Professor Claire Robinson writes:

History suggests that National will overcome the ‘ third-term blues’ to win another general election. Since 1998, the party leading the opinion polls in July of the year preceding the election has gone on to win the highest proportion of the party vote come election day. I’ m prepared to make a similar prediction for the 2017.

Here’s the polls in those July years:

• 2016 National 27% ahead
• 2013 National 17% ahead – won
• 2010 National 17% ahead – won
• 2007 National 12% ahead – won
• 2004 – National 4% behind – lost
• 2001 – National 13% behind – lost
• 1998 – National 6% behind – lost
• 1995 – National 18% ahead – won
• 1992 – National 0% behind – won
• 1989 – National 21 ahead – won
• 1986 – National 4% behind – lost
• 1983 – National 5% behind – lost
• 1980 – National 1% behind – won (but lost popular vote)
• 1977 – National 5% ahead – won (but lost popular vote)

So some fairly good history there.

Early deciding voters tend to base their decisions on a longstanding predisposition towards a particular party, as well as performance measures they know or can estimate long before the actual date of the next election. Over the past three election campaigns an astonishingly high 73.8 per cent of National voters have reported reaching their voting decision before the start of the election campaign.

These voters know the National-led government, their policies, their ways of working and John Key’ s leadership. National has a track record of stability and, incredibly for a third-term major party, has shown very few cracks in caucus unity.

Caucus disunity is often fatal. Muldoon lost in 1984 after a failed coup. Labour lost in 1990 after two effective coups and huge disunity. National lost in 1999 after the split with NZ First and a coup. Clark was the exception having lost in 2008 despite only minor disunity.

Jim Bolger and Helen Clark were leaders of the Opposition for 4.5 and six years respectively before becoming Prime Minister.

John Key was leader of the National Party for just under two years before he became Prime Minister, but the opinion polls had already switched in National’ s favour when he took on his leadership role.

Doesn’t help when the Mayor of Kaikoura refers to you as David Little!

Labour might be thinking it has a bit of time up its sleeve. After all, only two-thirds of Labour’ s supporters reach their vote decision this far out from the campaign; the other third wait until the campaign to reach their decision. But Labour will have to work hard for the late deciding vote.

On average 41 per cent of voters who reach their decision during the campaign give their vote to a minor party. The next highest cohort (31.9 per cent) give their vote to the major party that ends up winning the highest proportion of the party vote. Labour hasn’t won the majority of the late deciding vote since 2005.

It is also by no means guaranteed that joining forces with the Greens will see their combined vote rise. Late-deciding Labour and Greens voters tend to “eat each other’ s lunches”.

Labour tends to drop support in an election campaign, not gain it.

Here in their drop in support from the beginning of election year to election day:

• 2014 – 9%
• 2011 – 6%
• 2008 – 1%
• 2005 – 6%
• 2002 – 4%
• 1999 – 6%

So Labour has never gained support in election year in any of the last six elections.

The Herald reports:

An Auckland Council executive has responded to public backlash against the spending of $500,000 on a new city slogan, saying it is a small part of a bigger “Auckland Story”.

No, no, no. Stop now. If the slogan cost $500,000 how much will the entire story cost?

The city’s proposed new global brand – The Place Desired by Many – was worked on by three project staff over two years, while 115 council staff attended workshops.

Reaction to the slogan has been mostly negative.

Act leader David Seymour slammed it, and offered some alternatives of his own.

And they are:

• The place where my kids will afford a home before I die
• the place where I’m not stuck in traffic all the time
• the place where my consents get processed within the 20-day statutory requirement
• the place where my rates bear some resemblance to services rendered.”

Much better.

Matt Heath writes:

At least US politicians get four years for their money. New Zealand’s three years is ridiculously short.

Here, a new government gets in, spends a year working out how to govern, does some good stuff for a year in the middle, then starts campaigning again. Democracy would be so much better if there was less of it.

How about we run a six-year term with a maximum of one month campaigning? That way a government could try long-term plans, for the good of the nation not just short-term popularity.

