Wayne Thompson in the Herald reports:

The country’s most elected local government politician, Warren Flaunty, has struck a problem – how to be in two places at once.

Mr Flaunty was elected to three Auckland Council local boards, as well as being re-elected to the Waitemata District Health Board and the Waitakere Licensing Trust.

My view is that this should not be possible. I believe one should be able to stand for one local body only.

While I do recall the Herald did highlight the multiple candidacies before the election, many voters would be unaware that Mr Flaunty was standing for three different community boards. If they had known this, I suspect he may have been elected to none of them. Maybe there should be a requirement for this information to be disclosed in the booklet with the voting papers.

Last week board members received notice of the time and place for their swearing-in ceremonies.

Two of Mr Flaunty’s boards – Rodney and Upper Harbour – will hold them at 6pm on Wednesday, November 3.

Rodney’s will be in the rural Coatesville Settlers Hall and Upper Harbour’s in the stadium at Albany.

Mr Flaunty said the clash was “not a big issue”.

The boards should schedule their regular meetings to be on the same days and time. That way the quintriple dipper will have to choose.

This will upset the cultists. The SFO has announced:

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) today announced that it had launched an investigation into South Canterbury Finance (SCF).

Chief Executive, Adam Feeley, said that as a result of inquiries made by its newly established Fraud Detection Unit, the SFO had grounds to suspect that a number of related party transactions involving SCF may have involved false statements or other fraudulent conduct.

“Given the scale of the SCF collapse, it would be neither feasible nor productive for SFO to carry out an investigation into all aspects of the failure. Instead we will focus on specific transactions which we consider may have been a fraud on the investors in SCF and/or the Crown as the guarantor of investor funds.”

Mr Feeley said that despite the volume of cases which SFO had taken up in recent months, the matter was one which would have a high priority and would be progressed as quickly as possible.

Also of interest:

Mr Feeley added that the SCF investigation was an entirely separate matter from the SFO’s investigation into the affairs of Aorangi Securities Limited.

“While there are some persons who are common to both cases, the SCF transactions we are currently investigating have no material connection with the affairs of Aorangi Securities.

Mr Feeley added that, subject to receiving any new information from the statutory managers, the SFO was in the closing stages of its investigation into Aorangi Securities.

Until their investigations are complete, it is hard to comment in great detail. But

The NZ Herald editorial:

Now, it says it would turn down big land sales to overseas buyers except in exceptional circumstances. That means Mr Goff, who was involved in many free trade deals, is overseeing a policy that would, for example, have big implications for the reciprocal provisions of the Closer Economic Relations agreement with Australia.

Labour’s policy is at a minimum against the spirit of CER, and is likely to kill off all the current work underway about further removing barriers between the two economies. It may well result in counter measures from Australia. If NZ bans Aussies from being able to buy land in NZ, then Australia may decide to end having an open labour market with New Zealand.

Unfortunately, this particular change, like the plan to axe GST on fresh fruit and vegetables, can be explained only in terms of populist appeal.

Populist and xenophobic.  They have stolen Winston’s policies. Next I suspect they will start to rail against immigrants.

Despite its claims, its policy would be governed by the prevailing fancy, not what is best for the country in terms of economic benefit. A subject as vital as foreign investment is in danger of losing a foundation of sound and consistent principle.

That is too harsh. The sound and consistent policy is the desire for election. Not that Labour is alone there – National is also in danger of being seen to weaken a principle based policy for a populist policy in this area.

Bernard Orsman at the Herald reports:

Super City mayor-elect Len Brown will face angry protesters today at an invitation-only opening of a park honouring Leigh Auton, his outgoing chief executive at the Manukau City Council.

The naming of Leigh Auton Reserve on a historic coastal farming block between Beachlands and Maraetai has upset some locals, a local community website and local community board member Lance Gedge, who is boycotting the event.

Bevan Craig, one of six locals who spent $20,000 of his own money going to court to secure the reserve, said “Mr Auton and his henchmen” had walked all over the community for years.

“It is an insult to the many that fought hard against the council and developer to secure that reserve to find it now being named after the person they had to fight” said Mr Craig.

