Monthly Archive for March, 2008

Scum

Published
by
IrishBill
on March 31, 2008
in fuckwits
. 92 Comments

Cameron Slater’s co-blogger Steady Eddy is back to his creepy brownshirt tricks again and this time his target is Labour Party candidate Kate Sutton. I’ll say right now that I’m concerned about giving this filth any oxygen but considering Eddy’s previous attacks on Sutton have been approvingly linked to by National Party blogger David Farrar I’d say the damage has been done.

To be honest I’m too angry to say much about this post other than I hope Kate gets the police involved and finds out who this little creep is because this is sickening even by Cameron’s standards and it shows all too clearly that nasty misogynist rightwing discourse is still alive and well in the blogosphere. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: boys (because that’s all you are, at best) your hatred and fear of women shows only how weak and vile you are. Go back to your dirty little single bedrooms and leave politics to the adults.

And as for David Farrar? Well David, I just want you to realise you have facilitated and encouraged this shit. Tane warned you about where it was going and you tried to play innocent. You need to take a long hard look at yourself and the culture of filth you are facilitating instead of trying to worm your way out of it. You’re a grown man and you have influence over Cameron. Take some personal responsibility for this and tell him to remove this post. It’s what decent adults do.

Update: within ten minutes of this post Eddy’s post was removed from Cameron’s site. We have however, saved a copy and will be providing it to Kate if she wants to take this issue further.

Cheap thrills

Published
by
all_your_base
on March 31, 2008
in act
. 7 Comments

712403.jpg

If you’re in the market for some cheap BZP but don’t want to sell your soul to the ACT Party to get your hands on it, apparently you’re in luck.

The parties’ climate change policies

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on March 31, 2008
in activism, election 2008 and environment
. 11 Comments

‘Tis the season for surveys of the parties. Greenpeace sent a questionnaire to each of the parliamentary parties asking for their polices on 20 climate change issues. They’ve published the answers and rated the policies for effectiveness tackling climate change. The results are summarised below. Parties could score up to two ticks per answer if they had a good policy or two crosses if their policy was bad for climate change (giving a a maximum of forty).

greenpeacesurvey.JPGAs you would hope, the Greens performed very well. The one four points on which they did not receive full marks are points on which reasonable people can differ such as whether coal can have any sustainable role in energy generation. The Progressives also performed well, a welcome surprise, given their slightly old-Left image. Good to see United Future has dropped its denier position of last election and gained a middling score.

Both the major parties disappointed. Labour’s policy towards climate change is simply too timid. Fortunately, they are working closely with the Greens on government policy. National’s new ‘blue-green’ stance is completely exposed as completely hollow politicking. They couldn’t even be bothered answering the questions directly: National directed Greenpeace to a couple of old speeches and policy papers. If anyone still seriously thinks the Greens and National could work together, this survey should dissuade them.

Unsurprisingly, ACT did not bother answering the survey. Even in yesterday’s debate, Hide was completely out of touch, denying climate change. It is more disappointing that NZF and the Maori Party, especially, could not respond.

Climate change is the most serious threat, along with its twin Peak Oil, to our continued prosperity. The parties need to get more serious about it.

Interview the leaders II: The Greens

Published
by
IrishBill
on March 31, 2008
in election 2008, greens, interview and progressives
. 50 Comments

leaders450.jpg

Well, we’ve made our decision on the two questions you wanted asked of Jim Anderton and one of the decisions we made was that we needed three questions. So we’ve picked the following:

For the question that will be asked of all leaders we’ve chosen Wat Tyler’s question as tidied up by Billy:

Of which of your achievements in politics are you most proud?

For the two other questions we’ve gone with Daveo’s question:

Why should left-leaning NZers vote Progressive rather than Labour or Green?

and Gobbler’s question:

Can you demonstrate that Government investment in initiatives such as the ‘jobs machine’ the Ministry of Economic Development or New Zealand Trade and Enterprise generates a greater return to ‘NZ inc’ than say Government investment in a national fibre-optic network and additional overseas fibre optic cabling? - Just as one example…

While we haven’t been able to cover everything you asked we have emailed Jim a link to the questions post so he can have a look at your issues. We’re expecting to post his answers on Wednesday Monday April 7.

