Kiwiblog

Red Alert claims this is them celebrating their first birthday, but I am sure we can come up with better captions for the. As always funny not nasty.

Congrats to Labour for their first birthday. I think it has been a great initiative, and have enjoyed interacting with Labour MPs there. I check it out almost every day. By comparison I check out the National MPs combined blog site around once a month, if that. I can only handle reading so many posts about the opening some local school hall without wanting to blow my brains out.

Red Alert has had some decent stats also:

Today we are One. So we thought we’d celebrate.1902 posts, 35,116 comments. 35 out of 43 Labour MPs have posted on Red Alert. Some more than others. Trevor Mallard still wins the prize for the most posts (550). Followed by me (212) Grant (198) Phil Twyford (156) and Chris Hipkins (136) …

We average about 30,000 page views a week
More than a million page views
465,000+ viewers

I could point out I have managed to blog more by myself than 35 MPs combined (and it is their job, not a hobby like for me) but that would be churlish . I am sincere when I say that overall I think Labour have done very well with their parliamentary blog, and I hope they continue with it, even when they make Government again one day.

On most blogs the actual posts tend to be quite reasonable and well argued, and it is the comments that can sometimes go off the track and get hysterical.

But I’m pleased to report the opposite has happened on Red Alert. Carmel Sepuloni did a somewhat off the track post claiming:

Todd McClay says that beneficiaries are more likely to murder children

I thought this would set off a round of abuse of Todd, but in fact many of the comments were quite thoughtful, such as:

Rebecca:
Carmel I agree it was incredibly distasteful however, in many ways, while awkwardly put, Todd is right.

The bulk of the physical child abuse, neglect and maltreatment statistics comes out of the quarters of the lower socio-economic groups, most of whom are predominantly on benefits.

Lindsay Mitchell posted a useful link to some CYFS stats which “establishes that there is a statistical association between the two factors examined: benefit receipt and CYPFS notifications”.

Todd himself pops up and posts a draft of Hansard, with what he actually said:

And Lindsay again provides a useful point:

You have to understand that ‘are more likely to’ can co-exist with ‘most don’t’. For argument’s sake;

8 out of 100 beneficiaries abuse their children.
2 out of 100 non-beneficiaries abuse their children.

Therefore beneficiaries are 4 times more likely to abuse their children BUT most don’t.

However, inasmuch as child murder usually occurs at the extreme end of abuse, it is more likely to happen when the parent or other caregiver is a beneficiary.

So stop taking offence and start asking whether there is a link between welfare and child abuse.

Of course not all comments were high quality:

Olwyn said:

Furthermore, we did not have people regularly beating kids to death before we took up neo-conservative economic policies

Blame the neo-cons!

But overall I found the comments thread quite a useful wee debate. Someone also pointed out the difference between correlation and causation.

Labour MP Kelvin Davis has said a lot of things on education, and Maori issues, I agree with. Labour will inevitably become Government again at some stage, and he looks to be potentially a better Education Minister than Maharey and Mallard were.

But I do take issue with his blog post on truancy:

So thirty thousand students a day are not at school. Sounds worrying. I guess 100% attendance is the aultimate goal.

But let’s look at that 30,000 figure. It represents 4% of the total number of students in compulsory education.

So far, so good. His maths is better than Trevor’s.

If a child is away for 4% of the school year that means they are absent an average of less than two days a term.

Now yes on average that is around two days a term, but expressed as eight days a year, and that is a lot – in fact it is around one day a month, excluding the four months of holidays.

I don’t think having a child truant one day a month is anywhere near acceptable.

But even if it was, I think with respect Kelvin misses the bigger issue. This will not be all 750,000 students equalling wagging one day a month. It is probably 50% of students never wagging, 40% wagging one day a month and 10% wagging nine days a month, or around half the year.

I don’t recall when Anne Tolley said she got the figures she’s quoting, but if it was last year we need to remember there was a swine flu scare and the Ministry of Health was asking parents to keep kids home if they had a sniffle.

When I was a Principal, teachers had to mark in the attendance register whether a student’s absence was justified or unjustified.