If Mr Craig is correct in his assertion that the Council was a hindrance, not a help, in securing the reserve then it does seem very insensitive to name it after the Council CEO.

Last night, a council spokeswoman said Mr Brown and Deputy Mayor Gary Troup initiated the naming of the park in recognition of Mr Auton’s 32 years’ contribution to the city.

She said residents of Clevedon and Maraetai were not consulted about the name because it was not required in the parks naming process.

Consultation with the public not legally required, so we won’t do it.

Asked why the local community was not consulted on the name of the park, a spokesman for Mr Brown said last night: “The community board is the community.”

I can think of a lot of people who would disagree with that.

Creative NZ have sent me this PR:

Creative New Zealand today has clarified the amount of funding provided to the Letting Space exhibition The Beneficiary’s Office by Tao Well.

Creative New Zealand invested $44,790 in the Wellington Independent Arts TrustLetting Space project; a public art programme of six exhibitions.  Tao Well’s exhibition is the third in the series. The curators leading the project are Sophie Jerram and Mark Amery. towards curating and commissioning public art works as part of the

Creative New Zealand understands that Tao Well received an artist’s fee of $2000 and a further total $1500 for expenses for his project.

The artists working in this series of projects are looking to generate discussion in the community around social issues and art.

All applicants to Creative New Zealand are assessed on the basis of artistic quality and contribution to our strategic outcomes. Projects are assessed on the basis of the idea, the process, the track record of the people involved, the budget, plus, where applicable, innovation, community arts participation, and diversity (cultural diversity, Matauranga Maori, or Kaupapa Pasifika).

Creative New Zealand’s role as the national arts development agency is to provide financial support to artists, arts practitioners and arts organisations to assist them to research, create, publicly present and distribute the arts in their various forms.

We distribute around $11 million each year in Contestable Funding to support projects that develop New Zealand arts, artists and arts practitioners.

Letting Space is a public art programme in Wellington New Zealand that seeks to transform the relationship between artists, property developers and their city. It commissions temporary art works from leading New Zealand contemporary artists for commercial CBD spaces.

The first works in the Letting Space series were “pop-up” installations by Dugal McKinnon (18 April – 9 May, 141 Willis Street) and Kim Paton (21 May – 6 June, 38 Ghuznee Street). The next project Taking Stock by Eve Armstrong will be in November 2010. They will be followed by projects by Colin Hodson and Bronwyn Holloway-Smith in 2011.

This just makes me even more determined to lobby for a budget reduction for them. There is nothing innovative about a guy advocating that people should stop working and bludge off those of us who keep working. Far from being innovative, this is a well established attitude amongst some.

I have an idea for ACT on Campus. They should apply for a grant to set up some human artwork in an office, with the artwork being them advocating that the top tax rate should be 25% so people don’t need to work so long to make ends meet.

How could that not qualify for the largesse from Creative NZ?

The Listener’s editorial:

Hands up those who agree with this proposal. Not only should there be national standards in schools, but the government should pay schools bonuses of up to $100,000 if they demonstrate improvements in the literacy and numeracy achievement standards of their pupils.

It’s no surprise, perhaps, that teacher unions have denounced the plans and immediately threatened to boycott the tests, talking of their concerns about “damaging league tables”.

What is a surprise is that all this is happening in Australia.

How is it, one might ask, that in New Zealand the introduction of national standards in primary schools has been denounced by teacher unions as nothing more than right-wing ideology while across the Tasman, the minister driving this “education revolution” is none other than the Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard? In her bid to improve school standards, Gillard has already muscled aside one of Australia’s most powerful left-wing outfits – the Australian Education Union – to ensure all school results are published on the My School website. This with the express purpose of identifying poorly performing schools.

Indeed. National Standards are just common sense. They require no change to current testing or assessment. They just require one additional step – to moderate the school data onto a national standard and add on one extra page to the school report with the national standard data also.

Frankly they are no big thing, and the opposition from entrenched interests is actually about league tables, not national standards.

Talking of her passion and commitment to ensuring every child has access to good schooling regardless of their background, Gillard spoke at the launch of the website earlier this year of the danger of schools quietly underperforming. “No one ever knows and no one ever does anything about it,” she said. “But children only get one chance at school.”

