Received by e-mail:

I wanted to introduce myself as a representative for the comic syndicate for Calvin and Hobbes and many other comics, Universal Uclick. I’m reaching out in response to your post about Bill Watterson’s recent interview. We’re glad that you think that your audience is still connected a timeless comic strip and a brilliant storyteller.

With your readers showing interest in Bill Watterson and his comic strip, your readers may be interested to know that the entire Calvin and Hobbes archive is available for free on our GoComics website and mobile app – no strings attached. We’re the only place online and via mobile app that is legally approved to display Bill Watterson’s artistry via Calvin and Hobbes.

Website: http://www.GoComics.com/CalvinAndHobbes<http://www.gocomics.com/CalvinAndHobbes>

Mobile App: http://www.gocomics.com/explore/app_store

 The GoComics app boasts 4+ star ratings on all platforms and has been featured in Entertainment Weekly’s “The Must List” (May 2013) as well as the “New and Noteworthy” section on the iTunes store in multiple countries.

Good outreach on their behalf, and great to have the comics so easy to read online. Of course I have every single book of them also!

Also a film has been produced on the impact of Calvin and Hobbes on the cartooning world.

Gerry Brownlee has pointed out:

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister and Minister Responsible for the Earthquake Commission Gerry Brownlee says Labour’s policy of establishing a state-owned insurer is no different than its other half-formed ideas – it’s emotive, shows a hopeless grasp of economic realities, and raises questions Labour won’t be able to credibly answer.

“Labour might hate private insurance companies, but the reality is they’re paying for $20 billion of the Canterbury rebuild – twice New Zealand’s annual corporate tax take,” Mr Brownlee says.

“The fact of the matter is you can only undercut insurance competitors if you’re prepared to take greater risk.

“Two insurance companies were doing that when the Christchurch earthquakes struck – both of them New Zealand owned – and they both collapsed.

“The reason insurance businesses tend to be internationally owned and operated, by big companies, is because they’re able to hedge their risk across a range of markets.

“Labour’s insurer would be completely exposed to the New Zealand market, which every citizen knows is at major risk of incurring heavy losses from natural disasters.

And guess who would be bailing them out – the taxpayer.

Insurers who are primarily covering just one country do run a very significant risk of collapse should disaster strike. And reinsurance can only go so far.

The Press reported:

The Government’s transport plan for Christchurch is being hailed as another big boost for cycling in the city.

Keith Turner, chairman of the cycling advocacy group Spokes Canterbury, said the cycleway initiatives could put Christchurch on a par with bustling cities like Copenhagen.

Earlier this year the Christchurch City Council agreed to invest nearly $70 million on creating a new network of suburban cycleways.

Now the Government has confirmed plans to turn the new central business district into a cycle-friendly area by slowing down traffic and building separate cycle paths where possible.

“It is everything we hoped for and everything that people were asking for as part of the Have a Say campaign,” Turner said.

Under the government plan released on Wednesday, key cycling routes will be prioritised for cycling and some paths will be for cyclists only.

Christchurch is such a flat city, that it is made for cycling. In Wellington cycling to and from work can be a form of Russian Roulette!

Would be good to see Wellington City Council do what it can to make Wellington a safer city for cycling.

Stuff reports:

He also used his speech to accuse the Government of snubbing a convention that invitations were not issued for a royal visit during an election year.

He believed Prime Minister John Key would invite the royal family to bring “its newest and cutest member here for a long series of photo ops in an election year”, Cunliffe said, referring to Prince William, wife Kate and their baby George.

Cunliffe has just invented this convention. The convention is not to have visits during or close to election campaigns. Rather silly to invent a fake convention and then accuse John Key of planning to break this fake mythical convention.

Based on some quick research, here are the previous royal visits which have occurred in election years:

1. 1954, QEII
2. 1963 QEII
3. 1981 QEII
4. 1990, QEII, Prince Edward and Princess Royal
5. 2002, QEII

When you devote a proportion of your speech to attacking the PM for breaking a non-existent convention, then I guess it just means you din’t have much of substance to say.

Games of Thrones fans will love this picture.

Toby Manhire at The Listener reports:

On Labour Day morning, Ben Uffindell, the wunderkind behind the Civilian satire website,tweeted that he was about to appear on Radio New Zealand.

Which, he added, “I find is always sort of like visiting your grandparents”.