Justified meant the child was usually sick or at a bereavement. Unjustified meant they were truant.

I’d be interested in whether she’s done any analysis of justified vs unjustified absences. She needs to realise kids do get sick at times and some non-attendance is expected.

I think this is a red herring. Tolley’s press release clearly talks about kids being truant – not just absent.

Now the release links to the actual study, and the study is clear that the 4.2% absentee rate is for unjustified absences. The total absentee rate is in fact 11.6%.

And they even look in the study at the swine flu issue:

Therefore it is likely that the differences observed in the 2009 survey, compared to previous surveys in 2006 and 2004, are not likely to be due to the increased absence rates caused by the influenza (H1N1) 09 Swine Flu pandemic alert.

So Mr Davis really hasn’t done his homework here. He made wrong assumptions, and suggested the Minister did not know the difference between justified and unjustified.

One hundred percent attendance is desirable, but it appears Anne Tolley is trying to over-egg the situation, and my guess is she’s doing it to divert attention from her National Standards shambles.

Quite the opposite. Labour have under-egged the problem. The overall non attendance rate is in fact 11% – that means on average a kid is absent every fortnight!

I do hope Labour have a more inspiring truancy policy than saying it’s not a big issue.

At 11.33 am Trevor Mallard posts that National MP Katrina Shanks removed a web poll from her site, because 85% of respondents had voted against national standards.

He said:

Talk about dishonest. Goebbels would be proud of her attempt to rewrite history.

The irony and hypocrisy is wonderful as at 11.57 am Trevor Mallard made another post on Red Alert called “A big group that will be worse off following the tax cuts”. In it Trevor rails against removing the depreciation write off on rental properties, claiming it will push rental prices up by $60 a week.

And you know what, that post has disappeared off Red Alert a few minutes later. To use Trevor’s language, in a fashion Goebbels would be proud of.

So how stupid do you have to be to do a post bagging someone else for deleting something off their site, and then just minutes later do the same thing yourself.

Now of course it was stupid for Katrina (or whomever did it) to remove the web poll. No one should take them seriously anyway.

This is not the first Goebbels type editing done on Red Alert. on 2 February I highlighted a Trevor post that disappeared, and back on 29 October, a censored post where they tried to cover up that Trevor referred to Chris Finlayson as:

I don’t know what the Chief Justice saw in him. He is a nasty sarcastic man – so twisted that if he ate nails he would pass screws

So we are up to the third strike for Trevor and trying to rewrite online history. So the irony and hypocrisy of Trevor ripping into Katrina Shanks is immense.

I wonder how long we will wait for Trevor’s latest deleted post to reappear, and have it blamed on a technical glitch.

Barnsley at Gotcha is worried about the theme of a cartoon blogged by Trevor at Red Alert, but I’m more interested in the increasing shrillness of the posts.

First he basically called John Key a racist because John criticised Hone Harawira, now he calls Anne Tolley a liar because she claimed to fully understand the national standards system, and Trevor proclaimed that no living person can possibly fully understand the system, so she must be a liar. Sounds bizarre, but this is true. I’ll take you through it slowly.

Trevor asked in Parliament:

Hon Trevor Mallard: Going back to the primary answer, is she in the group of 11.9 percent who claim that they fully understand her system or in the 88 percent who acknowledge that they do not?

This was in relation to a Herald poll that found 88% o people did not fully understand national standards. Now Trevor was obviously trying to get Tolley to say she did not understand her own national standards system. Anne tried to avoid a direct answer to the equivalent of a “Have you stopped beating your wife” type question but Lockwood showed why he is such a fair Speaker and insisted Anne give a direct answer,which was:

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I understand perfectly well what the national standards are …

Trevor then blogs:

… everyone that has half a brain knows that  no one can fully understand a system that vital components of, including what will be an expensive and time consuming moderation system,  have not been designed yet.

So, once again, Tolley is a liar …

So think carefully about Trevor’s logic here. He is saying that no one at all in the entire world can claim to understand the national standards system, and that anyone claiming to is a liar.

