The Dom Post editorial:

The Aids Foundation supports the right of HIV-positive patients to conceal their condition from their sexual partners provided they use proper protection. It could not be more wrong.

Everybody who enters into a sexual relationship has a fundamental right to be fully informed about any risk they might be exposing themselves to. HIV might not be the near-certain death sentence it once was, and the risk of transmitting it through sex might be small with the right protection, but there is still a risk. Condoms can be faulty, they can break and can be ineffective if not properly used. It is unconscionable to advocate the right for somebody to expose another person to that risk without them knowing.

I agree absolutely. Anyone with any STD should disclose it to their sexual partner in advance. Condoms are not infalliable. If both partners know they can make an informed decision about consent and precautions.

The Court of Appeal ruling that awarded ACC cover to a woman who suffered mental trauma after discovering she had been having unprotected sex with an HIV-positive man sets an important precedent in that regard. It opens the door to sexual violation charges in cases where people who have the disease fail to tell their partners.

In some cases, that would be appropriate. Consent needs to be informed consent.

The Aids Foundation claims that allowing sexual violation charges against people who know they have HIV but fail to tell their sexual partners will increase discrimination and lead to a “significant decrease” in testing. That is a cop-out. The Court of Appeal case was not about the rights of people with HIV, but the rights of those with whom they wish to have sex to have a full understanding of the possible consequences.

The Aids Foundation disagrees. It is happy for those who have HIV to keep that secret from their sexual partners, provided they use condoms and lubricant. Its position is irresponsible and does nothing to engender confidence that it has the community’s health as its highest priority.

I agree. There’s little point in people getting tested if they can conceal the results from their sexual partners.

Conor O’Brien at NBR reports:

Half of the Maritime Union’s bargaining team were disciplined and two were sacked during collective agreement negotiations with Ports of Auckland (PoAL),NBR Online can reveal.

PoAL’s organisational strategist Rod Lingard says a series of disciplinary actions made the union look like a “biker gang” rather than a responsible union in the modern era.

“Of the eight people in the union’s bargaining team we have had to discipline four of them,” Mr Lingard says.

Now what were they disciplined for? Was it just because they were union delegates?

Mr McKean was sacked on September 20 for publishing a racist and sexist piece in the union’s national magazine.

We have profiled Mr McKean’s work before.

Mr Harrison was sacked on January 24 after an investigation concluded he made violent threats against a non-union employee and his family, calling the employee a “f**king piece of s**t”.

Charming.

Mr Findlay was given his final warning after he took a letter from under his manager’s locked door using a ruler.

Oh, a thief.

Another PoAL employee Andrew Angus, a former member of the union’s executive, was dismissed after writing the following job application and posting it anonymously under an administrator’s door. 

Kia ora bro,

I wish to make application for the the position of ship Leading Hand. I feel too intellegant to drive straddles all my life. If it helps I can do a month or two on the sunbed- My great grandfather was one of the priests for the Island of Tualvau and he taught them bannans grown on trees. 

Yours the Best Billy.T. James

Mr Angus was reinstated while his case was heard by the Employment Relations Authority but was sacked a second time after he was caught on camera throwing a twist-lock under a straddle crane. Twist-locks are used to secure containers together on board ships and can cause straddle cranes to tip if they get caught under their wheels. 

Good unions work to have safer workplaces, not sabotage equipment.

Mr Lingard says a fifth union member, official delegate Dave Phillips, who was not employed by PoAL, was served a trespass notice in December after he entered the port’s mess-room and threatened non-union employees with violence.

Remember MUNZ is a proud affiliate member of the Labour Party, and Labour MPs are down on their picket line.

UPDATE: And another MUNZer speaks up to Whale:

Message: u leave cecil walker alone u bastard do u get off on thiskind of stuff tell u what anymore comments about my bros personal life an u r going to get utu i aint fuken jokn etha its not hard to findout were u r so back off

That’s very sad. Not the threat so much – they have a well documented history of threatening and intimidation. But the child like text speak in an e-mail. Please tell me that man is not in charge of a crane somewhere.

David Shearer talked about Finland six times in his speech.

People may be interested to know their unemployment rate is currently 7.8% and NZ’s is 6.3%.

Those sheep and cows in NZ are not doing too badly.

Andrea Vance reports:

Labour list MP Louisa Wall is using taxpayer money to rent her Manurewa electorate office – from her civil-union partner.

Although within the rules, the loophole has previously sparked debate about who should benefit from parliamentary funding arrangements.

Three years ago it was revealed seven MPs – including Prime Minister John Key and current Cabinet ministers Phil Heatley, Gerry Brownlee and Amy Adams – had bought their offices and then billed the taxpayer for the rent.

MPs are given a capped allowance to cover the cost of running offices outside Wellington. They must declare if they have a pecuniary interest.

Ms Wall says Prue Kapua bought the Manurewa office in December after she won her safe seat.

The former Silver and Black Fern insists the Great South Rd property is being rented at below market value and she is not benefiting financially. She could not say how much the rent was.

Parliamentary Service said it does not discuss individual MPs. However, a spokeswoman said if “a partner/significant other/member owns a property, a market valuation is taken and the rental payment by the service is based on that valuation”.

This story was broken by Whale Oil, and I am surprised that the Stuff story doesn’t reflect he (or at least someone other than them) broke this story.