In New Zealand, where many principals are now promising to step up their campaign against national standards, it was Pita Sharples who this week talked of under-performing schools. A lot of schools, said Sharples, fail to monitor the achievements of Maori students, fail to use the professional support offered to them to help raise standards and fail to involve Maori families in the education of Maori students.

Absolutely. Despite what is said, we do not know well enough which students are failing and which schools are failing.

Contrast his statements with that of primary teachers union spokesperson, NZEI president Frances Nelson, who recently claimed that the Education Minister Anne Tolley had distorted data to “manufacture a crisis in education”. There is indeed a crisis but it is not of Tolley’s creation. The facts speak for themselves: 15,000 New Zealand students end up leaving school without NCEA level two and 7900 without level one.

Although our top performers are among the best in the OECD, it is the long tail of underachievement that causes alarm.

This is what the NZEI says is not a problem. 15,000 students every year leaving school without even NCEA Level 2.

This is not an imaginary crisis. In this country, almost 50% of Maori students and 35% of Pasifika students leave school without level two NCEA. In all, 29% of the students who will be leaving school at the end of next month will leave without this qualification. It is the minimum qualification that any young New Zealander needs to succeed in further study or skilled employment.

And this is the status quo the education unions defend.

Rachel Glucina lists the possibilities:

Riddle me this, amigos: If Oliver Driver killed his own television breakfast show why would TVNZ bosses hire him for theirs?

Replacing the right leaning politically incorrect Paul Henry with left leaning Oliver Driver would be a sure fire way to piss off viewers. Driver was okay on TV3 as he fitted that channel’s liberal brand. But the brand for TVNZ Breakfast is way different.

The new Pippa

Bernadine Oliver-Kerby
Heather Du Plessis-Allan
Joanna Hunkin
Kate Hawkesby
Rachel Smalley
Stacy Daniels
Renee Wright
April Ieremia
Charlotte Ryan
Shavaughn Ruakere
Kate Rodger

If Paul Henry was still hosting Breakfast, then I think Heather DPA would be a great match for him. She wouldn’t take any of his shit, but wouldn’t be offended by what he says. Even without Paul, I think she’d be good in the role.

I liked Kate Hawkesby when she did it with Mike Hosking. Also Bernadine Oliver-Kirby displays a good sense of humour.

The new Paul

Paul Holmes
Jeremy Corbett
Dominic Harvey
Duncan Garner
Jack Tame
Mikey Havoc
Greg Boyed
John Tamihere
Jeremy Wells
Jay Reeve
Rod Cheeseman

If Paul Holmes can handle the early starts, I think he’s be an obvious choice. Paul’s style would be a very good fit for Breakfast, and he is well versed at being entertaining and amusing.

Jeremy Wells would be hilarious but I imagine he would get sacked for saying something outraegous soon or later.

The day after Phil Goff announces he is campaigning on the cost of living, Stats NZ announces the lowest annual inflation rate since March 2004.

Bill English has done this handy table comparing the last two years, to the previous two years. National needs to do more stuff like this:

Price and wage changes over comparable periods

Incredible that food prices went up 15% over the last two years of Labour’s term. Now this is not their fault, but it shows how meaningless their no GST policy on fruit and veges is – the price movements from season to season are far greater than the GST. For example vegetables went up 21% in Labour’s last two years and have dropped 6% since Sep 2008.

And most damning, a NZer on the average wage had a 1% drop in their real after tax wages from Dec 2006 to Sep 2008, while under the most recent seven quarters that worker would be 9% better off. And that is before the 1 October tax changes which will make then even better than 9%.

The NZ Herald editorial:

The Act Party has suffered more than its share of self-inflicted wounds lately but it deserves credit for a valuable legislative intervention last week. At Act’s behest, the Government has agreed to write a clause into the foreshore and seabed bill now before Parliament that will expressly make it unlawful to charge for access to a beach.

The Government was previously content with Attorney- General Chris Finlayson’s view that charging would be illegal because the bill would not give iwi any power to do so. Act pressed for a specific prohibition that would leave no room for uncertainty among members of the public and members of tribes awarded customary title.

