Jordan McCluskey writes at Salient:

I was born into the Labour Party. Not some sort of literal love child between Norman Kirk and Helen Clark, but pretty close. On my mother’s side, my nana was orphaned by the Napier Earthquake, and the election of 1935 which brought the First Labour Government to power gave her hope. My grandfather grew up reasonably wealthy, until the Great Depression ruined his family financially. The First Labour Government gave him a job on the New Zealand Railways, a career and hope for a better life. My father’s parents emigrated from Scotland in 1955. Scots are renowned for being strong supporters of the Labour Party.

As for my folks, they are strong Labour supporters, despite the betrayals of Rogernomics. My mother is a civil servant, my father is a caretaker. Through hard work and clever saving, they have nearly paid off their mortgage. I never felt deprived, but I knew we were not the most well-off family in our street. We were working-class, but aspirational. Like most teenagers, I took my politics initially from my elders. Too young to vote, I spent most of 2005 trying to convince my older classmates not to vote National, because I thought Don Brash was a racist. When I did leave school at the end of Year 13, I chose to go out to work rather than go to university. I didn’t think a degree had much value. Now, nearly at the end of my first one, I can confirm that.

I went out to work full-time, eventually ending up working for a government department. Over about three years, I saw things that could put most people off the virtues of big government. Public servants ignoring the people they were supposed to be helping. People so dependent on the help of the state, they didn’t know any other way to make a living. I was observing with my own eyes that when the government tried to help people, it usually made things worse. It was a sobering confrontation between my bright-eyed left-wing enthusiasm and what government does, or does not, achieve. I was confronting the fact that the ideology I subscribed to did not work in reality. It was at this point that my internal pendulum swung from hard left, to centre left, to just plain centre. I was barely Labour anymore. I was still in denial, believing that as someone who was socially left, but economically nudging right, I could remain a Labour Party supporter.

I finally decided to go to university at Victoria, if for no other reason than to escape my job working for the government. One of the very first things I did was get involved in Young Labour. I went to Young Labour meetings and listened to ideas that I knew would never work in application. Most of them have been tried previously in New Zealand history—an artificially high $18 minimum wage, price controls, intervention in markets, government control of industry, are some examples. I was given a form to join the Labour Party. I pinned it to my wall and stared at it. I could not bring myself to do it. The Labour Party which I was raised to believe had the best interests of all people at its heart, on closer inspection was to me a collection of sectional interests. Labour had become a party made up of narrow sectors of various one-issue activists and trade unionists. It broke my heart. In short, I was losing my religion.

I recall meeting Jordan shortly after he left Young Labour. I asked him why did he leave, and he said it was because they don’t like economic rationalists!

In 2010, I drifted away from the Labour Party, who were on a weekly basis putting forward policies I thought were ridiculous and unworkable. Taking GST off fresh food, which would only provide work for tax accountants. Extending tax credits, which are explicitly for people who do work, to those that don’t work. Working-class people who slogged their guts out, day in day out, would not want more of their taxes going to those who did not work. Nationalising the productive parts of the economy. Discouraged by what the Labour Party had become, I did the unthinkable. I joined the National Party.

A few Young Nats have started off in Young Labour, believe it or not! Not aware of any who have gone the other way recently!

If you asked your average Young Nat why you should join the National Party, the answers are fairly predictable. Go to social events where you might meet the PM. Begin your long slow climb into the corridors of power. Well, I can’t dance, and I swear too much to be a Member of Parliament. To me, it really comes down to freedom. Only in the National Party can you be a supporter of both freedom to marry who you choose (marriage equality) and freedom to associate in a union (voluntary student membership). The National Party supports economic freedom totally, and a considerable amount of members, like myself, support social freedoms. The Labour Party only supports social freedoms, and not economic freedom. 

Well stated.