As to the substance, my views are:

• It is desirable for electorate offices not to be owned by anyone associated with the MP, so it is an arms length transaction
• Sometimes there may be compelling grounds for an MP to own their electorate office, so they have security of tenure, and can modify the building as they see fit.
• In the case where an MP (or family member) owns the building, the rent should be set well below market level – say 50% of market, so there is no suggestion that the MP owning the building is profiting from it.
• Also in the case where the MP (or family member) owns the building, the level of rent should automatically be publicly disclosed

I don’t think the status quo is good enough, when an MPs or their partner can get paid market rental for their building. They are still benefiting from having the MP able to guarantee them as a tenant for three years. Any rental in this situation should be well below market levels, and should be public.

Records show the property was sold on November 9 to a company called TKL. Ms Kapua, a lawyer, is the sole shareholder and director. It was bought for $405,000, $25,000 less than the July rateable value.

“There is a list of MPs who own their own offices … so your question to me is what?” Ms Wall said.

It was incorrect to say the property was bought before the election. But she added: “I don’t know when it was bought, but it was bought after the general election.

Louisa is incorrect here. The property was purchased by her partner around three weeks before the election.

David Shearer delivered his much heralded new direction speech this morning. It was so hyped up Labour even said they were live streaming it. However the live stream was a disaster according to a number of readers. It barely worked, kept going offline and had ads running on it!

The speech text is here:

You may know that P.T. Barnum was the man who founded the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus.

He was a showman, he was a businessman, he was a scam artist.

Early in his career, he created an exhibit called The Happy Family.

It had just one cage, and in that cage there was a lion, a tiger, a panther, and a baby lamb.

It was a huge hit.

People would line up to see it.

At this point I thought David was doing an analogy about the Labour Party caucus!

And as it grew more and more popular, the newspapers would ask him what his plans were for this amazing display.

He said to them: “It’ll probably become a permanent feature – but only if the supply of lambs holds out.”

In any sense you want to put it, literal or figurative, that’s how we’re running things in New Zealand.

We’re going to keep on doing things the way we are … for as long as the supply of lambs holds out.

We’re going to go right on relying on property market bubbles and a small basket of primary produce exports to earn our living and we’re going to go on borrowing money to pay for a standard of living we can’t afford.

The old New Zealand needs to do more than just primary produce.

He’s not the first Labour Leader to say this. 26 years ago David Lange pronounced farming is a sunset industry. Helen Clark talked about the knowledge wave and economic transformation to reduce the reliance on agriculture. The reality is every Government for 25 years has been saying this.

I’ve always believed the best argument in favour of a capital gains tax was the economic effect it had.

A CGT is pro-growth. It helps switch investment from sectors such as housing, to the productive sector where we desperately need more capital.

Over time I can also see the revenue it raises being used to offset the tax you have to pay in other areas.

So I can see a role for CGT in transforming our economy.

Now this is potentially good. Goff promoted a CGT to fund extra spending – a new version of tax and spend. That I do not support. But I do support a broad base low rate tax system. If Labour propose a CGT which is broadly fiscally neutral, and allows tax on labour and savings etc to be lowered, that is more credible.

On the other hand, I would want to ask whether a tax-free zone that gives everyone the same sized tax cut is going to be as much of a priority.

Everyone should not get the same sized tax cut. Tax cuts should broadly be proportional to the tax you pay.

But the reality is that any overall reduction in the level of taxation can only occur once we are back in surplus.

Any government I lead is going to be thrifty.

New Zealanders can trust Labour to manage the books.

I’d like to believe that. But Labour has opposed every spending cut done by National. They were even against capping the number of civil servants, let alone reducing them.

Instead of the distraction over national standards, we need to focus on how we get the highest quality teachers in the world and the best performing students.

National standards are not a distraction. They are key performance indicators. But I welcome a focus on quality teachers and look forward to Labour’s policy on performance pay.

Study after study shows that the most important ingredient is the quality of teachers.

We need to value teachers.

We need every teacher in our classroom to be a good one.

The vast majority are. But the truth is some are not.

We will work with teachers to develop their professional skills, but ultimately we can’t afford to have bad teachers in our classrooms.

Good rhetoric from a Labour leader. It is an encouraging sign. But we will need policy to back up the rhetoric.

UPDATE: Rob Hosking reports:

Candyfloss is not a particularly nutritious breakfast.

But that is what Labour leader David Shearer delivered to a Wellington business breakfast this morning.

In a speech long on fluffy words and not-particularly original aspirational ideas but virtually policy-free, Mr Shearer set out his vision for New Zealand.

It involves having more nice things, and having fewer bad things, apparently,

New Zealand should have more companies like Nokia, Mr Shearer urged his audience, as if it were a new idea.

Sorry, but there are kids at university who were not born when politicians started talking about how New Zealand having a company like Nokia would be kind of a neat idea.

National MP Maurice Williamson used to do it in the 1990s.

And

A fair chunk of the speech was devoted to education, but, again, it was all empty calories and empty words, with no policy meat at all.

” I want the best educational achievement in the world,” Mr Shearer said, as if this makes him and his party any different from anyone else.
How to do this?
“We need to value teachers. We need every teacher in our classroom to be a good one. The vast majority are. But the truth is some are not.

“We will work with teachers to develop their professional skills, but ultimately we can’t afford to have bad teachers in our classrooms. “

How would Labour do this?

The only answer Mr Shearer put up was that this would be done by “focusing” on it.

Ouch.

This might be the biggest beatup of the year. TV3 reports:

Labour says a promise by John Key in 2008 shows he has misled the public over job cuts in the public service.

3 News has dug out never seen before footage of Mr Key promising “no job cuts” to the Public Service Association Conference back in 2008.

