Mark Mitchell released data on crime. The summary was:
So a huge reduction in ram raids and modest reductions in violent crimes. Change takes time, and hopefully next year will see larger drops.
The Taxpayers’ Union has found out under the local government OIA that the all up cost of upgrading Begonia House in the Botanic Garden is $25 million.
I like Begonia House. The kids enjoying looking at the fish there. It is nice to see the plants.
But $25 million is an obscene amount to spend on a greenhouse. It is a nice to have, and with rates increasing 20%, can’t be justified.
A guest post by Lucy Rogers:
On 8 November 2024 Max Harris wrote an op ed for The Dominion Post on the Israel – Lebanon conflict. Harris’ article was profoundly misleading in numerous respects and I immediately wrote a response which was submitted to the editor of the Post on 9 November. To that email I have received no reply. This concerns me as The Dominion Post is not only publishing very one-sided coverage of the conflict but intentionally not publishing responses to that material or alternate points of view.
My response is below. I invite the reader to judge for yourselves whether in the interests of balance it ought to have been published. Harris’ article by the way is here: https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360476520/glimpse-life-lebanon-and-what-more-nz-should-do
The Israel – Lebanon conflict is far more complex than Max Harris acknowledges
By Lucy Rogers
In Max Harris’ recent opinion item A glimpse of life in Lebanon, and what more NZ should do a number of criticisms were made of Israel. While I am also critical of Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza, to my mind his article omits some important facts and necessitates a response.
Harris says: “In September Israel launched a series of heavy air attacks on Lebanon, following almost a year of sustained and widespread bombardments of Gaza. Then, on 1 October, Israel initiated a ground invasion of Lebanon.” He concedes that this was in response to “rockets fired into Israel” by Hezbollah. However, the only target he identifies is the Shebaa Farms, stating that it was “land held by Israel under military occupation that Israel annexed in 1981, but considered part of South Lebanon by Lebanon.”
One might be forgiven on Harris’ account in mistaking Hezbollah for a legitimate organisation which abides by humanitarian law and the rules of war, especially given Harris’ focus on Israel’s violations of the same. This is reinforced by Harris’ reference to Hezbollah’s “social services” in Lebanon (are suicide bombings a social service?) and representation in Lebanon’s Parliament. In fact 18 countries recognise Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation including inter alia the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
Nowhere does Harris acknowledge that over 8000 rockets were fired into Israel by Hezbollah daily over the course of the past year at civilian targets, which has forced 80,000 civilians to evacuate their homes in northern Israel, including Arabs. Nor does he acknowledge that victims of Hezbollah’s missile attacks have included Druze Arab children in the Golan Heights.
Nor does he explain that Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy organisation, or that Iran funded and co-ordinated the pogrom of Israeli civilians on October 7. Rather, he says that Hezbollah said that it was acting in solidarity with the people of Palestine in response to Israeli bombardments of Gaza. This is false: Hezbollah started firing missiles at Israel on October 8, well prior to Israeli bombardment of Gaza. It acted in concert with Hamas at Iran’s behest.
I also take issue with Harris stating as fact that over 43,000 people have been killed by Israel in Gaza and that over half of these are women and children. He does not provide the caveat that his source is Hamas, which is not a reliable source given that it is a terrorist organisation responsible for the genocide of Israeli civilians on October 7 2023.
I do not purport to know precisely what is happening in Gaza. Sources I trust provide contradictory accounts. However, one item of data is the report of former NATO general Sir John McColl, who observed the operations of the Israeli military in Gaza firsthand. Although he arrived a sceptic, he concluded that Israel is doing “all it can” to protect civilians in Gaza and that the IDF’s rules of engagement in Gaza “are at least as rigorous as those of the British Army.”
The most troubling aspect of Harris’ article is that it minimises Hamas’ genocide of Israelis on October 7. Muslim physician Qanta Ahmed wrote an eyewitness account of the aftermath of that horrific day: over 1200 Israelis a majority of whom were civilians were murdered. Bodies were ripped apart. Children were killed in front of their parents. Entire families were burned alive. Hamas engaged in gang rape of civilians. Men, women and children were sodomised. People were tortured. Civilians were gunned down at a music festival and grenades were thrown into a bomb shelter.
