Labour have been so busy printing up their stop asset sales signs, that I wonder if they have bothered to check the law.  You can see them all planted here next to the road, in the Hutt.

However, the problem for Labour is that displaying something that looks like a road sign, near a road, is an offence punishable by a $150 instant infringement notice with a potential fine of up to $1000.

So what does the law say?

We have a law called Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 and Rule 3.2(5)(a) appears most relevant:

3.2(5) A person must not install on a road, or in or on a place visible from a road, a sign, device or object that is not a traffic control device, but that:
(a) may be mistaken for a traffic control device

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/traffic-control-devices-manual/docs/draft-tcd-traffic-signs.pdf

It is covered again at Rule 13.7

13.7 Responsibilities of all persons
A person must not:
(a) unless that person is a member of the New Zealand Police, or is authorised by a road controlling authority or the [Agency], install, modify, remove or obscure a traffic control device;
(b) damage or otherwise interfere with a traffic control device;
(c) mark or install, or allow to be marked or installed, on a road, or in or on a place that is visible from a road, a sign, device or object that appears to be a traffic control device but is not;
(d) install a traffic control device that bears a logo, monogram, sign of sponsorship, sign indicating an association with a business, or any information other than that specified in this rule;

Also we have the NZTA Trafiic control devices manual. They even use a non authorised stop sign as an example of an illegal sign. Compare their example below with Labour’s signs.

I think it is a pretty clear cut case. So will Labour say the law doesn’t apply to them, or will they change their advertisements?

The Herald reports:

Labour has accused the Prime Minister of being “out of touch” after he used a military helicopter to ferry him between engagements on Sunday. …

Mr Key’s office says it would have been unacceptable for him to be late as the Governor-General was also attending and protocol requires the Prime Minister cannot arrive later than the Queen’s representative. …

Labour’s finance spokesman David Cunliffe said Mr Key’s actions showed he is out of touch.

“Maybe Mr Key’s lavish lifestyle with his $55 million worth of investments tells him that flying around from Auckland to Hamilton and back in a helicopter is just normal business, but to most kiwis in this age of austerity it’s outrageous.”

One can have a debate about whether use of a helicopter is justified on a particular occassion (I suspect all PMs only use them when necessary), but what I find interesting is that Labour are once again attacking John Key for having been successful in business, and for being a “rich prick”.

This just reinforces to me that when Labour talk closing the gaps, their focus is not helping those at the bottom of society, but clawing down those who have done well.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Most importantly, the frequent use of urgency suggests a lack of regard for parliamentary process. And if many governments have been guilty of succumbing to temptation over the years, National’s record this term is particularly poor. In its first two years in power, it used urgency for 331.5 hours, nearly double the time the former Labour Government sat under urgency in its full first term. In that time, it has pushed through 17 laws without allowing select committee examination. Labour’s figure was four or five each term.

As I blogged last week, use to skip sleof urgency just to extend the sitting hours of the House is not that big a deal, especially as National goes out of its way to preserve question time when in urgency.

When it is used to progress a bill through multiple stages at once, or to skip select committee, that it gets more problematic.

Various proposals have been put forward to reduce the use of urgency. Requiring a 75 per cent vote in Parliament before the select committee stage could be omitted for any bill is one of the more valid. Another suggestion is for more sitting weeks each year. But the total number of bills passed by National is little changed from that passed by Labour.

Changes to standing orders need, broadly, both major parties to agree. I’d like to see both National and Labour agree on changes, such as extending the sitting hours so that it reduces the need for urgency. This could be done by having more sitting weeks, by allowing the committee of the whole to meet in mornings, by being able to extend House hours in the evening etc.

Tracy Watkins reports:

National looks set to throw ACT a fresh lifeline in Epsom and do a deal with Peter Dunne in Ohariu despite polls suggesting it could govern alone after November 26.

Prime Minister John Key has given his clearest indication yet that National will tacitly endorse ACT leader Rodney Hide in Epsom to save ACT from certain electoral death as it struggles to rate much above 1 per cent in most polls.

He signalled a similar strategy in Ohariu, which Mr Dunne has comfortably held on to under his UnitedFuture party banner since 1996, though his majority has been slowly whittled down to just over 1200 from more than 20,000 in 1999.

“The primary emphasis [in Epsom] will almost certainly be a party vote campaign,” Mr Key said.

Asked where else that might be the case he said “maybe Ohariu”.