A six year term is a bit too much but three years is insanely short. Four years would be good.

However no way you can restrict a campaign to one month. Sure for official campaigning, but in reality campaigning tends to start the day after an election – it just increases in tempo the closer you get.

The Herald reports:

Spain’s ruling Popular Party has presented a proposal to the nation’s Congress that could result in a ban on the way social network users gain comic revenge on politicians.

The reform aims to curb the “spreading of images that infringe the honour of a person” and says Spain’s 1982 law covering this area is outdated due to the internet.

Campaigners for free speech see the proposal as an attack against the sometimes irreverent humour and political expression in “memes” – images altered digitally – many of which have poked fun at Mariano Rajoy, the Popular Party (PP) leader and conservative Prime Minister.

Good luck enforcing that law.

Jason Krupp writes:

Light rail is once again a topic of discussion around New Zealand dinner tables after newly elected Auckland Major Phil Goff stated that this transport mode is part of the city’s future. Auckland is not alone. The Greater Wellington Regional Council is also looking to review a plan to put in a light rail line through the southern suburbs as a means of fixing the city’s congestion problems.

The alarming thing about these proposals is the risk associated with them. A crude rule of thumb when it comes to light rail is these projects almost always come in over budget, never meet deadlines, and seldom achieve usage forecasts.

This is well supported by anecdotal evidence such as Sydney’s light rail project in the western suburbs, where costs have blown out by 250%. Washington DC’s street car project opened nine years late, and is unlikely to ever recoup the costs of construction, let alone break even.

The evidence is not  just anecdotal. A comparative analysis of 58 rail projects across 28 countries found that the average cost overrun was 44.7%, and of the 25 projects where data was available, average passenger traffic was less than half of what was originally forecast (-51%).

So let’s say these projects had a BCR of 1.0 – the benefits would equal the costs. Say $100 of costs and $100 of benefits. The average actual cost was $145 and the average actual benefit was $49. So that BCR projected to be 1.0 turns out to be 0.34 – a huge waste of money.

Essentially, there is a governance problem when it comes to project selection. 

This occurs because funding for projects, like light rail networks, is by its nature limited. And one would reasonably expect that only those projects with a high ratio of benefits to costs would be given the go-ahead.

An unintended consequence of this process is it creates an incentive for project promoters and project managers to deliberately overestimate benefits and underestimate costs to beef up this ratio and get the project over the line. The temptation to tip the scale is especially strong where there is no punishment for doing so, as the project promoters will have moved on by the time the real costs are tallied.

We see this in Wellington where politicians declare they can design a light rail system for half what the experts costed it to be.

His fix is to put in  sufficiently big counter incentives in place to ensure that project promoters stop producing biased forecasts. At the low end of the scale this involves commissioning independent peer reviews of project proposals, while on the other end he recommends professional and even criminal penalties for those who produce deceptive forecasts.

The question is whether this should be extended to the people who make this promises in the first place. I would argue that the answer should be yes.

Surely if, as Flyvbjerg proposes, forecasters are to be made accountable for the forecasts they produce, those who propose projects should also be made to account for their proposals. The danger is of course that too few projects get proposed because politicians fear to put their necks out, but this could be ameliorated by setting a best practice test. For example, should the costs on a project blow out, politicians that can show the forecasts used to support the project were based on independent and peer reviewed analysis will be absolved of liability.

This has appeal. Have it as a similar test for company directors – recklessness.

The light rail line being proposed from the Wynyard Quarter to Dominion Road in Auckland may indeed provide more benefits than costs. Indeed, as has been argued by Greater Wellington Regional Councillor Roger Blakeley, there may be ways of restacking Wellington’s light rail project so that it delivers a benefit cost ratio significantly higher than 0.05 (which was what the first cost benefit analysis on this project showed in 2013).

But if they are so confident in these forecasts, let them put their money where their mouths are.

Here is what so scary in Wellington. The official BCR is 0.05 which is insanely low. It is around the same as putting $1 billion of bank notes through a blender and $50 million survive.

