On Friday Night I was watching a DVD of the TV series Las Vegas. For once we let it run past the credits, and I started to piss myself laughing at the copyright warning which followed, which is embedded below.

To the backdrop of a demonic guy working on a forge, FACT tells you the pirates are out to get you, piracy funds organised crime, will destroy our film and video industry costs jobs, will also destroy the music and publishing industries and best of all it funds terrorism.

I’m surprised they didn’t also say piracy will cause global warming, earthquakes and plague, and that you will go to hell if you torrent.

Q+A kicks off with a 90-second news update at the top of the programme, with all the latest from overnight.

Then our two biggest cities go under the microscope. First, we’re live in Christchurch on the first anniversary of the first quake with Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee. In front of the iconic cathedral, Guyon Espiner will ask the minister about the government’s performance so far and where it goes from here?

We’ll also hear briefly from Clayton Cosgrove about what Labour thinks should be happening in the garden city.

Then, Auckland’s big dream.  The new super city council has a draft plan for the next 30 years – who pays and can it deliver? Has it got its priorities right? Mayor Len Brown is live in the studio with Paul Holmes.

Finally, just days out from the Rugby World Cup, the head man Martin Snedden joins us to talk about the impact the next six weeks of rugby will have on this country. Are we ready and excited? Or have the recent corporate controversies taken a toll?

Joining Dr Jon Johansson on the panel are Auckland Chamber of Commerce CEO Michael Barnett and former Christchurch mayor Garry Moore.

Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE. Repeats at 9.10pm Sundays, 10.10am and 2.10pm Mondays on TVNZ 7

As most will have heard, Allan Hubbard died in a car crash yesterday. Thoughts go out to his family and friends.

The troubles of the last few years are well known. Hopefully he will be remembered for his decades of business success and extensive generosity, rather than his more recent mistakes. A lot of people owe him a lot.

This video is a 45 minute speech and presentation to the Centre for Independent Studies by Professor Peter Saunders. He does a devastating critique of the book The Spirit Level, pointing out all the ways they cherry-picked both the countries and the data to support their proposition that countries with less income inequality do better on many social and economic indicators.

Saunders also covers how they gained spurious causation with outliers (such as US on homicides) and ignoring third variables. My favourite part is when Saunders constructs a social misery index showing that social misery is higher (r^2-0.39, p<0.001) is countries with greater income equality by focusing on racist bigotry, suicide rate, divorce rate, reverse fertility rate, alcohol consumption and HIV infection rate.

The first few minutes are a bit dry, but I really encourage people to view the whole video. If you are really rushed for time, just fast forward every few minutes to each slide, as the slides really tell the story.

YNet reports:

UN’s Palmer Report says Israel’s Gaza blockade legal, slams ‘reckless’ violence of Turkish activists facing IDF soldiers; however, Israel’s deadly raid on vessel characterized as ‘excessive, unreasonable’

A long-anticipated United Nations report on Israel‘s deadly raid on a Gaza-bound ship in 2010 justifies Israel’s blockade of the Strip, but accuses the IDF of using “excessive and unreasonable” force to stop the vessel.

 The UN’s Palmer Report was first published by the New York Times Thursday evening. The full report is available here.

Addressing Israel’s Gaza blockade, the UN’s Palmer Report notes that the Jewish state “faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza.”

“The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law,” the report says.

The UN panel noted that Israeli forces who boarded the Mavi Marmara in order to prevent it from breaching the blockade faced “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers,” adding that the violence required the IDF to use force.

I thought that Sir Geoffrey would do a fair job, and without having read the full report, it looks like he did.

The summary that the blockade was legal, that the passengers were armed and violent but that the Israelis used excessive force in responding is pretty much what I expected would be the situation.

Sadly Turkey is rejecting the recommended settlement.

Whispers have reached me that in a desperate attempt to turn the polls around, Labour on Sunday will announce their biggest election bribe ever.

Sunday is the one year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. I understand they will use the emotion around the anniversary to announce an alternate recovery package, possibly involving huge land swaps.

As they have already spent the revenue from the CGT many times over, one can only assume that they will have to announce a new tax on all New Zealanders (or maybe just on the rich pricks) to pay for it.

UPDATE: Labour have denied (according to Katie Bradford on Twitter) that they will release a quake policy in Christchurch this weekend. It is unclear if they are just denying the timing, or the policy.

