Readers may have noted two new counters in the sidebar. They track how many houses need to have been built and trees planted to meet Labour’s promise to build 10,000 houses a year and plant 100 million trees per year.

Every 53 minutes another house has to be built to make their Kiwibuild target and every 0.3 seconds another tree has to be planted to make their forestry target.

Once they actually start building and planting I’ll deduct those from the counters so people can see the deficit and judge whether they are making credible progress.

Simon Bridges released:

Regional Development Minister Shane Jones is already backtracking from his promise to plant a billion trees in 10 years, National Party Economic Development Spokesperson Simon Bridges says.

“From his statements earlier today it appears he’s realised that the pledge of a billion new trees is entirely unachievable and now he’s attempting to back away from it,” Mr Bridges says.

“His problem is that the target is recorded unambiguously in both the Labour-New Zealand First coalition agreement and the Speech from the Throne on the new Government’s programme.

“Now he wants to count around 50 million trees that are already planted every year, about half of the billion he’s committed to over a decade. These are happening regardless of his slush fund or the kind of Government in power.

“So his first action is to cut his target in half. Not exactly impressive.

So much backtracking so early in the life of a Government. It’s almost as if they were dishonest with their pledges.

Their pledge of 100 million trees a year equates to 274,000 trees a day. That is 11,400 trees and hour or 190 trees a minute or three trees a second.

The Government has been in office 27 days so they are already 7.4 million trees short of their target!

No Right Turn notes:

Partnership with the private sector is one thing, but misleading the public about the ambition of the policy is another. Because the 50 million trees a year private industry currently plants is almost entirely replanting, replacing trees which they’ve already cut down. In other words, that’s just planting to stand still. Worse, the required replanting rate is going to soar over the next decade, as the forests that were planted in the 1990’s are harvested. If private industry wants to avoid deforesting land (and paying the carbon costs for doing so), it will probably end up planting that billion trees itself.

Meanwhile, if we want to get the emissions benefits, we need to plant additional trees, not just replant harvested land. The billion trees policy looked like it was an ambitious target to do this, and bring our emissions under control. Instead, it looks like it is just more bureaucratic fudging, designed to give the impression of action while deliberately avoiding achieving anything substantive.

Stuff reports:

A new open-cast coal mine on the South Island’s West Coast has been granted resource consent, but critics say the project will push endangered species closer to extinction.

Rangitira Developments Ltd, which includes Stevenson Mining, holds the mining permit for the ridge on Mt Te Kuha, about 12 kilometres from Westport.

The open-cast coal mine will cover 144 hectares, including 12ha of conservation land, 100ha of the Westport Water Conservation Reserve and the remainder on private land. …

In the company’s application, Stevenson Mining chief operating officer Anne Brewster said the mine would create about 58 jobs. 

“The plan of having day-shift operations only at Te Kuha will mean employees will have to reside in the Buller District, which is beneficial to the local community,” she submitted. 

The West Coast Regional Council granted the project resource consent on Tuesday, following a nine-day hearing before a three-person panel in September to help the various parties develop consent conditions together.

Regional council chief executive Mike Meehan said the council had undertaken an “extremely robust process” involving various experts, which assisted with the commissioners’ final decision.

The hearing process ensured the “very best outcomes for the community, the environment and business are achieved”.

So the mine has resource consent. Now it needs the permission of the land owner.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said earlier this month there would be “no new mines on conservation land”.

Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage said the policy related to new mines, so existing mines like the Te Kuha project would not be affected.

“The mechanism by which we implement policy is being developed and obviously taking advice and heard very clearly, [is] the need for clear guidance on applications that had already been lodged,” she said.

“We determine applications under the current law.”

One can only assume Sage will decline. But this may cause tensions with NZ First and their desire for regional development. Watch this space.

The Herald reports:

North Korea has reportedly banned gatherings that involve drinking alcohol and singing.

The new measures are designed to stifle the impact of crippling international sanctions over the hermit kingdom’s ongoing missile tests.

The apparent ban on fun was reported by South Korea’s National Intelligence Bureau during a closed-door briefing to parliamentarians, according to Daily Telegraph.