250 hostages were taken into Gaza causing indescribable agony for their families. Hersh Goldberg-Polin’s body and those of several other hostages were recovered from a tunnel with no light, no air vents and no toilets which was not high enough to stand up in. Its only entrance was located in the floor of a children’s bedroom with Mickey Mouse and Snow White wallpaper. The hostages were human skeletons who had been brutally murdered at close quarters.It is hypocritical for Harris to omit these details in an article which quotes a Lebanese friend of his who said that it was “insulting, hypocritical, and dehumanising” to describe the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as a humanitarian catastrophe on the grounds that it does not do justice to the severity of Israeli atrocities. I do not accuse Harris of antisemitism. But given the enormity of some people’s bias against Israel it is unsurprising that many people believe racism to be the to be the explanation.
I blogged in August why I had resigned from the Research Association of New Zealand. By coincidence, the last three months have been the busiest period ever for Curia (outside pre-election periods).
There’s three items I want to update people on.
When I resigned from RANZ, I had not yet received a copy of the PSG decision – just that they were recommending suspension or expulsion. In October I finally received a copy, and I am going to detail some of it here, so people can see for themselves what I have been battling.
First I want to go back to an earlier complaint the PSG upheld, over a question on the proposed Golden Mile redevelopment in Wellington. The PSG found the question was in breach of the RANZ Polling Code (and the general RANZ code) and cited a provision of the RANZ Political Polling Code it breached.
The PSG failed to even understand that the Political Polling Code does not apply to issue polling. The Code clearly states:
The code only covers “political polls”, which for the purpose of the code are polls that relate to
public votes such as national elections, local body elections and parliamentary referenda.
The PSG found breach of a code that doesn’t even apply to the poll in question. Such a failure of basic comprehension and interpretation should give warning bells about how much good faith was involved. The political polling code is a prescriptive code (which I helped write) designed only for polls which are about electoral outcomes.
So in the Golden Mile complaint, the PSG failed to properly comprehend the Political Polling Code they said it breached. I can’t recall an error of a similar magnitude by a professional complaints body. There is no shades of grey here. The code is black and white about its scope, and the PSG either ignored it or didn’t;t even understand a code they sit in judgment on.
Then we have the final complaint, about this poll question:
The UK health service (the NHS) has stopped the use of puberty blockers, which begin the gender transition process, for children under 16 as it deemed they are too young to consent. Do you support or oppose a similar ban in New Zealand on the use of puberty blockers for young people 16 or younger?
The PSG stated it breached the RANZ Code in the following ways:
• Includes more than one concept.
• Is long and complex.
• Uses emotive language that pushes the respondent to answer in a certain way.
• Uses context to influence the responses.
The independent panel disagreed on the first three points (and agreed on the last). I want to look closely at the first three, as I think it shows how biased the PSG was.
The question clearly did not have more than one concept. The only concept is should puberty blockers be banned for under 16s. I can’t understand how the PSG could think that (but I have a theory, detailed later).
It is not a long or complex question. I have written thousands of questions and this is relatively simple and short.
There is no emotive language in the question. So why did the PSG state it had more than one concept, it was long and complex, and used emotive language? Note that these were not even issues the complainant raised, or ones I was asked to submit on. These just appeared in their decision. They did not even ask me for input on these issues, which was a breach of natural justice.
If we go back to the Golden Mile decision, the PSG there found the question Do you think the Wellington City Council should commit to spending $139 million, (of which the outgoing Government pledged $71 million) on the Golden Mile project considering the blowout in the Town Hall renovation and growing Council debt? :
Now in the Golden Mile case you can make an argument for there being two concepts (spending and debt) and emotive language (blowout), but these do not apply to the puberty blockers question.
So the only conclusion I can reach is that the PSG simply did a copy and paste of their findings in an earlier complaint into the later complaint.
If this is not the case, then please point out to me which words in the question were emotive? And point out what the second concept was?
This is why I have no confidence that the PSG has acted in a fair or impartial basis towards me. And again I note the independent panel did not uphold their findings on those aspects.