But on the basis of past experience of light rail projects that BCR may be too optimistic. Based on experience that $1 billion cost would blow out to $1.45 billion and that $50 million of benefits will turn out to be $25 million. So the BCR might turn out to be 0.017!!!

If politicians vote to go ahead with this, having had expert advise on what a waste of money it will be, they should be held liable.

Stuff reports:

Wellington city councillors have voted unanimously to increase their pay for the second time this year.

All 14 councillors and Wellington Mayor Justin Lester gave a thumbs-up to the new pay structure on Wednesday, at their first proper meeting since October’s election.

Councillors not in charge of any committee will get an extra $3429 before tax, while deputy mayor Paul Eagle will get $2260 more than Lester did when he was second-in-command to Celia Wade-Brown.

As chairwoman of the newly formed city strategy committee, Iona Pannett will also receive $1083 more than a committee chairperson under the previous council. Her committee takes on the responsibilities of three separate committees under the old council.

The council last voted to increase its pay in May – again, unanimously – which took the annual salaries of councillors with portfolios up from $85,325 to $86,605. Wednesday’s vote bumps it up to $90,050.

So up $5,000 in just six months.

The Herald reports:

A protest turned violent this morning when peace activists blocked a defence industry conference in central Auckland.

The protesters formed a human blockade at the annual New Zealand Defence Industry Association Forum at the ANZ Viaduct Events Centre in an attempt to stop hundreds of delegates attending.

NZHerald Focus camera operator Tamara James said the vibe was “pretty intense”.

Emotions escalated when the protesters climbed a big blue fence protecting the venue and pulled it down.

“The police are all making a big wall. I saw some people fall on the ground and get dragged around.

“[The protesters] were pushing the police to get into the area; there was lots of pushing.”

I find it interesting that peace protesters invariably have violent protests.

A friend sent me this photo of one of the protesters. He looks very peaceful doesn’t he.

The Herald reports:

Tamaki says that natural disasters are side-effects of environmental pollution, abuse and sexual sins.

Referencing Leviticus, from the Old Testament, he writes: “No other sin in the whole of the bible has any connection to earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions, but sexual perversions alone.”

He really is a lunatic at times.

And Labour wonder why they keep losing elections and their vote share is at a 90 year low.

It’s one thing for an idiot to create a graphic accusing John Key of all sorts of things, but it is another for the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party to proudly share it.

This just shows what a bubble they live in. Their tiny circle of lovelies will all think it terribly amusing, but to most New Zealanders it just looks pathetic and sore grapes than Labour still can’t cope with the fact Key beat Clark eight years ago.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has indicated some form of tourist tax is needed to pay for much needed infrastructure.

Speaking at Wednesday’s tourism industry summit in Wellington, Key, who is also tourism minister, said possibilities ranged from departure or bed taxes, to tourist levies, but “doing nothing” was not an option.

“I don’t think you can sustain going from three to four to five million tourists and not be, frankly, building more toilets and more facilities.” …

Using some of the $2.8 billion in GST earned from tourism was seen as the easy option, but it could be removed as a cost cutting measure if there was a change of government to one that put less emphasis on tourism, Key said.

So let’s be clear tourists more than pay their way through the GST they pay on purchases in NZ.

If there is a case for a dedicated tourist tax, then it should only occur if other taxes are reduced. A National Government should not be increasing taxes overall.

Newshub reports:

Animal rights group PETA Australia is calling on authorities to ensure the cows famously stranded after Monday’s earthquake are taken to a sanctuary to avoid slaughter and retire.

The two Hereford cows and a calf were stuck on an island-like verge after the 7.5 magnitude quake, but managed to be rescued by farmers on Tuesday.

“Now that they are back on solid ground, their future safety is shaky at best,” says associate director of campaigns Ashley Fruno.

“Whether used for their milk or their flesh, in the end all cows are crammed onto trucks and transported to abattoirs where their throats are slit and they are skinned and gutted.