What John Key has said, is no surprise. National was always going to stand candidates in  those two seats, but it was never going to actively run a campaign against Ministers who serve in their Government.

One should no more expect this to happen, than you would expect Labour to have tried to kill off Jim Anderton in Wigram, when he was a Minister in a Labour-led Government.

Regardless of whether National actively targets the electorate vote, many National party voters will give the National candidate their electorate vote. Tends to be around 80% nationally. This will also be the case in Epsom and Ohariu, unless onr or both of the following hold true:

1. There is a candidate with huge cross-party support, such as Peters used to have in Tauranga, Harry Dunhhoven had in New Plymouth, Peter Dunne has in Ohariu etc
2. It is tactically sensible to vote for another candidate to help your party – as happened in Wellington Central in 1996 and Epsom in 2005

National voters are smart, and also quite independent. They will decide for themselves what to do, regardless of whether the party is explicitly asking for electiorate votes or not. Epsom in 2005 is one example – letters went out to voters signed by the President asking them to vote for the National candidate. The voters said “No, we want ACT to remain in Parliament” and voted for Rodney.

What will happen in 2011? Well the two seats are quite different. Take Ohariu first. Peter Dunne, Katrina Shanks and Charkles Chauvel all polled quite close to each other last election and any of them could win the seat. If the National vote splits between Dunne and Shanks. CHauvel may come through the middle. If a poll shows this as probable, then you might get tactical voting – where eitehr Dunne voters vote Shanks to keep Chauvel out, or Shanks voters vote Dunne to keep Chauvel out. Whomever registers in third place in a public poll in that seat will run a risk of having their vote be tactically siphoned off. What Chauvel will want is the race to be so close that Shanks and Dunne almost tie, and he comes through the middle.

In Epsom, it will be a different sort of tactical decision. The seat is massively National and there is really no chance of Labour winning the seat. So why might National voters vote Hide? Because it may help National to do so. But my long stated position is that Epsom voters will only decide what to do in the final weeks. Any polls prior to that will mean little.

Around two or three weeks out, Epsom voters will ask themselves two questions.

1. Can National form a centre-right Government without ACT? If National is at 57% the answer is yes, if National is at 47% the answer could be unclear, and if National is at 45% the answer is probably no. Remember that a National-Maori Party combination is not a CR Government. If Epsom voters see National as likely to need the Maori Party to govern, this will provide an incentive to give National an alternative in the guise of ACT.
2. If the answer to (1) is no or “unclear” then the second question is will electing Rodney in Epsom make a difference. If ACT look like they can get five MPs again the answer is yes. If they are polling at below 1% the answer is probably no. If they are polling in the 1% to 3% range it is more complicated – especially as ACT usually does better on election night than the polls show.

The one thing the two seats have in common is that the public polls could have a significant impact on the outcome. Polls well before the election less so, but polls in the last few weeks could be considerably influential – far more so that what the party hierarchy want

Of course you want to be very careful that a poll has asked the right question. Peter McCaffery at AOC has a useful blog post on this issue, reminding people of the 2005 TVNZ poll which showed Worth beating Hide. That poll, as Peter explains, was asking the wrong question.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

A former adviser to Labour leader Phil Goff believes the party should endorse more of what the Government is doing rather than attack more savagely if it wants to improve its popularity.

John Pagani said in a blog yesterday that voters were not desperate for a leap to the Left. “They’re waiting for Labour to demonstrate it genuinely understands their needs – and that means endorsing more of what National is doing – the things the voting public approves of. Insisting the public is wrong is a recipe for even more disaster.”

John’s actual blog post is here. One extract:

It simply beggars belief to say that the right response to that situation is to start flying into the most popular things National is doing. 

Take those calls by Labour’s critics on the left that Labour should  tell thousands of people in Christchurch, who are using buckets for their ablutions – that politicking over the CERA law is more important than actually getting things fixed for them as fast as possible.

Insisting the public is wrong is a recipe for even more disaster. Attacking constructive things the government is doing is exactly the wrong option. 

He is not saying support the Government when they are wrong. I read it as saying support the Government when they are right.

Pagani clarifies in a later post:

 No, Labour should not endorse National Policy and promote no substantial policy of its own.

That is not what Labour should do, nor is it what they are doing.

What in practice are the examples Dimpost and his commenters give as examples of where Labour should oppose harder? CERA and the copyright laws. Yeah. Go to Christchurch and explain that logic to people who can’t go to the toilet in a proper flushing loo.