In fact in a response to a question that day Mr Key argued selling assets didn’t make for a better economy.

“Nor am I hell bent on selling assets, actually in the world of making the boat go faster, actually, I don’t think selling assets actually makes the boat go faster.”

So a speech four years ago before the global economic crisis and before the surplus disappeared into a decade of deficits is seen as a “broken promise” today. Note that Labour and the PSA supplied the video the day before Key’s speech setting out change tomorrow.

The global economic crisis meant National reduced public sector jobs in the first term -just as id cancelled further tax cuts also. Is the PSA demanding National should have kept their tax cuts?

And most of all, National got re-elected in 2011 with explicit policies that there would be asset part-sales, and further cost cutting in the state sector. So how one can claim a 2011 election manifesto is trumped by a 2008 speech, I don’t know.

UPDATE: TV3 inform me that no one supplied them with the video, it was from their library archive.

Further to my post on the  intolerance of diversity of opinion in Labour, a fascinating report by Pew on online behaviour in the US. They use the terms liberals, conservatives and moderates, which broadly are left, right and centre.

They look at behaviour amongst users of social networking sites (SNS). They find:

• blocked/unfriended/hidden someone because they posted something you disagree with – 16% of liberals, 6% moderates, 8% conservatives
• blocked/unfriended/hidden someone because they disagreed with something you posted  – 11% of liberals, 1% moderates, 4% conservatives

So twice as many liberals as conservatives block someone because they posted something they disagree with, and almost three times as many block you if you disagree with something they have posted.

Worth pointing out that the vast majority of both liberals and conservatives don’t block people just because they disagree with what they say.

Matthew Theunissen at NZ Herald reports:

Prisoners would get telephones, televisions and “electronic menu” systems in the cells of a private prison in south Auckland under plans being considered by the Department of Corrections.

British-based company Serco, which will manage the new 960-bed prison at Wiri, has introduced the technology in its prisons overseas and wants to do the same here.

The proposal includes introducing “custodial management system” screens to prison units – and in some cases to individual cells – so inmates could order meals, write shopping lists, add credit to phone accounts and see weekly timetables.

Serco said the introduction of in-cell telephones in its overseas prisons had resulted in significant improvements in prison security, including a drop in the number of prisoners trying to smuggle cellphones. …

Canterbury University Professor of Sociology and former Paremoremo Prison inmate Greg Newbold said introducing the technology was clearly a cost-cutting exercise.

“Those private prisons have to run at a profit and 80 per cent of the cost of running prisons is in manpower.

“If you can do the administrative things electronically, you reduce the need for staff on the floor and you can run a prison more efficiently and more cheaply.

Excellent.

Corrections Association president Beven Hanlon said the in-cell technology could save prison officers hours of mundane paperwork.

“At the moment if the prisoner wants something they have to come up to an officer and request it, so introducing these screens would mean if they’re short on toilet paper or they need a new toothbrush etc they can just enter it in.”

“But they should use it in the right way – let’s not get crazy on it and turn these places into the Hilton.”

Good to see the Corrections Assn in favour of a potential benefit of having a private operator.

In my blog at Stuff, I ask the question who should rank party lists?

I wonder if a Minister of the Crown has ever arrested someone before? Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Courts Minister and former detective Chester Borrows has been brushing off his old skills, performing a “citizen’s arrest” and turning in a hitch-hiker who allegedly stole his cellphone.

Mr Borrows said he had given a lift to the young man on Monday.

“You do someone a good turn … It was no real big deal. I picked up this hitch-hiker  it was pouring with rain, so I thought, pick him up, give him a lift,” said Mr Borrows, a former detective sergeant.

“And then when he jumped out of the car I noticed my cellphone had gone for a walk. As you can imagine it’s full of highly confidential addresses and stuff. So I hooked him back to give him a bit of a speaking to.

“He denied having it and he did a bit of a bag search and didn’t find it. Then he mysteriously needed to go around the back of the building to relieve himself. I then went around there and found that he had dropped the thing under some iron behind the building so I grabbed the cellphone and grabbed him and marched him around the corner to the cop shop.”

By coincidence it was the police station in Patea where Mr Borrows had served a stint.

Good on Chester for both picking up a hitchhiker, and for nabbing him when he turned out to be a thief.

Radio NZ reports:

New Zealand First is refusing to take part in the Government’s constitutional review.

The review is looking into matters such as the size of Parliament, Maori representation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution.

But New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says it is sham designed to sneak the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi into all laws.

This is so typical. An inability to actually contribute constructively to anything – just mindless opposition. It would be one thing to take part, and then if you didn’t like the recommendations to depart, condemning them. But to refuse to even participate in the first place, means that you have made your mind up to oppose it regardless of what is recommended. And that is a pity because constitutional changes should have as much support as possible.

Peters lies that it is all about the Treaty. In fact many of the issues under consideration are ones he has championed – the size of Parliament and electoral integrity (waka jumping) laws. So NZ First has said we don’t want to even advocate for policies we have supported in the past.

A guest post by Peter Freedman:

Recently at a small party, conversation died. To liven it up again our host asked us to name out Ten Favourite Movies.

So we each sat in a corner of the room and wrote them down. Everyone had finished with a quarter of an hour. Everybody, bar one. Guess who?

I said I was having trouble whittling them down and needed a larger piece of paper.

“How many have you got to choose from?” said mein host courageously.

“Not many,” I cheerily replied. “Down to the last 172, should be finished in an hour. My wife sighed and gave one of her famous  “What the f- is he up to NOW?” looks.