“PETA is calling on the farmer to allow these animals to live out the rest of their lives in peace at a sanctuary, instead of being torn into pieces.”

Maybe Fonterra could buy the cows and turn them into global Ambassadors!

Or set up a retirement village in Auckland for the cows and convince ATEED to spend $500,000 on it as a tourist attraction.

Stuff reports:

Navy ships on the way to Kaikoura will help increase the helicopter evacuations of up to 1000 stranded people from the quake-hit town, Civil Defence says.

Several Kiwi ships, as well as a US destroyer, will arrive in Kaikoura later on Wednesday morning to bring in essential supplies and allow tourists and others to leave.

The HMNZS Wellington would survey the Kaikoura harbour area to find the best place for the HMNZS Canterbury – New Zealand’s largest navy ship – to begin evacuating people.

The HMNZS Te Kaha and the USS Sampson – an American navy vessel in town for celebrations – are also en route to provide support.

Stuart-Black said the extra naval support would allow officials to increase the number of helicopter trips in and out of Kaikoura, taking supplies in and evacuating people “so we’re making the most of the capacity that exists”.

I wonder if the usual suspects are still going to go ahead with their protest against the USS Sampson??

The US has also directed one of their P3 Orions to help with surveillance flights. Great to have friends helping out.

A guest post by David Garrett:

“Fascism” or one of  its derivatives  is a word much used by the left about those of us on the right. Most often, it is used as an ill chosen insult demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of the  word, its origins, and its many connotations.

Fascism and communism were arguably the two most dominant failed political  philosophies of the 20^th century – certainly in terms of their impact on geopolitics and the shape of the world we now all  inhabit. Most of the loony lefties throwing the word about probably don’t know that fascism began not with Hitler, but with Mussolini, in the early 1920’s. The term is derived from a symbol of ancient Rome – the “fasces” – and it is important to understand that prior to the Second World War it carried no more sinister connotations than Conservatism, Liberalism,  Socialism and many other descriptors of political philosophies and parties.

While every student of modern European history knows about the sycophantic fawning over the Nazis by members of the British establishment in the early 1930’s, it is  less well known that in the late 1920’s  no lesser statesman than Winston Churchill spoke approvingly of Mussolini’s fascist regime, and said that had he been an Italian politician, he would have voted for it.

Setting to one side the legions of  black shirted followers, and the later violence and horrors which came to be indelibly linked with the word, fascism – most notably the German version – also consisted of a firm set of beliefs and rules which must be followed without question. The Jews were responsible for all of Germany’s economic woes. Ethnic Germans were superior to the untermenschen – the lesser races and sub-humans – who inhabited the lebensraum located to the East.

To think in certain ways was “un-Germanic”, and to voice certain proscribed opinions was to attract the attention of the authorities, and perhaps even result in a trip to a concentration camp for “re-education” in how to think, and what to believe. Many people assume that this order was imposed and maintained by a massive state security apparatus. This is quite untrue – the relatively small Gestapo  or state police was in fact fed information by a myriad of informers: ordinary Germans who denounced their neighbours, their fellow workers, and even their parents for expressing opinions which were contrary to the party line. Does this sound faintly familiar?

Political correctness emerged in the mid 1980’s as a set of rules about what things were called, and how opinions should “properly” be expressed. I have always found it odd that those who began this philosophy – for what else could you call it? – could not see that the very term “politically correct” was not a million miles from the prescription of  “korrekt” things Germans in the 1930’s were taught to think and to believe – certainly to express publicly.

Early politically correct euphemisms were innocuous enough – “disabled” or even “differently abled” instead of “crippled’; “learning difficulties” instead of “retarded” or “simple”; “sex worker” for “prostitute”; “person of colour” for “black”. The last mentioned is particularly risible for me. African Americans – as they were once called – themselves  proudly adopted “black” as a description of their ethnicity during the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s. “Black” morphed into “coloured person”, and now the latest version, “people of colour”. No doubt the mandarins of political correctness will have a new version sometime soon.

