Rose Patterson of the NZ Initiative writes at interest.co.nz:

Early childhood education (ECE) has been under the spotlight.

The New Zealand Herald’s Kirsty Johnston recently reported major quality issues, with 150 ECE providers rated by the Education Review Office (ERO) in 2014 as “requiring further development”.

NZEI union boss Louise Green blames market forces, stating in a press release that “the rapid rise of market-driven early childhood education is putting many children at risk of missing out on quality learning in their early years”.

It is a good thing to question quality, particularly in a sector dedicated to the care of children. …

It is always good to question quality but the figures firstly need to be put into context, and some critical thinking is needed on the claim that quality issues are due to the increase in private provision of ECE.

Johnston reported that 150 providers require “further development”. But that is not the rating that indicates the poorest quality. The “not well placed” rating is the one to be worried about, and is used by ERO when the service is “not performing adequately, is not meeting legal requirements and does not have the capacity to make improvements without support or Ministry involvement”. These are the ECE providers with real quality issues.

Twelve of the 1,593 providers were rated as “not well placed” in the review period 18-month review period to February this year. That’s under 1%.

So the Herald spent an entire week running horror stories about the ECE sector, when in fact under 1% of providers are failing.

Are market forces to blame for this 1% very poor quality as Green suggests? After all, 43% of ECE providers are private.

To answer this, it’s helpful to compare ECE to the schooling system, where only 3% of schools are private. If market forces are to blame for quality issues in ECE, then logically there should be a much smaller proportion of schools with major quality issues.

Indeed, as 97% of schools are state schools.

There are 76 of 2,532 schools currently under statutory intervention. That’s about 3%.

It’s a pity the Herald didn’t include this info, rather than mainly run attack lines from the unions.

The proportion of private providers that received ratings of “not well placed”, “requires further development”, “well placed” and “very well placed” in 2014 was around 0.6%, 13%, 79% and 8%, respectively.

The proportions of community-owned providers receiving each rating, by contrast, was 1.4%, 9%, 77%, and 14%.

Not a big difference. In fact at the failing end of the scale, there are fewer private providers.

Some of the stories that came out in the media about ECE quality are concerning. But the good thing about ECE is that parents have choice.

Exactly.

The Auditor-General has stated:

As you know, Katherine Rich has been a member of the board of the Health Promotion Agency (HPA) since July 2012. The HPA is a Crown entity. Mrs Rich is also chief executive of a private sector organisation, the New Zealand Food & Grocery Council (FGC). The FGC promotes the interests of various manufacturers and suppliers of products sold by the grocery trade.

We have received complaints about whether Mrs Rich’s two roles have led to her different interests coming into conflict.

We have considered the issues raised, obtained and reviewed relevant documentation, and spoken with the chair and chief executive of the HPA. We have not found it necessary to interview Mrs Rich.

We are satisfied that there are no matters we need to investigate further. We have not identified problems with the management of conflicts of interest by the HPA.

Particular legal conflict of interest rules that apply to board members of the HPA are set out in the Crown Entities Act 2004, in ss 62-72. In particular, s 62(3)(ca) notes that a person does not have conflict of interest merely because they have “past or current involvement in the relevant sector, industry, or practice.”

In our view, there is a need for rigour and specificity in identifying or analysing whether two different interests conflict. It is not easy to assess a conflict of interest in the abstract. A conflict of interest does not arise simply from a person’s general background, or from their personal or professional involvement in a sector or industry.

Some on the left seem to think anyone from a business sector must be banished from having a voice on health issues!

Most typically, any issue is able to be sufficiently dealt with by the person declaring their interest and withdrawing from participation in the relevant decision. As such, it ought to be rare that a conflict of interest is so pervasive and all-encompassing that a person cannot remain a member of the governing body at all.

Here, we consider it would be too simplistic to assume that the aims and activities of the HPA and FGC are incontrovertibly opposed and utterly incompatible, such that a person who was associated with one organisation was impossibly compromised from any association with the other. Similarly, it would be too vague and indirect to conclude that it is impermissible for Mrs Rich to participate in any matter relating to a broad general subject-matter, such as alcohol or tobacco.

