Jenesa Jeram at the NZ Initiative writes:

In debating, speakers are not rewarded for having a superior argument per se. They are rewarded for convincing the audience that they do. The easiest – but ultimately dishonest – way to do this is to caricature the opponent, portraying their argument as ridiculous beyond belief.
 
Trickle-down economics is an example of a “ridiculous beyond belief” idea; that giving money to the rich will eventually trickle down to the rest of the economy to benefit all. Indeed, the refutation of this theory of trickle-down economics dominates the discourse.
 
Recently, opposition leader David Cunliffe cited the theory’s failure in his State of the Nation speech, arguing that “The rich are getting much richer, the middle is struggling and the poor are going backwards. It’s the human face of “trickle-down economics”, the idea that if we give more to those at the top, eventually things will get better for the rest of us.”
 
The problem is, there is no such thing as trickle-down economics. In fact, it is an oxymoron: it has no “economics” in it whatsoever. Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution argues convincingly that the theory is a straw man argument – a flimsy invention of those arguing against it so they can easily knock it down. Sowell writes that the idea cannot be found in “even the most voluminous scholarly studies of economic theories”.

In other words the left have invented this theory, so they can claim it is what the right believes in, so they can them campaign against it.

Trickle-down economics is a complete caricature of the original arguments supporting economic growth. No economist has ever argued that in order to make a poor person richer you should make a rich person richer first. Economists have, however, argued that economic growth can make us all better off, whether we are rich or poor.
 
So why has this trickle-down nonsense persisted for so long? Perhaps because it sets the parameters of debate around redistribution, focussing solely on inequalities in wealth, rather than inequalities in capabilities. If wealth is not trickling down naturally through voluntary processes, then it is up to the government to intervene to ensure it does.
 
However, there is a much better way to deal with inequalities. Instead of trying to correct inequalities through redistribution, we should ensure that everybody has a chance to participate in our growing economy. First and foremost, this means making sure people acquire the right capabilities and education.

Absolutely.

Stuff reports:

Environment Minister Amy Adams has leapt to the defence of an elderly couple being prosecuted for felling and trimming native trees, saying the case shows why the Resource Management Act needs reform.

“Many RMA rules around the country have slipped into nonsense territory,” Adams said after The Dominion Post reported on environmentalists Peter Standen, 77, and wife Diana, 74, of Otaki, being taken to court by Kapiti Coast District Council for felling and trimming seven trees they believed were rotten and dangerous.

“This couple has spent a lot of time caring for their environment and gone to the effort of getting an arborist,” Adams said.

“We are not talking about some yob with a chainsaw with a tree he did not like. They got a specialist saying they were dangerous… it appears so eminently sensible… the outcome seems ridiculous.

“Trees, indigenous or not, get old, diseased, die, can be dangerous. We are talking about a 70-year-old couple dealing with vegetation in their own backyard. Do we need a council to get so uppity about what seems like a very sensible reaction?”

She supported the right of councils to identify and protect significant trees but “blanket prohibition on every piece of vegetation of a certain sort with no allowances, exceptions, or recognition that people have the fundamental right to deal with their own property in a certain way is getting a bit crazy”.

More than a bit. Thankfully the law has now changed so such rules will be gone by September 2015. But that law change was opposed vigorously by Labour and Greens. They think property owners should have no rights over the trees on their property – that basically Councils can effectively take control of every tree in an area.

Went to see De Sade at the Fringe Festival last night, along with Striker. Jadis was in town also so we grabbed a third ticket. The blurb for the show is:

de Sade, a tour through the depths of the darkest mind that ever existed, premieres as part of the 2014 New Zealand Fringe Festival and will be performed from 19-22 February at the Cavern Club Allen Street. Alexander Sparrow – writer and comedian – will become the Marquis de Sade for four nights only. For everything you need to know about fetishism, sadism, and everything in between, de Sade will give you your fill on the writer of 120 Days of Sodom and Juliette.

Sparrow says, “The Marquis spent most of his life in prison, but imagine if he hadn’t. Imagine a school of sadism and rioting. This show will divide the masses – he wanted a republic, he wanted complete sexual freedom, he wanted a world that was impossible to build for the destruction it would cause.”

A comedian and writer on the Wellington circuit, Sparrow’s show is going to be a insane mix of sadistic acts, fetishism, history, and wit. “de Sade wasn’t just disgusting – he could be hilarious and cheeky too. There’s more to him than his books.” 

This is an hour of chaotic ecstasy from the king of sadism himself. It’s time to tear apart society and screw in the streets. It’s time to rid ourselves of the monarchy. “It’s time, dear reader, to have a little fun.” 

