What a storm in a teapot!!

It begins with all of the anticipation - …will he won’t he will he join the dance… - but not a sign of a lobster at all. For two weeks the media waited agasp for their invitation to the event of all electoral events; the expected invitation for Banksie to share a pot of tea with none other than the PM and the acknowledgement that Banksie was in fact a Nat in all but name for electoral purposes. Not only that, but the pot of tea was to come with shared electoral biscotti. In return for an undertaking (always an interesting word that, in circumstances such as these) to provide stable government the PM himself would ensure that his party would not actively contest the seat in which Banksie is standing.



The appointed day arrives. A media scrum is put down in a café on Broadway – another of those interesting coincidences that passes everyone by - the limousine draws up, the Banksie appears magically with entourage who dust the pavement from car to café and Banksie and PM repair to a table for a nice cuppa.



Once the media have played their part in supporting the election campaigns of the two, they are ushered out to press their noses against the windows and wonder just what PM’s talk about over a nice cuppa. Well, one industrious member of their number found out by (inadvertently) leaving his radio-mike in a bag on the table.



Since then, all manner of unprintables and several hundred tumbrills full of printables have been flying through the air.



Quite amazing then that no one has asked what the PM and Banksie were drinking. Choysa? Bell? Twinings? Or did the PM go the whole way and treat Banksie to a pot of Uncle Don's Best?

Elections 2011 - Fit the second

No, I did not watch the “Leadership Debate” on the tv last night. I had a few better things to do.

No, I am not sorry. (That is the same kind of answer as “I am not going to raise GST”.)

From the reports, seen and read, I have the impression that it was pretty much as scripted. The Jonkey was not surprised by anything that the Gofer raised, though there is a suspicion that he was momentarily a bit backed up by the delivery. Similarly, there seems to have been no surprises for the Gofer.

And that really is the point. These leadership presentations are not much more than proving to the electorate that the leaders they are voting for are not zombies, are not frothing at the mouth maniacs, can and do hold something that could pass for a conversation. But, as politics keeps reminding us, that is about as far as it goes.

The pundits and propounders are all weighing the outcome as even, favouring whichever side of the divide they sit.

Of course, there are always the likes of Cactus Kate who is trumpeting Brash Donnie’s “triumph” over a hapless tv3 reporter. In that instance the script only ran to two words. Brash Donnie was not able to expand past his robot-like inchantation of “deceitful bastard”. CK herself seemed stuck in a groove to prove the journo’s typo revealed a total inability to spell. Yep, well as I pointed out in a submitted comment there are a lot of suitable alternative epithets. Rather than ascribing to the Chris Christie school of political attack the Donnie could perhaps get a whole lot more benefit from a quiet review of a few of the archive tapes of the master, old Mouldie himself. As for handling unwanted journos, Mouldie’s attack on Tom Scott has to be the pinnacle.

There is a rich vein of commentary in this. It follows the interdependence of politician and journalist; both need the other. In Muldoon v Scott, the dependence was “broken” because Scott became “expendable” to Muldoon. There were far more servile channels he could use and Scott was just too hostile. Personally, I think that Scott was doing his job well and that was to get Muldoon pissed off…

There is a similar conflict in the relationship between Granny Herald and The Speaker just before Parliament rose for the RWC.

What the ???? is going on with ACT?

First the legalisation of marihuana...

That has resulted in Cactus Kate thrashing in the undergrowth for something good to say about anything.

Followed by Boscowen fleeing the party...

Implosion time. Will anyone really notice?

Oh, and the teaser on the Herald this morning -

"Vote Brash
Get hash"

CLASSIC!!!

What is "Right" in politics?

There is a strange flavour to NZ politics, and it is one which could cause considerable confusion to those from outside looking in and it certainly makes (in the ol probligo’s case at the very least) looking outward over the border difficult as well.

Using the American categorisation as a guide, one would get the impression that the right wing – the far right of the Republicans as example – would be pushing for less government and greater freedoms both personal and market.