From more “correct” labels for people and things, the politically correct movement developed rules about our very thoughts,  and began to prescribe a never increasing list of facts which could not be highlighted: that young Maori males were more likely to be violent offenders than whites for example; indeed any kind of racial stereotyping became verboten, no matter how well grounded in fact. We could not even make the self evident observation that the children of 

Asian immigrants frequently achieve at very high levels in our universities – and almost never featured in the court reports. At least  not until relatively recently. We are now not allowed to observe that, based on overseas experience, we will inevitably experience Muslim terrorism, and that it will happen sooner rather than later if we keep allowing people whose entire way of life is the antithesis of our own to come and live here.

Who remembers the strife the former Speaker of the House Sir Lockwood Smith got into by opining that Asians have small hands, which made them more productive in orchards? What about the feeding frenzy which erupted when the former Chairman – sorry “Chair” – of the Employers’ Federation pointed out that some women suffer considerable pain and suffering from their menstrual periods, and that consequently, women in some workplaces tended to take more sick days than men. No matter how much the poor bastard prostrated himself and apologized,  and pointed to evidence to support his argument, the jackals of political correctness howled ever louder until Alistair Thompson resigned his post in ignominy.

Which brings me to Donald Trump, and one of the myriad explanations for his unexpected victory. In a very thoughtful piece in the once great Herald, Heather Du Plessis-Allan argued that people like her, the enforcers of political correctness, were at least partly responsible for Trump’s success. Ms. Du-Plessis Allan opines in the HoS:

His victory is not about racism – 29 per cent of Latinos voted him in and 29 per cent of Asians voted him in.

It’s not about putting women in their place – 45 per cent of women voted for him.

It’s not stupid people voting for him – 45 per cent of college graduates gave him their vote

Du Plessis-Allan comes close to agreeing with Winston Peters that the Trump phenomenon is nothing short of a social revolution – a revolution that could easily come here because:

For years we’ve ignored the talkback callers who, one after another, complained of PC gone mad. We’ve written them off as rednecks who will eventually catch up with 2016. We told ourselves they’ll eventually get used to the rules of correctness we’ve imposed on them…

This is familiar territory for me. For years a small minority of us who, despite having what the Americans call “a college education”, have been ridiculed because  we not only understand where the “rednecks” are coming from, we agree with them – at least on some things. We think recidivist violent criminals should be locked up for lengthy periods and not have earnest apologists like Kim Workman “explain” why they are not responsible for what they do. We don’t believe patently unfit mothers should be allowed to go on breeding without restriction because “women should be allowed to control their own fertility”. We believe – based on clear evidence – that children are best raised in two parent families, preferably where Mum and Dad are married to each other, and not some ever changing arrangement where the latest “partner” – of whatever sex – becomes jointly responsible for the child’s upbringing “and that’s perfectly OK”.

Had I been an American, I probably wouldn’t have voted for Trump. He has no experience in government – and unlike some of the “rednecks” I sometimes agree with, I don’t  see that as an advantage. While I am a great believer in calling a spade a bloody shovel, I don’t believe it’s right to talk about “grabbing women by the pussy” or “moving in on them like a bitch” as  seduction techniques. I have too much intelligence to believe that he can possibly build a wall along the US-Mexican border, and get the Mexicans to pay for it. And even if that was possible, I recognise that the economy of California would go into a tailspin without the flow of illegal workers upon which it runs.

But based on the inadequate knowledge I have of her, I wouldn’t have voted for Clinton either – there are too many unanswered questions about her past dealings, and I don’t believe we should put “breaking the glass ceiling” for women in positions of power above questions of their competence and suitability for the job.

We tend to follow trends in the US, albeit 10 or 20 years later. In my own area of special interest  for example, our tightening of bail laws, recognition that habitual offenders probably can’t be rehabilitated, and that some sex offenders actually do  need to be confined for what they might do rather than what they have already done comes 20 years or so after the Americans  came to the same conclusions.