And having the requirement explicit rather than implicit is a good thing.

The Herald reports:

But Professor Hattie spelled out some of the problem areas.

Tomorrow’s Schools had many benefits but had created 2700 “islands” of individual schools not co-operating or sharing answers to problems.

He said that while a lot of attention was given to the “tail” of under-achievers, not enough attention was being given to children on the other side of the scale who were not achieving their potential.

This reflects what I have heard. NZ on average does well, but those at the top and the tail are both falling short of where they should be.

He believed the decile system of rating schools should be abolished – though the equity funding that went with it should not.

The decile system did not help anyone except real estate agents selling houses in decile 10 areas.

That’s a fascinating comment. I’d be keen to understand more what he proposes.

He said the Ministry of Education did not listen to teachers because they had no organisation dedicated to professional standards as that surgeons, doctors and other professionals had.

This is an incredibly perceptive comment. The NZEI, NZPF and PPTA are primarily industrial unions. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it means their primary concerns are doing what is best for teachers, not what is best for the education system. So they are never taken seriously.

Compare this to the health system, where in the public health system you have specialist unions to represent doctors on industrial issues, and different bodies such as the NZMA and the specialist Colleges on wider health issues.

I seriously wonder if Phil Goff believes a word of what he is promising. How can the man who was an enthusiastic backers of the 1980s reforms, really sincerely believe his rhetoric about putting up barriers to investment. How can the zealous trade minister who signed trade and investments deals galore, now be advocating policies that undermine them?

The Herald reports:

Labour has made a dramatic turnaround on its foreign investment policy, and now says it will turn down big land sales to overseas buyers except in exceptional circumstances. …

“Labour will reverse the current approach to overseas sales of land,” he said at the party’s annual conference in Auckland.“Instead of the overwhelming majority of farm sales being approved, the overwhelming majority will be declined.”

So he sat in a Cabinet which sold 650,000 hectares without blinking one’s eyes, yet he is now worried about a relatively small 31,000 hectares sold since the election?

Guyon Espiner exposed some of the problems in Goff’s massive shift to the left on Q+A. Goff seemed unaware his policy would be in breach of signed agreements with Australia.

Audrey Young blogs:

Labour president Andrew Little has just delivered the best speech he has probably ever given.

It was to the party conference at the Aotea Centre in Auckland.

And it wasn’t so much what he said – but how he said it.

There are many doubters in Labour’s caucus that Little has what it takes to be a future leader of the party.

Andrew is not popular with a fair number of Labour MPs. Some feel he has not raised enough money, others don’t like him holding three jobs – candidates, President and union boss, and others just resent the talk that he may come in and become leader quickly.

But I have been saying for many years that I believe Andrew will become Labour Party Leader, and probably Prime Minister one day. When, is another matter, but he has time on his side.

The HoS today reports:

Andrew Little’s been widely touted to succeed Phil Goff as Labour Party leader, but yesterday he told supporters that Goff was the man to take the party to victory at next year’s election.

What happens afterwards, if Labour loses, he was not saying – Little is a frontrunner for the New Plymouth seat next year.

Goff is goneburger if Labour loses. But I think it is unlikely that Little would become leader in his first term as an MP. More likely is Cunliffe becomes Leader and if he loses in 2014 then watch for a Robertson v Little battle after that.

“One thing is certain about Phil – if he were confronted with a racist outburst he would know it and challenge it, up front, there and then,” he said, referring to Prime Minister John Key’s failure to respond immediately to broadcaster Paul Henry’s slur against the Governor-General.

Here thought Andrew could not be more wrong. Goff was even worse than Key on the issue of Paul Henry. Despite having had several hours to reflect on what Paul Henry had said, Goff’s response was a totally dismissive line about it just a case of Paul being Paul.

It amazes me how much some in Labour try to rewrite history, as they think if you tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth.

Keeping Stock alerted me to this story in the Dom Post:

An out-of-work artist is setting up a taxpayer-funded “beneficiaries’ office” in downtown Wellington to promote the virtues of being unemployed.

