Stuff reports:

Helen Clark has come out strongly for “yes” in next year’s cannabis referendum, and says she would have moved on cannabis herself if elected to a fourth term.

Really? How come she never mentioned this in 2008 when campaigning for a fourth term?

The former prime minister’s new think tank released a report on Tuesday evening making a strong case for cannabis legalisation.

The report is a good one, which I broadly agree with. They recommend:

• Legislate for the regulation of, and access to, a legal cannabis market. Models from both Uruguay and North America should be seriously studied.
• Develop a structure for a legal market which prevents and/or discourages the emergence of large, commercial, for-profit cannabis producers and retailers
• Expunge prior minor cannabis offences from the record, and also remove past convictions for supply where there was no compounding factor associated with the conviction, such as firearm use or violence.

The latest UK You Gov poll has Labour dropping 4% to 21%. An election held on these results in predicted to be:

• Conservatives 404 (+86)
• Labour 148 (-114)
• Lib Dems 42 (+30)
• SNP 34 (-1)
• Others 22 (-1)

This would be a Conservative majority of 158.

Below is an extract from a standard employment contract for staff who work in the office of a parliamentary party leader.

As you can see the employment of a staff member can be terminated by the party leader, under “breakdown of relationship”. This doesn’t need an inquiry, a disciplinary process, a finding of misconduct. It just needs the party leader to decide they no longer have trust and confidence in the staffer.

Note this is a process that can only be initiated by the party leader under 22.3(b). Not the chief of staff, not Parliamentary Service, not the external political party.

It is quite commonly used. For a number of reasons a party leader will sometimes find they don’t want someone to continue working for them. It doesn’t mean the person is guilty of anything, or has even misbehaved. It just reflects that the leader has to be able to only have people working for them they are entirely comfortable with.

Jacinda Ardern has the sole ability to effectively activate this clause and remove the staffer from Parliament. She is aware of the dozen complaints against her staffer. She is aware at least one of them is of sexual assault. She is aware at least four parliamentary staffers have said they are scared to be around her employee.

She does not need to make a determination as to what happened. She does not need to have an inquiry. She doesn’t need formal complaints. She doesn’t need the Police. She doesn’t need to believe or disbelieve the allegations. She certainly doesn’t need the Labour Party Council involved. She can simply decide that she no longer wants the staffer to continue working for her.

Her insistence that this matter is nothing to do with her is patently false. She has a remedy open to her. It is inconceivable she has not discussed with her senior staff whether to use this clause. It appears she has made a conscious decision not to use it, because the staffer is so valuable to her.

Gareth Kiernan from Infometrics writes:

The long-awaited reset of KiwiBuild confirms that the Government still doesn’t grasp why the policy went so spectacularly wrong.

Which is surprising as they were told almost non stop for seven years it wouldn’t work, and why.

KiwiBuild remains a policy that has been formulated to treat the symptoms of a problem that the Government has failed to properly diagnose or understand.

And it seems they still don’t.

But if the rate of construction is not the problem, yesterday’s announcement shows that the Government still hasn’t got any ideas to make a meaningful difference to housing affordability. The announcement features sticking-plaster solutions: A rent-to-buy scheme, a possible shared equity arrangement, and reduced deposit requirements under the renamed “First Home Loan” and “First Home Grant” policies.
These policies hint at one of the biggest hurdles for people trying to buy a home: Accumulating a deposit. For a few people, the changes will make homeownership more achievable. But they do nothing to address the fundamental question of why housing has become so expensive.

It’s tinkering.

The reality is that the limited supply of land available for new development or intensification is not keeping pace with demand and is pricing people out of the market.

Yep. Cities need to build up and build out. Instead the Government is passing laws or statements making it harder to build out, claiming our 1% urbanisation rate is threatening rural NZ.

Chuck DeVore writes at Fox:

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Georgetown, Texas – population 75,000 – was to be the new poster child of the green movement. …

Environmental interest in Georgetown’s big push to generate all of its electricity from wind and solar power was amplified by three factors: the town and its mayor were nominally Republican; Georgetown is in an oil- and natural gas-rich state; and that state is deep-red Texas.