In the meantime our next leader is Green party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimmons. You can place your questions to her in the comments section of this post.

National’s victims policy

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on March 31, 2008
in crime and national
. 3 Comments

National has proposed several initiatives around victims’ rights, most of which are based on policy already under development by the Ministry of Justice.

Sure to gain media attention is the ‘Victims’ Compensation Scheme’ to be funded from a levy of $50 on every convicted offender. This is meant to fund victims’ costs “such as travel to court and additional counselling”. Problem is with 110,000 convictions a year, the Scheme will raise $5 million, which isn’t going to go very far for victims. And that’s assuming it’s a $50 levy for each conviction. National seems to be saying it’s $50 per convicted offender, many offenders are convicted of multiple charges, in which case the Scheme may raise less than $1 million a year. And what if offenders can’t pay? Then there is a natural justice issue, should offenders in ‘victimless crimes’ be forced to pay a levy for victims? These are just some of the more basic design issues that the Ministry of Justice deals with around victim compensation; National seems to have no appreciation of them.

National would also take away from offenders any compensation they have received for mistreatment while in prison. You may remember there was a furore over this several years ago: over a hundred prisoners had been held in prison beyond their release dates; they were, therefore, being detained without legal cause. They received compensation in one of the last cases to go to the Privy Council. Other prisoners have received compensation for being physically abused by prison staff. National will take away those damages payments, which surely creates a moral hazard for Corrections.

So, there you have it. Under National if you are the victim of a crime you might be able to apply to have your bus fare to Court covered by the VCS and if you are imprisoned for a crime Corrections staff can do whatever they like to you, even if you do get compensation National will take it off you.

Also, these policies are going to take staff to administer. Didn’t John Key just promise to not increase the number of ‘bureaucrats’, including Justice staff?

What’s up, Doc?

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on March 31, 2008
in health and media
. 18 Comments

There have been a number of stories recently about the number of doctors heading overseas but they are usually sensationalist and lack context. The most important questions are how many doctors do we have working in New Zealand, and how does that relate to the size of the population? Fortunately, the Medical Council produces an annual report on the number of active doctors. And, guess what? The number of doctors working in New Zealand is not only increasing, it is far outstripping population growth.

active-doctors-450.jpg

Would it be great to have more doctors, retain more New Zealand-trained doctors, and pay doctors more? Yes, yes, and yes.

Does the fact some New Zealand doctors are heading overseas mean we’re running out? Doesn’t look like it.

The Kingmaker Debate

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on March 31, 2008
in election 2008
. 150 Comments

crown1.jpgTV7’s Kingmaker debate was an opportunity for the leaders of the smaller parties to promote themselves without being overshadowed by Clark and Key. It’s shallow to give out points for a debate like this or announce winners but the debate did highlight the leaders’ strengths and weaknesses.

Anderton did bloody well. He pointed to where his party stands part from Labour, did an excellent job standing for the Progressives’ well-known and clearly defined principles, and rapped the Right on their constant negativism and ‘New Zealand Sucks’ campaign, while providing a fair amount of humour. On the topic of bottom-lines and who parties could work with, Anderton aid down the gantlet saying voters have the right to know which major party they might be putting into government by voting for a minor party.

Dunne was his dull, say-whatever-the-centre-wants-to-hear self and provided no real vision or reason to vote for United Future. He clearly leans to National but will work with whoever gives him the most power.

Fitzsimmons presented  a clear set of principles and an optimistic vision of a future New Zealand. The debate showed that many parties had moved their policies towards the Greens on a number of issues, especially climate change, of course. But once again the Greens’ skill at being right before everyone else was let down by their political skills. Fitzsimmons appeared almost timid, too often she portrayed the Greens as victims – their contributions ignored or underrated by media and other parties alike. And her comment regarding tax-cuts that ‘anyone will take a lollipop’ is not the way to win votes. Fitzsimmons needs to work on her media skills.