Anyway, this is my ten for now, Tomorrow the list will be quite different.

1. Inherit the Wind. I am amazed at the number of so called film buffs who have never heard of this film. A real classic based loosely on the Tennessee monkey trial. Now, there wasn’t a chimp in the dock but might as well have been for all the importance the defendant was ,The trial was over a school teacher persuaded by the CLU to test the state law which barred the teaching of evolution. The pawn is played by Dick York later Darren as he was Bewitched.

   The two real antagonists were, in reality, the legal leviathans Clarence Darrow (Spencer Tracey) and William Jennings Bryan (Frederic March),.The men were lifelong friends, Bryan stood unsuccessfully for President with Darrow’s support. But the two drifted apart and found themselves squaring off in a  mall Bible Belt town,.Tracey and March are, of course, brilliant, and so is Harry Morgan (Colonel Potter in Mash) as a befuddled  judge. But star of the show is Gene Kelly, who doesn’t dance a step but cleans up in the role of a cynical big city news hound. His best line comes as Bryan is welcomed into the town by the good citizens all singing in unison: “Gimme that Old Time Religion” Seeing Kelly as a stranger needing a bed, one worthy woman asks him if he needs a nice, clean place to stay” “I had one,” says Kelly, “but I left it to come here.”
   

2.  Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Surely needs no introduction here, the greatest Aussie film ever made. Knocks that fat girl’s wedding for six. If Dame Edna had accepted a part it would have been No 1. If you haven’t seen it you have missed what one diminutive Asian lady can do with table tennis balls. No more hints, but please remember to duck.
   
3. The Bird Cage. I didn’t care for Mr R Williams till I saw him in this. He’s brilliant but he doesn’t steal the show. Nathan Lane as the “lady” of the house almost takes the honours in his campest performance, but I give my Oscar to Gene Hackman as the tight laced Senator who finds his daughter wants to marry into one of THOSE sort of families. The final scene where a blond-wigged Hackman in drag escapes the paparazzi to the tune of “We are Family” must be one of the funniest in movie history.
   
4.  Casablanca. Nothing more to say, move on. Louis, this could be the start of a beautiful friendship. PS: If anyone bets you “Play it again Sam, is this movie’s most famous line take them on. Bergman begs: “Play it Sam, play as Time Goes By.” There is no “again” never was and never will.
   
5. The African Queen. Bogey and his longtime co-star Bergman sail down an African river to torpedo a German boat with home made weaponry. Look for a superb cameo role by the rotund Richard Morley.
   
6. Mississippi Burning. Hackman again, this time as an unconventional FBI man alongside William Dafoe, the straight man. They go to the Miss to investigate the death of two white guys and a negro who had been campaigning for black rights. Closely allied to a real story. Many memorable moments, but the best has to be when a negro hired by the FBI kidnaps the town Mayor and holds him in a small shed, threatening to castrate him if he doesn’t cough. “Do you know, Mr Mayor, how much you bleed when your balls are cut off?”
   
7. Stand By Me. I hate Stephen King but this is magic. A group of young boys go looking for a body and learn the realities of life. Too many stars and great scenes to mention but the classic line has to be “Suck my fat one, you cheap dimestore hood!”
   
8. Romeo and Juliet – the de Caprio/Clare Danes version by a nose from the delightful Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting. The Leslie Howard version made in the 30s doesn’t even get to the gate. FFS Romeo was about 17, not 42!
   
9. Shakespeare in Love. Even if you hate the Bard you HAVE to see this. If R and J wasn’t written this way it should have been. Dame Judi takes the cake with her OTT Queen Liz 1 and has the best line, muttering “too late, too late” when  the men are tardy in lowering their capes to prevent the royal tootsies encountering the London mud.
   
10. White Heat. Had to get Cagney in somewhere. Along with E G Robinson’s Little Caesar, this is the quintessential gangster movie. Cagney is awesome as the psychopathic killer Codey Jarrett, but Margaret Whycherly steals her scenes as Ma Jarrett. Almost certainly based on the reallife Ma Barker. Ma Jarrett is evil, immoral, unscrupulous and magnificent.

So there it is. Some great movies didn’t make it, like almost anything based on Dickens. Some Like It Hot, with the immortal line uttered by Dave Barry, a besotted millionaire with the hots for Miss Jack Lemmon. As the couple speed away in his motorboat, Lemmon finally has to come clean. I can’t marry, you, I drink. That’s okay says Barry. I smoke say Lemmon. I don’t mind, Barry replies. I can’t give you children. No problem, we’l l adopt some. Lemmon flings off his wig and shouts: “I can’t marry you, I’m a man!” Barry doesn’t hesitate.

“Well, nobody’s perfect,” he says.

That’s my list, How about giving yours?

This isn’t a top 10, but some movies I love and can always watch again.

1. Shawshank Redemption
2. Love Actually
3. Four weddings and a funeral
4. Kick-Ass
5. Lord of the Rings
6. Blues Brothers
7. Kill Bill Vol I
8. South Park
9. Life of Brian
10. Star Wars Episode IV
11. The Omen (I and II)
12. Alien
13. No Way Out
14. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
15. Ben-Hur

I’m probably going to regret doing this – defending a Labour politician from her peers. The last time I did it was in the late 90s in 3.2 (Beehive Bar) as a number of Alliance supporters were weighing into the then President of Young Labour and basically abusing her and calling her names for not being pure enough. They said she was just the smiling softer face of capitalism etc and there was little difference between her and the Nats – she wasn’t a true revolutionary etc.

