A story in Hawke’s Bay Today has revelations that appear to have been overlooked by other media. They report:

A Wellington businessman has challenged Napier MP Stuart Nash’s claims that a report into starting a new political party by National Party and Dirty Politics figure Simon Lusk was commissioned without his knowledge. …

Wellington businessman Troy Bowker and a man known only as “Ned” approached Mr Nash about starting a new political party. He said he told them he wasn’t interested and, unbeknownst to him, they commissioned a report with Mr Lusk.

Mr Nash said Mr Johnson sent the surfaced email because he mistakenly believed Mr Nash had commissioned the report himself. But Mr Bowker told Hawke’s Bay Today yesterday that, contrary to Mr Nash’s version of events, the Napier MP told them to come back when the report was done.

“We might have had an early conversation with Stuart, he said he wasn’t that keen on the idea … He said let me know when you’ve had a look at the report.” Mr Bowker and his business associate “Ned” approached Stuart Nash proposing to set up a new “centre, centre-right [political] party”, and Mr Nash was aware a report was being commissioned.

Mr Nash yesterday maintained he didn’t know about the report until after the fact.

“I didn’t know they were going to commission a report.”

There is a direct contradiction of evidence between what Mr Bowker and Mr Nash say.

Love this ad by the Internet Party of Ukraine.

Related to this Stuff reports:

In a galaxy far, far, away – Odessa, the third-largest city in Ukraine – several Star Wars characters have managed to register as official candidates in the upcoming election. With names like Darth V. Vader, Stepan Chubakka (Chewbacca), Master V. Yoda, and Padme N. Amidala listed on the candidate roster, voters can’t be blamed for looking twice at the ballot.

Here’s another of their campaign videos

In a galaxy far, far, away – Odessa, the third-largest city in Ukraine – several Star Wars characters have managed to register as official candidates in the upcoming election. With names like Darth V. Vader, Stepan Chubakka (Chewbacca), Master V. Yoda, and Padme N. Amidala listed on the candidate roster, voters can’t be blamed for looking twice at the ballot.

Vernon Small reports:

Prime Minister John Key says New Zealand could offer the airforce’s “airlift capacity” as part of a contribution to the international military action against Islamic State (IS) militants.

Key is also signalling that Cabinet will tomorrow take the first step towards cracking down on New Zealanders who go to fight alongside IS, by extending the time passports can be cancelled and by making fighting with IS an explicit criminal act.

Speaking on TV One’s Q+A programme, Key said a range of options were being considered for New Zealand involvement in the IS conflict but more work was needed before a final decision.

Any action should be “useful, practical and work”, he said. That could range from humanitarian action, which was already under way, and include military options such as training, “to ultimately people who would be there right on the front line”.

“The last bit is some sort of military support, but not necessarily people on the ground, so it could be airlift capability.”

I’m very against sending actual combat troops such as the SAS in. But something such as airlift capability sounds a good way of supporting the effort, without risking getting bogged down in a long-term conflict with no exit strategy.

Was sent this by e-mail:

Subject : MR BRIAN BANSTER

FROM THE OFFICE MR BRIAN BANSTER
POWERSHOP NEW ZELAND (PSNZ).
WELLINGTON.
NEW ZELAND.

AWESOME SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT ROLE.

I AM BRIAN BANSTER, THE CTO OF NEW ZELAND POWERSHOP HERE IN WELLINGTON, NEW ZELAND. DURING THE COURSE OF OUR AUDITING,, I DISCOVERED A JOB OPPORTUNITY FOR A SOFTWARE DEVELOPER AND AFTER GOING THROUGH SOME OLD FILES IN THE RECORDS I DISCOVERED THAT THE ROLE IS AWESOME.

AND NOBODY HAS DISCOVERED THIS ROLE AS THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THIS ROLE IS A FOREIGNER, HE DIED, SINCE 2003 AND NO OTHER PERSON KNOWS ABOUT THIS ROLE OR ANY THING CONCERNING IT, THE ROLE HAS NO OTHER APPLICATIONS AND MY INVESTIGATION PROVED TO ME AS WELL THAT PREVIOUS HOLDER DIE. I AM CONTACTING YOU THIS ROLE CAN ONLY BE APPROVED TO ANY SOFTWARE DEVELOPER WITH VALID INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE OR DRIVERS LICENSE AND BANK ACCOUNT BECAUSE THE MONEY IS IN NZ DOLLARS (NZ $) AND THE FORMER OWNER OF THE ROLE IS A FOREIGNER AND DIED.

WITH MY INFLUENCE AND THE POSITION OF THE TECHNOLOGY OFFICAL WE CAN TRANSFER THIS ROLE TO YOU WITH ASSURANCE THAT THIS EXPERENCE WILL BE AWESOME. ON THE CONCLUSION OF THIS TRANSACTION YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO 100% OF THE SALARY AS GRATIFICATION AND ALSO TELEPHONE BILLS, WHILE 21.8% WILL BE FOR ME.

