News.com.au reports:

Feline company is exactly what one of London’s newest cafes is offering — and stressed-out city-dwellers are lapping it up.

“People do want to have pets and in tiny flats, you can’t,” said cafe owner Lauren Pears, who opened Lady Dinah’s Cat Emporium last month in an area east of the city’s financial district.

“There’s not many places in London you can just curl up with a book and chill out with a cat or two on your lap,” she said on Friday. “I think that’s what our success is down to.” …

The cozy English tea room, named after Alice’s cat in Alice in Wonderland, charges customers 5 pounds ($9) for two hours of kitty company. Coffee and afternoon tea — sandwiches, cakes and scones — are on the menu at an additional cost.

Lady Dinah’s opened on March 1, and is fully booked until the end of June.

Ms Pears raised more than 109,000 pounds through a crowd-funding campaign to get the cafe up and running. Despite more than a year of planning permission delays and figuring out how to maintain health and safety standards, she says the hard work has been worth it.

The 11 resident kitties were donated by people leaving the country who could no longer look after them. Kitty welfare is paramount: the cats get regular breaks away from people, and staff have been trained by animal behaviourists to care for them.

That’s a great idea. No surprise they are booked up for three months. I love in an apartment block that bans pets, and miss not having a cat. I’d definitely go to a cafe with cats.

News.com.au reports:

Several thousand people weighed in on “house rules’’ over 10 days of recent debate and a year after Hasbro Inc. added a cat token and retired the iron in a similar online stunt aimed at keeping the 79-year-old game fresh. …

The winning house rule for landing on Go means players get 400 Monopoly dollars instead of the official 200. As for Free Parking, official rules call for absolutely nothing to happen when a player lands there. Under the house rule, any taxes and fees collected are thrown into the middle for a lucky someone who lands on that corner square.

Rounding out the five winners are that players must travel around the board one full time before they can begin buying properties, and collecting 500 bucks for rolling double ones.

Off memory we always played four of the five house rules – no rent in jail, double for landing on go, taxes collected on free parking and no purchases in your first round. The only house rule I had not heard of was the $500 for double ones.

The Herald reported:

A little over six years ago, Selwyn College in Auckland was struggling.

The Government took over its governance after poor student achievement results, a bitter fight for control by opposing parent groups and the resignation of its long-serving principal.

This week, the decile 4 school, which has long had a multicultural roll and special emphasis on the arts, is celebrating the release of stellar NCEA results that underline a remarkable transformation.

Last year, 93 per cent of Selwyn students sitting NCEA Level 1 passed. Pass rates at Level 2 were 94 per cent, and 90 per cent at Level 3.

Compare that with the 2006 pass rates: 39 per cent at Level 1, 47 per cent at Level 2 and 49 per cent at Level 3.

That is an incredible change, and a great one.

Leading education expert Professor John Hattie has described the progress as some of the most marked he had seen.

“It is the evidence that leads to these comments. And it is stunning. And that this was achieved in such a short time shows what can happen with inspired, passionate leadership with a laser focus on students.”

This must be one of the more successful interventions, and shows what great leadership can achieve from the commissioner and principal.

Many parents used to avoid Selwyn College like the plague. Now it’s role is growing.

Better use of each student’s achievement data, new and renovated buildings, improved teaching practices and a central focus on academic performance were cited as reasons for the improvement.

Selwyn now assigns each student a teacher to act as a mentor to help make sure their study will open doors to university or the workplace.

Selwyn is only a decile 4 school. Some claim that socio-economic background of students is the main determinant and use that as an excuse for poor performance. This shows what you can achieve when you stop making excuses.

NZ Herald quiz here.

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

A fiercely anti-abortion lobby group is putting pressure on the National Party not to select an experienced doctor whose job has involved authorising and performing abortions.

Right to Life said the potential selection of medical practitioner Rosemary Fenwicke as a candidate in Wellington Central “would have serious consequences for the National Party at the forthcoming election”.

Abortion is legal in this country, and regardless of one’s personal views on it, I don’t see any issue with a candidate being a doctor who has performed a legal service that women have requested.