My NZ Herald column is on the politics of asset sales. I look at the risks to the Government, and ask and answer the question about why they are doing it , despite the political risk.

I’ve blogged at Stuff on The rise of the Greens. I conclude:

If the Greens do manage to get 10 per cent or more in the election, they will have an enhanced presence in Parliament that might push them to rise even higher than where they now are. I don’t believe they could ever supplant Labour as the major party of the Left, but I do think they could end up being a 10-15 per cent party, rather than a 5-7 per cent party.

The Electoral Commission has launched an referendum toolkit at www.referendum.org.nz.

It has an extensive range of fact sheets and videos on the five different electoral systems. Very readable and simple. They have nifty features such as “Which voting system is right for me” which asks you questions on what you think is important, and how important, and then measures the systems against your preferences.

They also have a You Tube channel. One of the videos  I have embedded below. They are all quite short, so worth viewing all five of them.

By coincidence I was at Waikato University yesterday, speaking to the NZ Law Students Association Conference on the referendum. I was on a panel with Margaret Wilson and Tim Macindoe. For those interested, I’ve embedded my presentation below. Note this is my presentation, not from the Electoral Commission.

MMP Presentation DPF

As an election gets closer, a party normally gets more disciplined. MPs are usually well versed in not offering views on issues that are not party policy, as a party won’t get elected if it has different MPs saying different things on what they want their party to do in Government.

Labour seems to be going the other way. Whale has audio of Trevor Mallard saying that you shouldn’t have an earthquake levy, and within 24 hours also Shane Jones saying you should have an earthquake levy.

Former UK Labour MP Bryan Gould in a recent column said that Key was like Muldoon and concluded:

The Prime Minister’s dominance, paradoxically, weakens his Government and – by constraining the scope of the political debate – diminishes our democracy as well.

Michelle Boag, who actually worked for Muldoon has responded:

… to attempt to compare Key with the late Sir Robert Muldoon in the desperate hope some similarities will endure in the minds of electors (eg, they both smile), is unworthy.

As someone who knows, or knew, both men, and who worked closely with Sir Robert for six years, I can testify to the significant differences.

Yes, Muldoon was an incredibly powerful personality who intimidated largely by using silence and pausation to expert effect whether on television or on a platform. He was the master of the casual put-down, with famous one-liners which appeared to be impromptu but were, in fact, assiduously crafted by his cigar-smoking/three-piece suit attired/viciously tongued speechwriter, Ken Hancock, may he rest in peace.

I still remember his “a shiver looking for a spine” quote on Rowling.

Key is quite different. He is not regarded as a compelling speaker. His less-than-clear diction is totally uncharacteristic of strong television performers.

What he does have, in spades, is sincerity. That is why he is popular.

People like him because he doesn’t play games, unlike the previous Prime Minister who stamped her authority on the political scene for a decade by intimidating business leaders and selected media.

Boag continues:

Most of all, the big difference between Key and Muldoon is their personality. Sir Robert was essentially a loner, with a few very close friends to whom he was fiercely loyal even in the face of proven incompetence.

He was in his element in front of a large audience, but lacked confidence in an intimate cocktail party setting where social “small talk” was required. He was formal with his staff, and advice to him was tendered in the same manner.

Key is affable. What you see is what you get. His wife, Bronagh, is unpretentious and his family typical. He has a backbone of steel, and we have seen it when he deems strength of resolve to be required. But most of all, he is a genuinely good person who is motivated by doing what he believes is right for New Zealand. Attempts to demonise him notwithstanding, he is Prime Minister because he believes that is the most effective way he can contribute to a better New Zealand.

Most of all, he has done much to restore trust in the political framework – an ambitious aspiration in a climate of considerable cynicism about politicians the world over, some of which is well deserved.

That’s why he insists on sticking to his statements about not changing national superannuation, that’s why he has opened up the books on parliamentary expenses and that’s why people like him.

I don’t like the fact that Key made the pledge he did on national superannuation, but having made it he absolutely should stick to his word. Those on the left who have suddenly started worrying about future fiscal issues generally have no real interest in making superannuation sustainable. Their desire is to damage the Prime Minister by having him break a very specific promise.

1. Hekia Parata on the Government’s Energy Strategy and how much oil we really have. Where is it? What about the environment?
2. Controversial businessman and philanthropist Owen Glenn in an extended interview with Sean Plunket.
3. On the road with Don Brash. What sort of reception (or lack of one) is he getting in provincial New Zealand?