If I bring that to NZ and look at what is going on at present – remembering that NZ is only 4 months out from a general election – it is something of a shock to find the youngest (ignore the grey hairs and balding pate) and brightest of the far right from ACT promoting consumer protection legislation.

The incredulity rises when some of the content of that proposed law comes to light in the news –

Mr Boscawen today said he would introduce a Consumer Law Reform Bill to Parliament before the middle of the year, which he hoped would be passed before the year's end.
The bill, the result of a recently completed review of consumer law, will amend and consolidate several pieces of legislation, one of which - the Sale of Goods Act - is more than a century old.
Consumer protections contained in four acts which are to be repealed will be incorporated into the Fair Trading Act along with some enhancements, Mr Boscawen said.
"The Bill will also strengthen the enforcement powers of Government agencies, allowing faster and more effective action to remove unsafe products from the market."
Under the changes, unsafe good notices and compulsory recalls may be issued "where reasonably foreseeable use of misuse of a product will may or cause injury".
An example of the type of goods being targeted is laser pointers - which police reported have been used in 108 "attacks" on planes, ships and cars over a two-year period.

In those six short paras we find government protection of the consumer, increased powers of enforcement for government agencies, and government limitation of the products that NZ consumers are allowed to purchase.

One of the current batch of Ministers (ad-Ministers?) for whom the ol probligo can easily express a fair measure of respect is the Minister for Trade Tim Groser. He is a List MP (the ones everyone wants to be rid of…) and in my book is certainly worth his salt as Minister. He is very much hands-on in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, that belated and largely benighted attempt by the US to re-establish its influence and contact with our part of the world. As such it also gives a marvellous cameo of the political differences between lion and mouse. (Remember “The Mouse That Roared” anyone?)

Trade Minister Tim Groser took a swipe at the protected United States dairy industry last night saying it was time they stopped "looking in the rear vision mirror."

He said the US "must have a trade policy that is more than purely defensive."
Mr Groser made his comments in a speech in Wellington on the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement being negotiated at present among nine countries including the United States.

He also said New Zealand would ditch the TPP if there was any "sniff" that it was turning into an anti-China vehicle.

He had said so recently at a think-tank in Washington, and so had his Australian counterpart Craig Emerson.

To have the minor players making their stance very clear in this way must be anathema to the likes of Kurt Campbell and Janet Napolitano, both of whom found reasons for being late to the opening of the current round back in February.

Mr Groser said the TPP negotiations would not be completed by the time President Barack Obama hosted Apec in Honolulu in November but "solid progress" would be made.

The degree of progress would depend on what happened in Washington on the US' existing trade agenda, specifically whether Congress approved the free trade agreements already negotiated with Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

"The political oil" to facilitate their passing were the payments known as Trade Adjustment Assistance to affected sectors.

"No TAA, no deal.."

Americans reading this might recognise the “political oil” as euphemism for their term “pork”; but I confess that to be a stray shot.

The point here is coming back to a phrase that I heard some years back as a justification for any and most of the less digestible actions taken by the US on the international scene – “in America’s interests”.

The TPP is where “American interests” meets the real world of a strong-willed and somewhat sceptical southwest Pacific. There is no question that NZ and Aus stand together in the TPP negotiations and I doubt very much that stance would be altered in any way if either government were to change.

It should be well known to readers that Australia (as a “reward” for its services in Iraq and Afghanistan) already has a FTA with the US. NZ already has a FTA with China on which the ink has barely dried. The Australian FTA I have discussed in the past, expressing reservations on the long-term benefit ever compensating for the short term advantages taken by the US. That Australia is taking the opportunity of the TPP to voice opinions that run contrary to those of their partner in the FTA speaks some volumes about the medium to long term benefit of their (previously much-vaunted) FTA. And that too is where the ol probligo pulls up. It is (or has been in the past) a matter of FTA dogma that the agreement will run to the favour of the stronger party; and accepted wisdom says that is the US.