Right to Life spokesman Ken Orr said: “The National Party would be most unwise to nominate Dr Fenwicke for the Wellington Central electorate or any other electorate, or even for a place on the National Party list.

“Those in our community who defend a culture of life would be deeply concerned should Dr Fenwicke be nominated as a candidate for Parliament.”

He claimed that she supported abortions at any time during pregnancy “for any reason, or for no reason”.

I don’t believe that to be true. Can Orr provide a quote?

Dr Fenwicke has previously been the target of conservative MPs who unsuccessfully tried to prevent her from being elected to the Abortion Supervisory Committee in 2007.

Independent MP Gordon Copeland argued at the time that her appointment was a conflict of interest because in her roles as a consultant and surgeon she had power to both authorise and perform abortions.

The committee’s latest report in December showed abortion rates were at their lowest in 20 years.

The Wellington Central seat has been held by Labour since 1999. Labour MP Grant Robertson won it in 2011 with a 6376-vote majority over National’s candidate Paul Foster-Bell.

Mr Foster-Bell – who entered Parliament on the list in April – is seeking the nomination to represent National in Whangarei.

I can’t comment on who may seek that National nomination for Wellington Central as it is during the period when names can’t be revealed. But what I will say is that I don’t think someone’s day job should be a reason for people not to vote for them. Their views on political issues is a quite valid consideration, but I don’t think their job is.

John Ansell writes:

There has been a major breakthrough in the Allan Titford case. And sadly (but typically) every newspaper, TV channel and radio station in this country, in accord with the state’s wishes, is covering it up.

Before you read the affidavit below, bear in mind that the woman writing it, Sheryll Titford, along with her husband, Allan’s brother Brian, doesn’t like Allan. She has always supported her former sister-in-law, Susan Titford (Cochrane).

(And before you conclude that Allan must be guilty if his brother and sister-in-law don’t like him, wait till you hear what Sue’s brother Dennis Cochrane has to say about the dishonesty of his sister Sue — but that’s the subject of another post.)

This is what makes Sheryll Titford’s voluntary affidavit so remarkable. Despite being a friend of Sue’s, Sheryll has been moved by her conscience to do the right thing by Allan.

Sheryll’s affidavit reveals that Sue told her that her (Sue’s) father, Graham Cochrane, confessed on his deathbed to burning down Sue and Allan’s family home at Maunganui Bluff.

I don’t know enough about the case to draw conclusions myself. But if there is an affidavit that contradicts evidence given in court, then the authorities should investigate it, in case there has been a miscarriage of justice.

The NZ Initiative hits F in their economic alphabet:

Trying to explain economic freedom to someone living in an economically free country is like trying to explain to a fish what water is. Like a fish in water, when we are free we rarely stop to consider what freedom is, why it is important to our livelihood, and what would happen if it was ever taken away.
 
Fortunately, New Zealand consistently ranks near the top of international indices measuring economic freedom. But this also means that we might take it too much for granted.
 
In its broadest sense, economic freedom is the ability for individuals to autonomously arrange their economic affairs and pursue greater prosperity. More specifically, it is the ability to exercise personal choice, participate in voluntary exchange, compete in markets, and enjoy the use of one’s property.
 
The choice to start a new business in any given field is an example of economic freedom. As is the ability to choose from ten different brands of bread at the supermarket. When you are able to sell your bike on Trade Me at whatever price you wish, this is also an example of economic freedom.
 
There is a role for government to play in economic affairs, but that role is limited. For the most part, it is to provide the legal structure to protect property rights and enforce contracts.
 
Of course, very few governments stick to those core functions. There are many other tasks that governments have taken on, such as the provision of roads and infrastructure, education, and health, to name a few.
 
But the more the government’s role is extended, the more economic freedom is threatened and diminished. The government harms economic freedom through corruption, over-regulation, taxation, and restrictions on voluntary exchanges.
 
While tax policies, subsidies, restrictions on foreign investment, or regulatory reforms by themselves may be undertaken with the best intentions, they all limit economic freedom. This has real material consequences. One only needs to observe the difference between North Korea and South Korea.
 
