A nexus in political stupidity...

Just when you thought that Dr Nick Smith would indicate the depths of political stupidity in the current government, nek minit you find someone else has an even worse case of foot and mouth.

Background -

Nick Smith was Minister in charge of ACC (for the furriners that is Accident Compensation Corporation). A good (woman) mate of his had been having a long-term stoush with said ACC concerning the Corporation's rejection of an application for compensation (that is about as simple as I can make it).

He wrote a letter to the Corporation; a sort of personal reference if you like. Unfortunately it was sent on Ministerial letterhead.

The raruraru really got under way when the woman concerned approached the media claiming that she had received from the ACC an email which included a file with the names and details of a good number of compensation claimants. Herald has a reasonable summary of things here.

There is a parallel which has unfolded over the past couple of days.

This second one started with the Acting Prime Minister Jerry Brownlee in a Parliamentary debate describing Finland as

which has worse unemployment than us, has less growth than us, can hardly feed the people who live there, has a terrible homicide rate, hardly educates its people, and has no respect for women."

The best rebuttal probably comes from Finland's equivalent of Laws or Limbaugh. Take a look; it is hilarious...

But the point here is the nexus.

Smith, darling little lad that he is, claimed that the context of the two letters he wrote without revealing personal conflict of interest were such that the Ministerial letterhead would have been on little to no effect.

Sorry Nick, but does sound rather like the shepherd boy who tried to claim that "the shadow over there did look rather like a wolf".

Put it this way -

If Smith had remained as a Minister, how would any Ministerial Directive have been received? Is this Smith with his personal knickers knotted again? Or is it for real? We had better check...

Brownlee's claim, post fact, that his comments "were made in good humour" could have - I believe should have - similar consequences to Smith's indiscretion. His Jonkey boss has had to make direct apologies to the Finnish Prime Minister, a galling thought indeed.

Are we to take Brownlee in the House with any seriousness at all when any he makes statement can be simply dismissed as "in good humour" (irrespective of the consequences)? Is it enough to apologise "if anyone took offence", rather than apologising for his statement that quite a number of people - and at least two European governments other than Finland - thought was offensive? It is less that 150 years since a Parliamentarian in this country was challenged to a duel by another for less. Heaven forfend that Jerry should ever step on the toes of Julia Gillard.

For sure, the Jonkey has a problem; no, make that quite a number of problems. Who is going to shove foot in mouth next? Collins? Sharples?

The pre-election warm-up...

Sometime in October or Early November, Auntie Helen will (unless in the interim she can by some miracle change our "Constitution") be taking a limo trip to Government House (official residence of the GG) to tender her resignation as PM and to announce the intention for the General Elections to be held on a date not later than two months hence.

As in 1939, the troops are already gathering and lines being drawn in the sand. As in 1939, the propaganda machines are cranking up. As in 1939, the deep covert structures are being put in place.

But that is as far as I can take that parallel to WW2. Doesn't really work for me either... but to pass onward.

Already shots have been fired between most parties and NZ First. Of course, as Winnie is a coalition partner to both sides, both are being very careful to pull their shots. Auntie Helen aiming very short of the mark, and the Jonkey aiming far to the left in the hope that Auntie Helen might cop a stray one. The only one aiming for Winnie is in fact the YellowJacket and he can afford to as ACT's only claim to fame at the moment is Rodney the YellowJacket himself. As is his wont, Winnie is fighting fire with fire.

On the left side of the street, the government seems to be keeping its head well below the horizon. Now that is not a position that Auntie Helen would enjoy; it tends to limit the view of the outside world (that is now less important, has been for at least the past two years...), and it tends to leave the jacksie open for well-aimed boots. Thus far, she and the party have been lucky in that the boots have been flailing in the other side of the ruck with the inexperience of the Nats tight five clearly being put on show.

And that takes us across the street to the Jonkey's lot. They had a party last weekend, with much back-slapping and pre-match ra-ra-ing in the hutch. Trouble was that a weasel got into the hen-house and several of the roosters got bitten. Great series of stories for TV3 - whoever their informant might be.