The BSA has done a survey on what words or phrases people would find acceptable on free to air television at 8.30 pm. The 31 phrases tested, and proportions finding them unacceptable are:

1. Cunt 70% (-9%)
2. Nigger 65% (-7%)
3. Jesus Fucking Christ 61% (-4%)
4. Mother fucker 61% (-17%)
5. Cocksucker 56% (-8%)
6. Get fucked 54%(-1%)
7. Fuck off 50% (-2%)
8. Fuck 50% (-19%)
9. Faggot 48% (+2%)
10. Slut 43% (nc)
11. Whore 43% (-12%)
12. Cock 42% (-16%)
13. Retard 41% (-3%)
14. Wanker 39% (-9%)
15. Arsehole 37% (-12%)
16. Jesus Christ 33% (-8%)
17. Dick 32% (-8%)
18. Jesus 30% (+3%)
19. Piss 29% (-9%)
20. Bitch 28% (-14%)
21. Prick 28% (-15%)
22. God 27% (-7%)
23. Piss off 27% (+3%)
24. Bastards 26% (-10%)
25. Balls 24% (-9%)
26. Shit 23% (-8%)
27. Bullshit 20% (-8%)
28. Crap 17% (-6%)
29. Bloody 15% (-2%)
30. Bollocks 13% (-7%)
31. Bugger 13% -3%)

The figures in brackets are the change in unacceptability from the 1999 survey (or 2009 for some newer phrases).

Only the first two words would cause me a bit of shock if used on television.

Also of interest is the other words or phrases some respondents offered as unacceptable:

• Pommy bastard
• Being Jewish (tight with money)
• Hua Slimy Mongrel
• Nignog
• Milf
• Cock-tease
• Cuntface
• Frogface
• Tea bagging
• Fucktard

Fucktard is a great word!

• Ginga
• Muptard (combination of “muppet” and “retard”)

Also a great word!

• Dog bangger
• Whitee wifee

Not heard that one!

Bob Jones writes in the NZ Herald:

I don’t know David Cunliffe but his parliamentary colleagues and the Press Gallery do and virtually to a man and a woman can’t stand him. By contrast Grant Robertson is enormously liked by everyone. That alone should decide Labour’s leadership, for as John Key demonstrates, likeability is a considerable electoral bonus. …

Throughout his career, everyone Abbott’s worked with, going back to university days, liked him enormously and remained staunchly loyal. Conversely, it took only a few months throughout his career for everyone around Rudd to detest him with a deep loathing.

This was the killer line for Abbott in one of the debates, where he said if you wanted to know about my character then ask my colleagues, and if you want to know about Mr Rudd’s, ask his colleagues.

I think Sir Bob over-states the case though. Rudd was hated by almost all of his colleagues. The antipathy towards Cunliffe is more measured and by a smaller proportion of his colleagues.

So, returning to Labour’s leadership contest, I believe Robertson is the standout choice for, as he attracts such warmth and respect from his caucus colleagues, inevitably he will from the wider electorate in the high-profile leader’s position, and will better achieve a united caucus than Cunliffe. …

If anyone can stir this apathetic lot it would more likely be the affable, rugby-playing Robertson.

All of this points up the foolishness of Labour’s candidate and leader selection mechanism. It stands in stark contrast to National’s democratic model in which the electorates choose their candidates and caucus their leader.

A strong endorsement for Robertson from Sir Bob, however not sure it will help him with the members vote!

A reader e-mailed in asking:

I’d be interested to know if 70% of New Zealanders actually earn less than $43,000.

This is in relation to some claims on another blog.

The stat is correct, but it is a fairly meaningless stat. When you see stats about the average or median income for all adult New Zealanders, you need to remember this is including hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who are not actually in work! It includes the 15 year olds at school, the tertiary students in full-time study, the non-working spouses, the beneficiaries, the retired etc.

The more useful stat for me is what is the average hourly income of someone in employment. Because it is people in employment who fund the rest of society.

The latest average hourly wage is $27.55 an hour. That equates to $55,000 a year if you did a 40 hour week. The average or mean is different from the median, but I use it here as Stats NZ only provide the mean in their quarterly stats.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff writes:

The numbers are being done daily, the lead changes depending which camp you talk to, and the gloves are well and truly off in the Labour leadership race.

Warring between David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson supporters spilled into the public arena yesterday, after MP Clare Curran accused Cunliffe supporters of using Mr Robertson’s sexuality as a mark against him. She singled out “Leftwingers” in the party and accused them of “dog whistle” politics for suggesting New Zealand was not ready for a gay prime minister.

Very disappointing if some Labour members are doing that.