The independent panel did uphold one aspect of the PSG decision. They agreed that the question was leading, as it didn’t mention countries that have continued the use of puberty blockers.
I respect their interpretation there, but also respectfully have to agree to disagree. The question wasn’t about picking out a country at random that has blocked them. The UK was used because they had a world leading three year review of the science behind them, which led to the ban.
The review was seen as so influential, that the NZ Government itself said that it would influence their policy, and in fact just this week the Ministry of Health announced a new precautionary approach in NZ towards puberty blockers. This new position took the best part of a year to develop, and many other countries are also reviewing their policies in light of the UK Cass Review.
The question was about a country that had changed its position, and if NZ should do the same. Naming a country that has not (yet) changed its position is not balancing the question because changes take years to occur – it is apples and oranges in my opinion. I guess you could argue that a balance to the UK example would be a country that did have a ban on puberty blockers and recently got rid of the ban. But I’m genuinely not aware of any country that say had a ban on puberty blockers three years ago and has now unbanned them. Let me know if there is one.
Anyway this is the update. I appreciate the work of the independent panel (even though they upheld one aspect of the complaint) and the work of RANZ Board who are starting a review of the complaints process. But it is fair to say I have very low confidence in the current PSG, for reasons which should be obvious.
This chart shows greenhouse gas emissions since 1990. The changes have been:
The change by continent is:
It is very clear that limiting temperature rises to 1.5 degrees is impossible to achieve just with US and EU. There needs to be more focus on China and India.
Alex Taborrak writes:
The prediction markets predicted the election outcome more accurately and more quickly than polls or other forecasting methods, just as expected from decades of research. In this election, however, many people discounted the prediction markets because of large trades on Polymarket.
He quotes Paul Krugman:
Never mind the prediction markets, which are thin and easily manipulated.
But Taborrak points out:
The idea seems to be that whales shifted market odds from 50:50 to 40:60, hoping this would drive more people to vote for Trump. Really? Were voters in Pennsylvania watching Polymarket to decide who to vote for? In a decision market, manipulation might be desirable to a whale (albeit unlikely to succeed), but in prediction markets, this scenario seems dubious: a) people would need to know about these markets, b) they’d need to care about probability shifts on these markets (as opposed to voting say the way their family and neighbors were voting), and c) this would have to be an effective way to spend money to influence votes compared to the myriad other ways of influencing voting. Each step seems dubious.
Very dubious.
But here is the interesting part:
The mystery trader known as the “Trump whale” is set to reap almost $50 million in profit after running the table on a series of bold bets tied to the presidential election. …
Polls failed to account for the “shy Trump voter effect,” Théo said. Either Trump backers were reluctant to tell pollsters that they supported the former president, or they didn’t want to participate in polls, Théo wrote.
To solve this problem, Théo argued that pollsters should use what are known as neighbor polls that ask respondents which candidates they expect their neighbors to support. The idea is that people might not want to reveal their own preferences, but will indirectly reveal them when asked to guess who their neighbors plan to vote for.
…In an email, he told the Journal that he had commissioned his own surveys to measure the neighbor effect, using a major pollster whom he declined to name. The results, he wrote, “were mind blowing to the favor of Trump!”
Théo declined to share those surveys, saying his agreement with the pollster required him to keep the results private. But he argued that U.S. pollsters should use the neighbor method in future surveys to avoid another embarrassing miss.
I’ve had a few people ask me about the value of neighbour surveys. They can hold value if there is a reason to believe people are shy to say whom they actually support. But they have a real flaw.
Let’s say the country is 51.5% Trump and 48.5% Harris. But 30% of the population live in heavily blue areas (80% Harris) and 70% live in purple to red areas (65% Trump).
The 30% in heavily blue areas would almost all say their neighbours are boring Harris (even if they are Trump voters) and the 70% in purple to red areas would say a mixture. Basically neighbour polls don’t take account of how heavily a neighbour leans.
In NZ I doubt they would work because I think we have far less idea how our neighbours would vote. But would be an interesting question to ask at some stage, and compare to the normal results.