It is the sort of verbal semantics you expect from a ten year old, not a former Minister of Education. In Trevor’s world Anne has to either say I don’t understand the National Standards system, or she is a liar. This is why I call it a “Have you stopped beating your wife” question – there is no good answer.

By itself I would not blink – we all know Mallard hates Tolley and his idea of Opposition is to abuse and denigrate her. But when you look at the nonsense over calling Key a racist because Key criticised Hone Harawira, well I think there is a pattern of increasing shrillness or worse.

Trevor’s post at Red Alert are just getting more bizarre. And I say this as someone who said many times last year Trevor was an excellent blogger. Something has happened over summer.

Trevor’s latest missive is to call John Key racist for criticising Hone Harawira!

So why has John Key been so aggressive in his criticism of Hone?

Hone is a sometimes an easy target. He puts his head up and I’ve certainly had a go at him when it is appropriate.

But contrast this question of a perceived (but not actual) conflict of interest of a member of Hone’s family with the decade of the English whanau ripping the taxpayer off by pretending to live in Dipton. And Wiremu was found to have an interest. And it is continuing.

So is Key kicking Hone because he is Maori and if not what is his explanation for his hypocrisy?

First of all Trevor is lying about Bill. No less than the Auditor-General, Jonathan Hunt, Margaret Wilson and Lockwood Smith have all ruled Bill has been eligible for the Wellington accommodation supplement.

But even putting that falsehood aside (and teh stupidity of trying to compare an issue about a flag with housing allownaces), it is pitiful to suggest that John Key is racist because he criticised Hone Harawira.

Calling the Prime Minister a racist is not an accusation an MP should make lightly. I wonder if Phil Goff would agree with Trevor that Key is a racist for criticising Hone? Maybe someone could ask Phil in front of Hone as he welcomes him onto Waitangi.

Around 9 pm last night Trevor Mallard made a rather bizarre post on Red Alert. And presumably one of his colleagues stepped in and hid it from view as it disappeared for around several hours.

One would have thought they would have learnt from the Chris Finlayson episode, that it is a bad idea to delete stuff you regret, as it is cached and stored all over the place.

As people on Red Alert asked what happened to it, it then reappeared a few hours later.George Orwell would be proud his novels were so accurate!

The post was rather stupid, to be blunt. It says/said:

It is going to be interesting to see how hard the Nats push their policy of shifting from a pretty strict zoning system based on a right to enrol if in zone to giving flexibilty to schools to pick and choose students.

Being in the Auckland Grammar zone increases the value of a house by between $100 and $150k, it will be interesting to see how Nikki Kaye balances her pretty extreme free market views with the writing off of property values.

Big + for Jacinda I think.

I know Labour are desperate to try and talk the Auckland Central race up, but really describing Nikki as holding “pretty extreme free market views” is hilarious. All I can say is that whatever Trevor is inhaling needs to be reclassified from Class C to Class A!!

More to the point, Trevor needs to visit Auckland more often. The Auckland Grammar zone is here. Almost none of it is actually in Auckland Central. It is almost all in Epsom and Mt Albert. I can only presume he was desperately trying to come up with an issue, and this is the best he could come up with.

The only parts that are in zone are the CBD on and east of Queens Street, and Grafton. Now I don’t think anyone thinks many families live in CBD apartments, and their value is not greatly affected by the Grammar zone (look at apartment values on Queen St vs Albert St). So that only leaves Grafton which is around 5% of the electorate.

I do like the fact that Trevor defends school zoning on the basis that house values in Epsom will decrease too much if one makes it more flexible. Good to see Labour focused on helping kids get the best education.

Incidentally, while I think it is very unlikely the Grammar zone will disappear, I would say it would be incredibly popular in the other 95% of Auckland Central, as their parents would get a choice of schools.

UPDATE: Clare Curran has commented that the Red Alert post disappeared due to a technical glitch, and it was not done deliberately.

While Phil Goff put out a press release welcoming the appointment, I’ve been waiting for one of the 40 or so Labour MPs who blog at Red Alert, to blog about Moore’s appointment and how pleased they are.