I started to intercede on her behalf, pointing out that Labour needs to have a broader appeal than the Alliance etc. I thought I was doing a good job , until she punched me in the arm and hissed in my ear that on what planet do I think having someone who works in the National PM’s Office defending her actually helps her with the left. She had a fair point, and I desisted my efforts to argue on her behalf.

The old saying is that National is a broad church, and it is. You have people who would happily sell every asset that moves, and you have people who think we should ban private land sales to foreigners. You have those who support gay marriage, and those who think it is the end of civilization.  On almost every issue there will be a fairly wide range of views – even within caucus. I’m someone who is generally in the minority on both economic and social issues in the party, but never have I been made to feel unwelcome due to my political views, that views like mine have no place in National.

But it has been my observation that Labour does not tolerate much diversity of opinion. Social conservatives in Labour are despised by most activists, and almost no longer exist. If you tried to debate the accuracy of climate change models, you’d be seen as in the pay of someone, and in recent years if you express any views that are not in line with union thinking, well let’s just say you struggle to get selected.

A great example of this has come up this week, with Josie Pagani. She stood for Rangitikei last election – a seat she had no chance of winning, and was in an unwinnable list place. Despite that, she would have spent hundreds of hours unpaid trying to increase the party vote for Labour.

Now Josie facebooked comments she made on radio, which were:

Talking about the ports. ‘Casualisation’ scares us because it sounds like short hand for bad hours, low pay and no annual leave. It sounds like life in the early industrial revolution pre-unions. In some jobs it is. The only reason we have a 40 hr week and weekends is because unions fought for us. But I’ve spent my political life as a working mum, calling for more flexibility. And flexibility has to work both ways. Sad that by the time MUNZ accepted this (why did it take them so long?), the Ports wouldn’t budge. They should have. Lesson from this – if casual labour is the future, we have to work out how to protect the advances made for working people, while accepting that future. Nurses union did it. So did the pilots in the USA.

So Josie said flexibility is not always bad, but has to work both ways. She said POAL should have accepted the eventual position of MUNZ, and says that one has to protect working people while accepting that the future is more flexiblity.

You can certainly agree or disagree with that position. But it is not a right wing or radical view. It is a moderate left view, explicitly pro-union.  A healthy party would say lets debate the proposition – they may not agree with it – some may say flexibility is not inevitable and should always be oppossed. But’s let see what happened:

Soraiya Daud – “With these kinds of sentiments the Labour rosette on your label means nothing.”

Jill Ovens – “Flexibility for them is just another form of exploitation. It is the ultimate ‘f’ word.”

Enzo Giordani – “Josie, this is a politician page that says you are a member of the Labour Party and in the profile picture you are wearing a Labour Party rosette. This is not the policy of the New Zealand Labour Party. You should either delete this or change those settings. Friendly warning before I start writing e-mails.”

Giordani is a union official. Note how he demands Pagani deletes her post, or remove any reference to her being Labour. Even worse, he threatens her that if she does not he will start writing e-mails – presumably to get her expelled, or disciplined.

Joel Walsham – You show that you are not Labour because being Labour is about standing with those, in complete solidarity, who are going without pay for them and their families in an effort to achieve better working conditions for them and all of their colleagues.

In all my years in National, I don’t think I have ever heard someone described as being “not National”. Well, maybe Winston.

But the pilloring of Josie also occurred on the Facebook page of her fellow candidate, Jordan Carter. Note Jordan himself did not comment significantly.

Joseph Randall – A hell of a lot more than Josie’s value add

Joe McCrory –  I assume Josie has resigned from the party?

The expectation that a different view on an issue is grounds for resignation. This is, in my opinion, one of the major challenges Labour has – to be an inclusive party with broad appeal, rather than one where different opinions are seen as heresy – especially when you are in opposition.

Now my blogging this has probably condemned Josie to an even worse fate within Labour. In some ways that is a good thing. I’ve seen her in action at campaign meetings in 2008. She was the only left wing candidate I’ve ever seen that actually won an elderly conservative audience over to her view in support of the anti-smacking law. She’s one of those who can actually appeal to people outside the traditional base, and they’re dangerous as they are the ones who can win votes for Labour.

Some on the left have been pushing a message that United Future did not say they will back asset sales before the election, so hence there is no electoral mandate for them. This is, to be frank, absolute crap. I doubt a single voter in Ohariu voted for Peter Dunne thinking he might stop National’s asset sales. If Ohariu voters wanted to stop asset sales, they could have voted for Charles Chauvel. Instead Chauvel lost for the third election in a row.

In this video, Peter Dunne explicitly refers to asset sales and say they are on National’s path but UF will make sure three key assets are never sold – Kiwibank, Radio NZ and “our water”. The reference to our water is to water supply, as made clear on their website here.

UnitedFuture does not intend to wait until it is on the asset sales agenda. New Zealanders would never – or should never – accept a sell-off of the supply of the water, or any of the aspects around it.

A few people have tried to say that as power companies own dams, and dams use water, then somehow the reference to water is actually saying they are against the power companies being sold. Well that is like saying you’re against Coke being sold, as that also uses water.

Further their website stated:

 with regard to Asset Sales, UnitedFuture will insist that:

– The New Zealand Government retains majority control (51%)

– Shareholding by private investors be capped at 15%

– New Zealand household investors are given preferential purchase right at time of issue.

This is clear that they will support National’s proposed (part) sales so long as they remain majority owned, a 15% cap and preferential treatment for NZ investors.

