How does Labour hope to get back in? Easy vote for National!

Here’s the thing, this election may already be over…but, if Labour is to have any chance I think two things need to happen.

1. Winston Peters needs to be back
2. ACT needs to disappear

There is not much that Labour can do to get Winston Peters back, but for the other necessary action to happen, maybe Labour can help that along a little bit.

ACT seems to be somewhat imploding with not too many people seemingly happy with the coup d'état that Don Brash pulled on Rodney Hide and since doing so even fewer people seem to have been impressed with his performance as leader of the party. For a party, who is always ‘tough on crime’ to have a leader who wants to decriminalise marijuana seems erroneous at best, hypocritical at worst.

ACT seem to be doing a pretty good job at taking themselves out of the running however the voters of Epsom, of whom 70% voted for John Banks in the Mayoral election, will likely come to the conclusion it’s better to have a Mr. Magoo type operation and still have John Key as Prime Minister, than to risk having Phil Goff in the top job. It is likely that as it stands right now Banks will win Epsom, even with two recent polls saying otherwise.

Labour needs to double bluff.

Labour needs to get around the constituency quietly and get all their supporters to vote for National’s Paul Goldsmith.

Goldsmith in the last two polls has been leading John Banks by 17% and 14% respectively however as the election comes closer and the National supporters see their parties ratings drop somewhat, many are like in Epsom to put in this dysfunctional party ‘for the greater good.’ But what is all the Labour supporters voted for Goldsmith as well…for the greater good.

In the latest poll National’s Paul Goldsmith was on 37%, John Banks on 24% and Labour’s David Parker 17%. If that 17% went and supported Paul Goldsmith on Election Day his numbers could jump enough to nullify the difference those that pull support from him to keep ACT in. A ‘double bluff’ worthy of the ‘reality’ TV series Survivor.

In theory Labour supporters voting for a National Party candidate in Epsom, could help them bring down one of the most popular parties in recent times. In theory.

Now come Election Day, National could have a majority, they may have enough votes to get there with the Maori Party alone…or no matter what happens ACT could romp home in Epsom, but Labour is stuck in a situation where they need to have either strong coalition partners themselves, or they need to remove National’s partners if they are to have any show. 

Do we all have a little ‘Mutu’ in us?

Do we all have a little ‘Mutu’ in us?

A week ago Professor Margaret Mutu responded to a Department of Labour report that found Maori are more likely to express anti-immigration sentiment than any other ethnic group by saying that white immigration should be restricted because they pose a threat to race relations due to their “white supremacist” attitudes. Over the following few days there has been a plethora of debate around this will some groups supporting her, some denouncing her and many calling her comments “racist!”

She further angered many by claiming in a radio interview that she couldn’t be racist as Maori are not in a position of power.

Today it’s been reported there has been 30 complaints have been made to the Race Relations Office and many people are calling for Auckland University to sack Ms. Mutu.

Let me state this clearly at the start. I neither support Margaret Mutu’s position, nor do I believe that Maori can’t be racist. Any one individual can demonstrate racism and in this situation perhaps there is a case to be answered for.

I am left with two questions…
1. Is this a racist statement?
2. If it is, is society showing a balanced hand in their reaction to Ms. Mutu?

So let’s investigate that. Firstly what is Professor Mutu saying?

Well it would appear to me she is saying, albeit it very bluntly, is that white immigrants are having a negative influence on her culture. It appears that she is concerned for the plight of the Maori culture, practices and place in society and she doesn’t want a foreign culture coming in and ‘taking over’ what over the last 30 years or so Maori have fought so hard to gain back from what was once lost in a society of imposed European dominance. I wonder if someone from the indigenous people of NZ would look at the countries mentioned (Australia, USA and South Africa) and see what has happened to the indigenous peoples of that land and become a little concerned about that ‘attitude’ following migrants to this country. She may be concerned that the culture that is demonstrated in that country may be brought here and imposed on her culture. I find that a reasonable position. I can understand what the sentiments behind what Ms. Mutu appears to be saying. I don’t endorse, nor do I know if those sentiments are correct…but I understand why she may have them.

So is this a racist sentiment? Well that’s probably a relative question depending on who you are, however my interest in how we are responding to this controversy. Is society’s reaction to this balanced? Are we reacting to Margaret Mutu as we would any other person showing this kind of position in society? What would we do if another member of society said what Margaret Mutu has said…but maybe about another ethnic group or ‘colour’…answer…we elect them!

The Rt. Honourable Winston Peters made his name in the last few terms he was a member of parliament telling NZ that we would have out culture, or way of life and our place in society taken away from us unless we restricted Asian, and third world, immigration. Margaret Mutu says “white” and we lose our minds, Winston Peters says “yellow” and many seem okay with that. Even this year he has begun his tried and true yellow peril argument telling a Grey Power meeting that immigrants threaten the lives and living standards of elderly New Zealanders.