They managed to find newsworthy a blog post by Jordan Carter (the one I highlighted), the Mackenzie farming proposals, The Republican win in Massachusetts, the tax working group and some tale about how an MPs niece thinks the penguin in Madagascar reminds her of John Key.

But not a word of congratulations to Mike Moore. Never mind he joined the Labour movement in 1968, was elected to Parliament as a Labour MP in 1972 and served for 24 years, led them twice in a general election, and helped them avoid a crushing defeat in 1996 (before the rapprochement with Clark, Labour were polling at 14%).

He’s just been appointed to New Zealand’s most important diplomatic post, and none of his former colleagues at Red Alert can bring themselves to blog on it.

UPDATE: Audrey Young covers an interesting point:

Half a lifetime ago, in 1972, Mike Moore was the new young thing in politics, having won the marginal seat of Eden for Labour at the age of 23 – despite a vigorous campaign against him by opponents including the bearded 18-year-old Young National activist Murray McCully.

There were no hard feelings then – McCully ended up at Moore’s all-night celebrations.

Appointing the guy who beat you in your first election!

UPDATE 2: Denis Welch reminds us:

Ironically, when I interviewed him for the Clark book in November 2008, he was somewhat in the wilderness, having been passed over for appointments by the Clark government (he wasn’t even invited to the party’s 90th anniversary bash, which, rightly, rankled).

I’d forgotten they didn’t even invite him to the 90th birthday party. How petty.

At Red Alert, there is a blog post saying:

Wilkinson wasn’t in the House today so Finlayson answered. I don’t know what the Chief Justice saw in him. He is [deleted after careful consideration - Clare]

Now when will Labour learn about Google and the Internet. I would have through the Mussolini debacle was lesson enough, but no. Here is what Google records Trevor as originally saying:

I don’t know what the Chief Justice saw in him. He is a nasty sarcastic man – so twisted that if he ate nails he would pass screws

What a wonderful reminder of the old Trevor, and the last Labour Government. Anyone recall “cancerous and corrosive”?

I mean this is what one of Labours most senior MPs think is appropriate to write on their parliamentary blog, about an opponent. The vitriol just drips.

Also featuring on the Labour blog, is this comment by a Jennifer:

By the way, I also was somewhat shocked to see the ‘mean and nasty’ side of Tinkerbell.

Now I of all people don’t believe a blog owner is responsible for comments made on their blog. But there is more to this, than meets the eye. You see Labour MPs – especially Trevor Mallard – yell out Tinkerbell at the Attorney-General constantly in the House. So Jennifer is just following the lead of her caucus.

Now I think everyone knows Chris is gay. He doesn’t make a big fuss about it, it is just the way things are. But Labour seem obsessed with the fact an openly gay politician is a front bench National Minister. The so called party of tolerance and equality call him Tinkerbell. Maybe Rainbow Labour would like to show some balls, and point out to their own Caucus why this is a bad and stupid thing to do.

This is what Chris Carter blogged on the Labour Parliamentary Blog earlier today. He deleted it soon afterwards, but Kiwiblog readers retained copies and sent them in!

Delusions of grandeur <http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/10/22/delusions-of-grandeur/>

via Red Alert <http://blog.labour.org.nz>  by Chris Carter on 10/21/09

Just saw the most awful sight.

John Key was posing outside on the 9th Floor Beehive balcony for a photo op.

He looked just like Mussolini at the Piazzo Navona. I couldn’t resist leaning out my window and calling out to John that he resembled Mussolini.

He responded “IT WORKED!”

Says it all, really.

So Chris Carter saw the “most awful sight”. No it wasn’t landing at Wellington Airport but the PM doing a photo op. And so of course he thought of Mussolini.

Not content with having those thoughts, he felt the need to share with the world how “most awful” it was that he though the PM looked like Mussolini doing a photo op.

He even took the time to upload a photo of Mussolini to the Labour blog.

And Labour wonders why they are 33% behind in the polls. Obviously some of Chris’ colleagues got the post yanked down as soon as possible, but they should learn that this is the Internet!