“[Pyongyang] has devised a system whereby party organs report people’s economic hardships on a daily basis, and it has banned any gatherings related to drinking, singing and other entertainment,” news agency Yonhap reported the NIS as saying.

The crackdown follows the surprise cancellation of the popular Pyongyang Beer Festival in July, during a period of sustained drought.

North Korean public health officials must be very pleased.

The Herald reports:

Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe resigned as president after 37 years in power, as parliament began impeachment proceedings against him.

“My decision to resign is voluntary on my part and arises from my concern for the welfare of the people of Zimbabwe and my desire for a smooth, non-violent transfer of power,” said Mugabe in his letter which was read out in parliament, sparking cheers and dancing.

Cars began honking horns and people cheered in the streets, as the news spread like wildfire across the capital, Harare.

The best way to judge what the people think of a dictator is how they react when he leaves office.

Mugabe once had some popular support, but had for a long time been a hated despot.

It seems inevitable that Emmerson Mnangagwa will become President. He won’t be worse than Mugabe, but he may not be a lot better. Time will tell.

Mike Yardley writes:

But in contrast to providing temporary relief to productive, working parents, why should the taxpayer be left holding the baby for sole parents claiming a benefit, who refuse to disclose the identity of the child’s father?

The parental disclosure requirement has been government policy for 27 years, with the financial sanctions introduced by a Labour Government in 1990 and subsequently increased by the Helen Clark-led regime in 2005.

A variety of exemptions shield sole parents from coughing up a name, if they genuinely don’t know, if there is a risk of violence, or if the child was conceived as a result of sexual assault. But that hasn’t stopped the Greens from gunning to eliminate these sanctions, and now Labour has tacked left to make it a reality.

Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni thinks the disclosure rule is “discriminatory against sole parents”, while furnishing in the cynical cloak of identity politics: “97.7 per cent of people sanctioned are women, and 52.8 per cent Maori.”

There’s some blokes who won’t name the mother?

The latest government figures indicate 13,000 mothers drawing a sole-parent benefit have been sanctioned for refusing to name the biological father. Over 100 of those mothers have had at least four children. Even more bizarrely, there are 300 men on a sole-parent benefit having their welfare payments docked for playing dumb who the mother is.

Watch these numbers grow. Basically child support obligations have now become voluntary.

Anyone who parents a child should be held financially accountable, particularly when we shell out over a $1 billion on the sole-parent benefit alone, in addition to the billions lavished on the accommodation supplement.

It’s clear many parents are stiffing the taxpayer by doing a no-names deal, whereby the mother drawing welfare won’t divulge the father’s name to the state, on the proviso that the he flicks her some regular cash payments, on the sly.

Exactly.

Beyond the financial abuse of taxpayers, National’s Bill English has quite rightly issued a note of caution about the unintended consequences of this retrograde win for welfarism.

He worries women could face a greater risk of violence as absent fathers pile on the pressure not to name them. Oh the irony.

Under current policy women could point out that they are required to name the partner. Under this new policy they won’t face any sanction, so will indeed have great pressure from deadbeat dads to leave them out of it.

In addition to the 13,000 non-disclosure benefit sanctions, nearly 15,000 other beneficiaries had their welfare payments reduced in September for breaching their work obligations, like attending arranged appointments.

The Greens are now on the warpath to repeal all “excessive sanctions”, suggesting the long shadow of Metiria Turei is undeservedly getting the last laugh, while the taxpayer gets royally screwed.

It’s a gratuitous leftie overreach that will rile middle ground voters. I’m staggered that New Zealand First hasn’t scuppered it.

And it’s precisely the type of policy change that will ensure Labour doesn’t pocket the 10 to 15 per cent honeymoon bounce in the polls that’s typically showered on new governments.

Add to that Jacinda Ardern’s blinkered crusade over Manus Island and Labour will be lucky to get beyond 40 per cent party vote support in the next round of polling.

Just wait until they try to repeal the three strikes law and Kiwis realise which criminals will benefit the most from this law change.

Jenna Lynch writes at Newshub:

Surely people should be able to choose how they’d like to kick off their lives as parents.