Hide answered every question by saying we need tax cuts for the rich. The only interesting thing he said was that, following Key’s rejection of the possibility of having ACT’s Roger Douglas in a National-led Cabinet, a number of National figures had approached him saying they do see a place for Douglas in Cabinet under National. That people in National have gone behind Key’s back to make such comments to ACT suggests a deeper level of dissension in the ranks than previously thought.

Sharples appeared under prepared and uncertain at times. He couldn’t give firm answers to a number of questions, saying his party would need to consult with supporters before it could answer basic questions like which of the major parties it would prefer to govern with . Politicians from other parties would be rewarded for this ‘vagueness’ but the emphasis on consultation plays well with Maori.

Peters didn’t show, officially because of a prior arrangement but really because he considers NZF above the minor parties, a mistake that made him seem arrogant and a lost opportunity to appear in a forum in which he surely would have starred.

All in all, the debate was very good. Let’s hope there are plenty more as we head into the election.

Herald Digipoll

Published
by
Tane
on March 29, 2008
in election 2008 and polls
. 56 Comments

herald 450

The New Zealand Herald reports that Labour has almost halved National’s lead in its latest DigiPoll survey, following a month “memorable for slip-ups and lacklustre performances by leader John Key.”

Labour’s managed to claw its way up towards the 40% mark and that’s good news for the Left, which is now back within striking distance of forming a government.

There is however real cause for concern in the Greens remaining below the 5% threshold. This should be their election, and results like this suggest they need to do some serious work on their messaging.

When good ads go bad

Published
by
all_your_base
on March 28, 2008
in humour
. 6 Comments

bad_ad.jpg

From Stuff: Details of a massive home loan scam targeting buyers in South Auckland have emerged involving former Westpac mortgate manager Amar Singh.

(Hat-tip: Simon)

Interview the leaders

Published
by
all_your_base
on March 28, 2008
in activism, election 2008, interview and progressives
. 48 Comments

leaders450.jpg

We’re going to interview the leader of each party but we’d like to give you the chance to ask the questions.

Starting next week we’ll submit two questions to a leader each Monday, one of which will be the same for each of them to allow you to compare those answers; the second question will be ‘leader specific’.

Each leader’s reply will be posted the following Monday and the questions for the next leader will be emailed. This process will continue until we’ve talked to them all.

We’ll choose the questions from your suggestions posted in the comments section of this post.

This is your chance to ask the political leaders questions you would never hear on the evening news. Keep them above the belt but make them tough.

First cab off the rank is Jim Anderton from the Progressive Party. Ask away!

National’s tax cut dilemma

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on March 28, 2008
in election 2008, national and tax
. 12 Comments

If National are so keen to cut taxes and so critical of the Government for not doing so earlier, why are they being so tight-lipped about how they would cut taxes and even the size of their cuts? Because the Budget has them trapped.

Labour plans to announce its tax cuts in the Budget, probably including cuts coming into effect on October 1, before the election. This puts National in a difficult position. They will be going into the election with a tax cut programme already budgeted into future government forecasts and some of those cuts already flowing into voters’ wallets. Any National tax programme that does not incorporate these existing Labour tax cuts will mean taking money away from some voters, which is politically untenable for a pony whose one trick is tax cuts. National will most likely have to accept whatever tax cut programme Labour presents, and certainly will not be able to promise to reverse the tax cuts coming into effect on October 1.

National will only be able to offer additional tax cuts on top of Labour’s. But how much additional money will National have to play with? Colin Espiner estimates National might have a total of $3-$3.5 billion compared to Labour’s $2-$2.5 billion. Given it can’t reverse Labour’s tax cuts, that leaves National with only $0.5-$1.5 billion to play with. That comes out at only $3-$10 a week per taxpayer - not exactly an earth-shaking tax cut plan. Moreover, the additional cuts National proposes will stand in direct contrast to the extra spending Labour offers. Voters will already have decent tax cuts in the bag, National will have to convince them they should vote for a small additional cut (which, in National tradition, will mostly go to the wealthy), rather than new spending on services. That will be a hard sell.