When I talk on blogging, I joke how most people are calm and reasonable in real life, but put them behind a blog and they turn into a foaming abusive person but that the opposite effect has been seen with Trevor Mallard in that he comes across on the blogs as far more calm and reasonable than he sometimes does in the House.

Generally I have been full of praise for Red Alert, and Trevor’s contributions specifically. But sometimes he goes too far. Yesterday Trevor blogged:

In 1999 and 2000, and again in the few days he was deputy leader of the National Party, Nick Smith has shown an inability to cope when the pressure comes on.

Widely circulating Beehive rumours now indicate that John Key has overloaded him giving him Climate Change and ACC at the same time.

Now this is just nasty stuff. Sure criticise a Minister on issues, and point out areas where he or she may be under stress. But Trevor is either fabricating or spreading rumours designed to remind people that Nick had some stress issues during his brief tenure as Deputy Leader.

I know of a Labour MP who once had a similar issue. I would never ever keep harping on about that on the blogs. I think it is great it is all behind them, and don’t see it as a weapon to be used against him or her.

Anyway I commented on Red Alert:

I must remember to link to this post in 2011, when reminding people why not to vote Labour.

This is just a different version of you yelling out “Take your pills” in the House. I think you forget how deeply unpopular such antics are.

My second sentence was censored on the grounds it takes it beyond Trevor’s limits. In fact it got censored because I was explicit at point out what Trevor was trying to say implicitly.

I probably shouldn’t say anything, as letting people show their nasty side is unpopular. This is part of why Labour was thrown out – their attacks on Key and others did look nasty.

I hope this is the last time we see that sort of post on Red Alert.

As I said a post criticising specifics of Nick’s handling of either ACC or climate change would be quite legitimate. But as I said, this is just a cyber-version of yelling out “Take your pills” in the House – something that only declined in frequency after the media started to report on why Labour were doing it.

Before I get into this substance of this, I want to say a couple of things. The first is that I have known Chris Carter for around 15 years, think he has a great sense of humour and has been an effective MP. In fact it isn’t a great secret that I was hoping he would beat Brian Neeson when they both stood for Waipareira in 1996 as I found Neeson just far too conservative for me (and note Neeson in 2002 broke his written pledge to not stand against a National candidate by standing as an Independent in 2002 when he failed to be reselected).

Also it drives me crazy that some people are unable to comment on any issue about a gay MP, without making some dig about his sexual orientation. People really need to get over it. And Chris has had a longer relationship with his partner than most married couples, let alone divorced ones.

Now I blogged on Sunday:

I’ve been musing about whether to post on this topic, because I think Chris Carter was acting with good motives in flying to Samoa, but nevertheless I do question the appropriateness of it.

I don’t think it is the job of the Opposition Foreign Affairs Spokesperson to fly into foreign disasters, any more than it is the job of the Opposition Police Spokesperson to fly into fatal crime scenes, or the Opposition Health Spokesperson to fly into quarantine areas.

Three times I stressed I was not questioning Chris’s motives in going to Samoa, just his judgement on appropriateness. And I still stand by that. I think the motives were honourable.

I got flak from Russell Brown at Public Address and The Standard for my post. The Standard said (and Russell agreed):

In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, Winne Laban headed to Samoa to assist her family there. Carter went as her support person, the two are close I understand. He did not go there to be Labour Foreign Affairs spokesperson.

Now I don’t know anyone at all who thinks or has said Winnie going there was inappropriate. And going as a support person for Winnie would be entirely uncontroversial. One could quibble whether it is a good use of parliamentary funding to have an MP go as a support person, rather than say a family member, but I don’t think that is an issue.

This has not been disaster tourism by Carter

I have never used the term disaster tourism, and would not. In fact the blogger I recall using the term is No Right Term who used the label against John Key.

But sadly for The Standard and Russell, Chris Carter himself shoots down their defence f him that he was there solely as Winnie’s support person. Chris blogged:

What a great posting from Winnie. I am so glad she agreed to go with me to Samoa. She was not only a wonderful travelling companion, but her understanding of the appropriate cultural approach and her Samoan language skills meant we could engage with those affected by this terrible natural disaster in the most sensitive ways.