What the US is finding in trying to negotiate their TPP (and it was the idea of the US, not the Pacific) is that the minnows have grown some fairly sharp teeth. The composition and structure of those teeth has come from the influence over a long period of years from the US itself, and its various international allies (children?) such as World Bank, IMF, and OECD. A goodly dose of true capitalism in the mix has been of immense benefit as well, no question or debate.

A very primary example, one that is to the forefront in this country is a statement made in the past week or three to the effect that the US did not recognise the validity of centralised pharmaceutical purchasing organisations; that these organisations are considered anti-competitive; and their existence could represent a barrier to progress in negotiations. The diplomatic wording is very careful and somewhat guarded but there can be no doubt that some very heavy barons in the background are pulling one or three strings in the US administration. Essentially the only candidate that fits the statements is NZ’s government operated Pharmac. This is the organisation that handles licensing of medicines for use in NZ, and negotiates the purchase of those drugs for the whole of the public health system.

The criticism centres upon a “lack of transparency” and equally on the inability of the drug companies “to make submissions” to Pharmac – the “closed shop” accusation. Like so many of these things, there is another side to the impression. “Lack of transparency” implies a level of secrecy, something that a losing tenderer would want to penetrate to find out the prices being accepted for specific or even classes of product.

The “closed shop” is a well resourced and independent scientific and medical analysis system, empowered by the government to freely choose the source oand types of medications being used in this country. Locking out the salesmen (which seems to be at the heart of the outrage) not only maintains that independence from direct and indirect influence (called “corruption” in some quarters), it also allows for the hopefully objective appraisal of needs against supply cost. That in itself is a whole topic worthy of future thought.

The incongruity of the US objections is that Pharmac is very closely modelled on an American predecessor - MedicAid.

On Right Wing Politics in New Zealand -

The most “right wing” of NZ’s right wing political parties is a small group represented in Parliament by 5 MPs. The party stems from what was originally called ”Association of Concerned Taxpayers”; now known just as ACT.

The party was started by a group led by two of the more right wing movers out of David Lange’s Labour (left Wing) government by then Finance Minister Roger Douglas and Minister of Rail (as I recall) Richard Prebble.

The party’s representation in Parliament is based entirely on the fact that the Leader (the Rhinohide) is an electoral MP (as distinct from List). That, and the fact that they polled nationally some 4% of the total vote at the last General Election has given them 5 places around the table and a good part of the current Government.

I must be honest. I am not in any way a supporter of ACT. Realistically they are no more than a bunch of opportunistic self-promoting wallies – but then isn’t that what “politician” means? To give a f’rinstance their current Policy on the shape and form of the government of NZ -

Constitutional Framework
Action: Strengthen. Adopt Tax Payers Bill of Rights. Pass Regulatory Responsibilty Act. Return to privy council. Hold referendum of MMP voting system.
Benefit: Makes democracy more democratic. States spending capped, taxes kept low. Hard to make bad laws like the EFA. Free access to best judicial minds from a population of 58 million. People get long-overdue say on how they like MMP.

Sounds great, huh! So, let’s take a look at the “Action” –

“Adopt Tax Payers Bill of Rights” – whatever that means. Go find out if you want. I think that they favour flat tax rates.

“Pass Regulatory Responsibility Act.” Interesting one this, given that they have just supported the introduction of a Bill to “fast-track” the work needed in Christchurch (post-earthquake), which said Bill includes extensive Regulatory powers to the Ministers involved. Essentially, this gives the Government the right to make fiat law, within the structures of the Statute that will come out the other end of the process. So, there y’go. Instance one of great words being spoken by weasels.

“Return to privy council”. No I don’t think that they mean a convocation in the gents at the top end of The Terrace. I think they mean “Privy Council” – an august and highest Court in Britain. So they want to sell justice as part of our silverware, like so much else of NZ that they want to part with.