The other option will be for National to blow the budget by offering several billion in tax cuts additional to Labour’s, but to fund that they would have to cut services or run a deficit. Any large cuts would be strongly inflationary. That would blow away National’s new moderate stance and scare away voters. National will go with the second option. National can’t be seen to be Labour lite on tax cuts; it must retain this point of difference by offering much bigger cuts funded by attacking spending. We can see signs of this in Key’s promise to cap the core public service and more vague mumblings about public sector waste, but as we’ve seen such measures will free up very little money.

So, on tax cuts, National is trapped between a rock and a hard place. It will have to follow Labour’s lead and will only be able to offer a pittance on top, or go for broke and promise huge cuts, no matter what the economic and social cost. Facing a fourth term in opposition, which option do you think they’ll take?

Belated big-ups

Published
by
IrishBill
on March 28, 2008
in blogs
. 6 Comments

It’s been a bit remiss of us to have failed to welcome The Hand Mirror into the left blogosphere. I’ve only just had a proper look at it and I’ve got to say it is gold. Sort of like one of those action movies where half a dozen superheros get together to save the world. Except feminist and smarter and with a better plot-line and not a movie (I’m also pretty sure a blog can’t save the world but I don’t really want to admit that). Come to think of it that was a stupid analogy. Nonetheless The Hand Mirror is definitely a welcome addition to the sphere and definitely a must-read.

An embarrassing effort

Published
by
Tane
on March 27, 2008
in media and workers' rights
. 36 Comments

Ever since the Herald lost its rag over the EFA I’ve come to expect little more than half-truths and inaccuracies from its editorials, but today’s effort was particularly disappointing.

Business NZ press release in one hand and a keyboard in the other, the Herald had itself all wound up over suggestions that proposed minimum entitlements to meal and refreshment breaks might compel workers to take breaks against their will.

Of course, this concern might be valid if it were even remotely true, but it’s not. As this blog and others have noted, minimum entitlements simply provide a right to take a break, not a compulsion to do so; a rather simple concept that renders the Herald’s entire argument nonsensical.

A few paragraphs in and the Herald was at it again, claiming the change will be “largely academic” because collective agreements “currently govern rest and meal breaks for most workers.” This is just idiotic. Collective agreements cover only 20% of New Zealand workers, and just 12% in the private sector – that’s why the legislation is being introduced in the first place.

The Herald went on to argue that because refreshment breaks have not been guaranteed in law it “probably suggests little need was seen for it.” Again, this is bollocks. The right to meal and refreshment breaks was enshrined in law for most of the last century and was only taken away in the 1990s when National abolished the Awards system and repealed the Factories and Commercial Premises Act.

I know it’s basic stuff, but you’d think the senior editorial staff at our country’s largest daily could at least get their facts right. This kind of effort is just embarrassing for everyone.

National’s nanny state

Published
by
all_your_base
on March 27, 2008
in national and news
. 72 Comments

Seems to me we need some consensus on what a “Nanny State” actually is.

Today the Nats have come out in opposition of some scholarships awarded for doctoral research by the Tertiary Education Commission - stuff like “children’s colour use and emotional wellbeing when drawing” being researched by Emily Crawford at Otago University. What could be more Nanny State or authoritarian than telling academics what they can and can’t research?

A few weeks back there were calls for legislation to ban the use of cellphones while driving in an effort to reduce crashes - despite the fact that we routinely participate in other equally risky activity while driving (neither was there any decent statistical analysis to shows that such a ban would even be likely to have an impact). No mention of the Nanny by the Granny though.

On the flip-side there was a public outcry from groups like Family First when the government moved to help stop people getting off beating their kids by repealing s59 - “Nanny state”. Similarly when the government moved to reduce our appalling rate of food poisoning by introducing stricter food hygiene regulations - “Nanny state”.