Aside from the fact that it is a special time in a parent’s life to spend together, there are a number of challenging scenarios that come up in parenthood that this policy could help ease.

One example cited by the Opposition is mothers who have caesareans and cannot drive for six weeks. Surely having a partner around to help out makes sense.

Another is parents of premature babies who have other children to care for as well. Wouldn’t it be helpful to have the other parent around to share the burden?

There are many many reasons why a couple may not want the father to head back to work after just a fortnight.

Workplace Relations Minister Iain Lees-Galloway says no because the policy could (at its most extreme) result in parents halving the leave and taking it together, meaning babies would have less time with parents, which is the opposite of what the extension to leave seeks to do.

With all due respect, Minister, aren’t parents the best people to make this call?

Yep.

In fact, a mother in your own Government, Willow Jean Prime, has a three-month-old and says having her husband around for the first few weeks would have been greatly helpful. Is she not in the best position to decide what’s best for her family?

If we trust parents to raise our next generation, surely we can trust them to make the best decision when it comes to using their parental leave in a way that suits every family’s unique situation.

National’s policy is common sense and progressive – two things the new Government is looking to define itself as.

Adopting National’s policy adds nothing to the cost of the overall package.

Plus it presents an opportunity for the new Government to look reasonable and pragmatic.

It’s a no-brainer.

But one they turned down, purely because it wasn’t their idea first. Sad.

The story about Jacinda Ardern having told a mate that Donald Trump mistook her for Mrs Trudeau has gone global with reports in the UK, Australia, US, Ireland and India.

There’s a few lessons to be learnt here.

The first is that Ardern needs to be more discreet in recounting tales of interactions with global leaders. She is the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and it is reasonably likely the stories have been seen by the US Government and Trump is unlikely to appreciate a story that makes it look like the PM of NZ has been telling stories that make him look like an idiot.

But the bigger lesson should be with Tom Sainsbury who betrayed Ardern’s confidence. He should have never ever recounted what she said on air. Sure to him it is just his mate Jacinda, but again she is the Prime Minister of NZ. He should have known that repeating what she said would lead to stories.

Over the years I have had countless conversations with MPs, Ministers and even PMs. Do you know how many I have ever repeated on air? Zero. I regard conversations as private.

The final aspect of this saga is how precious left activists are because a journalist vigorously questioned Ardern on the story she created.

For all the critics of my IV with the PM this morning:
When a PM tells a story that embarrasses the U.S President and isn’t 100% true… it’s my job to ask questions. Just as I do with National MPs.

— Jack Tame (@jacktame) November 19, 2017

Tame even had columns appear in Stuff condemning him because he kept persisting with trying to get a straight answer from Ardern for six minutes. If Tame had challenged John Key for six minutes on an issue, he’d be held up as a champion of journalism and Key be condemned as evasive. But many on the left can’t abide anything that is challenging of Ardern.

Stuff reports:

McDonald’s and its namesake charity Ronald McDonald House have been compared to the late Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar.

Canterbury Medical Officer of Health Alistair Humphrey made the comment as he joined a chorus of medical professionals speaking out against the charity, which supports sick children and their families.

This shows how demented some public health activists have become. They have long abandoned rational dialogue and debate for hysterical caricatures.

Humphrey told Stuff that McDonald’s made a lot of money “out of selling a product that is killing a lot of New Zealanders”.

He likened the fast food giant and its charity to Escobar, who was revered for building homes for the poor in Colombia, despite killing 4000 people.

About 4 million people die from obesity each year, including 3000 in New Zealand.

Oh can we all play this game. Never mind Escobar murdered 4,000 people and McDonalds sells food that people like to eat. What other inane comparisons can we make.

Cadburys sells chocolate. Chocolate can lead to obesity. So Cadburys kills 3,000 people a year. Charles Manson only killed 35 people so Cadburys is 100 times worse than Charles Manson!!!

Wow this game is easy to play.

Humphrey, who did not support the facility in Christchurch, congratulated Public Health South and hoped the Southern DHB endorsed their stance.