You descend into the Cavern Club and the first thing you note is the naked man lying on the table at the front of the room. We sensibly decide not to sit in the front row and enjoy the couch at the back.

Sadly for the women in the audience the nudity is temporary, which is possibly not a bad thing as Sparrow’s mother and sister were in the audience. We learn this as the Marquis talks about how he would like to have sex with everyone in the audience (and then breaking the wall mentions he didn’t realise his mother and sister would be here).

Sparrow does a fun charismatic portrayal of the Marquis. He rants against his mother-in-law who got him committed, and talks about the awfulness of a man so devoted to sexual pursuits being locked in prison by himself for most of his life.

In case it is not obvious from the show blurb, this is not a show for prudes or shrinking violets. We see his masturbation calendar where he indicates he has had to masturbate 400 times in the last six months. He the admits that when you break it down to a daily basis, it isn’t that impressive!

The audience get pulled into the show in various ways. At one point he is talking about his novel Justine. Jadis helpfully offered that the book is too long (1000 pages) and his eyes light up at having found an audience member who has (presumably) read the book. This leads to him asking Jadis to go up on stage and beat him with a crop. The unfortunate thing for the Marquis is that Jadis is a former provincial cricketer and can swing a bat quite well. After a couple of painful blows, he substitutes her for his mother!

During one part of the show he exhorts the audience to look at the person next to you, find some features that are attractive, and tell them what they are and how much you would like to have sex with them. This pushed Striker and I into fits of laughter, as she works for me, and I’m pretty sure a conversation along the lines of that proposed by the Marquis would breach a number of employment laws! He later asked if Jadis and I were married, and I explained that the three of us worked together and this was a work outing. He said he was very keen to come work at Curia also!

So the show was lots of fun, and the audience participation hilarious. Despite what you may think, it was a bit tame. I think Sparrow could have pushed the boundaries more. The first segment was a bit slow to warm up also. But Sparrow did well to keep the audience engaged and laughing, and slightly nervous. It was a fun classic Fringe show.

The show ends with him answering the question whether he has regrets and whether given the chance he would do it differently. I’ll leave it to you to find out the answer, if you go to the show. It’s on for three more nights.

The Wall Street Journal writes:

For several months running, the Bill and Eva Show has been the talk of New York City politics. He is the new mayor, Bill de Blasio, an unapologetic old-school liberal Democrat, scourge of the rich and of public charter schools. She is Eva Moskowitz, fellow Democrat and educational-reform champion who runs the city’s largest charter network.

Note she is a Democrat. Many Democrats support charter schools as they have done so much to improve educational outcomes for the most disadvantaged.

As she reminds every audience, the 6,700 students at her 22 Success Academy Charter Schools are overwhelmingly from poor, minority families and scored in the top 1% in math and top 7% in English on the most recent state test. Four in five charters in the city outperformed comparable schools.

One can understand why some in public schools hate them.

Union leaders dismiss the charters as a boutique effort, with only 4% of the national school population—yet teachers unions and their political allies also treat charters as an existential threat. Charters hire teachers who don’t have to join and pay union dues, and who work outside the traditional system.

This is the real motivation for some. Charter schools don’t pay protection money to the unions.

As readers will known both APN and Fairfax editorials have stated certain companies do not pay enough tax in comparison to their revenue.

I believe tax should be on profit, not revenue. But the editorials of the Herald and Dom Post do not seem to agree. It is for their benefit I have proposed a living tax campaign of 15% of revenue as a fairer tax system.

APN announced their full year results today. They are:

• Revenue $817m
• Profit $2.6m
• Tax (at 28% of profit) $728,000

Now this means they are paying tax at a rate of only 0.09% of revenue. This is appalling by their own editorial’s standard. At a 15% living tax rate, they should pay $123 million in tax. I look forward to their voluntary payment in line with their editorial stance.

Danyl writes at Dim-Post:

So the big political story on TV3 news over the last few nights has about a bunch of reporters in TVNZ’s Maori and Pacific Unit acting as Labour Party activists. It’s a good story, and another indication of how comprehensively the TV3 political journalists are setting the news agenda and dominating political reporting. (I keep seeing people on my twitter feed demanding to know the difference between Shane Taurima and, say, Mike Hosking or Paul Henry. I think the main difference is that if Mike Hosking wanted to set up a fundraising operation inside TVNZ the National Party wouldn’t let him because it would look terrible and destroy his career).

That is a worthwhile point. Anyone with an ounce of political common sense should have been saying it is a terrible idea to hold political party meetings inside TVNZ.