Winston Peters’ argument is the same as Margaret Mutu’s and I disagree with them both, and if you don’t you may have a little ‘Mutu’ (or maybe Peters) in you.

For you to react to Margaret Mutu over the past week with distain, to disagree with her position, then you are someone who agrees with immigration no matter what race, religion or country that someone comes from.

Mutu is saying that a culture, that is foreign to hers, shouldn’t come here because it makes her nervous, and she doesn’t want to see it influence her. For you to disagree with that sentiment then you need to be welcoming to cultures, religion and practices contrary to your…or maybe you have a little Mutu in you.

So what about it….how would you like to see Islam, or Somalian, or Communist, or any cultural, political, sociological or religious influence on your culture that is foreign to you.

If you’re uncomfortable with any of those then I have to say you do have a little Mutu in you.

The Urewera 18 deserve an apology

So the Minister of Police has issued a statement saying there would be no apology to the Urewera 18 since charges have been dropped against most of them.

The Crown and the Police should absolutely apologise.

The Police have said there wasn't enough evidence to proceed against all but four of the accused, quick question...why did that take four years to figure out?

The 'news' we heard all those years ago about military style training camps, terrorism, Molotov Cocktails, firearms etc...that led the police to lay charges surely would lead us all to believe that there was easily enough evidence to take all involved to court.

Quick question, why can a charge be laid when there is insufficient evidence?

If the evidence is there to lay charges, then it should be there to continue with the charges…unless the evidence was never there.

There should be an apology and the reason is simple.

If it was you or I that had been dragged through this for four years…then we’d want one. We, the law abiding, non-minority, middle class centre of NZ would want an apology no matter what we had…or hadn’t done.

If the police have trumped up the charges…an apology is needed.

If the police have stuffed up the case…an apology is needed.

If the police put you or I through 4 years of being accused terrorists, to the detriment of our families, relationships and finances then just threw it all in saying “not enough evidence” we’d demand an apology.

And the people of NZ deserve an apology from the police; this is the second case this month where public money has been spent in the vicinity of $1 million…only to have the case dropped.

What about an apology to us for this funding that has basically been thrown in the fire and burnt.

I have no idea what happened in Te Urewera’s for these arrests to have taken place, I don’t neither support, nor do I condemn, the so called Urewera 18. All I know is that if you or I were put through what they were put through we’d expect, and deserve, an apology.

Why should it be any different for them? 

Do our minor parties have the membership to be eligible for the 2011 election?

I wonder if any of our minor parties are ineligible for the 2011 election.

A fact that I just found out from the Electoral Office is that not only does a group need to attain 500 members to become a party, it also needs to keep 500 on its books to remain a legal entity.

The Electoral Finance Act (1993) states in Section 67, Clause 3 that

“It shall be the duty of the secretary of any political party registered under this Act—

(Part d) to notify the Electoral Commission if the number of current financial members of the party who are eligible to enrol as electors falls below 500”

The Act goes on to explain in section 70, clause 2 of the ramifications of not keeping membership above 500, “The Electoral Commission shall cancel the registration of any political party on being satisfied that the number of current financial members of the party who are eligible to enrol as electors has fallen below 500.”

Political parties are duty bound to provide a declaration every year that their membership is above 500 and the Electoral Office pretty much takes that as gospel. Officially they can challenge the declaration if they are not satisfied, in doing this the Electoral Office can request the members list, and for evidence on how the information on the list was gathered. I am reliably informed this ‘challenge’ has never happened to any party.

To be a member on a political party list you must be an eligible voter which means you must be living, over 18, a NZ Citizen who has been in the country sometime in the past three years or a Permanent Resident who has been in the country sometime in the past 12 months. Finally you must not be incarcerated at the time of the election.

So of our minor parties, are there any that don’t fulfil that membership criteria?

I have just spoken with ‘Margaret’ at ACT’s head office and asked her about how many members ACT has, and how they check if their members are eligible voters. Margaret let me know that they had about 1,000 members and when they send out renewal forms they had to sign the bottom declaring they were over 18. ACT does not check any of the other criteria to ensure their members are eligible voters. Margaret tells me that she would know if any of the members were not in the country during the previous 3 years as ‘the membership is so small’ that she knows them all. When I questioned her on ‘knowing’ 1,000 people I was informed that the board members check to see if anyone was off shore making them ineligible.

‘Michael’ at The Greens tells me that they check to make sure their members are eligible by comparing names of members to the electoral role. The Greens say if they are eligible to vote, they are eligible members…not strictly true when you think that this process must happen every year as a declaration to the Electoral Office which means in theory members could vote in an election, then move offshore for a period of time (or end up in prison) and no longer be eligible.