This makes it very clear Chris was going regardless of Winnie going. Later on he says Winnie asked him to go, but that be referring to the specific flight they caught.

It was clear to us that Winnie as Labour’s spokesperson for Pacific Island Affairs, and me as our Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, needed to be there, on the ground, supporting the victims and listening to their plight.

And here Chris makes very clear he was there not just as Winnie’s support person, but as the Foreign Affairs Spokesperson.

And with respect I disagree that rushing into a foreign disaster should be the job of the opposition foreign affairs spokesperson, just as I don’t expect the opposition health spokesperson to rush to medical emergencies.

It was important for Samoans and holidaying Kiwis to know that the Labour Party cared about the disaster and was quick off the mark to demonstrate its concern.

And here Chris says it was about showing the Labour Party cared. Now by his own words that raises the issue of appropriateness. Should the Greens have flown over also to show they cared? I think what was needed is to show New Zealand cared, regardless of political affiliation. And that is the job of the Government – whether that be National or Labour at the time.

It is an important role of the Opposition in a Parliamentary democracy to challenge, push and where appropriate support the actions of the government of the day. It is a legitimate role for Opposition MPs to provide a different voice and often alternatives to government policy or action, whether it be in domestic affairs such as Education, Health, Housing or Welfare, or dealing with issues concerning Employers, Workers, Unions, in International Relations/Foreign Affairs, and even in disaster relief.

That’s our job!

It was immediately obvious to us that what Samoa urgently needed was doctors, nurses, immediate food, fresh water supplies and medical equipment.

Now I absolutely agree Opposition MPs should and must hold the Government to account. But I do not accept that means it is appropriate for the foreign affairs spokesperson to fly into a foreign disaster, any more than you expect the opposition Police spokesperson to fly to the scene of an armed siege so they can comment on whether or not they think the Government or Police handled the siege well.

An Opposition spokesperson can critique the Government’s response to a foreign disaster by reports from the dozens of media at the scene, by talking to non-media on the ground, by asking MFAT (through the Minister) for a briefing etc etc. I’ve never before known an opposition spokesperson to assert they need to fly to the scene. And as I said in my original blog, Helen Clark would I am sure have ferociously denounced a National MP doing the same.

So if Chr ris had gone purely to support Winnie, I would have no criticism. But The Standard clearly invented that as a defence, to have Chris himself contradict it. And I think it is legitimate to have a debate on whether that is the correct role of an opposition spokesperson. Again, I have never criticised the good motives in going, but it is fair to question judgement.

Now Chris also made the TV3 news last night about the fact the published figures showing his spending on international travel over six months to be $83,000 was wrong, and in fact it was $131,000.

Now many will condemn him on that lavel of spending, but I do think people should not rush to judgement until all the facts are known.

I’ve had friends travel with Ministers in the past, and they get back absolutely knackered. One mate(ess) got back from a trip to UK and Netherlands for a week, and apologised for no souvenirs. She had worked from 7 am to 10 pm from when they land to when they took off apart from a two hour break one afternoon which she spent sleeping.

Many Ministers (and staff) do have punishing schedules on their trips. I suggest that the fairest thing would be for the itineraries for the travel in question to be released, so people can judge the value for the $131,000. Duncan Garner blogs that he has asked the Cabinet Office for the travel reports but for some reason this will take at least another week.

Fran O’Sullivan addressed several dozen people at breakfast this morning on the topic of the Accidental Empire of Political Blogging. Rural Women NZ hosted the breakfast.

Fran was mainly positive about the impact political blogging has had in NZ, saying the diversity is useful, as is the competition for the media to some degree.

She did have some criticisms, such as accuracy and fact checking, and most of all political bloggers who blog anonymously. Her big call was for more political bloggers to post under their names so there is some accountability for what they say – as journalists have.

She was full of praise for Red Alert and said it has obviously replaced The Standard as the most influential and useful blog on the left.

Whale Oil got a mention with praise for his willingness to savage members of his own party (she joked that his father must be glad he has a life membership that can’t be revoked) but said she thought the pre-election scuttlebutt on Damien O’Connor was a serious error of judgement.