But it was a clip from another TV3 story the same night that’s really haunting me. Here’s a screen-grab of Labour leader David Cunliffe standing in front of a super-luxury yacht company explaining that his $2.5 million dollar mansion is just a ‘do-up’, after criticising Key for living in a nice house.

It’s hard to compress so much failure into a single image. Up to now I’ve felt that the outcome of the election is too close to call. The sides are pretty even, small changes at the margins could have huge impacts on the results. But my gut feeling now is that Labour’s support will collapse and National will win a third term. It feels like a replay of the 2011 election in which Labour keep doing baffling, stupid things and then demand to know why the media is biased against them and how anyone could like John Key. People don’t want idiots running their country.

Mike Hosking also touches on the Cunliffe issue of downplaying his own wealth:

A piece of advice for David Cunliffe – be who you are. Don’t hide it. Don’t pretend you aren’t it. Don’t think there are points to be gained by putting on an act. Don’t try and morph into what you perceive people want you to morph into. It is the trap of so many in the political and public sphere.

This scrap has broken out about houses. John Key lives in a big one in Parnell, Cunliffe lives in a flash one in Herne Bay. Both are beautiful, both are expensive, yet it’s only Cunliffe who has made the mistake of trying to make it something it isn’t.

In attacking the Prime Minister for living in a leafy suburb, he not only makes the mistake of making it personal, he gets hoisted by his own petard given he lives in one as well. That makes him a hypocrite.

Further, he then went on to try and pretend it wasn’t a great house, that it was a do up, that it probably wasn’t at $2.5 million (the average for the street), that it was the worst in the best street. With each example, another shovel load of expensive real estate was dug and the hole kept getting bigger.

Labour are trying to paint Key as out of touch. But they are mainly managing to make themselves out of touch by promising welfare to those earning up to $150,000 and claiming $600,000 a year is a “reasonably middle range existence”.  People earning $50,000 a year will be shaking their heads.

NewstalkZB reports:

Labour Party member Daljit Singh has failed in his bid to be discharged without conviction after being found guilty of electoral fraud.

He wanted a discharge without conviction? Incredible. He thinks he did nothing wrong.

Singh – a candidate in the first Auckland “supercity” elections – has been sentenced at the High Court in Auckland on two counts of using forged documents to increase his chances of winning a seat on his local board.

He has been sentenced to five months community detention and 200 hours community work.

A slap on the hand with a slightly wet bus ticket..

His lawyer Ron Mansfield earlier told Justice Woolford a conviction would prevent Singh from his work in the real estate industry, as an immigration advisor, as a Justice of the Peace and as a marriage celebrant.

That is a good thing. Again Singh seems to feel he has done nothing wrong.

Singh stood as a Labour Party candidate at the 2010 elections. Even after his arrest he was pictured at Labour Party fundraisers with the then Leader. So does Labour have any comment on the sentencing of one of their official candidates? Is he a member in good standing? Is he eligible to stand for them again?

UPDATE: Labour have said he is no longer a member.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions for Ministers 2.00PM – 3.00PM.

1. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Health: Does he think fraud in the publicly funded health sector is serious and if so would he investigate any allegations of fraud if they were raised with him?
2. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he seen on inadequate standards of health care in New Zealand?
3. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government balancing its focus on responsibly managing its finances with addressing some of the most challenging social issues facing vulnerable families?
4. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister of Commerce:When does he expect the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to be passed into law?
5. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Housing: What progress is the Government making in growing the Community Housing sector and redeveloping Housing New Zealand homes to better match today’s housing needs?
6. Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister of Commerce: What documentation, if any, did he and his office prepare prior to 12 February 2014, regarding the behaviour of supermarkets towards suppliers, and when was that documentation prepared?
7. MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Police: What results have Police recorded since new laws were introduced by the Government in 2009 to combat illegal street racing?
8. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of State Services: What was the total cost of the Rebstock inquiry into the leaking of internal documents from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and how much of that was paid to Paula Rebstock?
9. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What announcements has the Government made about e-Health Ambassadors and their role in promoting patient portals?
10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: Further to his response of “No” as to whether he received an assurance from Mr Dunne that he had not made a copy of the draft Kitteridge Report on the GCSB available to a Fairfax reporter, in Oral Question No 11 on 12 February and that he “accepted him at his word”, in a supplementary answer to the same question, in what context did Mr Dunne give his word that he did not make said report available to the reporter?
11. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he think New Zealanders are paying too much for their power?
12. BARBARA STEWART to the Associate Minister of Health: Is she satisfied with the current level of care in rest homes?

