The Herald reports:

Campbell says he’s not bothered by what the business community thinks of his left-leaning views.

“I don’t mind being called a Marxist. I regard that as a badge of honour,” he says.

“I’d rather be a Marxist than a Friedmanite, if you take those two extremes. But the system we have is one that relies on, frankly, exploitation… exploitation of resources, and exploitation of people.”

The equivalent of a Marxist is a fascist, not a belief in supply side economics.

Around 100 million people have died due to communist regimes. Yet despite that the media won’t label Marxists as far left, yet use the label far right on huge numbers of people.

Reading this had me reflecting on how fortunate we were to have great governance and direction of NZ’s fibre to the home project led by Steven Joyce and Amy Adams. By having a clear goal, setting up a dedicate entity, using the private sector and competitive tenders we got 80% of NZ homes having access to fibre to the home. The net cost to taxpayers was under $1 billion and delivery occurred on schedule.

By comparison the Australian NBN rollout which was merely fibre to the cabinet cost over $50 billion and was constantly delayed and over budget.

And the US rural Internet project has connected not one home in three years (their version of Auckland Light Rail!).

It is a good reminder of how important it is to get the policy and governance right. Implementation matters.

A guest post by Gary Lindsay responding to the speech by Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop:

Chris Bishop’s speech regarding infrastructure has been a long time coming.  It’s great that a government is finally serious about the massive infrastructure deficit that has been building since the major (necessary) cuts in 1984.  Correcting a 40 year infrastructure deficit is huge, and it’s going to take a generation of nation building to do it.  Our grandparents did it between the 1940s and 80s, and I am sure our generation is up to the task.  I have major concerns with Mr Bishop’s proposals, particularly around the funding models proposed. 

Roading and infrastructure are as close to natural monopolies as you can get, and realistically in New Zealand there will always be government involvement.  We are stuck with it whether we like it or not.  All we can do is to try and find ways to make that monopoly more transparent, and to push the costs onto those who use the infrastructure as much as possible.  The real question is what that involvement looks like.  

Mr Bishop has discussed the way infrastructure is funded, and that the underinvestment has been the result of councils and the Crown siphoning away infrastructure monies in favour of other priorities.  I don’t think anyone disagrees with that statement at all.  He also discusses user pays, which is also a good idea.  This isn’t a fault with the way the money is raised; it’s a fault with a lack of accountability with how it is spent.  I also noticed that public transport was not discussed as something that could be user pays.

I’ll start by agreeing with him that user pays is a great way to fund roading.  The people benefitting from the roads should be those who pay for them.  That should go for all government services, not just roading.  But that’s where I begin to disagree with Mr Bishop.  We already have a system that achieves user-pays for roads (or would, if previous governments hadn’t used the money for something else).  We have fuel excise for petrol vehicles, and it’s a big one, making up about 70c/litre (plus GST, plus a few other levies).  Diesel and battery powered vehicles have RUCs which are also pretty steep.  But the flip side of that is they are relatively easy to administer and police – the fuel excise is levied before the retailer or consumer sees it, with the taxman needing to deal with less than 10 entities to collect it.  The RUCs are a bit harder, although it’s hardly onerous to spend 10 minutes to buy some online every 10,000 km and really easy to prove compliance on the side of the road.  It’s the most realistic way for a user pays system to work when a large proportion of the diesel sold isn’t actually used for road transport.   Overall it’s a good system, it’s easy to administer, and it isn’t in your face.  That method of raising money isn’t actually broken.

You only need look across the Tasman at the infrastructure in states like South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, to see jurisdictions where a mix of fuel excise and registration works.  None of those states have toll roads, and all of them have much better road networks than New Zealand does, with a similar way of funding roads.  The argument that New Zealand is a big country doesn’t fly – WA is almost 10 times larger than NZ, and SA is about 3.6x larger.  While their roads are generally long and straight, the distances are huge and they still have geotechnically challenging areas like New Zealand does.   Even Australia’s poorest state, Tasmania, has better roads than New Zealand, and Tas has challenging terrain.  We can also look to the past.  In 1984 New Zealand had very good roads for the time.  Those roads were funded using the fuel excise and registration fees, not private money.   It is misleading of Mr Bishop to say that the manner of raising funds has caused this problem.  It has not.  Funding roads the way we currently fund them works overseas and worked in New Zealand in the past.