As the Auditor-General says, you deal with conflicts on a case by case matter – now be having a witch hunt to drive someone off the board.

TransTasman reports:

A Labour MP was expressing his horror recently to a press gallery journalist. Nothing new in this, of course – opposition MPs, at any time and in any party, need to have a cache of faux outrage ready to uncork at all times. But this outrage was real. How disgusting it was, he said, the gallery had given blogger and National’s pollster David Farrar accreditation. Sorry, what? The gallery journalist’s head whirled a moment…. and then it cleared. Six weeks ago, Farrar had a post on his blog claiming he now has press gallery accreditation. The story ran on April 1.

A chocolate fish to the journalist who lets me know the name of the Labour MP who not only fell for the April Fool’s Joke, but also was still obsessed by it weeks later.

This would just be an embarrassing little item, if it weren’t for the wider context. Opposition activist, and Labour folk in particular, have a growing obsession with what people like Farrar and his tribal compadre, Matthew Hooton, say about them.

Sometime Labour staffer and researcher Rob Salmond recently wrote the Northland by-election was effectively a win for Labour because Andrew Little chose not to compete, and when teased about it by Hooton he, and DimPost blogger Danyl McLauchlin, expressed worries if Little had done, and had inevitably failed to win the seat, people like Farrar and Hooton would have mocked him. As if anything else Little did would have stopped such mocking. It is a revealing sign of how low morale and selfbelief is amongst the country’s left wing activists when what Farrar and Hooton say looms so large.

Let’s do a comparison. Does a single National MP or activist spend a second worried about what people on The Standard says?

The reason why not, is because The Standard exists solely to attack National. Kiwiblog does not exist solely to attack. Sure I agree with the Government 80% of the time, but I regularly blog areas I disagree with them on, and will praise policies and statements from opposition parties I agree with.

The Herald reports:

The private prosecution against John Key over his ponytail-pulling foundered today after a judge ruled there was no evidence to get an assault charge into court.

This is not surprising.

Wellington is now cut off due to the rain, with SH1 and SH2 closed and all train lines also closed.

At this point in time I’d like to remind everyone that the Greens are against Transmission Gully. Their policy I presume would be everyone should walk home!

Stats NZ reports:

Life expectancy at birth has increased 1.0 years for females and 1.5 years for males since 2005–07, Statistics New Zealand said today. Life expectancy at birth was 83.2 years for females and 79.5 years for males, based on death rates in 2012–14. The gap between male and female life expectancy at birth has narrowed. Females were expected to live 4.0 years longer than males in 2005–07, but are now expected to live 3.7 years longer.

“Life expectancy at birth for all available ethnic groups has increased since 2005–07,” population statistics manager Vina Cullum said. “In particular, the difference between Māori and non-Māori life expectancy has decreased”.

In 2005–07, a non-Māori person was expected to live 8.2 years longer than a Māori person. That gap has now fallen to 7.1 years. Life expectancy at birth is 77.1 years for Māori females, and 73.0 years for Māori males. In comparison, non-Māori females are expected to live to 83.9 years, while non-Māori males are expected to live to 80.3 years.

All positive trends.

They also have life expectancy projections for various specific ages, genders and ethnicity. Some are:

• Me – 35 more years (82). 1.2% chance I die by 2020.
• Winston Peters – 12 more years (82). 21% chance he dies by 2020.
• John Key – 30 more years (83). 2.0% chance he dies by 2020.
• Andrew Little – 32 more years (82).  1.5% chance he dies by 2020

The good thing is every year you live, your life expectancy gets better (in terms of age reached).

Bernard Hickey writes:

But why should Auckland ratepayers pay a rates hike nine times greater than inflation …

It’s 99 times the rate of inflation,  not nine times.

There are many examples of Key Derangement Syndrome, but you don’t normally see them from political scientists who are touted as neutral political commentators.

I have no problem with any person in NZ being as vehement against John Key as they want. That is their right. But when they do, it does raise the question of whether they can put their visceral distaste to one side, when commenting.

Today’s example is the submission on the flag bill by Dr Jon Johannson. It is full of vitriol about John Key, and endless swipes at him. It’s the sort of submission you normally see from a hard core activist, not a political scientist. Some extracts:

I raise with the committee for its consideration, also, whether it is a good precedent for a government to launch a binding referendum on a subject that is important mostly to only one individual, the Prime Minister

So swipe no 1.

It also creates a contradictory situation where the governing party is willing to spend $26 million of taxpayers’ money on two referendums not sought by the public, and, in addition, however much more that will be spent on advertising as part of an attempt to manipulate voters towards its leader’s preferred fern design for the flag

Swipe No 2.

The twin referendum process to change the New Zealand flag, which was raised by only one person, the Prime Minister

It was an announced policy before the 2014 election. The Government got re-elected on the basis of having said there will be a referendum.

Anyway Swipe 3.

He cannot have it both ways. Nor is he our King. 

Yes, you seriously have a leading political academic labeling the PM as having King like delusions.

Swipe 4.

The New Zealand Flag Referendum Bill sets this prospect back, not forward, as the Prime Minister seems acutely aware of given his strong defence of New Zealand as an constitutional monarchy, his now seven year odyssey of fawning over the monarchy in a fashion not seen in a New Zealand Prime Minister since Sid Holland in the 1950s

Swipe 5. Key is now a fawner of the monarchy.

Given the factors raised above there is nevertheless a precedent that would satisfy the Prime Minister’s need for a legacy while also resolving the issues raised in this submission. Sir Robert Muldoon organised a knighthood for himself during his third term. John Key could save the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and satisfy his own ambitions if he chose, instead, to simply follow his predecessor’s example.

Swipe 6.

As I said Dr Johansson has every right to rant against John Key, call him names, insult him, say he thinks he is a King, and call him a fawning toady to the Royal Family. But we have the right to take that into account when evaluating what he says publicly on politics.

I’m someone of very strong views on political issues. But I’ve never done a submission to a parliamentary committee that is so nasty and vehement against a politician, and never would. It reads more like an angry blog post, than a considered parliamentary submission.

The Guardian has them in full. Our so called neutral future head of state spends more time lobbying Ministers than most lobby groups it seems.

Some of the issues he has lobbied on:

• Regulation of dairy sector
• Buying new Navy helicopters
• Patagonian toothfish
• Diets for schoolkids
• Encouraging herbal medicines
• Culling badgers
• Appointment of a colleague to be an agricultural arbitrator

Amy Adams announced:

A former Deputy Prime Minister and a respected lawyer are to lead the first regular review of New Zealand’s security and intelligence agencies, Acting Attorney-General Amy Adams announced today.

Ms Adams says she intends to appoint Sir Michael Cullen and Dame Patsy Reddy to carry out the review.

“This will be an important and challenging review, and I’m pleased Sir Michael and Dame Patsy have agreed to lend their expertise to the task. They bring complementary skills and experience to the role. Sir Michael is a former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and has knowledge of national security issues. Dame Patsy has extensive governance experience and legal expertise,” Ms Adams says.

Having Michael Cullen as one of the reviewers is an inspired move, as he will take a sensible approach to such a vital issue, and it will be very difficult for certain political parties to attack the recommendations if he is part of them.

One News reports:

The Government is looking at whether families should continue to have the right to overrule the wishes of organ donors.

Currently whilst people can indicate on their drivers licence that they want to be an organ donor, families can overrule the decision.

Organ donor campaigners say the veto is one reason that New Zealand has one of the lowest organ donor rates in the world, although they say it’s very hard to tell just how many deceased organ donations are overruled. There were just 46 deceased organ donations last year.

The Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne says he and the Health Minister Jonathan Coleman have launched a review to see if there are ways to lift New Zealand’s poor rate of organ donation.

He says one of the things that will be looked at is the veto rule and whether it is appropriate. He says there are strong arguments for and against it.

He says there is also an argument about the weight that should be placed on the veto, and working out whether it’s the donors wish to donate or the families wish which is paramount in the end.

Good to see Peter Dunne doing a review in this area.

In my mind it is quite simple, for two reasons.

Firstly,  my organs belong to me, not my family. My wishes should not be subject to their veto

Secondly let’s look at what harm is caused in the competing scenarios of allowing a family member to veto or not veto a donor’s decision to donate.

If you scrap the veto from a family member, then those family members may be upset about the donation. They may feel their religious or cultural beliefs have been trampled on.

If the veto is maintained, and a family member vetos a donation a donor has agreed to, then the impact is the intended recipient dies without the transplant.

It’s a no brainer. People’s right to life trumps people right not to get upset.

Fran O’Sullivan reports:

Labour says it would consider widespread changes and might look at a “pay as you go” scheme rather than fully funding ACC in the future – should it become Government.

This would be a huge reckless step backwards. It was actually Labour that started to implement full funding, and very sad to see them backtrack on it.

If you go back to non fully funded levies, then you end up with ever increasing unfunded liabilities. Even worse the Government can make eligibility decisions that will have a huge impact in the long-term, but will escape scrutiny if levies are on a pay as you go basis. It allows Labour to massively increase costs, with the bills being left for future levy payers.

Once again we see Labour moving to the left of the Helen Clark Government. They have learnt nothing.

Thanks to the 1,500 readers who took part in the readers survey.  Some of the results are:

Age

• Under 30: 18%
• 31 – 45: 27%
• 46 – 60: 31%
• 61+: 28%

Gender

• Female 31%
• Male 69%

Area

• Auckland 28%
• Wellington 26%
• Christchurch 9%
• Dunedin 3%
• Other Cities 11%
• Towns 6%
• Rural 8%
• Overseas 8%

Readership of types of posts (on a 0 to 100 weighted scale)

• NZ political stories 87%
• Critiquing the media 80%
• Nanny state/political correctness stories 76%
• Original research posts 75%
• Polls 75%
• Law & order 72%
• Local Government 70%
• Overseas Politics 65%
• Humour 63%
• Posts on bills/debates in Parliament 58%
• Cartoons 54%
• Internet issues 53%
• Travel 47%
• Today in Parliament 46%
• Photos of the Week 46%
• General Debate 41%
• Review Posts 41%
• Caption Contests 40%

Note that even those scoring lower still have significant numbers interested.  For example 53% say they read the travel posts at least occasionally and 32% say they are very interested in them. What it shows is the politics, media and nanny state posts have near universal appeal,and other posts have broad but less universal appeal.

Party Vote

No surprise here. In order they are:

• National 74%
• ACT 9%
• Greens 3.7%
• Not Vote 3.7%
• Labour 3.7%
• Conservatives 3.2%
• Maori Party 1.2%
• NZ First 0.7%
• United Future 0.2%
• Internet MANA 0.2%

Note that this was not a scientific poll of readers. It was a self-selecting survey.

Comments

236 people made comments.  I’ve included the full comments below. Not yet had time to analyse them fully to see any trends in frequent requests.

Continue reading »

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little says the Government is guilty of gross deception in the election campaign, accusing it of knowing it could not meet its promised surplus in the current financial year but continuing to promise it.

“I see it for what it is – one of the biggest political deceptions in a lifetime,” he said in a pre-Budget speech to the Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce.

To say this is a hysterical over-reaction would be unfair to hysterical people.

It’s an economic and fiscal forecast that didn’t occur due to (mainly) low inflation and low interest rates. Calling it the biggest political deception of his lifetime is desperate and hysterical.

As some on the left have pointed out, Little is saying the fact the forecast surplus didn’t eventuate is a bigger issue than the fact the Weapons of Mass Destruction which justified the invasion of Iraq did not exist!

Labour seem to have adopted a strategy of having no policies on anything for 18 – 24 months, and just shrilly call John Key a liar as often as possible. I’m not sure this will succeed anymore than their previous strategies – except to make Little fairly unpopular. People want leadership, not whatever they think this is.

Mr Little argued that the economy was suffering from over-reliance on dairy and that the John Key-led Government should have directed investments into a more diverse range of economic activity.

So Andrew thinks it is the job of the Government to direct investment? Does he suggest a law forcing people to sell their cows and plant trees? The Government sets the environment, but does not direct investment. It is alarming he thinks the Government should be.

The Reserve Bank has announced three changes to its LVR restrictions:

In response to the growing housing market risk in Auckland, the Reserve Bank is today announcing proposed changes to the loan-to-value ratio (LVR) policy. The policy changes, proposed to take effect from 1 October, will:

• Require residential property investors in the Auckland Council area using bank loans to have a deposit of at least 30 percent.

• Increase the existing speed limit for high LVR borrowing outside of Auckland from 10 to 15 percent, to reflect the more subdued housing market conditions outside of Auckland.

• Retain the existing 10 percent speed limit for loans to owner-occupiers in Auckland at LVRs of greater than 80 percent.

So the new rules will be:

• 100% of property investors in Auckland will need at least a 30% deposit to buy property
• 85% (was 90%) of home buyers outside Auckland will need at least a 20% deposit to buy a property
• 90% of non investor home buyers in Auckland will need at least a 20% deposit to buy a property

I think the changes are sensible and better targeted. Those outside Auckland will find it easier to get a mortgage. Non-investors in Auckland will have no change (or may find it slightly easier as investors will find it harder), and property investors in Auckland will not be able to get financing unless they can cover 30% from their own reserves.

The Reserve Bank is consulting on its proposal, and if they proceed, will implement them on 1 October.

Politik notes:

Mr Wheeler said the Bank thought that the moves would reduce the number of property transactions in Auckland by 8 – 10% and possibly reduce house price inflation by 2 – 4% “MAYBE EVEN MORE THAN THAT”.

Conversely the moves would give a slight boost to the property market outside Auckland and Mr Wheeler estimated that sales there could pick up by about 4% and “maybe house price inflation by about one per cent.”

The RB move won’t solve the fundamental issue of not enough land in Auckland has been made available for housing, but it will help.

Richard Harman reports at Politik:

Labour’s Caucus will next week discuss the proposal by the party’s General Secretary, Tim Barnett to deny Working for Families tax credits to people who don’t enrol on the electoral roll.

The proposal was made to Parliament’s Justice Committee’s Review of the Election.

It appears to have caught the Parliamentary wing of the party by surprise and has angered some.

A spokesperson for Leader Andrew Little said the first he heard about it was in the media. …

The submission itself claims that it was “lodged on the authority of the New Zealand Council, the governing body of the Labour Party.”

I may be wrong, but I think it is highly highly likely that the submission would have been circulated to the NZ Council in advance. It certainly would be inappropriate for a submission from a political party not to have been approved or circulated to the rulong body.

I am almost certain Barnett would have had the submission circulated to the NZ Council. The NZ Council includes three MPs – Andrew Little, the caucus secretary and a further caucus rep. So if so, the question should be why didn’t Andrew Little read his NZ Council papers? At a minimum, his staff should be reading these, and highlighting any papers which might be politically sensitive – such as a submission proposing cutting off welfare benefits to those not on the electoral roll.

The Taxpayers Union revealed:

The IRD has spent more than $418,000 of taxpayer money on a campaign featuring a YouTube video of 80’s style aerobic exercises to promote filing of tax returns. Responding to the release of the information by the IRD, Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams, says:

“It is essential that the public are well informed on how to comply with their tax obligations. We say that spending nearly half a million on a video of people dancing round in leotards is a strange way to achieve it.”

“While the videos cost $41,000 the IRD won’t tell us what the remaining amount was spend spent on. We presume it is online advertising, which has only resulted in 20,000 views, less than the audience of daytime television.”

So IRD spent $20 per view. The intentions may be good, but the expenditure is not justified.

Stuff reported in 2010:

A police investigation has begun after more than $750,000 was drained from Whitireia Polytechnic students’ association funds over a year.

An audit report shows huge cash payments were made to former association executive members, including almost $12,000 to former president Loretta Ryder. Ms Ryder – the sister of former Black Power spokesman Eugene Ryder – also claimed expenses of $3000 in one month. Almost $700 was spent on an iPod and dock.

The funds also paid for $18,200 of accommodation for Ms Ryder, her family and vice-president Tai Te Karu. It is understood they are cousins and live together.

A large amount of money is also unaccounted for.

About $17,000 was spent through excessive use of mobile broadband modems to surf the internet, the report said. Mobile phone bills of five members of the executive averaged $700 a month. …

Angry students – who learned their funds had dwindled to just $6000 – demanded the executive step down during the tense meeting. After heated discussions, one committee member broke down in tears as she told students to “have faith” in the new executive, which, except for one member, was elected after the misappropriation took place.

Fulltime students must have $135 deducted automatically from their student loans to pay subs for the Whitireia Independent Students Association. There are about 6000 students at the polytech, half of whom are fulltime.

The good thing is that as membership is now voluntary, students are no longer forced to fund such wasteful behaviour.

But imagine my shock when I read this week this article in the NZ Herald:

The former president of a financially troubled student association has been denied compensation from the Wellington polytech it represented.

The Employment Relations Authority was told that Loretta Ryder was owed $53,013.70 in unpaid wages from her time as de facto president of the Whitireia Independent Students’ Association (WISA), which had previously been determined in March 2013.

In her original application, Ms Ryder sought funds from WISA and/or the polytech, but in her final submission, orders were directed against Whitireia as the association was practically defunct.

So she presides over the near bankruptcy of the student association, and then has the cheek to try and get money out of the Polytech on the basis there is no money left in the student association!

WISA’s vice president, who the Dominion Post reported to be Ms Ryder’s cousin Tai Te Karu, admitted to defrauding the association and was sentenced to jail as a result.

Accountant’s audits of the association found that it was in poor shape financially and tens of thousands of dollars of WISA funds still remain unaccounted for.

Ms Ryder was one of three signatories who signed incorrectly completed cheques. As she was never charged with any offences, she remained entitled to the pay she was owed.

By incorrectly completed cheques, do they mean blank cheques?

Louise Upston has announced:

Councils now have the guidance they need to decide if they want to offer online voting at the 2016 local body elections.

The Government has been looking into the feasibility of enabling local authorities to undertake an online voting trial in response to requests from councils, and a set of requirements for councils interested in undertaking a trial has been released today.

“Local authorities must show they can meet these requirements before the Government can give the go-ahead to trial online voting,” Associate Minister of Local Government Louise Upston said. …

The requirements document, which is available at www.dia.govt.nz/online-voting, was prepared in consultation with a range of stakeholders including the Society of Local Government Managers, Local Government New Zealand, election and online voting service providers, and online security experts.

The requirements are extensive. There are 125 specific requirements. Some of them are:

• Online voting must only be made available as an additional option alongside postal voting.
• Voters must be able to vote online using their own internet-capable device, and without any need to install additional software.
• Electors must be able to vote online without being required to pre-register.
• All electors in an election for which online voting is being used must be provided with an opportunity to sign up to receive confirmation that an online vote has been received and recorded under their name, and must be notified of this opportunity.
• A valid voter ID and access code, enabling an elector to authenticate him or herself online, must be transmitted to electors by way of at least two separate transactions
• Where an online voting document has been incorrectly marked, the online voting technology solution must inform the voter of the nature of the error that has been made and give them an opportunity to fix the error before submission of the voting document.
• The design of the online voting system must guarantee that votes submitted online are, and will remain, anonymous, and that it is not possible to reconstruct a link between the content of the vote and the voter.
• Online voting systems must be designed, as far as it is practicable, to maximise the opportunities that such systems can provide for persons with disabilities.
• Decrypting required for the counting of the votes must not be carried out until the voting period has closed.
• The online voting system must allow the voter to individually verify that his/her vote is recorded-as-intended.
• The online voting system must allow for an observer or independent auditor to verify that votes are counted as recorded.
• Online voting systems must comply with New Zealand Government standards and industry best practice for web and applications security, including, at a minimum: the New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM), ISO27001, ISO27002 and the OWASP Top 10; and should also meet other web security standards such as the ASD Top 35 mitigations and then SANS Top 25.
• Territorial authorities must use an approved provider from the public service’s ICT Security and Related Service Panel to undertake all security testing, assessment, and certification and accreditation.
• The online voting system must be auditable end-to-end.
• The audit system must be designed and implemented as part of the online voting system. Audit facilities must be present on different levels of the system: logical, technical and application.

A very detailed and thorough list of requirements.

Bob Jones writes in the NZ Herald:

Embittered old lefties still amusingly rant on about our greatest postwar Government, the 1984 Labour Administration. …

The old diehard left survivors pose a threat to our political process, insofar as (to the despair of their political wing) they currently control the Labour Party, still our alternative Government.

Tony Blair shook them loose in the early 1990s, recognising he could never prevail otherwise. This dilemma confronts Andrew Little who cannot sustain acceptance on the sole grounds of not being Cunliffe.

Waiting for the inevitable pendulum swing also won’t do it as the danger exists of other parties filling the opposition void.

Indeed, this is National’s best hope for a fourth term, namely voters’ disdain for a fragmented coalition alternative.

No poll shows Labour/Greens coming close. At best they would need Labour, Greens and NZ First and the fact NZ First and Greens are diametrically opposed on many issues means it would be far from stable.

Stuff reports:

So far Seymour Hersh’s extraordinary claims regarding the operation that killed Osama bin Laden have been met with either denial, withering scorn or, on the part of most of the broader media, uneasy quiet.

In a 10,000-word piece published on Sunday in the London Review of Books, the famous investigative journalist claims that Osama bin Laden was not tracked down in Pakistan by CIA work, but was located in Pakistani military custody due to a tip off.

Hersh writes that the Pakistani military had captured bin Laden as far back as 2006 and was using him as leverage over Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.

He writes that after America became aware of this, the Pakistan military agreed to help stage the raid in order to keep the US on-side and protect itself from unrest that might be caused if it handed over bin Laden, who remained a popular figure.

Hersh has done some good journalism in the past, but this does not look like one of them.

Despite that Peter Bergen, a CNN security analyst and author of a book on the manhunt of bin Laden, has already written scathingly that the piece is, “a farrago of nonsense that is contravened by a multitude of eyewitness accounts, inconvenient facts and simple common sense”.

And his recent history is not good.

In a (slightly) more gentle takedown Vox’s Max Fisher notes that more recent stories by Hersh, also alleging conspiracies, have either not been independently confirmed or have been debunked. “A close reading of Hersh’s bin Laden story suggests it is likely to suffer the same fate,” he writes.

Even back in 2004, one commentator calculator that Hersh claimed to have anonymous sources within 30 foreign governments and almost every US agency in existence.

Some specific rebuttals from the CNN analysis:

Common sense would tell you that the idea that Saudi Arabia was paying for bin Laden’s expenses while he was living in Abbottabad is simply risible. Bin Laden’s principal goal was the overthrow of the Saudi royal family as a result of which his Saudi citizenship was revoked as far back as 1994.

Why would the Saudis pay for the upkeep of their most mortal enemy?

Indeed. This quote best sums him up now:

The story simply does not hold up to scrutiny — and, sadly, is in line with Hersh’s recent turn away from the investigative reporting that made him famous into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

The fact the author of the conspiracy theory was once a good reporter doesn’t make the theory credible. What makes it credible is proof.