The Maori Party openly accept members who are not eligible, they have some members as young as 13 years of age, and their checks on the criteria around location is based around someone’s address. However they have 15,000 active members according to Te Orohi Paul, which would mean even if there are some members who would breach the criteria they would still have more than enough to breach the 500 threshold.

The Revenue Minister and Honourable Peter Dunne spoke to me personally when I phoned United Future, and whilst first stating UF won’t disclose numbers of memberships stating the membership was ‘substantially in excess of [500]’, by the end of our cordial chat, and upon hearing that other parties had disclosed their numbers, Mr. Dunne estimated the membership to be around the 800 mark. When pressed about how UF confirms that his membership is eligible I was told that there was a revamp of how they do it this year, including conversations with the Electoral Office and a new form was in place. On the new form there was now a place to make sure the members are eligible. The form asks if the member is over 18, and eligible to vote. Nowhere on the form does it explain actually what criteria are needed to be fulfilled to be eligible.

Although they are not in parliament presently, and most don’t seem to think they’ll be there after November 26^th, I thought it might be interesting to find out how NZ First has gone with its membership since 2008. Membership Secretary Tracey Martin explained that it was party policy that they would not release how many members they have, explaining that it was no use to anyone but her to know that number. She made it clear that she had to sign the declaration with the Electoral Office each year and that was all the information that I should require. They do check their memberships against the electoral role and they must have a valid NZ address which once again puts them in the same camp as The Greens where NZ First is putting the onus of truth onto their members that the information they are giving is true on whether they are eligible.

The idea around looking at minor party membership began when I heard ‘whispers’ that ACT and United Future didn’t have the 500 members required to be eligible party to compete in the election…pure rumour no evidence given, however an interesting observation began to take shape when I told the various minor parties about what I was writing about without mentioning what rumours I had heard, they almost all mentioned ACT and United Future not having 500 members. Was this true...or  had I become a patsy in a smear campaign against two of the minor parties supporting the National Government?

So are ACT and United Future viable? Was their claim to me that that had 1,000 and 800 members respectively accurate?

I told ACT of the whispers and asked if there were prepared to release their list of members, or provide other evidence of their numbers to dispel the rumour and was told by Party Secretary Gary Mallet that he ‘was not interested in dispelling the myth’ and ‘why would [he] do that…what was in it for [him]?’ and then he promptly hung up. Likewise United Future, upon hearing of the rumour said they had more members than required to ‘satisfy the 500.’

I don’t necessarily think there is a smoking gun here, it’s not my place to accuse party members that their telling ‘porkies’ about their numbers, but the reason I started this wee investigation is that it seems fair that if a new party starting out needs 500 members ala Mana and the Conservative Party then it would seem appropriate that incumbent parties are held to the same standard.

Let me make one thing clear, I am not accusing ACT or United Future of misleading the Electoral Office the idea that a political party would make a false declaration to the Electoral Office is very serious, but what I can say unequivocally is that no party is fulfilling the criteria to ensure that their members are eligible voters. All parties are asking their members to signify that they are eligible, however they are not expecting proof and/or they are not providing the information for their members to know whether they are eligible or not.

Again I don’t suspect that there is a smoking gun here, but this is the highest court in the land, surely we have a duty of care to do things properly.

Why the '81 Springbok Tour needed to happen

An article from the Dominion Post came out today with that famous pantyhose wearing rugby player, Alan Hewson, saying that the 1981 Springbok Tour should not have happened. I disagree.

Alan Hewson says he now is thirty years older that "maybe the Government shouldn't have allowed the tour to take place." I disagree.

I understand the sentiment that comes with the idea that we should not have been a part of the racist regime that ruled South Africa for so long, and with the idea that as a young man you may not make the best decisions, but with 30 years hindsight you could also come to another conclusion.

The protests of that 1981 tour did something to the atmosphere of racism in South Africa, it shone a light on it like never before, it brought to the world a new, ugly understanding, of what some people thought of the apartheid movement. Without the tour that never would have happened, without the tour apartheid may have lasted another 6 months?..6years?..60 years? Well it is fairly arrogant to make the argument that the protests against the tour were the reason for the downfall of apartheid...but there did something to its inevitable decline.

To the people in South Africa who were fighting the system the protests were an inspiration, a shot in the arm to help them continue the fight for their cause. In 1995 Nelson Mandela was in NZ and said in 1981 when he heard of the protests that “the sun shone into the dark cells of Robin Island and transformed the oppressive Soweto dungeons of despair into beacons of hope.” Without the tour this would not have happened. Each one of those protesters should be proud that they brought hope to this man, and his fellow oppressed.

There's an old saying that all things can be used for good...I dunno if I'd go that far, but my hindsight of 30 years says that Nelson Mandela needed that tour, South Africa needed that tour, the world needed that tour to shine a light as bright as the sun on the evil nature of how South Africa was run.