“Hold referendum of MMP voting system”. Now, I have to admire their political chutzpah on this item. I am quite certain that a good part of their party support comes from those who (like my #1son) believes that MMP is death and destruction to democracy and wishes for a return to FPP. The smile on my face as I type that is broad because, if it were not for MMP, ACT would have at the very most one member in the House. He would not hold anything like a balance of power. He would be a dim shadow of the last two (and quite missed in some respects) “third party members” under FPP, Bruce Beetham, and Gary Knapp (who I knew well and who had the most inappropriate nickname) who both originated in the (equally marginal) Social Credit Party. They were preceded by one Vern Cracknell (also SC), who achieved a heck of a lot for his electorate; primarily because the government of the day wanted to get the electorate back into their own (National Party) hands. Beetham and Knapp were nowhere near as successful.

“…democracy more democratic”? If the Rhinohide had his way… well just look at his approach to the Ministry he holds; autocratic and dictatorial.

“State spending capped…” See previous paragraph.

“Hard to make bad law like [Electoral Finance Act]”? How can I say this gently Rhino. Look in the mirror. What do you see? There is no question in my mind that you and ACT would not differ from any other parliamentary party in power. If expediency calls, then the law will be made; with or without consultation; with or without advice. That is the nature of politics in this country. No matter how you might try to argue otherwise, that is a truth that applies to your Party as much as any other. “Why” will be explained below.

“Free access to the best judicial minds…” Hey folks, this is the party that promotes and praises “user pays” and capping government spending. But when it comes to Justice, they propose that NZ should free-load on the British Justice system? Tui billboards spring to mind – “Yeah, Right!”

“…get a say on how they like MMP”? OK Rhinohide. I for one luvit! Why? Because it puts idiots like you and Boscowen and Garrett in Parliament where you can show the world just what “Right Wing Politics” really means.

That comes by way of introduction.

The present government is propped by two minor parties, ACT being one and Maori Party the other. I feel sorry for the Maori Party; they have been well and truly dicked by the Nats, and for some strange reason seem totally unaware of the fact. Perhaps it has something to do with the anaesthesia of political power? That aside…

During this past six months, ACT has been showing signs of suffering the kind of damage recently visited on Christchurch. Liquifaction of support, crumbling brickwork, failing infrastructure; and none of it due in any way to the impact of the outside world. Well, I must agree that the Rhinohide will blame “the left-wing dominated media” for his woes (well, I mean to say, it worked for George, why not me). In truth, that is about all he has to work with.

It began with the dust-up between Rhino and Heather (Pass The Duster) Roy. The detail goes a lot further down, I suspect, than the latter having her Ministerial mail read by the former. It ended with one of Rhino’s mates – Boss Cawan – replacing Roy as Deputy Leader of the Party.

Now that might seem a little bit trivial, but what has become apparent is that the Parliamentary Caucus comprises two clear camps – Rhino, Boss and Garrett on the one hand and Douglas and Roy on the other; 3-2 in favour of Rhino.

Now in the past week, another of the number has come under fire.

It transpires that ACT’s spokesman on Justice, “three-strike” law, and strong supporter of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, David Articulated Garrett has a conviction for assault ($10 contributed to His Majesty King Tupou IV of Tonga and conviction) and has appeared before a NZ Court on charges (which I hasten to say did not result in penalty or conviction despite his admission that they were true) of obtaining a Passport under the name of a dead infant – as done by The Jackal and, more recently, MOSSAD.

So now the Rhino has a problem, a veritable dilemma.

On the one hand he has an MP with “shadow Ministerial” responsibilities including one of the more important pieces of recent Government legislation who has a minor criminal conviction plus some quite idiotic law-breaking history.

However, if Rhino were to “do the right thing” and shed that said MP, then the next in line (Articulated Garrett being a List MP) is very likely not a Rhino supporter. Then, suddenly, the vote in Caucus becomes 2-3.

Oh, Dear!!! The next few weeks promise to be interesting indeed.