And that somehow encapsulates a strength and weakness of RNZ: a cosy familiarity, something reliable, but also undeniably, how to put it, mature.

For some some the challenge for the national broadcaster has been how to attract younger listeners. The proportion of the audience under 30 is said to be puny.

The idea of a “youth” station has long been mooted, with some arguing it should replace Concert FM.

But years of discussion have at last borne fruit.

The Wireless is the boldest innovation from the cash-strapped grandparent for a long time, probably since the RNZ website added news and audio in 2005.

Crucially, however, this is not an online radio station: more a digital magazine, with features, blogs and plenty of video, aimed chiefly at 18-30 year olds.

And it looks very promising indeed. Each month will be themed, the first of which is “Free”, starting with a feature by Megan Whelan about personal finance, majoring on, unsurprisingly, debt.

The site looks really well designed and the articles well aimed for their target audience of under 30s. Radio NZ has a fixed budget so this initiative is not costing us any extra money, and it is good to see a focus on people who don’t just listen to Concert FM!

NZ Herald quiz is here.

The NZ Herald reports:

New Zealand is missing out on vital relationships and economic benefits by keeping the Queen as its head of state, says a former top diplomat.

Peter Hamilton, a former Deputy Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, said his 35-year career had brought home the missed opportunities caused by having the Queen as the country’s titular head.

“We little realise in New Zealand that we have a head of state who – no fault of hers – cannot represent and advocate for us in any meaningful manner internationally.”

It’s a good point, highlighting one of the problems of sharing out Head of State with dozens of other countries. The sensible thing is to retain our links with the Queen by having her as Head of the Commonwealth – but not as Head of State of New Zealand.

Mr Hamilton recalled being invited during his time in Berlin by the British ambassador to an official dinner during Queen Elizabeth’s state visit to Germany.

“It was a grand occasion, but it came as a shock to me to realise that here was my head of state in Berlin and she was completely unable to fulfil a key part of the role required of her – to represent in this case New Zealand’s interests in Germany.

When the Queen is outside New Zealand, she represents the United Kingdom, not us.

While New Zealand’s Governor-General can make official visits overseas, Mr Hamilton said, there was considerable international confusion on the role and status of the position.

“I can think of one European country which has a monarch as head of state which will never receive our Governor-General as equivalent to their monarch, because they know our actual head of state resides not too far away across the Channel.”

Saying “who cares?” missed the huge effect such visits could have on opening doors for New Zealand business, supporting international negotiations and campaigns and advancing the nation’s economic interests.

A New Zealand Head of State could be a dedicated Ambassador for New Zealand and our interests.

Who might be our head of state would be a decision for all New Zealanders, but the transition should happen gradually, he said.

A simple first step would be to keep the system used to appoint the Governor-General but without reference to the Queen.

My preferred option is to have the Prime Minister recommend a Head of State to Parliament, which must be passed by at least 75% majority (which would mean only someone without a partisan party background would be approved).

Mr Hamilton said New Zealand would not have to leave the Commonwealth, and royal visits could continue under that relationship.

Would be the best of both worlds.

The Herald has printed the full speech of Peter Hamilton. One extract:

‘Ok, and who is your Head of State?’

This is where the discussion gets tricky.

‘Our Head of State is Queen Elizabeth. She is represented by a Governor General in New Zealand’.

‘Governor? Why do you have the British monarch as you Head of State. Aren’t you independent?’

‘Yes, well, it’s historical, we were a British colony but we aren’t any more. In NZ, she is not the British monarch but ‘Queen of New Zealand’.

At this point, the conversation ends, with a glazed look in the eye of the person you’re talking to. They are much too polite to say it, but they wonder how a country can be independent and still have a foreigner as Head Of State. It would be inconceivable in their own situation. There is no point in trying to prolong the discussion. Perception is everything. I have found people in Asia, the Middle East and Europe particularly confused about our international persona.

And Hamilton sees a more international focus for a NZ Head of State:

Moreover, we are underutilising the office of Governor General. His or her role is no longer just domestic, although we tend to see it as limited to this.

The Governor General should be tasked to undertake a much more active role of international representation for New Zealand to complement the work of the Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers, to open doors for New Zealand business, to support our international negotiations and campaigns and to advance our economic interests. The Governor General should be visiting our key bilateral partners much more actively than is currently the case. To not utilise the office of Governor General in this manner is a wasted opportunity.