Hindsight brings perspective. If you want an example of what I mean watch the movie Invictus, starring Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman. It's the story of the 1995 Rugby World Cup, and whilst there is no 'Suzie', and plenty of Hollywood schmaltz, the basic story is that South Africa needed to win that World Cup to help unite the country. With hindsight, and that knowledge, I don't mind that SA beat us in the final.

Here's a clip...



If Alan Hewson was to ever read this I would say to him that he was an unknowing, unwitting pawn in one of the most important sporting events in recent history that made a tangible difference to the lives of millions of blacks in South Africa, and whilst I agree that Sports and Politics are intrinsically intertwined, with hindsight this is one of the times it worked for good

Election Predictions

So Michael emailed me today and challenged all of us to predict the results for the election. Okay lets do it here...

So this is the idea. You will have a chance to list your guesses now, then come 30 August you will have a chance to revise your picks. I will organise two prizes, one for who is closest from the first pick, then one who is closest from the revised picks. We will say there are 122 seats.

Clear as mud?

Here I go with my first guess.
National 53
Labour 47
Greens 11
ACT 6
Maori Party 2
Mana 2
United Future 1

Left/centre left with 60 seats
Right/centre right with 60 seats
Maori Party with the balance of power

My boggle here is NZ First, I acknowledge you should never could Winston out, but right now I don't think they are goers. However if they were I think it would be at the expense of mostly ACT with people looking for a genuine third party and make the win easier for the left.

Put your predictions in the comments below, feel free to make any 'fence sitting' comments as I have done ;o) as well

Don Brash, defender of the poor and downtrodden

It is fantastic to see that Don Brash is trying to get back into politics with today’s coup of the ACT Party leadership.

Don Brash said in his brief press conference his objectives were to “raise the income levels of all New Zealanders” while making sure that “all New Zealanders are treated equally under the law”. Finally a man in politics who is going to fight for the lower class, to stand up for the marginalised, to speak out for the lower socio-economic groups in NZ. Don Brash is the defender of the poor and downtrodden, a friend to the beneficiary, a campaigner for those in need.

Don Brash is correct, New Zealanders are treated unequally under the law. One 21 year study that looked into this found that Maori offenders were between 2.1 and 2.6 times more likely to get a conviction than a non-Maori offender where there socio-economic standing and repeat offending were similar. Dr. Brash will make sure that Maori offenders are treated the same as non-Maori.

If you have a look at convictions in NZ, 66% of apprehensions of European New Zealanders are resolved by prosecution, whereas 76% of apprehensions of Pacific People end the same way. Pacific People are being treated unfairly under NZ law, Don Brash will be the champion of the Pacific People to make sure they are treated the same under the law.

If you look at the lowest socio-economic groups in NZ, statistics show that they are much more likely to plead guilty to a crime. It is believed that largely this is because they do not have access to the resources to fund a defence campaign as someone in the highest socio-economic group. Don Brash will be a spokesperson for the poor, helping them get equal treatment in NZ courts to the richest people in the country.

If you look at any part of our judicial system, where the wealthy and famous have an advantage then Don Brash will make sure the poorest, least educated and unknown get the same advantages as he wants to ensure that “all New Zealanders are treated equally under the law”. The wealthy get more diversion, more name suppression and more home detention than the rest…not on Dr. Brash’s watch!

And finally, Dr. Brash will be a friend to pensioners and beneficiaries as well as those on the minimum wage. His statement that he intends to “raise the income levels of all New Zealanders” leaves us with only one logical conclusion. That Don Brash will be raising the pension, raising benefits and increasing the minimum wage.

Welcome back to politics Dr. Brash, a man who will passionately work for the marginalised of our beautiful country.

Some Accuracy on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill

Some are for this bill, some are against it, but I think what I am seeing is inaccuracy, xenophobia and hysteria around the bill in general by a few loud voices who are being listened to and believed as if they were Jesus Christ himself spelling out the Gospels.

For me, I don’t have a huge issue with this bill, I never have, and I don’t buy into the conspiracy theories that all of a sudden NZ coastlines will be under lock and key with local Iwi denying access.

But rather than an opinion piece today, let’s just start with some facts about the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.

In 2004 the then Labour government blocked Maori the ability to have their day in court and challenge to see whether ownership of the foreshore and seabed was their right, this Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill redresses this.

So what does the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill do now that it has passed?

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill allows Maori to go to the courts to put their case for ownership (of sorts) to their ancestral foreshore and seabed. Maori can also negotiate with a Minister one on one, but if they do the negotiated agreement must then be put before parliament to be either approved or not. What the bill doesn’t do is hand the keys to our beaches over to Maori to the detriment of every other person living in NZ. There is due process to go through and Maori have 6 years to lodge a claim.

Maori need to prove exclusive use and occupation of the foreshore and seabed since 1840, which I think will actually be very difficult to do but if they do they will then be granted a new form of property right called ‘Customary Title’

What is Customary Title?