However Grant did himself no favours by hiding his partner from the camera in the pub, and denying he was even there, when he was. That shows he himself does think it is a factor.

Some feathers within the party have been ruffled, meanwhile, by Robertson supporters pushing the line there will be an exodus of the party’s rising stars if Mr Cunliffe wins – seen as an attempt to exert pressure on the outcome.

On a different front, the picture over second preferences of the third candidate, Shane Jones, is getting increasingly murky after Mr Cunliffe believed he had been promised them, and Mr Jones denied that.

However, there are rumours that some of Mr Jones’ supporters are openly encouraging his backers to give their second preference to Mr Cunliffe, despite those denials.

In other words, the fog of war has well and truly descended over the Labour leadership race and you can no longer be sure who is telling the truth.

I think there is no doubt Robertson will win a plurality of the Labour caucus votes over Cunliffe. But by my reckoning they do not have a majority and how the six or so Jones voters assign their second preferences will be important. I have two thirds of them going for Cunliffe at the moment leaving it 18 – 16 Robertson-Cunliffe after preferences.

According to some MPs, for instance, the numbers in the caucus remain rock solid behind Mr Robertson at a “solid 18, and probably 20”. Others suggest some of those previously rock solid numbers have crossed to either Mr Jones or Mr Cunliffe.

Still others suggest that the second preferences of Mr Jones’ supporters will swing the caucus vote Mr Cunliffe’s way.

The unions, meanwhile, are split, although a number of small ones have endorsed Mr Cunliffe.

All four of the smaller unions have endorsed Cunliffe. They only make up a third of the union vote. However I am assuming the SWFU members will favour Cunliffe, while most EPMU delegates will vote Robertson. Overall though Cunliffe should win the union vote. My current spreadsheet (which is highly speculative) has Cunliffe get 48%, Robertson 39% and Jones 13%, and then Cunliffe 56% to Robertson 44%.

If you combine that with the caucus vote then Robertson has 30.1% overall and Cunliffe 29.9%. Whomever wins the members vote should win overall unless Robertson can pick up more than 18 votes in caucus.

What it all adds up to is a party as divided over the leadership as ever – and as the election across the Tasman proved, that is not a place where Labour wants to be at the end of this race.

Some Camp Robertson people refer to David Cunliffe as David Ruddliffe 🙂

UPDATE: Things are going from warm to boiling. Duncan Garner writes:

Cunliffe’s nose may just be ahead – but it’s not over: Robertson’s people won’t give up; they seriously dislike Cunliffe, they really do.

They really really do.

I have spoken to a number of Labour MPs in recent days who openly despise Cunliffe. The hatred and bile towards him has not subsided. It actually seems to have got stronger and louder in the final stretch of this race.

One senior MP in the Robertson camp described him to me over the weekend as “an insincere prat” who is “a fake that would be shown up bloody quickly”. Others have described him in similar terms. You get the point.

So what does this mean if Cunliffe wins:

If Cunliffe wins, he will win with just a third of the caucus support. That is unprecedented in NZ politics. Leaders always enjoy the support of at least 50% of their caucus. It’s how politics works.

It means that 20 odd MPs in a caucus of 34 will have voted against Cunliffe becoming leader. Astonishing isn’t it? How sustainable is that?

Grab the popcorn – it ain’t over yet.

The theory I’m now hearing is they give Cunliffe six to nine months if he wins, and if things implode then they roll him and Jones is put up as leader unopposed for the election. Assuming he doesn’t win, then you get Robertson take over after the election. Machiavelli would be proud!

UPDATE: Cunliffe has stood Jenny Michie down from his campaign team for her cements on The Nation. They seemed pretty innocuous to me.

Daniel Fisher at Forbes writes:

Anti-smoking activists call it “plain packaging,” but it’s anything but: The black boxes with strident warnings and gruesome pictures of dying smokers that Australia requires on tobacco products are eye-catching by design.

They’re also drawing the attention of legal scholars who wonder if Australia’s law stripping cigarette companies of the right to use their trademarks could open the door to similar measures against other products activists consider unhealthy.

A pending challenge before the World Trade Organization could determine whether Bloombergian anti-obesity crusaders, say, could require pictures of diabetes-ravaged feet on cans of soda or morbidly obese patients on bags of potato chips.