Those who opposed had a “similar misguided gratitude” to the 25,000 people who attended Escobar’s funeral.

“They are drawing themselves into the deal with the devil, in my view.”

This guy is a taxpayer funded official. Well an official zealot that is.

Stuff reports:

The Government had budgeted $7.6 million a year for three years, up to $23m, for the agency and re-entry.

An explosion ripped through the West Coast mine on November 19, 2010, killing 29 men. Their bodies have not been recovered.

$23 million is a lot of money. I don’t begrudge it, if a re-entry can be done safely. But it does make me wonder whether the families would appreciate an offer of spending that $23 million on them directly, rather than a re-entry attempt that might not even be successful.

The Herald reports:

Charles Manson – one of America’s most notorious killers and cult leaders – has died at the age of 83.

Manson was connected to the brutal slayings of pregnant actress Sharon Tate, the wife of filmmaker Roman Polanski, and other Hollywood residents, but was never found guilty of committing the murders himself. …

Manson and his followers, often referred to as the Manson Family, committed a series of nine murders at four locations over five weeks in the summer of 1969. In 1971, he was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the murders of seven people.

The most heinous killing is arguably that of Sharon Tate, who despite pleading for the life of her eight-month-old unborn child, was mercilessly stabbed in the stomach by Manson family member Susan Atkins.

She was one of four people who died on August 9, 1969, at Polanski’s home in Benedict Canyon.

It is thought they may have killed in fact up to 35 people. There are few pure evil people around but Manson was one of them.

A guest post by David Garrett:

Andrew Little has kicked off his plan  to repeal three strikes (3s) with a lie – that the law “has done great harm” – and a stated desire to find “a better way”  than prison for dealing with repeat violent offenders. Who could argue  with that desire? After all, incarcerating prisoners supposedly costs $100,000 a year, and the re-imprisonment rate after five years is around 75%. Surely there is a better way of dealing with such persons, and turning them into good citizens? Well, sadly no.

First some context. Although they don’t always say so explicitly, the left clearly regard almost all prison inmates as poor hapless chaps who have found themselves in an awful  predicament almost by accident, or at least  after just one failing – a drugged or drunken decision to rob a liquor store perhaps. The reality is very different.

Recent OIA’s reveal that on average, inmates have 46 convictions yes, you read that right, forty six. On average, new inmates will have appeared before the courts eleven times before finally being sent to jail. By that time, prisoners will usually have received the whole gamut of “alternative” sentences, probably beginning in the Youth Court, and then graduating through community service, community detention, home detention and suspended prison sentences. So by the time they go to adult prison for the first time, many of the alternatives to prison have already been tried – and failed.

What about “alternatives” in jail? Well, we have tried many of those too. Sadly they don’t work particularly well. Two perennials are faith based units and Maori focus units. Faith based units are for those who find God inside, and resolve to take a different path, both in jail and on the outside – disciples of Jesus Christ and Kim Workman if you like.

As in the Maori focus units, prisoners in faith based units tend to be better behaved inside than ordinary inmates – they have to be of course, or they find themselves back in the general population. There is a difference in recidivism for graduates of faith based units, but sadly it fades over time . Within five years or so  their recidvisim rate is little different from inmates who did not spend time in a faith based unit before release.

The picture is somewhat better  for graduates of Maori focus units. According to data released under the OIA, there is a significant difference in two year reoffending rates as  between the general population and the Maori focus units (Te Tirohanga). Just over 49% of graduates of Te Tirohanga reoffend within two years of release, as opposed to 59% of the general population. Given that these units cost very little in the scheme of things, that’s a pretty good result.

The difference remains over time (May 2017 figures)  – 64.8% of Te Tirohanga units graduates reoffend within five years of release as opposed to  73% of those in the general population. Again that’s not bad, given the limited cost of such units – a 10% lower rate of offending is not to be sneezed at.  It must be noted of course that a 64% reoffending rate cannot be said to be “good”.

The granddaddy of spectacular failures of  “a different way” remains Kim Workman’s baby He Ara Hou (A new way), a program from the 90’s when Workman was Assistant Secretary, penal institutions. The basic idea was that the “traditional” authoritarian method of running prisons – an us and them environment  – would be completely changed: co-operation, respect and harmony would replace antagonism, acrimony and apathy. (Newbold: 2008, 387).