The real action is on the cost of living. On asset sales. On the butchery National is making of skills and pre-school education. On big and bold ideas to change our long term economic development, and create a more equal New Zealand.

Labour needs to go to the election with hugely different policies on all those areas. 

Stuff reports:

In the late 1990s, the Fourth Reich, a Nazi skinhead gang, became a breeding ground for some of New Zealand’s most vicious killers.

Malcolm George Chaston, 41, was right at its heart.

Yesterday in the High Court in Rangiora, Chaston received one of the harshest sentences in New Zealand history, a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years for murder, and a sentence of preventive detention for two sexual crimes. For his surviving victims, the sentence will provide some relief. But for Vanessa Pickering’s family it’s far too late.

That is an appropriate sentence. Hopefully he will never be allowed out again.

His offending began 25 years ago and before he murdered Pickering he had 71 convictions, seven of a violent nature. He had used firearms and explosives, attacked prison guards and tried to escape prison.

It is highly likely that if we had three strikes, he would not have amassed 72 convictions, let alone be out of prison to murder Pickering. On the third and an any subsequent strikes he would be getting sentenced to at least seven years with no parole.

In 2002 he got six years for sexual violation. If that had been his third strike, then he would have been locked up for 20 years and not be out until 2022.

This is genuinely good news if it occurs. AP reports:

Raul Castro proposed term limits yesterday for Cuban politicians – including himself – a remarkable gesture on an island ruled for 52 years by him and his brother.

The 79-year-old President lamented the lack of young leaders in government, saying the country was paying the price for errors made in the past.

Castro told delegates to a crucial Communist Party summit he would launch a “systematic rejuvenation” of the Government.

He said politicians and other important officials should be restricted to two consecutive five-year terms, including “the current president of the Council of State and his ministers” – a reference to himself.

I think term limits are very valuable in stopping dictatorships. If someone is able to try and retain the top job forever, then they will try to – and the temptation to abuse the powers of the state to hang on is immense.

Think if there was no term limit for the US President. I hate to think what Presidents would do to try and win a third or fourth term.

Even in NZ, we saw the Electoral Finance Act as part of Clark’s strategy for a fourth term.

If NZ had a four year term, then I’d propose a maximum five terms for any MP, and a maximum two terms for the office of Prime Minister. If MPs knew there was a finite amount of time they could serve, I think it would encourage more focus on what they achieve during that time, rather than how long they can stay on for.

The graph above show Phil Goff’s performance rating as Opposition Leader since the election. What many do not realise is he had quite positive ratings for the first six months in the job. His positives were 16% above his negatives in February 2009. Now Labour in that poll was also at 27%, but Goff was well regarded – he was capable of converting people back to Labour.

Then between April and August 2009, Goff went from a net 16% positive to a net 7% negative. Why? The prinary reason was his handling of the Neelam Choudary affair where he was seen to misrepresent her. Also during the same time period he championed a man as being unable to afford to live in his own home – and it turned out he owned two other properties.

So basically Goff started with positive ratings, mainly on a blank slate. People were willing to give him a fair go. But early in his tenure he made a couple of big blunders which marred him image. In fact he turned his brand into a negative one of not being open and honest. If people don’t like that analysis, then why else such a change over those months?

Now over the next 18 momths he stayed more or less constant at around net -10%. But this year it has blown out to a net -23% – probably partly because of his handling of the Hughes affair. His positives are only 27% and his negatives 49%. That is a near impossible position to become Prime Minister from.

If one looks for an international comparison to such a rating, the cloest I can find is Sarah Palin whose negatives are currently 28% behind her positives. Of course Palin has 18 months to turn things around, not six months.

Unless they are hiding them very well, Stuff seems to have stopped their weekly NZ politics trivia quiz. So here’s a substitute one.

1. What is it that Phil Goff doesn’t want John Key to do with Prince William?

(a) Dance with him at the wedding
(b) Make him Governor-General
(c) Ask for his endorsement as best ever Kiwi PM
(d) Pose for photos with him during the Rugby World Cup
(e) Try to hook Steffi up with Prince Harry

2. What change has Steven Joyce proposed for student loans?

(a) That interest be charged at the rate of inflation, so they are interest-free in real terms rather than nominal terms
(b) That students aged over 55 can only use student loans for tuition fees and not for living costs
(c) That any graduates willing to work in Christchurch have 10% of their loan balance written off every year, for five years.
(d) That graduates be unable to leave to go overseas until they have paid off their student loan
(e) That students can use their student loans to buy shares in the four state owned power companies

3. How many seats did the latest political poll (TV3/Reid Research) predict National would get in an election based on their poll?

