Liam Hehir writes in the Manawatu Standard:

Mr Lees-Galloway says these changes would implement the recommendations of an Electoral Commission review of MMP. That is not quite correct, however. The bill does not include recommendations that Labour opposed – such as banishing the “overhang” effect that allows a party to win more seats (through winning electorates) than the party vote entitles it to.

That the bill is self-serving is underscored by its timing. Mr Lees-Galloway has announced that the “current regime has been a disaster for democracy. It has delivered us Rodney Hide, John Banks, Peter Dunne and now Colin Craig . . . People are sick of these cosy political deals designed to circumvent our democratic system.”

In other words, it is a bill designed to get rid of MPs Lees-Galloway doesn’t like.

You might ask why Mr Lees-Galloway did not make reference to Jim Anderton, the former Member of Parliament for Wigram. For many years, Mr Anderton was ostensibly the leader of the Progressive Party – despite being so integrated into the Labour Party that he was actually its agriculture spokesman at one point.

This is true!

There was no handwringing in the media about coat-tailing then. It wasn’t until Anderton retired in 2011 that Labour announced it intended to abolish the practice.

Indeed not.

In the days of the Roman Republic, a young patrician named Tiberius Gracchus became angry at the pillaging ways of his own class. He was elected a tribune of the people and sought significant economic reforms. He knew he would meet resistance from the Senate, however, so he decided to pass his legislation directly through the popular assembly.

There was nothing illegal about this. However, the procedure flew in the face of the tradition – part of the unwritten Roman constitution – that the Senate be consulted on all major items of legislation. Naturally, the Senate was not above using its own powers to retaliate against and prevent implementation of the Gracchan reform. It very quickly becomes a sad story, as those who know what became of the Roman Republic are aware.

Our constitution is similar to that of the Romans in that its body is held together by custom, convention and tradition. Central to such a system is a measure of good faith and trust between the factions.

Would the passage of Mr Lees-Galloway’s bill without consensus doom democratic politics in New Zealand? Of course not. It would, however, be an act of bad faith corrosive to the democratic spirit. It would make constitutional matters more partisan. Look to America if you want to know where that leads.

Indeed, the bill is a bad faith thing to do.

Ultimately, there is a simple test of principle. Imagine if the Government had a bare majority to raise the threshold to 15 per cent. That would signal the death knell for NZ First and probably the Greens. How likely is it that Mr Lees-Galloway would say: “There’s no need for consensus here.”

Would only take 61 votes to do so. You really do not want political parties using bare majorities to change the threshold for other parties to get into Parliament.

My rule of thumb is that any significant change should be supported by around 75% of more of parties in Parliament, and representing at least 75% of the MPs.

The NZ Initiative has released the third of its three part series on housing affordability. This final report looks at policies that could make a difference to make housing more affordable. They sum up the problem:

Local government has been left to bear the burden of infrastructure costs associated with new home construction, while being excluded from participating in the economic benefits that this activity brings.

As it stands, regional and territorial councils are in fact incentivised to adopt anti-development attitudes, and to see each new inhabitant as a cost ‘exacerbater’. In practice, this means limiting the expansion of cities with Metropolitan Urban Limits, increasing the costs and duration of the planning process, and passing infrastructure costs onto property developers.

They propose three policies to align the economic incentives for Councils with the policy desire to making housing more affordable. They are:

Housing Encouragement Grants

Local government needs a structure to share in the proceeds of population and housing growth that is almost exclusively paid to central government in the form of earnings and sales taxes.

Councils must be entitled to a Housing Encouragement Grant for every new house built in their area, provided the house meets minimum delivery deadlines from application to completion. Grants would be benchmarked on the GST levied on the house, recognising the impact of sales tax on house prices. For a house-and-land package with an inclusive price of $400,000, the central government would pay the council one-off grant of $60,000. It would be a straightforward calculation and involve no new compliance costs to infrastructure or service providers.

These grants would also foster a pro-development attitude within councils, and provide a predictable cash flow to local governments by increasing their revenue from more development. It would also incentivise councils to speed up the planning approvals process.