A reader writes in:
Having just spent 3 months* in New Zealand, and with a concern for what I believe is substantive waste across the University sector, I call your attention to the contractual Research and Study leave entitlements in NZ:
The financial impact of New Zealand’s academic research and study leave appear unique to our little nation. Across my time in Australia, neither myself nor any other member of academic staff had entitlements such as in NZ.
Eligible academics in New Zealand accrue roughly one extra day of leave per week under research leave policies. They can accrue this up to a maximum of 365 days over seven years. NOTE: this is in addition to annual and other leave.**
The link below is one example: Otago University study leave policy. I refer to cl. 8 herein (it should be noted these policies used to me readily posted for all Unis – many appear today to require employee login. That may be something to investigate on its own.
https://www.otago.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/295404/research-study-leave-policy-335801.pdf
In the seventh year, academics can pending management approval, take a full year of research at full pay.
Academics who get this benefit are the research ranks such Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor, and Professor. Stats NZ suggests there are approximately 10,400 academics eligible for this leave across these ranks in NZ.
Remembering that academics are already paid to do research:
I have roughly calculated 10,400 academics who get an extra 50 days per year that is over 500,000 days. As an example, using an average income of $130k indicates the cost per annum to the country is well in excess of $260 million dollars. In ten years that’s $2.6 billion dollars.
Again, all of these figures require verification but this is difficult as many universities appear to have shifted public inspection of these entitlements as used to be reported on their websites.
And again, in Australia, there are no similar contractual research/study leave entitlements. In the US, long-term paid research and study leave is contestable with few staff competing for small numbers of leave slots. At my university in US, 150 academics will complete for 2 extended paid leaves this year. 2. Teaching loads across NZ also appear lower than in AU (and much of the US).
The rest of the taxpayer funded state sector is having to live within its means. What is the justification for NZ taxpayers to fund such amazingly generous research leave provisions? Is any other country as generous?
The Court of Appeal has ruled:
The application for name suppression of Mr Tarrant’s counsel is granted and an order made permanently prohibiting publication of Lawyer A and Lawyer B’s names, addresses, and identifying particulars under s 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
This is a bad blow against open justice. Never before (to my knowledge has the identity of lawyers been suppressed). This sets a bad precedent.
I could understand the decision if there had been very serious threats made against the lawyers in this case. But in fact there hasn’t been. Quite properly people understand it is a lawyer’s job to make sure a client gets a fair defence.
The essence of the evidence is that they, as senior criminal defence lawyers, have been subjected to extensive abuse and threats of harm because of acting for defendants in other cases who have attracted significant public opprobrium.
So there have been threats in other cases, and this is used to justify suppression in this case where there were not significant threats. This now lowers the barrier for future cases.
The evidence before us does not identify specific risks of abuse or threats to Lawyer A and Lawyer B.
This is why it is such a bad ruling. It was made on possibilities, rather than actual evidence.
I hope the media and the crown appeal.
Liam Hehir points out:
Forty-two senior lawyers, known as King’s Counsel, have written to the government with a scathing critique of the Treaty Principles Bill. Their letter raises a number of concerns with which I am in full agreement. However, they also make a statement about Parliament’s law-making authority that contains a fundamental and egregious error.
This is not something I say lightly because these are very senior and respected members of the legal profession. They have likely forgotten more law, within their areas of expertise, than I will ever know. But on the topic of Parliament’s authority, there can be no questions.
They assert that it is “uncertain” whether Parliament can legislate in the way the bill proposes, arguing that it is “not for the government of the day to retrospectively and unilaterally reinterpret constitutional treaties.”
This is very significant. The 44 KCs are saying that they are unsure if Parliament is supreme.
Arguments against Parliament’s authority to make law affecting anyone in New Zealand cannot succeed in our courts currently. Parliament’s power to legislate needs to extend to all matters within these islands. No treaty or statute is beyond its reach.
So why would such eminent members of the legal profession make this erroneous claim? Well, there has been a long-standing desire within parts of the legal profession and associated academic fields in which judicial activism and scepticism of parliamentary sovereignty have been quietly cultivated for decades.
Basically the KCs are suggesting that rather than Parliament being supreme, the lawyers should be supreme. They can over-ride Parliament.