(a) 58
(b) 62
(c) 67
(d) 71
(e) 75

4. Former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley is a director of the China Construction Bank. In terms of market capitalisation, where does it rank in the world?

(a) 2nd
(b) 5th
(c) 9th
(d) 10th
(e) 20th

5. Which TV channel is to close next July?

(a) C4
(b) The Hitler History Channel
(c) Sky Sport 3
(d) TVNZ7
(e) Playboy TV

6. Which party voted against the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority bill?

(a) Progressive
(b) ACT
(c) Labour
(d) Green
(e) Maori Party

7. Rodney Hide announced the scrapping of various outdated regulations last week. How many did he scrap?

(a) 21
(b) 49
(c) 88
(d) 125
(e) 156

8. Which former journalist has been appointed Chair of Radio New Zealand?

(a) Richard Long
(b) Richard Griffin
(c) Paul Henry
(d) Tom Scott
(e) Linda Clark

9. What penalty could a court in future apply to someone convicted of downloading copyrighted material without paying for it?

(a) Forced to listen to Rebecca Black’s “Friday” for 48 hours non-stop
(b) Ban them from using the Internet for life
(c) Confiscate their computer
(d) Suspend their Internet account for six months
(e) Slow their connection speed to 56 Kb/s

10. Who has been dubbed the Minister of Twitter?

(a) Clare Curran
(b) Tau Henare
(c) Trevor Mallard
(d) Jacinda Ardern
(e) Chris Finlayson

Only had a brief stay in Napier, but an enjoyable one.

This was the view from my room. It looked even better in the morning.

The nice thing about staying outside the main cities, is that the quality of the hotel rooms is so much nicer and for less money. This room cost just $150, which isn’t bad for your own spa pool and an ocean view.

I didn’t know where to stay, so chose Peeble Beach Motor Inn as it was the best ranked place on Trip Advisor. I can advise that the rating is deserved. Great views, great rooms and great service.

After Napier, I drove to Tauranga via Taupo. The Napier to Taupo road is one of my favourites with great sights, and beautiful forests. One scenic viewpoint is of the Waipunga Falls, above.

Tonight’s TV3/Reid Research poll showing Labour at 27% is the equal (with Feb 2009) lowest result they have had in that poll since 1996. The TV3 poll was the most accurate public poll in the 2008 and 2005 elections.

In October 1996 they did get a 26% poll result, but at that time the Alliance and NZ First were polling a massive 33% between them. This may be an all time low for the combined centre-left vote which was just 35%.

On this result, Labour would get just 34 MPs – nine fewer than it has at the moment. As they are going to take in Wigram, that means 10 fewer Labour List MPs. If they win Te Tai Tonga and West Coast-Tasman, then it is 12 fewer Labour MPs off the list.

Those who would lose their seats would include Steve Chadwick, Stuart Nash, Rick Barker, Carmel Sepuloni, and Kelvin Davis. They might also lose Carol Beaumont and Raymond Huo. Their only new list MP would be Andrew Little.

Andrea Fox at Stuff reports:

New Zealand would be committing ‘collective suicide’ if the government agreed to demands for an independent commission to set the domestic milk price, claims Fonterra chief executive Andrew Ferrier.

“It would be an astonishing backward step for New Zealand – every aspect of our international trade policies is around free markets,” Ferrier said in response to industry campaigners taking their call for a milk price regulator to Minister of Finance Bill English. “It would be a massive step back to the dark ages. There are internally established milk prices in the US and Europe and it is commonly known to be their failure. It is everything we have been lobbying against for 30 years [in overseas markets].”

I agree – regulation would undermine our trade policy.

“When governments intervene in industries they cause enormous secondary problems that are not easy to foresee.”

He cited the example of Argentina, about four years ago. When world prices were too high for the domestic market’s liking, the government set a domestic market price.

“Literally within weeks, all the major dairy companies figured ‘we can’t afford to sell at that price’ so they started exporting more. Why wouldn’t they? To stop the exporting [increase] the government put on an export tax … it actually bankrupted some companies. The legal implications are mind-boggling.”