What I don’t like is the proposal for congestion charging and for mileage charging monitored by the state.  Changing a system that’s not broken to some sort of billing arrangement per kilometre is not going to make the funding arrangement better.  If it’s really about incentives, we already have an effective disincentive to travel during peak times – congestion!  A driver sitting in traffic on his way to work in peak hour has to pay with his time, which isn’t cheap (at an hourly rate of $50 per hour an extra half hour already costs the driver and his passengers $25 each), and in addition there is extra fuel excise due to the efficiency of the car needing to use more fuel per kilometre.  Adding an additional fee that is payable to the state is just adding insult to injury – most people who can travel at a different time already do.  It will only serve to raise money for the state.  Put in economic terms, the demand for road use during peak hour is inelastic.  The funding system isn’t broken.

The idea of tolling new roads has some merit.  This has been used successfully in New Zealand, with the Tauranga and Auckland harbour bridges both being funded by a toll, where the proceeds went to paying off the loan to build each of the bridges.  It also worked well in states like Queensland, where the Gateway and Logan Motorways were constructed in the 80s and 90s, and rebuilt more recently, funded entirely by tolls.  Subsequent (Labor) governments moved the goal posts by selling both roads to Transurban who use them as a cash cow.  Transurban DID fund the upgrade of both roads and the second Gateway bridge so it’s not entirely one sided, but everyone was OK with the original arrangement where the debt for the motorways and bridges were paid for by tolls.

Less successful have been schemes where the private sector pays up front.  It’s actually really risky venture for the initial investors; the Clem Jones Tunnel (known as the Clem 7) in Brisbane went bust before it was completed so was completed by the state then sold to Transurban at a discounted price – the replacement cost is way less than what was paid by the eventual owner.  About the same time some high profile roads in Melbourne and Sydney also went bust following completion.  This has had real consequences in particular for the Lane Cove Tunnel on Sydney’s north shore; it went bust like the Clem7 and was completed by the state then sold with a similar arrangement to the Clem 7 tunnel, but the original builder took a lot of shortcuts and caused so full of defects that will affect its long term viability.  The state government sold the tunnel knowing this and now the new owner is suing the state government.  In all cases the geotechnical modelling and traffic modelling were massively deficient and different to reality.  The retail investors lost everything, and it will be a very long time until a public private road can attract investors the way they did in Australia ten years ago.  Mr Bishop is dreaming if he thinks he can get something off the ground without the government underwriting it.

I don’t think it’s really about a pricing signal to incentivise efficient use of roads.  The amount of surveillance required to get such a system working raises some very serious privacy concerns, not least of which is that the state does not need to know where my vehicle is at any given time.  It’s simply not their business, and changing the way we fund roading will make it their business.  What else will that data be used for?  Will that become part of a social credit system, where the state can cut your rights because you drive too much?  Using surveillance to achieve a result that is already achieved without surveillance is massive overreach.  It’s totally unnecessary.  We had a taste of totalitarian surveillance between 2020 and 2022 and I don’t think anyone wants to go back to that, except those who got a taste of power.  Maybe that includes Mr Bishop, who publicly stated the government should go door to door to pressure people to get vaccinated.  I think I’ll leave this paragraph here.

Water infrastructure in Wellington was used as another example.  Anyone who follows this forum knows that’s a case of the council misappropriating funds away from core services.  Changing the funding mix will not fix that – there would be nothing preventing the councils from misappropriating money raised from water meters instead.  The problem isn’t the funding, it’s councils wasting it.  Anecdotal experience in other places I am familiar with, such as Kapiti and Southeast Queensland, says that the result of installing water meters will be an increase in the cost of water to the consumer with no improvement in service.  If water meters are made mandatory home owners need to be able to opt out of the scheme and use tank water and a septic system if they wish, because then at least there would be a limit to how much councils and the state can shake down residents.

The discussion about councils installing infrastructure went inevitably to the ACT party’s proposal for councils to receive the GST from new build to pay for infrastructure.  Councils already charge hefty infrastructure levies to developers (which are passed on to their customers), which they waste.  What on earth makes Mr Bishop and the ACT party think that giving them more wouldn’t result in more of the same?  Perhaps a better option is for the infrastructure for large developments to be built by the developers themselves, which would create a way better incentive for them to not waste the money.  The infrastructure could remain in private ownership with some sort of strata management scheme, and the councils could stay out of it entirely.  Heck, we could abolish councils in favour of strata management for all new developments.  Smaller developers would probably have to continue with the current contributions scheme sadly.