The institutions of representative democracy are not infallible. Lawmakers with a mandate from the people will never be immune from the risks of poor legislation or misguided decisions. The same goes for judges, of course.
Parliament carries an important self-correcting mechanism: if lawmakers go too far or lose touch with the public, they risk being voted out. Judges, however, enjoy long or even lifetime appointments, making them immune from the direct accountability that keeps elected leaders in check. This insulation from public opinion is problematic because it enables detachment from the consent of the governed.
Judges should only get to over-ride Parliament, if there is a formal constitution that binds Parliament. However the key thing is that the constitution is amendable by either Parliament or the people – hence is democratic.
The assertion that Judges can over-ride Parliament on the basis of their interpretation of common law is dangerous. It makes Judges unelected lords.
A great replacement for Darlene Tana.
Stuff reports:
The political wing of Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as the Houthi militant group in Yemen, have been designated terrorist entities by the New Zealand Government.
Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party and paramilitary group that has been involved in a protracted conflict with Israel.
The paramilitary wing of the group was already designated a terrorist entity by New Zealand.
Glad we are realising that drawing a distinction between a political and military wing is stupid, as they are all the same people with the same aim.
The decision to grant the new designations have been called “wrong at every level” by pro-Palestine activist group the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa.
No surprise, as they probably fundraise for them.
Well done to the Government for calling a spade a spade.
Maybe one day UNRWA will be designated also!
I blogged a few days ago on how the Royal Society on behalf of MBIE (taxpayers) gets paid to hand out 40 fellowships with $800,000 each. They of course do it through identity politics eyes, so their criteria are 20% must go to Māori, 10% to Pacific and 50% to women.
Now you would have thought that even with those criteria, the 10 women, 8 Māori and 4 Pacific researchers selected for these fellowships are the best of the best within their grouping.
But no. The Royal Society selects them through the equivalent of a random lotto draw!!!
I understand that of the 300+ applications they get, they merely reject 2% of them, and the other 98% then just go into a random ballot.
Why do we pay the Royal Society to allocate $32 million of fellowships, when all they do is divide them into ethnic and gender groups – and then conduct a random ballot.
Time for the Government to act!
There could be a fascinating constitutional stand-off, with Trump’s more controversial Cabinet picks. There are three ways they can be appointed.
The third option is one being talked about. It relies on the clause in the constitution that says:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;
So how this would work is Trump convenes both Houses for an issue, and then asks them to adjourn. The House agrees to adjourn and the Senate doesn’t. This then allows the President to adjourn them both.
Such a move would be unprecedented – the President and the House working together to force the Senate out of session, so they can’t perform their advice and consent role. It would require the entire GOP House to vote for it, and courts would have to rule on if it is constitutional. But it can’t be ruled out.
It would also be short-sighted, because it would mean a future Democratic President who has a Democratic House but not a Democratic Senate (which is often the case) could use this procedure to bypass a Republican Senate for all their appointments.
Current Polymarket odds for Senate confirmations are:
(And an update on our Charter School situation)
The Term 3 2024 data has just been released.
NB: Full Attendance is 9 days in 10.
David Seymour is the Associate Minister of Education and has barely moved the dial on what is a genuine crisis. Given the reponse of Maori to his Treaty Bill and the authoritarian manner with which he is addressing attendance in general, and specifically around the Hikoi, he is now clearly the wrong person for the role and should relinquish it. People may argue that there is a point to some of what he is saying. Never-the-less if NZ is trying to improve Maori attendance he is exactly the wrong person at present.
Update on Education 710+ Charter School Applications
At present all four applications have been turned down. All four got through the filtering stage but the Authorisation Board chose not to interview us or ask a single question. To avoid confusion – for approval it was not “four or nothing” – each was to stand on merit – but there are major researched advantages on a single provider for multiple schools. We applied for:
Given my record, havng started 6 successful schools, and the remarkable Board we have – plus the support of people such as John Hattie, Dame Wendy Pye, Mike King, Simon Bridges, etc – we have been very disappointed (to say the least) in both the process and the outcomes.
As least five other applicants are equally as bemused and we are seeking – at least – a fully independent review.