So what happened?

Georgetown’s electric bills went up as more wind and solar power displaced cheaper natural gas in the power portfolio of the Georgetown’s municipal utility. Politicians scrambled for cover. And the bloom came off Georgetown’s renewable rose.
Now, largely embarrassed members of the City Council are trying to figure out how to unwind the renewable mess they and their predecessors voted themselves into.
With their municipal utility facing a $7 million shortfall – money that has to be made up by the city residents through higher electricity costs – the City Council voted 5-1 in July to instruct the staff to figure out how to wriggle out of the Bloomberg PR deal.
On Aug. 13 the Council voted 5-0 to officially kill the deal. The city is also raising property taxes.

What are the economics of 100% renewable?

In Georgetown’s case, for it to truly go 100 percent renewable energy using today’s state-of-the-art mass-produced batteries from Tesla’s Gigafactory, the city would need a $400 million battery farm weighing some 20,000 tons to avoid a blackout on a quiet winter night. And, after spending $15,600 for each household to build such a battery farm, its backup power would be drained in 12 hours, with a second windless winter night leaving residents shivering in the dark.

That’s a big battery farm. The weight would be twice the weight of the Eiffel Tower.

The Spinoff reports:

Labour party staffer is alleged to have committed a serious and sustained sexual assault on a 19-year-old volunteer early in 2018. The volunteer told the Spinoff the assault was compounded by the resulting inquiry, during which the alleged perpetrator was not stood down from any duties, which included the supervision of Young Labour volunteers. The complaint process, undertaken entirely by people within the Labour Party, has left her feeling “angry, quite fearful and desperate”. 
The alleged perpetrator has ties throughout the party hierarchy. The woman, who remains a member of the Labour Party, said the man’s level of influence left her constantly frightened of the impact of speaking out.
Over the course of numerous in-depth interviews with The Spinoff, Sarah – whose name has been changed to protect her identity – detailed how she was pinned down and sexually assaulted at the man’s home during a private meeting to discuss party business in early 2018. The process that followed, beginning in April 2018 during the post-Labour Camp review undertaken by Maria Berryman, has completely eroded her faith in the party.
Sarah is one of at least seven people who made formal complaints in relation to the individual, ranging from bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment through to sexual assault. She described him as having a “pretty senior and active” role in the party, and being well-connected with several high profile Labour MPs. The Spinoff understands that he remains working in parliament.

Not just in Parliament, but in Jacinda Ardern’s leader’s office.

The Labour’s leader office has taken no action to make parliamentary staff feel safe. They have falsely claimed it is an issue for the Labour Party, but it is not.

Sarah said she raised the allegations during an internal inquiry, with the investigating panel comprising three members of the New Zealand Council, the Labour Party’s governing body. Sarah and the other complainants were invited to appear before the panel at a meeting held at the Labour Party’s offices in Wellington. At the conclusion of the inquiry, after months with scant communication, the seven complainants all received an email from party president Nigel Haworth detailing the outcome of the internal investigation. “The recommendation was that no disciplinary action be taken in this case,” he wrote. “The New Zealand Council has accepted this recommendation.”

These complaints include sexual assault and Labour’s response is to “take no action”.

Told that the party denied hearing a complaint during its investigation, Sarah was adamant that both in documents supplied and her testimony that they were. What follows is a full description of her experience.

So Labour are now effectively saying the complainant is lying.

The story is tough to read (and immeasurably tougher to go through).

“I was scared,” she wrote. “I still am scared. This man holds a large amount of influence within the party.” He would boast, she added, about “his close relationship” with a Cabinet minister. 

I’ve heard that his role makes him invaluable to Labour’s election campaign. Labour have decided he must be protected.

The man complained about is employed by Jacinda Ardern through Parliamentary Service. She could sack him, or suspend him, if she wished to. The wishes of the leader are paramount when it comes to the leader’s office. You don’t even need an inquiry. All leader’s office staff are on contracts where they agree their employment can be terminated with three’s months salary if the leader no longer wishes them to remain.