On this last point, this is the one thing about NZ politics of which I have a serious dislike. I have been pointing the bone in recent times at the US Presidential race, and in particular some of the more dishonest (as I see it) tactics being used by both sides. It is shaping up little different here as well. Last time it was the Exclusive Brethren and their relationship with Brash Donnie that lost the election for the Nats, and resulted in the ignominious disappearance from the scene of Donnie himself.

This time around, the Nats are being very careful to NOT release any policy. That way, they can not be accused of having been given a mandate to do "A" when they end up in government and do "B" (the exact opposite to "A"). Oh, the lollies are already under the Christmas Tree. We can see the packet, but at the moment it is still in the plain brown wrapper so we can't tell at the moment whether we are being offered toffees, acid drops, or condoms.

Some of the other presents have been half unwrapped:

Like the half billion dollar broadband implementation. Will I see that in Opo? Not likely. Most up there use cell-phones rather than landlines so the minimum 500 line exchange probably does not exist.

Like the multi-billion dollar investment in "infrastructure". Well I mean to say... what the F*** is "infrastructure" when a politician uses the word. I suspect it likely means the same as "restructuring" in Iraq - a snack-line for the buddies, servings in direct proportion to their party contributions.

But the most entertaining, the most enterprising of the lot, is some young wally who bought his way into the Party and proceeded to "interview" some of the hats who were floating around. What he asked was quite "innocent", relating to the three major points of difference between Nats and Labs; nuclear issues, family support, and the sale of public corporations. Three of the senior hats (so far) have ended up on TV3 as a result. Quite embarrassingly so in the case of the Englishman. Flustered rustlings of secret papers in the wings behind the Jonkey as he heehawed his way through an on-the-spot interview.

Amazing what can be done these days through the medium of the humble cellphone.

NZ has TERRORISTS!!! - 7

In this morning's Herald...

The anti-terror raids of October 15 resulted in the seizure of only four weapons and 230 rounds of ammunition that have led to charges.

The early-morning raids involved more than 300 officers.

The police have not said what they seized in the property searches in Auckland, Waikato, the Bay of Plenty, Wellington and Christchurch using warrants alleging crimes under the Terrorism Suppression Act and have declined a request to do so.

But of 16 people charged with firearms offences, items seized on October 15 are the basis of charges against only two - Tame Iti, and a man who has name suppression.

So, all of this has had so little behind it?

That rat is getting real stinky, and I am still not at all happy that there is just "normal Police intelligence" behind the whole Operation Eight fiasco.

More and more one gets that horridible feeling of political influence...

The passing years...

The ol' probligo turns 60 at the end of the month and the family has been putting the acid on to get something presentable together. In an attempt to keep some of the more embarrassing examples well hidden, the probligo agreed to sort a few out.

Of the two, the earlier one is more like me, the second (how gawky can you get) was taken in studio when I was 16 or 17.

Another holiday - another leak...

Yesterday, April 25, was Anzac Day. It is the commemmoration of the landing of NZ and Australian troops in the Dardanelles 92 years ago. Over that time, it has become our equivalent of Remembrance Day.

So why is it that the news (Granny Herald specifically) carries the following as a banner headline?

10c tax on petrol to pay for roads, trains

By Paula Oliver

Motorists face paying more for petrol through regional fuel taxes, levied to pay for local transport projects including the electrification of Auckland's suburban trains.

In an announcement understood to form part of the Government's Budget, the Auckland region will be given the go-ahead to introduce a fuel tax of 10c a litre.

This would push the cost of 91-octane fuel to $1.60 a litre.

Just over a third of the rise - 3.5c - will pay for the rail electrification project, which fits well with the Government's climate change ambitions.

The rest of Auckland's fuel levy will help to pay for Rodney District Council's link-road between Whangaparaoa Peninsula and the Northern Motorway, and for completing the Manukau-Waterview western ring route.