One thing that you have to do when you criticise is offer an alternative.  I think I have established that the issue is the use of the funds by governments and councils, not the way the funds are raised.  Addressing the issues with councils is probably the easier of the two problems to solve.  The amalgamation of the local councils in the 1980s has not resulted in better governance as promised.  In 1984 we didn’t have the council spending too much money on bikeways and art installations while 2/3 of the city’s water was lost to leaks.  The more recent Auckland amalgamation has had an even worse result, that council has too much power and is too ineffective.  We need smaller councils, with part time councillors who need a real job (or married to one) to survive, and the councils need to be limited in their scope to core services – water, roads, rubbish, libraries, etc.  I’m talking making it suburb level; for those in Wellington it would mean suburbs like Tawa, Johnsonville, Karori, Kilbirnie, etc., would each get their own council.  With smaller councils the councillors and mayors will be closer to the people and easier to approach.  The people will be different too; the councillors will be parents at the local school, businessmen who have an evening to spare once a week, and so on, rather than someone who is prepared to give up their normal life.  The councillors would be much less likely to make poor decisions when the result of their actions may be being told all about it by locals when they are out and about in town or when dropping their kids at school.  Nothing reinforces public opinion to a politician like having to drive for an hour to get your groceries.  Furthermore, if a council does get too big for its boots, it is relatively trivial for residents to move to a neighbouring council and pay rates there instead, at least in the cities.  Competition always results in better outcomes and governance is no exception (you can see this at a national level with all of New Zealand’s brightest moving overseas).  While the 1980s Labour government did a lot of good things, amalgamating the councils and extending their remit away from core services wasn’t one of them. 

The government wasting the fuel excise and RUCs is much harder because it will always be a state monopoly.  I propose sequestering those funds in a transport fund that cannot be put into consolidated revenue and must be spent on maintaining and upgrading state highways.  Real transparency and consequences for mismanagement are needed to make it work, so I also propose making the fund a corporation instead of a government department, with a company constitution outlining what can and cannot be spent.  That would put the directors in breach of their fiduciary duties if the funds were misallocated, opening them up to prosecution.  The company’s constitution could also require a level of transparency at the same level or better than that required by companies listed on the NZX, with perhaps even asking the NZX to collect quarterly and annual reports.  Finally, the company’s constitution could be protected by an act of parliament requiring some super-majority or referendum to change.

Finally, tolling new “roads of national significance” could be achievable – but on a couple of conditions.  If the state is underwriting the project, the state collects the revenue and puts it toward the debt incurred for its construction.  When the debt is repaid the road becomes part of the state highway network and becomes free to use, with maintenance paid for by fuel excise.  Don’t sell the road to private interests who will use it as a cash cow, as has happened in the eastern states in Australia.  If the road is constructed without state funding by a private firm or joint venture then that road is theirs forever – but don’t agree to change the existing road network to force people to use the new toll road, and make sure there isn’t a clause to prevent competition from a future state or council road (or if there is make it for a relatively short period, like 5-10 years).  The arrangements for private ownership of such roads in NSW, Vic, and QLD are full of clauses that give the owners exclusive rights to charge for monopoly infrastructure for a century.  Don’t do that.  It’s not fair to the public, especially in growth areas where these projects are being built.  A privately run toll road needs to stand on its own two feet without government assistance or protection, or it shouldn’t get built.

Finally please don’t introduce mass surveillance under the guise of road funding.  The public are not stupid.  We can see what you are doing and don’t like it.  National’s foundation principles were “To promote good citizenship and self-reliance; to combat communism and socialism; to maintain freedom of contract; to encourage private enterprise; to safeguard individual rights and the privilege of ownership; to oppose interference by the State in business, and State control of industry”.  Mass surveillance is not consistent with them in any way, shape, or form. 

The Black Sea Security Forum was held over two days in Odesa, on the Black Sea. It was a fascinating discussion of politics, military and economics. The topics on Day 1 were:

• “Battleship: Ukraine Overpowers the Black Sea Fleet, Rewriting the Game’s Rules”
• “Beyond the EU: How Can Ukraine Shape a Post-War Europe?”
• “Another World: Why Ukraine  Is Not There Yet?”