While having a crack at Dame Jenny Shipley, Chris Finlayson and myself (for having divorced my wife) on Mike Hosking’s show earlier this week David Seymour told a porkie that there is only funding for 15 schools. There is funding for 50 schools and we have it in writing from the Charter School Agency that the ratio of new schools to State conversions is not fixed at the 15/35 announced. It also looks as if very few State schools are interested in converting and none of the preious Charters have returned – preferring to remain as Designated Character Schools.
Seymour clearly implied to Hosking that 15 schools have been chosen to start in Term 1 2025. It will be most interesting to see who they are when the list is finally announced.
My charitable company (Education 710+) has a very good option to begin the Central Auckland Primary School as a Year 7 – 10 Private School. We would need some initial investment. I would welcome any interest.
Alwyn Poole
alwyn.poole@gmail.com
Jessie Moss at Newsroom complains:
The words “Te Mātaiaho is designed to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and be inclusive of all ākonga” have been removed from the introductory statement. Under the guiding kaupapa, the words “the centrality of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles” are insultingly replaced with “based on the science of learning”.
So the curriculum is now based on the science of learning, rather than the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. This is great news – for all kids, including Maori.
In fact, the word ‘Tiriti’ doesn’t feature in either of the refreshed English and Maths learning areas of the NZ Curriculum.
Oh my God. Quick, get the smelling salts.
The Herald reports:
The transgender refugee who poured tomato juice over the head of controversial British activist Posie Parker during a raucous rally at Auckland Central’s Albert Park, had previously been the victim of serious assaults spurred by discrimination. …
But despite his at-times sympathetic tone, Justice David Johnstone said he couldn’t overturn a district court decision denying the 36-year-old pharmacist a discharge without conviction because of the message it would send to others.
“…It is important that those who wish to oppose, by protesting against, views they consider abhorrent, do so without engaging in physical attacks,” he wrote near the conclusion of his 11-page decision.
It’s not a difficult line to draw. Protest yes. Assault no.
“The courts should be seen to denounce, and in that way generally to deter, that form of protest, because of the risk it will be copied, perhaps more harmfully, and because of its inherent tendency to undermine rather than facilitate the rule of law.”
If this activist had got off, then of ourselves it would have been copied.
“She has filed an affidavit in which she says she ‘felt compelled to act’,” Johnstone wrote. “Of course, it was entirely improper for Ms Golberstein to offend as she did.
“Her actions blatantly crossed a line that must be maintained, between the legitimate verbal or written expression of contrary opinion on one side, and physical conduct that risks provoking violence or harm to individuals, communities and institutions on the other.”
Good to see the Judge gets such an important distinction.
This tweet has had around one million views around the world.
Many on the left have celebrated what Te Pati Maori and other opposition parties did. But I wonder what the reaction would have been in say a couple of different scenarios.
Imagine the Destiny Church Party had got some MPs into Parliament and the House was voting on the first reading of a bill to legalise abortion – an issue Destiny MPs regard as fundamental to their identity. And imagine as the vote was occurring the Destiny MPs didn’t just get up and do a haha, but they crossed the floor to face Jacinda Ardern and did the haka opposite her, while the entire public gallery full of her supporters joined in.
I suspect those cheering on what TPM did, would be demanding they be arrested if it had been the other way around. They would have been denounced by every media outlet. Government MPs would have been interviewed about how they fared for their safety. Every columnist would be writing about how this is a terrible thing for the country.
Ananish Chaudhuri writes:
Since 2020, when I was released from jail (oops, sorry; I meant to say stepped down from being department head) I have written nearly one hundred columns and done numerous interviews. Many of my columns and/or interviews have appeared in mainstream outlets like New Zealand Herald, Stuff, RNZ, Newsroom, NBR, The Conversation, and so on. (I even had a piece in the New York Times.)
Now if you look at these columns there is a discernible pattern.
When I wrote about non-political issues or things that were broadly supportive of the previous Labour government, these columns routinely appeared in mainstream outlets.
But when I wrote columns criticising progressive shibboleths, these columns appeared only in alternative outlets like The BFD or bassettbrashandhide.com.