Today Labour are asking five questions. These are about the quality of healthcare in New Zealand, when the Cartels Bill will become law, supermarket behaviour, the cost of the Rebstock inquiry and the whether the Minister of Internal Affairs leaked information in a previous role. The Greens are asking about Health sector fraud and energy prices. New Zealand First are asking about the quality of care in rest homes.

Patsy question of the day goes to Dr Paul Hutchison for Question 9: What announcements has the Government made about e-Health Ambassadors and their role in promoting patient portals?

General Debate 3.00PM-4.00PM

12 speeches of no more than 5 minutes each. Often funny.

Members Bills 4.00PM-6.00PM and 7.30PM-10.00PM.

1. Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill – Second Reading

2. Electronic Data Safety Bill – First Reading

3. Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill – First Reading

The Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by Paul Goldsmith, a National Party List MP. The bill seeks to establish that, for the purpose of contract formation, an offer would be deemed to be accepted by an electronic communication at the time of receipt of the acceptance by the offeror.

The Electronic Data Safety Bill is being introduced to the house by Clare Curran, the Labour MP for Dunedin South. This bill established a Commission of Inquiry into privacy breaches within government agencies.

The Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill is being introduced into the house by the Phil Twyford, the Labour MP for Te Atatu. This bill has the purpose of ensuring that every rental home in New Zealand meets minimum standards of heating and insulation.

The Dom Post editorial:

State broadcasters are like Caesar’s wife: they have to be above sin and seen to be so. That is why Shane Taurima had no choice but to resign as head of TVNZ’s Maori and Pacific Unit. He had used the broadcaster’s buildings for a Labour Party meeting, and its email to organise a Labour meeting held elsewhere.

He broke the rules that require taxpayer-funded broadcasters to be politically neutral. State broadcasters must not use their position to promote the interests of any political party of whatever kind. Mr Taurima sought the Labour candidacy at the Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election last year, but the actual party brand is irrelevant. He would also have had to resign if he had held an ACT party meeting at his workplace.

It is not clear which other TVNZ staff members were involved in the meeting or in other party activities. The company’s internal inquiry will find out and then TVNZ managers will have to decide what to do. Mr Taurima knew he could not defend himself and did the honourable thing. 

The honourable thing would be to not have done it in the first place. According to TVNZ management Taurima told them when he was rehired that he would not stand again.

Mr Kenrick said TVNZ had sought commitments from Mr Taurima after his tilt for Labour at the Ikaroa-Rawhiti candidacy before restoring him to his role heading the department. “The key focus was to get him to make an explicit choice between journalism and politics, and to make commitments around that. We relied in good faith on those commitments.”

Did he lie, or just a few weeks later change his mind and not bother to tell them?

Whether other sackings are called for is a matter of judgment.

The staff in that unit are all basically taxpayer funded, as it is not a commercial unit.

State broadcasters have a special duty to be politically even-handed. This does not mean, as some believe, that the journalists should have no views of their own. Every sentient human being has certain political beliefs or attitudes, and journalists are no different. But state journalists must be professional and not push any party’s barrow.

Mr Taurima insists that he has never allowed his personal politics to influence his work as a journalist, and it is interesting that the prime minister has not claimed any political bias at TVNZ. In fact he thinks they are fair.

The PM has been very nice, when he could put the boot in. For my 2c I don’t think Taurima’s interviews showed political bias. He pushed David Shearer hard when he interviewed him. The issue is his breach of ethical standards, not his previous interviewing.

Mr Taurima was allowed to return to the company after he failed to win candidacy, and this is a defensible decision. Again, the expectation was that Mr Taurima, once he had taken off his Labour Party hat and put on his broadcaster’s one, would act in a professional and politically neutral way.

However, it is now reported that in January he facilitated a Labour meeting – held on a marae and not on TVNZ property – on how to win the Maori vote. This meeting was also attended by Labour leader David Cunliffe. Mr Cunliffe says he strongly supports a politically neutral state broadcaster. Did he ask himself, then, why Mr Taurima was running this highly political meeting?

I’m amazed warning bells did not go off.

Will Taurima still seek the Labour nomination for Tamaki Makaurau? Will they select him?

The Herald reports:

Kim Dotcom is facing calls to pay $500,000 in debts by creditors who have watched him appear to embrace again an opulent lifestyle.

Seems to have enough money to fly to Huka Falls, to try and throw massively expensive free parties, to fund his own political party and to advertise himself on the back of half the buses in town. But not enough to pay people he legally owes money to.