I have no doubt that the zealots want to extend plain packaging to everything they disapprove of – alcohol, soft drinks, McDonalds, chippies, chocolate etc.

Gervais says he’s no fan of the tobacco companies. But he is concerned that the WTO could diminish trademark rights if it rules in favor of Australia on tobacco packaging. This is the “first TRIPS debate on the intersection between trademarks and health,” he told me. “It’s a huge precedent to set no matter how you cut it.”

Only countries can challenge a national law under the WTO’s dispute-resolution process. So far Cuba, Honduras, the Dominican Republic and the Ukraine have filed complaints against Australia to protect their cigar and cigarette businesses. The U.S. has been conspicuously silent, although it joined some 30 countries and the EU in seeking observer status.(Note: the White House recently revised its position on the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty to allow slightly tighter regulation of  tobacco than other products.)

Interesting observation on the TPP.

The Press reports:

The man charged with fixing the Christchurch City Council’s consenting crisis could be kept on to sort out other issues after impressing the city’s two leading mayoral contenders.

Crown manager Doug Martin was appointed by the Government in July to restore the council’s building consent accreditation, which was stripped after repeated threats to withdraw it were not responded to by council management.

He is paid $2000 a day, with his travel and accommodation costs extra. He is contracted until the end of the year but Lianne Dalziel and Paul Lonsdale are keen for him to stay longer.

His swiftly delivered and concise action plan has received plaudits from within the council but has also not gone unnoticed by the mayoral front-runners, who both see merit in using him to tackle other problems facing what will be a new-look council after next month’s local body elections.

Dalziel said she was “very impressed” with Martin’s thoroughness, expertise and skill in delivering a simple, yet effective action plan.

“That ticked a lot of boxes for me when I saw that,” she said.

If Martin could get to the heart of a serious problem that effectively, she saw potential for him to help the new council look at other issues she suspects it will face.

Doug is a former boss of mine. He is one of the most competent people I have ever known. His company (Martin Jenkins) has an excellent reputation at being able to analyse how a company or organisation is working, and how to improve it.

Lonsdale said Martin’s next project should be a full review of the council’s entire management structure, which he (Lonsdale) described as “bureaucratical constipation”.

That would be a very good idea.

Stuff reports:

Members of Massey University’s Extramural Students’ Society have investigated taking a case to the High Court to oust their president.

But they say they do not have the money to force out president Jeannette “JV” Chapman.

Emotions boiled over at the society’s annual meeting when it was called short yesterday after a lack of members meant a quorum could not be formed – 25 were required and only 12 turned up.

M  I  C  K  E  Y    M   O   U   S    E   …..

But, under the advice of society-contracted business adviser Alan Millar, she disbanded the meeting after seven minutes and faced a barrage of questions about her recent actions – which include allegations she earns more than $50,000 part-time thanks to an executive that was self-appointed.

Outrage was also aimed at Mr Millar’s pay, after members heard he was on a $100-per-hour rate for his advice, a bill also footed by the student-funded society.

After the meeting, Ms Chapman told the Manawatu Standard a lack of student engagement and failure to form a quorum raised no concerns for her.

“Why should it? I’ve been here many years and there’s often been a lack of quorum.”

Quorum, voting – who needs it!

After the meeting, society members asked Ms Chapman for a list of the society’s executive panel, co-opted and elected, to be made publicly available. They also queried why a raft of requests for a special general meeting had been ignored and why an open-floor discussion was not held in place of the canned annual meeting.

“I think you’re being deliberately obtuse . . . your representation of the extramural students is so unbelievably poor; you’re the president and you owe us an explanation,” society member Hannah Pratt said.

Ms Chapman left the room, responding to Ms Pratt: “You’ve got a hostile attitude and I don’t want to speak to you . . . I’m not willing to have an argument with you; I will speak with intelligent people [only].”

A true servant of the people!

January: Jeannette “JV” Chapman was elected unopposed.

April: Ms Chapman dismissed vice-president Dave Crampton.

May: Ms Chapman dissolved the Extramural Students’ Society (EXMSS) executive.

June: She appointed three new members – Sophia Lu, Ruby Nguyen and Shane Field – to “pass budgets”.