Some of the panelists on Day 1 included:

• Colonel Richard Kemp CBE, British infantry battalion commanding officer in Afghanistan
• Mamuka Mamulashvil, Commander of the Georgian Legion, Armed Forces of Ukraine 
• General Welsey Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO
• Emanuelis Zingeris, Lithuanian MP, Chair of PACE Delegation of Lithuania 
• Ian Bond, former British Ambassador to Latvia and Deputy Director, Center for European Reform 
• Tony Abbott, 28th Prime Minister of Australia

The discussion of the Battle for the Black Sea was fascinating because basically Ukraine has no navy, yet they have sunk, damaged or driven off around a third of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. They have pioneered using numerous drones to attack and cripple huge ships. This has changed the game around naval warfare. If I was Taiwan I’d be building a crapload of drones! They have also had commando squads on jet skis. The result has been their naval blockade of Ukraine collapsed, trade could resume and most Russian Naval ships have retreated from Criteria to Russia

The drones are equipped with advanced GPS and cameras, and have a low radar signature that makes them hard to detect.

They only cost 60,000 Euros each and were soliciting for donations at the Forum to buy some more.

The Black Sea is a critically important area for both trade and security. It used to be very open, but since 2014 it had become what one called a “Russian Lake”. It connects the Balkans, Middle East and North Africa. It is a major transit route for energy and has enormous oil resources.

General Clark was the most compelling speaker. He said that as Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine is entitled to do unlimited warfare in return, and that basically any military target in Russia is okay to strike – such as power stations. Having Western countries set limits on where there weapons can be used just encourages Putin.

He told the story of a discussion with Vietnamese generals about the massive US military bombing campaigns that were designed to intimidate them into surrender, but deliberately tried to minimise impact. It was meant to send a signal about how much destruction they could cause. The Vietnamese replied that they didn’t see the bombing as signals, just as ineffective!

He warned that a negotiated outcome is what Putin probably wants, but any new borders based on this will be temporary. If Putin gains five provinces as a reward for attacking, then of course he will attack again in future.

This was a common theme by almost every speaker there from other neighbouring countries. None of them see this conflict as being about Ukraine. It iOS about Georgia, Moldova, the Baltic States etc. These speakers were not academics or pundits, but senior MPs from their countries and to be blunt all of them are preparing for war. They are not increasing defence spending as a signal, they are doing it so they can defend themselves when Putin targets them.

General Clark talked about how you often have failure before success. In 1942 6,000 mainly Canadian infantry tried to capture the Port of Dieppe for a day, as a trial for a landing. It was a disaster and in six hours over half the men were killed, captured or wounded. Yet two years later D-Day was a huge success.

The issue of Putin threatening nuclear attack if some red line is crossed was discussed and it was pointed out Ukraine had already broken a dozen of his so called red lines. He often threatens a nuclear attack but has a very strong disincentive to use them.

Tony Abbott asked what should be response to any use of nuclear weapons by Russia? He asked if it should be Ukraine joins NATO immediately? Colonel Kemp has perhaps the most likely answer which is NATO would immediately destroy the Black Sea Fleet.

Tony Abbott also talked about his 2014 exchange with Putin after Russia downed a flight with many Australians aboard. He asked Putin for an apology to dead Australians and Putin tried to blame it on Ukraine and said the country had no right to exist anyway.

About said that everything for Putin is an incremental step to recreating the Russia of Peter the Great. If he wins in Ukraine then it shifts to Georgia, Moldova, the Stans, Baltic states and even Poland. He said we must get used to the prospect of war if we are to avoid it and need cultural rearmament as well as military.

Globally he said China wants to restore the Middle Kingdom and Iran wishes to unify the Muslim world under them. Ukraine is first fight in a global struggle we wish to avoid but the dictators want to have. They have a no limits partnership.

He concluded that this is about the right of people everywhere to choose their own destiny. The best hope of global peace is that Ukraine doesn’t fall.

As any long-term reader of this blog will know, I am no fan of David Bain. I am strongly in the “he did it” camp. However I was disappointed to read this article the Herald which:

• Reveals his new name
• Names his daughter
• Reveals the town where he lives by
• States his wife is a teacher at a nearby school

I think this is rather cruel (no not as cruel as killing your family but two wrongs don”t make a right). It was very appropriate to report on the murders 30 years on. I don’t even have a problem with the Herald door knocking him and asking for comment. There is journalistic value in that.