Creditors’ frustrations have soared in recent months amid a high-profile marketing campaign for his Good Times album, helicopter trips to the Rhythm and Vines music festival and a weekend at Huka Lodge.

A spreadsheet on the court file dated January 23, 2012 stated there were 80 creditors owed between $69 and $133,916.

Documents lodged with the High Court at Auckland during 2012 show $634,000 of debt was declared by Dotcom’s lawyers, who tried to get access to money seized in the raid to pay the debts. Opposition by police kept the money tied up, with the courts accepting in August 2012 that there was no “legal ability” to release Dotcom’s restrained funds to pay debts of Megastuff, now called called RSV Holdings.

Certainly some of his funds are frozen, but as noted above he seems to have no problem paying for extravagances.

Creditors spoken to by the Herald have pointed to apparent recent indulgences by Dotcom as raising frustration with bills for work at the mansion still unpaid.

West City Electrical’s Neil Stratful said he was among many creditors who had not been paid.

So these bills are not to do with Megaupload. They are personal bills.

She said it was galling to hear Dotcom declaring he would like to support Team New Zealand when his company still owed $5000.

“When we heard that bold claim, we joked that we thought our name should be on the side of the boat. Because it’s our money.”

Dotcom had enough money to pay Martin Bradbury $8,000 a month for political advice – but not enough money to pay his electrician.

Paul Davis supplied uniforms to the staff at the Dotcom mansion and is owed $1138. The offer of around 10 per cent of the total owed was “completely unacceptable” given Dotcom at one stage was granted a personal monthly allowances from seized funds of $20,000.

“I understand Dotcom cannot be held legally liable for this, there’s nothing we can do about it,” said Mr Davis. But he said Dotcom had a court-ordered allowance of $20,000 a month from seized funds – money he believed could be used to clear debts.

“We were a relatively small creditor but it irritates me every time I see him on the back of a bus, or on the news, and people saying what a wonderful guy he is.”

I’m sure it is. A good question to ask Dotcom is whether he is using the $20,000 a month to pay any of his debts at all?

Like many of the other creditors, he said he was a small business owner who had borne the brunt of the economic downturn by making personal financial sacrifices in order to keep their employees in a job.

“We’ve been out of pocket for two years now. Every time he comes on TV, he gets me going.”

Good this story has finally been run. One could ask why so long.

UPDATE: On a related issue today the Court of Appeal has ruled the search warrants used in the raid were valid, over-ruling the High Court. They ave said some minor defects did not invalidate them.

The Dom Post reports:

A pair of elderly environmentalists are being taken to court for felling and trimming native trees they believed were rotten and dangerous.

So did this couple stroll onto public land and start felling trees?

Last year they employed an arborist to clean up what they called “a mass of tangled and broken branches, dead, diseased and dangerous trees” in a stand of bush on their newly bought property in Oriwa Cres.

The work included felling and trimming three kohekohe, three tawa and a mahoe.

So it was their tree on their property.

They have been summoned to appear in Levin District Court next week, charged with contravening the District Plan by “modifying naturally occurring indigenous vegetation” more than four metres tall and with a trunk circumference of more than 95cm.

The maximum penalty, under the Resource Management Act, is two years’ imprisonment or a fine of $300,000.

The problem is that the rule exists. Councils should not be interfering with what people do with their trees on their land unless the trees are of some special distinction.

At one point, the council sent a uniformed police officer to their house with a search warrant, accompanied by an ecological specialist.

Were they searching for kidnapped trees?

Wellington City Council has no rules regarding trimming native trees on private property. It is up to the owners.

As it should be.

UPDATE: Law changes made last year (and in 2009) mean these sort of idiotic rules will soon be illegal. Councils can no longer make blanket tree protection bylaws.  There is a two year transitional period, which means their legacy rules still apply until Sep 2015, but after that property owners will not need to ask Councils for permission to trim or fell their own trees – unless a specific tree or group of trees has been identified as requiring protection..

Stuff reports:

The family of slain gunman Antony Ratahi are still seeking answers almost three years after he was shot dead by police.

They say they are considering mounting a legal case against police over the shooting, but they are waiting for the release of the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s investigation.

Ratahi, 46, of Stratford, was killed after a 13-hour standoff with armed police at Opunake’s Headlands Hotel in July 2011.

He had a firearm, barged into the restaurant and barricaded himself inside the building with his former girlfriend Marcelle Beer. Police launched three separate investigations into the incident.

I’d say the best way not to get shot by the Police is not to kidnap your ex-girlfriend who has a protection order against you, and hold her hostage at gunpoint.

In May 2012 it was revealed 14 members of the armed offenders squad had been drinking before the siege.