Yes – taxpayer funded.

He is part of a $53,000 performance art installation series paid for by Creative New Zealand and Wellington City Council.

Creative NZ is defending its decision to provide a $40,000 grant but said last night it was unaware of the installation’s “precise content” when the grant was signed off.

Well why the fuck not? Someone should get sacked for this. Or at a minimum Chris Finlayson should take $40,000 out of their budget for next year. Art is one thing – but promoting the virtues of bludging should not qualify.

Tao Wells, 37, advocates the opportunities and benefits of unemployment and says it is unfair that long-term beneficiaries are labelled bludgers for exploiting the welfare system.

It’s unfair that I have to work 60 hour weeks to fund your fucking life style, you bludging wanker.

Wells’ installation, The Beneficiary’s Office, urges people to abandon jobs they don’t like rather than suffering eight hours of “slavery”.

“We need to work less, so we consume less. The average carbon footprint of the unemployed person is about half of that of those earning over $100,000.”

I await the Green Party insisting that this pilot be introduced nationwide – that everyone gives up their jobs to reduce carbon emissions.

Backed by five “staff”, Wells plans to promote his unemployment philosophy publicly and debate it with politicians and the gainfully employed.

Remember, we are paying for this.

He described himself as an unemployed artist with a masters degree who had been “off and on” the unemployment benefit since 1997. Wells said he was receiving welfare and admitted his benefit was at risk by him speaking out.

Late yesterday afternoon his benefit was cut off after Work and Income learned of the project.

Not just a greedy selfish bludger, but a stupid one also.

He refuses to work, but is happy to apply for grants so he can preach about why people should bludge like him. WINZ should refuse to put him back on any benefit unless he can demonstrate sustained activity seeking employment.

Wells denied his pro-unemployment stance was hypocritical when he was being paid $2000 for the project. “We should never be forced to take a job. If you’re forced to take a job it’s a punishment. If a job’s a punishment then society must be a prison.”

Listen Mr Fuckwit, you are not forced to take a job. So long as you don’t want those of us who do work to pay you a benefit, you do not need to ever work again.

Creative NZ boss Stephen Wainwright said the agency’s role was to encourage, promote and support the arts. Innovative new work, such as the Letting Space series, could act as a powerful form of social commentary and encourage debate.

Oh for fuck’s sake. They seriously have too much money. Having a layabout wanker who is illegally claiming the dole, promote dole bludging as a lifestyle choice is not innovative. Would Creative NZ give money for a tax felon to set up an office and advise people not to pay their taxes?

This just makes my blood boil.  We’re borrowing $240 million a week and this is what Creative NZ thinks is a priority. Why don’t the staff responsible at Creative NZ follow the advice of Mr Wells and quit their jobs to escape the slavery of work.

Two good announcements from Labour in two days!

Audrey Young at the Herald reports:

Labour president Andrew Little has called for a fresh debate about republicanism following a speech at the party’s conference by former Wallaby Peter Fitzsimons, an outspoken advocate of ditching the monarchy.

Mr Little said that he backed Fitzsimons’ views, and it was time for New Zealand to engage in the debate.

“It’s a cop-out to say, ‘Yes, I’m a republican, but it’s not time’, that it be left up to somebody else.

“That’s a failure of leadership, in my view,” said Mr Little.

He was not saying it was something that had to be done tomorrow.

“But it is saying are committed to making a move and we do it in a courteous and respectful way.”

It was an issue that ought to be actively debated in terms of what constitutional arrangements might be set up, and negotiating with the UK over what a transition might look like.

A minor correction – we do not need to negotiate with the UK. It would be polite to negotiate with the Queen however.

I’m intrigued by Andrew saying it is a failure of leadership to say yes, but let’s wait until later. Fitzsimons also commented:

Fitzsimons was applauded last night when he spoke of republicanism and changing the flag for Australia. He did not think the decision should be put on hold until the Queen died.

“As a sovereign nation we shouldn’t be deciding our politics on the health of an elderly English woman. She’s a good woman, no doubt about it. But we should be carving out our independent way.”

Now look at what Phil Goff said a couple of weeks ago:

Goff said the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign was the logical transition point.