At first Workman’s theories appeared to work: a dramatic increase in  inmates engaged in education programs was reported, and violent assaults on officers fell  from 43 in 1991-92  to 34  the following year (ibid.). There was also a decline suicides by Maori prisoners. So far so good.

But in the end, the scheme was a disaster. Family days in jail and a general relaxation in security left prisons open to  the smuggling of drugs, money and other contraband. Close relationships between staff and inmates sometimes became corrupt, and there were instances of sexual misconduct between male prisoners and female officers. As Newbold tells it: (op.cit.):

Giving administrative freedom to managers with little experience led to an embarrassing series of scandals involving staff trading with inmates, theft of governmental property, submission of fraudulent pay returns, failing to supervise dangerous inmates and allowing them to escape, drug dealing and serious abuse of prisoners who were unpopular. At  [Mangaroa Prison], which had been marked as a showcase for the new method, allegations of corruption, neglect and violence resulted in the firing of 12 officers…A Ministerial enquiry …led to the resignation of the Secretary for Justice and his prisons head, and the end of He Ara Hou.

Twenty five years later, rather like an old communist who insists that the ideology was never properly implemented, which is why it failed,  Workman and his youthful followers is  pushing for  more of the same, notwithstanding his earlier spectacular failure. With the change of government, he and his supporters will have the ear of the cabinet, in particular the ideologically driven Justice Minister Andrew Little. There is no doubt in my mind that any He Ara Hou 2.0 will have exactly the same results as the first version.

So what hasn’t  been tried over the past 40 or 50 years? Well don’t laugh, but the one thing we haven’t tried since liberalization began in the 60’s is making prisons much  tougher. An “old lag” from the 1940’s would not recognize life in today’s prison: work is voluntary, inmates can wear their hair how they like, dietary fads are indulged, the cells are centrally heated. A very far cry from a cold cell in Mt Eden or Mt Crawford with a pisspot instead of a toilet, and 10 hours hard work  a day in  the quarry next door while dressed in striped pyjamas.

How did that work? Sadly recidivism figures for New Zealand were not kept back then. It is clear however that in England, there was, as Hitchens notes:

“…a small, slowly circulating group of more or less incorrigible crooks and troublemakers, going in and out of prison despite its dismal conditions… the  important figures, however,  are the unrecorded ones for people who might have committed crimes but chose not to because they knew what to expect  if they did” (Hitchens: 2004, 143)

In other words, the “habitual criminal” is not a 21^st century phenomenon created by relatively benign conditions: there have always been criminals incapable of reform; what has changed is the number of them as a percentage of the population as a whole.

A return to 1920’s penal policy is most unlikely even with a National led government: it is positively unthinkable with the government we have now.  That doesn’t change two inconvenient truths: firstly,  100 years ago all but a small minority avoided prison like the plague, and secondly, harsh conditions designed to make life in prison  most unpleasant is the one thing we haven’t tried in recent times.

The Herald reports:

Pike River Mine minister Andrew Little says he cannot guarantee a re-entry of the mine and has told family members that he will do what he can but safety is the top priority.

The coalition agreement says nothing about safety. Labour and NZ First condemned National for putting safety first. The coalition agreement says “Commit to re-entry to Pike River” – not ifs and no buts.

The Herald reports:

Wes Goodman, a Republican lawmaker from Ohio, US, known for his Christian conservative and anti-LGBT views, has been forced to resign after being caught having sex with a man in his office.

The sex act is also an affair as Goodman is married to a woman who is at the helm of an annual anti-abortion rally called “March for Life”.

The politician is known for his push for “family values”.

The man he was reportedly caught having sex with in his office is not one of his employees.

Have to feel sorry for the wife!

On Twitter, he previously described himself as “Christian. American. Conservative. Republican. Husband to @Beth1027” and often tweeted about how “natural marriage” was only between a man and a woman.

So marriage must be between a man and a woman, but the quick bonk in the office can be with anyone!