If Fonterra is forced to sell milk for a lower price in NZ, than overseas, then their logical response would be to sell as much as possible overseas, and NZ could even face milk shortages.

Le Roof is a very nice restaurant I went to twice. Great food, and being above ths sea, you can actually see sharks and fish through a hole in the floor, as you eat.

This is the South Pacific Commission HQ where we had our meetings.

And this is the view from the hotel – Ramada Plaza. Has a rotating restaurant on the top floor.

This is inside the meeting room.

One of the recommended things to do in Noumea is visit the aquarium, and it is great value for just NZ$15. The coral on display is amazing,

I liked this little yellow fish. An unusual shape.

One of the tanks there.

Such wonderful colouring.

An exotic creature.

I saw a sea snake identical to this one when I was actually out snorkelling. You do not want to be bitten by one.

This one was my favourite, even though he looks like a Gremlin.

A shark and lots of fish in this tank.

Meet Mr Eel

I had Monday off (there was no return flight until Tuesday) so grabbed a water taxi and went out to this small island. Was 30 degrees or so. Went snorkelling and the reef is so shallow that you are literally swimming through the fish, and can almost touch them.

The island bar.

And the view from the water taxi as we return to the mainland.

Overall was a great experience. It’s a lot cheaper thaan French Polynesia, and some of the beaches are just as nice. It is NZ’s closest neighbour (yes even closer than Australia), and I could well return there in future. AN easy place to go for a short holiday.

The Australian reports:

LARISSA Behrendt was appointed to head the Gillard government’s review of indigenous higher education on the same day it was revealed she used her Twitter account to describe watching bestiality on television as “less offensive” than Aboriginal leader Bess Price.

The high-profile indigenous lawyer was yesterday forced into a humiliating apology to Ms Price, an Aboriginal woman who supports the federal intervention in Northern Territory communities, after indigenous leaders expressed outrage at the comment.

After watching Ms Price appear on the ABC’s Q&A program on Monday night, Professor Behrendt tweeted: “I watched a show where a guy had sex with a horse and I’m sure it was less offensive than Bess Price.”

Bess Price’s crime was to have supported the Howard Government’s intervention.

Respected indigenous academic Marcia Langton writes in The Australian today that she has “never witnessed such extreme disrespect shown by a younger Aboriginal woman for an older Aboriginal woman in my life, except where the perpetrator was severely intoxicated on drugs or alcohol”. She says Professor Behrendt’s “foul” tweet “is an exemplar of the wide cultural, moral and increasingly political rift between urban, left-wing, activist Aboriginal women and the bush women, who witness the horrors of life in their communities, much of which is arrogantly denied by the former”.

Sums it up perfectly I’d say.

The opposition yesterday called on the Gillard government to stand down Professor Behrendt, saying her appointment to the new role was offensive. Indigenous leader and former ALP president Warren Mundine said the tweet was one of the most offensive comments he had seen made about an Aboriginal woman. “I think some people need to grow up,” he said. “What she said was just dreadful. It was one of the worst comments I’ve ever heard. It’s very juvenile. Some of this debate has turned into schoolyard arguments rather than actually giving the facts and dealing with reality of life in these communities.

“I’ve heard Bess speak before and I think she speaks very powerfully about what it’s like to live in these places.”

This could damage the Gillard Government if they persist with her appointment.

I blogged a couple of weeks back that after 6+ years of consideration and delays, that ICANN had finally approved on the 18th of March, the .xxx top level domain.

The two remaining steps for .xxx were to sign a contract with ICANN and then actually get the .xxx TLD into what is known as the root zone.

The contract was signed on 31 March. The final step involves ICANN asking Verisign to enter it into the root zone, and Verisign are required to first check with the US Government before doing so.

This is normally routine, but there was some concern that the USG might refuse – because it was one of those Governments that had oppossed .xxx as a TLD. It would be improper for them to use their historical authority over the root zone, to overturn the decision of ICANN, but it was not inconceivable.

However they didn’t, as got added to the root earlier today, and the website icm.xxx is now active. In it’s own way, a sort of historical day.

It will be interesting to see how many adult sites move to .xxx, and also to see if any Governments try to force all adult sites to .xxx. Also of interest will be if any countries automatically block the entire .xxx domain.

f coThe Herald reports:

“At the end of 2008, following another personal crisis, and while not being fully compliant with his medication, he spiralled into another episode of depression. He experienced significant insomnia and suicidal ideation, and ruminated for days about cutting off his fingers.