Saturday 2/09/11 1030 – Sunday Edition 3/09/11 0830 – TV3

Two different takes on Nicky Hager’s latest book. John Armstong writes in the Herald:

Those who think Nicky Hager is just another left-wing stirrer and dismiss his latest book accordingly should think again.

Likewise, the country’s politicians should read Other People’s Wars before condemning it.

Whatever Hager’s motive for investigating New Zealand’s contribution over the past decade to the United States-led “war on terror”, it is pretty irrelevant when placed alongside the mountain of previously confidential and very disturbing information his assiduous research and inquiries have uncovered.

With the help of well-placed informants and thousands of leaked documents, Hager exposes the cynical manner in which the Defence Force has purposely misled the public by omission of pertinent facts and public relations flannel.

This is particularly the case with regard to the “candyfloss” image the military has built around the deployment of New Zealand soldiers in the Bamiyan province of Afghanistan.

That image is of our soldiers acting more like peacekeepers armed with nothing more dangerous than a shovel.

The last couple of paragraphs do resonate with me to a degree. People forget that Helen Clark sent soliders into both Iraq and Afghanistan. With the exception of the SAS deployment (which she simply wouldn’t talk about), they were portrayed as just being engineers and builders who happen to be soldiers. Their role we were told was purely to help the locals, and nothing to do with those nasty wars.

Fair enough. But the Defence Force has sought to paint this deployment in a completely different light. Hager has cut through that pretence with the evidence to prove what has always been surmised – that the real reason for such deployments was not to help the inhabitants of Bamiyan but to impress the hawks in Washington.

Hopefully it is a mixture of both, but I’ve never doubted that Clark sending troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan was about keeping the US and to a degree the UK happy.

Vernon Small has a different take at Stuff:

A speed read of Nicky Hager’s latest book shows his usual impressive access to detailed documents and meticulous sourcing.

The insiders’ claims about ministers being kept in the dark may be true; the SAS in particular is obsessive about secrecy to the point that even a description of the ceremony farewelling Corporal Doug Grant was refused.

But the lens Hager uses gives a different view of New Zealand’s base at Bamiyan than one gleaned from a week-long visit there last month.

For instance, he claims that, despite media visits and hundreds of soldiers passing through the base, the military managed to keep secret the fact that they shared the Bamiyan camp with a United States intelligence base.

In fact, I, and other reporters before me, were introduced to US intelligence and communications staff at Bamiyan and at other Kiwi forward bases and ate and chatted with them. The stars and stripes flies alongside the New Zealand flag at Bamiyan to advertise the US contingent.

I’ve said before that Hager has good research skills, but his failing is he sees (or portrays) everything as a conspiracy or deep dark secret.

It was not a surprise that New Zealand is plugged in to the US-Nato intelligence and communication system across the war-torn country. It is something this reporter was specifically briefed on, although with a request not to publish details for operational security reasons.

Suffice to say that, from my observations, the information Kiwi troops glean is far more extensive than anything that flows the other way. Was the CIA there? I don’t know, and Hager only surmises.

The links tell New Zealand forces where other coalition forces are operating and let them call in US air support, both key factors in a multi-national force. Problems getting air support were highlighted in the report on the attack that killed Lieutenant Timothy O’Donnell.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Hager also points to a lack of understanding among the public about the Kiwis’ role in Bamiyan; that coverage was all airbrushed PR spin showing “friendly New Zealand soldiers handing out gifts to smiling children, building schools and wells”.

He may have had a case in the early years.

But for almost three years now, after the 2009 attack on the base at Do Abe and the first Kiwi casualties caused the military to upgrade its armoured vehicles from Hiluxes to LAVs, there has been no shortage of coverage highlighting the risks and the dangers.

Far from trying to cover that up, the soldiers on the ground I talked to were eager for the New Zealand public to know they were fighting in a dangerous war zone.

I think this is right. Early on things were somewhat sugar-coated, but I think in recent years we’ve come to understand better how the Bamiyan mission is not some safe engineering operation.

APNZ reports:

A Dunedin couple are feeling left out in the cold after receiving a letter from Contact Energy with their power bill this week.

Geoff and Eve Thomson, who do not own a computer and have no interest in internet banking, were less than impressed with the letter’s offer of a “whopping 22 per cent prompt payment discount” to customers who receive and pay their power bills online.

Well I think that is great. Firms that offer discounts for customers who impose less costs, should be encouraged.