So if you want 10,000 houses a year in Auckland, it would cost the Government $600 million a year. A lot of money, but it would massively change how local Councils behave.

Reforming Water Infrastructure

The costly provision and maintenance of the potable and waste water infrastructure is a challenge for many councils in New Zealand, and one of the primary reasons why they are reluctant to open land to development.

To sidestep this, water provision should be stripped from local councils, and in its stead five regional water companies established, with ownership vested in the councils. These water companies can use network pricing to create quality water infrastructure and make long-term infrastructure decisions free from political or electoral considerations.

In turn, councils would be free from the burden of water provision to concentrate on social infrastructure such as parks, libraries, and sports and community amenities. With this shift in the political economy of housing, no longer would councils and residents see new housing development as ‘cost exacerbaters’.

Regional Council owned water companies sounds much better to me than the current hotch potch we currently have.

Community Development Districts

To counteract the high costs charged by monopoly suppliers for infrastructure within new development areas, we recommend a new kind of infrastructure funding option be created.

Loosely based on Municipal Utility Districts in Texas, Community Development Districts (CDDs) will be able to privately raise debt finance to build new infrastructure – fresh and waste water, electricity connections, etc. – and charge residents an ad-valorem tax to repay the debt. This would serve to pay off the infrastructure costs over the life of the bond and not capture the cost in the upfront price of a new home.

Regional or unitary councils would identify the areas where CDDs cannot be developed based on long-term environmental, tribal or practical concerns. This would compel councils to carefully consider their priorities.

There would be an assumed right for CDDs to develop outside the areas designated by a council for non-development. The Resource Management Act would apply only to design or infrastructure features that affect properties and areas outside the CDD boundary.

Excellent thinking outside the square.

NZ Herald Business Editor Liam Dann writes:

The sale of the Government’s Air New Zealand shares shouldn’t be lumped in with the political scrap over the sale of state owned enterprises (SOEs) as it has been by opposition parties.

Air New Zealand is already a private company. It is publicly listed which means anyone can buy shares and the company must abide by NZX market regulations around disclosure.

Air New Zealand, in its current form, was never a state owned enterprise. The Government investment was a bailout which came about of necessity when the company went to the brink of collapse in 2001.

However much you feel the blame for that failure can be attributed to its private ownership structure at the time, that structure is not being copied here.

This is not, as the opposition says, history repeating.

Today we own a 73 per cent stake by the end of tomorrow we’ll own 53 per cent. So what? The numerical change doesn’t alter the control that Government has as majority shareholder.

Why is 73% the magically correct number? If Labour is against selling down to 51% then why don’t they announce a policy to buy 100% of Air NZ?

The taxpayer has done well from the investment – but when you look around the world at the performance of airlines you’d have to say this is a rare bonus.

Airlines are highly competitive risky businesses. There is no compelling reason for that risk to be all or mainly state owned.

Claims that the airline may now charge higher prices and neglect regional routes are ludicrous. 

Bat shit crazy.

A guest post from the PPTA in response to my post strongly critical of their boycott of staff and pupils at charter schools.

Thanks for the chance to respond to your post about PPTA’s ban on working with charter schools.  Here are some points that I doubt will satisfy many of your readers, but I think need to be on the record.

1.  “I love how the union dictates to teachers.”  Absolutely not. PPTA is democratic, and 90% of secondary teachers choose to join. The policy of bans was agreed on at National Conference where 150 teachers representing their regions, including Northland of course, decide significant policy. A union’s power comes from collective action; we have to be democratic for this to work.

2. “It’s about control.” Again, not at all. Teachers need to be involved in and engaged with in regards to significant decisions for the education sector – we don’t expect to get our own way always, but we need to have genuine engagement. This process didn’t do that at all – neither from the charter school working group, the select committee process, the authorisation board, nor the applicants.