August: Ms Chapman proposed a constitutional change to make her salary fortnightly, rather than quarterly, and to scrap four executive positions, which she said were overdue changes her predecessors had wanted.

Note that Massey University forces all extra mural students to fund EXMSS, through a contract they have signed with them. Shame.

I’ve been compiling a list of pledges and endorsements for each of the three Labour candidates. Welcome any additions or corrections. The state of play this morning is:

David Cunliffe endorsements

1. Chris Trotter
2. John Tamihere
3. Brian Edwards
4. Mike Williams
5. Jenny Michie
6. David Farrar
7. Gordon Campbell
8. Fran O’Sullivan
9. Cactus Kate
10. Otago Daily Times
11. Manawatu Standard
12. Greg Presland
13. Morgan Godfery
14. John Minto
15. Mike Lee
16. Taranaki Daily News
17. Brian Rudman
18. Anjum Rahman
19. John Armstrong
20. Martyn Bradbury
21. Selwyn Manning
22. Rod Oram
23. Scott Yorke
24. Colin Espiner
25. Keith Locke

Shane Jones endorsements

1. Sonny Tau
2. Stuart Nash
3. Kelvin Davis
4. Guyon Espiner
5. Willie Jackson
6. Cameron Slater
7. Dover Samuels
8. Hone Harawira
9. Labour’s Te Kaunihera Māori

Grant Robertson endorsements

1. Michael Cullen
2. Matthew Hooton
3. Vernon Small
4. Titewhai Harawira
5. Andrew Geddis
6. Rebecca Matthews
7. Sir Bob Jones

Again please let me know of any additions or changes as I plan to keep updating and republishing this page.

Stuff reports:

Government agencies spent more than $1.5 million on personality and ability testing in the past year – and some departments may be using the results to swing the axe on employees.

Employment lawyers and psychologists say the increasing use of psychometric testing as part of restructures and redundancies in the public service could be illegal.

I think psychometric testing can be very useful when recruiting candidates, and have seen it used often very usefully.

However I am very skeptical that it is a good idea to use it for decision making on redundancies among existing staff. Employers should know enough about their current staff that they can make decisions around restructuring without psychometric testing.

Public Service Association national secretary Brenda Pilott said it was calling on the State Services Commissioner to halt the use of testing for restructures.

“When you’re restructuring, you are dealing with people who are your staff. They will have had performance reviews – there should be very little you find out about that person from a psychometric test you don’t already know.”

But a State Services Commission spokeswoman disagreed, saying: “Such testing, in order to obtain a full picture of a candidate, is a legitimate tool alongside others, such as interviews and reference checking, to come to a considered decision on employing the best people.”

I’m with the PSA on this one. The SSC argument applies well for recruitment but restructuring is different.

One of the parties that won a Senate seat, the Australian Liberal Democrats, is a libertarian party, which is cool. But how did they win? Did they get just 200 or so votes like some parties?

News.com.au reports:

The party attracted an avalanche of votes after fluking first position on the ballot paper.

“I didn’t design the system,” a defiant Mr Leyonhjelm said.

Their Senate voting system really is quite busted when random ballot listing order determines if you make it. They got a staggering 280,000 first preferences!

He said Tony Abbott faces challenges to some of his landmark policies.

“We wouldn’t stop him from getting rid of the carbon tax,” he said.

“But when it comes to his big spending plans he may be in trouble, such as direct action on climate change and his paid parental leave – he won’t be getting any support from us.

“We would much rather have tax cuts.”

Mr Leyonhjelm described his party as libertarian and said it advocated less government control, assisted suicide, a flat 20 per cent income tax rate and giving people right to carry concealed weapons for their personal safety.

One could do with more Senators like that!

The aspiring Prime Ministers have been busy with their promises since my last update. In fact I hear on the grapevine that their promises have even started to alarm some of their colleagues, including David Parker who would have to produce an alternate budget that could find it all!

If you spot or hear a pork promise, let me know so I can keep the list updated!

For those interested, Croking is a new site that allows you to submit experiences and ideas about well known brands. They have a few NZ ones there.

A reader posted this question to me. NZ Superannuation is set at 66% of the average wage (for a couple).

Now if you jerk up the effective minimum wage from $13.75 to $18.40 per hour, that will increase the average wage significantly.