As long-standing Contact Energy customers over many years, Mr and Mrs Thomson pay their bills on time through the Post Shop by preference, receiving a 10 per cent discount.

This is what annoys me with this story. The Thomsons are getting a perfectly good discount for prompt payment. They’re just complaining that other people may be getting a bigger discount. They want to punish those who do use the Internet.

The couple calculate that paying their latest bill of $200 at the Post Shop will earn them a “prompt payment” discount of $20 compared with a $45 discount for paying the same amount online.

“That is a very big difference,” Mrs Thomson said.

“There are a lot of things we could do with an extra $25 – there’s quite a bit you could get in the supermarket with that,” Mr Thomson said.

And to get it, all they need is a g-mail account, and to go to the Library instead of the Post Shop.

The couple see the discrepancy between the two discount rates as “grossly unfair” and are concerned the new policy will disadvantage older people and those on low incomes who may not have access to computers and internet banking.

Again, no discount is being removed. They are complaining about a new discount. How selfish, in my opinion. If you receive and pay your bills electronically you save a company a considerable amount of money. Also if you agree to a direct debit, you allow a company to reliably predict cashflow.

iPredict says:

*             Twelve weeks before election, National forecast to govern alone

*             Greens support increases further

*             National strengthens hold on several marginal electorates

*             Shane Jones still ahead in Tamaki-Makaurau

*             Fonterra’s final 2010/11 payout forecast to be $8.15/kgMS

*             Economic indicators remain steady

Commentary:

Twelve weeks out from the general election, John Key’s National Party is forecast to govern alone, according to this week’s snapshot from New Zealand’s prediction market, iPredict.  National is now expected to hold 61 seats in a 120 seat Parliament and has strengthened its hold on several marginal electorates including Auckland Central, Maungakiekie, New Plymouth, Otaki and Tamaki.  For the third successive week, support for the Green Party has increased and it is now forecast to hold 11 seats after the election, up from 10 last week.  In economics, Fonterra’s final payout per kilogram of milk solids for the 2010/11 financial year (before retentions) is expected to be $8.15.  Key economic indicators (GDP, unemployment,  inflation and OCR) have remained broadly unchanged.

Continue reading »

Labour announced:

Labour today announced its youth skills and employment package which gives all teenagers the opportunity to be earning or learning within three years.

Now does this sound familiar? Let’s go back seven years:

A $56.9 million package of new and expanded initiatives in Budget 2004 will cement in the government’s commitment to provide all 15 to 19 year olds with a kick start to their working lives. …

In October 2002 we also signed a formal memorandum with the Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs adopting the formal goal that by 2007, all 15-19 year olds will be engaged in appropriate education, training, work or other options which will lead to long term economic independence and well-being.

And back a further year to 2003:

Budget 2003 contains a comprehensive package of initiatives to ensure all 15 to 19 year olds are involved in education, training or work or other options by 2007, Prime Minister Helen Clark announced today.

So Labour announced in 2003 the same goal and policies, and declared by 2007 they would have worked.

But hey this policy is even older than that. Go back to 2002:

Government plans to ensure all 15 to 19 year olds are in education, training or work by 2006 could save taxpayers more than $1 billion, Associate Education (Tertiary Education) Minister Steve Maharey said today.

So the goal was 2006, then 2007 and now it is 2014. This is like Lucy v Charlie Brown.

But it gets even better. Let us go back to 2000:

No young person will leave school without options in education, training or employment within three years, Associate Education (Tertiary Education) Minister Steve Maharey said today.

So in fact they promised they would achieve this by 2003!!

And turning to their latest change of clothes:

“However we will reprioritise $80 million from existing schemes, with $58 million going to the apprenticeship subsidy instead of dole payments, giving a net total cost of $171 million over four years.

This will be paid for from revenue from Labour’s fairer tax plan.

This is absolute bullshit. By their *own* calculations their tax plan requires extra borrowing and a bigger deficit for the next seven years. Their tax plan does not generate any extra revenue until at least year seven – and even that is doubtful.

The case of Mark Taylor, or Mark T. al-Rahman, is an interesting one.

You have to trust the PM and the SIS presumably, when they say Mr Taylor is no threat.

However the official explanation he gave of trying to attend a wedding, for his attempt to enter an al-Qaeda military camp in Pakistan has always been highly dubious.

But it is innocent until proven guilty and as Mr Taylor says, he has not been charged with any offence. But having said that, I’d be a bit nervous if he moved in next door to me!