“Succession of the monarchy is the time to have a head of state who is a New Zealander,” said Goff. “We need to start the conversation now. Don’t rush it. Fully consult the people of New Zealand. It’s a major change and needs a reasonable consensus.”

Is this the failure of leadership Andrew was referring to?

Regardless I’m pleased that both the Labour Party Leader and President are supporters of a move to a republic. It means that when there is an inevitable change of Government, there will at least be a silver lining – assuming their preferences becomes some sort of formal commitment to starting a process to allow NZers to decide the issue.

TVNZ reports:

A ONE News investigation into a study that claims alcohol is cheaper than water has found that’s not always the case.

The report by the University of Otago, based on Department of Statistics figures, found a glass of water costs 67c, while a standard drink of beer costs 64c and a standard drink of cask wine costs 62c.

At the supermarket, the cheapest water ONE News could find came in a three litre container, which cost $2.57.

The cheapest wines in the same quantity on the other hand were priced at $22 and the cheapest beer, in a 12 pack and about five litres in quantity, was $18.40.

Applying the same calculations used in the Otago study, the glass of water cost less at only 21c, while the beer pack cost $1.10 for a glass and the cask of wine cost 71c for a standard drink.

The Otago study author, Associate Professor Nick Wilson, blamed price fluctuations for the difference.

“When you look at some specials, [alcohol] is actually cheaper than bottled water in some cases and at other times it may not be.”

Wilson is also sticking to his call for increased taxes to push the price of alcohol up.

I’m really pleased that TVNZ, unlike most media, didn’t just report the so called study as gospel and repeat it unthinkingly. They went out and tested the results and found they are bunkum.

The study seems to have cherry picked data so it could compare the most expensive bottled water to the cheapest ever alcohol, and come up with a conclusion that alcohol is now cheaper than water.

TVNZ have shown this is crap – that bottled water is under a third the price of the cheapest wine. Will other media report this as they reported the original study?

Also they are not comparing apples and apples. Water is in fact almost free as a product. when people buy bottled water they are buying it for the convenience. The correct comparison to bottled water would be the cost of alcohol in an on license – where you are also not paying so much for the alcohol, but for the convenience also.

Chris Carter has finally named an MP whom he says would be a better leader for Labour than Phil Goff – Shane Jones. The NZ Herald reports:

Yesterday on Radio Live, Mr Carter also mentioned Shane Jones as one of those he believed could be a better leader than Mr Goff. He has previously refused to name them.

By coincidence Matthew Hooton writes in the NBR:

Which brings us to Mr Jones.  Just as Mr Brown was ridiculed after his head-banging incident, Mr Jones suffered public humiliation from his penchant for porn.  But time heals, and Mr Jones is the latest manifestation of the Maori leader who can appeal across racial lines.  He’s the Labour man business thinks it can work with.

Moreover, his ambition is great, having been the golden child of his hapu from the day he was born.

Unpopular with Labour’s rainbow and feminist wings, securing the leadership would require him to produce polling showing him as capable of transforming Labour from a possible to a probable.  Even then, he would face opposition from party president Andrew Little, who needs Labour to lose in 2011 if his own leadership ambitions can be fulfilled.

Nevertheless, having decided to stick with politics despite his porn humiliation, Mr Jones is not there to muck around.

He’s already raising his profile and briefing journalists about his comeback.  The time for him to act is now.

And again, by coincidence, TV3’s Patrick Gower blogs:

Watching the miners in Chile, I can’t help but think of the Labour MPs – stuck down a dark hole, with an incredible effort needed to get them out.

It’s leader Phil Goff’s job to get them out – now he’s finished burying Chris Carter.

And one man who needs a lifeline is Shane Jones.

This call is never going to resonate as much as “Bring Back Buck”. But someone has to say it – Goff should “Bring Back Shane Jones”.

Is Jones Labour’s saviour in waiting?

Andrea Vance reports:

Drivers who try to outrun police should have their vehicle impounded and licence suspended on a first offence, Labour leader Phil Goff says.