Further Peter Dunne attended a dozen or more public meetings in Ohariu, and he was asked about asset sales at basically every meeting. His response was the same at each meeting – they will support the five partial sales proposed so long as 51% Govt owned, 15% cap and preference for NZ investors, and they will not support RNZ, Kiwibank or water supply companies being sold.

No one thought a vote for Peter Dunne was a vote to stop National’s asset sales. I doubt 57% of National party voters would have voted for Peter if they thought that voting for him would be voting against a core National party promise.

It is a lie invented by the left to try and get around the inconvenient fact they actually lost the election. Peter Dunne’s position before the election on asset sales is exactly the same as it is now.

A further article from the CIS paper – You Can’t Say That! Freedom of Speech and the Invisible Muzzle.

This one is by Brendon O’Neill, editor of Spiked Online, a humanist/libertarian magazine. It editoralised against the post 9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

My favourite example of political correctness involves the American Navy. In October 2001, after America had invaded Afghanistan, some of its navy personnel were preparing missiles to be fired at Al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds. One of the personnel decided to write a message on the side of his missile. A message to express his anger about 9/11. So in reference to the 9/11 hijacking, he wrote the following message on his missile: ‘Hijack this, you faggots.’

Little did he know that even though the American military had rather a lot on its mind at that time, his message would still cause a massive controversy. The upper echelons of the navy were outraged when they heard about this transgression. They expressed official disapproval of this homophobic message and issued a warning that military personnel should more closely edit their spontaneous acts of penmanship. They even issued some unofficial guidelines covering what could and could not be written on the side of post 9/11 missiles. Nothing offensive, the guidelines said. So it was ok to say ‘I love New York’ but not to use words like faggot.

That is my favourite story about political correctness for two reasons. First, it sums up how psychotically obsessed the PC lobby is with language. It is ok to kill people but not to offend them. It is ok to drop a missile on someone’s house or cave as long as that missile doesn’t have anything inappropriate written on its side. Heaven forbid that the last thing a Talib should see before having his head blown off is a word reminding him of the existence of homosexuality. This really captures the warped morality inherent in political correctness—where one becomes so myopically focused on speech and representation that everything else, including matters of life and death, becomes subordinate to that.

The second reason it is my favourite example of political correctness is because it captures a truth about political correctness that is far too often overlooked: Political correctness is not actually the handiwork of small groups of cultural Marxists or liberal malcontents. The rise of political correctness is simply down to the activism and agitation of unrepresented sections of the chattering classes who detest vulgar language and what they consider to be offensive ideas. Otherwise, how can we explain the actions of the American Navy? Why would one of the most powerful, well-armed institutions on Earth buckle under pressure from the PC police, from people who read The Guardian and The Age?

No. Political correctness represents something far more profound. The victory of political correctness is built upon the demise and decay of traditional forms of authority and morality. It is parasitical on the crisis of conservative thought. In fact, I would argue that the power of political correctness is directly proportionate to the weakness of the old, ‘taken for granted’ forms of morality. It is tempting to see political correctness as the imposition of a framework by small groups of illiberal liberals. To see it as a conscious project pushed through by these rather irritating sections of society. Two striking aspects of political correctness seem to bolster this view—the creation of a cabal of grumpy, misanthropic feminists and environmentalists.

First, political correctness came to the fore at a time when conservative governments enjoyed strong electoral support in the West. It really exploded in America and Britain in the 1980s when Reagan and Thatcher were in power. So the masses were largely supportive of conservative regimes. But political correctness was born at the same time and became more and more widespread, boosting the idea that the cultural elite sat down one day and drew up some rules for everyday life.

And second, political correctness does tend to be most vociferously promoted by the media and sections of academia, by those rather rarefied, aloof institutions with more than their fair share of worldly people. But to look at PC in that way only, to see it as a kind of conscious project of illiberal liberals with its list of 13 rules, as Thilo Sarrazin mentioned, is to miss the foundation stone of political correctness. The ground upon which political correctness is built is the inability of the traditional moralists to justify themselves and to defend their way of life and their moral system. That inability creates a moral vacuum, which gets rather feverishly filled up by new forms of intolerant morality. Because when you have a profound crisis of traditional and conservative morality that had governed society for so long, previously normal and unquestioned ways of behaviour are called into question. Nothing can be taken for granted anymore. From everyday speech to interpersonal relations, even nursery rhymes and fairy tales, all that was a given in the past 200 to 300 years falls apart. And political correctness fills that hole. It’s a tentative takeover by a new kind of modern day moralist. The result is undoubtedly tyrannical and profoundly illiberal and antagonistic to individual autonomy.

To see how political correctness has its origins in the demise of traditionalism, it’s instructive to look at the example of the girl guides. For a hundred years or so, Girlguiding UK was a fairly straightforward organisation. It was designed to instil girls with imperial pride. The girl guides had a simple slogan and swore an oath of loyalty to God, Queen and Country. About 15 years ago, Girlguiding UK rewrote their constitution and brought out a new mission statement. They turned one page into about 20 pages. There was no more duty to God; instead, there was a promise to love ‘my God’ in recognition of the many Gods today and that there is not one true God or one true religion. The girls were no longer required to swear loyalty to the Queen or country, only serve them. And they were encouraged to feel sympathy for the Queen because it cannot be easy for her to be photographed everywhere she goes.