But what is the value in revealing his new name, especially knowing he changed it specifically after his former (new) name was published. This doesn’t just affect him, but his wife and kids.

His children may have friends who do not know their Dad is David Bain. Now everyone will know. His wife will now have everyone at her school knowing her as the wife of David Bain.

The Herald could have not revealed his new name. They could have stated he had a new name, without using it. That would have protected his family.

Have been notified that former Green MP Keith Locke has died, aged 79 or 80.

I doubt there was an MP I disagreed with on almost every policy issue from economics to foreign affairs to defence. Keith defended some despicable acts done by communist regimes.

But he was a lovely, nice person whom you could engage with at length constructively. He played the ball, not the person. And we did even work together a bit on the one thing we agreed on – Republicanism.

I am reminded of what the great P J O’Rourke said about Hillary Clinton in 2016:

She’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.

I sort of feel the same about Keith Locke. He was a decent man, who was steadfast in the beliefs he had all his life from childhood to death. I enjoyed the interactions I did have with, and am saddened by his death.

My thoughts go out to his family, friends and comrades.

A guest post by John Stringer:

The US presidential election is on Nov 5 (6th NZ time) 2024. In a few recent posts, for people not that familiar with how the US election works, it was explained that candidates (Biden and Trump) compete for each State. People vote by State. If a candidate wins a State, they get that ‘grab bag’ of State votes, called Electoral College Votes. The number of State College votes is determined by population. CA has 54, Texas has 40, Delaware has 3, and so on. This is done for a particular reason, to give States parity in deciding their president. If you get 270 Electoral College Votes you become the US president. 

I’ve been tracking the averages of all polls in each State, for a while.  We have a number in every State that a candidate leads by now. There are other factors too, like mid-term elections (how well Republicans or Democrats did in any particular State) and previous election result winning margins (2016, 2020 and trends in earlier elections). States are Republican or Democrat and we can follow changes in demographics and trends). All these factored in, gives us a good steer.

In a recent post I explained there were SOLID States (a State in which Biden or Trump leads now by 12%+ points over their rival) and LEANING States (they lead by 6%+ points). This coloured the State map of America, Republican (Red) or Democrat (Blue) the reverse of how it is in NZ (Labour v National). This left ten blanks States, which I said would decide the presidential election. These ten States have 180 College votes up for grabs.

1.TEXAS  (40)

2. FLORIDA  (30)

3.OHIO (17)

4. Pennsylv (19)

5.GEORGIA  (16)

6.N. CAROL (16)

7.MICHIGAN (15)

8.ARIZONA (11)

9.WISCON. (10)

10.NEVADA (06)

Elect. Votes (180)

But already by late-May 2024 three of these 10 States were already very solid for one candidate over another (more like a SOLID State).

In Texas Trump leads by 12% points up from 8% on 1 May.

In Florida Trump leads by 9% points. 

In Ohio Trump leads by 10% points.  That’s 87 College votes to Trump.

Even if polls fluctuated a bit, these leads are expected to remain leads, and Trump will win these States on the numbers. Polls track trends and that has been the trend for some time.

7 Battleground States

That leaves perhaps seven States we might call the Battleground States, the results of which will likely determine the presidential race. All these seven States were decided in 2020 by less than 3% points. Some of them went to Trump in 2016 and some went to Biden in 2020. Some flipped, so they are true Decider States.

Hispanic and Black Voters.

‘

In 2024 Trump is gaining big support amongst Hispanic voters (who have moved significantly right since 2020) and even amongst Black voters, which is bleeding across from Biden (on the economy and inflation). This is turning several Battleground States in Trump’s favour. The swing in Black votes is especially pronounced in Georgia one of the key seven. For example, a 5% shift in Georgia amongst Black voters would deliver a -1% loss to Biden in that State. In several cases, Biden’s support is down across States by double digit % points. He’s bleeding a lot in other words. And Trump is hoovering.

1/7 Georgia. Current polling shows Georgia is now Republican LEANING (Trump leads by 5.5%). 19 College votes.

2/7 North Carolina is also LEANING Republican. (Trump leads by 6.4%). 16 College votes.

3/7 Arizona is LEANING Republican (Trump is ahead by 4.3%). 11 College votes.

4/7 Michigan is LEANING Republican (Trump is ahead by 8% points). 15 College votes.