SO ON THE INDICATION OF YOUR WILLINGNESS I WANT YOU TO FORWARD TO ME IN STRICTEST CONFIDANCE YOUR :FULL NAME: EMAIL ADDRESS: GITHUB IF ANY FULL CONTACT ADDRESS: PHONE: CELL: FAX: CITY: STATE:ZIP CODE COUNTRY: OCCUPATION AND ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION WILL BE SENT TO YOU ON THE ACCEPTANCE TO CHAMPION THIS RUBY JAVA NET TRANSACTION WITH ME.

THANKS
IN TRUST
BRIAN BANSTER
POWERSHOP NEW ZELAND (PSNZ)

Very well done. I like the spelling mistakes, and the caps, just like real scams.

This post draws mostly on material from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) who conduct independent non-partisan analysis of budget and economic issues for the US Congress. All dollar amounts are in US currency.

Categories of federal spending
The National Priorities Project defines the categories as follows:

Within total federal spending, there are three distinct ways our public dollars are spent: discretionary spending, which is determined by Congress during the annual appropriations process; mandatory spending, which is determined through eligibility rules and benefit levels already in existing legislation; and paying interest on the federal debt.

For example entitlements are mandatory spending whereas money spent on the US military is discretionary.

Why is the federal government debt of concern?
The inability of the US Federal Government and lawmakers to find a long term solution to its debt problem has made it a political hot potato for many years. The only President who has had any real success in modern times in bringing deficits under control was Bill Clinton. By working with like minded Republicans he managed to achieve surpluses.

The CBO has estimated that between 2014 and 2024 the annual deficits will be between $500-$960 billion adding $7 trillion dollars to the debt (assuming no change in policies). That would be in addition to the current accumulated debt of $17.8 trillion which is 72% of GDP and by 2038 will reach 100% of GDP if current policies remain in place.

The CBO when discussing mandatory spending expresses concern about the ongoing cost of entitlements:

CBO’s projections for total mandatory spending mask diverging trends for different components of such spending. CBO projects that, under current law, spending for Social Security and the major health care programs, notably Medicare and Medicaid, would grow from 9.8 percent of GDP in 2014 to 11.2 percent by 2023, driven largely by the aging of the population, rising health care costs per person, and an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance.

It is these entitlements which are clearly in the most need of reform as the next graphic shows.

Federal spending in the 2014 financial year

So out of $3,78 trillion in total spending $2.28 trillion was spent on Medicare and health plus Social Security and unemployment etc. That is 62% of all spending is on entitlements. No wonder the GOP don’t like the President’s progressive agenda! Also bear in mind  the CBO in its Long-Term Budget Outlook have calculated that entitlement spending and interest on the public debt based on the current law and policies will contribute to spending rising by 26% by 2039 .

Obama’s debt-reduction plan
In 2011 Obama released details of his plan which included proposals to increase taxes on the wealthy, eliminating loopholes and deductions. He also proposed modest changes to Medicare and Medicaid but none to Social Security. Finally there were also cuts in military spending.

Paul Ryan’s 2015 path to prosperity
Ryan who was Mitt Romney’s running mate in 2012 has released his own plan. The main features are:

• Seeks to balance the budget within 10 years.
• Cut spending by $5.1 trillion (over 10 years).
• Taxation reform.
• Repeal Obamacare (saving $2 trillion).
• Reform Medicare and Medicaid.
• Keep a cap on discretionary spending.
• Reduce the public debt from 73% of GDP in 2015 to 56% by 2024.

Comment
So the battle lines have been drawn between Obama’s somewhat cautious approach to debt-reduction and Ryan’s much more comprehensive and bold approach. The Democrats of course will claim that Ryan’s budget plan will hurt those who need assistance the most and try to portray the Republicans as cold and unfeeling. The GOP argue that under current policies aren’t lean government and enough is enough. What they currently lack is someone who can effectively espouse their political philosophies.

The reality is that time isn’t on the US Federal Governments side when it comes to getting public debt under control. The longer the debt problem it is not tackled the harder the issue will be to solve. One thing is clear if the GOP control both houses of Congress after the mid-term elections they will put debt-reduction on the political agenda and pass Ryan’s plan. It will then be up to Barack Obama to decide his next move. Perhaps he could seek the counsel of Bill Clinton for tips on how to work with Republicans?

Sources
CBO: The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook
CBO: Options for Reducing the Deficit
Paul Ryan: The Path to Prosperity: Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution

[UPDATE]: I forgot to make it clear that there are two classifications for US federal government debt.

The Debt Held by the Public is all federal debt held by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, Federal Reserve Banks, foreign governments, and other entities outside the United States Government less Federal Financing Bank securities. Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds, and State and Local Government Series securities.