3. “It’s not about the kids.” Here’s the great irony – students are being encouraged to leave the local schools to go to the new charters, but then they will be sent back to those same schools for most of the NCEA teaching which is how the charters will be assessed. If, as the charter school operators believe, the local public schools are so bad, why would they use them for delivering the curriculum to their students?

4. “Listen up dumb parents, we know what is best… we do not think you should have a choice of where to send your children…” I think most people would accept that choice is not an absolute good – i.e. there needs to be a balance struck between choice and efficient use of resources, fairness and other good things too, right? Our view is that there is that there was about the right balance prior to the introduction of charters – our highly devolved school system is pretty much unique and allows for a lot of variety. And, this may grate, but choice between schools as a driver for improving school systems just doesn’t work – even the OECD and Treasury recognise this.  Ideally, schools would be able to offer lots of choices and variety of experiences at each local school, meaning that different cultural backgrounds, interests, skills etc…would be catered for and developed, while also getting the benefits of mixing with different people, economies of scale and so forth.

5. “Fewer resources for the schools and, ultimately, the threat of lost jobs for PPTA members”.  This isn’t a concern for the reason you think, it relates to the previous point. Schools that lose teachers generally end up narrowing the curriculum. This disadvantages the students that are left. We had a simple solution to the ‘threat’ of lost jobs for PPTA members, which was to offer membership to staff in charter schools, like NZEI are doing. Our position was that we couldn’t do that –as it would be very difficult for us to advocate for closing schools that we had members in.

6. “Boycotts are reminiscent of the apartheid era…” Indeed, and they contributed to changing an invidious system. This isn’t a boycott against Maori schools and students, it applies equally to all five schools and is mischievous to imply otherwise.  Every teacher in Whangarei and Northland is a teacher of Maori students. Political change is brought about in many different ways; for unions, denying our labour is one of the ultimate and strongest tools to bring about change that we have. We don’t use it lightly.

7. And anyway, what’s the story with these schools that were supposed to “compete on an equal footing with the state education system – thus driving up standards for all through competition” using the resources and teachers of the state system?  This is like Jet Star over-selling some flights and running short on pilots, and demanding that AirNZ lends them pilots to cover them. We didn’t ask for the market system in education and don’t want it – the charter school proponents did. They can’t have it both ways. 

My view remains that it is one thing for the PPTA to say they are against charter schools, to lobby against them, to advocate people vote against the Government that introduced them.

But to go beyond political action, to a boycott of staff and students at these schools that is designed to damage the educational opportunities of those families who think a charter school may help their (probably) struggling kid, is misguided and wrong. It is using kids as pawns with a philosophy of the ends justify the means.

Stuff reports:

They were there to learn how to get along better – but instead two Wellington city councillors ended up storming out.

Earlier this month a workshop was held at the zoo so new and returning councillors could discuss a document outlining how they should interact with each other, and with council officers.

It included phrases such as having “no surprises”, having professional relationships that were “timely, courteous, respectful”, and building an “environment for trust between elected members”.

But during the discussion, councillors Helene Ritchie and Iona Pannett walked out, reportedly because they felt they weren’t being listened to.

Last term’s council repeatedly came under fire for being divisive and not working effectively. Since the election last month, the new council – which includes six new members – has been meeting regularly to discuss how it will function.

 Immediately after the election, Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown said there was a good mix of councillors and she expected leading them would be “a lot easier than in the last six months”.

Not a great start for the new Council.

Not overly surprised that Cr Ritchie walked out. She does have a long history of difficult relationships with her colleagues, including back in the 1970s or 1980s when she got dumped as Deputy Mayor by her own team.

I am somewhat surprised by Iona Pannett walking out, and it will be interesting to learn what was the trigger.

The meeting was run by Deputy Mayor Justin Lester, who said it was a “storm in a teacup”, and both councillors returned and joined in the discussion.

It was a “group session on some protocols on how councillors should behave”, he said.

“There was a perception also that the council was divisive and we wanted to address that . . . Some people had different opinions, but in the end we all agreed.

So the session was to deal with the perception that the Council was divisive and the result of it was two Councillors walking out! Sounds more than a perception.

This week we venture into the North Islands Whirinaki Forest to a wee gem of a location. I love being out in nature and discovering amazing places such as this. I’ll never forget arriving at this canyon which is located beneath a large canopy of trees and just feeling the awe and spirit of the scene. It was simply beautiful and I was determined to capture a photograph that resonated some of the mood and feeling of this ageless canyon.

I loved this perspective as soon as I found it – the steep heavily mossed canyon walls just seemed to drop away beneath me and the rushing water at the bottom sparkled like a jewel. This photograph was captured in a single frame with an exposure over a minute – this is how I was able to capture the beautiful surreal-like water which makes this such an enduring photograph.

Free Wallpaper – Desktop or iPad

I hope you enjoy this photograph – you can download it as a free Desktop Wallpaper HERE and please share with your friends.

Cheers

Richard [richardhume.com]

The Herald reports:

Opposition parties are warning of damage to the national interest, higher fares and even a second taxpayer bailout after the Government put another slice of Air New Zealand on the block.

Higher fares because the Government will own 53% instead of 73%? No one with a shred of financial knowledge could make such a claim. It’s financial illiteracy at its worse.

Green co-leader Russel Norman said it could lead to reduced regional services or higher fares.

Won’t he be a great Minister of Finance!

Air New Zealand already is a mixed ownership model. Labour and Greens are the worst sort of conservative – they claim the status quo is preferable despite any rational basis for it.

According to Labour and the Greens 73% is the exact right proportion of Air New Zealand to own. Not 82% (or they would have policies to increase it) or 64% or 51%. It must be 73%.

The Herald reports:

Former minister of building and housing Shane Jones wants to simplify renovation compliance measures and cut costs.

Jones, Labour’s building and construction spokesman, said much could be done to improve the system.

“Where a builder is a registered, certified builder, like a plumber or sparkie, where they are working on odd jobs or renovations that don’t require a great deal of attention from compliance because it’s low risk, you shouldn’t need to get a building permit, just like you don’t need to get a building permit for a plumber or sparkie to fix your place.

“So if the remedial job has a level of risk not in orbit, why tie up building inspectors where a competent builder – who can be sued because he’s registered – can just get on and do it.”

Once again I tend to agree with Jones. But does his caucus? Will this idea become Labour policy?

Someone should keep a running tally of all the stuff Jones announces as Labour spokesperson and see if any of it actually ends up backed by his caucus.

Stuff reports:

Broadcaster Mark Sainsbury is eyeing Radio New Zealand’s Sunday Morning slot following presenter Chris Laidlaw’s resignation.

The former Close Up presenter said he had yet to lodge a formal application, but was certainly interested in the Sunday Morning job.

“It’s a great gig that Sunday morning one, and there’s a huge amount of potential to do something with it. But I also know there are a lot of very well qualified people interested in it as well.

Sainsbury would be a very strong contender.

Broadcaster Bill Ralston said if it were his choice, it would be between Mark Sainsbury and Noelle McCarthy.

“Mark is not bad at the human interest interviews. He’s got a great strength in those, but Noelle is very bright as well.”

Someone under 40 would be novel!

Long-time broadcaster Bill Ralston speculated on a good pick for the show. Applications close on December 2.

Fill-in radio host Noelle McCarthy: Definitely, I would think a very serious contender.

Media3 host and blogger Russell Brown: Possible. He would be a contender, but I would certainly put people inside the shop ahead of people outside the shop.

Mark Sainsbury: A really good choice.

Anna Guy: Yeah, nah.

Radio hosts John Tamihere and Willie Jackson: Non-starters.

Jim Mora: Yeah, if he wants to retire back to one day a week, and he might do, in which case that would open up his shift to someone like Mark Sainsbury or Noelle McCarthy. He would be ideal in some respects.

3rd Degree host Guyon Espiner: I somehow doubt it. Don’t see him as a serious contender, although he could do it well.

Blogger Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury: He’s too Left even for National Radio.

Broadcaster Susan Wood: Definitely. They need more women on air, to be honest . . . I would see her as a better than adequate person to do it.

Ex-TV reporter Richard Langston: Has a lot of ability, but I don’t see him necessarily as a primary contender.

Back Benches host Wallace Chapman: If they wanted someone younger, hipper, cooler, groovier, he’d be a guy to look for.

I can’t see it being Anna Guy!

A New Zealand journalists blogs:

I am a journalist and for the past week or so my work-related world has revolved around the so-called Roast Busters case.

I am also a survivor of sexual assault. …

I’ve learned, over my years as a journalist, to hold the horrible things at arm’s length, to let myself feel the pain of them but not to let them affect the other parts of my life. I love my job, and to me it’s largely worth that effort. But the ugly jolt of alleged sex crimes as shocking as these ones, a case that dominates the discourse of an entire country for days on end, sends concentric ripples into the rest of my life as well.

By the second day of the Roast Busters story, my jaw hurt from clenching it. As each new detail came out and was discussed around me in the office, I got a weird, floating feeling in my arms and legs that I know from experience to be adrenalin. After a few bursts of it I was exhausted, but I lay in bed later – one in the morning, two, three – unable to sleep. My eyes were gritty and I picked at the skin on my fingers until, by the third day, my hands looked worse than they had in years. I started feeling too sick to my stomach to eat.

I thought about posting something on Facebook, but there are members of my family who don’t know I was sexually assaulted. I’m Facebook friends with colleagues who are expecting me to cover the Roast Busters case and don’t know I was assaulted. Newsrooms are tough places and people expect that journalists will behave like tough people. I’ve no doubt that I’m Facebook friends with survivors I don’t know about, who are just as nervous about being outed as I am in this situation. I’m seeing a guy who doesn’t know yet about this thing in my past, and probably doesn’t need to find out in a pained, wounded social media rant. So I stayed silent.

I this this whole sage has probably been painful for many victims of rape and sexual assault. The entire blog post is very raw but real.

Over at I am someone, a number of victims tell their stories. I won’t even try to quote from their stories but it is hard to read a 14 year old girl writing about the friend’s father who assaulted her when she was nine. But reading their stories is not in the same universe as telling them.

Stuff reports:

Do you know how many calories you’re drinking? Drinks – both alcoholic and sugary – have been in the spotlight recently.

Alcohol has been because Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is looking into whether or not alcoholic beverages should have energy (kilojoules or calories) shown on their labels. Alcoholic drinks contribute about the same energy to an average Kiwi diet as sugar does – about 5 per cent.

Many health experts believe showing the energy (kilojoule or calorie) content on alcoholic drinks would have a moderating effect on how much we drink.

I have no doubt it will. I drink a lot less now, since being more aware of the calorie level of different drinks.

I can see this meeting a lot of resistance from the alcohol companies. They will argue the same old “personal responsibility” line that makers of other unhealthy foods do.

The difference is, of course, that at least with most of our foods we can actually see the nutrition content on the label, so we can make a (more or less) informed choice.

With alcohol, it’s completely up to us.

All for informed choices.

Alexis Madrigal at The Atlantic asks why are gas prices falling?

The price Americans pay for fuel at the pump has fallen to its lowest in more than then two years. At $3.19 per gallon, you can fill up a 12-gallon tank for less than $40. 

So, what’s going on? And will prices keep going down?

None of the long or short-term factors affecting the price of gasoline seem likely to move quickly. Certainly none that would push the price down rapidly. The safest bet is that gas prices will remain in their new range, somewhere above $3 a gallon but under $4. 

The Energy Information Administration predicts an even tighter range over the next year. “The projected U.S. annual average regular gasoline retail price falls from $3.63 per gallon in 2012 to an average of $3.50 per gallon in 2013 and $3.39 per gallon in 2014,” the EIA forecasts.

But wasn’t peak oil meant to send gas prices ever-rising?

During the big run up in oil and gas prices that you can see in the charts above, some analysts contended that we were up against a geophysical limit on how much oil could be produced. It wasn’t that we were running out of oil, but that we wouldn’t be able to produce more, even if demand went up.

So far, however, that has not proven to be the case, as this International Energy Agency chart shows. 

A funny sort of peak – that keeps growing.

Some fascinating US research from Gallup.

Asked if they would prefer a male boss or a female boss or have no preference, 41% said no preference, 35% said a male boss and 23% a female boss.  back in  1963 66% said they would prefer a male boss and just 5% a female boss.

I’m one of those who would of course say no preference. I would note that generally I would say my female bosses have been better than my male bosses – but not in all cases. Of course I’m now self-employed so have a bastard as a boss 🙂

What is fascinating in the US research is the data broken down by gender.

40% of women said they would prefer a male boss (ie not a female boss) compared to just 29% of men.

Would be interesting to see if the same result occurred in NZ. Not sure it would.

I would hope that most people would say they have no preference, as it is silly to generalise. But only 32% of women said they had no preference compared to 51% of men.

A reasonably significant statement by Winston Peters in this recent interview:

NZ First believes in environmental sustainability but far too many of the Green Party’s comments are about “stopping everything”.

“We have difficulty understanding a lot of their intentions and motives,” Mr Peters says, adding that the chance of being part of a coalition that would include the Greens is “extremely remote“.

This means that as the price of support from Winston, Labour may have to leave the Greens outside the Government – as they did under Clark.

I think the Sydney Morning Herald editorial on Kevin Rudd is spot on:

But Rudd’s exit provides a timely warning to the public for when it is next wooed by an everyman politician who seems too good to be true. As always in public life, all is not what it seems. …

Having starred in a stunning election victory, Rudd soon revealed himself, to colleagues then the public, as something less than he promised. In various guises he was the indecisive and revengeful anti-hero Hamlet, the egomaniac Coriolanus, the ambitious Macbeth, the gullible and jealous Othello, the rash Romeo and megalomaniac Julius Caesar.

We saw him refuse to accept advice, unable to manage people, often weak on delivery and, worst of all, lacking the courage of his convictions. The public, quite rightly, began to see through Rudd. When he backed down on strong action to tackle climate change, they wondered where he drew the line on principles versus politics.

Sensing weakness, his colleagues, themselves flawed by ambition, conspired with the evil Labor Party structure to force him from office.

As victim, the revengeful Rudd vented through sabotage and the undermining of Julia Gillard, thereby consigning Labor to a precarious hung parliament three years ago and, now, years in the wilderness. Through it all, Rudd has displayed self-delusion and narcissism of Learesque proportions. King Lear, like Rudd, allowed ambition to derail his better instincts, disconnect him for reality and leave a trail of destruction.

The damage Rudd wrought on Labor will take years to fix, although the task would have been greater had he not returned to the leadership for the September 7 election.

Labor’s relatively muted loss was testimony to his policy instincts, communication skills and lasting affinity with many Australians in all walks of life. Rudd also deserves credit for starting the difficult process to remake the Labor Party as a modern, democratic force.

King Kevin indeed. He did have incredible communication skills, and a lot of charisma. All of us have a number of psychological weaknesses, but Rudd’s were so massive that they over-ran all the good he did or tried to do.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is claiming he may be a crack using alcoholic Mayor, but he is not a cheat. His exact words to deny allegations from a former staffer caused some shock at his press conference:

“Oh, and the last thing was, Olivia Gondek, it says that I wanted to eat her pussy, Olivia Gondek. I’ve never said that in my life to her. I would never do that. I’m happily married. I’ve got more than enough to eat at home. Thank you very much.”  

Not sure Mrs Ford would appreciate the nature of his denial!

Ford is providing endless material for the US comedy shows.