Customary Title is a new form of ‘ownership’ that has many provisions attached to it. If an Iwi get Customary Title they cannot sell the land and they cannot block access for any recreational use of the beach such as swimming or recreational fishing and boating. Under Customary Title Maori can say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to developments on that land including things like marinas and wharfs, they can make money out of minerals excluding gold, silver, petroleum or uranium as they are owned by the crown (which is another conversation altogether). Under Customary Title Maori can also charge developers for the right to build on the land and they will have a say in decisions around planning and conservation. Finally Maori will be able to protect sights deemed culturally significant.

All these provisions apply to the foreshore and seabed, which is the from high tide mark out to sea about 26m kilometres. It doesn’t include above the high tide mark, and it doesn’t include any land adjacent to the beach itself.

Let’s bring some context to this idea now.

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill will affect about 2,000 kilometres of our coastline, or about 11%, and we have groups like the Coastal Coalition and ACT scaremongering that Kiwis will lose access to all beaches.

In 2003, prior to the whole Foreshore and Seabed Act debate starting, the then Labour Government was looking into the Queens Chain. The Labour Government released some figures showing that of the “18,000 kilometres of New Zealand coastline, around a third, is in private hands.” So right now, about one third of our coastline is owned privately, mostly by non-Maori. Those private owners can have say over what developments happen on their land, they can make money off developers and they have say over planning and conservation. But most importantly you can be denied access to those beaches because it’s private land.

ACT and the Coastal Coalition seem to not have mentioned to NZ that this is the case already, surely if they had the courage of their convictions if would be better for New Zealanders if they started the process to take back one third of our coastlines from those who already own it, and have a much more detrimental legal use of them than the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill will ever give Maori.

Here’s the thing, what you are hearing from those loud voices telling you that you will be denied access to the beaches is opinion, not fact. Now everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how ignorant it may be, but my desire is for people to make their own opinions based on the facts laid before them, which is hopefully what I have done in this post. My one concern is that New Zealanders are hearing opinion, taking it as fact, and spreading it as if it is Gospel.

If you read this article, and come to the same opinion as the ACT party, then bless you, at least you can’t claim ignorance. For me, as I said at the start, this Bill is not something I am worried about, and I think that if anyone is being divisive in this conversation it’s those spreading opinion and rumour as fact.

Do we really want a Center governement?

I wonder sometimes if what we say we want...is actually what we want in politics.

It seems that what we hear over and over again is the viable third party...a party for all New Zealand, a party that represents the majority of us, a Centrist Party!

John Key is a very centrist politician...in some areas he is more left that Labour and in other areas he is very right. I interviewed him last year and he described himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. He is somewhat left, somewhat right...he is in fact as close as we've seen to a centrist politician in quite a while.

Here's the problem, when you position yourself in the centre, it means you please a lot of people, but annoy many at the same time.

Ratifying the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, seen by many as a very left position to take. This has the possibility of alienating his traditional right supporter base. Also the rise of GST and changes to income tax, seen by many as a typical right government move but will this just confirm to the middle-left support base John Key may be gaining that nothing has changed?

When you are in the middle you are in danger of being a jack of all trade, but master of none.

If National annoys more people than it pleases they may be a one term government, if they please more than they annoy then they could be here for a while. And by looking at the polls right now you'd have to say that NZ is basically happy with a Center-Right Government with a Centrist Prime Minister

Winston Peters is NZs 'Virgin Mary'

If you have a critical word to say about Winston Peters some people lose their mind.

This morning the topic of conversation was around Winston, and my opinion that he says lots of words but no substance ever really comes out. A perfect example of this is Close Up last night where the debate was about the retirement age (I have no idea why Winston was on anyway, he isn't in Government and he isn't any kind of specialist in the area of retirement...but he is good press). The Retirement Commissioner was on and had some really sensible things to say about address the aging population now, not in 20 years when it's too late, and saying if we give someone 20 years pension (on average) then in 20 years life expectancy will have gone up from 85 to 87, so we could raise the pension age then to 67. Winston's response was all bluster, rhetoric and slogans.

'Our economy is in the poo and you're blaming the elderly'
'If Norway and Singapore can do it, why can't we?'
'In 1997 we had the right idea'

So I called him on it...and people lost their minds!!!

Over this year, I have critiqued many MPs...always for reasons that have been put in the public eye...Shane Jones, Chris Carter, Bill English, Melissa Lee, Pansy Wong, The Greens, David Garret, Rodney Hide...and the list goes on...but one criticism of The Right Honourable you get emails like this from Lorane, "All what you said about Winston Peters this morning should warrant immediate dismisal" and from Betty Harrington of Hutt Valley directing me to the mesage board because I am "Not too popular Pat."