Intragovernmental Holdings are Government Account Series securities held by Government trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds; and Federal Financing Bank securities. A small amount of marketable securities are held by government accounts.

The CBO uses the debt held by the public figure which is currently just under $13 trillion when calculating accumulated debt and the what the amount of GDP this is (72%). Intragovernmental Holdings is essentially the US government borrowing money from itself.

A guest post by regular commentator Flipper:

The Fisher “expose” piece in relation to the Crewe, Thomas, and Hutton saga, in this morning’s Herald, has one element of truth of which Fisher is unaware – that relating to inside information given to Muldoon. But, importantly, that revelation adds to, and supports what Flipper was told (by an impeccable Royal Commission source, of which more later) at the time. Much of what follows has been previously published in other Kiwiblog threads. But today we have something new – a something that fills an empty jigsaw space.

Fisher quotes A A Thomas’ brother, Des, claiming today that Muldoon had received a detailed deathbed confession from one of Hutton’s conspirators. This is in relation to the content of a letter strongly advising against any pardon on the grounds that one would be to make a mockery of our system of justice

“…. Mr Thomas would not comment but his brother Des, who has spoken for the family, said there was a strong case to be made that Sir Robert had inside knowledge. He said there was evidence Len Johnston, one of the detectives implicated in the planting of evidence, had confessed on his deathbed in the late 1970s. The story – ruled out as true by the police review – saw the confession to his vicar passed to a bishop, who passed it to Sir Robert.”

Des Thomas said the story was credible despite police dismissing it because it explained why Sir Robert appointed Anglican Archbishop the Most Rev Allen Johnston as one of the royal commissioners.

That conclusion is supported by several things:
• The Solicitor General, Richard Savage, and Crown Law, did not appear at the Royal Commission, and it appears that they were instructed to remove themselves from involvement;
• The Crown prosecutor, Morris, had his own, personal, legal representation
• According to one of the Commissioners, Rt Hon Peter Gordon (aka “Hiss and Roar”), former Archbishop Johnston personally penned the words used in their report to condemn Hutton.

Then Solicitor General, Richard Savage, in a letter to Rob Muldoon….” said [Muldoon was Rt Hon “, not “Sir” then] could do nothing, he could refer the case with its report back to the Court of Appeal, or he could grant a pardon. He (Savage) told the Prime Minister: “I feel to pardon or release Thomas on the basis of this report would be to make a mockery of our system of justice. He said there was “nothing new” in the two reports which had not been before the courts.

Mr Savage said …. “To substitute his (Adams-Smith) opinion … for that of the juries and the courts would in my opinion be quite wrong.” He said Sir Robert’s other options were to refer it to the courts, which would allow the Government to base further action on a court decision and “not that of one man who, of necessity, could not hear the opposing points of view argued”.

He said the most “justified” response would be to take no action. He also suggested Sir Robert publicly announce it would be up to Mr Thomas to take the reports to the Governor-General to ask for a pardon.

Mr Savage’s opinion for Sir Robert was dated December 10, 1979.

“Exactly one week later Mr Thomas was pardoned. He was paid $950,000 compensation. The subsequent royal commission of inquiry into the conviction found that Mr Thomas should never have been arrested. [Fisher, as with much of what he writes, is wrong, The compensation was agreed later, following a separate RC hearing on that matter – Report of the Royal Commission ToR 6 – Paras 474 – 513]

“What did Muldoon know in order to get Adams-Smith to do the report? Did Len Johnston confess on his deathbed?”

As some will be aware, Flipper has previously posted details in relation to the internal manoeuvring of the Thomas Royal Commission. I know some of the inside, publicly undisclosed detail, from luncheon and dinner table conversations with more than one of the actual participants.

Let me state at the outset that the efforts of Booth, Sprott, Yallop, et al kept the issue in front of the public at a time when the judiciary had closed ranks and walked away. The inquiry by Adams-Smith was at the direction of Prime Minister Rob Muldoon, and was made over the objections of Crown Law, Crown Prosecutors, and Police.

But it was the senile former Justice McGregor whose door step dismissal of Muldoon that sealed the fate of the Thomas conspiracy. When the man previously tasked with reviewing all evidence in the Thomas case, looked at Muldoon and said he did not know who he was, it became clear to RDM that McGregor had simply done “the decent thing” for his judicial brethren — at the cost of the continued incarceration of an innocent man.

[There is a real similarity to what Savage’s wrote in defence of his legal brethren – no doubt with one eye on a Judicial appointment]

The first Adams-Smith report was widely published with only one section (then still under investigation) being redacted. The second resulted in a conversation between Muldoon and McLay. (Then Savage’s letter hit RDM’s desk) The latter (McLay) was instructed not to involve Crown Law or the Police prior to Cabinet discussion and decision. Muldoon took his recommendation to The Cabinet, had it endorsed, and instructed McLay to attend to the paper work. It was done, almost that quickly, and the Police first learned of the pardon from news media.