The OECD has published ratings for its members governments. The overall data is pretty good for New Zealand. Some highlights:

• Citizens rate government satisfaction 10% higher than OECD average
• ICT expenditure by Govt is highest in OECD at 2%
• Trust in Government up 2% since 2007 (down 5% for overall OECD)
• Income inequality (Gini coefficient) reduces from 0.45 to 0.32 after tax and welfare transfers.
• Education performance on PISA is 521 compared to OECD average of 495 despite average expenditure per student of US$70,100 compared to OECD of $83,500.
• Govt employees make up 9.7% of labour force compared to OECD of 15.5%
• Women are 29% of Ministers compared to 25% for OECD
• Confidence in government is 61% (OECD 40%), Police 83% (72%), Education 71% (66%), Health care system 83% (71%) and Justice system 58% (51%)

On the not so good side:

• Deficit at 7.5% of GDP is higher than OECD average of 3.5%. But this is 2010 data which includes earthquake. Still shows how important it is to reduce and eliminate the deficit.
• Government senior managers paid $397,000 on average compared to $232,00 OECD average (in US$ PPP)!

Aced it this week!

Quiz is here.

Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post writes:

President Obama’s just-completed press conference was arguably worse than the Obamacare rollout. Alternately confessing, apologizing and blame shifting, he inadvertently made the case against his own executive skills, Obamacare and big government in general.

His announced fix is aimed at remedying the mass cancellation of individually-purchased insurance plans by letting insurance companies re-offer non-compliant policies. This makes clear that contrary to the statements from Jay Carney and Valerie Jarrett, Obamacare and not the insurers were the cause of the cancellations. Obama let slip that this is one big blame-shifting exercise when he announced that no one would be able to say Obamacare caused them to lose insurance. It is of course false because it is unlikely all the canceled policies can be restored.

Obama is losing Democrats in Congress who fear for their seats because of this. Several of them are signing up to Republican bills to change the law. If they pass, will Obama veto them?

Rather ironic that the Republicans fought so hard to defend Obamacare. Their best strategy would have been to step aside and watch it fall apart 🙂

Rubin quotes some lines from the press conference:

“We fumbled the rollout on this health-care law.”

“I completely get how upsetting this can be for a lot of Americans.”

“It is a complex process.”

“I was not informed directly [How about indirectly?!] that the Web site would not be working. . . . I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity, a week before the Web site opens, if I thought that it wasn’t going to work.”

“With respect to the pledge I made that if you like your plan you can keep it. . . that there is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate.”

“The federal government does a lot of things really well. One of those things it does not do well is information technology procurement.”

“What we are also discovering is insurance is complicated to buy.”

Rubin continues:

Obama’s answers were long, rambling and at times hard to understand. What is clear is there is no arguing Obamacare can’t be touched or that this administration knows what it is doing. It was a remarkable confession about his own and the federal government’s ineptness, a virtual ad against big government — especially ones dependent on IT procurement. In admitting this was about shifting blame to insurers, he made crystal clear that his conduct is and has been about damage control, not permanently fixing an unworkable bill. He certainly gave satisfaction to Republicans who have been making many of these arguments all along. And it will no doubt convince Democrats to run as fast and as far as they can from this hapless president.

The deadline for the website to be working is now 30 November. If they fumble again, it will just get worse.

John Armstrong writes on the two David Cunliffes:

Allies and enemies of David Cunliffe are quickly discovering that Labour’s leader of two months is something of a two-headed hydra.

It seems at times as if there are two David Cunliffes – the one who speaks from the heart, and the one who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. …

Then there is the other Cunliffe. This is the slightly too brash, but still decisive-sounding version who – when his statements are subject to scrutiny – leaves the listener none the wiser as to what he really thinks and where he stands.

This is Cunliffe the professional politician who either refuses to or cannot give a straight answer. Instead, the listener is served up rhetoric and bluster.

The straight-shooter persona could be Cunliffe’s making as a leader of real stature. That persona must prevail if he is to have any show of beating John Key next year.

The duck-and-dodge persona threatens to be his undoing, leaving the impression that, beneath the surface gloss, he is just another politician, albeit a very clever one.

The tendency to try and be all things to all people is becoming noticeable and much commented on.