That will then mean the rate of NZ Superannuation will increase significantly, making it more unaffordable.

Any economists out there want to take a stab at what the extra cost of NZ Super would be if the minimum wage was $18.40?

Mike Hosking writes:

National standards in my personal experience has been an exceedingly simple exercise which has involved the teachers of my kids either in an interview situation or through a number of school reports pointing out what’s been achieved in any given subject, where my kid sits within that achievement and where that achievement sits within the national standards criteria. I know where they are currently and where they are supposed to be by the end of the year. It has come in the form of shaded charts or graphs and it’s come in the form of numbers.

The only tricky part was when I initially saw them, I double guessed myself by thinking it can’t be this easy, I am sure I am reading something wrong here because all I’d heard was this was a mess, schools didn’t know what they were doing, schools didn’t like it, and it was impossible to collate the information. So I was ready for some whiteboard PowerPoint presentation that would leave me emotionally exhausted and mentally drained at its complexity, when in reality it turned out to be nothing of the sort.

Here’s the simple truth. Parents want and like to know where there kid is at. They like knowing something more specific than ‘they’re doing fine’ or ‘they’re settling in nicely’. National standards places them. It places them ahead, on or behind others around the country. And when you know that, you start to work out how much of that performance or lack of it is the child’s, is the teacher’s, or is the school’s. In other words, you know what’s what.

To be worried about that as those who have spent so much time scaring the bejesus out of us clearly are requires a mindset and view of the world I have trouble getting my head around.

Knowledge is power, neither is a bad thing.

I know many parents who have said much the same. They were frustrated that the reports they used to get were fairly vague on how their kids were doing. They love National Standards as it has allowed them greater knowledge of how their kids are doing in the three core areas, and allows them to work out if they need to be doing more.

The Herald reported:

Seven to go. Emirates Team NZ lead 2 to -2 in the 34th America’s Cup.

But, okay, Sir Russell Coutts and Larry Ellison, you can take a bow now. That was all that was promised.

Maybe there should be medical disclaimers: you know, ‘Doctors warn that watching the America’s Cup can be hazardous to your health’.
It’s difficult to remember (possibly because there isn’t one) an America’s Cup this tense.
In race one, we saw the previously unseen – lead changes. Two of them . Count them. There was aggressive sailing from Oracle Team USA skipper Jimmy Spithill, nail-biting near misses and enough to know this is going to be a close-run thing.

These two boats are close in speed and close in the skill that sails them. When Team NZ seemed to be in control, Spithill struck. Barker rounded the bottom mark close to the actual mark to choke Spithill and OTUSA off.

He lost impetus, OTUSA pulled off a slingshot move round the outside, gaining advantage and momentum. Later in the third leg, upwind, the USA team tacked aggressively, wresting the lead off Team NZ. But Barker struck back, with Aotearoa’s expected upwind speed a boon, and tacked back into the lead – establishing the control that led to a 36s win.

That was like a race of old. Actual race tactics, rather than just being about the best design!

Race 3 and 4 will have occurred by the time this appears. I’m on a plane at the moment! Hopefully now 4 to -2.

The next races are:

Wednesday, September 11 

Race Five 0810 – 0840
Race Six 0910 – 0940

Friday, September 13 

Race Seven 0810 – 0840
Race Eight 0910 – 0940

Sunday, September 15 

Race Nine 0810 – 0840
Race 10 0910 – 0940

Monday, September 16 
Race 11 0810 – 0840
Race 12 0910 – 0940

Wednesday, September 18 

Race 13 0810 – 0840
Race 14 0910 – 0940

Friday, September 20 

Race 15 0810 – 0840
Race 16 0910 – 0940

Sunday, September 22 

Race 17 0810 – 0840

Brian Edwards blogs:

Shane Jones is one of only two people I have ever hung up on. Trevor Mallard is the other. I don’t take well to being bullied or abused.

Now that’s a good opening line!

I do Mallard an injustice by mentioning him in the same context as Jones. I have considerable respect for Trevor and nothing but contempt for Jones.

If I ever had doubts that such contempt was deserved, they would have vanished over the past couple of weeks in the face of his numerous appearances on television. This is not a man the Labour Party can ever afford to have as its Leader. This is not a man the country can ever afford to have as its Prime Minister. He would almost certainly bring shame to both offices.

