The view from the hotel at Puno. Sadaly we got there late at night and had to leave early the next morning, so didn’t spend much time there. In future would make sure we had at least two nights there.

I had been dreading this part of the trip for several days as generally I hate bus travel, and spending an entire day on a bus can be a form of torture. But this bus was excellent, and I had a great time.

First of all the seats were wide and comfy. You could use the foot rest and recline the seat to be more comfortable than most planes. They had a detachable tray you could work or eat on, and had free wireless on board the bus. Plus it was a double decker and we were upstairs which was great for photos and views.

We were travelling on the 2nd of November which is the Day of the Dead in much of Latin America. Every cemetery we went past was full of family members who spend the day with their dead relatives.

We had lunch at this very nice restaurant, with great views.

Many houses in Peru have bulls on their roof as a symbol of good luck and fertility.

The church of San Pedro Apostol de Andahuaylillas, built by Jesuits in the 16th century

You could not take photos inside some of the church, but it has stunning artworks – is known as the Sistine Chapel of Latin America.

One photo from inside.

As in other places, they even do advertising on the hillsides.

Remains of the Temple of Wiracocha which was a large Inca structure surrounded by a 4 km long wall.

The Incas were good at building in straight lines.

UMR’s Stephen Mills writes:

Asked to define themselves on a 0-10 left to right scale based on degree of support or opposition for Government provision of services, the need for Governments to intervene in the economy and a progressive tax system, 30 per cent of New Zealanders were clearly left (0-3) on the scale; 42 per cent in the centre (4-6) and 25 per cent clearly right (7-10). As is often observed the centre is the battleground in New Zealand politics.

If the 42 per cent in the centre bloc are split up further 12 per cent go left ; 10 per cent go right and 20 per cent remain smack in the middle of the scale.

That leaves 42 per cent on the left; 35 per cent on the right and 20 per cent dead centre. At first sight that appears promising for centre left parties.

So why are Labour doing so badly?

The problem for Labour is that National is now both totally dominating the centre and winning more left votes than Labour and the Greens are winning right votes.

Amongst the “clearly left” Labour has 42 per cent; the Greens 25per cent ; National 19 per cent and New Zealand First 10 per cent. In the centre National has 56 per cent, Labour 18 per cent, the Greens 12 per cent and New Zealand First 9 per cent.

That is a fascinating and powerful stat. National is attracting three times as much support from centrist voters than Labour. Labour’s policies in opposition are well to the left of Helen Clark’s Government, and they are competing with the Greens for the left vote.

By John Stringer

Final: Tanks, Planes, Temples and some LoTR Southron Warriors

Hauling back to Seoul and Incheon from the JSA and the DMZ on the border with North Korea, it was back in to the streets.  I really like this picture, which for me sums up so much that is South Korea.

After the official tours, we took a guerilla tour of our own through some of the back streets, and got lost, to see how real South Koreans live. I really enjoyed this.  Lost down catacombs of chaotic streets laden with produce, boxes, and the detritus of enterprise, we were stared at, but discovered a cloistered, cozy, close-living vibrant community.  People live close together, this is a major urban center after all, but there was a sense of village that our central NZ cities do not have to the same degree.

I’ve mentioned and photographed many of the more humourous Engerish oddities.  A visitor to Korea may be flummoxed by this, as well as the various ‘nazi’ flags flying on buildings. These of course denote temples or places of historic significance, and are actually a very ancient peace symbol (present as wall tiles for example, in the Christ Church Cathedral).  If you know your nazi symbols, you’llrealise the arms are actually in different orientations (inverted) than that used by Hitler and Co. But still, a bit disconcerting if you are uninformed.

Being from Christchurch and having some responsibility for the Container Mall, I was surprised to come across this urban Police Station IN A SHIPPING CONTAINER.  “Snap!”

These cool sculptures represent each of the months of the year. And en route, there is this red button on the subway.  Not a Nuclear Apocalypse reset button, but it does say “Do not lean on this button, Emergency Train Stop” which in New Zealand would just be too tempting.  Not in Korea, where people are most obedient of official imperatives.

Wherever you go on the South side, there is a very real commitment to the ultimate re-unification of the Korean peoples. Signs like this are indicative, expressing the sentiment.

Korea is of course an ancient culture, so they have wonderful architecture (both ancient and modern). We came across these scarlet traditional warriors, which reminded me of Southrons (Haradrim) from Lord of the Rings (see here: http://conzervative.wordpress.com/?s=Southrons). Wouldn’t like to cross them: Kung Fu, Tae Kwon-Do and other martial arts, most likely, and they’d all do well in ‘Mouvember.’ But if those dudes are too scary, there’s always the Blues Brothers behind them.

Because of the Korean War that New Zealand soldiers participated in, we went to the Memorial Hall for Incheon Landing Operation that celebrates the support of Americans and other nations for South Korea, particularly the First Marine Division.

This is one of the planes used in the Korean War, set in a garden.  You can climb right up to the cockpit, where you meet this…dummy.

The museum has great arches, steep stairtcases and alleyways which lead to dramatic sculptures and memorials. It is a very steep layered complex, with some precipitous drops, dangerous for children or energetic teenagers, that would never be allowed in New Zealand.

The Koreans feel quite passionately about the Americans actually putting ‘boots-on-the-ground,’ something very non-PC these days (so ISIS is allowed to murder, rape, torture and massacre its way through children, women and innocent men. But that’s another story).

These steps for example lead to this, a huge bronze sculpture of the landing American soldiers (thus the name of the museum park) backed by a massive sculptural wall carved in relief (which you can see behind it).

Some more hardware, parked throughout the campus.

To the left of this amphibious Buffalo armoured vehicle, you can see the New Zealand flag (3rd from left).

…and third from the right, the Australian flag.

This is an American M24 Chaffee tank.

As mentioned in Part 1, this was my first trip to Asia.  It was great, exciting, different, dynamic, and I hope you’ve enjoyed the sharing of the journey. But it’s always good to get back to New Zealand, the best place in the world.  Let’s hope DPF is not eaten by a Cayman or catches gets of those urethra fish while he’s up the Amazon without a paddle.  Jal itsuh.

~ JS.

Introduction

With the Republicans having completed a convincing victory in the 2014 mid-term elections and most importantly taking control of the Senate. This is keeping a lot of attention on Obamacare. Whilst the GOP want to use their power in the Congress to at least water down Obamacare the president naturally wants to make this a part of his legacy. This article looks at the future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Please note there has been no attempt to deal with the fiscal implications on the US Federal Government’s spending and deficits. There are numerous projections available from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the General Accountability Office (GAO) and many others. It is an extremely complex topic that is fiercely debated by supporters and opponents of the PPACA. It will be covered in separate post in the near future.

About the PPACA

First before discussing the PPACA further it is helpful to understand some key facts about the legislation.

Overview of Provisions

• Guaranteed issue prohibits insurers from denying coverage to individuals due to pre-existing conditions. In addition insurers are required to offer the same premium price to all applicants of the same age and geographical location without regard to gender or most pre-existing conditions (excluding tobacco use).
• The PPACA establishes minimum standards for health insurance policies.
• Under the individual mandate all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs are required to secure an approved private-insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual has a financial hardship or is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service. The law includes subsidies to help people with low incomes comply with the mandate.
• Health insurance exchanges are portals for individuals and small businesses in every state to compare policies and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible). The next enrollment period is scheduled to be November 15, 2014–February 15, 2015.
• Low-income subsidies are available for individuals and families whose incomes are between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. They receive federal subsidies on a sliding scale if they purchase insurance via an exchange.
• Medicaid (health care for low income families and individuals) has been expanded to include individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level, including adults without disabilities and without dependent children.
• The Medicare (health insurance for Americans 65 and over) payment system has been reformed with the intent of promoting greater efficiency in the healthcare delivery system by restructuring Medicare reimbursements from fee-for-service to bundled payments.
• The employer mandate applies to businesses which employ 50 or more people but who do not offer health insurance to their full-time employees. These businesses will have to pay a tax penalty if the government has subsidized a full-time employee’s healthcare through tax deductions or other means. The Internal Revenue Service delayed enforcement of this provision for one year in July 2013.

Twenty one new taxes

The PPACA created twenty one new taxes. Here are some of them.

1. Individual mandate
2. Employer mandate
3. Medical device manufacturers tax
4. Indoor tanning services tax
5. Excise tax on charitable hospitals which fail to comply with the requirements of the PPACA
6. Tax on brand name drugs
7. Tax on health insurers

There are also targeted tax credits available. The full list of new taxes introduced under the PPACA is here.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)

This 15 member board is responsible for achieving savings in Medicare whilst maintaining coverage and quality.

Legal Challenges

There have been many attempts in US courts to derail Obamacare. The most well known being the 2012 case heard by The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) which ruled on the legality of the legislation. The Obama administration won by a narrow 5-4 majority.

King vs Burwell

SCOTUS has taken on this important case. At the heart of this latest legal challenge to Obamacare is whether or not the Federal Government has the right to distribute insurance tax credits in certain states. The case will be heard early in 2015 with a ruling in June. For a more detailed legalistic description of the case go here.

The Wall Street Journal in its reporting on this story explains what has happened in the courts previous to SCOTUS getting involved in King vs Burwell and alleges that Harry Reid broke Senate filibuster rules to appoint liberal judges one of the courts that ruled on the case in July 2014.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the government, though the opinion said it was a close call. A 2-1 panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled the other way, only to have the decision vacated by the entire D.C. Circuit, which voted to hear the case en banc in the coming months.

Mr. Reid broke Senate filibuster rules to add three liberals to the D.C. Circuit with the expectation that the en banc court would favor the Administration. At a July 22 press conference, Mr. Reid boasted about his filibuster play and proclaimed that, “It seems clear to me that that decision will be overturned.” Then there would be no splits between the circuit courts, and the Supreme Court would be less likely to take the case.

Greg Sargent writing in the Washington Post makes some pertinent points about where the GOP would stand if SCOTUS finds against the Obama administration.

As the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt explains it, a SCOTUS ruling gutting the subsidies could easily be rendered “moot” in one of two ways: Either Congress fixes the law, or governors in those states set up state exchanges to keep the subsidies flowing to their constituents. “A simple fix from either Congress or Republican governors would allow people to keep their benefits,” Levitt says.

The prospect of so many of each of these governors’ constituents losing insurance would theoretically put pressure on them to make things right. The same might be the case for GOP lawmakers in Congress. One possibility might be that the two parties use this as an occasion to enter into negotiations over the law’s future, in which Republicans try to leverage the need for the fix to get other changes to it they want — which could be dicey for the law but perhaps not too much of a threat to it.

Of course, these lawmakers would also face intense pressure from the right not to fix it. And for all I know, they might let the law’s subsidies disappear for millions. How bloody minded are the Republicans willing to be?

If the case is lost by the Obama administration it will be fascinating to observe how the GOP in Congress deals with millions of people who face being disadvantaged financially.

Possible deconstruction of Obamacare by Republicans

This is certainly a pet topic with Republicans post the mid-term elections. So how will the GOP potentially attempt to attack Obamacare?

Repeal – Pass a bill through the House and Senate repealing the PPACA lock stock and barrel. This will be symbolic gesture because only as Barack Obama will veto a repeal bill.

Scrap the Medical Devices Tax –  A 2.3% tax on devices the manufacturers say are threatening their competitiveness. There is a real chance the Republicans can get enough Democrats in Congress to support them and have a majority.

The thirty hour rule – Republicans strongly oppose this section of the ACA which has defines a full working week as 30 hours instead of 40 hours. Plenty of powerful industry lobby groups are gearing up in Washington DC to support the GOP on this one.

IPAB – It’s close to a sure thing that the Republicans will try and scrap this board of bureaucrats. There are also Democrats who aren’t totally convinced of the IPAB’s worth. So a majority may exist in the Congress.

Repeal the Individual Mandate – Getting rid of this would certainly make a dent in Obamacare. Possibly some Democrats may support this.

The Employer Mandate – This is very interesting possibility for the GOP as it is unpopular with business owners. This provision is directly tied to the thirty hour rule. If it isn’t possible to repeal there could well be room for GOP leaders and the Obama administration to talk turkey about modifying it.

Remember the presidential veto, so the GOP will have to somehow find a way to force Barack Obama’s hand. The Republicans can use the budget reconciliation process to aid their cause.

Because Republicans lack the 60 seats needed to beat a Democratic filibuster, McConnell can’t force a vote on a simple, straightforward repeal bill. But he has said several times he would use the budget reconciliation process, which only requires 51 votes, to pass anti-Obamacare measures. Reconciliation probably can’t be used to pass a clean, repeal-it-all proposal—and Obama would veto it if it did—but by pushing the measure, Republicans incumbents inoculate themselves against charges that they let the party’s least-favorite law stand, as well as fulfill campaign promises.

Comment

If the Republicans want to make any changes to Obamacare they’re going to have to figure out how to get enough leverage to force Barack Obama to go along with them. They will also need to achieve a unity purpose in their own ranks, something that they don’t currently have, this was covered in a previous post. The prize of the presidency looms and the GOP needs to be constructive and not in the words of Charles Krauthammer be the “party of no”. Having solid and sound alternatives to improve the US healthcare system will be imperative if they’re are to convince the voters to support them. The weakness is so far they haven’t achieved this.

For the Democrats a useful strategy would be to go along with reasonable change to make it more workable in practice so make it more difficult for the Republicans to make a case for repeal the law at a later date. It needs to be added that a full repeal is probably going to require the Republicans to hold the presidency and both houses of Congress post the 2016 election. The longer the PPACA remains in force the more confident Barack Obama will be that in his mind it is cemented in as a key part of his legacy. To achieve this he may need to be flexible and agree to well thought out modifications to the PPACA.

Sources

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PDF)

Wikipedia article on the PPACA

Seven provisions of Obamacare

With David still gone and travelling and with the US elections fresh, I am posting a comparison between the US and New Zealand political systems that answer many of the questions I get from puzzled kiwis about the marvelously complex American political system

Head of State

USA

The President is the Head of State.

New Zealand

The nominal Head of State is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the 2^nd of the United Kingdom [EDIT – I have disrespected the Queen by not giving her her full title – Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith – thanks Lindsay]  who administers her official duties through Her appointed representative in NZ known as the Governor General. The Governor General’s post is an appointed position for a set term usually of five years and the appointment is made by the Prime Minister of the day. The office of GG is a largely ceremonial as is the Queen’s modern role. The Head of State in the Westminster Parliamentary system officially opens Parliament, reads the Speech from the Throne (given to him or her by the PM) and signs all Acts of Parliament into law (known as the Royal Assent).

Executive

The Executive is the Government or those individuals who collectively are called the Cabinet and who head the key government departments. The most senior leader of the Government and thus the leader of the country is the Prime Minister or the President.

New Zealand

The Cabinet in NZ comes out of the Legislature or Parliament. They are the senior members of the party that has sufficient members in the Parliament to form a government. In National Party governments, the Cabinet members are chosen by the Prime Minister whilst Labour governments their Cabinets are elected by the caucus and the portfolios are allocated by the PM. The Prime Minister is the leader of the governing party in Parliament – in National’s case elected by the caucus and in Labour’s case elected by a combining votes from the caucus (40%), the party membership (40%) and the affiliated trade unions (20%). NZ Cabinet Ministers are located in one building known as the Beehive and meet regularly as a Cabinet on Monday mornings.

USA

The Executive in the US is entirely separate from the Legislature. The President is elected by the popular vote of the people at Presidential elections via the Electoral College. The composition of the Electoral College comprises of electors from each state representing the total number Congressmen and Senators from that State. In almost all cases, the candidate for President that wins a simple plurality of votes from that State garners the Electors from that State (exceptions are Nebraska and Maine who allocate electoral votes proportionately). Once elected the President appoints his or her Cabinet but each appointment must be confirmed by the Senate. Cabinet appointees tend to be current or former senior politicians from the President’s own party or prominent people from business, academia or other areas of public service. US Cabinet members offices are in their respective Departmental head office buildings and meetings of the President’s full Cabinet are rare; the President usually preferring one on one briefings with each Cabinet member who are known by the title Secretary (the Foreign Minister equivalent is called the Secretary of State).

Legislature

USA

The US operates a bi-cameral legislature comprising of the lower house called the House of Representatives and the upper house called the Senate. Up until 1913, the size of the House of Representatives grew based on the population growth of each 10 year (decennial) US census. Since 1913 the size of the House of Representatives was capped at 435 members and has not grown in size since. However the relative strengths of each state’s congressional delegation is adjusted after each Census based on what percentage of the overall population that state comprises thus high growth states in the south and west will be allocated new Congressional districts at the expense of states mostly in the east and mid-west whose population is either stagnant or shrinking and they lose Congressional Districts. The Districts are numbered such as Illinois 5^th and the representatives are called Congressmen or women. The Senate is comprised of two Senate seats per state regardless of the size of the state so 100 seats.

New Zealand

NZ has a unicameral legislature comprising of just the House of Representatives. Our Upper House (the Legislative Council) was abolished in 1951. Representatives are called Members of Parliament or MPs and comprise of those elected from districts called electorates and those chosen from party lists. The total size of Parliament is determined by the relevant section of the Electoral Act as is currently set at 120 total MPs. The mix between electorate and list MPs is determined by calculating the number of electorates after each 5 yearly census by taking the population of the South Island and dividing it by 16 to determine the new electorate quota. This quota is them applied to the North Island to determine if population growth warrants new electorates. If a census adds 2 new electorates then the number of MPs elected directly from electorates increases by 2 and the number elected from party lists declines by 2. NZ uses a proportional voting system called MMP or Mixed Member Proportional. Voters have two votes: a Party vote to determine who they want to be the government and an Electorate vote to determine who they want as their local MP. The party lists are used to top from MPs elected from electorates to ensure that a particular party’s total number of MPs reflects the percentage of the Party vote that party got. A party must garner 5% of the total Party vote to get members elected unless they managed to win a single electorate seat in which case no threshold applies. If however a party wins more electorate seats than its Party vote percentage would allocate, then those MPs will be added to the total of 120 MPs. This is called an overhang and has happened in a few elections with the Maori Party.

Judiciary

New Zealand

Judges in New Zealand are appointed by the Minister of Justice on recommendation from the Solicitor-General [EDIT – by the Governor General on the advice of the Attorney-General hat tip AG]. Generally speaking District and High Court judge appointments are for no set term and for the judge’s usual working life. NZ judges interpret laws passed by Parliament but cannot make policy. Whilst Parliament is the supreme lawmaking body of the land as it has the sole right to pass legislation, it cannot interfere with any court’s decision unless it chooses to pass legislation on the matter. Judges are never subject to a popular vote.

USA

All Judges for the 11 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal and the US Supreme Court are appointed by the President but must be confirmed by a majority of Senators but subject to filibuster or an attempt to stall proceedings unless it can be broken by a vote of 60 opposing Senator although part way through the most recent Congress, the Democrat majority changed the Senate rules suspending the filibuster for judicial appointments. Supreme Court appointments are for an unlimited term with resignation at the discretion of the appointed judge or upon their death in office. All State, County and City level judges are appointed by the Governor of the state and are subject to the popular vote each election cycle and a judge that might have a reputation for being too soft on criminals in a conservative area may find him or herself removed from office.

Checks and balances

USA

The US Constitutions created the three arms of government as separate but equal each with the power to check the other. The President checks the Legislature via the ability to veto bills passed by Congress. The Legislature checks the Executive through being the only arm that can initiate legislation, the Senate confirmation process of the Presidential appointments and through the ability with a 2/3rds majority in both Houses to override the veto. Presidential checks on the Judiciary lie in his/her ability to change the ideological composition of the court by appointments. The Judiciary checks the power of both the Executive and the Legislature with its ability to declare legislation or executive orders unconstitutional. The Legislature checks the Judiciary through the confirmation process of judges. Other crucial roles are separated – the President is the Commander in Chief of the military but only Congress has the power to declare war. The President can negotiate international treaties and accords but they must be ratified by the Senate.

New Zealand

NZ has fewer formal checks built into the system and does not have a Constitution that separates the powers of the government in any formal sense and because the Executive comes out of the Legislature. The Legislature exerts limited checks on the power of the Executive. The biggest check is public opinion and the caucus of the governing party who can initiate a vote against the party leader (although in the case of Labour it would be subject to their wider party leader election process). The Judiciary has the power strike down legislation passed by Parliament although such instances tend to be more about interpretation of laws. Because Parliament is sovereign in its law making ability, it can pass laws to clarify matters that the Courts may have ruled on.

The Bureaucracy

New Zealand

NZ has an independent and non-political civil service. Civil servants at all levels are required to be politically neutral and serve the government of the day. Permanent heads of government departments, whilst reporting to their relevant Minister, are appointed by the State Services Commission in a process that the government of the day cannot interfere with. A change of government in New Zealand results in minimal disruption to the day to running of the bureaucracy.

USA

The US bureaucracy is much more politicized. The top three tiers of management of any Department of the Executive are all political appointees who are appointed by the President in consultation with his/her appointed Cabinet Secretary for that Department. These appointees are the eyes and ears of the Administration throughout the bureaucracy and are considered one of the major spoils of winning the White House. When there is a change of Administration, there are usually over 3,000 political appointments that have to be made throughout the Federal Government with a number of first tier management and sensitive legal positions requiring Senate confirmation. A change of Administration has a huge impact on the Federal bureaucracy with many decisions shelved until appointments can be made and key ones confirmed – a process often taking several months. It is the main reason why the new President is not sworn in until usually near the end of January following his/her election in early November.

States

New Zealand

NZ has had no second tier regional government like states or provinces since the abolition of the provinces in 1876. The next tier of government after the national government is city and regional councils.

USA

The US has 50 states that have unique status amongst nations that have states or provinces. The Constitution enumerates specific powers that the President and the Federal government have – anything outside these specific roles is the preserve of the States. The States preceded the Federal government with the whole notion of American nationhood being founded on it being a Federation of existing States (the 13 original colonies). The Constitution makes provision for the addition of new states the last two being added (Hawaii and Alaska) in 1960. Each State has its own Constitution, its own legislatures, its own Executive (headed by the Governor) and hierarchy of courts that are a microcosm of the Federal system. Each state’s laws can be very different and the Supreme Court often rules on disputes of jurisdiction between State and Federal governments. This is no more apparent than in the vastly differing electoral laws from State to State. Just a few will suffice: some states have lieutenant governors, some don’t – some have only joint tickets whilst others elect the lieutenant governor separately (and can be from an opposing party). Some states require special (by) elections for vacated Federal Congress seats (House or Senate) within specified time frame of the seat being vacated, others grant the sitting Governor the right to appoint an interim Congressman or Senator. Some states are actually called Commonwealths (Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky) and not all call their lower chamber the House or the upper chamber the Senate. Some states term limit their elected officials, others do not. Each state decides which Executive offices are elected and which are appointed.

Election dates/terms

USA

Elections in the US (apart from special or by elections) are always held on the first Tuesday in November and each elected office has a set term. The Presidential term is four years with a term limit of two terms. Each Federal Senate term is for six years with staggered terms so that a third of the Senate members are up for re-election each election cycle. Federal House of Representative terms are for two years. Governors’ terms are for four years. State upper and lower chamber terms are determined by each state but most have two year terms for both. Elections held outside Presidential elections are called mid-term elections. There are no snap elections. The President or a Governor cannot decide when to go to the people – the terms and elections dates are constitutionally mandated.

New Zealand

The normal term of a NZ Parliament is three years and a General Election must be called no later than three years after the last General Election however the Prime Minister of the day at any time can instruct the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament and issue writs for a new General Election. There are no legal restrictions to this power proscribed in the Electoral Act however in practice so-called snap elections are usually only called in unusual circumstances. Vacancies (either by death, resignation or conviction of a crime carrying a 2 year or longer sentence of an MP) are handled differently depending on whether the MP was a List or Electorate MP. A List MP vacancy is filled by the relevant party appointing the next person on their party list and that person is sworn in as an MP by the Speaker in the next sitting day of Parliament. Any Electorate MP vacancy six months before a General Election is usually left vacant until the election by convention between the governing party of the day and the Opposition. Any other Electorate MP vacancy is filled by a by-election in that seat fought on the same boundaries as the last General Election with the date of the by-election decided by the Prime Minister.

Electoral boundaries

New Zealand

Boundaries of NZ electorates are re-drawn after each 5 yearly census when the total number of new North Island electorates is determined after applying the so-called South Island quota. A tolerance is set at plus or minus five percent above/below the quota as the outer limit of the population of each new electorate. Any electorate above or below the quota will have to have its boundary redrawn. A body called the Representation Commission redraws the boundaries to incorporate the additional electorate(s) required by population growth arising from the census determination and the same time keeping all new electorates inside the tolerance band. The Representation Commission comprises senior civil servants convened by the Surveyor-General, the Government Statistician, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Chairperson of Local Government Commission and each major political party can appoint a non-voting observer. The Commission takes into account communities of interest when redrawing boundaries. Interim boundaries are released for consultation and submission and parties can suggest minor changes around community of interest grounds that don’t breach the population tolerance.

USA

All district boundaries for the US House and State upper and lower houses are drawn by the States. Almost all states this is done by the partisan legislatures on a simple majority vote while a handful have semi-autonomous bodies somewhat akin to our Representation Commission. As each party in power at the State level seeks to gain the best electoral advantage for their party, it results in a few bizarre shaped electorates that have had boundaries drawn around communities that vote more for the party in power re-drawing the boundaries – so called gerrymandering. The party in control of state legislatures during the ten yearly post-census re-districting process can have a propound impact in some states on their chances of winning House seats.

Campaign financing

USA

Campaign financing in the US is strictly regulated by the Federal Elections Commission or FEC and all donations made by individuals or corporations to candidates must be publicly disclosed. There is a $2,600 individual donation limit per election (primary and general elections are considered separate elections) per candidate and a $32,000 limit on what individuals/corporations can donate to a party per year. There are no limits as to the amounts people or organizations can donate to PACs (Political Action Committees). While PACs are limited to donating $10,000 to individual candidates per election importantly there are no limits on other expenditures such as generic attack ads that don’t promote a particular party or candidate. Candidates for President once nominated by their respective parties can opt for Federal funds for their party’s convention costs ($18 million) and after their party’s convention, for General Election funds capped at $91 million. Candidates can choose to opt out as Obama did in 2008 and 2012 and Romney did in 2012.

New Zealand

Individuals or entities donations to parties over $15,000 must be disclosed by the party and an aggregate of donations over a 12 month period totaling $30,000 must also be disclosed. Individuals or entities can make undisclosed donations to a limit of $50,000 to the Electoral Commission and advise the Commission as to which party it is to go to. The donation limit for individuals donating to a candidate is $1,500 and candidates are restricted to expenditure of $25,700 for a General Election. There is a spending cap of $50,000 on groups or individuals arguing for a positon in Citizens Initiated Referenda. Third party groups seeking to be involved in electioneering with advertising/prompting parties or candidates spending more than $12,500 in advertising must register as a Promoter with the Electoral Commission and show the Promoter’s name and address in advertising material. There is a cap of $308,000 of expenditure by registered Promoters during what is called the regulated period (begins 90 days before the election),

Primaries

New Zealand

The only primary elections held in New Zealand are those held by the Labour Party since its 2012 Constitutional change allowing party members and unions to join with the caucus in deciding a new leader. There is no restriction on the number of candidates that can stand in an electorate seat meaning few candidates except in safe seats win over 50% of the vote.

USA

Primaries in the US are designed for General Election match ups to be a two horse race ensuring the winner gets a plurality of votes. Because the two major parties are such large board ‘churches’ encompassing conservative and liberal wings, there is intense competition within a party to win the right to be the candidate in the general election. Candidates for office compete against each other for the right to be the party’s nominee and this applies not just for President but for all levels of government from Congress down to county and city races. For races where one party has historically dominated, it is common for the opposing party to only ever have one candidate thus not requiring a primary. At the Presidential level, each state’s primary election process is used to allocate delegates for candidates at the party’s national nominating convention. Some states’ parties award these on a winner takes all basis (the Republican preference) while others allocate delegates proportionately (the Democrat preference – it was how Obama beat Clinton). There are three main ways this is done and each state decides which method is used:

Primary-a secret ballot is conducted on a date chosen by the state party (and approved by the national party) amongst approved participants. Primary voting takes place at the same polling places as general elections and is overseen by neutral county election officials. The winner is by simple plurality. Primaries can be open (any registered voter can participate), partially closed (only registered party members and independents can participate) or closed (only registered party members can vote).

Caucus-this method is only used in Presidential primaries and is only open to people registered to vote for the party holding the caucus. Caucuses are held in an evening from 630pm onwards usually at school halls in designated locations across the state. Each candidate has an advocate at each hall and promotes his/her candidate. After a few short speeches, the candidate representatives take a corner and caucus goers gather to the corner of their preferred candidate. Wooing of voters can go on for hours. The votes for each candidate are tallied and aggregated at the state level.

Jungle primary-no separate pre-general election primary is held and all candidates for all parties stand in the General Election and the two highest voting candidates (regardless of party) face off a few weeks after the general election in what is called a run-off election.

Ballot initiatives/Referenda

USA

Referenda are a frequent part of US elections. These are only held at the state, county and city level and not the federal level. Most are citizens initiated (usually requiring only 5% of registered voters certified by election officials in the jurisdiction) and others are tax or bond related as required by State law to raise sales and other taxes and to authorize the issuing of debt bonds for municipalities, state owned utilities and school districts to raise money for specified projects. Some states the results of referenda are binding on the state legislature who must then pass a law reflecting the sentiment of the passed ballot initiative and it must be signed into law by the Governor. BCIR as they are called enable the general populace of a state to ensure that popular laws vetoed by the governor of a party opposite to that controlling the state legislature can still get such measures passed into law. It is not uncommon to have upwards of 20 ballot initiatives for EACH general election.

New Zealand

NZ has CIR which is triggered when 10% of registered voters, certified by the Clerk of the House, vote to have a particular issue put on the ballot. The government of the day decides the timing of the referendum with most scheduled at the same time as a general election. As a matter of course, the results of a referendum are not binding on the government and indeed NZ governments have a tradition of ignoring the results of CIR. Other referenda are government initiated and revolve around an issue that a political party promised to put to the people. These can be indicative (as in the case of the proportional representation referendum of 1992) designed to see the people’s best choice of a range of options or binding (in the case of the MMP vs FPP referendum of 1993 that saw NZ change to MMP) where two options only are put to the vote with the government of the day committing to pass the results of the referendum into law.

Recalls

New Zealand

There is no recall provision in NZ.

USA

Various states offer voters at the state, county and city level (either Governor or lower/upper chamber) and concerning local judges the ability to challenge the result of the last election by forcing a special election seeking to oust a particular politician or judge. Recall elections arise over controversial issues that have so inflamed local voters that they are able to get sufficient voters in that jurisdiction to petition to hold a fresh election for that race only. A recall election needs to have a challenger for voters to choose from between them and the incumbent. Recall petitions can be filed by a challenger within the incumbent’s own party or opposing party. If the challenger wins the recall election then they replace the incumbent.

By John Stringer

The Axe Murder Incident & A Bong on the Border

Before leaving the JSA (Joint Security Area), a post on the notorious Axe Murder Incident.  As mentioned, tourists have been killed in the JSA.  In 1976 there was a very serious incident that almost re-ignited the Korean War.

Within the JSA stood a large poplar tree on the South side that blocked the South’s view of various points within the JSA ‘corral’ (OP 5 and UNC CP3).  In terms of preparedness for a sudden surge from the North (they have a barracks on site, and build tunnels into South Korea) this need for an unobstructed view is understood.

At UNC CP 3 there is a guard and the site sits next to the Demarcation Line. It is described by the on site troops as “the loneliest place in the world.”  Regular JSA site pruning and trimming was accepted by both sides and had been carried out without incident over the years. However, this area was often walked around by Korean guards as they looped around from their side via the Bridge of No Return and to the Barracks.  So, perhaps in one sense they came to accept it as ‘North Korean territory.’ At least the branches that spread out over on to their side.

Four UNC guards and six South Korean Service Corps began some routine cutting. They were questioned by a North Korean guard, who told them to leave the tree alone. Normal procedure would be for either side to call an immediate on-the-spot Security Officers Meeting in the conference room, but the North did not do so, nor lodge a protest.

Because the North had expressed interest in the tree, the South commander organised an additional ten security staff and put in place a number of other reasonable precautions, including cameras.  The workers had arrived at 10.30am to do the work. Ten North Koreans arrived and were briefed on the work.  20 minutes later, the North officer ordered the South to stop working.

The work continued. He took off his watch, wrapped it in a handkerchief, placed it in his pocket, and yelled “Kill the Americans.”

The North Koreans grabbed the workers’ axes in the and around the tree and targeted the two American officers nearby who immediately went down.  One of the workers drove the truck in front to try and protect the mutilated body of Cpt. Boniface.  This broke the momentum and the North Koreans scrambled back across the Bridge of No Return but not before Cpt Boniface and Lt Barrett had been hacked to death.

The incident escalated tensions, military assets were scrambled, and tensions rose.

A few days later, several S. Korean and American units formed a ring around the tree (Operation Bunyan) and Engineers cut the poplar down limb by limb. The soldiers were told to defend themselves if attacked.  A number of back-up units were positioned in a chain outside the JSA, for immediate backup and assistance if things went sour.  The Bridge of No Return was blocked by a truck. The delicate issues were eventually resolved at a Joint Military Armistice meeting. But this tree came close to sparking WW III.

You pass this site on a tour of the JSA.

Operation Paul Bunyan, 1976, and the trimming and final felling of the poplar tree, which took almost an hour amidst highly strained international tension.

Leaving the JSA and back to the Dora Observatory and military base (see Part 4) below. You can see the viewing platform at the far left.

And some military hardware, as well as this man having a surreptitious bong, in the carpark.

With one of the Observation Post guards at Dora.

South Korean ROC at Dora. Cool guns.

And finally, the view from the balcony towards North Korea and I think the Kaesong Industrial Complex (NK).

Next time, Final (Part 8): Tanks, Planes, Temples and some LoTR Southron Warriors.

A wave became a tsunami that broke records

The November 4 mid-term election results were a tsunami for Republicans breaking various records in the process:

• House: At the projected 250 seats, this is the highest number of Republican seats in the House since 1928
• Senate: The likely 9 Senate seat gain is the largest by the party not holding the White House since Eisenhower’s GOP lost 12 Senate seats in 1958. Please note that right now the gain is officially at 7 but Republican Sullivan is 4% ahead of Democrat Begich in Alaska pending only special votes – overcoming this margin of victory is impossible. Louisiana is headed to a run-off election in December because no candidate made 50%. Sitting Democrat Landrieu faced moderate (Cassidy) and Tea Party (Mannes) Republican opponents who scored 41% and 12% respectively to her 42% in what LA calls a jungle primary. In the two horse race in the runoff, the Tea Party Republican vote will coalesce around Cassidy giving the GOP their 9^th seat
• Governorships: At 31 Governor’s seats, this is the most the GOP has held since the 1920’s
• State Legislatures: At 67 to 69 State legislatures (final results waiting on counting of the US equivalent of special votes) this is the most state lower and upper chambers that the GOP has won also since 1928. At 4,001 state level legislative seats, it is in excess of the 1928 high tide mark and represents the highest Republican penetration since Reconstruction!
• The GOP now have control of all three arms of state government (Governor, State Lower and Upper Houses) in 24 states versus only 7 states where the Democrats have similar dominance.

Obama’s mid-term record was the worst in the modern era

When you add the record 63 Democrat House seats that Obama lost in the 2010 mid-terms to the likely 18 he seems to have lost in 2014 AND the likely 9 Senate seats, no other President has seen his party so badly beaten in the mid-terms since President Wilson’s tenure in office (1913 to 1921).

Candidate competency makes a difference

Republicans made a series of poor candidate selections in winnable Senate races in 2010 and 2012 and not only failed to get them elected but they actually lost Senate seats in 2012. Tea Party influence in the GOP Primaries in 2010 and 2012 threw up a slew of more extremist unelectable candidates (Buck in Colorado, Angle in Nevada, O’Donnell in Delaware) who were easily beaten by vulnerable Democrat incumbents. Add major pratfalls on the campaign trail in 2012 by Aitken in Missouri and Mourdoch in Indiana on the subject of abortions for rape victims and what should’ve been dead certain pickups by the GOP against unpopular Democrat opponents in a tough cycle for Democrats left the GOP well short of its goal to take over the Senate.

Those sorts of mistakes were avoided in this cycle. A raft of moderate and reasonable candidates won GOP primaries and they ended up campaigning strongly, maintained excellent message discipline, debated well against their opponents and were adequately funded by the Republican National Committee.

The polls were wrong

In 2012 I, along with a number of reputable Republican commentators including the inestimable psephologist Michael Barone, predicted a Romney win based on various pollsters’ 2012 turnout models that took a mid-point between the 2008 Obama wave and the 2010 Republican wave. It transpired that the Obama campaign used its massive technology and money advantage to almost replicate their 2008 turnout thus many polls overstated Republican support.

This time the opposite happen with some spectacular polling failures that favoured Democrats. The RCP (Real Clear Politics – a website that aggregates all public polling data) polling averages for the following were off: Tom Cotton’s RCP had him up by 5 over Pryor in Arkansas but he smashed him by 17; Mitch McConnell’s RCP had him up by 7 but he won by 14, Mark Warner’s RCP average had him up by almost 10 points in Virginia and yet he clings to a lead of less than a percentage point. In Georgia, David Perdue was 3 up but won by 8 and avoided a run off. The governor’s races also featured big polling failures. Scott Walker in Wisconsin was up by only two in the RCP average and yet he won easily by 6. In Illinois, Pat Quinn was up by a little less than a percentage point but he lost by nearly 5. In Kansas, Sam Brownback was losing by 2 and yet he won by just under 4 points. Esteemed polling and elections analyst Nate Silver of the 538 Blog estimated polls in 2014 were out by an average of 4% in favour of Democrats.

Democrats ran from Obama but they couldn’t hide

The President’s poor personal popularity and the widespread rejection of his agenda and lack of achievements meant vulnerable Democrats contorted themselves like pretzels to avoid being associated with Obama. He was not invited to campaign events and a couple of candidates farcically refused to answer questions from reporters about whether they voted personally for Obama in 2008 or 2012. In Kansas the Democrats tried to oust unpopular incumbent Republican senator Pat Roberts by running a telegenic unknown businessman Greg Orman as an nominal (and as it turned out fake) Independent who Kansas voters rightly deduced was just a Democrat stalking horse. Any Democrat running in so-called red states (yes in the US red is the colour for the right leaning Republicans and blue for the left leaning Democrats) did so never mentioning their party affiliation or their association with Obama. When pressed on Obama’s controversial liberal policies, candidates in coal country publicly would pledge to “stand up for coal miners” (despite secretly supporting Obama’s draconian EPA regulations against coal) or “to reform Obamacare from the inside” after voting usually 95% + for Obama’s agenda. Voters weren’t fooled.

Obamacare is electorally toxic

Obama’s signature legislative achievement has become a millstone around the necks of his party’s legislators who passed it into law. Obamacare (or to give it its official title the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was passed under a welter of devious maneuverings using arcane Senate rules. Normal legislation is subject to filibuster (needs 60 votes in favour) but budget measures need only a simple majority to pass. In early 2010 Obama lost his filibuster proof majority in the Senate when Scott Brown won the special election held to fill the vacancy left in Massachusetts after Ted Kennedy died. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid broke with all precedent and departed from a long tradition of landmark legislation passing with bi-partisan support and slipped the Obamacare Bill into a hollowed out budget Bill and it passed through both houses of Congress on simple majority without a single Republican vote.

It was an inauspicious beginning to a law that become increasingly more unpopular when it was apparent that the three big promises Obama made about the law were quickly broken. Firstly “if you want your doctor you can keep your doctor” was proven false because so many Obamacare compliant plans could only offer remotely affordable premiums if the network of providers was curtailed. Horror stories emerged of terminally ill patients under the care of specialists effectively keeping them alive being told that their doctor was no longer ‘in-network’. Secondly – the promise that “if you like your plan you can keep your plan” also proved false for millions as employers, facing huge premium hikes, released employees from company plans giving them the premium equivalent in cash thus forcing them to use the Obamacare exchanges to get their health insurance. The exchanges offered inferior plans with more expensive premiums, higher excesses and higher out of pocket expenses. The final promise to curtail premium increases (“bend the cost curve down”) proved to also be false with almost all insurance plans facing multiple year on year double digit premium increases usually because the law required all plans include a range of basic coverage items that previously could be left out if not needed (e.g. maternity care – not needed by older couples, drug/alcohol treatment – no needed by non-drinkers etc.).

The coup de grâce for Obamacare was the incredibly botched rollout of the exchanges – on line portals supposedly designed to enable people to shop for the best coverage. The federal exchange costing some $300 million and which was the only portal for over 30 states, for the first few months after launch crashed, trapping applicants in a frozen screen hell. It was full of bugs and security holes (no guarantee security of private information), was very slow and was unable to transmit information accurately to insurers. This prevented millions from enrolling and there were myriads of processing, subsidy qualification and enrolment issues. At the state level there were even greater catastrophes with three state exchanges (each involving close to $100 million in wasted development costs to create) that were so bad that they were eventually abandoned by the states. It was the perfect illustration of big government overreach and failure and a huge indictment of Obama given that this was supposedly the crowning achievement of his first term as President but was an abject failure. Democrats from the House and Senate who voted for Obamacare (almost all seeking re-election) were relentlessly targeted by Republicans for their vote for this unpopular law. GOP candidates all over the US pledged to defund or repeal Obamacare. Exit polls show health care was the No 2 issue after the economy so efforts by the left to downplay the electoral toxicity of Obamacare failed.

Democrats ran on faux issues because Obama’s record was too hard to run on

Democrats couldn’t run on the economy because the recovery on Main St and amongst the middle class is so anemic (in contrast to booming Wall St); they couldn’t run on Obamacare for the reasons stated above; they couldn’t run on making government work better after governmental pratfalls such as the scandal of falsified waiting lists at the Veterans Administration Hospitals (leading to injured soldiers dying on waiting lists) or poor protective protocols from the Centre for Diseases Control that failed to block US citizens with Ebola from entering the country using political correctness as the reason for not enacting the sorts of travel bans the Canadians, Australians and French enacted and they couldn’t run on Obama’s foreign policy successes after the red line in Syria that wasn’t, him ignoring intelligence agency warnings on the rise of ISIS, his tensions with Israel and no progress towards a lasting solution in Palestine, the botched negotiations with Iran over its nuclear ambitions and the failure to curb Russian military aggression in Ukraine. So they ran on bashing the rich Koch brothers, a phony ‘war on women’, climate change scaremongering and used tired old race baiting scare tactics with screeds of hysterical over the top negative advertising. None of these tactics worked.

The Republican ‘War on Women’ meme pounded by Democrats crashed and burned

Democrat candidates across the country waged a shameless campaign of scaremongering against pro-life Republicans of both sexes claiming, if elected, they would reverse or suspend women’s reproductive rights. This reached an almost ludicrous level in the Colorado Senate race where incumbent Democrat Mark Udall tried to brand his pro-choice rival Cory Gardner as a right wing extremist over his prior tentative support for a Personhood Bill in the Colorado House that he withdrew support for because it was too narrowly focused. Udall’s campaigning against Gardner became so focused on this one issue that even the very liberal Denver media dubbed him Mark ‘Uterus’. Pro-life Republicans, especially the women, neutralized these ‘war on women’ attacks by going public with their support for a draft US House Bill to make certain contraceptives available over the counter. This relatively routine reform was used as an effective shield against pro-choice Democrat attacks by demonstrating the moderate and reasonable actual stances these Republican candidates were taking.

Republicans nominated a record number of minority candidates who won

The election results were littered with a range of firsts for minority candidates:

• First black Republican elected to the Senate from the South since Reconstruction (Tim Scott in South Carolina)
• First black Republican woman elected to Congress (Mia Love in Utah’s 4^th District)
• First women Congressman elected from Iowa (Joni Ernst – Senate)
• First women Senator elected from West Virginia (Shelley Capito)
• Youngest woman ever elected to Congress at aged 30 (Elise Stefanik in New York’s 21^st District)

The biggest upsets were the in Governor’s races

Based on polling averages, the GOP were predicted to be down 1 net governor’s mansion and yet they ended up gaining 4/losing 2 for a net gain of 2 (or 3 better than expected). The wins were notable in that they were in Democrat strongholds such as Massachusetts, Illinois and Maryland. In fact Larry Hogan’s win over Anthony Brown in Maryland by 5 points against pre-election average polls of Democrat +5 was the upset of the night. Part and parcel of the GOP’s success at the Gubernatorial level was their successful defense of several governors universally seen by the media as under threat and likely to go to the Democrats (Scott – Florida, Brownback – Kansas, LePage – Maine, Snyder – Michigan and Deal – Georgia). In the end only unpopular and controversial Pennsylvania GOP Governor Corbett was ousted by his Democrat rival with the Alaska GOP Governor Parnell being beaten by an Independent.

 November 4^th’s most significant victory: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s re-election

Scott Walker was elected Governor in 2010 in a state that has reliably voted for Democrat Presidents since Reagan in 1984. He won narrowly in 2010 and proceeded to deal to the public sector unions who had amassed considerable power under successive Democrat governors and state legislatures. A neat money-go-round of compulsory union membership and automatically deducted dues gave these unions’ huge war chests that they used to donate to Democrat candidates who then in turn legislated to enhance the power and protection of unions. Walker ended the racket by passing laws that made union membership voluntary and that union members had to pay their dues themselves no longer able to have them deducted by their employer. The law’s attempted passage was met with loud and vehement opposition complete with occupations of the State Capitol and Democrat legislators illegally fleeing to neighbouring Illinois in an attempt to avoid the vote from even being taken (WI State Troopers found them and brought them back to vote). The law passed and resulted in a 70% drop in union membership and plummeting financial clout. Unions and wealthy liberal donors all over the US donated millions to a recall election in 2012 that Walker easily won despite $25 million of outside money that poured in. Walker’s legislative reforms also survived recall attempts on key GOP State Senate members and GOP appointees to the State Supreme court. In this his third election in 4 years, Walker had to overcome negative publicity arising from spurious and politically motivated Grand Jury indictments from partisan Democrat local prosecutors on trumped up election finance irregularities – charges throw out of the State Supreme and two Federal Courts and his third Democrat opponent also being very well funded by outside liberal money.

Walker is a class act – young, articulate, handsome, genuine and unflappable turing turned around a moribund state economy, slashing costs for school districts no longer burdened by union imposed inflated health care premiums and feather bedding hiring practices all policies resulting in plummeting unemployment. Walker’s success from solid conservative economic reforms, his street cred batting off sustained waves of nationally funded leftist attacks and his undeniable electoral success in the face of such opposition has catapulted him to the top tier of Republican Presidential hopefuls for the open race in 2016. Watch this space – Walker will be a formidable opponent with many electoral pluses and few minuses.

On Day 2 we sailed South and landed near Yumani.

A fairly steep climb up the hill. We are close to 4,000 metres above sea level (Lake Titicaca is the highest navigable lake in the world) so was hard going.

This structure pre-dates the Incas, and is thought to be 3,000 years old.

This is some of the inside of this 3,000 year old structure. The island was only opened to the public around 35 years ago and previously it was used to hold political prisoners – some of whom lived in here.

These two Bolivian girls were on the cruise and bus with us. The story behind this photo is they are showing off their new sunhats, which they purchased  after they got a bit burnt yesterday. They had exclaimed how they would struggle getting boyfriends due to their sunburn. An Australian commented he didn’t think they had to worry much 🙂

A great view from on top.

One alpaca.

And another.

This garden is a display of all the traditional plants and vegetables and what they were used for.

We had morning tea here with this view.

Then went around a museum – saw a large display of crops they use.

Traditional inca costume.

Another costume – to represent a Morenada.

Had a brief cruise on this traditional sailing ship. A scientist has a theory that the Pacific Islands were colonised by Latin Americans sailing on ships like this.

Then we headed by bus up to Puno, which is also on the shores of Lake Titicaca, but in Peru. This is the no mans zone between Bolivia and Peru.

And now we are in Peru, the last country of our trip.

Philip Rucker and Robert Costa from the Washington Post have written an article about the Democratic and Republican campaigns for the mid-term Senate elections.  The over riding picture one gets when reading the article is one side (the GOP) were much more organised and willing to deal with issues than the Democrats were.

Whilst Republican Mitch McConnell was dealing with the issue of Pat Roberts’ poor campaign in the Kansas Senate race mistrust between the Obama White House and Democratic Senate colleagues was growing. In particular there was tension between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Chief of Staff David Krone and the White House.

 Democrats were trying to overcome problems of their own — including difficulties with a White House suspicious of their leadership and protective of the president’s reputation, his political network and his biggest donors.

After years of tension between President Obama and his former Senate colleagues, trust between Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue had eroded. A fight between the White House and Senate Democrats over a relatively small sum of money had mushroomed into a major confrontation.

At a March 4 Oval Office meeting, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and other Senate leaders pleaded with Obama to transfer millions in party funds and to also help raise money for an outside group. “We were never going to get on the same page,” said David Krone, Reid’s chief of staff. “We were beating our heads against the wall.”

None of this paints a pretty picture of relations between Harry Reid and Barack Obama. Also why has there been tension between Obama and his own colleagues for years?

The tension represented something more fundamental than money — it was indicative of a wider resentment among Democrats in the Capitol of how the president was approaching the election and how, they felt, he was dragging them down. All year on the trail, Democratic incumbents would be pounded for administration blunders beyond their control — the disastrous rollout of the health-care law, problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs, undocumented children flooding across the border, Islamic State terrorism and fears about Ebola.

As these issues festered, many Senate Democrats would put the onus squarely on the president — and they were keeping their distance from him.

“The president’s approval rating is barely 40 percent,” Krone said. “What else more is there to say? . . . He wasn’t going to play well in North Carolina or Iowa or New Hampshire. I’m sorry. It doesn’t mean that the message was bad, but sometimes the messenger isn’t good.”

So despite the talk from prominent Democrats such as the Vice President that they were going to hold the Senate they must have known in their heart of hearts that it was going to be a tough fight.

According to Rucker and Costa the GOP had a simple strategy.

1. Don’t make mistakes.
2. Make the elections all about Obama.
3. Get good electable candidates then coach them properly.

The Republicans had some interesting methods to induct new candidates.

Minutes after landing at Reagan National Airport one day early this year, many GOP Senate hopefuls found themselves besieged at baggage claim by people with cameras yelling questions at them about abortion and rape.

This was no impromptu news conference but rather Republican staffers in disguise, trying to shock the candidates into realizing the intensity of what lay before them.

Coming back to the Republicans and the troublesome Kansas Senate race. Mitch McConnell took a leading role once he was alerted to the bumbling fumbling campaign Pat Roberts was running and insisted changes were made thus getting the show back on the road.

The overall impression is that the GOP were more determined to win, had better campaign leadership and had a much better ground game. They were no doubt motivated to do better after the 2012 presidential campaign loss.

News.com.au reports:

Peter Beddoe, 49, from South Wales, claimed nearly $54,000 in disability benefits while at the same time competing in bodybuilding championships, even taking out the title in the Mr Wales Over 40 contest. …

He was being paid the higher rate of disability allowance meant for people who could not walk, Wales Online reported.

He scammed the system claiming he needed a walking stick, crutches or other means of support to be able to get around, a far cry from the images of him strutting his stuff on stage.

Officials from the Department of Work and Pensions launched an investigation after two tip offs that he was illegally claiming benefits while competing in bodybuilding contests.

The investigation uncovered that he made 340 visits to the gym in one year alone, using weights in his training sessions.

Prosecutor Stuart McLeese said, “Between 2008 and 2013 he visited the gym more than 1,100 times.”

Not bad for someone who claimed he couldn’t walk!

The latest jobs and wages data from Stats NZ finds:

• Employment up 72,000 in last year, being 66,000 full-time and 6,000 part-time
• Unemployment down 14,000 in last year
• Labour force up by 57,000
• Unemployment rate down to 5.4%, from 6.1% a year ago
• NZ 9th lowest unemployment rate in OECD of 34 countries.
• Unemployment rate now 0.7% lower than Australia and US, 0.9% lower than UK and 1.5% lower than Canada
• The NEET (Not in employment, education or training) rate for under 20s down to 7.2% from 8.1% a year ago
• Average weekly earnings up (over year) 1.8%, being 2.2% in private sector and 1.4% in public sector
• Average hourly earnings up 2.4%, being 3.0% in private sector and 1.0% in public sector
• Male hourly earnings up 2.0% and female hourly earnings up 2.7%

Stuff reports:

Green Party MP  Steffan Browning has been stripped of his natural health products portfolio following this morning’s party caucus meeting.

It follows Browning signing a petition last week encouraging the World Health Organisation to consider the use of homeopathic remedies to combat the Ebola pandemic.

Green co-leader Metiria Turei said the natural health products portfolio had been rolled into the health portfolio.

This meant Kevin Hague would become the party’s spokesman on all issues relating to health.

“It is a clear signal to the country that the Green Party treats health matters based on evidence,” Turei said.

A smart move by the Greens, as Browning’s actions have reinforced perceptions that they are anti-science.

Of course Browning remains their spokesperson on Agriculture, Fisheries, Organics, GE, Forestry, Biosecurity & Customs, and Security & Intelligence.

After a very brief stay back in La Paz, we headed by bus up to Lake Titicaca for a couple of days. The road out of La Paz was quite congested.

This is the foreshore of Copacabana, which looked like an English seaside resort with all the recreational devices.

The Basilica of Our Lady of Copacabana which was another incredibly beautiful Catholic church. Most don’t allows photos inside, which is a pity as they are stunning.

Two dogs using a prank bench as shelter.

An entire street that sells basically nothing but popcorn.

Instead of Coca Cole, they have Inca Kola. At first I thought it was a rip off of Coke, but it turns out to be produced by Coke. Tastes like Mellow Yellow.

Some cool architecture.

A view of Copacabana from the Lake.

We went to Challapampa in the north of the Isla del Sol or Island of the Sun. This is regarded as the birthplace of the Inca Empire. We then got transferred by rowing boat to a shore.

This is where we landed.

We then saw this 800 year old Inca structure.

Then a walk of a couple of kms back to the town.

Lots of donkeys on the island.

Challapampa.

This pig is tied up down at the beach. I hope for his sake, this is high tide, not low tide.

Amused by this house. You wouldn’t want to walk out the second floor doors in a hurry!

Popped into a local house, and they had this guinea pig pen, which is of course for dinner that night.

The catamaran we were on, which includes an overnight stay on it.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Council’s budget committee has voted 16-7 for a proposal to increase rates by 3.5 per cent for each year of a new 10-year budget.

The proposal got the backing of Mayor Len Brown, who promised voters to hold rates at 2.5 per cent this term.

Unable to control spending, Len instead has broken his word and voted to sock ratepayers with huge increases.

For a 3.5 per cent increase: Len Brown, Penny Webster, Arthur Anae, Cathy Casey, Bill Cashmore, Ross Clow, Linda Cooper, Chris Darby, Alf Filipaina, Penny Hulse, Mike Lee, Calum Penrose, John Walker, Wayne Walker and Maori Statutory Board members David Taipari and John Tamihere.

Against: Cameron Brewer, Chris Fletcher, Denise Krum, Dick Quax, Sharon Stewart, John Watson, George Wood.

You now know who to vote for.

The new proposal is for rates increases of 3.5 per cent for each of the next 10 years – a cumulative total of 41 per cent over the next decade.

The latest inflation figure is 1 per cent for the year to September.

Rates are increasing three times faster than inflation.

The new proposal is for rates increases of 3.5 per cent for each of the next 10 years – a cumulative total of 41 per cent over the next decade.

The latest inflation figure is 1 per cent for the year to September.

Exactly.

A good night for the Republicans in the mid-terms, and not so good for the pollsters with Republicans on average doing 6% better in competitive Senate races, than he polls had them.

Let’s look at the results by type.

Senate

• Republicans are ahead 52 to 45 with Alaska, Louisiana and Virginia yet to declare. Louisiana goes to a run off which is likely to go Republican. With 50% counted they are 5% ahead in Alaska, so at this stage a 54 to 46 majority is most likely
• Incumbent Democrats Mark Pryor in Arkansas and Mark Udall in Colorado lost their seats by 17% and 5%
• Joni Ernst won by 9% in Iowa. Her initial campaign ad talked of her experience castrating hogs and how it would help her cut pork in Washington! She is also a a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard and the first woman to be elected to Congress from Iowa
• Shelley Moore Capito won West Virginia for the Republicans making her the first female Senator for West Virginia and the first Republican Senator in that seat since the 1950s
• John Kasich won strongly in Ohio, a key electoral college state
• Pat Roberts defeated independent Greg Orman by 11% in Kansas
• Michelle Nunn lost by a huge 18% in Georgia, which was seen as a close race.
• In what was thought to be a safe seat for Democratic Mark Warner, Virginia was retained by just 1%
• The one bright spot for the Democrats was the retention of New Hampshire for Jeanne Shaheen against former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown

Governors

• The Republicans did better than expected winning five gubernatorial races where the Democrats had led in the polls – Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois and Kansas. They have so far gained three states in total
• In a shock result, Republican Larry Hogan defeated Anthony Brown in heaving Democratic Maryland
• Massachusetts was won by Charlie Baker for the Republicans
• Rick Scott beat Charlie Crist by 1% in Florida. Crist is a former Republican who defected.
• Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker won re-election by 5% against a furious campaign from the left due to his union reforms
• Wendy Davis lost in Texas which was expected, but she lost by a bigger margin that her predecessor. Her national profile and hype did not translate to votes.
• The only pick up for the Democrats was Pennsylvania

House

• Republicans projected to gain between 14 and 18 seats in the House. If they gain over 246 seats it will be their best result since 1929 in the House. They have 242 confirmed and 13 races not yet decided.
• Mia Love for elected in Utah to become the first black Republican woman elected to Congress. Utah is less than 1% black. She won the seat off the Democrats.
• The youngest ever woman elected to Congress is 30 year old Republican Elise Stefanik who won New York’s 21st by 24%. It has been held by the Democrats for 22 years. She is no political novice having got a job at the White House at age 21
• Clay Aiken failed to win North Carolina’s 2nd district by 18%

General

• Referenda on legalising personal use of cannabis passed in Oregon and Washington DC and leads in Alaska. It failed in Florida but that is because they need 60% to pass and it got 58%.
• Referenda to have mandatory GMO labelling have lost in Colorado and Oregon

The Herald headline:

Key reveals 80 Kiwis linked to Islamic State

Up to 80 New Zealanders have been linked to the extremist group Islamic State and are being closely watched by Government agencies, Prime Minister John Key has revealed.

The Stuff headline:

40 Kiwis watched for extremism, PM says

Up to 40 people are being monitored by government agencies as possible foreign fighters because of their engagement in ”extremist” behaviour, Prime Minister John Key claims.

And people wonder why trust in media is low!

For those wondering the difference, the PM’s speech says that the watch list has 30 – 40 on it and there are a further 30 to 40 who require further investigation. So they are not on a watch list, but may end up on it. I’d say the Stuff story is more accurate even though neither is inaccurate.

The changes the PM is proposing are:

1. Allow passports to be cancelled on national security grounds for up to three years, instead of one year, but allow a judicial review of the decision
2. Allow a passport suspension for up to 10 working days while a cancellation is considered
3. A $7 million funding boost for the SIS, so they can assess those needing further investigation
4. A law change to allow the SIS, like the Police, to install (with a warrant) a video camera for the purpose of observing activities of security concern, such as weapons training
5. An emergency power for the SIS to conduct urgent surveillance for up to 48 hours before a warrant is granted, subject to the oversight of the Inspector-General. Any use would be reported publicly

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th seem fine to me. I’d like to see the case made for the 1st proposal and have some concerns over the last one.

Jan Logie writes at Frog Blog:

The level of inequality in New Zealand is killing children.

Babies born to the most deprived 20 percent of New Zealand families are five times more likely to die than those born to the wealthiest 20 percent.

Five times as likely to die.

First of all can someone please explain to the Green MP the difference between correlation and causation. Or it is possible she knows the difference, but ignored it.

Also explain the difference between deprivation and wealth.  The deprivation rating is the rating for the overall neighbourhood, and not for the individual family – plus it is not just a measure of income.

The Herald reports:

London Mayor and parliamentary hopeful Boris Johnson is backing a report by a British think-tank which calls for New Zealanders and Australians to freely live and work in Britain.

Mr Johnson has written a foreword to a Commonwealth Exchange report which calls for Kiwis and Australians to be given the same rights to travel and work in the United Kingdom as people from the European Union. …

It recommended establishing a “bilateral mobility zone” which would allow Kiwis and Aussies to travel and work in Britain and Britons to travel and work reciprocally in those two countries. A similar argument was made for Canada.

Sounds a great idea.

For those who argue NZ would be swamped by British workers, well look at the benefits of CER where we have an open labour market with Australia.

It won’t happen of course, but is a good idea.