Stuff reported:

A group of Manus Island asylum seekers are luring underage girls as young as 10 into sex, an Australian Government intelligence report claims.

The Australian Government has confirmed the accuracy of the diplomatic cable, obtained by The Australian Financial Review and Stuff.

However, the timing of the leak, and several others in Australian publications, suggests rising levels of frustration within the Australian Government that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was putting undue pressure on a domestic Australian policy issue.

Jacinda has turned this into a real aggravation between the two countries with her inexperience. Diplomacy is about looking for solutions palatable to both countries, that allow both countries to claim a “win”. Trying to browbeat our closest neighbour and friend to reverse a policy which is deemed fundamental to their border security will achieve nothing except pissing them off.

The report was concerned that male camp residents were travelling into the community to procure sex with underage girls.

It states that “some residents were renting rooms throughout Lorengau and luring underage girls between 10 and 17 years of age, with money, goods and food”.

While the report states police were unable to investigate the claims because they had not been reported, the local provincial health authority had written to the provincial police commander expressing concerns about “increased interaction between the residents and the young girls from a health perspective, saying they had seen an increase in sexually transmitted infections and HIV”.

So Labour wants to reduce the number of skilled immigrants coming to NZ, and reduce the number of foreign student but take 150 people from Manus Island. What a great policy.

According to the cable, Manus Island residents were also “unhappy with the stigma attached to the girls who engaged in the activities and the number of children born from the ‘relationships’ (reported at least 10 at the time of our last visit)”.

That’s ok. If their Dads move to NZ, they’ll be able to come also!

Ardern has been increasingly insistent Australia should let New Zealand take some of the 600 asylum seekers remaining on Manus Island, following the closure of Australia’s Regional Processing Centre.

It is understood the Turnbull Government is furious with what it views as Ardern’s “moral posturing and naivety” on the matter.

Yet much of the NZ media are reporting what a diplomatic success the PM is. If this is success, I’d hate to see failure.

Australian government sources say they are extremely concerned about the messages Ardern is sending to people smugglers.

“The smugglers are watching every interaction between governments in the region on this issue and looking for a chance to restart their businesses,” one senior Australian Government source said.

“They observe the statements of new leaders very closely and if they see a sign of policies shifting or changing, they take advantage of that.”

Yep. Policies and resolve of Governments matter. 1,200 people drowned during the previous policy.

A spokesman for Ardern said “the relationship with Australia is strong”.

This belongs to the same category as “We were sure we had the numbers, we just didn’t want a contested vote for Speaker”.

Duncan Garner writes:

I’ve never felt so out of my depth as I did when my first daughter decided to invade the planet. 

Hopeless, useless and sleepless, that was me.  

No book, no midwife, no mother or in-law could tell me what to do, but they all tried desperately and repeatedly. 

Like a powerful but tiny asteroid, this totally reliant little baby girl had the destructive power of a nuclear warhead backed up with the pipes of an air horn. 

Yep that is parenthood.

Dozens of countries offer paid parental leave. It’s a no-brainer. We pay every pensioner a guaranteed state income, it’s good for their health, yet it’s the early years where the differences are made. Supporting families should be the norm, not a luxury item. 

So why is it just for mums? Why can’t families split the 26 weeks so mum and dad can share it, spend time together, bond with baby? Because Labour says it’s best for mum to have 26 weeks with baby. Bullkaka. Plunket says flexibility would be good. Stop while you’re well behind. 

What is Labour to be telling us what’s best for our families? It has no right. No-one is asking for a dollar more. We just want flexibility for mum and dad to take the time together. I would have taken it – it would have been so very welcome. 

Yep a policy that won’t cost a cent more, but Iain Lees-Galloway and Jacinda know better than parents what they should do. ILG proclaimed that it is best for the child if the primary caregiver spends more time with them.

No, this is a case of Labour throwing its toys out of the cot. Labour can’t see past its own nose on this one.

It doesn’t want to pick up the flexible approach because it’s National’s idea. Plain and simple. It can’t be seen to be accommodating the baby blues when the Nats saw red over paid parental leave in the first place. 