By the end of the siege I’d say any effects would be long gone.

Ratahi’s eldest daughter, Cassia Proebstel, told the Daily News the family had been approached by a couple of lawyers keen to take a case against police.

I’m sure they were.

The police investigation found Ratahi’s shooting was lawful and justified, the officer who fired the fatal shot, the AOS commander and Special Tactics Group commander, who were in control of the situation, had not been drinking.

So seems a bit of a red herring.

Tracy Watkin at Stuff reports:

Politicians may rate lower than used car salesmen in most polls, but it seems they are not all created equal.

A Fairfax Media-Ipsos poll reveals that Prime Minister John Key is by far our most liked and trusted politician, with 59.3 per cent of people liking him, and 58.7 per cent also trusting him.

Key is also well ahead of his opponents as preferred prime minister on 51.2 per cent.

Labour leader David Cunliffe appears to be more polarising, with those who like and trust him, and those who don’t, falling into roughly equal camps. His rating as preferred prime minister is just 18.2 per cent.

The bad news for Cunliffe is that only Conservative Party leader Colin Craig, Mana Party leader Hone Harawira and Internet Party leader Kim Dotcom are more disliked. Harawira and Dotcom are also the least trusted.

At least he beat out Dotcom!

Brian Edwards, veteran commentator and media trainer to former Labour leader Helen Clark and others, said for a political leader to be truly successful, they needed the public to both like and trust them – but being likeable may provide the biggest advantage.

“John Key is widely liked and I think this is a problem for anyone that wants to oppose him because that liking is the sort of liking people have for a mate or friend or someone they know.

“Key has got this easygoing pleasant demeanour, he doesn’t seem to take things all that seriously and kids around a bit, which gives him a very accessible personality. He enjoys this tremendous liking among the public, which is very difficult for his opponents to deal with.”

Even when people considered him to be dodgy on issues such as the SkyCity deal, or electorate accommodations in seats like Epsom, that was outweighed by the fact they liked him.

“With David Cunliffe he probably does not come across as such an easygoing, warm sort of character . . . he’s not hated, but I don’t think he enjoys that popular appeal John Key has.”

That was not fatal to Cunliffe’s chances of becoming prime minister, but it would make his job harder, especially with a “feel good” factor around the economy – “for some people at least”. “It’s going to be extremely difficult for Labour to win this election.“

Their best chances are a Labour/Greens/Mana Government endorsed by Kim Dotcom. But you can see above the problems associated with that also!

News.com.au reports:

A hard-hitting report on the nuclear-armed totalitarian state also strongly criticised its denial of basic freedoms of thought, expression and religion, and its abduction of citizens of neighbouring South Korea and Japan.

“Systemic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, its institutions and officials,’’ said the report by the Commission of Inquiry on North Korea set up in March 2013 by the UN Human Rights Council.

“In many instances, the violations of human rights found by the commission constitute crimes against humanity. These are not mere excesses of the state; they are essential components of a political system that has moved far from the ideals on which it claims to be founded,’’ the report said.

“The gravity, scale and nature of these violations revealed a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.’’

Commission chair Michael Kirby said the world could no longer plead ignorance as an excuse for a failure to act.

“At the end of the Second World War, so many people said: If only we had known … Now the international community does know,’’ he said.

How refreshing to see a UN body call a spade, a spade. The North Koreans basically live in a slave state with a hereditary absolute monarch. One well known NZer claimed that they were no ddfferent to places like Singapore, both being authoritarian states. I hope he reads this UN report.

North Korea’s crimes against humanity entail “extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation,’’ the report said.

Not much they don’t do.

It condemned a system of throwing generations of the same family into prison camps under guilt-by-association rules, given testimony from former guards, inmates and neighbours.

One day North Koreans will be free, but it is a long way off.

News.com.au reports:

THE Health Services Union will seek to recover money from former MP Craig Thomson, who was today found guilty of misusing union funds to pay for sex.

A defiant Thomson has denied the allegations since his arrest last January, but he was today found guilty of dozens of charges.
Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg found he was guilty of six charges of using HSU credit cards to pay for sex, as well as other charges including theft.

I liked Julia Gillard, but her defence of Thomson and refusal to move quicker against him was appalling judgement, and rightly damaged her Government.

Mr Thomson’s defence barrister, Greg James, QC, said Mr Thomson did not deny making the transactions but argued about his authority to do so.

The defence was that as a union boss, Thomson could spend union funds on whatever he deemed necessary.

TV3 reported:

“Mr Key spent time in the money markets and has a personal fortune, which is many times our reasonably middle-range existence.”

A middle-range existence?

The Leader of the Opposition gets a salary of $268,500 a year and a superannuation subsidy of almost $30,000 so a remuneration package of around $300,000 a year.

David’s wife is a partner in an Auckland law firm. A 2012 survey found the mean earnings is $244,460. Karen Price is very highly regarded and I suspect would be earning well over the mean, but let’s go with the mean. The idea isn’t to speculate on her as an individual, but to test the claim of a “middle-range” existence.

The household income is probably around $550,000 per annum. Now there is nothing wrong with that. In fact I think David Cunliffe should be proud that he has had a very successful business career, and now parliamentary career. It is a good thing. You can talk about how you hope others can be as successful as you are.

But what is not a good idea is to try and downplay your wealth, in an attempt to paint others as even more wealthy, for political attacks. People know John Key is very wealthy. He has never ever hid that.

The median household income is $70,180. If your household income is around $550,000 a year that is not a “reasonably middle-range existence”.  That’s eight times the median income. Definitely part of the 1%, not the 99%.

Stats NZ reports:

The milk’s a touch cheaper, but the beer’s more expensive than it used to be, according to Statistics New Zealand’s annual snapshot of our country.

New Zealand in Profile 2014, released today, shows the average price of two litres of milk fell from $3.23 in 2008 to $3.19 last year, while an average 400ml glass of beer went up from $4.47 to $5.78 in the same five years.

So since 2008 the price of milk has dropped 1.2% and the price of beer has gone up 29.3%. That’s sad!

Stuff reports:

The Ombudsman has ordered the release of statements given to police by outgoing ACT MP John Banks, ruling it is in the public interest.

But the statements would not be handed over until after Banks’ trial over allegations he knowingly filed a false electoral return following his failed 2010 bid for the Auckland mayoralty.

Seems a sensible decision by the Ombudsman. However I do wonder about the precedent. Must statements made in the Hughes assault investigation be publicly release also, based on this precedent?

In a decision released today, Ombudsman Ron Paterson said police were right to refuse some parts of the request, but not to withhold the statements in full.

In their response to the request, police said public interest had to be balanced with the privacy of the person, particularly if allegations remained unproven.

When there is a balance, I favour the public interest.

Questions for Oral Answer 2.00PM-3.00PM.

Questions to Ministers. 

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that there are “plenty of jobs out there for people if they look really hard”?
2. MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making with its multi-billion dollar investment programme in modern infrastructure?
3. Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister of Commerce: Was he made aware of any concerns regarding the behaviour of supermarkets towards suppliers prior to 12 February 2014?
4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?
5. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made on the increase in students achieving NCEA level 2?
6. SUE MORONEY to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in regard to proposals to extend paid parental leave, “It’s an important time they bond with their children. Everyone acknowledges having more time with their infants would be an important thing to support”?
7. Hon PHIL HEATLEY to the Minister for Social Development:What reports has she received about the support the Government is providing to grandparents and other family members raising children?
8. ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: Are there any areas where he believes war veterans are not receiving adequate support for their service to our country?
9. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Transport: Why is the construction of the City Rail Link only beginning in 2020?
10. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Justice: What progress has been made on criminal history sharing for employment vetting between Australia and New Zealand?
11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he stand by his answers to all supplementary questions to Oral Questions in the House this year; if so, why?
12. HOLLY WALKER to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he share the concerns of the New Zealand Psychological Society and the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists that his decision to cut postgraduate student allowances could significantly impact the future psychology workforce in New Zealand?

Today Labour are asking five questions. These are about jobs, supermarkets, paid parental leave, the Auckland city rail link, and the suitability of the Minister of Internal Affairs to hold his Ministerial warrant. The Greens are asking whether the Prime Minister stands by all his policies, and cuts to student allowance. New Zealand First are asking about support for Veterans.

Patsy question of the day goes to Tim MacIndoe for Question 5: What recent announcement has she made on the increase in students achieving NCEA level 2?

Government Bills 4.00PM-6.00PM and 7.30PM-10.00PM.

1. Taxation (Annual Rates, Foreign Superannuation, and Remedial Matters) Bill – Committee Stage

2. Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) – Committee Stage

3. Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill – Committee Stage

4. Electoral Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

The Taxation (Annual Rates, Foreign Superannuation, and Remedial  Matters) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Revenue, Todd McClay. This bill stipulates the annual rates of income tax for the 2013-14 tax year, proposes new rules for New Zealand residents with interests in foreign superannuation schemes, and makes other changes to tax law.

The Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) is also being guided through the house by the Minister of Revenue, Todd McClay. This bill proposes amendments to the Student Loan Scheme Act 2011 to improve repayments from overseas-based borrowers and to increase personal responsibility for debt repayment.

The Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss. This bill implements a new safeguards regime for New Zealand.

The Electoral Amendment Bill is being guided though the house by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. This bill proposes amendments to the Electoral Act 1993 to implement recommendations made by the Justice and Electoral Committee in its Inquiry into the 2011 General Election. The purpose of the amendments is to improve services to voters, candidates, and political parties.

Stuff reports:

The head of New Zealand’s largest renewable energy company is dismissing the economics of home-based solar, saying he “can’t follow” the numbers put forward by proponents.

Last week, ahead of the Green Party announcing a major loan scheme to subsidise solar installation through low-cost loans, Meridian chief executive Mark Binns said he could not understand why people installed them.

“I can’t follow the economics that are put forward by proponents of household solar in terms of returns as an investment,” Binns told Parliament’s commerce select committee.

“On our numbers, in our analysis, it is still probably not viable if you went to an accountant.”

Greens energy spokesman Gareth Hughes, who is part of the committee, defended the economics, asking Meridian management “it’s still cheaper than buying from a retail provider, isn’t it, over the lifetime of the solar panel?”

Binns and Meridian chairman Chris Moller replied simultaneously “no”.

While Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said the major obstacle for people investing in solar was the up-front cost, Binns said the major challenge posed by solar was that after 25 years the panels were worthless.

“The thing people don’t realise is that [if] you invest in solar facilities, you get nothing back at the end of 20 or 25 years,” Binns said.

So you need to be pretty certain the savings from electricity will be greater than the cost of both the capital and the interest.

An academic is also cautious:

University of Canterbury engineering lecturer Dr Alan Wood said there were 1250 New Zealand households with solar panels installed, with predictions this would increase to 30,000 by late 2018.

Whether there was a benefit in cost-savings to the consumer depended on how they used the solar-generated power, Wood said.

“Early adopters should be people that consume electricity during the day.

“For them it does stack up but only just.”

Wood thought the Green Party’s predicted savings to households of $100 a year were over-estimated.

“They have assumed you use all the power yourself, which is not the case.”

I’m willing to bet a very large amount of money that even if the Green Party policy is implemented, there will not be 30,000 new solar installations in three years. A 1.9% reduction in the interest rate on a loan saving $2 a week is not going to increase take up by 2000% as they claim. Their numbers are more dodgy than a used car salesman.

Rev Waldegrave has waved his wand and come up with a new living wage of $18.80 an hour. This means that David Cunliffe, Len Brown and Celia Wade-Brown must all implement this new wage because they have promised to ensure all government staff in their sector get paid whatever Waldegrave says they should get paid.

The stupidity of their pledges is highlighted by what Waldegrave has done. You see he has not done a full recalculation of the Living Wage. He has just increased it by 2.1% because that is how much market wages have gone up. But that is a bastardisation of his own process, as his living wage calcualtion is meant to be based on how much you need to spend – not how much other wages have gone up.

So why has Rev Waldegrave done this? What would be the living wage if he had just recalculated it based on the latest data using the methodology he used to calculate the original living wage? Well it would be a staggering $22.89 an hour. They obviously realised that figure would get them laughed out of town, so they decided to pick another figure out of thin air.

So the true living wage figure is now $22.89 an hour. Waldegrave has gone for a more acceptable figure because this is about politics, not any form of impartial calculation.

So my question to David Cunliffe, Len Brown and Celia Wade-Brown is which living wage figure are they promising to pay all government staff and contractors?

Is the $22.89 figure that it should be, based on the original living Wage methodology they signed up for. Or is it the $18.80 figure, which means that they don’t care about what the actual living age is – they will just insist all staff be paid whatever figure Rev Waldegrave determines is correct every year?

Go read the report. It makes very clear that the formula they used for the living wage last year, would produce a living wage of $22.89 if applied this year. They’be basically dumped that formula because it is so ridiculous. But that is the formula Cunliffe, Brown and Wade-brown signed up to.

So the left are effectively saying it should be illegal for a 16 year old school leave, living at home, who works in the government sector to be paid less than $46,000 a year.

In a five hour working group meeting on e-voting but actually mainly been following the cricket online. Brendon McCullum has just made his 300 (302), beating Martin Crowe’s 299,which gives him the NZ test batting record. A superb display from McCullum, and from the Black Caps generally. Has been a great summer of cricket.

UPDATE: And now out on 302. Thank God it was not two deliveries earlier!