The key here is that nobody invaded the girl guides’ headquarters and forced them to rewrite their constitution at gunpoint. They did it themselves because those three institutions—God, Queen and Country—are no longer real sources of authority. All three—religion, monarchy and nationalism—have suffered a profound crisis of legitimacy. And it was the girl guides instinctive recognition of that which led them to voluntarily rewrite their own rules and their own outlook.

So, political correctness is not about cultural Marxists storming the citadel and forcing us to obey them. In fact, the citadel has collapsed, and they are in the rubble trying to fashion a new kind of social morality. And that is why political correctness is so hysterical, so shrill, and so intolerant. Not because it is strong but because it is weak and isolated. It has no real roots in society, and it has no real roots in history. It has no popular legitimacy, and it has no public support. It is better seen as a knee-jerk instinctive imposition of a new morality designed to replace the old. So everything must be controlled, no one can be trusted, and no one anymore knows what is right and wrong. It is the moral hole of the heart of society that gives rise to this insatiable desire to implement all kinds of new rules and regulations.

So even nursery rhymes are being rewritten. In Britain, we’ve recently rewritten ‘What should we do with the drunken sailor?’ The drunken sailor has been replaced with a grumpy pirate because we don’t want children to know about alcohol. The old rhyme used to say, ‘stick him in a bag and beat him senseless’; the new one says ‘tickle him until he starts to giggle.’ This is PC gone mad—crazy feminists in dungarees rewriting nursery rhymes and forcing them on schools. But a more important question to ask is what kind of crazy unhinged society rewrites rhymes that children sing, rhymes that have been around for generations. Only a society that has entirely lost its moral bearing and can no longer take the most basic things for granted would do such a ridiculous, Orwellian thing.

The hysteria of political correctness really speaks to its opportunistic, parasitical nature. A more confident moral system would be able to tolerate deviance. An unconfident and accidental moral system like political correctness can tolerate no deviance at all because it continually fears for its own continued survival. And it’s important to bear that in mind because sometimes the critics of political correctness are too quick to play the victim card. Janet described very well, and very accurately, the way in which politically correct people play the victim card—but sometimes so do un-PC people. Too many right-wing thinkers claim that a conspiratorial cabal of PC lunatics are ruining our lives, which conveniently absolves these right-wing conservative thinkers of having to work out whatever happened to their morality and to their traditions. Where did they go? It is easier to claim that society has been taken over by crazy, lentil-eating, sandal-wearing feminists and annoying greens; it is far harder to account for the demise of a way of life that had existed for hundreds of years. Which is why we should get to grip with these two facts.

First, political correctness is built on the decay of traditional morality. Second, it is weak, it is fragile, and it is probably quite easy to demolish. If we bear that in mind, then we can more successfully fight against this profoundly censorious and suspicious and irrational moral system. And if you feel that you are being treated like a heretic, then you should behave like a heretic. And you should pull up your socks and get your guns out.

The final article I will blog on Friday.

The thread “Bain says parents made him strong” has set a record in terms of number of comments. It was around 500 or so on a Destiny Church thread, but the Bain thread is now 1,016 comments.

And no I haven’t read all of them, or even most of them!

The inevitable has happened and Jock Hobbs had died. For me it is especially poignant as Hobbs was All Black Captain when I was at secondary school and like most my age worshiped the All Blacks.

His contribution to NZ rugby administration is immense, and arguably unparalleled. His death is several decades too early. The most moving aspect of the Rugby World Cup for me was when Hobbs presented Richie McCaw with his 100th test cap. You could see how ill Hobbs was, and knew he couldn’t have much time to go.

Hobbs also had an interest in politics, and would have made an excellent MP and Minister if he had ever said yes to numerous entreaties to stand.

As always my condolences go out to his family, and close friends.

Stuff reports:

Student loans will remain interest free, despite forecasts the national student loan bill will grow to more than $14 billion in the next three years, Prime Minister John Key says. …

Charging interest would bring in considerable extra revenue for the Government, but Key said he would be voted out if National did so.

“Bluntly, if you want me to be really crude about it there are 565,000 student loans out there. If we add interest back on the student loans, it doubles repayment time of the loan.

“If your loan is $50,000, and it’s estimated it will take you eight years to pay it off, we effectively turn it into a loan that is about $90,000 with interest that takes you about 15 years to repay,” Key said.

“That is about the only thing that will get [young people] out of bed before 7 o’clock at night to vote, but it’s not politically sustainable to put interest back on student loans. It may not be great economics, but it’s great politics. It is a bit of a tragedy because it sends the wrong message to young people, it tells them to go out and borrow debt.”

Sadly this is right. Labour’s bribe in 2005 was too big to undo, and we will be paying for it for many years. I’d like to see interest charged at least at the level of CPI, so that loan balances don’t actually reduce in real terms despite no repayments (hence discouraging repayments). But that could only happen if Labour agreed not to reverse it. If National did it unilaterally, it would lead to a change of Government and then the policy would revert back.

Reporters without Borders has released its list of countries that are enemies of the Internet. I’ve added on the nature of the Government and/or Head of State:

• Bahrain – monarchy
• Belarus – presidential republic, president is former communist now statist
• Burma – presidential republic, pro-military junta
• China – Marxist-Leninist single-party state (officially)
• Cuba – republic communist state
• Iran – Islamic republic
• North Korea – Juche (Marxist-Leninist) unitary single-party state,
• Saudi Arabia – Islamic absolute monarchy
• Syria – Baathist single party state, Arab Socialist Baath Party
• Turkmenistan – presidential republic, single party state, former communist
• Uzbekistan – presidential republic, former communist
• Vietnam – Marxist/Leninist single-party state

My conclusions are that enemies of the Internet tend to be communists,  former communists, Islamists and absolute monarchs.

The Herald reports:

A Somali woman convicted of trying to hijack a flight from Blenheim to Christchurch six years ago claims police told her she would be taken to the United States and shot if she did not admit it. …

She had already been in custody for 2-1/2 years when sentenced and today told the Court of Appeal, through an interpreter, that she pleaded guilty after police pressure.

“… they said unless you say that I hijack plane, we will take you to America and you will be shot. Executed,” she said.

“I (did) not hijack the plane. The police asked me to say that.”

Yes they execute people in the US for hijacking a small place in New Zealand. We have a secret treaty with them, so we don’t have to executive our own hijackers.

Abdille, who today represented herself after firing trial lawyer Elizabeth Bulger

Always a warning sign, generally of madness.

went on to claim there was a conspiracy between Immigration and the police; she had come to New Zealand in 1994 believing the Government was “giving us a land and helping us”.

“But there was politics behind that and the Government wanted us to be mistresses for the white man,” Abdille said.

Young women were made to have babies they did not want, and Abdille claimed police persecuted her when she fought against it.

“I said we should all come together as a community … because I was against white men using us and having sex with us.

In this case, she does seem to be quite literally mad. It’s actually quite sad, but her illness has made her quite dangerous.

Abdille claimed the knives she was carrying on the fateful flight were simply cutlery she was taking to her sister, who was trying to set up house in Christchurch. She also had forks and plates, and the pilot had inspected her luggage, she said.

However, she claimed the pilot had kept looking at her and she saw in him a resemblance to a man who had used her as a “sexual slave”. She believed it to be that man, and that he was going to take her to an island and imprison her.

Abdille has a background of mental health issues and sentencing judge Justice Christine French had taken that into account when sentencing her.

She probably does genuinely believe that.

Abdille had 27 previous convictions and was on bail for threatening to kill and possession of a weapon at the time of the hijacking.

The captain, first officer and a woman passenger were all cut during the incident; the captain had to have part of a thumb amputated and the first officer received a cut foot. One of the two had since given up flying.

Some passengers believed they were going to die during the incident, and did not want to give victim impact statements as they did not want to relive the incident.

I do wonder if she doesn’t meet the threshold of compulsory treatment and incarceration? There seems to be a serious detachment from reality. Also I wonder if she would not be better receiving treatment than in prison. But I guess, she was judged still capable of knowing right from wrong.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Courage in politics too often goes unnoticed, especially when it requires silence. Auckland’s mayor has shown remarkable courage over the past week, resisting pressure to call the Auckland Council’s port company to heel in the current dispute. Some of that pressure has been exerted in public, by commentators, union leaders and a protest march in sympathy with the sacked watersiders that the Labour Party’s leader saw fit to attend. But just as much pressure will have been coming on him in private, from Labour members of the Auckland Council and party activists who helped him get elected.

The latest challenge for the Mayor is one of the Labour Councillors, Richard Northey, has moved a motion to have a Council committee declare opposition to the Ports restructuring, which would humiliate Len Brown if it passes.

The contractual stevedoring arrangements the company wants to make would match those its nearest rival, the Port of Tauranga, has enjoyed for many years.

They were introduced at Tauranga without the strife that has disrupted the Auckland port for so long now, and members of the Maritime Union are still employed on Tauranga’s wharves.

The Port of Tauranga is only part-owned by its local authority. There can be little doubt partial privatisation makes a difference. Boards of directors can more easily resist political pressure when they owe a duty to private as well as public shareholders. More important perhaps, trade unions know this. They cannot as readily bring political pressure to bear in a dispute.

This is absolutely true. The union becomes far less reasonable, because it has lackeys on the local authority who will interfere on their behalf.

The other advantage of the PoT model is that it allows the employees to become share-holders, as 90% of stevedores at Tauranga are.

The best argument for a partial sale of Ports of Auckland Ltd would be intervention by the mayor and council in this dispute.

Mr Brown knows this very well. It is he, almost alone in public now, who is doing the most to show that assets in full public ownership need not be a pushover in labour bargaining. This is the first step, and probably a necessary one, on the path to proving that assets in public ownership can be competitive with private enterprise in every way.

If Northey wins the vote, it will be a classic case of politicians interfering to benefit their donors and supporters.

All of them are at least half-owned by local councils. Had they been fully privatised there is no doubt we would have seen mergers and rationalisation that would have produced better returns for private shareholders, more efficient transport networks for the whole country and more bargaining strength for the ports in negotiations with shipping companies.

If this sort of rationalisation is possible with ports in council ownership, the largest port will need to lead the way. If Ports of Auckland Ltd can get close to the rate of return the mayor has set, it will be in a more dominant position than it has ever been.

But that all depends now on Mr Brown’s courage. Can he see it through?

This is a huge test for Len. Can he defeat Northey?

On the issue of too many ports, that is a view shared by the PM:

A concession from the Prime Minister that the country may have too many ports.

The drawn out and often acrimonious Auckland port dispute has spawned calls for the number of ports to be culled.

John Key’s giving some thought to suggestions we’re overloaded in the unloading business, and he says the Productivity Commissioner is looking at the overall structure.

“In the end the truth of it is if we have too many ports then they won’t be financially viable and some will close,” he told Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking.

Mr Key says Ports of Auckland is losing business to Tauranga because Tauranga is more efficient.

And as the editorial notes, the ownership model stops there being a sensible rationalisation, where a 10% cut in transport costs would add $1.5b to the economy.