Now there is one thing that I must give Auntie Helen and Uncle Michael credit for - it is the originality of their "leaks". Remember this one?

Well, I wonder who it was that dropped this latest one to the Herald?

The end of Holy Week...

There is a strange thing about holidays - especially religious observances - in NZ. For some reason they have this propensity for triggering the "release" of all manner of little governmental embarrassments. This past week, culminating in the Easter break, has been no exception.

This time around it is the topic of election spending that has come to the fore in the form of a "leaked" report in Granny Herald. But before I start on that quarter, this is a topic close to my heart as can be seen here, and here, and here, here, and finally here.

At the time of writing, Herald sports this page of links which give a useful course through the continuing STOOORY of Auntie Helen and the funding of elections.

First a brief recap -

• The problem centres upon (intentionally) vague law that leaves (hopefully) a bigger hole for your mates and a smaller hole for your enemy.
• The problem centres upon (the same law) having unintentionally vague holes in it that the enemy can drive trucks through.
• There is a need to persuade the electorate that the playing field is still level, even though the southwest corner still floods every time there is a shower and the northeast corner has never had a try scored there.
• There are some considerable amounts of money siphoned out of the public purse into Paul's wallet for electoral purposes. There have been solemn undertakings from all parties that they will raise their hands and reimburse what was "inadvertently" taken through "changes to the rules", and misinterpretation of the CAG's pre-electoral pronouncements.
• The current laws concentrates upon funding through "donations". It does not in any stretch of the imagination cover "third party electioneering" (for Americans the equivalent of the "Swift-boat committees").

The Herald expose last Monday started thusly -

Labour plans to restrict third-party election spending to $60,000 by any one group in its "payback" electoral law reforms - a move that will effectively outlaw campaigns such as the Exclusive Brethren's $1.2 million effort last election.

It also plans to attack an important source of money for National by limiting anonymous donations from anybody, including trusts, to $5000.

National received $1.8 million in 2005, all but $140,000 of it from six trusts.

Then follows...

The Herald has learned more of the detail, which includes measures to:

* Require any third party (a group or individual other than a candidate or registered party) to register its intention with the Chief Electoral Officer if it plans to spend more than $5000 nationally and $500 in an electorate.
* Restrict any third party from spending more than $60,000 nationally or $2000 in an electorate.
* Restrict any third party to New Zealanders or New Zealand-based organisations.
* Make it clear that advertising does not have to state the party or candidate's name to be subject to restrictions. Advertising attacking a party can count too.
* Exempt from the new third-party rules groups such as unions or companies when they are communicating directly with their members.
* Require whatever the third party spends to be counted against its $60,000 limit and the limit of the party it is supporting.
* Lower the threshold for disclosure of donations from $10,000 to $5000 for parties and from $1000 to $500 for individual candidates.
* Ban foreign donations except those from expatriate New Zealanders.
* Include in the definition of donations loans at non-commercial rates, and a party's goods or properties sold well over their valuation.

Go read the whole thing so that I don't get into strife for breaching copyright PLEASE!!

But the greatest change is the proposal to fund parties directly from the General Fund (that is my money!). Dish it up, lads and lasses!!! Two sweet young lambs on the spit. Pipe in the haggis and gie it a good addressin'!! Fire up the old copper with watercress, cabbage, pork and mutton; kumara, spuds, pumpkin in flax baskets stacked over the wild boar and two haunches of venison in the hangi. This is who gets the dough!!

Cash For Votes

What parties would get:
* Labour $1.14 million
* National $1.14 million
* NZ First $260,230
* Greens $241,042
* United Future $121,720
* Maori Party $96,526
* Act $68,938
* Progressives $52,882
* Destiny $28,420
* Legalise Cannabis Party $11,496

The formula being proposed would give parties $2 for each party vote they receive up to 20 per cent of the vote, and $1 a vote after that to a cap of 30 per cent.

Whakapohani! Auntie Helen!!