John Armstrong writes:

The glitter of Jacinda Ardern’s crown no longer sparkles or glistens quite so gloriously as it did not that many months ago. The Prime Minister’s political wizardry likewise no longer casts quite the spell over her opponents it once did.
She no longer walks on water. Her struggle from now on will be to keep her head above the water. She’s been swamped by the backwash from her mishandling of matters mundane. Her legacy is at risk of being a long list of monuments to failure.

There are so many to choose from.

Newshub reports:

All parties within Parliament are pledging to work together to improve mental health and wellbeing in New Zealand.
A Mental Health and Addictions Wellbeing cross-party group has been set up to demonstrate politicians’ willingness to collective and enduring commitment on the issue.

It is made up of National’s Matt Doocey, Labour MP Louisa Wall, Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick, New Zealand First’s Jenny Marcroft and ACT leader David Seymour.

Good to see.

Louisa Wall is chair of the Health Select Committee and told Newshub the focus is on wellbeing.

“It’s how we deal with stress, how we process life events, challenges and our ability individually, and as families, to be resilient enough to seek help when we need it, but also to know that we’re not alone.
“It’s incredibly sad and traumatic that we have so many young people that choose suicide. I have an experience, my Youth MP in the last Parliament actually committed suicide. 

God that is sad.

David Seymour says joining the group was a no-brainer.
“It’s a positive development and I’m more than happy to support a cross-party group that takes the politics out of it and says there’s no political debate or disagreement about the fact that we need to do better with mental health,” he said.

Everyone wants to see the suicide rate drop. Solutions are very complex but we do need to do better.

A new Internet Draft has potentially far reaching consequences. It is from the Internet Architecture Board and is intended to influence the work of the IETF that “decides” on the protocols etc the Internet runs on.

The key segment is:

Many who participate in the IETF are most comfortable making what we believe to be purely technical decisions; our process is defined to favor technical merit, through our well-known mantra of “rough consensus and running code.”
Nevertheless, the running code that results from our process (when things work well) inevitably has an impact beyond technical considerations, because the underlying decisions afford some uses while discouraging others; while we believe we are making purely technical decisions, in reality, we are defining what is possible on the Internet itself.
This impact has become significant. As the Internet increasingly mediates essential functions in societies, it has unavoidably become profoundly political; it has helped people overthrow governments and revolutionize social orders, control populations, collect data about individuals, and reveal secrets. It has created wealth for some individuals and companies while destroying others’.
All of this raises the question: Who do we go through the pain of gathering rough consensus and writing running code for?
After all, there are a variety of identifiable parties in the broader Internet community that standards can provide benefit to, such as (but not limited to) end users, network operators, schools, equipment vendors, specification authors, specification implementers, content owners, governments, non-governmental organisations, social movements, employers, and parents.
Successful specifications will provide some benefit to all of the relevant parties because standards do not represent a zero-sum game. However, there are sometimes situations where there is a need to balance the benefits of a decision between two (or more) parties.
In these situations, when one of those parties is an “end user” of the Internet – for example, a person using a Web browser, mail client, or another agent that connects to the Internet – the Internet Architecture Board argues that the IETF should protect their interests over those of parties.

I look forward to seeing this draft adopted.

A fascinating report by KPMG which found in 2018 the black market in tobacco exceeded 10% of the total market for the first time ever.

This is a good reminder that if you tax something too highly, you reduce legal sales but increase illegal sales. The black market increased by 11% last year to 212,000 kgs.

From a Treasury report on the transport budget:

NZTA’s current forecasts suggest that the NLTF may be nearly, or fully committed over, the next ten years once planned investments in light and transitional rail are taken into account.

Basically this is Treasury saying there is absolutely no money left for roading, because Labour and Greens have committed the next ten years of petrol tax money on their rail projects.

They say only the good die young which explains Robert Mugabe dying at age 95.

It is possible there was a time when he did more good than bad, but it was very long ago.

Mugabe was a Marxist freedom fighter who was Zimbabwe’s first PM/President then dictator. He also had seven degrees including a master of economics from the University of London.

