, the better this works, so bludgers are given incentives to breed. Every bludger family that successfully breeds eight future bludgers is given a pitbull (microchipped, of course, so Labour can mind-control it when the revolution comes) and a state house in Otara. What’s more, each Labour candidate has been hand-picked from a pool who have solemnly sworn to destroy the Family Unit by supporting the Gay Agenda. Fortunately, Labour has all the appeal of the Bubonic Plague at the moment, so you have no fear of them being elected. No, what you should truly fear is … National.

As the name would suggest, National is evil. How’s that? You know who else had National in their name? National Socialists. Nazis!

What’s more, National’s leader, John Key, had a Jewish mother. I think we’ve all read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Fact: John Key has a smile that can grill a steak at 500 metres and has been used as a lighthouse beacon in emergencies.

Very good.

In my Herald column of 28 October I wrote:

Introducing the principle of means testing, is another very welcome step. I think it is wrong that we pay millionaires such as Sir Bob Jones, NZ Superannuation.

Sir Bob has e-mailed to comment:

Dear David,

Before using a photo of me to make your point you could have enquired whether I actually receive the Government super, which I have been eligible for over the past seven years.

The answer is I don’t. It is essentially a form of welfare which I absolutely don’t need.

That said I have been shocked at people of considerable wealth whom I know and who do take it.

Just possibly I am not just the only New Zealander who doesn’t have a cellphone but also the only eligible Kiwi who doesn’t take the super.

Best wishes,

 

Bob Jones

My thanks to Sir Bob for putting the record straight. In hindsight I am not surprised he doesn’t take it. I wonder how many others do not take it, whom are entitled to?

The Greens has said their policy is to scrap Transmission Gully, and use the money to fund Auckland rail.  Wellingtonians should be outraged by this theft.

If there is a Labour-led Government, the Greens will have massive influence as their vote is around 1/2 that of Labour’s. Will the death of Transmission Gully be one of the conditions in a coalition agreement?

By  John Stringer

Mike Hosking asked Phil Goff when was the last time he used public transport, not as a photo opportunity.

Whale has the audio of his response, which is:

I use public transport every day, it’s called the VIP service at the moment

That’s a new definition of public transport – a chauffeur driver limo.

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES—THE HUTT SOUTH ELECTORATE DEBATE: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

HAVING STANDARDS: National Standards has been an education programmed welcomed with open arms by some and absolutely despised by others. Why is there such controversy over National Standards? Do National Standards pick on kids—labelling some as failures? Or is it an effective way of showing parents when their child may be falling behind? Are National Standards unfair to teachers? If not National Standards, then how do we prevent our children from falling through the cracks?

GET A JOB, KID!: Thousands of our young people are out of work but what should be done? Is it youth wages? How do we stop kids from checking out from education? And how do we make sure there is work training? Will employers take a chance on young people without employment law changes?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 16th of November. Our Panel: ACT Party Candidate Alex Speirs, Green Party Candidate Holly Walker, Labour Candidate Trevor Mallard, National Candidate Paul Quinn, and United Future Candidate Rob Eaddy.

Back Benches screens on Wednesdays at 9.05pm with encore screenings on Thursdays at 9.05am and 1.05pm, Saturdays at 10.05pm, Sundays at 10.05am and 2.05pm – TVNZ 7

STV is very different to all the other electoral systems in the referendum. All the others have one MP per electorate, and some have List MPs on top of that.

STV has multiple MPs per electorate, and no List MPs. It is reasonably proportional, and all MPs are voted in directly by voters, rather than through party lists. That’s one of the reasons I like it. I think MMP gives party leaders far far too much power.

It is difficult to sum STV up in a couple of paragraphs, so what Stephen Russell has done is model what might have happened in the 2008 election under STV. His full paper is embedded at the end of this post.

Each electorate would have 3 to 7 MPs in it. Now yes the electorate boundaries are bigger than under MMP, but access to an electorate MP would be easier, as you would have 120 of them., not 70. And they are all of equal status. Even better, almost all seats will have a National and a Labour MP, so if you want you can choose which one you see. And where a party has multiple MPs per seat, they will probably locate them at different ends of the electorate.

You can click on an image for a larger version.

And this is the modeled boundaries for Auckland under STV.

So what would the results be? The paper has all the assumptions over how preferences would flow.