Admittedly, it will be much easier for the Governor General to do so, and have far greater impact, when he or she goes as our actual Head of State and not as the representative of one.

Indeed.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand passengers flying to and from the US will soon be able to use their electronic devices during take-off and landing at the American end of their flights.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announced it will allow passengers on commercial flights to have their e-readers, tablets and mobile phones switched on during those key parts of the flight in addition to other times. However, devices must be switched to airline mode.

It said it was now satisfied that most commercial aircraft can “tolerate radio interference signals” from personal electronic devices.

While the decision does not apply to New Zealand airspace, Air New Zealand said it was likely that a similar change of rules would be made here in the future.

It’s so annoying that you can’t keep using your iPad in flight mode during take off and landing. On a typical one hour flight between Auckland and Wellington, this can take up over half the time. What it means is I have to bring along a book also, to read during the no iPad times.

What will make me even happier is when more airlines have in flight wireless. Makes such a difference when you can work on a flight, clear e-mails etc.

Tracy Watkins gives five reasons for why National is still polling in the mid to high 40s after five years in office.

1. John Key
2. Steering a course through the global financial crisis
3. Softly, softly government
4. Tragedy and disaster
5. Raising the bar for ministerial performance

With the second point, Watkins notes:

Key made a point of highlighting National’s determination not to slash and burn in response to the global financial crisis and the massive debt burden that welcomed it into office.

Previous National governments would have worn the scorched-earth label as a badge of honour, and Key’s government came under pressure from some quarters to hack into government spending under cover of the crisis. That National resisted doing so – and even increased spending on welfare initiatives at the height of the GFC – has earned Key a reservoir of goodwill with voters and neutralised Labour’s attacks on him as a Right-wing wolf in sheep’s clothing.

National is on track to get the books back into surplus, without “slash and burn”. The challenge when we get back into surpluses is to have a balanced policy where some of the surplus goes on debt reduction, some on extra spending and some on tax reductions. I believe NZers support a balanced approach. Labour only does tax reductions at the point of a gun – they believes surpluses mean just spend as much extra money as possible.

Key is known to keep his ministers on their toes by putting them through yearly performance appraisal reviews and laying out his expectations during individual chats at the start of each year.

I’m not certain of the timing, but it could be more frequent than annually. But he certainly does take a CEO approach to the Government, and regularly gives feedback on where things are going well and not so well.

He shocked many when he dumped Cabinet ministers Phil Heatley and Kate Wilkinson at the start of this year for under-performance, an unheard-of occurrence.

And there may be another reshuffle next year. Not because any Ministers need to go, but because it is important to rejuvenate the team.

Vernon Small writes:

David Cunliffe will today announce Labour’s plans to launch a new state-owned insurance company to compete with the predominantly foreign-owned insurers.

This belief that being state owned means a company will be “nicer” is farcical. Ask anyone living in Canterbury how they have found the service from EQC, which is a state owned insurance company.

Meanwhile, Labour delegates have moved to dilute the party’s 2011 policy to gradually increase the state pension age to 67.

The new wording, recommended by affiliated unions, commits the party only to consider a rise in the eligibility age as part of ensuring the universal superannuation scheme remains sustainable.

So Labour may abandon one of the few economically rational policies they had.

Stuff reports:

Bill English is to step down as the Clutha-Southland MP next year after 24 years representing the electorate, but has no plans to retire from politics.

The deputy prime minister and finance minister, Mr English will remain in politics, and instead seek nomination for the National Party list at the 2014 election.

Mr English, who lives in Wellington, said representing the large Clutha-Southland electorate had required considerable travel and time away from his family, particularly after he became a minister.

With four of his six children having left home, he wanted to strike a better balance between family life and political commitments.

I note Michael Cullen went list only in 1999. Being Minister of Finance means an insanely busy workload, and balancing ministerial duties, electorate duties and family life would not be easy.

Phil Heatley announced his retirement this week also. Phil’s a legendary campaigner, and what was once an almost marginal seat has become rock safe thanks to his efforts. A damn nice guy, with a great sense of humour. I recall being excited in 1999 when we got an intake that included Simon Power, Katherine Rich and Phil Heatley (and others). A bit sad that they’ll all be gone by the next election but 15 years isn’t a bad spell.