Some of his achievements include:

• 10,000 civilians killed by his troops
• Encouraging violent seizure of farms
• Famine
• Widespread torture
• TV ads showing people who voted for the opposition dying in car crashes
• Unemployment rate of 95%
• Described gays as “worse than dogs and pigs”
• 231,000,000% inflation rate
• A drop in life expectancy of 20 years
• Nationalising food distribution and only giving food to those who voted for him
• Killings and gang rapes of political opponents

Few people can say they destroyed a country, but Mugabe can.

The Herald reports:

The Green Party has caused outrage among its members by publishing an article criticising the party’s push for trans rights in its official magazine.
The article, written by long-time Green Party member Jill Abigail, appeared in the latest edition of party publication Te Awa and said some “older feminists” within the party were concerned the party was putting gender identity over the rights of biological women.
Abigail was particularly critical of MP Jan Logie’s comments in a previous issue that: “We continue to push for progress on LGBTQI+ freedoms, and resist the backlash that’s trying to undermine our trans and gender diverse whanau and roll back their hard-won rights”.
“I am a lesbian, supposedly under their umbrella, but I am part of the backlash,” Abigail wrote.

She said while trans people were vulnerable and “justly” claiming their right to equal treatment, the free speech of those who opposed “male-bodied trans women” entering “female-only spaces” was being shut down with accusations of hate speech.
The article was taken down after a about week, following a series of complaints by members.

Doesn’t this prove the very point Abigail was making?

Once upon a time if you disagreed with an opinion column in a political newsletter or magazine, you’d write a response to it and ask that to be published also. It was known as a debate.

Today the aim isn’t to respond, but to stop any views you disagree with being published at all.

UPDATE:

Many signatures on an open letter to the Green Party leadership protesting that Abigail’s letter was censored and deleted. The common theme seems to be the letter was very moderate and well reasoned and on a topic that should be able to be debated. Quite a few well known iconic feminist names such as Alison Laurie.

Matt Nippert asks Winston Peters if would accept a donation from a Chinese billionaire:

MN: So, to the best of your knowledge, New Zealand First have not talked with Lang about him donating? Is that what you’re saying? 
WP: [Pause] Well, look, if a member of my party was at the racecourse one day, interpreted a conversation with him it’s quite possible. But to the best of my knowledge the course on which you’re going at the moment is fruitless: We have not received any money from the Wolf, as I know him as. 
MN: I guess the outstanding question remains is: If this donation were offered by him, would you accept it? 
WP: An outstanding question? Who do you think you’re talking to? You’re going to have a hypothetical, and put it to me as an outstanding question? Bulldust mate. Where do you get off? Where do you get off with that arrogant attitude? “The question remains”. For you? 
MN: He says he’s considering donating to NZ First. Would you accept the donation? It’s pretty simple. 
WP: You’re going to slide mate, from facts to bullshit. Right? You’re not going to be able to slide from facts, with a modicum of detail, to flat-out bullshit and speculation. 
MN: So you would take the money? Or you wouldn’t? 
WP: Get a brain mate. That’s not the alternative answer, is it? 
MN: It’s a very straightforward question, Winston. 
WP: It’s not a straightforward question. It’s some silly, smart-arse question by somebody who should know a whole lot better. 
MN: I’m just trying to figure out where this is going. 
WP: It’s not going anywhere, because it started nowhere. It’s built on the premise you’re going to write an article, based on nothing. Because you’ve got a charade of details you’re going to put out there. That’s what it’s based on. 
MN: It’s based on Mr Lang telling me he was planning to donate to you. 
WP: Good god, what a flimsy peg you’re trying to hang your story on. God. 
MN: Well, I’ll flick it to my editors and see if they agree with me. 
WP: They probably will, the bloody morons. 
MN: Winston, are you hanging up on me? 
[CALL TERMINATED BY WP]

I think this was Winston’s way of saying of course he’d take the donation.