The Gallagher Index (which measures proportionality) is:

PARTY                VOTE%                             SEATS SEATS%

National            44.9                    58          48.33

Labour               34.0                    48          40

Maori                 2.4                       8            6.67

Green                 6.7                      2            1.67

Act                      3.7                       1            0.83

United               0.9                       1            0.83

Progressive       0.9                       1            0.83

NZ First              4.1                       1            0.83

Gallagher Index:  7.1

Now on this scenario (and that is all it is), National actually ends up worse off. Their number of seats is the same as under MMP, but Labour gets five more seats. National/ACT/United would be 60/120 seats so the Maori Party would have held the balance of power.

Stephen has also done a quick analysis of the 2005 election, and estimates it s outcome under STV would be:

• Labour    56
• National    53
• Maori     6
• Green    1
• Act    1
• United    1
• Progressive    1
• NZ First     1

That would again give the Maori Party the balance of power.

I tend to think that the minor parties would do a bit better under STV than this model shows. Stephen has modeled that 45% of National voters would make Labour their 2nd choice, and I think it would be lower than that.

Overall a very interesting look at how STV could work. Like I said, what I like about the system is that it is both roughly proportional, and that all MPs are elected directly from the voters. This should encourage higher quality candidates. If (for example) Labour wants to win that third seat in One Tree Hill, they won’t be putting up a union hack who doesn’t even live there – instead they’ll be putting up someone known in their local community who has the ability to attract the extra votes needed.

STV Applied to 2008 Result Nov 14 2011

The retirement policy and research centre at Auckland University has published its annual review of the performance of the NZ Super Fund.

This helps inform us for the election, as Labour’s policy is to borrow an extra $6b off China and have the NZ Super Fund invest the majority of it on international sharemarkets. Not even the fact that Europe stands on the brink of financial disaster, has put Labour off their borrow to save policy.

The RPRC compare the returns from the NZSF against the “risk free hurdle rate” of the yield on ten year government stock at the start of each financial year. This measures whether the NZSF has actually made NZ better off financially.

They find that as at 30 September 2011, the NZSF has made $1.22b less than the ten year government bond rate.

So why are Labour persisting in arguing that we should borrow money to contribute to the fund, when that was never its intention as set up by Cullen. Our priority has to be to get our debt down first.

Labour and the Greens refer to the the proposed Puhoi to Wellsford SH1 upgrade as the Holiday Highway. They would have people think it is a little used road, that only gets a bit crowded on Friday nights. In fact it is far more than that.

The road between Puhoi and Wellsford is part of SH1. As a two lane road, motorists will know that traffic flows at the speed of the slowest vehicle on it. We must be one of the only countries in the world that doesn’t have at least two lanes each way on our major highway.

That road actually has more people use it every day, than use the entire train network in Auckland. Around 28,000 people a day use that highway, and 27,000 use Auckland trains (UPDATE: In recent months this has increased to 33,000). Is Labour really claiming 28,000 people a day are off on holiday? Also, let us look at where the road is.

Now I am not sure about you, but I don’t think many people go to Wellsford for their holidays. Those driving north to holiday have generally left SH1 well before Wellsford. So why is the Govt looking to make it two lanes each way, instead of single lane? Three reasons.

1. Better connectivity between the main producing activities in Northland, particularly dairying, forestry and mining, and the major markets for these activities in areas lying to the south of the region and overseas accessed by the ports at Auckland and Tauranga.
2. Reducing the costs of commodities transported to Northland from the south for consumption or for input to the manufacturing industries in the area, so making Northland a more attractive place to live and to develop employment activities.
3. Making tourist destinations in Northland more accessible to the large market and population in the Auckland region.

This is all about economic growth for Northland. Northland is one of the poorest areas of New Zealand, despite having significant resources. One of the reasons for that is the woeful transport links.

The projected economic benefits from the road are:

• Journey Time Reliability $8m
• Time travel benefits $352m
• Vehicle operating costs $35m
• Accident cost savings $133m
• Wider economic benefits $159m

That’s $688m in net present value. The business case said:

“Taking these two components tourism and forestry into account, an indicative estimate of the value of increased economic activity that might result from the improvement of SH1 between Puhoi and Wellsford would be of the order of $30-35 million per annum and possibly doubling by 2031.”

Scrapping the highway upgrade to fund the Auckland CBD rail loop will be robbing (poorer) Paul to benefit (richer) Peter. Auckland (including their metro rail funding) already gets 45.7% of the National Land Transport fund and metro rail funding.  If Aucklanders want a CBD rail loop, then they should fund it from Aucklanders through rates and user charges, not from the rest of the country that already subsidises their rail system.