The plus side is that National is showing how to renew itself while still in Government. This is quite critical. There’s going to be quite a few new National MPs in 2014. I hope the party organisation is working hard to make sure we get top quality candidates standing for both electorates and list.

Stuff reports:

Police are warning against “too good to be true” overseas scams aimed at tricking New Zealanders out of millions of dollars.

Detective Senior Sergeant Aaron Pascoe said a recent survey of money-remittance agencies suggested New Zealanders were sending more than $100 million a year to “high risk” countries such as Nigeria, Ghana and the Ukraine.

“How much of this is fraudulently obtained or laundered funds is unclear but the figure is likely to be in the tens of millions, given the low rate of reporting of this type of occurrence,” he said.

One person had recently reported a fraud, where he paid $17,000 to “release” supposed lottery winnings.

Pascoe said that by working with remittance agencies police identified nine other victims, and found that a further $250,000 had been sent overseas to the same scammers.

How can people still be falling for those? I can understand it ten years ago when they were new, but surely everyone has heard of the scams by now.

I guess a new one is born every day after all!

Stuff reports:

Million-dollar-earning TV broadcaster Paul Henry will next year return to our screens to wrap up the day’s events and replace the late-night news bulletin on TV3.

Mediaworks confirmed The Paul Henry Show will be screened at 10.30pm in 2014.

It will replace 3 News: Nightline. however, the brand will “sit in reserve for future years”.

“Nightline has been a great programme for us over many years and produced some of our best broadcasters, but the landscape is due for change and Paul Henry will lead that change in later evening viewing,” Mark Jennings, director of news and current affairs, said.

I’ll definitely be setting the My Sky to record that.

Bill English has announced:

The “living wage” campaign claims a minimum hourly pay rate of $18.40 is necessary for a family of two adults and two children. But Treasury analysis shows that not just the figure, but the concept, is flawed, Mr English says.

“It might sound politically attractive to be able to dial up a pre-selected made-up wage rate, but for higher wages to be sustainable they have to be based on productivity and affordability in real workplaces,” he says.   

The “living wage” idea is based on a two-adult, two-child family, yet analysis shows that people in this situation make up only 6 per cent of families earning less than $18.40 an hour. 

This is the point I have been trying to make. It is a calculation for a particular type of family (which are just 6% of all households) and to have politicians lemming like insist it must be a minimum wage for everyone is moronic.

Almost 80 per cent of those earning less than $18.40 are people without children, including young people and students.

When Labour says everyone must be paid the living wage, they are saying that a 16 year old starting his or her first job must be paid $18.40 an hour or over $38,000 a year!

The analysis shows that the “living wage” would least help low-income families whose welfare support would abate as their income rose. In those cases, the main beneficiary of the living wage would effectively be the Government because it would receive more in tax and pay out less through abated transfers.

It is quite legitimate to debate how to have higher wages. But the living wage is a slogan, not a policy.

The Treasury also notes that although New Zealand’s minimum wage has grown faster than the median or average wage over the past decade, it has not increased average incomes relative to other countries.

You raise wages through productivity, not through legislation.

The Treasury analysis is here. Some extracts:

• A low wage two parent family with two children would only gain $63 a week from the living wage while the Government would gain (via abatements and extra tax) $126 a week!
• Very low incomes tend to be temporary – only 24% of those in the bottom income decile in 2002 were in that decile seven years later
• 43% of those who earn below the living wage are aged under 30
• The living wage would only reduce the relative poverty rate by 0.3%!!

Treasury suggests four other measures which would help low income families without the bad consequences of the living wage:

1. Shifting Working for Families towards parents with younger children
2. Targeting Early Childhood Education subsidies more strongly
3. Shifting the benefit abatement regime to incentivise 3-5 days of work, and
4. Making our system of service interventions for children aged 0-5 years more
   focused and integrated.
   

Treasury also point out that the calculation used for the living wage is basically not based on any empirical evidence such as need:

The figure chosen is essentially an average of  the estimated current expenditure of the lowest half of the income distribution, and close to two thirds of the national average expenditure of two adult, two child households. Thus it is a relative measure of income and not one based on
estimating need.

So Labour and Greens have trumpeted the living wage as the amount calculated that a family needs to live on, and are basing their policies on it. But it isn’t based on what a family need to live on. It is simply based on a percentage of average expenditure (which of course is based on income).