According to empirical research, high degrees of economic freedom are positively correlated with greater economic growth, higher average incomes, greater gender equality, higher life expectancy, and less poverty.
 
The value of economic freedom over crowd-pleasing government policies is only truly appreciated when it is gone. We should never take it for granted. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

The link between economic freedom and prosperity is well documented.

Stuff reports:

In an apparent effort to shore up support for its Windows software, Microsoft announced at a developer conference here that it’s bringing back the Start menu and will offer certain versions of its operating system for free.

The Start menu, which Microsoft eliminated when it released Windows 8 in 2012, will return to Windows in an update, the date of which was not announced. 

Getting rid of the start menu probably is their worst ever design decision – and there’s been a few!

The Herald reports:

The tragic deaths of two Dunedin children shot by their father Edward Livingstone earlier this year could have been prevented if New Zealand and Australian police shared information on criminal convictions, TVNZ has reported.

Livingstone killed his two children Bradley, 9, and Ellen, 6, at their mother’s home in Dunedin in January, before turning the gun on himself.

TVNZ reported tonight that Livingstone had previously been convicted for arson in Sydney, after trying to burn down his then-girlfriend’s house when she broke up with him.

The incident occurred 30 years ago.

He also assaulted a flatmate during the same incident, ripping the phone from his girlfriend’s hands to prevent her from calling police, TVNZ reported.

New Zealand judges were unaware of Livingstone’s past conviction and behaviour when he appeared before the courts for twice breaching a protection order against his ex-wife, Katharine Webb.

Three months before Livingstone shot his children, the 51-year-old was discharged without conviction for breaching a protection order against his family for a second time.

We can’t know if this extra info would have made a difference, but it could well have. Even though it was 30 years ago, the behaviour was so extreme I think a Judge would have taken it into account. Having said that I think a second breach of a protection order should be jail anyway.

AP reports:

France’s new finance minister says he wants to renegotiate the speed at which France cuts its budget deficit to limits set by the European Union.

Michel Sapin told French radio station France Inter on Thursday that the 3 percent deficit France has promised its European partners to achieve by 2015 remains the target, but that the “rhythm” at which it is achieved should be discussed.

Sapin, who is taking over as finance minister from Pierre Moscovici, says renegotiating the target “is in the common interest of Europe.”

France missed its deficit target last year and has repeatedly pushed back the date by which it will bring its finances into line with European limits. Its deficit last year was 4.3 percent.

The joys of tax and spend policies.

3 News reports:

Hard to be looking for a job when you’re overseas!

Almost 5000 people have had their benefits cancelled because they failed to reconnect with Work and Income eight weeks after their departure from New Zealand.

Ms Bennett said although the rules are tighter, they still allow for overseas travel on compassionate or health grounds in certain cases for job seekers.

People without work obligations may in most cases travel overseas for up to 28 days.

Sounds reasonable.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has ejected MPs from the caucus room to turn it into a war room, moving all key political staff into a vast open-plan office.

National has a war room also. It isn’t at Parliament though. It is at National Party HQ, where the staff are funded by members and donors – not by taxpayers.

Of course parliamentary staff always play a significant role in election campaigns, but for my 2c the campaign should primarily be driven from the party HQ.

The new strategy office is the brain-child of chief of staff Matt McCarten and is aimed at making sure the party is co-ordinated and quick on its feet. Labour MPs will now be sent downstairs to a smaller room for their weekly meetings.

I guess that is the good thing about having so few MPs – you can fit into the smaller room 🙂

The Herald reports:

An aviation industry group is creating a task force to make recommendations this year for continuously tracking commercial airliners because “we cannot let another aircraft simply vanish” like Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. …

The aviation mystery has highlighted the need for improvements in tracking aircraft and security, according to the International Air Transport Association, a trade association for the world’s airlines meeting in Kuala Lumpur.

“In a world where our every move seems to be tracked, there is disbelief that an aircraft could simply disappear,” said Tony Tyler, the director general of the group whose 240 member airlines carry 84 per cent of all passengers and cargo worldwide.

“We cannot let another aircraft simply vanish,” he said in announcing the high-level task force to make recommendations on tracking commercial aircraft.