NewstalkZB reports:

It’s believed the death of Peter Ellis will not affect the Supreme Court bid to clear his name.
The convicted child sex offender died yesterday, two months before the court is scheduled to hear his appeal.
He’s always maintained his innocence, despite being found guilty of abusing children at a Christchurch creche in 1993.

I’m glad the appeal can continue.

I hope Peter can rest in peace without a conviction to his name. Time will tell.

Stuff reports:

Said to be frustrated with Wellington’s lack of progress, city council chief executive Kevin Lavery dropped a bombshell on Thursday by not seeking re-appointment.

That’s a huge blow. I had huge respect for Lavery. He was an excellent CEO.

Signs of Lavery’s resignation have been building for months, and increased significantly after his chief of staff, Kaine Thompson, quit.

Kaine is also a very good operator.

Informed sources point to a very strained relationship between Lavery and Wellington mayor Justin Lester and some elected councillors as a major factor for the decision.

Lavery managed to work well with Celia Wade-Brown so I’m pretty sure the problem isn’t on his side.

The chief executive is believed to be highly frustrated with the pace of progress on several city projects, including Let’s Get Wellington Moving.

He’s not the only one.

Lavery proved willing to take controversial stands, urging caution among councillors on the move to rebuild the Town Hall when the bill was $45m,

They should have listened to him. It is likely to now cost $150 million.

It is understood Lavery spoke to others of his frustrations with the lack of progress in the past triennium on those original eight objectives and especially around the eventual outcome of Let’s Get Wellington Moving. 

Calling the transport programme Let’s Get Wellington Moving is like calling North Korea the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. It is technically correct but the substance is the opposite of the name. LGWM is a plan to do basically nothing for ten years.

Henry Cooke writes:

The hyped game-changers are still months and months away, despite the fact this Government came to power almost two years ago.
Those are new urban development agency Kainga Ora – a kind of mega-developer which can cut through planning rules to build whole new suburbs – and the new $400m progressive home ownership scheme.
Woods is entitled to not be hurried, given the mess she inherited.
But the fact this progressive home ownership plan has still not gone to Cabinet beggars belief. It was in the confidence and supply agreement that created this Government, so why will we not see it in place until the start of election year?

The progressive home ownership plan is just a concept at the moment, despite as Henry says it being in the confidence and supply agreement signed two years ago. Why didn’t work start on it in 2017?

Same with the urban development agency. It should have been set up by now.

The Kiwibuild reset itself is the best example of how slow moving and incompetent the Government is.

They announced the reset in January and said it would be done in a few weeks. It took them seven months. And was that seven months used to come up with a significantly changed Kiwibuild? No. The only significant change is dropping the targets. My God, that should have taken them seven days, not seven months.

The Daily Mail reports:

Greens leader Richard Di Natale wants ISIS fighters to be allowed back into Australia and described terrorists who had travelled to the Middle East as ‘good people’ who had been brainwashed.
The Victorian senator is opposed to Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton’s push to strip dual nationals of their Australian citizenship if they had engaged in terrorist atrocities overseas.

No they’re not good people. There are many things you can call them but “good” isn’t one of them.

Khaled Sharrouf made his seven year old son pose with the severed heard of an enemy. No good person does that.

21 so called Conservative MPs have voted with Jeremy Corbyn to stop Brexit. Ruling out a no deal means that the UK Government has no negotiating power to change the deal that has already been rejected by Parliament multiple times. It makes Brexit basically impossible.

So there will be an election.

The latest poll has the Conservatives at 35%, Labour at 25%, Lib Dems at 16% and Brexit Party at 11%.

But this is FPP, so what that means in terms of seats, according to Electoral Calculus, is:

• Conservatives 378 (+60)
• Labour 184 (-78)
• Lib Dems 31 (+19)
• Brexit Party 0
• SNP 35
• Others 21

That would be a majority of 106. Of course things will change during the election campaign.

The latest net approval ratings for party leaders is:

• Boris Johnson +6%
• Jeremy Corbyn -59%
• Jo Swinson -5%
• Nigel Farage -11%
• Nicola Sturgeon -14%

I guess Corbyn can only improve!