Little chance Shane will be Leader or PM. But he could well end up Deputy if that is the price of his support for second preferences.

Here’s Jones on his Dalmatian forefathers: ‘I tell you what, a lot of them were fairly lusty individuals, because they didn’t always marry those Maori wahines they applied their biological gum-spears to.’ (Penis reference. Espiner laughs.)

Jones again, following his call to David Cunliffe: ‘What the hell is a soft piece. Doing things in a soft fashion has never really been a failing of mine’ (Penis reference presumably boasting his ability to sustain an erection. Espiner finds this very funny.)

And here’s Jones, in a speech referring to what he intended to do to John Key:  ‘I’m going to tie a bungy cord around a sensitive spot and then I’m going to get those callipers and cut them, and then the mercenary of capitalism can suffer what he deserves – a dead cat bounce.” (Reference to castrating John Key)

And Jones on Labour’s proposed ‘man ban’: ‘… the overwhelming response [in his electorate] is the public doesn’t want the country run by geldings.’ (Reference to women as castrated male horses.)

Brian is right to point out that Shane does seem rather obsessed with certain appendages.

He definitely has mass appeal, but he is also a bit of a walking time bomb.

A very good report on the role of evidence in policy formation and implementation from Sir Peter Gluckman. I am a fan of more use of evidence based policy.

Sir Peter notes:

All of this occurs within a complex and uncertain environment where human responses and decision-making are influenced by many factors other than well-informed knowledge. Indeed, as I have stated previously, my view is that quality evidence should be seen as base knowledge on which, in a democracy, multiple values and associated perspectives must be overlaid. However, where evidence is conflated with values, its power is diminished. Where evidence is not considered properly, the risk of less than desirable policy outcomes is inevitable.

For instance, it is possible for the research process to be corrupted by inputs that are not objective, or by the failure to recognise personal biases in bringing forward evidence. Researchers can become impassioned advocates for a cause that their expertise could meaningfully inform dispassionately

I can think of a number of areas, such as public health, where researchers are impassioned advocates to put it mildly.

They key recommendations are:

1. Develop a standard set of protocols across government regarding obtaining expert scientific advice;
2. Extend the use of Departmental Science Advisors (DSAs) more broadly across government;
3. Use the community of DSAs and the Chief Science Advisor to assist central agencies with longer-term planning, risk assessment and evaluation;
4. Improve and make more explicit the use of government funds for research to assist policy formation;
5. Provide greater transparency regarding the use of research-informed data (or its absence) with respect to complex and controversial areas of decision-making where the public is directly or indirectly consulted.

I like the idea of each principal agency having a Departmental Science Advisor.

The AFR reports:

The ABC’s Antony Green is forecasting a Senate with 33 Liberal/National seats, 25 Labor, 10 Greens, one Democratic Labour Party and seven “others”.

The counting in the Senate can take up to four weeks but at the moment those “others” are Democratic Liberal Party in NSW, Palmer United Party in Queensland and Tasmania, Independent Nick Xenophon and a Family First candidate in South Australia, Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party in Victoria and Australian Sports Party in Western Australia.

So, even though the Liberals haven’t gained control of the Senate, they will have a conservative right-leaning cross bench who will support his aim of getting rid of the carbon and mining tax.

What a mess. They will be able to pass laws, but imagine the trade offs. The motoring party and the sports party! Their Senate STV voting system is pretty fucked. The number of first preference votes for the Australian Sports Party in WA was 225 out of a million!

You need 39 votes to pass the Senate, so they need six out of seven independents. Would be worse if they needed all seven as each one could hold out for the maximum pork.

Stuff reports:

National Party MP Alfred Ngaro allegedly punched an atheist teacher at his son’s school for not bowing his head during a prayer.

Ngaro, a list MP and former chairman of the Tamaki College Board of Trustees, was last week dragged into the Employment Relations Authority dispute between Tamaki College and former art teacher Christopher Scott Roy.

Roy claims he was constructively dismissed because he is an atheist and Tamaki College saw Christianity as “a core responsibility to which he was indifferent”.