Also you know how Labour and Greens say there is a crisis in manufacturing? Well guess what the living wage would do to that sector:

Manufacturing is the biggest industry to have experienced negative employment growth over the period. With 40 percent of its workforce earning below $18.40, adoption of the Living Wage could be expected to put further downward pressure on the industry’s growth.

And on the issue of our minimum wage:

In 2011 our minimum wage was 60% of the median earnings for full-time workers. This was amongst the highest ratios in the OECD, and well above the level found in most countries which is typically around 45%. For instance, the ratio was 45% in Australia, 38% in the United Kingdom, 40% in Canada, and 28% in the United States. Increasing the rate still higher to 88% of the median wage would take the minimum wage well outside the normal range. This is likely to make employment for people with low skills difficult in an internationally focused economy.

We already have one of the highest minimum wages in the world, relative to the median wage.

And the living wage compared to other countries:

The proposed $18.40 Living Wage is also high compared to the other Living Wage rates being proposed by similar groups overseas. Compared to Australia, Canada, USA, and the UK, it is the highest proposed Living Wage relative to GDP per capita

A great way to export jobs.

Also treasury says that only 12.5% of FT employees are paid less than 2/3rds of the median wage which is one of the lowest proportions in the OECD. The US is 24.8%, UK 20.6%, Canada 20.5% and Australia 14.4%.

Excellent analysis by Treasury. The data fatally undermines the policies being pushed by Labour and Greens. Only 6% of those who earn below the living wage are in the type of family the calculation is based on. Who would you set wages for 94% based on a situation which doesn’t apply to them?

The Herald reports:

Labour’s affiliated unions have a role in the latest battle and are deeply suspicious of the TPP, as are a group in the caucus including former deputy leader Grant Robertson and Te Atatu MP Phil Twyford.

The other group, championed by former Trade Minister Phil Goff, is willing to put greater faith in the upsides of TPP.

Labour’s TPP sceptics were bolstered by the passage of a remit at the Council of Trade Unions conference last month which simply stated: “That this conference opposes the Tran-Pacific Partnership Agreement.”

It was passed unanimously, with no speeches in opposition.

What is sad about this, is they are saying they are opposed to the TPP, regardless of what is in it!!

I have concerns over some of what US is asking for, but to declare outright opposition to the TPP regardless of what is finally agreed is ridiculous. To date the New Zealand negotiators have actually done a very good job in staying firm on issues such as intellectual property laws, with NZ’s position being not to agree to any provisions that would require a change in current NZ laws. I support them in this, and hope that position does not change.

The most intense debate on TPP is likely to occur when delegates talk about the Policy Platform – a new document of principles and values with which specific policy must be compatible.

The proposed wording on trade deals says: “We will only support trade agreements that protect New Zealand’s sovereign right to make law and regulations as we see fit.”

One of the questions is whether that means the party could not support a deal that reduced in any way New Zealand’s sovereign right to make law or whether it leaves wiggle room. It has been suggested that there may be amendments put in to toughen it up.

Mr Goff acknowledges the well-accepted precept that trade deals – along with every other international agreement – always reduce a country’s sovereignty.

“Not just trade negotiations but any international agreement we sign up to, including the International Convention on the Protection of Civil and Political Rights that removes our sovereign right to persecute people [and] the Convention Against Torture, which removes our sovereign right to torture people. There are a whole lot of things that involve the surrender of our sovereignty that every delegate at the party conference would actually approve.” 

Well done Phil Goff for explaining this point so rationally. Every single international agreement we sign up to, involves a reduction of sovereignty. We’ve agreed not to pursue mining in Antarctica, we’ve agreed not to pass a law allowing torture, we’ve agreed to not impose tariffs outside the WTO rules, we’ve agreed to comply with some international labour standards etc.

Anyone who opposes a trade deal on the basis that it may lead to a loss of sovereignty is being duplicitous or stupid. All international agreements are about countries agreeing to limit what they will or will not do. So the draft Labour Party platform would rule out every single trade deal ever negotiated.

You can of course withdraw from an international agreement, so a country still has final sovereignty, but there will be consequences (generally economic) if you do.

He said many people were concerned about the Australian case in which the Philip Morris tobacco company challenged – under the investor-state dispute clause of a free-trade agreement – the Government’s right to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes.

He also said the Australian case was the result of poor wording in a trade deal that NZ would never let through.