“In an effort to seek reprieve from these thoughts, he tied a shoelace around his [little] finger to act as a tourniquet and cut the finger off with a jigsaw.

When I first read this I automatically took jigsaw to mean jigsaw puzzle, and was wondering how one could cut your finger off with pieces from a jigsaw.

Upon reflection, of course they mean a literal jigsaw. Ouch. That would hurt.

“He then cooked it in a pan with some vegetables and ate its flesh. His plan was to amputate another two fingers the following day.

At some stage one would have to stop, unless you could operate the jigsaw with your toes.

“Mr X reported initial excitement – non-sexual – and a sense of relief from his ruminations. Given the instantaneous benefit, he felt that there was no point in cutting off any more fingers.”

I’m not sure I’d call it a benefit, but I’m glad he stopped.

Jared Savage reports in the Herald:

A sickness beneficiary with three luxury cars has been evicted from his taxpayer-subsidised state home.

Police seized two Mercedes Benz and a Porsche from Paul Yu Hung Szeto when he was arrested on money laundering and methamphetamine charges in December 2008.

I’m always amazed how active certain sickness beneficiaries manage to be.

The 59-year-old was acquitted this week after a seven-week trial in the High Court at Auckland, where a multi-millionaire businessman was found guilty of serious drugs and money laundering charges.

But Housing New Zealand has terminated Szeto’s tenancy in a North Shore state home after the Herald revealed he lived in a rental property in upmarket Mission Bay with cars worth $250,000.

If he lived in Mission Bay why did he also have a state house on the North Shore? Was he renting it out illegally?

Szeto and his girlfriend Wei Na Shi, a 28-year-old known as Candy, were found not guilty in a jury trial at the High Court on money laundering charges.

Candy? I wonder what her occupation is. I’m guessing neurosurgeon, but I may be wrong.

Dave Brugess at the Dom Post reports:

Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown has accused Deputy Mayor Ian McKinnon of betrayal in a furious rant in the public reception area of the city council’s offices.

The minute-long verbal spray on Thursday was aimed at Mr McKinnon for supporting calls for an extraordinary meeting of the council to confirm its full support for $2.4 billion of government roading projects.

Ms Wade-Brown had already told councillors that she would schedule a meeting within six weeks. But nine councillors, including Mr McKinnon, sped up the process by signing a resolution forcing the council to schedule the meeting for Wednesday.

The transport issues loom as the biggest threat to the leadership of Ms Wade-Brown, who does not support big roading projects, since she took office six months ago.

The reality is that Celia is in a minority on her own Council on transport issues. The NZTA has warned funding is at risk if the Council keeps sending mixed messages, so the Council is acting to make its formal position clear.

Ms Wade-Brown’s flash of fury after the committee meeting in the council offices was seen by councillors, staff and members of the public. One witness said: “She just totally lost her rag.”

A source said: “Everybody is talking about it in the council building. It is the only topic of conversation.”

Witnesses said Mr McKinnon appeared incandescent with rage at the public dressing-down as Ms Wade-Brown accused him of betrayal for not trying to stop councillors from setting up the meeting, and for supporting it himself

Ian McKinnon made clear when he became Deputy Mayor that he would vote with his conscience on policy issues – and this is a policy issue.

Councillor John Morrison said Mr McKinnon had worked tirelessly to help maintain the integrity of the office of the mayor.

“So for him to be attacked in public and accused of being disloyal to the mayor is totally out of order.”

Councillor Ray Ahipene-Mercer, who saw the mayor’s outburst, said: “It was an aggressive confrontation in a public arena.

“It was inappropriate because staff, visitors and the public were present. The deputy mayor tried to reason with her but was unsuccessful.”

Celia is very silly in attacking Ian like this. Ian is an old fashioned gentleman who has gone out of his way as Deputy Mayor to protect Celia. He has told numerous people that he doesn’t want people to attack her personally or portray her as unsuited to the office, as she deserves respect as the incumbent. He has said that any opposition should be to her policies (when warranted), not to her personally.

I doubt Ian will hold a grudge – he isn’t like that. But if I was Celia, I’d consider apologising. Having a public slanging match with your deputy in such a public area will not engender confidence in her – and it may especially make her Council colleagues less supportive.