I strongly agree with this, and not just  because by the time this post appears I’ll be on board a Malaysia Airlines flight to (hopefully) Kuala Lumpar!!

I’d even go further and say modern aircraft should have drone capability where their airline can take over control via autopilot if a plane diverts from its intended route without good reason.

But the Air Line Pilots Association, the world’s biggest pilot union, warned that live-streaming of information from the flight data recorder, as an alternative to the current black boxes, could lead to the release or leak of clues that could make pilots look bad before all the facts about an accident are known.

The pilots union have a lot to answer for when it comes to safety. They’re the reason the black box only records the last two hours of conversation, which means for MH370 even finding the black box may not help us know what happened. Their concern about people judging pilots prematurely should be a distant second to safety.

The Herald reports:

A Washington-based think-tank has found that New Zealand is the most socially advanced country in the world.

The Social Progress Imperative, whose advisory board is led by Harvard economist Professor Michael Porter, has put New Zealand first out of 130 countries based on 54 indicators of social progress.

The country tops the world on indicators of personal rights and freedoms, and comes in the top four for water and sanitation, access to schooling and tertiary education, and tolerance and inclusion of minority groups.

That’s excellent. We’re not No 1 in everything but when you take all 54 indicators together, we’re at the top.

The top 10 countries are:

1. New Zealand 88.24
2. Switzerland 88.19
3. Iceland 88.07
4. Netherlands 87.37
5. Norway 87.12
6. Sweden 87.08
7. Canada 86.95
8. Finland 86.91
9. Denmark 86.55
10. Australia 86.10

It scores a low 28th on nutrition and basic medical care partly because of a relatively high death rate for women in childbirth, 35th for health and wellbeing partly because of high obesity and suicide rates, and 32nd for ecosystem sustainability.

So definitely still more work to do in some areas.

Think-tank director Michael Green, a London-based economist and author ofPhilanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World, said New Zealand’s placing as the world’s most socially advanced nation contrasted with its 25th place in GDP per person.

“In terms of converting economic output into quality of life, New Zealand is doing really well,” he said.

It would be good to also lift the GDP.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said: “This report is great news and it backs up what we all know – that we live in a fantastic country.”

Labour social development spokeswoman Sue Moroney said New Zealand’s high scored reflected “Labour’s progressive agenda” in building up public health and education over many decades.

Interesting that Paula just says it reflects well on the country while Moroney tries to have her party claim credit for it!

In terms of the three major category groupings, NZ was:

• Opportunity 1st
• Foundations of Wellbeing 6th
• Basic Human Needs 18th

The Herald reports:

The May Budget will have no plans for tax cuts, Prime Minister John Key confirmed yesterday, and he sought to dampen expectations that there would be anything significant in the future.

I’m very disappointed that there will be no tax cuts. Hard working New Zealanders deserve a boost to their after tax income.

In no way do I expect tax cuts for the 2014/15 year as the surplus is so small. But I was hoping that the Government would signal tax cuts in the future years.

When the Government’s accounts move into surplus, Governments have basically three things they can do with the surplus.

• Increase spending
• Reduce tax levels
• Pay off debt

I believe a good Government does all three. If for example your projected surplus is $4 billion you might increase spending by $1 billion, reduce taxes by $1 billion and retain a surplus of $2 billion to pay off debt.

We’ve yet to see the size of any future projected surpluses, but if they are projected to be greater than say $2 to $3 billion (which allows contributions to resume into the NZ Super Fund) then tax cuts are affordable and desirable. And I want to see National commit to them.

Tracy Watkins writes:

 It speaks volumes about David Cunliffe’s bad week that on the day John Key delivered his pre-Budget speech, it was the Labour leader who copped it on the street over the Government’s failure to make a big dent in unemployment.

To be fair the gentleman in question abusing the Labour leader didn’t seem a fan of either major party.

Labour’s headache, six years on, is that National has been hugely effective at painting the Clark-Cullen years as a decade of tax and spend, compared with its own narrative of scrimping and fiscal prudence.