New Zealand has a good track record of negotiating agreements that have non-discrimination provisions, but still allow Governments to legislate on domestic issues such as plain packaging.

Mr Goff said he had been briefed by New Zealand’s chief TPP negotiator, David Walker, with the approval of Trade Minister Tim Groser, and he felt confident that New Zealand was fighting hard on core issues that, had there been a Labour Government, would have been the same.

“My understanding of what New Zealand’s position will be on this is that we would absolutely die in a ditch to protect our right to regulate or legislate in the public good and that is a bottom line,” Mr Goff said.

Kudos to Goff for saying this.

He will be its chief advocate at the party conference, but is not confident he will win the debate.

“I really don’t know, because delegates will have been exposed to all of the concerns about TPP but not about the advantages of it. That creates a challenge.”

Labour have turned their back on other areas that used to be bi-partisan such as Reserve Bank independence, so I’m expecting they will do the same here and vote against free trade (their draft policy platform would mean they couldn’t even support the China Free Trade Agreement they signed). However I also expect Labour to claim the outcome will mean different things to difference audiences They will tell the unions they are against the TPP and tell farmers they are for it.

Dr Damien Rogers writes on this issue:

A more immediate obstacle is the Labour Party’s Annual Conference in Christchurch this weekend, which presents Cunliffe with his first major set-piece opportunity as leader to communicate directly with the party faithful and, indirectly, to all potential voters. Repeating his recent performance at the Conference of Trade Unions – where a rabble-rousing oration to union “comrades” was hopelessly compromised when he conveyed contrary messages to the media waiting outside – is unlikely to suffice. Cunliffe’s politics of appeasing Labour’s special interest groups by separately telling each what they want to hear, but without engaging directly with the major challenges of the day, will be hard to maintain with his credibility intact.

So my prediction in line with this is the policy platform against free trade will go through with little or no changes, but Labour will try and make it sound like they are both for and against the TPP!

Also on the issue of the conference, Stuff provides this list of burning issues for the delegates:

• Maori language made compulsory in state schools and teachers required to be competent in te reo
• Privatised state assets renationalised with compensation based on “proven need”
• The Government’s roads of national significance project dumped and the funds put into public transport
• Teaching of civics and democracy mandatory for all school children
• Laws to discourage excessive alcohol consumption, a review of the purchasing age, alcohol availability and an increase in the price of booze
• Prisoners again getting the right to vote
• A national sex and sexuality education programme dealing with sexual diseases, contraception methods, consent, sexual orientation and gender identity
• New Zealand becoming a republic
• An apology for the Foreshore and Seabed Act passed in 2004
• A prohibition on school boards of trustees restricting same-sex partners from attending school balls
• A Pasifika television station
• A Maori language newspaper

Someone should move an amendment to the Foreshore and Seabed apology remit, including the details that the apology must be done in person by Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson!

Heh, Chris Finalyson is urging Labour delegates to vote for the remit:

Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson has encouraged delegates to support the rank-and-file conference remit that the Labour Party’s leadership apologise for passing the Foreshore and Seabed Act while in government under Helen Clark.

“I am glad that almost a decade after passing this shameful piece of legislation, which denied access to the courts to people based on race, the Labour Party is ready to discuss an apology,” Mr Finlayson said. …

“I would suggest that the Labour leadership also apologise for their the party’s abysmal treatment of Tariana Turia because of her principled stand over the issue,” he said.

“While they are at it, they should apologise for the way Helen Clark called Dr Pita Sharples, a man who has devoted his life to improving Māori educational achievement, a ‘hater and a wrecker’.”

“They should apologise that Ms Clark deliberately snubbed the 35,000 New Zealanders who made a hikoi to Parliament to protest that discriminatory legislation, preferring to pose for a photo opportunity with Shrek the sheep.”

I recall that hikoi. Snubbing it to meet a sheep probably cost Labour tens of thousands of votes.

The PM has announced:

Prime Minister John Key today announced he has decided Sir Douglas Graham KNZM will retain his knighthood following his conviction as a director of Lombard Finance.

Last week the Supreme Court turned down the application of Sir Douglas and his three fellow directors of Lombard Finance to appeal their convictions for making false statements in a company prospectus. The Court granted the directors leave to appeal their sentences.

“Now that Sir Douglas has exhausted his legal options to appeal his conviction, it is appropriate that I make a decision on the matter of his knighthood,” Mr Key says.