The next four years in American politics will be fascinating for a whole host of reasons. I shall be fascinated to see whether – as Heather Du Plessis-Allan opines – Trump’s rise will be seen, at least in part, as a rebellion against the strictures of the fascists of political correctness in that country. It will be even more interesting to see whether signs of such a rebellion start to take hold here, beyond forums like Kiwiblog. 

While she has no doubt been subjected to howls of derision from her friends in the chattering classes, I applaud Heather Du Plessis-Allan’s contribution to the aftermath of the accession of “The Donald” . We do indeed live in interesting times when Heather Du Plessis-Allan and me are on the same page.

The Herald reports:

A court date has been set to hear a Petition for Inquiry lodged by failed mayoral candidate Reynold Macpherson into the recent Rotorua Lakes Council election.

The hearing will start at 10am next Thursday, November 17 in the Rotorua District Court.

Under section 95 of the Local Electoral Act a Notice of Intention to oppose the petition may be filed by any candidate or any 10 electors.

Dr Macpherson, who finished second behind Steve Chadwick by 2863 votes in last month’s mayoral race, filed the petition on Friday.

He has demanded an inquiry into the conduct of the council’s chief executive Geoff Williams during the election and is seeking the election result be declared void and a new election held.

In a media release at the time, he said: “It is with the utmost reluctance that I have taken this possibly unprecedented step.”

His petition contains the claim that Mr Williams’ conduct during the election was biased in favour of Mrs Chadwick and some incumbent councillors and was “therefore unfair on the other candidates”. It claims Mr Williams’ actions affected the result of the election.

In the seven-page petition, Dr Macpherson states Mr Williams had a duty to act fairly and without bias.

It refers to the council-commissioned Community Satisfaction Survey 2016 dated June 30, which was released publicly by the council on October 26 – after the election.

The petition claims the survey findings were adverse to the interests of the mayor and “the incumbent power bloc councillors” – who he lists as Dave Donaldson, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, Karen Hunt, Janet Wepa, Charles Sturt, Trevor Maxwell and Tania Tapsell.

This appears to be a nonsense petition with no chance of success. Claiming a different result if a survey had been released earlier is not going to convince a court to throw out the election.

And what was the difference between the 2015 and 2016 surveys. Well from his own petition:

residents’ approval of council decisions and actions trended down from 70 per cent in 2014 to 50 per cent in 2015, and to 49 per cent in 2016

Oh my God. A 1% drop in approval. Cancel the election.

residents’ ratings of the mayor and councilors’ performances as ‘very good/ fairly good’ trended down from 61 per cent in 2014 to 44 per cent in 2015, and to 39 per cent in 2016.

And a 5% drop. Again it is nonsense to claim that publishing of this survey at an earlier date would have changed the results.

There may be legitimate grounds to criticise the CE for not releasing it earlier. But that is different from claiming it materially impacted the election.

The Herald reports:

The more than 35 rodeos held in New Zealand each year shouldn’t be banned, a Parliamentary committee has concluded – a finding criticised by the Green Party. …

However, a report on the petition by Parliament’s primary production committee concludes there are adequate animal welfare safeguards.

The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) in October 2014 concluded a lengthy review of the 2003 code of animal welfare, which called for a ban on sheep riding at rodeos and made attendance by a vet and safety officer compulsory.

“NAWAC also noted that there was considerable debate on the question of calf roping in rodeos. It concluded that no harm is done to the calf, provided that the calf is not pulled over (busted),” the committee’s report states.

A Rodeos Code of Welfare includes requirements such as animals being inspected by a vet before performing, and that they be handled in a way to reduce distress.

The Ministry of Primary Industries has an enforcement role to ensure the welfare code is being met, and told the committee that compliance was sufficient.

Yet another thing the Greens want to ban. Have to add to my very long list.

Rodeos don’t appeal to me but so long as they meet animal welfare standards and people want to go to them, then not for Government to ban them.