So far this year 15 people have died on the roads during police pursuits. Police engage in 2500 pursuits every year and one in four of those ends up in a crash, Mr Goff said.

Mr Goff said a Labour government would tighten the laws on failure to stop. Current proposals involve tougher penalties for repeat offenders.

”But I believe that we need to act more strongly on the very first offence,” he said. ” I say the blame rests fairly and squarely with the drivers who are trying to outrun the police.”

Absolutely. Some welcome common sense.

He outlined three options to the Police Association in Wellington this morning.

– toughening up existing provisions in the law such as mandatory licence suspension and impoundment of a vehicle on a first offence

– failure to stop to become a qualifying offence under sections 128 and 129 of the Sentencing act 2002  – which means the offender’s vehicle would be a risk of confiscation

–  a new law that introduces new offences with serious terms of imprisonment as a penalty, similar to one about to be passed in New South Wales

”You can’t afford to wait for two or three offences or for someone to die before you get serious. Drivers who fail to stop…don’t deserve a second chance.”

One strike and you’re out! I love it.

Fleeing the Police does need to carry incredibly high deterrents. Far too many die at the hands of these criminals.

From Chris Carter’s website:

Well they say a week is a long time in politics. The last 3 months have been an even longer time for me. I know that you are probably wondering what on earth went wrong and why.

The simple truth of the matter is that I have had a really difficult 12 months in Parliament. Not from the people I would expect in the National or ACT parties but from some members of our own team. I felt really angry and let down by Phil Goff and his advisors over their lack of support for Peter and I over the vicious media campaign against my travel expenses. After all none of my travel was private and all of it was approved by Cabinet when I was a Minister and by the party leadership up until a couple of months ago. Remember Phil Goff and Annette King were members of the Cabinet that signed off all my ministerial travel.

Three months ago a journalist called me and revealed that Phil Goff’s office had leaked details of my travel expenses again to the Press Gallery. I had not even received these figures myself. I flipped out and in anger and poor judgement lashed back.

It would be interesting to know if this can be verified. While I have little sympathy for Carter over his travels, if Goff’s office did leak his travel expenses then that is an act of very bad faith.

It would seem that the current leadership of the party think that me saying in public that Phil Goff is a nice guy who works hard but doesn’t have the charisma or the clear policy directions to win the next election is more of a crime than some of the criticisms levelled by other Labour MPs in the past at Labour leaders. Richard Prebble called David Lange mentally unbalanced in 1987. Annette King and Phil Goff tried to roll Helen Clark in 1996. John Tamihere said he had 15 MPs to roll Helen Clark in 2005 when he did that infamous interview in Investigate magazine.

I think the difference is Tamihere didn’t carry on repeating it.

The Herald reports:

Alcohol has become so affordable that it is cheaper than bottled water and approaching the price of milk, says a study made public today.

Silly comparisons. Tap water is still near zero. Bottled water is a premium product – comparing it to discounted alcohol is misleading. One should compare it to the more expensive alcohol products. And milk is outraegously expensive – but that is no reason to make alcohol the same.

A $2 minimum price per standard drink would reduce binge drinking without affecting social drinkers, Professor Sellman said.

First of all a minimum price would be the wet dreams for the liquor industry. Their profits would go up massively. Nothing wrong with that – just a surprise that someone who equates them to drug dealers wants them to make so much more money.

So what would $2/standard drink mean for certain items. A standard drink is 10g or 12.7 ml of alcohol.

• a 350 ml bottle of 4% beer could not cost less than $2.20. 5% beer would cost $2.76 or $33.07 for a dozen – not sure if GST would be on top of that
• a 750 ml bottle of 12% wine could not sell for under $14.17
• A 1l bottle of Baileys could not sell for under $26.77
• A 1125ml bottle of vodka could not sell for under $65.55

Yahoo News reports:

A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday immediately stopping enforcement of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, suspending the 17-year-old ban on openly gay U.S. troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ landmark ruling also ordered the government to suspend and discontinue all pending discharge proceedings and investigations under the policy. …

the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights organization that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban’s enforcement.

So who would have thought that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would not be killed off by Obama (who had promised to do so), but instead by the Log Cabin Republicans.