“I have given this matter a lot of thought in the period since it first went to court in 2011.

“I took into account the on-going financial hardship that many Lombard investors suffered as a result of the company’s collapse.  Many people through no fault of their own have lost some, or all of their future financial security and that is an awful position to be placed in,” Mr Key says.

In deciding that Sir Douglas should retain his knighthood, Mr Key says he was persuaded by three key factors. 

“First, Sir Douglas received his knighthood for his leadership role in treaty settlements. 

“Second, Sir Douglas was convicted of a strict liability offence, where dishonest or criminal intent is not required for conviction.”

 Mr Key noted the High Court found that Sir Douglas and the other defendants acted honestly at all times, genuinely believed the statements in the amended prospectus were true, and that careful attention had been given to the contents of the amended prospectus, including taking legal advice. 

“Third, in both New Zealand, and in the United Kingdom, it has been very rare for honours to be cancelled. In those cases where it has occurred, it has often been because the actions that led to the cancellation were in the same area as that for which the original honour was awarded. This is not the case with Sir Douglas,” Mr Key says.

I think they key is No 1. It isn’t like the situation in the UK where a bank chairman got his knighthood for his services to banking. Some of those who lost money in Lombard won’t be happy with the decision, but Sir Douglas has gained a criminal record for his failings on the Lombard Board – and that is a permanent stain on his record – along with the eventual punishment of the court.

Also of interest is this NBR story in which former Appeal Court Judge Ted Thomas labels the convictions of the directors a miscarriage of justice,

David Cunliffe would have you think John Key is a hated neo-lib who would sell his own mother. But a fair few Christchurch people seem to disagree. Stuff reports:

Shoppers in central Christchurch gave Prime Minister John Key a rock-star-like welcome when he visited the Palms Shopping Centre this morning.

Key, who was in town to launch the National’s Party’s Christchurch East by-election campaign with its candidate, Matthew Doocey, was mobbed by shoppers as the pair walked through the shopping centre.

Key posed for dozens of photographs and even filmed an impromptu video on an iPhone for the Whanau School Community’s student attendance class which is graduating soon.

He mingled with mothers and their children, staff from nearby retailers and barely made it past the first five shops in one wing in 30 minutes – such was his popularity.

The shopping centre is in Shirley, which isn’t like Fendalton. The average income is near identical to the city as a whole, and their average deprivation is decile 8 (10 is most deprived).

Stuff reports:

The University of Canterbury has received the $260 million government cash injection it desperately needs to get back on its feet.

Prime Minister John Key, along with Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce and National Christchurch East candidate Matthew Doocey, made the announcement at the Christchurch campus this afternoon.

The Government’s contribution will fund a new science centre and expand and upgrade engineering facilities, Joyce said. 

“While generally the Government expects tertiary education institutions to fund their own capital investment from their balance sheets, Canterbury institutions are dealing with a unique set of challenges. The blunt reality is that Canterbury University would find it very difficult to recover without this support.”

The university has a redevelopment plan to modernise its campus and infrastructure. The total programme is valued at $1.1 billion over 10 years.

About 25 per cent will be insurer-funded, about half funded by the university and the rest from the government support announced today.

It will be interesting to see what the final bill for the earthquake comes to. Very pleased that the Government is managing to play its part in the rebuild, and remain on a course to surplus. I recall the Greens demanding an increase in tax rates to fund the rebuild.

3 News reported:

Despite criticism of the sales, Mr Cunliffe says Prime Minister John Key would sell his mother if he got the chance.

I don’t think the public will respond well to snide personal attacks. You can follow the link and see the video at one minute 30. I can’t imagine any swinging voter will respond well to the combination on display there.

So many “VIPs” would shuffle a young intruder off the stage, or at least have their staff do it. But the reaction of Pope Francis to the six year old boy is part of why he is becoming such a beloved figure. The highlight has to be when the boy sits on the Pope’s chair – or maybe when he starts escorting other kids up to meet the Pope.

The Catholic Church has made some mistakes in recent times, but electing Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be the 266th Pope is not one of them.

A somewhat more mundane bird pic today.  Despite being common, getting a decent pic of a sparrow is a bit of a challenge with their drab appearance.  This was taken in ‘the golden hour’ and the low-angled light has done a good job of picking out the detail in the feathers.

#1 Close up

Click for larger, higher res image

#2 The shot

Click for larger, higher res image