The reality, of course, is not quite as straightforward – despite the “zero” Budgets, government spending has continued to rise each year under National. But there is no dispute that when it came to power, the country was staring down the barrel at a decade of deficits and skyrocketing debt.

More than a decade of deficits. That was the original projection, but the revised forecasts were for a permament structural deficit that never went away – meaning debt would grow and grow and grow until the inevitable happened – as in Europe.

The May Budget will show that National has done a remarkable job of turning that around by bringing forward the return to surplus by some years and lowering the debt trajectory.

That it has done so by reining in spending, rather than slashing and burning and introducing austerity measures as seen in Europe and elsewhere, makes that feat even more remarkable.

It’s almost harder to do it by just restraining new spending, rather than cutting existing programmes. It’s politically easier, as people protest a spending cut more than not increasing spending. But from a government point of view, finding enough money by hundreds and hundreds of small efficiencies is harder work than just slashing a couple of programmes.

But the counterfactual – that a Labour government would not have responded to the global financial crisis in a similar fashion – can never be proven or disproven.

I don’t quite agree here. Sure you can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But you can judge Labour off its own press releases, statements and speeches. For five years they have consistently opposed and condemned every single move of fiscal restraint the Government has done. They battled against any reduction at all in public service numbers. They decry any efficiency gains as cuts – even if the money saved goes into frontline services. They opposed the reductions in KiwiSaver subsidies. And almost without exception all their policies are to spend massively more. The one noble exception is their superannuation policy.

So I don’t think it is unfair to judge Labour on the basis of their own statements. If we accept they believe what they say (a big call I know), then one can only conclude that there is no way New Zealand would be heading back into surplus next year if they had been in Government,

Stuff reports:

The US Supreme Court has grappled with the standards for software patents, considering the issue for the first time in decades in a case that has divided the computer industry. …

The case concerns claims that CLS Bank International, a New York-based provider of settlement services, infringed patents owned by Melbourne-based Alice Corp. The patents cover a computerised system for using an intermediary to limit the risk that one party to a derivative trade will renege on its obligations.

CLS says Alice’s patents run afoul of Supreme Court decisions that say abstract ideas aren’t entitled to legal protection. Alice, which is partially owned by National Australia Bank, said the abstract-idea exception to patent eligibility is a narrow one.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that Alice’s argument was doomed by a 2010 Supreme Court decision that limited patents on business methods by rejecting a proposed patent on a system for hedging energy trades. She asked Alice’s lawyer, Carter Phillips, how his client’s idea was any “less abstract than hedging.”

Other justices were similarly sceptical. Justice Anthony Kennedy said a group of college engineering students could probably write the computer code for Alice’s idea over a weekend.

“My guess is that that would be fairly easy to program,” he said.

You can’t always tell how a decision will go by the questioning, but it sounds like the Court is skeptical over overly broad patents that block innovation, That would be a good thing.

The Obama administration is urging the court to issue a broader ruling that would put new limits on the availability of software patents. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the court that software was eligible for patenting only if it “improved the functioning of the computer technology” or “is used to improve another technology.”

Software can generally no longer be patented in NZ, unless it is basically embedded in a machine.

NewstalkZB reports:

The Labour MP for Mangere, Su’a William Sio, says stories of Pasifika leaders encouraging their communities to turn blue are exaggerated. …

Su’a William Sio says this is being led by a small Samoan group that is following the money.

Not sure this is the way of keeping church leaders onside – accuse them of just being motivated by money as the reason they are no longer supporting Labour.

“They are generally business entrepreneurs, and so they believe the lie about the brighter future and I think they’ll get a backlash from the Pacific public.”

Also reveals a bit of a paternalistic attitude that implies they should be content working in a factory, rather than trying to own their own businesses.

The PSA commissioned some unusual, but interesting, research – on the impact of domestic violence on workplace productivity.

The executive summary:

Domestic violence is a workplace issue. It is estimated to cost employers in New Zealand at least
$368 million for the June year 2014. …

Employment is a key pathway out of domestic violence. The body of research about domestic
violence over the past 30 years finds conclusively that staying in employment is critical to reducing
the effects of violence. Security of employment enables those affected by domestic violence to
maintain domestic and economic stability, in this way assisting them to find a pathway out of
violence and to successfully re-build their lives.