1. Te Ara now has an elections and parties portal.  Also a blog post by Nigel Roberts on some of the better material there.
2. NZ on Screen has also put together a politics collection. They have the David Frost interview with Norman Kirk, the 1987 John Key documentary, the Revolution series, The documentary on Governor George Grey, the 1984 leaders debate, Bob Jones punching Rod Vaughan, McPhail and Gadsby and much much more. I could spend days here.
3. A NZ Supreme Court blog. The latest blog post is by former Appeal Court Justice Ted Thomas. There’s an interesting analysis of the Chief Justice’s views on police powers. Also worth reading this post by Jeff Simpson where he describes the CJ as having acted in a kneejerk fashion.
4. The official Hobbit blog. Lots of photos of the set, videos etc.

I’ve blogged at Curiablog, the results of tonight’s 3 News poll. Nats up, Lab down, Greens up, ACT down.

The weighted average of the five public polls released this week is:

• National 52.6%, 67 seats
• Labour 27.8%, 35 seats
• Green 11.1%, 14 seats
• NZ First 3,2%, 0 seats
• Maori 1.5%, 3 seats (1 overhang)
• ACT 1.1%, 1 seat
• Mana 0.7%, 1 seat
• United 0.4%, 1 seat (overhang)

Steven Joyce has just put out a statement:

The Herald on Sunday has many questions to answer about the illegal taping of the conversation between National Leader and Prime Minister John Key and Act candidate John Banks on Friday, says National Party campaign chair Steven Joyce.

“There are a number of inconsistencies in the story which together suggest an attempt to conceal a deliberate News of the World-type covert operation,” says Mr Joyce.

“Firstly, the radio transmission device was concealed inside a pouch and placed next to the Prime Minister.  Any camera operator knows that if you are seeking to obtain legitimate audio, you don’t muffle it by leaving the microphone in a pouch. This was an experienced cameraman, and the only possible conclusion is that the concealment was deliberate.

“Secondly, the Herald on Sunday article states the cameraman approached the Prime Minister’s staff to retrieve the microphone during the meeting and was rebuffed. The problem is that no approach was made until after the meeting was over. If the approach had been made during the meeting to inform staff that a recording or transmitting device was left on the table, it would have been retrieved immediately.

“Thirdly, the Herald on Sunday article states that the taping was discovered on the cameraman’s return to his office. That is untrue. When the cameraman approached the Prime Minister’s staff member for the return of the microphone, the cameraman acknowledged he was aware the conversation had been recorded.

“Fourthly, the Herald on Sunday article describes the cameraman as a ‘freelance cameraman’, and makes no attempt to disclose his working relationship with the Herald on Sunday. However in an email to the Prime Minister’s office last night chief reporter David Fisher seeks the return of the wireless microphone, which he says was ‘taken from our staff member’. 

“The conclusion one is left with is that the Herald on Sunday deliberately arranged the taping, in an unwelcome introduction of UK-style News of the World tabloid tactics into the New Zealand media environment, and is now deliberately seeking to distance themselves publicly.

In related news, Whale reveals who the cameraman probably was.

Also a must read comment by Niggly:

2. Whilst it isn’t unusual to leave a wireless microphone transmitter “on” (prior to use), it is actually unusual to leave a wireless microphone transmitter “on” and inside a bag, because that indicates it isn’t about to be used and is using up battery power. Not unless the freelancer was intending to use it ….

3. Even if the wireless microphone transmitter was unintentionally “on” and left inside a bag (and thus unintentionally transmitting) and this was all “innocent” …. then the “freelance cameraman’s” story doesn’t stack up at all after this point because his videocamera’s wireless microphone receiver device would have to have been on and the videocamera (or recording equipment) turned “on” and “recording”. To make this clearer, this last aspect here indicates the recording could not have been made (even with the wireless microphone switched on and transmitting) because for the recording to be made as said here, a receiving device then needs to be deliberately turned on and the “camera operator’s equipment” also had to be on and recording.

Is there anyone out there who thinks it really was an accident?

I suspected a lot of women were offended by David Cunliffe’s statement on Judith Collins, and one of them hit back. This is Rachel Glucina hitting back in the Herald on Sunday. H/T: Whale Oil.