5/7 Wisconsin has Trump ahead by 1.6% in a poll 27 May. 10 College votes. Definitely a State to watch.

6/7 Pennsylvannia Trump leads by 1.6% points. 19 College votes.

7/7 Nevada is very interesting. Based on 32 polls, averaged, Trump leads in NV by 5.4%. 6 College Votes. I think this is the State to watch.  

The two debates, Trump’s trial verdict last week, Hunter Biden’s verdict this week, and Biden’s mental health will be big poll shifters, so anything could happen. But if the average of all polls, across all States, over the last several months holds true, then Trump wins by a big margin. Over 300 College votes. Some pollsters even have him over 400 which would be a rout.

The Post reports:

Local Government Minister Simeon Brown says he is “appalled” by Wellington City Council chief executive Barbara McKerrow withholding information from elected councillors. …

Brown said it was “appalling that information has been withheld from elected members”.

“Ultimately, they are elected by the public and they should have access to information, and they should not have to be using the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act in order to obtain information.”

Brown said he had asked Department of Internal Affairs officials to advise him on the “wider issue” of elected councillors lacking access to council information and what the Government could do.

The issue of CEOs withholding information from Councillors is not unique to WCC, but seems to be far worse there than other Councils.

A law change mandating the Councillors have the same right to access Council information as a company director has to access company information would be a simple solution.

Justifiably, Louise Upston was challenged yesterday before the Social Services and Community Select Committee for changes that could see a significant number of disable workers worse off.

Sometimes highlighting people and organisations that do an incredible job is the best way.

I became are of www.downlightsnz.com/ when they employed a student who had been at Mt Hobson Middle School while I was Principal there. She is an incredible adult now and throughout her life has been supported by brilliant parents.

Downlights founder Jennifer del Bel is a remarkable person and a part of her story is told here.

She sent me this note earlier in the week:

Downlights is a NZ owned luxury artisan candle & fragranced products company that creates meaningful employment opportunities for young New Zealanders with Down syndrome learning disabilities. 

A multi- winning social enterprise, Downlights also pays our staff the  Living Wage and we donate NZD1 from every Downlights candle sold via the Downlights Charitable Trust.

Please check out their site: https://www.downlightsnz.com/

Alwyn Poole
Innovative Education Consultants
www.innovativeeducation.co.nz
alwynpoole.substack.com
www.linkedin.com/in/alwyn-poole-16b02151/
www.wood2water.co.nz
www.russellinfo.co.nz

The latest e-mail newsletter from the Taxpayers Union highlighted how there is still plenty of waste the Government can eliminate to fund priorities like cancer drugs.

Once upon a time the Health Research Council would mainly be funding research into things like cancer treatments etc. But they have been infected by the woke virus and here are some of their current grants:

• $650k for Hapai te hauora: Breathing your ancestors into life, captures the breadth & connections of a generation – rangatahi Māori–a generation moving forward together
• $400k for access of traditional Maori healing for cancer care services
• $380k for Kaupapa Māori music theories and practices as a pathway to accelerating Māori well-being
• $150k for interviews with Pacific men, Pacific heath promoters and Pacific barbers will inform the development of a Pacific health promoting behaviour change framework and intervention programme in a barbershop setting owned by a Pacific health provider
• $150k to redesign hospital waiting rooms away from “a legacy founded in colonialism and are designed to Eurocentric principles of health and well-being“
• $400k to research traditional Māori lunar calendar system guided by the goddess Hine te Iwaiwa, into the context of pregnancy care for wāhine Māori and Maori Midwives.”
• $650k to research a Fijian Health Model
• $650k to fund build on her expertise in kaupapa Māori research and enable her to pursue a development and capacity building plan to grow both her expertise and that of emerging researchers

There is so much unmet health need in NZ, and we are throwing millions of dollars at woke feel goodness.

The Post reports:

The Green Party has admitted that its request to use off-street car parks of Wellington retailers, still sore after a Green-led cycleway took away on-street parking, was not the best look.

At Stacks Furniture, Duncan Domett recently moved further north on Adelaide Rd, partly because the new cycleway took away on-street parking at his original site. His new shop had off-street parking.

Then, on Friday, he had staff from the new electorate office for Green MPs Julie Anne Genter and Tamatha Paul asking if they could use his car parks for an event they were hosting. He, and a manager at the nearby Repco, refused to let the party use their car parks.