This is truly pathetic from Labour on an overall policy that most support. 

Nothing National is asking for will cost more, it’s a disgraceful, short-sighted, pathetic and petty decision by Labour to deny families the chance for mum and dad to share the early weeks together at home. 

Just because they didn’t think of it first, they are refusing to do it.

Jo Moir writes at Stuff:

 Labour has a problem.

For the last week, Kelvin Davis has been acting prime minister and it’s been nothing short of a trainwreck.

It has been spectacular.

Every question Davis had thrown at him on Tuesday was answered first in muffled tones by ministers Phil Twyford, Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson. Davis then stood up and repeated the answers.

The first and second time could have been written off as them helping him get started but it was just absurd when it continued for the entire stretch of supplementary questions.

The ministers didn’t even try to hide the fact they were doing it and Davis blatantly looked to them every time before rising to his feet.

I have never ever known this to happen before. Maybe a very junior Minister might get helped once by a colleague. But this is the Deputy Leader of Labour and Acting Prime Minister who is unable to even answer questions in the House without another Minister literally telling him what to say.

Labour knew Kelvin isn’t really up to his current role. He was elected because of his appeal to certain demographics. They gave him an incredibly light workload for a Deputy Leader – just Corrections and Tourism. Compare that to the portfolios Bill English, Paula Bennett, Michael Cullen and Wyatt Creech had.

Labour needs Davis to remain the party’s deputy leader because his promotion to that role ahead of the election was a smart one and no doubt went a long way to helping it win all seven Māori seats.

But the party can’t sustain the cringeworthy chaos on display of late and it needs a new plan by the time Ardern and Peters jet out of the country again.

Appeal is part of it, but you also need to have basic competence.

Ardern can appoint Robertson in the acting role and keep Davis as deputy leader. It’s messy, but not as messy as what was on display last week.

Failing that, the Government can choose who answers questions in the House on behalf of the prime minister.

If Ardern is away, then Robertson needs to be nominated as acting leader for the purposes of the House at least. It doesn’t solve the issue of press conferences but it gets halfway there.

That would be an effective vote of no confidence in Davis, and Labour saying he’s not up to it no matter how much help we give him.

Photo of Lake Hayes taken during the race

Did the Queenstown half marathon yesterday. Did the full two years ago but as I only seriously started training for it after the election, the half was a very good choice.

What also attracted me to the half was it started and finished at Millbrook. Great excuse to stay there and could leave your room just before the start rather than have to catch shuttles two hours before hand.

So I left my room around 7.15 am which would get me to the start around 7.23 am. But around 7.22 am I noticed I had left my blue tooth headphone behind so rather than face a couple of hours with no audio, I sprinted back to the room to get them. I then ran back to the starting area and got there at 7.30 am on the dot.

Sadly I had not realised there was a separate start area for the half marathon. I wondered why none of the couple of hundred people were actually on the track. I then noticed they all had different colour bibs. I inquired if this was the half marathon start and they said no, that is a few hundred metres up the avenue.

So I then started sprinting out of the marathon starting area to the amusement of the MC who announced David is starting his half marathon several hundred metres early. I got to the start of the half and there was no-one there. A couple of officials were surprised to see me run up, especially as the tail-end charlie was already a couple of minutes away.

I managed to catch up with the tail-end in around a km, fairly puffed by then as I had been basically running since 7.22. The one good thing about being at the very very back is no-one gets to overtake you – you just get to over-take others!

As I had not trained much, I wasn’t competing for time but just to enjoy the views and they were spectacular. You can see one photo above. Was a perfect day, and it truly must be the most scenic running course around.

The first 17 kms or so were the same route as the full marathon I had done in 2015. It was just a four km distance back from Lake Hayes to Millbrook. Sadly at 2 kms to go you come across a gigantic hill which makes you feel about as cheerful as a cat owned by Gareth Morgan. It was called Christine’s Hill and many of us were cursing Christine. But after the climb, then all downhill and flat for the last km to the finish line.

Despite Christine’s Hill, enjoyed the run and already thinking of coming back in 2018. It really is just the most beautiful area.

Greenpeace released: