A guest post by Jamie Whyte:

In April last year, I left New Zealand to take up a position as the Director of Research at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London. As part of this job, I sometimes write opinion articles in the UK press.

On Monday last week, the Daily Telegraph published an opinion article of mine concerning a proposed ban on plastic straws in the UK. Somehow, this became a news story in New Zealand. Not the ban; the fact that I had written an article criticising it.

My article was not news-worthy, for reasons I’ll soon explain. But the Newshub story about it, run under the title “Ex-ACT leader says ‘pleasure’ of using plastic straws more important than the ocean”, is worth attention for what it reveals about modern journalism.

To tell readers my position on the topic, the author, Dan Satherley, quotes a sentence in which I say “When they use plastic straws, the world is made an altogether better place.” The “they” in my sentence refers to the increasingly few people who value drinking from a straw more than avoiding the harm to the environment that may result from disposing of the straw.

Anyone familiar with the idea of “external costs” – costs borne not by the person doing something but by third parties – will know that this isn’t quite right. Even when a straw user cares nothing for the environment, the net effect may be harmful because of the costs to other people who do care about the environment.

That’s why my very next sentence was “That’s not quite right”. From which I went on to say that if a tax were applied to straws, equal to the external cost of the environmental damage done by them, then plastic straws would be used only when the total upside exceeded the total downside.

This is a pretty standard view in environmental economics. In fact, it’s the position of the Green Party of New Zealand on carbon emissions.

Since no such tax is now applied to plastic straws, I can’t know if anyone would still be willing to pay for them at the higher price – if only because I don’t know what that price would be. So I couldn’t possibly say if using plastic straws is ever worth the damage they do. That’s why I said no such thing, contrary to the headline of Satherley’s article.

Satherley claims that the position of my article is summarised by a sentence which I followed with “That’s not quite right”. He then fails to say anything about the view expressed after that qualification, which is my actual position.

Following his crass misrepresentation of my position, Satherley quotes a few tweets. Alan Gregson asked “Why does Jamie Whyte’s desire to continue living trump our pleasure from having less twats wasting our precious oxygen”. Paul Stollery suggests that “Jamie Whyte can get in the f**king sea. Where I hope he gets a straw stuck up his nose”.

The article is nothing but misinformation and abuse.

I do not know Satherley, so I cannot be sure of his motivation. But the only one I can think of is political. He peddles foul-mouthed fake news as a way of discrediting the liberal political position I am associated with.

Why else would he fabricate a story about something said by a former New Zealand politician in a newspaper in the UK?

Why else would the article be laced with apparently irrelevant references to my incest “gaff” in a 2014 interview, when I accepted the logical conclusion of something that almost everyone believes: namely, that the state should not stop adults from engaging in consensual sex. Look at the dirty pervert who would destroy the ocean for the sake of a plastic straw!

I was a useless politician. As Satherley points out, when I led ACT into the 2014 general election, we got only 0.69% of the party vote. But part of the reason I was useless is that I failed to adapt properly to journalists like Satherley.

In 2013, when deciding whether to run for the leadership of ACT, my wife advised me against it. “Disgusting” and “corrupt” were her favourite words for conveying her disapproval of politics. I still think she was wrong – at least, about the politicians. The 2014 campaign gave me a generally favourable view of them. And of most of the journalists I encountered.

But a corrosively large minority of journalists seemed more concerned with “getting” politicians – especially the ones with whose policies they disagreed – than with providing their audience with information.

Edmund Burke (perhaps apocryphally) described the press as the “fourth estate” of society, adding it to the clergy, the nobility and the commoners. This fourth estate was supposed to keep the other three informed and honest.

Journalists have never played this role perfectly. How could they, being human? But journalists who write articles like Satherly’s, who seem to be increasingly common, are not even trying to play their “fourth estate” role. They are engaged in an altogether different business, in which keeping people informed and honest plays no part.

News.com.au reports:

SOUTH Africa’s parliament has voted in favour of a motion that will begin the process of amending the country’s Constitution to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land without compensation.

This is the return of apartheid. A small minority in a country faces the theft of their property without compensation based purely on their skin colour.

Where are the global outcries and boycotts?

The motion was brought by Julius Malema, leader of the radical Marxist opposition party the Economic Freedom Fighters, and passed overwhelmingly by 241 votes to 83 against.

Marxism – the only ideology that has basically destroyed every state that tries it!

ANC rural affairs minister Gugile Nkwinti added, “The ANC unequivocally supports the principle of land expropriation without compensation. There is no doubt about it, land shall be expropriated without compensation.”

They’re proud of it.

Thandeka Mbabama from the Democatic Alliance party, which opposed the motion, said there was a need to right the wrongs of the past but expropriation “cannot be part of the solution”. “By arguing for expropriation without compensation, the ANC has been gifted the perfect scapegoat to explain away its own failure,” she said in a statement.

Anyone who thinks the problems in South Africa are caused by not stealing land off white farmers is demented. The problem is incompetence and corruption in the Government.

Mr Malema has been leading calls for land confiscation, forcing the ANC to follow suit out of fear of losing the support of poorer black voters. In 2016, he told supporters he was “not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now”.

Again where is the outrage when a party leader alludes to slaughtering people based on their race?

Civil rights groups have accused the EFF and ANC of inciting an ongoing spate of attacks on white farmers characterised by extreme brutality, rape and torture — last year, more than 70 people were killed in more than 340 such attacks.

So it isn’t just talk.

Earlier this month, Louis Meintjes, president of the farmers’ group the Transvaal Agricultural Union, warned the country risked going down the same route as Zimbabwe, which plunged into famine after a government-sanctioned purge of white farmers in the 2000s.

Yep.

The Herald reports:

Spark New Zealand says the Government’s planned foreign property buyer ban will “significantly impact” its expansion and development plans.

Spark, with more than 3 million customers, told Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Select Committee that 25 per cent or more of its shares are owned by overseas entities.

So it would be captured by the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill which American billionaire and Tara Iti links course developer Ric Kayne of Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors says might change his expansion plans in New Zealand.

Spark told the committee it was a proud New Zealand organisation but it would be classified as an “overseas person” by the law if the law changes were enacted to ban foreigners getting residential and lifestyle land.

Yet Spark needs more of those properties to carry out its business here, it says.

“For example, in its current form the bill would require Spark to obtain Overseas Investment Office consent every time we acquire an interest in land, whether purchasing or leasing, for the purposes of providing telecommunications services, in order to install a new cell site or negotiate a new leasing arrangement on a current cell site, if that cell site is on land that is classed as residential land.

So this daft bill would require NZ’s largest telecommunications company to get special permission from the Government everytime it wants to purchase or lease some land to put up a cellphone tower!

“This is not a trivial matter: right now our mobile sector is preparing for the advent of 5G technology, which will fundamentally revolutionise multiple sectors within New Zealand’s economy, through the use of artificial intelligence, robotics and automation. 5G will be a key enabler of more effective and efficient utility network management, transport network and vehicle management and will open up new frontiers in agri-business, industrial traceability and sustainability management.

“But in order for us to be able to deliver the real-time, low-latency, network coverage required by 5G, we will require many more cell sites than exist in New Zealand today – any many of those new sites will likely be in residential or lifestyle areas,” Spark’s submission said.

So Labour’s stupidity will see 5G mobile technology much harder to roll out.

It is not just telcos caught up in the idiocy. ACT lists other sectors impacted:

• Electricity companies setting up substations
• Telcos doing cellphone towers
• Retirement villages
• Mining companies
• Apartment Developers
• Bunnings

Stuff reports:

More Kiwis are driving drunk all the way to the grave following the lowering of our alcohol limit.

A just-published research paper has shown those who had been drinking, driving, then dying were drinking more than before, and more drugs were thrown into the deadly cocktail.

Why might this be? A reader has a theory:

I really think the police need a psychiatrist to run past their ideas, their on a roll, higher death troll for drink driving, the accidents overall are out of control ( along with the driving skills ). It’s really dangerous driving now, it’s got alot worse in the last 2 years ( I primarily drive auckland->whangarei most weekends ).

My take, the level is so low now, if you are going to drink you drink !, before you could have a few beers & you stayed under a reasonable limit. So a reasonable limit encouraged reasonable behavior a crazy low limit becomes meaningless if one is inclined to drink.

Could be.

A guest post by Chris Penk, National MP for Helensville:

“A Time for Questions – Papering over the Cracks”

In any modern government the Prime Minister serves as communicator-in-chief.  That much is perfectly natural, reasonable and inevitable. During the early days of any administration, voters will judge largely according to the PM’s efforts in promoting its policy intentions.  As time goes on, however, focus inevitably turns towards delivery.  In the case of the Labour-NZ First-Green government, this is a development that I’m looking forward to with interest.

For now, Ms Ardern’s communication skills are doing a relatively good job of papering over various coalition policy cracks.  The stardust wears off, however, when you’re prepared to look critically at how she uses language to manipulate meaning.  Put another way: when enough voters decide her government’s talk and walk aren’t ever going to align, the current occupant of the Beehive’s ninth floor will return to earth.

So let’s take the ultimate environment for political posturing – Question Time in Parliament – as an opportunity to lift the lid on some linguistic limbo dancing.  On 20 February, the PM responded to a series of question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the subject of tertiary education; I’ll use extracts from the exchange to illustrate my points.  (Words in quote marks below have been pasted from the draft version of the Parliamentary record and I’ve underlined certain ones for the sake of discussion.)

In the space of just two supplementary questions, Ardern uses a variety of techniques, probably subconsciously in most instances:

1. Pronoun conflation:

Ardern stated at one point that, “we believe, for instance, that everyone should be able to access secondary education. Anyone […] should acknowledge that if we want to make sure we are a more productive society”.  The word doing all the heavy lifting, in persuasive terms, is the deceptively powerful first person plural pronoun: “we”.

The first occasion that the PM uses it (“we believe”), she’s referring to the Government.  The next couple of times (“we want” and “we are a more productive society”), however, she’s meaning New Zealand at large.  Switching seamlessly between political belief and public betterment is designed to provide a subliminal indication that the priorities of the Government match those of society.  We will see!

2. Implication:

A question about the cost of a particular policy was met with the following remark: “This side of the House believes education is a public good”.  Clearly Ms Ardern is implying that the other side of the House doesn’t believe that education is a public good.  Of course she’s incorrect on that front but the technique is worth noting.

Loading statements with dubious implication is a common trick of advocacy, a favourite of courtroom lawyers for example, but it’s all the more notable here in relation to an arcane Parliamentary rule.  In answering oral questions, ministers are not allowed to speak on areas outside their portfolio responsibility.  While the PM was technically unable to comment on the Opposition’s (purported) beliefs regarding the value of education, her answer was constructed in such a way as to bury that particular “dig” within a statement seemingly all about her own side’s position.  Using the power of implication in this way makes it very difficult for the Speaker to rule an answer “out of order”.

3. Presupposition:

Here’s another interesting item: “I point to the fact that, ultimately, our fees-free policy was about making sure that that can ensure that they are work-ready and that they are adaptable in a changing environment” [sic].

Ardern has used the word “fact” to describe a mere assertion.  It presupposes what is not necessarily the case.  Others could quite legitimately have a different view about what Labour’s “fees-free policy was about” (for instance, buying the votes of a particular generation of students) but the PM attempts to preclude that possibility by presenting her own version of events as “fact”.

4. Redundant verifier / intensifier:

“I’d really love to provide more detail” is another interesting statement, which came in answer to a question about the results of analysis.  In this context, the word “really” could mean a couple of different things.

It could mean “honestly”, which would make the word redundant for a very obvious reason: we should be able to expect honesty without that being highlighted on every occasion.  The other possibility is that the word “really” here simply indicates a stronger version of what the statement would otherwise have been.  But as “love” is already an intense concept it’s hardly meaningful.

Either way, Ardern is trying hard make it look as though she’s wanting to provide as much information as possible but is being thwarted by circumstances beyond her control.  Her tendency to hyperbole will grow tiresome quickly for many voters.

5. Tautology / repetition to create distance:

Asked a question about expected tertiary student numbers, the PM refers to a “rough estimate” being made.  It’s a classic case of tautology because an estimate is, by very definition, a “rough” figure.  In her uncertainty, Ardern is seeking to avoid responsibility in case the number in question is not actually right.

And in the same segment we can unearth another gem: “My recollection—and I’d have it noted this is simply my recollection […] from memory, 5 percent”.  In addition to “recollection” being used twice, it’s followed by the phrase “from memory”, which is of course the same thing.  In repeatedly emphasising that her details are not necessarily accurate, Ardern is trying to avoid having to correct the record later if these are proven to be inaccurate.

Furthermore, for Ardern to say that “I’d have it noted” is meaningless:  every word spoken by a Minister at Question Time is “noted” by Hansard, whether or not they would “have it” that way.  In conjunction with her thrice-emphasised reliance on memory, the PM’s desire to note uncertainty is based on her desire not to be held accountable for inaccuracy … at the same time as avoiding having to confess that she simply does not know the answer.

6. Qualified absolutes:

Finally, we hear from Ardern her stated desire to ensure that “all New Zealanders, particularly those who have never entered into post-secondary education before, have access to education”.

The phrase “all New Zealanders” is an absolute (as no New Zealander is excluded by it) so it’s pointless going on to mention anyone to whom this “particularly” applies.  Here, the point of the PM’s statement isn’t to impart information efficiently but instead to reach out to “those who haven’t entered into post-secondary education before” for political reasons.  In other words, the point of the exercise is to promote the policy as being equally good for everyone at the same time as saying it’s particularly good for a particular group.  She’s trying to have her cake and eat it, too, suggesting universalism and a targeted approach simultaneously.

I’d conclude by noting that while Ms Ardern linguistic skills make no practical difference to her ability as a legislator.  It will ultimately be works and worth – not words – that voters use as the basis for judging her government.  That day of judgement will come all the sooner if “we, the people” (yes, including “we, the Opposition”) pay careful attention … not only to the things that the PM is saying but also how she’s saying them.

Chris Penk (@christopherpenk) is the National MP for Helensville and a former student of Linguistics at the University of Auckland

The Herald reports:

Congressional Republicans are manoeuvring to stop US president Donald Trump from levying harsh tariffs on steel and aluminium imports, arguing the move runs counter to the core of their economic agenda and could even cause political problems heading into the 2018 midterms.

“We are extremely worried about the consequences of a trade war and are urging the White House to not advance with this plan,” AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement Monday. “The new tax reform law has boosted the economy and we certainly don’t want to jeopardise those gains.” …

The Constitution gives Congress the authority over taxation and tariffs, but Congress has delegated trade negotiation and tariff authority to the president over recent decades. Congressional leaders believe that approach has worked well – until now.

Time to take it back.

A bit late covering this (toddlers and blogging do not always co-exist) but wanted to as it was such a great speech. The full speech is here.

Of course, where we come from is principally our families. My background, which I brought to politics, was rural and Catholic, and, in some respects, was an interesting mix that gave me as much familiarity with binder twine as with the beatitudes, and a love of shearing as well as a love of Latin. And then I married into the Scanlon family. Well, we had some things in common—faith and family—but they have a completely different tradition of New Zealand. Migrants from Samoa and Italy—theirs was a totally different world in which they lived, which we just called “town”, which was a generic word for anything bigger than Dipton.

But there’s not much that happened in these two families that didn’t happen to every New Zealander, because Mervyn and Norah English, who have passed away, and George and Jean Scanlon, who are here today, between them raised 25 children. Can I say, I am pleased you did not all accept the invitation. My children have 66 cousins, so far.

I remember the discussion with the officials when we were arranging the swearing-in when I became Prime Minister. They said, “Well, you can have the large one with the officials and the important people, and we’ll put out a whole lot of chairs and fill the room, or you can have the small family one.” I said, “Well, I think we’ll have the large family one, thank you.”, and 80 of them showed up on the day.

There has never been any doubt the vast importance of family to Bill. Despite having the heaviest workload of any Minister, he never ate dinner at Parliament. He always made time to get home to have dinner with his family.

I’ve been fortunate to have had some real friends who’ve come through with me—that is, Nick Smith, Roger Sowry, and Tony Ryall. We all started together as part of an intake of 37—a colourful bunch, I have to say. We were kind of the secondary school students, I suppose, or certainly regarded that way. The four of us have had opposing views on everything, from conscience issues to leadership coups. The real test, though, has been 27 years of family holidays together, where we’ve managed to create a tradition for ourselves and our families that keeps us bound, whatever our political views.

Rare to have such strong and enduring friendships in politics.

Hospitals were a big issue—small, rural hospitals, which, in the early 1990s, still had surgeons in them. Some of you may remember the Hands Around Our Hospitals protests in Balclutha—a town of 5,000 to 7,000 people marched against the closure of the hospital. I recall being under a bit of pressure in a Grey Power meeting in Gore, and I lost my cool and said, “We should bulldoze the bloody thing and build a new one.”, and, actually, that’s what we did. I’m proud to say that in the South, all of the small health services outside of Dunedin and Invercargill hospitals are in community ownership, and I have to say they’ve never been better run, more stable, and more secure for their communities.

The idea that Government has to run everything to make it work is simply wrong, and, in small communities, it is almost certainly not the answer to have third-level managers running your services for you. If I had one shortfall on that, it’s that I didn’t manage to get the Queenstown hospital into that structure, because it would be a much better facility than it is today if it wasn’t in public ownership.

Ownership is not the same as funding. You will often get better results with community ownership but public funding.

In fact, when you look at events around the world, I’m increasingly of the view that New Zealand’s ability to deal with cultural difference is going to become a strategic advantage, not just to us but relative to the rest of the world. We see deep, sophisticated cultures such as Europe struggling with issues that we have grappled with intensively for 30 years. I want to acknowledge the work of Sir Doug Graham and Chris Finlayson and Jim Bolger—in particular, those three—around the settlements, and Chris’s extraordinary effort in recent years.

We are indeed but better positioned that most of Europe.

You know, at the core of my belief—and it comes from Catholic theology and, to some extent, National Party principles—is the utter integrity of the individual person, their importance, and our obligation to them to ensure that they can realise their aspirations and their full humanity, and much of what Government does does not do that. That’s a shame, because I’ve never met a person, in 27 years, who had no hope—never, not one—including the worst of our offenders, and I’ve met them. There’s always some hope. In fact, often that’s all they have.

Bill’s compassion is what defines him.

You know, that’s telling, and if there’s anything I want to leave as a lesson here, it is the dangerous complacency of good intentions. There’s too much of it in New Zealand—that, somehow, if you say you mean well, that’s going to make a difference. Well, actually, it can cause damage, because you’re not actually talking about what actually happened. The services we provide are not about us; they’re about those people. The only measure of it is whether it changes their lives—whether we reduce the misery—but we have a system still built too much on servicing that misery.

Virtue signalling is the easy part. Actually making change that works is far harder.

I want to just finish with a quote from James K. Baxter that I’ve always liked. It’s from his poem called “New Zealand”, where the first line is

These unshaped islands, on the sawyer’s bench,

Wait for the chisel of the mind,

On March 13, when I officially resign—it feels like you leave the building about six times when you’re going; six last times—it will be 10,000 days since I was elected, and I want to acknowledge my brother Conor, who pointed that out to me. Ten thousand days since I was elected, and I’m satisfied that, every day, I took my turn at the chisel.

Bill English leaves behind a huge legacy. He will be missed.

Mike Hosking on NewstalkZB revealed during his breakfast show that Labour’s Acting Prime Minister is not allowed to talk on any current issues around the Government because he hasn’t been briefed on them!!

FFS, he is the Acting Prime Minister and he can’t even answer questions on radio about the issues of the day. This shows how wafer thin the Government is beyond the Prime Minister.

Here’s what Newstalk ZB were told they could not ask the Acting Prime Minister questions on:

• the foreign housing ban
• the Tax Working Group
• Pay equity
• Tariffs

They also revealed that the PM herself wouldn’t appear on the show except to talk about her tour of the Pacific – she wouldn’t talk about any other issues.

So a PM who won’t talk about anything but her Pacific tour and an Acting PM who is deemed incapable of talking on any of the Government’s policies or issues.

You can listen to the audio here –

Wayne Mapp writes:

Simon has been cut out for leadership for decades. When he was in his early 20s, I used to joke with him about the Bridges administration, circa 2020. Even at that age it was obvious that Simon had the gift of leadership, a certain charisma and self-confidence. The fact that he did not come from the exclusive suburbs and schools only added to his potential. Most New Zealanders will quickly become comfortable with his very Kiwi accent. For most of us it is who we are.

Arriving in parliament in 2008, Simon used his networking skills to great effect. He made sure that all the senior MPs got to know him. It was often as simple as taking the time in the evening to come forward in the debating chamber and sit with ministers. Making sure they understood him and his aspirations and philosophy. It seems simple in the telling, but it is surprising how few people have the confidence to actually do it. He was a natural for early ministerial promotion. Seeing him do battle with John Campbell on Campbell Live confirmed that he the toughness to hold his ground. Backing the oil and gas industry and its potential for New Zealand showed his mettle. A National Party leader is expected to promote business and not wilt at the first challenge.

Beating a government in just one term is a tall order, but in this instance very possible. New Zealand First is quite likely to go under 5%. In that case it will be a drag race between National (and Act) and Labour and the Greens. Things don’t have to go very wrong with the current government to make that a very competitive race. And should New Zealand First get back in – well, it is opposition for National in any event. New Zealand First will not go with National, at least not in 2020.

I agree that NZ First won’t go with National in 2020. National are fools if they think there is any chance NZ First will go with them. Winston chose to put Labour and Greens into power in 2017 and can’t in 2020 credibly claim he might do differently.

So the challenge for National is to knock NZ First out (actually NZ First will probably do that without assistance) and get more votes on the centre-right than Labour and the Greens.

The thing with Simon is that he backs himself in such a contest. If there were ever an image that showed he is up for it, it was his sheer confidence at the time of the selection of the Speaker when parliament resumed after the election. Simon had all the government MPs scurrying around him to cut a deal. They came to him, he did not go to them.

Being up against Jacinda Ardern almost certainly helped Simon in the leadership contest. He could provide a contrast that Amy could not. And National MPs would have recalled how he and Jacinda had sparred with each other on breakfast TV in 2009 and 2010. A sharp contest but also one conducted with good grace and humour. So he is a safe bet in that regard. He is not going to do anything foolish that will embarrass him or the party.