Winston Peters is the ultimate politician, he is so good, that he takes an issue that is for the 40 years old and under...and uses it to gain support from his constituents. The issue on Close Up last night wasn't for the 65+ brigade, but Winston made it about them. See if we up the retirement age in 2033...it people like me that are affected by it. If you are retired now it won't affect you. But when Winston said "It's attacking the elderly" that's when his political nous is clear to see...It's not attacking the elderly, if anything it's attacking those under 40...as we are the ones that will have the retirement age put up.

What I realised when listening to how people spoke last night is that NZ First is a religion and Winston is their Virgin Mary. When Te Papa showed the Virgin Mary in a Condom piece, Catholics lost their minds...and more obviously when C4 ran a South Park episode where a statue of the Virgin Mary was said to menstruate there were catholic groups protesting outside the studios. South Park every week takes the mickey out of Jesus, Catholics say nothing...but the Virgin Mary is slighted and they lost their minds.

Mary would seem to be holier than Jesus, just like Winston is more sacred than any other member of NZ First...and any other politician that gets criticised. He is our 'Virgin Mary'.

Winston Peters is all full of rhetoric and bluster before an election, he calls everyone on everything, he speaks like he is going to change the world...but in recent years is quite timid in parliament, he is actually quite centrist and moderate...but that won't get him elected.

Winston Peters is a political genius, and he has a constituency of older Pakeha voters. Winston Peters needs to push those buttons to get their support...so for the next 12 months you'll hear from him...

* Retirement age
* Foreshore and Seabed
* Immigrants
* The three M's - Muslims, Maoris and Migrants
* Supergold Card

And we may well see him back in politics because people will buy it.

From this whole debate, what is clear is that we don't have a decent third party. Is NZ First the best we have? If that is so what a shame for New Zealand.

Barack Obama on 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'

Part One

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Barack Obama Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Part Two

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Barack Obama Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Part Three

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Barack Obama Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

David Cunliffe and Steven Joyce on GST increase and more

Conversation on GST from Sunday Sunday, 3rd October.

Labour Finance Spokeman David Cunliffe spoke first on the 'new' idea of taking GST off healthy food.

Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io

Associate Finance Minister Steven Joyce then spoke on why the GST increase and more...

Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io

GST up, PAYE down...who wins?

We are being told repetitively that 'most will be better off' when GST goes up on Friday, and the tax cuts come in. This is an accurate statement if you are looking at if one will have more or less in their hand at the end of the week...but if you look at the fairness of the amount you will get you might find another story within this story.

You can use this website to estimate your own finances and to see if you will be better off or not http://www.taxguide.govt.nz/

The people who won't be better off are those that don't pay tax. An example is someone studying living off a student loan, they don't pay tax, hence no tax cut and therefore the extra GST will need to be absorbed within their current budget. Those of us paying income tax, for the most part, will be better off.

My questions are, is the system fair, and, who is the biggest winner in all this?

Well lets have a look at a few scenarios.

If you earn $20,000 you will be better off by $2.16 per week, or 0.56%. On $20,000 you'll end up after GST goes up, and the tax cuts come in, being better off by 0.56%, However the more you earn, the better off you become. We don't work this out by how much extra money you see, but by how much better off you are as a percentage. For $20k you're better off by 0.56%. Below are some more breakdowns.

If you earn $20k, you are $2.16 better off per week or 0.56%
If you earn $40k you are $8.65 better off per week or 1.12%
If you earn $60k you are $15.04 better off per week or 1.3%
If you earn $80k you are $24.92 better off per week or 1.62%
If you earn $100k you are $38.85 better off per week or 2.02%
If you earn $200k you are $108.51 better off per week or 2.8%

As you can see, the more you earn, the better off you will be when it comes to a percentage breakdown. This seems to me to be the definition of 'tax cuts for the rich'. Surely the fair result is if we were all better off on a more equal footing, not as in the amount, but the percentage.

If we did use the 2.8% better off mark the the $200,000 earner receives, this is what the amounts would look like.
If you earn $20k, you’d be better off $10.77 per week @ 2.8%
If you earn $40k you’d be better off $21.54 per week @ 2.8%
If you earn $60k you’d be better off $32.31 per week @ 2.8%
If you earn $80k you’d be better off $43.08 per week @ 2.8%
If you earn $100k you’d be better off $53.85 per week @ 2.8%

I assume that the reason we are not seeing this size cuts is that the country cannot afford to lose that much tax revenue, but why give the biggest benefits to those in society who are better off.

Either the government should make the percentage fairer. or if there was going to be a skew then surely it would be better to give a bigger percentage to those who need it more...at the bottom.

It get's worse for Rodney Hide

Larry Williams has just finished an interview with Rodney Hide, in the interview Larry asked Mr. Hide if he was actually the target, not David Garret. Hide said "No" and also stated clearly that he would not be stepping down from the leadership role.

