Politico reports:

A new poll of Georgia voters finds Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton nearly tied in a general election matchup.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll shows Trump with a 4-point lead over Clinton, 45 percent to 41 percent, which is within the poll’s 4.26 percentage point margin of error.

The sentiments expressed by independents further contribute to the statistical tie between the two presumptive nominees.

It isn’t a statistical tie. I do wish media wouldn’t use that term. It is good media point out a lead may be within a margin of error, but not good when they suggest that it is effectively a tie.

For a poll of 822 voters, the chance that Trump is actually leading is 89.2% and the chance Clinton is leading is 10.8%. This is less than the normal 95% confidence interval so Trump is not necessarily leading – but 89% probability is not a tie.

50% is a tie and 95% is statistically significant. I’m not sure what the term is for probabilities between 50% and 95% but it is not a tie – ie a 50.1% chance you are leading is not the same as a 94.95 chance you are leading.

News.com.au reports:

They’ve had many good years, but an illness has ruined their quality of life. They’re in pain, and they want to end things on their own terms. For many people, this is an easy concept to accept.

But a recent case in the Netherlands is getting a lot of media attention, and it’s troubling ethicists.

A sexual abuse victim in her 20s was allowed to go ahead with assisted suicide as she was suffering from “incurable” post-traumatic-stress disorder (PTSD), according to the Dutch Euthanasia Commission.

The law in the Netherlands states that doctors may perform euthanasia on anyone with “unbearable suffering”.

The girl had been abused between the age of five and 15. As a result of her abuse, she suffered severe anorexia, chronic depression, and hallucinations.

Doctors said her conditions were “incurable” despite some small improvements in her mental state after intensive therapy. Two years ago, they agreed to her wish to end her life.

The doctors judged her to be “totally competent” and that there was “no major depression or other mood disorder which affected her thinking”.

News of her death has triggered debate around the world about the ethics of assisted dying.

I’m in favour of assisted suicide/euthanasia in cases where people are dying, or have a condition (Huntington’s that will make their life intolerable). But declaring PTSD to be incurable seems a step too far to me.

Stuff reports:

A living wage stoush between Wellington City Council and Chamber of Commerce has concluded, with both sides claiming victory.

The chamber was trumpeting success on its part after announcing future external contractors for the council would not have to be paid a living wage. 

The council had agreed to consult with the chamber on any extensions and, if necessary, it would seek legal judgment to clarify any disagreements.

However, the council says it has not backed down, and its original decision still stands, with a living wage to be paid to the council’s core cleaning staff from July 1, along with security staff.

Basically the two contracts done to date stand, but any future contracts may not include the provision.

As I have said before, it is madness to base your wages policy on whatever calculation is done by an Anglican priest living in Lower Hutt. That is not good governance. And forcing your contractors to do the same is even worse.

And the hypocrisy remains high as at least two Councillors who voted to force ratepayers to fund a living wage for Council staff and contractors, do not themselves pay a living wage to all staff working for them.

The Herald reports:

The Government is set to confirm plans next month to force councils to unlock more land for housing.

Housing Minister Nick Smith told TVNZ’s Q+A this morning that he would be “upping the ante” on increasing housing supply, in particular in Auckland.

“Next month I will be producing a national policy directive under the [Resource Management Act] that will put far tougher requirements on growing councils to ensure they are freeing up long-term the land that is required so that we don’t get into the sort of juggernaut that has been at the core of the unaffordable housing problems in Auckland.”

The Government was “pulling every lever it had” to increase supply, he said, and progress had been made on plans to build houses on surplus Crown land in Auckland.

Several contracts with developers would be announced in the next few weeks, and he expected the first house to be built on this land before the end of the year.

Around $52 million in funding for the scheme had been exhausted, and further funding was expected to be confirmed in this month’s Budget.

Dr Smith also told Q+A that Auckland’s Unitary Plan was “hugely important” for ramping up housing supply in the city.

“If we’re going to solve the problem in Auckland, it can’t be the sort of binary choice – is it up or is it out? It’s actually both.”

Good to hear Nick say this. Just doing one of them won’t work.

Stuff reports:

Victims of family violence who kill their abusers should be able to claim self-defence more easily, the Law Commission says.

The commission’s report on family violence laws, requested by the Government, has recommended lowering the threshold for self-defence to help women who “have endured years of trauma and abuse”.

In its report, the Law Commission said New Zealand had the highest reported rate of family violence in the developed world.

The commission has recommended changing the law to state that self-defence can apply when a person is responding to family violence – even when the threat is not “imminent”, as currently must be the case.

Lead commissioner Dr Wayne Mapp said there were some “deeply-held myths” about family violence, such as that those being abused could simply walk away.

“The reality is family violence in many cases is part of an ongoing, sustained, vicious pattern of violence that traps the person.

“That entrapment means she cannot leave, and that then means she ultimately, for fear of her life, or that of her children, sees no other way out but to defend herself with lethal force.”

Mapp said New Zealand’s self-defence laws were “out of step” with countries like the UK and Australia, and there was “ample evidence” that women convicted here of manslaughter or murder should have been acquitted for acting in self defence due to family violence.

He did not believe changing the law would lead to people using family violence as an excuse for premeditated murder, saying it would be up to juries to decide whether a self-defence claim was believable.

The law change could allow a woman to kill her sleeping partner and claim self-defence, if she made a “believable” case of family violence.

“Such a claim would only be successful if it existed in the context of a sustained long period of family violence, and if you didn’t do that then, the next thing going to happen to you is that you were going to be killed instead.”

I think the Government has to be very careful here.

First of all I agree that it is not as simple as saying that women should simply leave men who abuse them. That is absolutely the right thing to do, but doing so can be incredibly difficult, and in fact dangerous.

However we need to be careful that we do not create an incentive that it is an easier choice to kill your partner rather than leave them.

I’d be more comfortable with someone being able to get a reduced sentence or lesser conviction, rather than a total exoneration.

The other aspect that concerns me is that while there are sadly many many people who do get abused by their partners, you may create an incentive for someone who kills their partner, to falsely claim they were abusing them, and hence it was self defence. And as the partner is dead, you don’t get their side of the story.

So while I can agree the status quo is not great, I think significant caution is needed before extending the definition of self defence beyond imminent danger.

By John Stringer https://conzervative.wordpress.com

Continue reading »

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key has signalled National will campaign in 2017 on a $3 billion package of tax cuts.

Last week Finance Minister Bill English ruled out offering tax cuts in this year’s Budget and said it was not currently in the plan for the 2017 Budget either, although that could alter.

Speaking to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB this morning, Mr Key said tax cuts had been ruled out in the short term because it was a choice of spending $1 billion on tax cuts “to deliver very small amounts” or spending that money on healthcare and other areas.

Or you could cut spending in other areas and deliver more significant tax cuts.

However, he signalled National was working on a more substantial package of cuts for 2017. “We are not ruling that out for 2017 or campaigning on it for a fourth term in 2017, but having a bigger one, to be blunt, than $1 billion.” Asked how much was needed to deliver meaningful tax cuts, he said: “$3 billion, I reckon.”

While there was not enough in the Government books for that at present, he expected that to change as the surplus built up.

I’m sorry but unless the tax cuts are in next year’s Budget, why should we believe we’ll get them? We’ve been teased with the possibility of tax cuts for the last term, and if they’re not going to deliver them in next year’s Budget, then why should people believe they’ll get them in a fourth term?

He said it was possible to put that to the voters without it being dismissed as pork barrel, saying at some point tax thresholds had to change to take account of increasing wages.

“The average income is going up and we think in a few years time the average income will be $68,000. Well, the top rate cuts in at $70,000. If you don’t adjust thresholds over time you get to a point where the average income earner is paying the top threshold.

That can’t be right.”

No, it isn’t. So do something about it now.

“There’s no reason to raise taxes. Taxes should be lower… The problem we have is that government spends too much, not that taxes are too low.”

– Grover Norquist

The quote of the week is brought to you by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.

NPR reports:

Turn on the TV and you can barely escape the acronym TPP.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a free trade deal between the U.S. and 11 other countries that’s currently being negotiated. Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle are deriding the TPP, saying it’s a bum deal that will hurt the U.S. economy and especially low-wage workers.

But if you venture into the Midwest and ask a farmer about the TPP, you’re likely to get a different answer.

“This pending TPP trade negotiation, to me, is hugely important for agricultural commodities, but specifically for beef,” says Mike John, a cattle rancher in Huntsville, Mo. He’s one of many Midwest farmers and ranchers who are bucking the political trend to dog the TPP.

A coalition of more than 200 agriculture groups recently drafted an open letter urging congressional leaders to approve the TPP, saying the trade deal will help U.S. farmers stay competitive in an increasingly crowded world market.

And what if the US does not ratify?

Binfield says if the U.S. doesn’t pass the TPP, countries like Australia and New Zealand could make their own deals with each other, excluding the U.S. That could mean less trade access overall for U.S. producers.

But there’s another issue casting a long shadow over TPP negotiations: China. China is not a part of the trade deal. But pro-TPP interests say agreements like this one prevent China from setting global trade rules in its own interest.

Binfield says in the overall strategy, the U.S. wants to make sure China – which is a massive economic power – doesn’t have the chance to dictate the trade rules for Asia. The U.S. wants to set the trade standards.

I’ve been told that what might happen could be fascinating.

If the US does not ratify, then Japan and Canada will only stay in if there is a major economy as part of it.

Who could that be? China!

That would be a brilliant political move. China steps in and says we’ll sign TPP, and then you get a trade agreement with all 11 countries, China and no US.

With a degree of trepidation I went to see Circa’s performance of King Lear on Saturday night. The trepidation being that since being forced to study Shakespeare at school, I had resisted his work. Also a production that lasts over two and a half hours is normally too long for me.

But I’m glad I did, as it was a stunningly good show. I’d even say it was theatre at its finest. A very fitting way to mar the 400th anniversary of the death of Shakespeare.

The synopsis of the play is:

The story opens in ancient Britain, where the elderly King Lear is deciding to give up his power and divide his realm amongst his three daughters, Cordelia, Regan, and Goneril. Lear’s plan is to give the largest piece of his kingdom to the child who professes to love him the most, certain that his favorite daughter, Cordelia, will win the challenge. Goneril and Regan, corrupt and deceitful, lie to their father with sappy and excessive declarations of affection. Cordelia, however, refuses to engage in Lear’s game, and replies simply that she loves him as a daughter should. Her lackluster retort, despite its sincerity, enrages Lear, and he disowns Cordelia completely.

Ray Henwood as King Lear is masterful – he captures so well a proud wrathful King, and then also his descent into madness. It is hard to imagine anyone else doing the role so well, except perhaps Ian McKellen. Henwood’s eyes are quite captivating as he plays the sad and mad King.

The play is definitely not a comedy, but there are comic moments provided by Gavin Rutherford who is excellent as King Lear’s Fool. His burbling is often cutting and cruel, yet funny.

Other actors who stood out were Nick Dunbar as Oswald, the steward to Goneril (the oldest sister). Dunbar just seems a natural at playing the evil sneering characters.

Ken Blackburn was also an excellent Duke of Gloucester, who tragically allowed one son to turn him against the other.

Also of note was the conflict between the two brothers Edgar and Edmund, portrayed by Andrew Paterson and Guy Langford. Paterson did especially well with Edgar when he pretended to be a madman, to hide from those seeking to kill him.

The play was directed by Michael Hurst, who is an acclaimed Shakespearean director and produced by Carolyn Henwood (who in her spare time is a District Court Judge and chair of the Parole Board!).

The stage design was simple yet effective. Such a large cast (12 principal actors) saw more of the stage used than normal in Circa One.

An interesting production choice was to have it set in Britain in the 1930s, rather than the ancient past. The costumes were suits, dresses and military uniforms of the era, and it worked. It made the play seem a more modern story, rather than something that could never happen today.

King Lear is a powerful story. It is a tragedy driven by vices of jealousy, lust, power and envy. There is no happy ending, but that doesn’t make it any less satisfying. Of interest, an alternate version of the play was very popular for around 150 years, until 1838. That version had a happy ever after ending for some. But the original Shakespeare version has reigned supreme since then and is regarded as his greatest work for its focus on the nature of kinship and suffering.

The best play I have seen so far in 2016.

Rating: ****1/2

The situation in NZ was:

National’s party vote is lower than a year ago but slightly higher than three years ago.

Labour’s party vote is lower than one and three years ago.

The Green’s party vote is around the same as a year ago.

NZ First party vote is up from a year ago and up from three years ago.

You can subscribe to the full newsletter at http://curia.us10.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=e9168e04adbaaaf75e062779e&id=8507431512 for fuller details of polls in NZ, the US, the UK, Australia and Canada.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Council is heading towards a financial crisis over its debt position, says mayoral candidate and businesswoman Victoria Crone.

She says a decision by councillors today to use a “rainy day” fund to reduce the risk of a credit-rating downgrade and higher rates is a big concern.

“This is a massive decision,” she said of a plan to draw down $200 million over two years to manage the council’s debt ratios.

At today’s finance and performance committee, councillors are expected to increase rates by 2.4 per cent this year and take steps to manage its $7.5 billion debt.

Credit rating agencies have warned the council of a rating downgrade if its debt-to-revenue ratio approaches 270 per cent.

Mayor Len Brown’s latest budget forecasts a debt-to-revenue ratio of 265 per cent.

A one-notch downgrade, he said, would lead to an $11 million rise in interest costs.

Interest costs are funded by rates. A $14 million increase in running costs equates to about a 1 per cent rates rise.

To create headroom, council officers have suggested drawing down $100 million over each of the next two years from a diversified investment portfolio, currently valued at $335 million, to manage the debt ratios.

So basically the Council is borrowing so much that they are on the verge of a credit downgrade which would increase interest rates and result in ratepayers paying an extra 1% (on top of the 9.9% average increase).

To avoid that, they don’t decide to borrow less, but instead to start liquidating assets.

This won’t end well for ratepayers.

Stuff reports:

ACT leader David Seymour has done a u-turn and will now support a bill he’s called “silly” and a Labour Party “stunt”.

The Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill – designed to make under-secretaries subject to the OIA – was introduced by Labour MP Adrian Rurawhe last year.

It passed its first reading in October after United Future leader Peter Dunne and the Maori Party broke ranks with National and ACT to get the bill over the line.

Seymour, who is under-secretary for education and responsible for charter schools labelled it a “stunt bill” and questioned why Labour didn’t change the bill back in 2005 when former Labour MP Dover Samuels was an under-secretary.

Labour has long opposed charter schools, an ACT flagship policy, and Seymour claimed the bill was redundant because under-secretaries already answered to their ministers.

“All it does is attempt to attack me and while I’m a little bit flattered, I cannot support the bill,” Seymour said in October.

However the realisation that the Government didn’t have the numbers to block the bill has forced Seymour to change his mind.

He is now going to vote in favour of the bill because he doesn’t see any point “wasting energy” on lobbying MPs to oppose such a “silly bill”.

It’s expected National will throw its support behind the bill as well.

The select committee recommended unanimously that the bill passed, and that is the right thing to do.

Yes the intent behind the bill is petty politics by Labour, but regardless of the intent, the bill is worth supporting as an Under-Secretary is part of the Executive and should have the OIA apply to their official duties.

The Herald reports:

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been named in the Panama Papers as the fallout from the global scandal continues.

It has emerged that Turnbull was a former director of a company created and administrated by embattled law firm Mossack Fonseca in the 1990s.

However a spokesman for Turnbull told Fairfax the Prime Minister was not aware the company had been administered by Mossack Fonseca as the registered agent in Road Town, Tortola.

Turnbull was a former director of a British Virgin Islands company administered by Mossack Fonesca.

He joined the board of Star Mining NL with former New South Wales Premier Neville Wran in 1993, but both resigned two years later.

So 25 years ago he served as a director of a company that has been initially established by a law firm. And because of the guilt by association method of those releasing all these stolen documents, he has to defend himself.

Stuff reports:

A billion people are projected to die this century from smoking and there could be a solution but it’s not a perfect one.

While a new documentary looks into the life-saving potential of e-cigarettes, the New Zealand Government has announced its plans to fund further research on vaping technology and its role in helping Kiwis quit smoking.

E-cigarettes or vaporisers are electrical devices that mimic real cigarettes by producing vapour by heating an “e-liquid” solution, which the user inhales, or “vapes”. E-liquid is available with or without nicotine and usually contains propylene glycol and flavouring agents.

A Billion Lives – a film about the potential e-cigarettes have to save lives and reduce harm by switching smokers to vaping nicotine had its world premiere in Wellington on Wednesday

While the doco doesn’t tout e-cigarettes as a magic wand or a perfect solution, director Aaron Biebert says its a step in the right direction.

Both Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians have said that they could play a major part in reducing smoking rates.

The same day the documentary premiered the Government’s Health Research Council (HRC) announced its plan to spend almost $150,000 on funding research on e-cigarettes.

At the moment e-cigarettes containing nicotine cannot legally be sold in New Zealand, but you can import up to three months’ supply for personal use. 

And this is crazy. e-cigarettes are more restricted than actual cigarettes!

There are basically three policy settings you can have:

1. E-cigarettes are more restricted than cigarettes
2. E-cigarettes have the same restrictions cigarettes
3. E-cigarettes have less restrictions than cigarettes

Now one can have a debate about whether it should be (2) or (3). But we’re got (1). It’s madness. It is the equivalent of the Government banning low alcohol beer yet allowing any dairy to sell bottles of vodka.

The Ministry of Health says there is not enough evidence for it to recommend e-cigarettes as an aid to quit smoking. It currently encourages people to stick to patches, lozenges and gum.

They don’t need to recommend anything. They just need to allow their sale, so people can choose what method of quitting works best for them. And I know lots and lots of people who have quit smoking through e-cigarettes and vaping.

So will this new publicly funded trial, led by University of Otago marketing professor Janet Hoek, provide the evidence needed for the ministry to make up its mind on vaping?

Hoek says while there is general agreement that e-cigarettes are safer than combustible tobacco, smokers will only achieve substantial risk reductions if they switch completely from smoking to using e-cigarettes.

Hoek says the current understanding of the transition between smoking and e-cigarette use is poor due to a lack of data. 

The 12-month trial will use a novel “smart” e-cigarette to collect information including puff duration, nicotine intake, and the frequency and intensity of use.

HRC Chief Executive Professor Kath McPherson says e-cigarettes are “a topic of hot debate” both in New Zealand and around the world.

“Research such as this will help us build up the evidence that we need to determine if e-cigarettes actually do help people quit smoking.

It is good to see funding for a trial. There has been lots of overseas studies, and the Royal College of Physicians has said they have no doubt they help people quit smoking, are far less harmful, and not a gateway to smoking – in fact the opposite a gateway from smoking. But I agree NZ specific research is good.

Marewa Glover, an Associate Professor at Massey University’s School of Public Health, has just completed an on-line survey of e-cigarette users, or vapers.

While data was still being analysed, she said it was clear from responses that most vapers were using e-cigarettes as a way of reducing how much they smoke, or to quit altogether.

This is no surprise. Basically smokers get addicted to the nicotine, yet it is the tar that kills them. So a product that gives then the nicotine, without the combustion of the tar is going to work for people who are addicted to nicotine. Some people can quit nicotine alltogether, but many can’t. So a far far less harmful nicotine product is a sensible thing to have available.

Imperator Fish blogs:

October 2008

When the voters learn what we know about John Key – or what we will soon know once Mike Williams returns from Melbourne – they will be appalled. We now know what the H in H-Fee stands for. It’s “Hasta la vista, baby!”

July 2009

The honeymoon is finally over. John Key is an empty vessel, a man without any convictions, a rich prick who will say anything to be elected. We are in the midst of a global financial crisis, but let’s focus on issues of character and integrity, and not allow ourselves to be distracted by all that other stuff.

August 2011

The honeymoon is finally over. There is a mood of change in the air. The public are falling out of love with John Key. Everywhere I go people tell me they think John Key is an untrustworthy unprincipled swine. His lies are finally coming back to haunt him. This could be the turning point!

January 2013

The honeymoon is finally, finally over. People are finally seeing John Key for what he is – an entitled member of the 1%. We need to double down on our strategy of relentlessly attacking the Prime Minister at every opportunity. If we absolutely must mention jobs, the economy or housing, let’s do so in a way that frames John Key as being uncaring and in the pay of big business. We can’t afford for our ideas to stand on their own merits.

A pretty good summary of Labour for the first few years.

May 2016

This Panama Papers business is alarming, but it’s also the opportunity we’ve all been waiting for. John Key is super wealthy, and we don’t like him, so it stands to reason that he must be up to his neck in all of this. Quick, type his name into the database! Nothing? No, there must be some mistake. Try again. Again, damn you! Well, not to worry. He must use a different Panamanian law firm. He’s still a smug rich prick, and that’s what counts. That’s the message we need to ensure the voters take out of this.

And a summary of their current strategy.

Imperator Fish looks forward:

September 2021

The economy is in a downwards spiral, the world dairy market has collapsed, and global warming and a series of natural disasters have devastated the country. But politically I feel as if we have turned a corner. People are finally focusing on how out of touch John Key is. We just need to drive the message home. Dig up everything you can on the guy. Do we know anyone who knew him at school? Did he steal anyone’s lunch money? Did he ever get a detention? Could there be some connection between John Key and Bernie Madoff that we haven’t yet uncovered? Let’s leave no stone unturned this time, guys. Let’s give our leader some powerful ammunition. She needs something to throw at Key during Question Time today.

April 2027

Our new leader really got some blows in during Question Time today. I’ve not seen any of our 23 leaders since Helen Clark land so many punches. He had Key floundering when he asked about Key’s association with the guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who got done for tax evasion back in the 1980s. I reckon we might just have picked up a few votes today from all the people who follow Parliamentary proceedings, or at least the three of them who aren’t fiercely partisan in their party loyalties.

Heh. May this prediction come true.

February 2044

If Prime Minister Key has a weak spot, it’s his lack of integrity and his fundamental dishonesty. That’s where we need to focus our attentions.

His father John was just the same.

Double heh.

Gordon Campbell writes:

To state the bleedingly obvious: the blogosphere does not have the resources to compensate for the reduction in competition (and the loss of journalistic resources) that will be the inevitable outcome of this merger.

Why not? Sure, online startups are lively, thriving and multiplying : there’sScoop, The Spinoff, the Daily Blog, Kiwiblog, the Hard News stable, No Right Turn, The Standard, Pundit, the Dim-Post, Eric Crampton’s Offsetting Behaviour,Paul Buchanan’s 36th Parallel….to name just a few. Theoretically, the merger opens up a market opportunity for them. In reality, all of them will be damaged by the merger.

How come? Well for starters – and as this RNZ report explains here – and also here the blogosphere is poorly positioned to pick up the slack. It is run on a shoestring. It has few resources – or no resources at all, in most cases – to do news gathering. Its strength lies in its analysis and commentary; an essential role that the mainstream media has carried out timidly, or not at all. In other words, a genuine symbiotic relationship currently exists between the blogosphere and the traditional media. We rely on their news gathering and increasingly, they rely on our analysis and commentary. So… if there’s a decline in news gathering capacity, this will damage the ability of the blogosphere to carry out its valuable contribution to the public discourse.

I don’t disagree with what Gordon has said, and I’m not keen on the merger. But change can create opportunities.

The main media websites do very well at reporting news, and other sites do very well at analysis. Not just blogs, but NBR is very good at that, and I regard the best political analysis in NZ (by a wide margin) to be Richard Harman’s Politik newsletter.

But I have been thinking about what I would do if Stuff and NZ Herald combine and go behind a paywall. The initial impact would be a hassle. Rather than quote stories from their sites, and comment on them, I’d might have to use other sites such as Radio NZ or Newshub. But they have far fewer stories.

But the other thing I can do is start reporting the news more directly. 80% of stories seem to originate for PRs. I know this as I now get all the PRs. They tend to go into a folder I check once a day or so (if I have time). It is rare I’ll do a story based on a PR, as easier to quote a media story already summarising it.

But if two million NZers get blocked from most content on the Herald and Stuff sites, they’ll look elsewhere for it. I doubt many will pay for it.

I could hire someone to write a few news stories a day on interesting NZ issues. I already have good sources for overseas news.

I could also hire someone to cover parliamentary news and try and get them accredited to the press gallery. The gallery may not like it, but if they are going to hire most of their content behind paywalls, they’ll look bloody awful if they try to block a site willing to publish it freely from being able to access Parliament.

I’m not going to rush into anything, but if the merger goes ahead and the two main media websites combined and go behind a paywall, I will seriously look at whether I can grab a reasonable portion of their two million readers.

Stuff reports:

More city councillors will be allowed to decide how Wellington’s $9.4 million economic fund is spent, but they won’t be able to tell ratepayers.

Councillors voted on Wednesday to increase the size of the panel that oversees its Wellington Economic Initiatives Development (WEID) Fund from four to nine members.

But they will be required sign a confidentiality agreement before they can join.

They are spending ratepayers money. There should be no secrecy around this. Sometimes there is a need for commercial confidentiality, if for example negotiating a supply agreement with competitors.

But this is giving away ratepayers money to businesses. If any business says “We’ll only take your money if you keep the amount secret”, then fine – don’t give any to them.

Before I attempt to answer this question, I need to disclose my personal views. I was a Rubio supporter but voted for Cruz in the Arizona primary as Rubio has dropped out of the race by then. I was, and am now, not a fan of Trump…however I will hold my nose and vote for him in the General Election over Hillary Clinton.

The 2016 Presidential election will likely be remembered as one of the most exciting, chaotic, unpredictable and nasty campaigns in history. The presumptive nomination of Donald Trump to be the Republican Party’s standard bearer is the first time a major party has nominated a candidate with no prior elected office experience since businessman Wendell Willkie was the Republican nominee for the 1940 election. Yes, it is true that the GOP nominated Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 but he had served in the US Army for all his professional life with some years in major high profile leadership roles such that most would argue he had served his country in a highly public and successful capacity as Allied Supreme Commander in Europe during World War 2.

Democratic race

Before I look at the pluses and minuses that Trump brings to the campaign, it is instructive to look at the state of the Democrat nomination race. On paper, Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee. The only mathematical chance that Bernie Sanders has of overhauling Clinton’s almost 300 pledged delegate lead is to overwhelmingly win the remainder of the Democrat primaries AND to then persuade over 250 of the super delegates pledged to Hillary to switch camps. All of the Democrat delegates from primaries and caucuses are awarded proportionately unlike some key winner-take-all Republican primaries (such as Indiana where Trump easily beat Cruz to knock him out of the race). For instance, whilst it is true that Sanders has won the majority of more recent races, Clinton has managed to amass still more delegates in each lost race and, having won the large states that count, Sanders can only chip away at her delegate lead with low single digit delegate margins between him and her. With that said, Clinton is proving to be a remarkably weak front runner. Normally at this stage in a race with a front running presumptive nominee, momentum builds and the victories over the remaining candidate get wider and more decisive. Clinton did fight a rearguard action against Obama in 2008 but really only had a handful of victories during that resurgence and then fell away. It seems that despite the inevitability of the delegate count, Sanders is remaining defiant and is ramping up his attacks and remains capable of beating Clinton if only in smaller state contests. This is significant because whilst Trump is now unchallenged and can concentrate his fire on Clinton, she must still fight Sanders off to her left flank. He has dragged her to the left by virtue of both his socialist roots and his solidly progressive grassroots, populist campaign and so the usual pivot to the centre that a candidate undertakes in a general election campaign (no longer needing to appeal to the more ideological extremes of the party’s base) has been delayed for Clinton. Clinton has faced withering fire from Sanders over her vote for the Iraq war, her support for her husband’s popular tough anti-crime laws and welfare reforms in the 90’s and seems to be adopting knee jerk harder left positions such as the lifting the Federal minimum wage, anti-fracking/anti-oil sentiments and sounding tougher on Wall Street than Hillary would normally be considering her strong ties there.

The big question mark over Clinton still remains that of her fate arising from the FBI investigation into her non authorized email server and the dissemination of classified emails through this unsecure channel thus breaching strict intelligence secrecy laws. All recent reporting suggests the following:

• The man hired by Clinton to set up the homebrew server (Bryan Pagliano) has been granted immunity from prosecution and has spoken freely and frankly to the FBI;
• Clinton’s entire inner circle has now been interviewed by the FBI and Clinton has been advised that she will be next and last. This is the standard pattern of federal agents targeting a key person;
• FBI Director James Comey has gone on the record effectively dismissing the Clinton spin reaffirming that this is an investigation not a “security review” and that he and his agents will not be deterred by her rank and status;
• Various former Federal prosecutors have weighed to remind us that Clinton’s intent (innocent or otherwise) will be irrelevant – if top secret material is proven to be transmitted over non secure and non authorised channels, she (and her aides) will have committed the various felonies outlined in various relevant statutes.

Clinton’s fate lies in the hands of the Department of Justice and its top official, Obama appointee Attorney General Loretta Lynch. If the FBI find a prima facie case of breach and recommend indictment, it will be her and her deputy Attorneys General who will make the decision to file formal charges. The likelihood of stalling to after the election by the DOJ and White House or even a non-indictment decision is, in my opinion, high. However, Clinton (and the Democrat party) runs the risk of not only high level leaks from the career professional investigators (Comey has over 150 agents on the case including several top counter espionage and cyber security experts) but also the prospect of Comey’s own resignation over a non-indictment if the evidence is particularly compelling.

If there is no indictment, Clinton will tough it out and rely on a sympathetic pro Democrat media to shield her somewhat from the FBI leaks. If she is indicted, she’s toast as a candidate. Sanders is hanging around hoping for an indictment and will argue at the Convention in Philadelphia that he’s the next highest delegate winner and so the ‘next in line’. Despite polls showing Sanders getting a wider winning margin over Trump than Clinton, look for the Democrats to parachute Vice President Joe Biden in as the nominee as a Hail Mary to save the election.  This analysis is then premised on Clinton facing Trump in the autumn general election campaign.

Trump’s chances

Anyone who thinks they know what is going to happen on November 8 is likely to be wrong. Trump has upended almost every establishment political prognostication on both sides of the political aisle. He has defied conventional wisdom every step of the way. He has made a stream of gaffes that would’ve ended normal politicians’ runs, he has ignored media narratives and robustly combatted media opposition and yet still earned twice the media coverage of all of his GOP AND Democrat rivals COMBINED, he has eschewed a delegate winning ground game and what little money he has spent so far has largely been his own money. No one has ever managed to do this and succeed in the modern political era. He has relied more on his natural instincts concerning issues that are driving voters rather than carefully measured, polled and focus group tested sound bites like Clinton and his GOP opponents. Trump says things no one else has dared say especially about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Predictions of Trump’s fate, even from more centrist establishment Republicans, are that he is staring down the barrel of a landslide defeat. And yet others look at his remarkable string of victories against all prognostications, the record turnout of GOP primary voters and his ability to defy all the rules of normal politics as evidence that he will ride a wave of voter anti-establishment disgust all the way to a massive win over Clinton. The trouble with these predictions, as you will see as I detail the pros and cons of Trump’s candidacy, is that both sides of this argument seem to have compelling reasons to back up their assertions.

Trump’s negatives that militate against him winning

 1. Dis-unified party.

Most primary races leave wounds and scars amongst the defeated candidates and their followers but generally voters, supporters and surrogates for the defeated candidates get over it and unify behind the nominee. This process has not happened as much or as quickly with Trump. There has been a discernable and visible division amongst centre-right commentators, media, blogs and talk show hosts between those that support Trump and those that opposed him. This has been characterised by the so-called Never Trump movement. Whilst there has been somewhat more of a coalescing around Trump in recent days, the high profile reluctance of House Speaker Paul Ryan to endorse Trump is somewhat unprecedented. Likewise, is the hostile reception of party leaders like Mitt Romney who is alleged to have sounded out high profile Trump opponents like Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska and even Governor Kasich. This divide is clearly evident with invective and criticism of each other from right wing media with angry outbursts from Trump supporters like Fox News hosts and commentators Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter clashing with anti-Trump commentators like talk show host Mark Levin, Blaze TV front man Glenn Beck and a host of National Review editors and writers. Some like popular talk show hosts Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt have tried to remain largely neutral but the warfare inside the conservative movement over Trump, his candidacy, policies and personality is unprecedented and will make it harder for Trump to unify the party. Trump of course doesn’t help matters with his uncompromising rhetoric and his clashes with right media personalities such as Megyn Kelly.

2. Poor ground game

Unlike Ted Cruz who was known for his excellent on-the-ground GOTV efforts, data driven voter turnout models and canny delegate wooing tactics, Trump has been slow to embrace this crucial part of winning elections partly because he has relied so much on earned media. Trump seems to be far less interested in this aspect of electioneering than is wise. Clinton has managed to snare some of the same team that drove Obama’s highly successful voter targeting and GOTV operation and she has been investing heavily in a good ground game in key battleground states. It is a fact that the Republican National Committee has spent the last 2 election cycles playing electronic and data mining catchup with the Democrats and it is said that the RNC’s current GOTV operation is the best it’s ever been and at least equal with the Democrats. Trump’s slowness in this regard may be compensated for by the party’s own machinery that will swing in behind Trump. Obama proved that it was possible to get out his unique coalition twice in a row and Clinton will be banking on managing a three-peat.

3. Very high negative polling

Any analysis of polling data comparing past campaigns and candidates reveals that we face a quite unique situation with the two main candidates in 2016 in that both feature unusually high unfavourable polling figures. This is the ratio between those who favourably view a candidate and those who are unfavourable. The latest Gallup Favourable/Unfavourable ratio for Trump is a staggering 33/61 and Clinton is better but still poor at 41/54. To have two such unpopular candidates opposing each other is unprecedented and it remains to be seen as to what will happen to these figures as the campaign moves to a general election footing as each candidate showers media with a wall of negative ads designed to define their opponent.

4. Media portrayal of misogyny sticking

The main stream media have been quick to portray Trump as a misogynist women hater and certainly his comments about Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina gives some backbone to these claims. Will Trump’s very high negatives with women improve and if not, will Clinton’s negatives with men be enough to outweigh them? Right now Clinton is on the winning side of that statistical battle.

5. Competing against the first woman President candidacy theme of Clinton

Clinton has, and will continue to aggressively play, the woman card. Just as Obama was campaigning to end centuries of oppression of blacks by being the first black President, so Clinton wants to break a remaining glass ceiling and be the first woman President. To women voters in particular it is a powerful and simple campaign theme. Whether Clinton can overcome her considerable baggage to realise that goal remains to be seen but it is a real headwind that Trump is running against.

6. Poor head to head polling v Clinton

Up until very recently, the head to head polls, both at the national and swing state level, were devastating for Trump and his GOP opponents hammered him relentlessly on that. This more than anything else has fueled much of the negative prediction commentary about Trump from his right wing opponents and this has been seized upon with glee by Democrats, the MSM and left leaning commentators. Polls would be trumpeted showing Clinton barely behind in heavily Republican states like Georgia, winning Arizona (which has voted Democrat only twice since WW2 – 1948 and 1996) and Clinton leading in national polls by double digits. Electability in the fall in the past has been a powerful electioneering tool for primary candidates but in this cycle, once again a seeming cardinal rule has again been broken. Head to head polls showed in this order: Kasich, Rubio, Cruz then Trump from doing the best to the worse against Clinton (or Sanders) and yet the success of each major GOP candidate has been in inverse proportion to their supposed electability. Part of the reason for this is the truism that head to head polls this far out are meaningless and Trump’s surrogates have pointed this out for months and in recent weeks, these polls have tightened considerably with reputable polls putting Trump essentially level pegging in key states like Florida and Ohio and close to the margin error behind Clinton in national polls.

7. Leftist policy provisions and his bombastic personality causing the conservative base to stay at home

The knee jerk reaction of a number of more solidly conservative friends of mine is to refuse to vote for Trump. Some talk up a conservative third party candidate, others say they’ll vote Libertarian whereas most say they cannot bring themselves to vote for Trump seeing him as an unauthentic conservative, a closet Democrat and a crass populist and a few flirt with voting for Hillary. These assessments are not far off the mark but increasingly, many are coming to see Hillary and the extent to which Sanders has dragged her so far to the left, as a far greater existential threat to the Republic that many more are doing what I am doing and holding their noses and voting for Trump. The extent to which the conservative base stays home in protest or disgust at Trump’s excesses and policy quirkiness may have a large bearing on his success or otherwise in November. A third party candidate is highly unlikely. No one remotely electable has stepped up and in any event, the deadline has passed in most states to even get on the ballot – a task that is complex, time consuming and costly.

8. Trump’s caustic management style may see key staff burnt off

Stories abound of Trump’s abrasive and take no prisoners style. Will this extend to his campaign to such an extent that key staff abandon him? It’s hard to say. Trump has outwitted and outlasted armies of the GOP consultant establishment and utterly defied their collective wisdom by turning it on its head and proving them all wrong. That said, some mechanics of a campaign must be adhered to. Could Trump be so arrogant as to ignore even the practical and good election campaign advice rationalising his behaviour because he so dominated the primary race that the consultants have nothing to teach him? The truth is likely somewhere in the middle – some of their advice is relevant but most of their instincts have been to line their own pockets with fees. If Trump is wise he will attract the best players and listen to the good tactics they have to offer and yet stay true to his instincts that have seen him win so convincingly.

Trump’s assets that might see him win

1. Massive earned media

This graph tells the story far better than words. http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/qmeme_1458400097167_447.jpg This, more than anything else, explains Trump’s success. He sucked the media oxygen from the air of almost all his rivals’ campaigns. Media obsession about all things Trump meant Jeb Bush could spend $150 million and have almost nothing to show for it. Despite the media realising that Trump has been their creation, he remains a ratings dream for networks and cable shows and excellent click bait for on line political news outfits like Politico, the Hill, the Washington Examiner and blogs. This is not going to change in the foreseeable future. Trump will still say outrageous things that will leave media and commentators buzzing and obsessing and now it will be Hillary Clinton who will be overshadowed. Obama got excellent earned media coverage because of his unique persona. Clinton is not unique – she is extremely well known and a rather dour campaigner. Faced with Trump’s endless stream of consciousness, provocative tweets and interviews, clashes with media and opponents and his sheer utter unpredictability, he will remain ratings gold as the campaign progresses ensuring his message reaches all corners of the electorate.

2. Record GOP turnout in the primaries translates into larger than usual general election turnout

The increase in Republican primary turnout in this cycle compared to 2012 has been a staggering 60%. As at the end of the New York primary on April 19^th, this amounted to an additional 9 million voters! Note that Obama only beat Romney by 5 million votes in the 2012 election. Whilst it is true that in some primaries allowed independents and registered Democrats to vote in GOP primaries meaning some of the higher turnout could be put down to cross over voting, turnout has been massively up even in states with closed primaries (limited only to registered Republicans). The best analysis of this is found at http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/25/exclusive-data-analysis-gop-primary-turnout-8-7-million-votes-60-percent-2016-versus-2012/. This trend bodes well for Trump.

3. Lower Democrat turnout

The flip side of point 2 is the significantly lower turnout for Democrat primaries and caucuses and this is in spite of the resurgent and seemingly popular grassroots campaign of Bernie Sanders. Democrats, aside from Sanders’ supporters, appear to relatively less enthusiastic about their presumptive nominee. This was the reverse in 2008 when Democrat primary turnout was hugely up on the back of Obama’s popular campaign. This difference does not bode well for Clinton.

4. Any negative news event in the immigration or terrorism sphere plays into Trumps hands

Any high profile murder by an illegal immigrant (especially one previously deported) will play into Trump’s anti-illegal immigration message. Even the ongoing wave of refugees into Europe plays subtly into Trumps hands as it shows the negative cultural impact of uncontrolled immigration. Even more potent would be the indirect electoral benefit to Trump of another global terrorist event. Another Paris or Brussels attack by Muslim extremists makes Trump’s policy of pausing on Muslim immigration to the US look reasonable and practical. A terrorist incident like the San Bernardino massacre, especially if close to the election, will guarantee Trump a strong bounce over Clinton as Trump will unsubtly make the Benghazi contrast. Anything more serious than San Bernardino would be game over for Clinton as Trump would ride a wave of almost 911 style voter fear.

5. The party is gradually, albeit slowly, coalescing around Trump

Paul Ryan, after his much publicized ‘summit’ with Trump, has moved from Never Trump to Probably Trump (but not yet). More Senators (even those who opposed him) are coming on board. Cruz and Rubio will likely hold their noses and eventually endorse. The Bush clan will stay silent and Romney will continue to oppose but likely will temper his attacks. It won’t be across the board or full throated but it could be enough to send a sufficient signal to other wavering GOP voters to hold their noses and vote for Trump.

6. Hillary is a lousy campaigner

She is wooden, inauthentic, focus group driven, uninspiring and somewhat prone to gaffes. Her handling of controversies such as the email scandal has been woeful. She is afraid to be interviewed by anyone except a handful of pro-Democrat flunkies who don’t really press her hard. Whilst she has handled Sanders reasonably well in their debates, she has not faced the wall of hostile questioning the GOP candidates faced in most of their debates and nor has she had to face Bernie Sanders more recent harder edged criticism as his attacks have ramped up since their debates. Trump, on the other hand, went through a large number of debates where he was the primary target of attacks and he acquitted himself adequately. He is not the purist debater in the Cruz mold nor the compelling story teller like Rubio but he can and will attack and vigourously defend himself. He will not conform to normal debate structures and approaches and will be unpredictable and feisty against Clinton and will not hesitate to bring up a host of negative issues like her email server, her poor record at State, Benghazi and the murky funding of the Clinton Foundation. Clinton has not faced any hard edged opposition in a public forum on any of these matters. I’m picking that she may refuse to debate Trump such will be the political risks that he will wipe the floor with her.

7. Clinton is burdened by a sluggish economy and Obama’s weak foreign policy – fighting off the Obama’s 3^rd term meme.

Whilst Obama’s popularity has staged a minor recovery, the economy (on Main Street versus the more buoyant Wall Street) has seen very anemic growth. The Obama recovery is the weakest of the all the post-Depression recoveries. The extremely low labour participation rate is a major unseen economic drag. It is down to only 63% from a high of 68% in 2000 and explains why the unemployment rate is seemingly so low at 5%. It is because approximately 11 million Americans have dropped out of the workforce altogether and are no longer seeking work and so are not counted in the unemployment stats. If they (and those forced to work part time) are added in, the true unemployment rate is 9.6% http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate . This is the first administration since the Depression to preside over a slight decline in net real wages AND net wealth of the vital middle class. Many voters feel they are not any better off despite the stock market recovery.  Add to this a string of foreign policy failures or stagnations, Clinton will be seen as an 3^rd Obama term and a third term in office for the same party has only happened once since the 22^nd Amendment restricted Presidents to two terms (Bush 41 wining in 1988 after the two Reagan terms).

8. Trump benefits from the strong anti-insider establishment sentiment and appeals to Reagan Democrats

This is the greatest unknown and possibly the one thing above all else that could win Trump the Presidency. Frustration at the establishment of both parties is running at record levels. It is palpable and crops up constantly in political discussion across communities. GOP control of the House (2010) and the Senate (2014) has actually made the sentiment worse because the GOP won two large wave elections giving them unprecedented majorities in both houses of Congress to block Obama as voters intended and yet time after time, the Republican leadership caved on key conservative issues to the disgust of the Republican base. This more than anything else explains Trump’s success in the primaries. This disgust, anxiety and frustration is bi-partisan. Many many voters of all persuasions see inaction on the border and blame stagnant wage growth and un/under employment on illegal immigration. Trump unashamedly taps a huge vein of fear and discontent especially amongst blue collar workers who were once a key demographic cohort for the Democrats. Lately this group have stayed home from the polls demoralised by the inaction by the party elites of both parties. Trump’s promises to make America great and to build a wall may bring record numbers of recent nonvoters to the polls to vote for a successful, confident outsider beholden to no one promising to get things done. The same is true for foreign policy and the rise of Islamic extremism. Middle America is tired of political correctness and waning American power and the seeming impotence of Obama’s so-called ‘smart power’ diplomacy. Trump’s promise to make America great again has to the power to plough through all his many negatives and bring dormant general election voters of both parties, long disgusted by business as usual in Washington, to the polls in droves to install the anti-politician who has built a successful business empire.

9. The Teflon factor

Trump has defied political gravity continuously. Normal rules don’t apply. Revelations of sordid earlier affairs, drug fueled parties in the 80’s, eminent domain abuses, fraudulent claims of Trump University, threats to investigate his political enemies if he wins – all negatives that the media will gleefully report from Clinton’s oppo research files, will slide off Trump. Almost all of this is baked into the cake. Voters know Trump is flawed, quixotic, not really a policy expert and often all over the page on some issues. They don’t care – they believe on the big issues (immigration, Islamic extremism, American jobs and US strength and power abroad) that Trump will face down his critics, ignore the media and Washington commentatiat and just hunker down and finally do the things that Americans have been begging to have done for decades. When faced with a choice between more of the same from Clinton (with the added spice of a rerun of Clinton scandals like the 90s) and the fresh but flawed broom that Trump promises to sweep, it may end up being a no brainer for enough voters in places like Florida, Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania to get him to 270 electoral votes.

As I said, both sides’ arguments are compelling, All I know is that US voters are in going to be in for the wildest campaign ride possibly in over a hundred years!

Anton van Heldon from Forest & Bird writes:

The fishing industry has a laughable case for compensation in the Kermadecs – and the Government shouldn’t pay, says Anton van Helden.

The fishing industry recently lodged a legal case against the Government’s proposal to establish the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary.

The case does not appear to be about the law, nor even about fish.  It’s about extracting corporate welfare from the taxpayer and blocking future efforts at marine protection. Most of the fish they are seeking compensation for are not found in the Kermadecs and the industry’s interpretation of the law of the sea is laughable.

Strong words.

The fishing industry’s assertion that the New Zealand Government does not have the right to create marine protection in the EEZ is clearly laughable. 

Yet the fishing industry case also argues for compensation for 66 species that they claim a Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary will deny them access to.

One would imagine that the fishing industry knows a thing or two about fish. However, from Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) data, 34 of the species they have listed do not even occur in the region, a further 10 are listed as “unknown” for the region, six don’t show up in the Ministry’s own database, and of the 16 species left, six occur only in the existing marine reserve that covers the territorial seas immediately around the Kermadec Islands.

The preferred method of fishing for at least four of the remaining few species is bottom trawling, which is prohibited by the industry’s own designation of the Kermadec region as a Benthic Protected Area. Three species have previously had experimental fisheries in the region that came to nothing.  Unsurprisingly there has been almost no fishing in the Kermadec EEZ for the last 10 years.

So with such thin arguments, and so little chance of winning, why is the industry going to court over the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary proposal?

A good question.

Part of the answer can be understood from the makeup of the industry group taking the case.  It is telling that one is an investment company involved almost exclusively with aquaculture and inshore fishing, neither of which can happen in the Kermadec region.

The industry is not really concerned about the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary.  Their strategy appears to be to pressure the Government into avoiding the significant cost of a court case by settling for a small compensation payment over the Kermadecs.  

While such a solution might be politically attractive in the short term, the long-term consequences for sustainably managing our marine environment would be enormous.

The fishing industry is after a precedent which they can then wield to block any attempt to establish genuine marine protection measures in the rest of our EEZ by demanding massive “compensation” for any new protection proposal. Such demands could then be made against marine protection proposals in the coastal territorial seas.

The Government must resist the industry’s stand-over tactics and avoid any quick and dirty out-of-court deals. 

The industry’s case provides the perfect opportunity for the courts to establish, once and for all, that the international agreement that established our right to sustainably manage our EEZ came with an equal obligation to preserve and protect our marine environment.

I agree with Forest & Bird.

The Herald reports:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership legislation has passed its first hurdle with support from National, Act, United Future – and one Labour MP.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill will now be considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee, after passing its first reading 62 to 59.

It was opposed by Labour, the Green Party, New Zealand First and the Maori Party. However, Labour MP Phil Goff voted for the TPP.

In January, Labour leader Andrew Little gave Mr Goff special dispensation to do so, because during Mr Goff’s time as trade minister he started the negotiations for the agreement’s predecessor.

Fellow Labour MP David Shearer had told the Herald he personally supported the TPP, but later said he would be voting along party lines.

Well done Phil Goff for voting for what you know to be in NZ’s best interests.

The last four Labour Party leaders before David Cunliffe all support TPP – David Shearer, Phil Goff, Helen Clark and Mike Moore. They lead the Labour Party for 21 years between them.

Breitbart reports:

The Remain campaign is “contaminating” Britain’s democratic process by relying on “outside money” and foreign interests to tell Brits how to vote, the former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has said.

Speaking at Westminster, Winston Peters, who also served as his country’s Foreign Minister and Treasurer, mocked suggestions Britain would suffer outside the European Union (EU) and said the UK would be welcomed by the Commonwealth.

“The British people are standing on the cusp of a truly exciting future,” he said. “It will not be easy to achieve that future but if there’s one nation that can do it, it is the British.”

Good God. I may be on the same side as Winston on an issue.

Not that I’m totally decided (and of course I don’t vote) but the campaign for Bremain has been pretty awful and failed to portray any positives from membership – just a scare campaign against leaving.

However there is no doubt a Brexit would have significant negative consequences for the UK in the short term. It would hit the economy as there would be two years of uncertainty and businesses won’t invest when the environment is uncertain.

But in the medium to long term those consequences would fade, and there will be advantages of independence.

If the EU was more democratic, I’d be more keen to see the UK remain. But the EU structure is fundamentally flawed and I am not sure if it fixable.