The challenge is not to attack Jacinda, but to show up the performance doesn’t meet the rhetoric.

All of this will not be enough to win; new policy will be needed. Recognition of the failures of the last National government will be required, especially in housing and the environment. Some of the new policy in these areas will have to really surprise people if National is to be looked at afresh.

Agreed. Fresh policy is needed.

Simon Bridges announced:

Opposition Leader Simon Bridges has appointed Amy Adams as Opposition Finance Spokesperson, saying she is the best person to ensure the Government builds on the National Party’s world-class economic record and does not squander New Zealand’s hard-won success.

“I am today announcing Amy Adams as our Finance Spokesperson and the third-ranked MP in our Caucus, ahead of the caucus reshuffle to show the economy remains the National Party’s number one priority.

“Having a strong economy allows us to invest in public services and create opportunities for New Zealanders – something the National Party has demonstrated over the past decade.

Unlike the Finance Minister, Amy has actually worked in the private sector as both a farmer and a lawyer.

Amy will be the first female Finance spokesperson for a major party since Ruth Richardson.

Asher Emanuel writes:

The government lobbyist who served for several months as chief of staff to the prime minister as the new government took office says he didn’t do any work for the lobbying firm of which he is part-owner while working at the Beehive. Nor, he says, was he paid by the business.

In response to questions on potential conflicts of interest, GJ Thompson, who advised the prime minister for five months ending last Friday, told The Spinoff he “declared the potential conflict at the very outset” and that it was for the Department of Internal Affairs to manage any conflict.

Thompson did not directly respond, however, to questions put to him on why his name and personal telephone number remained on the front page of the lobbying firm’s website while he was in service at the apex of the new government, or what steps were taken to address any conflicts of interest.

When Labour’s previous chief of staff, Neale Jones, left to become a lobbyist late last year, questions arose about conflicts of interest and the potential for disclosure of inside information.

But concerns over Jones’ move are dwarfed by those surrounding his replacement, GJ Thompson. Last Friday, Thompson concluded a five-month stint as Labour’s chief of staff. Before taking on the leading Labour position he was a partner at Thompson Lewis, the lobbying firm he founded in 2016. Having left the role, he has returned to Auckland and his firm to continue as a lobbyist.

It is quite legitimate to ask questions about someone being an Acting Chief of Staff for five months, while still being part of a lobbying firm. It is fair to say that it isn’t best practice as he will then be dealing with staff in the PMs Office and Ministerial offices that he himself hired.

But this overlooks why Thompson was appointed Acting Chief of Staff. The person appointed as Chief of Staff was not able to take up the role for several months as he was undergoing treatment for a life threatening illness.

Thompson I am sure did not want to do the job for five months. I suspect he was pleaded with to do it on the basis that they need an experienced hand for the initial few months. From his point of view, he was doing a favour to help out his own party.

It may have even harmed his firm’s lobbying ability. The greater scrutiny of any decisions that favour their clients make make it harder for them, not easier.

Mike Hosking writes:

So the question now is, how many objectors does it take? How many rational, professional, successful, influential players in the market does it take for the Government to wake up and realise ideology is not a blue print for sensible policy?

The committee hearing submissions on the Government’s foreign housing ban has been hearing day after day the various reasons as to why what they’re doing is wrong.

The latest is a bloke called Ric Kayne. He’s an American billionaire, but a New Zealand resident. He’s developed a golf course, Tara Iti, which is widely regarded as one of the best in the world, and is part of our ever growing portfolio of places and facilities that attract the world’s wealthy to come here, holiday and spend money, create jobs and drive the economy. Ric says if this ban goes ahead, his expansion plans are over.

Note that Ric Kayne is a NZ resident. But the Government’s proposed law would require him to be treated as a foreigner.

They join Northland and Central Otago, who pleaded over the economic advantages brought by major international players and the multi million dollar mansion market, and Fletchers, which argued for all possible avenues financing wise.

In other words, foreign money to remain open so companies like theirs can build the homes we so desperately need to address the shortage. All these people cannot be wrong. In fact, anyone with a brain knows all these people aren’t wrong.

The Government says their ban will make housing more affordable. It is more likely to just lead to fewer houses being built.

That’s not likely to happen, but let’s hope at least a decent chunk of this information is listened to and acted upon, because this is the danger of this Government. Ideology will kill them.

They have no experience in the real world, only five of them have ever been in a Cabinet. From the Labour point of view, I can’t think of any of them that have ever actually done anything in the private sector. Owned a business, employed people? You know, dealt with the real world?

The front bench is almost devoid of people who have done anything except politics or public sector work. In order they are:

1. Jacinda Ardern – political staffer then MP
2. Winston Peters – MP since 1978
3. Kelvin Davis – teacher then MP
4. Grant Robertson – student politician, political staffer then MP
5. Phil Twyford – Oxfam then MP
6. Megan Woods – does have a private sector background
7. Chris Hipkins – student politician, political staffer then MP
8. Andrew Little – student politician, unionist then MP

The Herald reports:

Small business owners across Auckland are on the warpath against plans to push out cars for cycleways and buses in local shopping centres.

In the past month, the Karangahape Road Business Association has withdrawn support for a $16 million cycleway and streetscape upgrade and the Mt Eden Village Business Association has gone ballistic over plans to extend bus stops in the village.

“Auckland Transport needs to slow down, listen more and go back to the drawing board,” Mt Eden Village Business Association chairman Steve Roper said in a letter to AT chairman Lester Levy.

The revolt has spread from the West Lynn and Westmere cycleway fiasco to Northcote Point, Mt Albert, Karangahape Rd, Mt Eden and Dominion Rd, drawing criticism from senior Auckland councillors and putting the spotlight on AT.

The transport body refused to put up anyone for an interview on the issue. …

It is unusual for AT to go to ground on a project it has fronted until now, particularly when most of the rage is directed its way over the planned cycleway and removal of parking along Karangahape Rd.

“It’s almost as if they have gone insane with this idea of cycleways and forgotten it’s thousands of little businesses like this who pay rent, pay tax, pay rates,” says Philippa Stephenson, whose Tart vegan bakery has a pop up shop in St Kevins Arcade.

Make no mistake this is not an abstract issue for these small business owners. If people can’t park near their stores, they they may go bust. Sure only 15% of customers may come by car, but a 15% drop in business can have a huge impact, especially when you have fixed costs to cover.

I’m all for cycleways, but the best cycleways should be removed from roads, not just placed on roads, knocking out car parks. Yes that may cost more, but small business owners should not be sacrificed.

Stuff reports:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel cleared the last major hurdle on her path to a fourth term Sunday, after members of the center-left Social Democrats voted in favour of continuing their governing coalition with her conservative bloc.

The decision ends almost six months of political uncertainty in Germany, the longest time the country has been without a government in its post-war history.

“I congratulate the SPD on this clear result and look forward to continuing to work together for the good of our country,” Merkel’s party quoted her saying on Twitter. 

The Social Democrats had furiously debated whether to extend the so-called grand coalition of left and right for another four years after suffering a slump in last September’s election. In the end, almost two-thirds of the valid votes cast by the party’s 464,000 members favoured a coalition deal with Merkel’s Christian Democrats and their Bavarian sister party.

The coalition of the two big parties should be a stable Government but such coalitions tend to allow more extremist parties to gain support as they become the only opposition.

Steven Joyce has announced:

National Party MP Steven Joyce has announced today that he will retire from Parliament.

“I have had a wonderful time in this place over the last nearly ten years including nine years as a Minister, and have been privileged to be able to make a real contribution to the development of our country,” Mr Joyce says.

“With the recent change of National Party leadership I have had the opportunity to consider again what I would like to do over the next several years.

“Simon has made a very positive proposal to me to stay and contribute as a senior member of the team on the front bench with a choice of portfolio.

“However I feel that it is time for him to get a new team around him to take National forward and win in 2020 and then govern again for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

This is a big blow for National. Steven wasn’t just a top performer in the House, but had been an integral part of National’s strategy and campaign team for well over a decade. They will miss him.

“I have led the National Party’s general election campaign five times as Campaign Chair and in four of those for John Key and Bill English, we achieved a Party Vote in excess of 44 per cent, the only time it has happened under MMP.

And the one time they didn’t get over 44% they went from 21% to 39%!

“My plan now is to return to commercial life and seek new challenges and also to focus on being a good Dad to Tommy and Amelia.

Suzanne will enjoy having Steven around more. And Steven will no doubt have a great career outside Parliament. He was barely out of his teens when he set up Energy FM and then grew it into Radioworks with 22 stations and 650 staff.

It will be interesting to see who replaces Joyce as Campaign Chair. It might not be an MP – in fact usually the campaign chair isn’t.

Some nice lines from Trump at the Gridiron dinner:

Trump’s own one-liners closed out the evening and included:

– On staff turnover: “So many people have been leaving the White House. It’s invigorating since you want turnover. I like chaos. It really is good. Who’s going to be the next to leave? Steve Miller, or Melania?”

– On his son-in-law: “We were late tonight because Jared could not get through security.”