The most surprising part of the interview was Mr. Hide revealing that he didn't know that the offensive act committed by Mr. Garret was suppressed. Which means that Rodney Hide not only knew of this horrific act, but didn't think he had to keep it secret.

See if Hide thought it was suppressed, he'd have to keep it secret, as it's a court order. However if he didn't realise that it was suppressed, which means Rodney Hide chose to keep it secret.

In his own mind (which many think is where Rodders lives permanently) Rodney Hide had the opportunity and ability to release this information to the people of NZ...and chose not to.

The ACT party is done, they only way they could hope to be re-elected is if Hide was to step down...however even then, they'll only get in on Epsom, and we all hope and pray that the good citizens of Epsom release NZ of this virus of party in about 14 months.

Rodney Hide is a Thunderbird!

Question is...who is pulling his strings?

Who else in parliament stands for one thing...but does the complete opposite?

Soooooo, how often do you quite literally have a jaw dropping incident? Quite rare ah? Earlier this week we heard about ACT Party Law and Order Spokesman, David Garret, and his conviction for assault. Garret explained it away and although embarrassing, it didn't seem to be the end of the world. Then today happened!

Here's how it panned out.

TVNZ's Guyon Espiner asked Garret in a corridor at parliament if he has had pled guilty to any other charges in NZ. Garret was visibly knocked...he paused...paused again...then asked what Espiner was referring to. 4 hours later Garrett was admitting in the house that he used methods he learned about in 'The Day of the Jackal' to obtain a dead child’s birth certificate, then use that to get a passport in that child's name.

He pled guilty, was discharged without conviction and received permanent name suppression, which is something the ACT party has railed against. It does raise the question why did he 'fess up, if he has name suppression.

Rodney Hide did know about this issue, and still bought him on board. Hide also stated on Close Up of Garret that he'd never met anyone "who knew more about what we needed to do in NZ to get tough on crime"...obviously other than his own crimes...note the 's' on the end there...crimes.

What I am interested in is how so often people who rally against some part of society, and they end up being intrinsically a part of that area in society.

Think the worst of the worst, Graham Capil fought for 'family values' while committing horrendous acts on children. To a much lesser extent examples like Rodney Hide who was the major person fighting against perk-busting then stuck his name in the trough, Phillip Field fighting for lower socio-economic societies while taking advantage of migrants to get cheap tiling done, Bill English fighting to get us all to tighten our belts while he has a dubious claim to living away from home and claiming tens of thousands for a second home, credit card abuse, travel abuse...and the list goes on...

Lets take this to the next level, if all MPs are saying one thing...but doing another, what is still to come out?

Maybe Sue Bradford want to re-introduce the cane...

Maybe Sir Roger Douglas wants to have us run as a socialist country...

Maybe Jerry Brownlee wants to out tax up on pies...

Chris Carter obviously believes that marriage is only for a man and woman...

Judith Collins want to make modifications on cars tax free...

Shane Jones wants all porn banned from hotels...

Russell Norman is fighting to make GE crops more attainable...

And Hone Harawira is trying to help Pakeha get a hand up in life...

I mean the above is ludicrous, sadly though, it's not as ludicrous as the actual events that seem to befalling the likes of ACT's spokesman for Law and Order, David Garret right now.

The only thing to stop the Republicans is the Republicans

The GOP should smash the Democrats in the mid term elections in 7 weeks, only one thing can really get in their way...the GOP.

See the problem with the Democrats is they are too fractured, there base is far left to centre. Typically the GOP has set itself up to be much more aligned with one another. The Republicans seem to be able to get together much more easily and agree, whereas the Dems views are so varied, even thought the have the house, the senate and the white house at the moment, they can't get things done.

However, now there is a so-called 'grass roots' movement coming out of the GOP called the Tea Party, they are selling themselves as being a party for everyone...but it simply ain't so. They tend to be conservative Caucasian evangelical Christians whose new messiah is Glenn Beck, and whose new scripture comes from Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and the team at FOX News. This group is the only thing that can cause the GOP to stumble at the mid-terms as they are starting to win primaries and becoming officially the GOP nominations, to run for the Senate. Just an aside, in the American system the base of a constituency decides who is going to represent them at the upcoming election.

From the bbc.co.uk
Tea party candidate wins in Delaware primary upset

Tea Party-backed Christine O'Donnell won an upset victory in Delaware's Republican Senate primary Conservative activist Christine O'Donnell has won an upset victory over longtime Congressman Mike Castle in Delaware's Republican Senate primary.

Ms O'Donnell's win will give impetus to the conservative Tea Party movement.

Former New Hampshire health Commissioner John Stephen also beat three opponents to capture the Republican nomination in the state.

People in seven states and Washington DC are voting to pick party candidates ahead of mid-term elections...Continue reading the story

So, how will this be detrimental for the Republicans?