The Herald reports:

NZME Radio has been ordered to pay a fine and compensation totalling $8000 for breaching broadcasting standards.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has ruled hosts on the Hauraki Breakfast Show seriously breached standards when they intentionally broadcast live on air a caller who had asked to make a complaint off air.

The BSA has ordered NZME Radio to pay $4000 in privacy compensation to Deborah Stokes, $4000 in costs to the Crown and to broadcast a statement summarising the Authority’s findings.

Stokes, the mother of New Zealand-born English cricketer Ben Stokes, called the station to complain about comments made by the hosts regarding her son, and to defend him. When she asked to speak to someone off air, host Matt Heath assured Stokes she was off air. The conversation was actually being broadcast live.

Good to see the BSA ping them but I think they got off too lightly. To blatantly lie to Mrs Stokes and tell her she is off air when she is being broadcast live is terrible ethics. The host seemed totally unrepentant and seems to think it was all a joke. $8,000 is not a lot to NZME but a medium sized five figure sum would be more likely to incentivise them not to do it again.

Andrew Little trying to having it every way on euthanasia.

The Herald reported:

There is zero chance of Government introducing legislation to legalise euthanasia even if an inquiry strongly recommends it, Prime Minister John Key says.

A select committee is part-way through a major inquiry on public attitudes to euthanasia in New Zealand, and is considering more than 20,000 public submissions and holding hearings around the country.

Key said today that regardless of the committee’s conclusions and the level of public support, the Government would not propose a change.

“There is no chance of it being a Government bill,” Key told reporters at Parliament this morning. …

“Ultimately you’re dealing with a really sensitive issue and I think the process is best handled through a member’s bill, as I’ve said so often before,” Key said.

Okay, so as with most conscience issues this would not be a Government bill.

Leader Andrew Little said the Government should “at least” allow a euthanasia bill to come before the House so a debate could take place.

So Little is saying the Government should introduce a bill on euthanasia.

However, he said a law change would not be a priority for a Labour-led Government.

But that if he was in Government, he wouldn’t do it!!

And this is the same Andrew Little who banned Labour MPs from entering a euthanasia bill into the members’ ballot!!

He just can’t stop himself criticising the Government, even when he agrees with them!

The Cavalier Daily reports:

Several groups on Grounds collaborated to write a letter to University President Teresa Sullivan against the inclusion of a Thomas Jefferson quote in her post-election email Nov. 9.

In the email, Sullivan encouraged students to unite in the wake of contentious results, arguing that University students have the responsibility of creating the future they want for themselves.

“Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that University of Virginia students ‘are not of ordinary significance only: they are exactly the persons who are to succeed to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its friendships and fortunes,’” Sullivan said in the email. “I encourage today’s U.Va. students to embrace that responsibility.”

Some professors from the Psychology Department — and other academic departments — did not agree with the use of this quote. Their letter to Sullivan argued that in light of Jefferson’s owning of slaves and other racist beliefs, she should refrain from quoting Jefferson in email communications.

“We would like for our administration to understand that although some members of this community may have come to this university because of Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, others of us came here in spite of it,” the letter read. “For many of us, the inclusion of Jefferson quotations in these e-mails undermines the message of unity, equality and civility that you are attempting to convey.”

The letter garnered 469 signatures — from both students and professors — before being sent out via email Nov. 11. Signees included Politics Prof. Nicholas Winter, Psychology Prof. Chad Dodson, Women, Gender and Sexuality Prof. Corinne Field, College Assistant Dean Shilpa Davé, Politics Prof. Lynn Sanders and many more. Asst. Psychology Prof. Noelle Hurd drafted the letter.

When I read this, I thought it was an Onion like satirical article, but it seems to be genuine.

This is beyond political correctness gone mad. They are objecting to a university president quoting Thomas Jefferson. Not Cecil Rhodes, but Thomas Jefferson – one of the most revered founding fathers, author of the Declaration of Independence and most acclaimed US Presidents.

This is why they are called Generation Snowflake. Anyone who gets upset that an e-mail quotes Thomas Jefferson has no business being at university. Hell they have no business having come out of the womb.

The fact some professors signed the letter just shows how out of touch many in academia are.

And if you want to understand why people voted for Donald Trump, despite his massive flaws – well because they are sick of society kowtowing to the signers of the letter.

World is crazy when you have CNN reporting on how the cows have been saved!

Such bad luck to have the storms just after the earthquake with Wellington cut off on SH1 and SH2. Not wishing to politicise a disaster, but this is one of the reasons many of us support Transmission Gully despite the relatively low BCR. Wellington is very vulnerable.

Incredible that a level has collapsed in Stats House. This should not occur in such a modern building. Thankfully no one there when it did.

The Herald reports:

Joseph Parker’s handlers are sufficiently confident of breaking even to announce Auckland’s Vector Arena as the venue for the WBO heavyweight title fight against Andy Ruiz Jr on December 10, but they admit they are taking a huge risk.

The fight will cost about $4million to put on. It will easily be the most expensive fight held here in New Zealand. Parker’s fight against Carlos Takam in May at Auckland’s Vodafone Events Centre cost $2.2million to hold, Duco’s chief executive Martin Snedden revealed today.

Excellent. Great news for Joseph Parker to get a home fight.

The key lesson here is that even without a taxpayer and/or ratepayer subsidy the event is still happening in Auckland. That’s a win/win.

This is the test that those who approve such funding decisions should apply in future. Is a subsidy absolutely needed to have this happen in New Zealand? Often the case is it is not – the promoter just (understandably) would like a subsidy.

Burham Sonmez at The Guardian writes:

The government has been using the attempted coup on 15 July as an excuse to silence anyone who is critical of the ruling AKP party. The ongoing state of emergency has granted the government extraordinary powers: the European convention of human rights has been temporarily suspended and the period in which suspects can be detained has been extended to 30 days. The authorities have arrested 37,000 people, including 150 journalists and writers. They have closed down more than 200 media outlets and publishing houses, more than 100 universities and hospitals, and expelled 100,000 teachers, academics and civil servants.

It is not a purge of those involved in the coup, which seemed to be around a dozen officers. It is a purge of anyone who doesn’t support Erdogan and the Government.

Turkey was once a shining light is the Muslim world. A reasonably peaceful democratic secular Musliam majority country that was a reliable NATO ally.

But then an Islamist got elected President and started working to undermine everything that made Turkey great, so he could retain power.

Stuff reports:

A Dunedin environmental contractor has launched a petition demanding Environmental Protection Agency chief scientist Dr Jacqueline Rowarth be removed from her position for her comments on the state of the Waikato River.

Matt Thomson launched the petition on Friday and by Monday 207 people had signed it.

Asked what he hoped to achieve, Thomson said it was launched chiefly to “rark things up” because he felt outraged the EPA’s leading scientist had made “farcical” comments about the river.

Rowarth’s comments were made to farmers at a Primary Land Users Group meeting on October 3, when she said the Waikato River was one of the five cleanest in the world, based on OECD data.

The New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society said the claims were false and were based on outdated data and factual errors. Her analysis was based on OECD river nitrate data from 2002-2004, whereas the most up-to-date (for 2011) showed the Waikato had dropping from its 5 per cent ranking in 2002-2004 to a 24 per cent ranking.

Thomson, who said he was affiliated to the Green Party, said he was not sure what he would do if the petition gained traction.

“Maybe it will get some critical mass and I’ll take it a step further. The issue is that she’s been given this position, and she was already sympathetic to the farming industry.”

Now we get her real heresy. This Green Party activists thinks that her sympathies are wrong. Anyone who disagrees with the Green mantra that farming is an evil polluting industry must be sacked in their totalitarian world.

There is a legitimate disagreement over how clean the Waikato River is. Scientists often disagree in their conclusions on the same data. This is a case for further dialogue. And it is not just all other scientists vs Rowarth. This article by scientist Doug Edmeades backs her analysis up.

I am in no position to judge whose conclusions are best supported by the evidence, but I will judge activists who launch petitions to sack scientists because of their views.