Lots of questions and discussion ranging from has a blogger been sued yet, to press gallery membership. Fran nicely refers to the gallery as a cartel

Was a very good breakfast and even better drinks afterwards, finally escaping around 10.30 am!

I have to give lots of kudos to Red Alert for their coverage of the Labour Conference. Overall I think it has been a positive event for them. Here’s how I see the good and the bad.

Good

1. Goff’s Speech. Very well crafted, and got the tone right. If Goff makes more speeches like this, he will start to go up in the polls.
2. Mike Rann’s speech. The fact the SA Premier went to uni with Goff makes his endorsement more meaningful. Incidentally please note no-one in National complaining about Rann speaking at a Labour conference – quite unlike Clark’s conduct over Downer speaking to a Nats conference.
3. Anderton’s presence. It was a symbolic healing of past wounds.
4. Having Federated Farmers address the conference. Very smart and bold.

Not Good

1. Goff on the motorcycle. Yes I know he used to have one 20 years ago, but it looks just a bit try hard.
2. The condoms story. For all their words about focused on the issues that matter to most people, this story will leave people wondering if anything is changing.
3. Lianne Dalziel’s mooting of a (get this) Commissioner for Social Inclusion. No I am not making this up. The only comment on Red Alert is a trackback ping from the Dim-Post where Danyl can’t believe his luck at being given such material. No else has managed to find the strength to comment on the idea, because there is probably no way to do so politely. Danyl comments that “Dalziel is like a convicted killer who shows up to her parole board hearing with a hockey mask and chainsaw”.

Overall a good performance from Goff, but he needs to get a tighter rein on some of his colleagues. He should have stopped Dyson from sounding so eager about the free condoms idea, and there should be a general ban on any Labour MP promoting anything that sounds even more useless than the Families Commission.

On Wednesday evening at Backbenches various Young Labour members were very excited, telling everyone who would listen that Melissa Lee had parked her car on a disabled parking spot.

This was then given more publicity by Trevor Mallard who blogged at Red Alert:

Melissa in Disabled Park?

Just stupid. Can two days pass without her cocking up?

Remember she is John Key’s handpicked candidate.

Both lack judgement.

The post has now been struck through. Why?

Well Melissa did not park there. She took a taxi to Backbenches. The car was a supporter’s car. The supporter is disabled and had his disability card displayed in the windscreen – something that anyone could have easily checked. Egg. Face. Ouch.

The comments thread at Red Alert is quite amusing and worth a read.

Trevor Mallard at Red Alert is seeking feedback on two issues:

1. If someone fails a breath test then all action related to driving while impaired with drugs ceases.  The evidence the committee got made it very clear that using booze and other drugs together had a multiplicitive effect when it came to having accidents. In an extreme case an offender would get a lesser penalty by having a quick drink when stopped at a checkpoint while high on “P”. Doesn’t seem right to me. My view is that where someone is clearly more impaired than they should be with a given breath test reading then the Police should have the right to move down the drug testing route as well.
2. When someone is hospitalised then blood taken can be used for a drink but not a drug drive charge. In my opinion anyone who has active class A drugs in their system should be prosecuted – even if they have had an accident where they have been hospitalised.

I’ve personally long been an advocate for greater scrutiny of drug driving, not just drunk driving.

However I understand that one of the real challenges is that drugs stay in your body a lot longer than alcohol, and long after it impairs you. I’m not sure if we want people charged if they drive a car two weeks after they had a joint?

Trevor though is talking Class Drugs such as ‘P”. The schedule of Class A drugs is here. It even includes Thalidomide!

Again though – how long does Cocaine effect someone and how long does it stay in the body? Is it fair to face extra charges for having taken coke two weeks before you crash the car? Some will say yes, as coke (unlike alcohol) is illegal.

Also Trevor’s proposal does not seem to be suggesting random drug testing – only for those who have failed a breath test and/or caused a crash and been hospitalised.

Overall I would tend to be in favour of the proposals, but open to arguments against.