Firstly it will fracture the party more, and make those within the party more distant from one another as the Tea Partiers tend to be saying that their current GOP representatives are not 'conservative' enough. So this will strengthen a far right part of the party. When in power they will then face the same problem as the Democrats, of not just fighting the opposition, but fighting one another.

Secondly when it comes to polling day, the public will look at the two candidates. What they will see is the Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin backed Tea Partiers with no experience, a uber conservative religious agenda and no background in politics, and seasoned politicians who know how to work the system. There will be some who think a 'Grizzly Mom' is the way to go, and others that vote Republican because they will only support the GOP, but all polls say it won't happen, common sense says it won't happen and even FOX News says it won't happen.

In the Republican race for Delaware, now won by Tea Partier Christine O'Donnell, the polls prior to the decision showed this. If Mike Castle had been the Republican nominee he would have beaten his Democrat counterpart by 11%, if O'Donnell was to win, she would lose by 11%. Now polls are polls are polls, but asking the Republican support base who they thing would win the state and to have a 20% swing does not bode well for Tea Party nominees.

When FOX News is warning against electing Tea Partiers...then you know it's over. I think Charles Krauthammer, uber conservative and FOX News commentator, said it best two days ago, "You have to elect the most electable." For supporters of the Tea Party movement...it's not your candidate.

Islamophobiapalooza

The FOX News narrative taken apart from numerous, as demonstrated by Jon Stewart and The Daily Show crew...although as you'll see...the narrative continues

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Islamophobiapalooza
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The ‘h’ debate

I see that Mayor Michael Laws is trying to re-ignite the debate over the ‘h’ in Whanganui. As reported on Stuff.co.nz he is going to ‘complain to the Press Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority over media using the name Whanganui.’ He has gone so far as to say that media bodies that using the name Whanganui are acting illegally. I guess that makes me a criminal.

The "h" conversation feels finished to me. As far as I'm concerned the decision is made and Mayor Laws got some consolation in the end. Through his tireless efforts and the voice of a sector of his community, the Geographic Board agreed to make both Whanganui and Wanganui official. I've looked at other decisions made by the Board and this is not usually the case, therefore it is a ‘win’ for Michael Laws.

Why is Michael Laws bringing this up again? Is it to divert attention from the embarrassing headlines of last week regarding his interactions with an ex-prostitute and ‘P’ user? Is it that it is currently the time of year when commercial radio stations round the country are fighting for ratings and Mr. Laws needs desperately for his ratings to rise? Or does he genuinely believe the rhetoric he is spouting?

Michael Laws says that over the past 160 years or so, Wanganui has developed its own culture, and he’s right, and that’s why the Geographic Board allowed that spelling of the beautiful town to remain without the ‘h’. Again this appears to be a win for Mr. Laws.

Michael Laws often uses the argument that even the local iwi don’t pronounce the ‘Wh’ as an ‘f’ sound. Again, Mr. Laws is right…but it is a weak argument. What he is saying is that even if people are stupid enough (my paraphrase) to want to include the ‘h’, they should then at least pronounce it as the local iwi do, with the ‘Wh’ sounding more like the start of ‘whistle’.

I've developed my own theory on this, I call it the 'dominant dialect theory'. I think that the most common pronunciation of a word makes that pronunciation acceptable, even if it differs from local dialect. Amongst Maori speakers most pronounce ‘Wh’ as an ‘f’ therefore it is entirely acceptable to pronounce Whanganui with the ‘f’ sound. If we followed Michael Laws’ argument of how the local dialect is the only acceptable alternate version, we would all need to roll our ‘r’ when pronouncing Gore because that is how the locals say it. It just doesn't work.

Finally the concept that Mayor Laws uses repetitively which is that the majority want it without the ‘h’ therefore it’s undemocratic to put in the ‘h’ is rubbish. Laws is not talking about democracy, he is talking about mob rule. Sometimes the ‘majority’ shouldn’t get what they want…sometimes there are good reasons why the majority should bow to official decisions. If you asked students to vote whether they should pay fees or not, I’ll bet the majority would say ‘No!’, but if we followed that mob rule our national debt would go further through the roof to pay for University fees.

Laws is pitching this to the lowest common denominator, those who are scared of the ‘taniwha’ under the bed, and he is looking for people to buy his over-simplified , thin at best, divisive attitude towards an issue where he has already had a win…it’s just not the ‘win’ he wanted.

Whanganui, Wanganui, Whatever…isn’t it time to let this old, old warhorse know that those of us that want to call it Wanganui can….that those of us that want to call it Whanganui with an ‘f’ can…and that those of us that want to call it Whanganui with a ‘wh’ can…where’s the problem with that?

Who said Jews can't dance?

If it's a hoax it's one of the best, the world media (incl. TVNZ) has reported it as factual. They say the Israeli Army has disciplined the soul-diers

Click here for one of the news reports