I don’t think you can have it both ways, National, The Herald, et al. At least not without a decent explanation.

PS. To any of the people who have had their research criticised by Paul Hutchinson feel free to get in touch if you’re reading this - perhaps we could discuss the possibility of a guest post by you in reply.

If I were the Greens’ campaign strategist

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on March 27, 2008
in election 2008 and greens
. 27 Comments

This should be the Greens’ time in the sun. For decades, the Green movement has been concerned about the future impacts of climate change, peak oil, and resource depletion. The future is now. These once far-off concerns are having impacts today and people are finally becoming aware of the importance of sustainability and demanding government policy to match.  The Greens have done a good job pointing out the danger ahead with change and individual Greens often have well-developed ideas for what needs to change but they have done a much worse job communicating a positive policy alternative.

Add to that, voters are looking for a change from Labour, and many are looking to National only by default. Despite perfect conditions the Greens have failed to seize their opportunity, thus far.

The Greens need a positive, visionary, and practical policy platform worthy of a major party that will seize the public imagination. They need to present themselves as the other alternative to Labour. Forget the negativism, forget punishing polluters, and, for god’s sake, forget the snails; the Greens’ policy must reward positive action, relate to big issues people are fimilar with, and be big spending.

One element should be an energy independence strategy for New Zealand. This would rationalise and, possibly, renationalise the energy sector so that we can protect our energy reserves in the face of peak oil. It would involve investing massively in renewable electricity generation, public transport, rail, and coastal shipping, and providing incentives for businesses and individuals to become more energy efficient above and beyond good measures such as removing daily charges on electricity connections and raising unit costs. As part of this programme, money should be invested in making New Zealand a world leader in renewables research, which will generate intellectual capital we can share (and sell) to the rest of the world.

Another pillar of the Greens’ campaign should be slashing income and corporate taxes, and replacing the lost income with the proceeds from auctions for permits to extract resources and pollute, and capital gains tax on property. If the Greens provide a simple, implementable eco-taxation policy that puts the income taxes up front, the public will be receptive.

The third pillar for the Greens should be ensuring New Zealand’s economic independence by protecting and renationalising, where appropriate, strategic assets, so that profits from these businesses no longer flow overseas.

The Greens can’t seriously pretend they would govern with National. Nor should they, it only risks driving away their base. What they can offer is a more courageous policy platform than Labour would provide on its own, a platform that doesn’t flinch in the face of the problems ahead of us but tackles them head on.

Canada’s shame

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on March 27, 2008
in activism, environment and international
. 21 Comments

seals.JPGFor those of you who saw the title and thought this post was about Celine Dion, sorry, it’s about the seal cull. 

Every year Canada kills and skins hundreds of thousands of baby harp seals, leaving their bodies to rot. The seal cullers’ favoured tool is the vicious hakapik – a long pole with a sharp spike intended to destroy the seal’s brain but which often fails to kill the animal, meaning it is skinned alive.

Why does Canada slaughter seals in such barbaric fashion?

The trade in seal skins generates relatively little revenue, $24 million a year, and the cost of the cull on far-flung ice floes freezing temperatures means it is barely profitable. In fact, the Canadian government has to assist the cull by using its icebreakers to clear seaways to make it worthwhile. Canadian fishermen claim that if there weren’t a cull the seals would eat too many of their fish, which makes you wonder what the seals survived on before the fishermen arrived. We are even told that if not for the cull over-population would see seals would starve to death; so much kinder to skin them alive.

Canada’s shame is that there is no good reason for the seal cull. Like Japan’s archaic whale-hunt, the seal cull is in reality nothing more than a testament to the power of lobby groups in important electorates and bloody-minded adherence to tradition. And like Japan, Canada’s otherwise spotless international reputation bares a bloody stain for it.

The EU is set to ban the import of seal products (most of the Canadian skins pass through Europe on the way to Russia and China). This may be the death-knell of the seal fur trade and the cull. For Canada’s sake, let’s hope it is.

What would Jesus drive?