The Royal Commission faced an initial legal challenge (I will be kind and call it “clarification request”) from the CL/Police establishment on the meaning of a free pardon – a clarification that served to aid Thomas as time went by. The Royal Commission (Taylor, Gordon & Johnston) was faced with obfuscation, lies, and half-truths (a reminder that Fisher [former HC Judge and QC), not the Herald’s Fisher] had a piece of that), but they saw through them all. And, as I have previously commented in other threads, the former Archbishop Johnston was the original author of the words condemning Hutton. He would have gone further and linked Morris, but as one of the Commissioners (Peter Gordon) told me, “We could not link all the dots.” Morris , having been told that Crown Law had received instructions not to become involved, appointed his personal legal counsel to protect his interests.

The judicial pin-head dancing is all very well, and may, of course, be important.

But the judiciary does NOT exist to protect only the State or the Crown. It exists, does it not, to oversee the just administration/enforcement of New Zealand law? Recent events in relation to at least three other high profile cases suggest that nothing has changed. If Adams does take her new responsibilities seriously, she will move to adopt the Law Commission’s recommendation on the establishment of a Criminal Cases Review Commission – Stet.

The Texas Governor’s race between Wendy Davis (Democrat) and Greg Abbott (Republican) has taken what many call a nasty turn with Davis attacking Abbott in a controversial ad by mentioning that Abbot is a paraplegic.

Alex Pappas from The Daily Caller explains.

The campaign of Greg Abbott, a paraplegic running for governor of Texas as a Republican, is decrying the Democrat’s “disgusting” new television ad that uses his wheelchair against him.

Davis’ new ad, Justice, references the 1984 accident that paralyzed Abbott, while showing a photo of a wheelchair. “A tree fell on Greg Abbott,” the narrator says. “He sued and got millions.”

The ad then cites legal cases Abbott was involved in. “Since then, he’s spent his career working against other victims,” the narrator says.

Here is the ad:

By the way Davis is 13% behind Abbott in the polls and has little or no chance of winning. So is this legitimate political discourse or dirty politics on steroids? I must add it does make dirty politics in New Zealand look rather tame.

The Taxpayers Union released a report on Friday:

• Since National took office, corporate welfare has cost taxpayers $1-1.4 billion ($600 – $800 per household) per year
• If corporate welfare was abolished, enough money would be saved to reduce the corporate tax rate from 28% to 22.5%
• If applied to personal income tax rates, the saving would allow the 30% and 33% income tax rates to be lowered to 29%
• Alternatively, the 10.5% rate (applicable to the first $14,000 of income) could be reduced to 7%.

Some of the corporate welfare spend is justified, such as tourism. But what Government often misses is the opportunity cost. That if we didn’t spend all that money, what could you do instead – such as cut taxes. Imagine the top tax rate being just 29% or the company tax rate 23%. That would help boost economic growth also.

I encourage people to read the full report by Jim Rose. Is very well done.

Tracy Watkins writes:

Housing changes signalled by Key’s Cabinet reshuffle point the way. Budget 2015 is likely to see a big shift in resources away from Housing New Zealand to third-party providers like The Salvation Army and Presbyterian Support Services for the provision of social housing.

The aim is to boost the availability of social housing, minus any ideological hang-ups about who provides it, and divest the State over time of a housing portfolio that is growing more decrepit by the year and fails to meet demand in areas of highest need.

The Herald reports:

Nominations close on Tuesday and it appears increasingly likely acting leader David Parker will be a last-minute entrant.

A group of MPs, understood to include Kelvin Davis, have been pushing for him to put his name in although yesterday he again said his position had not changed. …

Former Labour leader David Shearer is also still considering a tilt. Yesterday he echoed concerns also expressed by Damien O’Connor that the leadership contest meant the candidates had to appeal to Labour members – but that did not necessarily translate into appealing to the wider voter base.

Little and Robertson are both on the left of the party. Cunliffe in reality is more centrist but went left to gain the leadership. Therefore all three candidates are fighting in the same space.

Stuff reports:

Last week Hamilton Gardens was named Garden of the Year at the prestigious 2014 International Garden Tourism Awards in Metz, France. It’s too big a stretch to say the almost 50ha site on the city’s Cobham Drive is the best public garden in the world, but it’s right up there, nominated and chosen for this honour by a global jury network.

They are a somewhat hidden treasure. I went there around two years ago and they’re a great place to spend half a day at.  The different country themed areas  especially works well.

Hamilton Gardens is the most visited tourist attraction in the Waikato with approximately one million visits per year. Half of these are tourists and those numbers are constantly increasing: 50 per cent are Hamiltonians; 30 per cent rest of New Zealand; 20 per cent international.

Annual 2013 Hamilton City Council budget for Gardens’ upkeep: $2.378 million.

Not too bad for 500,000 tourist visits a year from out of towners.

Stuff reports:

Grant Robertson has made his pitch for the party leadership, signalling a crackdown on banks, supermarkets and power companies and a plan to rebuild the party.

As he moved to counter the momentum building behind former party president Andrew Little’s bid, Robertson formally filed his nomination yesterday, signed symbolically by Maori MP Rino Tirikatene and Mana MP Kris Faafoi.

He is expected to launch his campaign in Auckland next week aiming to reverse the 2011 leadership launches where David Cunliffe overshadowed him.

As rumours swirled in the party that Cunliffe may withdraw, given Little’s hit on his union base, Robertson yesterday promised ‘‘a three-year programme to rebuild and reconnect the Labour Party as the driving force for progressive change’’.

The rumours over Cunliffe withdrawing have been around for weeks, but I’ll believe it when it happens.

But he defended key policies, saying Little had ‘‘possibly got ahead of himself’’ by questioning plans for a higher pension age, centralised wholesale power prices and a capital gains tax.

It’s a good thing, not a bad thing, if the different contenders put forward different policy programmes.

He endorsed aspects of former MP Shane Jones’ criticisms of supermarkets as one way to address issues that mattered to voters.

‘‘New Zealanders pay way too much for food  …  in a country where we produce enormous amounts of food. We need to look at supermarkets in the sense of the duopoly and what needs to change in the Commerce Act and how do we protect consumers,’’ he said.

I remind people of this graph, when Labour start talking food prices.

Low pay in supermarkets was also a problem.

‘‘We say to the supermarkets, ‘you’re in our society this is how we want it to be’.’’ 

Does anyone else see the problem here? In one breath you say food prices are too high and in the next that you want to increase costs for supermarkets.

He said Labour did not make the argument for lifting the minimum wage, which he agreed with.

‘‘But when he went into workplaces  …  you could see the workers there were worried that their boss couldn’t afford the minimum wage.’’ 

Smart workers.

But Labour first needed to build confidence and lift its vote to 40 per cent. It was easy for National to run a scare campaign about the Greens or Internet-Mana when Labour was on only 25 per cent, he said.

Yep. People don’t worry that much about the coalition partners when the main party is strong, but when the main party is weak, then it is more of an issue.

Lifting the vote from 25% to 40% is no small thing. That’s convincing 360,000 New Zealanders to change their vote to Labour.

Stuff reports:

Pakistani teenager Malala Yousafzai, who was shot in the head by the Taliban in 2012 for advocating girls’ right to education, and Indian children’s rights activist Kailash Satyarthi won the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday.

With the prize, Yousafzai, 17, becomes the youngest Nobel Prize winner, eclipsing Australian-born British scientist Lawrence Bragg, who was 25 when he shared the Physics Prize with his father in 1915.

That’s a great choice.

Yousafzai was attacked in 2012 on a school bus in the Swat Valley in northwest Pakistan by masked gunmen as a punishment for a blog that she started writing for the BBC’s Urdu service as an 11-year-old to campaign against the Taliban’s efforts to deny women an education.

To advocate for such a worthy cause at age 11 is impressive enough by itself.

The shooting of her saw three bullets fired from close range. One hit, and went into her forehead and under her skin into her shoulder. As of today no one has gone on trial for her attempted murder.

Someone asked me this question on Twitter, and I wasn’t sure so I asked the Cabinet Office if there were any guidelines about why some titles are “Minister of Health” and others “Ministers for Arts, Culture and Heritage”.

The short answer is that the PM decides, so it is up to him.

The longer answer is that the following factors are taken into account:

• usually, when new appointments are made to established portfolios, the portfolio titles remain the same (whether “of” or “for”, especially if the title is used in legislation)
• “of” is often used where the portfolio relates directly to an actual Ministry or Department (eg Minister of Health, Minister of Justice, Minister of Corrections)
• “for” is often used where the portfolio description is more “generic”, eg where the Minister is responsible for a particular topic or area (eg Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage);
• sometimes, for reasons of sense or style, it just makes sense to use “of” or “for” (eg the former “Minister of Women’s Affairs has been changed to “Minister for Women”).

That makes a lot of sense. The last point especially resonates. Being the “Minister of Youth” or “Minister of Women” would sound very weird. Would be a cool business card though that said “Minister of Youth” 🙂

For those interested these are the different titles:

Minister Of

Broadcasting
Civil Defence
Commerce and Consumer Affairs
Conservation
Corrections
Customs
Defence
Education
Energy and Resources
Finance
Foreign Affairs
Health
Housing
Immigration
Internal Affairs
Local Government
Maori Affairs
Pacific Island Affairs
Police
Revenue
Science and Innovation
State Services
Statistics
Tourism
Trade
Transport
Veterans’ Affairs
Youth Affairs

Minister for

ACC
Arts, Culture and Heritage
Building and Housing
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery
Climate Change Issues
Communications
Courts
Disability Issues
Economic Development
Ethnic Communities
Food Safety
Land Information
National Security and Intelligence
Pacific Peoples
Primary Industries
Racing
Regulatory Reform
Senior Citizens
Small Business
Social Development
Social Housing
Sport and Recreation
State Owned Enterprises
Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment
Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
Women
Workplace Relations and Safety
Whanau Ora
Youth
(the) Community and Voluntary Sector
(the) Environment

My thanks to the Cabinet Office for their prompt and helpful response.

Proud to be formally nominated for Labour leadership. Thanks @KrisinMana and Rino pic.twitter.com/pYI0vY2IyB

— Grant Robertson (@grantrobertson1) October 9, 2014

The choice of nominees is interesting. Kris was a strong Shearer supporter and Rino is a member of the Maori caucus, and voted against same sex marriage. While one can read too much into these things, I suspect the choices were made to show Grant can unify and appeal widely.

I noted that it is dated today. I do wonder if it was actually signed around six months ago? 🙂

Stuff reports:

The capital will bare all in 2016 when it hosts the world’s largest nudist conference at the Wellington Naturist Club’s HQ in Upper Hutt.

The 2016 International Naturist Federation (INF) World Congress was secured in a joint push from the New Zealand Naturist Federation (NZNF), Tourism New Zealand’s conference assistance programme, Upper Hutt City Council and Business Events Wellington.

Every two years the INF World Congress is hosted by different Federations around the world and this is the first time New Zealand will be hosting the event.

”Along with the Federation Executive and our 1500 members nationwide, we look forward to welcoming the many expected international delegates to New Zealand,” NZNF national president Wendy Lowe said.

You have to feel sorry for the conference staff and waiting staff 🙂

Jarrod Gilbert is tweeting that he has an OIA showing I asked for information to attack him. This is not true. I asked for information to dispute his data, and he seems unable to see the difference. This is the legacy of the Hager book, that people now call anything they disagree with as Dirty Politics. In fact the record will show I have never attacked Dri Gilbert or called him names, while he in fact has called me a range of names of which quisling is one of the politer.

However I can understand he is upset becaise at the end of the day he was right in the assertion he was making, and I was wrong to be dismissive of it. I get things wrong sometimes.

Anyway I thought it would be useful to detail this rather sad saga from the beginning. It started when Dr Gilbert said Anne Tolley’s speech on gangs was incorrect, and he said he would eat a suitcase of carrots if she is correct.

In my experience Ministers tend to be pretty careful about using correct figures, and the nature of Dr Gilbert’s promise to eat carrots attracted my attention, so I had a look at the data under dispute which was that:

4,000 known gang members in New Zealandar responsible for 34 percent of class A & B drug offences; 36 percent of kidnapping and addiction offences; 25 percent of aggravated robbery/robbery offences; 26 percent of grievous assault offences..

Why I thought these figures were credible as that the number of Class A & B drug offences, kidnappings, robberies and grievous assaults is quite low. I was focused on the number of crimes side, not the number of gang members side.

I should point out that no one suggested to me to write my blog post. I didn’t talk to anyone before I wrote it. I saw Dr Gilbert’s post, and thought that the number of crimes in those categories made it very possible gang members were responsible for the proportions quoted.

My blog post here said:

Aggravated Robberies and Robberies

There were 2,032 robberies (both types) last year. 25% would be 508. That seems a credible number for 1,620 to 4,000 gang members to do.

Kidnappings and Abductions

There were 198 kidnappings and abductions last year. 36% would be 71. That seems a credible number for 1,620 to 4,000 gang members to do.

Grievous Assaults

If you add up the 17 assault categories that mention GBH, there were 500 offences last year.  26% would be 130. That seems a credible number for 1,620 to 4,000 gang members to do.

Class A and B drug offences

There were 16,070 illicit drug offences in 2013. They are broken up into specific drugs and it would take a long time to do an exact count. But a previous Stats report is that less than 10% are Class A and B. So a fair assumption is 1,607 Class A and B drug offences last year. 34% would be 546. That seems a credible number for 1,620 to 4,000 gang members to do.

So this was me responding to a post on data, with data. How this is dirty politics I don’t know. After I did the blog post, a staffer from the Minister’s office e-mailed me and said:

Hi David – I have a breakdown which backs up the stats. Let me know if you want them.

Again, nothing extraordinary. In fact sensible pro-active work. I understand the data was also provided to Radio NZ. I did not ask for the data, it was offered to me.

I updated my blog saying:

I have been sent the actual stats the Minister was relying on, which are for the first quarter of 2014. They are:

• Class A/B drug offences total 218 out of 649

• Kidnapping and abduction 16 out of 44

• Aggravated robbery/robbery 72 out of 284

• Grievous assault 130 out of 506

So I made it very clear I had been sent the stats, and implicitly of course from her office.  Nothing secret.

I commented:

I look forward to the Herald covering the Jarrod Gilbert eating his carrots.

Jarrod then responded with this post:

What the 28 percent prison number represents is gang members as well as gang associates in prison. This makes a massive difference. A few years back The Police Association said gangs and associates numbered 60,000. Associates are difficult. Am I an associate? Is a guy with a brother in the gang an associate? Associates are an arbitrary measure that can capture people not connected to a gang in any meaningful way. Therefore, if you are talking about gangs as ‘membership’ numbers or gangs as ‘members and associates’, then you are talking about very different things. That’s a 4,000 to 60,000 difference. While I think the latter should be avoided, you need to at the very least use one definition or the other and remain consistent. Apples with apples, as they say.

My focus up until now had been on that the statistics around number of offences were correct. I had not focused on the issue of whether those responsible were gang members or merely gang associates.

It seemed unlikely to me that government agencies would be using different definitions for different stats. As it happened they were, and Dr Gilbert was quite correct. I had no way of knowing so I did what was responsible and asked the Minister’s office:

Any useful data to respond to this with?

Note the use of the word data. That is and was my focus, not attacking Dr Gilbert. I regret he feels I was. I reject the idea though that me asking a Minister’s office for data is in anyway inappropriate or dirty.

I don’t have a record of an e-mail in response, but think there was a phone call which said something along the lines of we trust the data from the Police.

I then did this response in which I said:

Now sadly Dr Gilbert won’t accept he was wrong, but is now trying to argue that there is a difference between gang associates and gang members. So he is not at all disputing that gangs are responsible for 25% to 36% of kidnappings, robberies, grievous assaults and serious drug offences. He is now just saying that the crime figures may include associates, not just gang members.

Is Dr Gilbert Saying the Corrections Department is lying when it says 28% of the prison population are gang members? They supplied the data, and I see no reason why they would make it up.

So it is a technical argument over definitions. I don’t care what you call them.

The Police Association are not an official source. The Police are. They say there are 4,000 gang members. I don’t know if they includes associates in that. I presume Police and Corrections are using the same definition.

So I’m glad Dr Gilbert is not disputing that gangs are responsible for 25% to 36% of those four serious crime categories. He is disputing whether they are all done by members, or associates. I doubt that matters to the victims of the grievous assaults, robberies and kidnappings.

Now I’m not proud of this response. I focused on the fact that I was right in saying “gangs” (if you include associates) were responsible for the proportions of crimes. I said that I wasn’t very interested in the difference between a member and an associate. This partly reflected my views that most serious crime in NZ is committed by not that many people and I took the difference between membership and an associate to be matter of degree. In hindsight I should have dealt more seriously with the point Dr Gilbert was making, which was that there is a difference between 4,000 gang members and 60,000 associates. I was trying to win a debating point rather than being fair (I blame the OU Debating Society). I do regret that.

I also honestly didn’t think the Police and Corrections would be using different definitions, so I tended to discount the probability of this.

I also made a mistake in not understanding the wide difference between an associate and a member. I tended to see an associate as someone on their way to being a member, or someone involved a gang if not a formal member. Again I should have recognised that this is an area Dr Gilbert is an expert in, and given more due to that.

Dr Gilbert responded to my blog post with his one here.

Then on 24 September the Minister’s office e-mailed me saying:

Police have released info which says their stats also include associates and family (Which they didn’t tell us at the time). Jarrod will no doubt blog.

My reply was:

Ouch.

What really hit me was that the Police figures included family. As someone who puts a focus on individual responsibility, I was a bit stunned that merely having a family member in a gang would get you classified as a gang associate. That made me realise I was wrong in not giving credence to what Jarrod had said. I acknowledge that even without that info, I should have treated his argument better, as I will in future.

I then did a blog post saying Jarrod was right, and I apologised to him.

While I think my second blog post on the topic was not something I’m proud of, I reject that I was seeking to damage or attack Jarrod. My focus was on the data. It should be apparent from my blog posts that I blog on data all the time. What was meant to be a fairly friendly exchange on offending stats, become more than that. I accept my responsibility for that, but it was never my intent to have Jarrod feel slighted. I would point out again that I have never resorted to name calling, and while I appreciate that some of the comments about Jarrod by some of the commenters here were not pleasant, the same goes for comments on Jarrod’s blog about me.

Again I repeat my apology to Jarrod, but at the same time I reject his assertion that I was conspiring to attack him.My aim was to attack his data and arguments, not him.  Regardless I will in future tread more carefully.

Stuff reports:

A High Court Judge has thrown out an application by opponents of fluoride trying to force the Ministry of Health to treat it as a medicine and regulate the amount added to tap water.

Anti-fluoride group New Health New Zealand had claimed it was absurd that fluoride tablets were deemed a medicine under the act but fluoride added to tap water was not.

However, Justice David Collins ruled when Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFA) and Sodium Silico Fluoride (SSF) were added to domestic water supplies in New Zealand to produce fluoride concentrations within the current allowable level of 1.5 milligrams per litre they were not medicines within the meaning of the Act.

The application for declaring them as medicines was therefore dismissed, he said.

The court ruling said that the concentrations would have to be at least six times higher at 10 mls per litre, for them to have to be regulated by the Ministry of Health.

Stuff reports:

Little signalled a major shift in direction if he won the leadership, including the likely ditching of unpopular policies such as raising the pension age.

At a press conference today, the former union boss also signalled a rethink of a capital gains tax, power reforms and free doctor visits for over-65s.

Little said the policies were raised constantly on the campaign trail as either scary or unaffordable.

Most Kiwis were pragmatic enough to realise when some policies seemed “too good to be true”, he said.

His approach could pitch him against finance spokesman and acting leader David Parker, who advocated strongly for Labour’s policy mix.

Little is right to say their policies were part of their failure. Kudos to him for being the only candidate willing to say so.

Parker is the architect of three of those policies, and it will be fascinating to see what he now does.

In terms of the four policies, here’s my views on them.

• Power reforms – this one is near barking mad. If any one policy scared the entire business community off Labour, this was it. A de facto nationalisation of the industry, with the state setting the price for all generation. Even the guy whose work they claim it is based on, came out and said it was crackers (in more polite terms). This policy must go for them to be credible.
• Super age to 67. Personally I think this is one of their better policies. But Little is right that there was a backlash from union members about it. Blue collar workers saw it as Labour wanting them to work two years more than previously. However it is fiscally the entirely correct thing to do. The motivation for the policy was to embarrass Key over his silly pledge not to raise it, but they’ve tried that twice now and failed. Also Labour can’t govern without Winston, and Winston will never agree to it, so why take the flak for it?
• Capital Gains Tax. Apart from being riddled with exemptions, the problem with their CGT policy is that it was one of several new taxes, and NZers saw it as Labour just wanting to tax families and businesses more. I shouldn’t give Labour free advice, but what they should do is copy the Greens with their carbon tax, and say yes we will have a CGT, but we will reduce income and company tax to compensate. This way it is about a fairer tax system, not about taking more money off families and businesses. That would neutralise the issue. However it would mean Labour not having all the extra money for spending.
• Free doctors visits for over 65s. I don’t think that was a particularly unpopular policy for Labour – just a cynical one that didn’t work.

As I said I think it is a good thing to have a leadership candidate campaign on specific policy changes, as it gives members a chance to vote on them.

Little’s performance in New Plymouth may be an issue however. Not only has did his electorate vote in 2014 drop 12% from what it was in 2011 (and is 28% lower than Duynhoven in 2008), but Labour’s party vote in New Plymouth dropped 9% in 2014 and is 28% lower than in 2008. In absolute terms 2,954 fewer people in New Plymouth voted Labour in 2014 than 2008 and 4,646 fewer people voted Little than Duynhoven.

Pitmen Painters is a play based on the true story of a group miners in Ashington who went along to an art appreciation class run by the Workers Educational Association. The class soon turned from theory into practice, and the miners became sensations in the art world.

It is written by Lee Hall, who may be better known for Billy Elliott.

The Circa production was very well done, with a deft mix of humour, politics and art. Copies of the original artworks were displayed at various times on projectors.

The miners are deeply socialist, as most miners of that era were. The organiser has a tendency to revert to the rule book at every opportunity in deciding what is and is not allowable, including the offer of an attractive young woman to pose nude for them.

When one of the miners is offered a paid patron, this divides the group. Should one be allowed to stand out? The political theme runs throughout the play, but does not dominate it.

The play is reasonably long at two and a half hours, but it never gets stale. The continual conflict between the miners, but also the appreciation of the rarity of what they are doing, makes the play a very enjoyable experience.

It runs at Circa until Sat 8 November.

Stuff reports:

The New Zealand Open has been given a major boost, with next year’s national golf championship securing increased government funding and live television coverage.

For the first time the New Zealand Open will be broadcast live in New Zealand and to overseas territories, including Australia and Japan.

And for the fifth straight year, the government has increased the amount of taxpayer funding going to the event.

At a press conference in Auckland today, Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce announced a major events development fund investment of $700,000 a year for the 2015 and 2016 events and a one-off cash boost of $250,000 – to be matched by event promoter Sir Michael Hill – to ensure live broadcasting continues.

I don’t think we should be funding a golf tournament. I know the argument is that it is an investment in tourism, but that means we assume that golf tournament would not have occurred and been televised without taxpayer funding – and I doubt that is the case. It is just easier for organisers to hit up taxpayers rather than find additional sponsors.

On twitter several people made good arguments for it as a tourism investment, but I’d like to see hard figures about actual increased visits, rather than just awareness.