– On Vice President Mike Pence: “He is one of the best straight men you’re ever going to meet … he is straight. Man.” Trump also said, “I really am proud to call him the apprentice “

– On Attorney General Jeff Sessions: “I offered him a ride over and he recused himself. What are you going to do?”

– On The New York Times: “I’m a New York icon. You’re a New York icon. And the only difference is I still own my buildings.”

– On former chief strategist Steven Bannon: “That guy leaked more than the Titanic.”

The Jared line is especially good.

Liam Dann writes:

In 2007 Rod Drury took me to lunch. He told me about his idea for a cloud computing company and how he planned to turn into a global tech player.

That kind of enthusiasm and passion for an idea isn’t unusual in entrepreneurs – but the clarity of Drury’s vision was disarming. His success in executing it is extremely rare.

Having sold his first start-up (AfterMail) for US$45 million, Drury had enough local support in 2007 to raise $15 million and list Xero on the NZX with a market cap of $18 million.

When it, controversially, de-listed to join the ASX earlier this year it was worth nearly $5 billion.

It now has 1.2 million customers in 180 countries and is breaking even at a cash earnings level.

Drury has systematically done what he said he would do.

I invested in Xero at the beginning based on my belief in Rod Drury to make a success of it. My shares which cost $1 are now worth around $33 each.

On top of that I use Xero for my business and it is great. I spend only a fraction of the time I used to on accounting.

So thanks Rod for a job well done.

Stuff reports:

A wealth tax, a tax on financial transactions, a broader capital gains tax, a land tax and new environmental taxes will all be options considered by the Tax Working Group, its chairman Sir Michael Cullen says.

If it moves, tax it. If it doesn’t move also tax it!

Cullen gave several strong clues on his own thinking on the direction of the tax system.

Cullen appeared warm to the idea of taxes on environmental and social ills, such as greenhouse gas emissions, pollution and the causes of obesity. 

We already have an effective tax on greenhouse gas emissions through the ETS. And excessive food and drink is the case of obesity so is he saying GST should go up on all food and drink?

“All this means that the possible use of the system to change people’s behaviour in ways which increase the wellbeing of all of us is very much on the agenda at the present time.”

Beware the unintended consequences. Also using the tax system to change behaviour could lead to an incredibly complex tax system. Will we tax food based on how healthy we think it is? Will different building products be taxed based on how environmentally friendly they are etc etc?

WEALTH TAX AN OPTION?

Several continental European countries have wealth taxes, which in some cases exclude the value of a family home.

France: An estimated 350,000 families in France pay a tax at between 0.5 per cent and 1.5 per cent on the value of any assets they own that exceed €800,000, though the tax only kicks in if people have assets worth more than €1.3m. 

Spain: Tax is payable at a rate of between 0.2 per cent and 3.75 per cent on net assets worth more than €700,000, discounting up to €300,000 on a family home.

Norway: A tax of 0.85 per cent levied on net assets exceeding 1,480,000 krona. There is a 50 per cent deduction for real estate and a 75 per cent discount for the family home.

Venezuela has a pretty good wealth tax also.

Eric Crampton writes:

Now is the time for all good Jedi to come to the aid of their country.

In the classic Cold War film, Dr Strangelove reminded us that it is pointless for a country to have a doomsday device if it is kept secret.

While the Cold War ended more than a quarter century ago, turmoil has engulfed the international community.

American taxation of trade routes to outlying countries like New Zealand is in dispute after it abandoned the Pacific’s Trade Federation.

China’s National Assembly eliminated term limits for its Supreme Chancellor.

And droid armies are rising.

Fortunately, the Census is at hand.

How can more Jedi help?

New Zealand has a strong Jedi contingent. But like Dr Strangelove’s Doomsday Device, deterrent capability is limited if nobody knows about it. And Statistics New Zealand knows this. That is why Jedi is one of the religions listed as an option on the online forms, making it easier for Jedi to self-declare.

It is illegal to lie on the Census, so I could not declare myself to be a Jedi. But my daughter… the Force is strong with that one.

Census Day is 6 March. Are you our only hope?

Can we beat the 19,000 Jedi of 2013?

Stuff reports:

David Ogden Stiers, best known for his role as the arrogant surgeon Major Charles Emerson Winchester III on MASH, has died.

His agent, Mitchell K. Stubbs, said via Twitter the 75-year-old he died on Saturday of bladder cancer at his home in Newport, Oregon.

I loved MASH growing up. Watched every episode and cried during the series finale.

Stier’s character of Winchester was a good part of the show. His predecessor was a bit too one dimensional comical bad guy with no redeeming characteristics.

Winchester could be a pompous arse, but was hugely skilled, and would often surprise by doing the right thing. A much better “villain”.