Published
by
all_your_base
on March 26, 2008
in climate change and environment
. 10 Comments

bizarro-eat-fruit-and-multiply.jpg

The Vatican’s update of sins to include issues of social justice and environment reminded me of a conversation I had recently with a friend from the US. She was telling me that one of the “surprise” groups to come out in support of tougher environmental regulation over there were a number of the large evangelical churches.

In 2006, ninety or so evangelical Christian leaders backed a major initiative to fight global warming, saying “millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.” Their position was essentially that:

The same love for God and neighbor that compels us to preach salvation through Jesus Christ … compels us to recognize that human-induced climate change is a serious Christian issue requiring action now.

Reverend Jim Ball was ahead of the game though when back in 2002 he launched a campaign called “What would Jesus Drive?“, touring his Toyota Prius hybrid through the Bible Belt preaching to Christians on the relationship between the cars they drive and protecting God’s creation.

And closer to home, I see today that government has just introduced fuel efficiency labels for new cars to help consumers make better choices for the environment and pick a car that’ll be cheaper to run, evangelical or not.

Boohoo

Published
by
irrigate
on March 26, 2008
in workers' rights
. 8 Comments

Legislated breaks for workers are unnecessary according to Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O’Reilly. His bitter protest against proposed changes to employment legislation that would guarantee rights to breaks that workers should have anyway, was joined by Hospitality Association chief exec Bruce Robertson despairing

that no one is allowed to do anything anymore.

Phil says current legislation, providing for worker and employer to make a ‘mutual’ agreement on breaks, are enough and breaks are happening anyway. If these breaks are happening anyway, then why are Phil and Bruce so oddly shaken by the idea that they’ll be guaranteed?

The truth is in many instances, particularly in the hospitality industry, adequate breaks are not happening (just ask your average cafe worker). The inevitable reality of individual agreements between an employer and employees they are not ‘mutual’ at all when power imbalance between the two is considered.

Where such individual agreements exist, often the employee has nothing to rely on but the law to ensure they get their breaks and they can’t even rely on that at the moment.

Perhaps what Bruce is really trying to lament with his tantrum is that employers are increasingly unable to exploit their employees. Boohoo.

Meal breaks

Published
by
Tane
on March 26, 2008
in workers' rights
. 13 Comments

I had planned to write something about the business lobby’s moaning over Labour’s plans to restore workers’ rights to meal and rest breaks, but as usual No Right Turn nails it perfectly:

The government’s plan to restore a minimum entitlement for breaks in the workplace has produced the usual reaction: squealing from employer’s groups, with the Hospitality Association warning that it will introduce “time police”, while Business NZ claims that it is unnecessary as workers and employers are working it out for themselves.

The former is simply scaremongering - the law will create a minimum entitlement, and there’ll be no compulsion to take it. OTOH, bosses will not be able to force people to work without breaks anymore - a prospect which I can see will be deeply concerning to the Hospitality Association’s penny-pinching members. As for the latter, according to the EPMU lack of proper breaks is one of the biggest complaints they get from non-members - which suggests that many employers aren’t “working it out” to the satisfaction of their members.

This law is fundamentally about two things: fairness and dignity. And it is sad to see that our employers, as represented by their membership organisations, do not believe in those values.

As it happens I had a chat to my aunt last night. She works at Heinz Watties in Hastings and recently her job was contracted out to Allied Workforce, a labour-hire company that exists purely to extract excess profits by screwing down the workforce.

Aside from the bullying, harassment and late pay cheques that Allied has become famous for in the Bay, my aunt and her workmates have recently been forced to work six hour shifts on the production line without a break.

It’s this kind of practice that Business NZ and the Hospitality Association are defending, and while most employers are happy to treat their workers with dignity and respect, once again the business lobby is using its resources to defend the abusive practices of our worst employers.

“The Panel” on John Key

Published
by
all_your_base
on March 26, 2008
in john key and slippery
. 14 Comments

Looks like people are starting to notice that the emperor has no clothes.


powered by ODEO

(Hat-tip: BB)