This makes sense. If a partner is not working, they are more likely to remain in a domestic situation with violence as they’ll be nervous about leaving their partner if they are reliant on them for the household income.

Employers have the potential of productivity gains from implementing workplace protections that
support victims of domestic violence. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that as
well as the potential for breaking the cycle of domestic violence, the introduction of workplace
protections for people affected by domestic violence both saves employers costs (recruitment,
retention, re-training, health and safety) and increases productivity.

I’m not quite sure what workplaces can do (assuming the partner does not work there also) except generally be sensitive to any staff who experience domestic violence.

For every woman whose experience of violence is prevented as result of the workplace protections
in a particular year, an average of $3,371 in production-related costs can be avoided. This number
is conservative as outlined in the body of the report.

So what do they recommend:

• That employers create and implement tailored domestic violence human resources policies
  that can be integrated with existing health and safety policies
• That an on-line induction module be prepared that is freely available to all organisations
  which includes knowledge about domestic violence
• To work with peak bodies to motivate take up of existing programmes focused on training to
  recognise, respond to and reduce domestic violence
• Based on successful overseas practice, develop and implement a national policy that entitles
  victims of domestic violence to up to 10 days special leave

All violent crimes are bad, but I have to say I have an extra level of malice towards those who commit domestic violence. Your home is meant to be the one place where you are safe.

A Taranaki Daily News columnist wrote on the conspiracy pushed by a Labour blogger that Amy Adams had some conflict of interest around her actions as Environment Minister, on the basis she also owns a farm. I guess they think owning farm land means you can’t be Environment Minister.

Anyway look at this “clarification” that the Taranaki Daily News had added to the column:

In this article Taranaki Daily News columnist Rachel Stewart raised questions about the links between Environment Minister Amy Adams and the Central Plains Water irrigation scheme in Canterbury.

The column suggested the minister had the power to dismantle a Water Conservation Order so that the Rakaia River could feed that irrigation scheme, and this decision would benefit farm holdings she owned.

The Taranaki Daily News acknowledges the minister had no such power.

Rachel Stewart wrote the Minister had done things “by the book” but also suggested that to say the Minister had not abused her role would be “a big stretch”.

The Taranaki Daily News acknowledges that Minister Adams declared a pecuniary interest in the Central Plains Water scheme and transferred her responsibilities as Environment Minister to Minister Gerry Brownlee in April 2012.

We also acknowledge there has only been one Cabinet decision made regarding the Central Plains Water Scheme and on that occasion, Mr Brownlee took the paper to the relevant Cabinet committee. Ms Adams, who does not own a dairy farm in Canterbury, excused herself from the Cabinet committee where it was discussed, and took no part in the discussions.

Wow, that is a huge backdown. You’d think they’d check their facts before making such serious allegations.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand is well ahead of Australia in trade competitiveness, according to a new international report.

The Geneva-based World Economic Forum’s enabling trade index for 2014 ranks New Zealand fourth out of 138 countries, up from fifth when the index was last released in 2012.

4th isn’t bad.

It assessed countries in four areas – market access, border administration, infrastructure, and the operating environment.

New Zealand performed well in most categories, getting an overall score of 5.2 out of seven.

However, it rated poorly in foreign-market access, coming in 65th at just 2.6 out of seven.

A big part of this was due to high cost or delays caused by international transportation, which the report found to be the most problematic factor for both importers and exporters.

Almost one in five respondents (18.7 per cent) picked it as the biggest problem for exporting, narrowly ahead of tariff barriers abroad (18.4 per cent).

Still a lot of work to be done, but things are looking good for exporters and importers.

3 News reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe is adamant he and his party will both start rising in the polls as the election approaches.

He is also casting doubt on recent statistics suggesting crime is at a three-decade low, and an IMF report which named New Zealand’s economy as one of the world’s fastest-growing.

So on Planet Labour the polls are wrong, the crime stats are wrong, the GDP stats are wrong and the IMF is wrong.

I’d like to visit this dimension one day.