It really is hilarious. They take great joy in getting rid of as many car parks as possible, and then when they need some, ask businesses that have lost customers from their policies to lend them some parks for free!

Alexander Wang is in his 20s. He become the youngest self-made billionaire in the world at the age of 24, through his company Scale AI. He is the son of Chinese immigrants. He recently announced his key hiring principle:

Scale is a meritocracy, and we must always remain one.

Hiring on merit will be a permanent policy at Scale. 

It’s a big deal whenever we invite someone to join our mission, and those decisions have never been swayed by orthodoxy or virtue signaling or whatever the current thing is. I think of our guiding principle as MEI: merit, excellence, and intelligence.

That means we hire only the best person for the job, we seek out and demand excellence, and we unapologetically prefer people who are very smart.

We treat everyone as an individual. We do not unfairly stereotype, tokenize, or otherwise treat anyone as a member of a demographic group rather than as an individual. 

We believe that people should be judged by the content of their character — and, as colleagues, be additionally judged by their talent, skills, and work ethic.

There is a mistaken belief that meritocracy somehow conflicts with diversity. I strongly disagree. No group has a monopoly on excellence. A hiring process based on merit will naturally yield a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas. Achieving this requires casting a wide net for talent and then objectively selecting the best, without bias in any direction. We will not pick winners and losers based on someone being the “right” or “wrong” race, gender, and so on. It should be needless to say, and yet it needs saying: doing so would be racist and sexist, not to mention illegal.

Upholding meritocracy is good for business and is the right thing to do. This approach not only results in the strongest possible team, but also ensures we’re treating our colleagues with fairness and respect.

As a result, everyone who joins Scale can be confident that they were chosen for their outstanding talent, not any other reasons.

If only more companies were willing to say and implement this.

From The Telegraph:

Take our quick quiz to discover whether you too are at risk of joining the ever-growing number of dangerous extremists labelled “far-Right”…

1. In 1993, the UK had an annual net immigration figure of about zero. Thirty years later, in 2023, it had an annual net immigration figure of 685,000. How do you feel about this change?

a. It just goes to show how much Rishi Sunak’s racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, Little Englander Tory Government hates migrants. The 2023 figure should have been at least twice as high.

b. I can’t see any problems with it. Certainly not in the charming, peaceful and expensive middle-class suburb where I live.

c. Now you put it like that, the 2023 figure does seem a trifle on the steep side.

2. Do women have penises?

a. Obviously. Come on, this is basic biology. As of about 2015.

b. Oh, must we really keep on stoking these beastly culture wars? What’s wrong with placing convicted rapists in a prison full of women, anyway?

c. Er… no?

3. Last Saturday the IDF rescued four Israeli hostages from Gaza. What was your reaction?

a. Like every other decent, compassionate human being, I was utterly appalled by the premeditated slaughter of innocent Hamas operatives.

b. Both sides should just set aside their differences and live in peace. Why does no one seem to have thought of this?

c. If Hamas didn’t want the IDF to launch an armed operation to rescue the hostages, perhaps they shouldn’t have taken the hostages in the first place.

4. Last month, a councillor in Leeds ended his local elections acceptance speech by screaming, “Allahu Akbar!” How did you feel about this?

a. There was nothing remotely sinister or threatening about it at all. As anyone who knows the first thing about Islamic culture can tell you, it actually translates as “happy birthday”.

b. Do we really have to dwell on this sort of thing? It’s all terribly awkward and uncomfortable. Look, let’s just keep our heads down, and I’m sure it’ll all blow over.

c. He may well be a very nice man once you get to know him, but I can’t say I’ve got any immediate plans to invite him over for wine and nibbles.

YOUR ANSWERS

Mostly a: Congratulations! You’re a progressive. You therefore hold all the approved opinions about today’s key issues.

Mostly b: You’re a centrist. As a result, you believe in moderation, nuance, and never expressing any opinion that might damage your standing in fashionable circles. If Person X argues that 2+2=4 and Person Y argues that 2+2=5, you propose a sensible compromise of 4½.

Mostly c: You far-Right, bigoted, hate-filled, genocidal, transphobic Zionist. You are literally Hitler.

A month ago I blogged:

There is no way the investigation will have taken nine weeks. The Uffindell investigation took only five weeks to complete, and that was dealing with events from 20 years ago where witnesses had to be tracked down.