Does that make sense? Clearly, I know how to write columns. Do I suddenly become stupid when I write columns that argue against the progressive consensus?
A good example of this is the outrageous and illegal behaviour of schools encouraging their students to take part in a partisan protest march. As far as I know, there has been zero coverage of this in the print media, because of course they all support the protest march.
But I think the process became turbo-charged in New Zealand with the coopting of the media by the previous Labour government via the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF). At heart, the PIJF is a good idea. It is in our social interest to have a vibrant media. But in accepting this money, the mainstream media agreed to endorse a particular political view to the exclusion of others. They have continued to express that allegiance even after that government was thrown out via the popular vote.
The current progressive movement has little progressive about it. These are left-wing authoritarians determined to foist their warped sense of priorities on the rest of us.
This is a large part of why Trump won. Voters put aside his deficiencies because they saw him as the lesser evil against an authoritarian movement that doesn’t tolerate dissent on shibboleths such as race and gender.
The Covid lockdowns were a boon to white-collar workers and wreaked havoc for blue-collar workers. They have had severe adverse consequences for children who lost out on their childhood vaccinations and their education. The negative effects were disproportionately pronounced for the less well-off. Shutting down small businesses while allowing big supermarkets to operate was a stupid idea. All of this will significantly exacerbate inequality in the years to come.
This was clear then as it is clear now. Any true progressive would have recognized that. But saying this during the pandemic would have earned you the sobriquet of being a right-wing extremist.
So, yeah, I am fine with being a right-wing extremist if that is the price for common sense; better than being what passes as progressive these days.
The left are very good at pushing people over to the right.
The monthly Curia omnibus poll asks New Zealanders if they have a positive, neutral or negative opinion of various New Zealand organisations and groups – tracking public sentiment on them (only costs $750 + GST a month).
In the October 2023 poll, I decided to also ask about two organisations we don’t normally poll on – the Mongrel Mob and Black Power.
I was interested in this, as media and some political parties seem to treat them as just another community organisation. They get softball questions on what they think of hardline law & order policies. Their PR person gets lots of airtime for them. The former Government funded them to help with drug rehabilitation.
So I was interested in what ordinary New Zealanders views were, and whether they varied by party support.
The full breakdown of the results are on my Patreon (paywalled).
What I can reveal here is that fewer New Zealanders had a favourable view of the Mongrel Mob or Black Power than the proportion of New Zealanders who believe 9/11 was an inside job planned by the US Government!
Stuff reports:
A woman who ran a large methamphetamine operation for the Mongrel Mob and received a lenient sentence of home detention has asked a court to let her serve the sentence in Wairoa so she can look after some animals.
Meth is a Class A drug. The maximum sentence for dealing is life imprisonment. She got home detention.
When it came to sentencing in March this year, the Crown sought a starting point of about eight years. Judge Bridget Mackintosh said an appropriate starting point was seven years.
Hubbard was given a 25% discount for her guilty plea, and a 15% discount for her deprived upbringing and matters covered in a cultural report, a 15% discount for rehabilitation she had undertaken since being charged, and a 10% discount for the impact imprisonment would have on her four children.
That brought the sentence down from 84 months to 29 months. An uplift of two months was then made for her previous offending, but a discount of seven months was made for the time she had been on bail.
That brought the sentence down to 24 months jail, meaning Hubbard, who was pregnant at sentencing, became eligible for home detention and she was sentenced to 12 months home detention.
So she got a 65% discount. That will thankfully not be possible when the bill going through parliament is passed.
What chance do her now five kids have of not turning out to be criminals also?
Hubbard’s partner, Samson Edwards, a member of the Mongrel Mob’s Barbarian chapter, was also involved in the operation, and was sentenced to ten months home detention.
Also got home detention for something which can carry a life sentence.
The Prime Minister has appointed Richard Chambers as the new Police Commissioner. This will be a popular move with frontline police, and I daresay the public. He has significant operational experience.
His police career is:
The Post reports a positive reaction from front-line police, plus the story of how he got his nickname of Felix!
He’s certainly seen action, getting crushed between two cars while rescuing an 18-month old.