Roy added a new allegation to his employment claim, telling ERA member Tania Tetitaha that in 2009 he was assaulted by Ngaro as he was leaving a First XV rugby after-match function at Kings College.

This is a claim made suddenly, years later, in the midst of an employment dispute.

I know Alfred Ngaro. I find the claims preposterous. I can’t think of someone less likely to punch someone.

Stuff reports:

Six people have been selected as Labour candidates for the Christchurch East by-election, which will left vacant when Lianne Dalziel resigns as she bids for the Christchurch mayoralty.

As previously revealed James Caygill, a senior manager at Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and the son of former Finance Minister David Caygill, is one of the six, who will attempt to continue Labour’s long held stranglehold over the seat.

The other candidates are:

– Karen Hayes, a registered nurse and midwife for more than 25 years.

– Christina Laalaai-Tausa, a PhD candidate at the University of Canterbury who has lectured at the University of Samoa.

– Tina Lomax, the principal of Kingslea School for 15 years.

– Deon Swiggs, a founding member of the Canterbury Insurance Assistance Service.

– Poto Williams, the regional manager of St john of God Hauora Trust.

The selection is on 21 September.

Both Caygll and Swiggs look fairly promising (for Labour candidates!).

Don’t know anything about Hayes or Laalaai-Tausa.

Lomax was a member of the Burwood Pegasus Community Board for six years. I understand she is a well regarded principal of a school that does a lot with disadvantaged kids. She’s been there for almost 30 years.

She sought the Christchurch Central nomination in 2008 but lost to Brendon Burns, as did James Caygill.

Wiliams has a history with non-profits, and has an MBA from Southern Cross University.

Later today I fly to Hong Kong, and then drive into China where I’ll be a guest of Huawei for five days. Their NZ arm invited me over to have a look at their operations, see some of their 4G networks in operation etc.

Huawei is now the largest manufacturer of telecommunications gear in the world. They have around 140,000 staff and annual sales of US$22 US$35 billion. Their customers include BT, Vodafone, Motorola, France Telecom and closer to home I think they are suppliers to almost every telco – Telecom, Vodafone, 2 degrees and Chorus.

Now some readers may be aware that parts of the US Government have alleged Huawei is a security risk, and their equipment allows the Chinese Government and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army access to any data on their networks.

There has never been any evidence of this, and personally my feeling is that this is more de facto trade protectionism from some US companies, trying to get rid of a competitor. Why do I think this? Well, take it in four parts – willingness, ability, secrecy and impact.

In terms of willingness, do I think the Chinese Government would have any ethical concerns about using a company to grab some unauthorised data. Absolutely not.

But the next question, is can you actually design equipment with a secret back door, that none of your customers can detect, and they don’t notice unauthorised data flowing through their networks.  I’m not an expert, but I don’t think it is that easy to do.

The big issue for me, where the theory falls down is how many people would have to be involved in the conspiracy for a major billion dollar company to be a front for the PLA. It would be at least 500 to 1,000 people. This couldn’t be done by one or two people. And my hard and fast rule is that any conspiracy that involves more than two people inevitably leaks out. Frankly it is the realms of fantasy to think an entire company could be installing secret back doors and not a single person would ever reveal the truth.

The fourth and final factor is impact. I’d say the economic success of Huawei is worth far far more to China, than any data they might pick up if there was some secret back door. If there was a secret back door, and it got discovered, it would destroy the company overnight. They’d lose every contract they have, and a $20 billion a year company would be worthless. So would you rationally make that choice?

As it happens I have a session with their head of security, and if any readers have questions they want me to ask, feel free to suggest them below.

Anyway the security issue is for me a bit of a red herring. I understand neither the NZ Government, or its security agencies, have found any justification for them at all. I only mentioned them here, as I’m sure people would raise it if I didn’t. The fact every telco in NZ uses Huawei speaks volumes. I’m a big believer in free markets and think it is great companies like Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent have vigorous competition. Consumers are the winners when you have competitive markets.

Now somewhat ironically, I’m not sure how much I’ll be able to blog while in China. Last time I was there in Beijing a few years ago, Kiwiblog seemed to be on the blocked list for the Great Firewall of China. So if you don’t see any blog posts for a while, that is why. However also in Hong Kong for a bit, so definitely will be able to do updates from there.