Almost certainly the Green leadership have the report, and have had it for some time. They don’t need to release the report, but they do need to tell us whether it substantiated the claims against Tana, and what the outcome will be.

It has now been 95 days with Tana on full pay. I’ve been a board chair where we have had to have a barrister investigate issues around employment allegations. We got the report within a fortnight or so.

How long is 95 days. Well some comparisons:

• The duration of 1.3 Falkland Wars (74 days)
• The duration of 2.3 Gulf Wars to liberate Kuwait (42 days)
• 8.6 Scaramuccis (11 days)
• Light from the sun will have travelled 1/16th of the way to Proxima Centauri
• 1.3 times the duration of the independent inquiry into the appointment of the NZ Deputy Police Commissioner (74 days)
• 1.1 times the duration of the independent inquiry into Judith Collins and the SFO Director (85 days)
• 0.7 times the duration of the Rogers Commission inquiry into why the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded
• 4.3 times the duration of the US Senate investigation into the sinking of the Titanic (18 days)
• 1.1 times the duration of the Tower Commission into the Iran-Contra Affair (85 days)
• 1.8 times the duration of the Roberts Commission into the Pearl Harbour attack (54 days)

Amazing how an inquiry into alleged employment infringements can take this long.

The Herald reports on how Kayla Pawa was kidnapped and tortured by gang members who wanted to access her partner’s cryptocurrency stash. The details include:

• held hostage for a month
• tortured with a blowtorch, threatening to burn her eyeballs out
• had the barrel of a gun put in her mouth
• forced to sleep on an extremely cold bathroom floor
• kept bound in the boot of a car
• instructed to dig her own grave
• threatened to cut her fingers off
• hit her in the ribs with a baseball bat
• multiple men used a hammer on her hands
• refused to feed her for five days
• held a meat cleaver to her shoulder
• beating her unconscious
• threats of amputating an entire limb

The maximum charge for kidnapping is 14 years but to be honest even that seems insufficient for what they did. The repeated tortures should result in a cumulative, not concurrent, sentence.

Sadly I suspect Harris will get less than ten years.

Readers will recall that the media reported breathlessly the statement by former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr that he was intending to sue Winston Peters for defamation after Peters said Carr was a pawn of China, or similar.

The media even got the letter from Carr’s lawyers 90 minutes before it was actually sent to Peters. For days this was reported as a major scandal, and the Labour Party even declared that Peters must be sacked as Foreign Minister for his comments. I noted here that what Peters said was hardly novel, and was something that even Carr’s former colleagues had said. But the media portrayed Peters as being under huge pressure because of this.

Well it is now over 45 days since Carr said he intended to sue, and he hasn’t yet (as I predicted). Perhaps the media who got leaked early a copy of his lawyer’s letter to Peters, could ask Mr Carr what is happening?

Nicola Willis announced:

Workforce data for the quarter from 31 December 23 to 31 March 24 shows a decrease of 0.6 per cent (or 416 FTEs) indicating workforce size peaked in December.

“We knew that the recent increase in the number of back-office public service roles was unaffordable and needed to be reined in,” Public Service Minister Nicola Willis says. 

The full impact of Budget 2024 decisions is yet to be realised which is why the nine months to 31 March 2024 still shows a small net increase of 3.4 per cent in FTE since June 2023 to 65,283 FTEs.

Now this is only to 31 March, but the fact that FTEs are 3.4% higher than just before the election shows how fast it grew in the second half of last year.

The Herald reports:

National MP Maureen Pugh was allegedly assaulted after a Tākaka community board meeting.

Golden Bay Community Board chair Abbie Langford said the incident yesterday afternoon, which allegedly involved a man pushing a placard into Pugh’s chest and others shouting at her, was “a bit scary”.

“We weren’t prepared for the aggression shown towards Maureen.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told reporters today Pugh had been a victim of an “attack” and the matter had been lodged with police.

The person responsible should be charged. The right to protest is not a right to assault.

NewstalkZB reports:

New and existing “roads of national significance” would have a 110km/h speed limit if they had been built to a high safety standard. 

Brown said the Government was seeking feedback from the public on potential 120km/h speed limits on “roads of national significance” able to safely accommodate that speed. 

If the engineering is done well, then I see no problem with 120 km/hr limit on very safe roads. It is a limit, not a target.