Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

David Cunliffe will be stripped of his portfolios and banished to the back benches for disloyalty today after a leadership vote in which Labour leader David Shearer is set to win unanimous backing.

As expected, yesterday Mr Shearer summoned his MPs to Wellington for an urgent vote today in an attempt to force Mr Cunliffe to “put up or shut up”. …

Party sources said once he received the expected unanimous backing from MPs he would dump Mr Cunliffe from the top 20 and send him to the “unranked” back benches.

Some in the caucus are calling for his close supporters to also be demoted, which could mean bad news for shadow attorney-general Charles Chauvel and energy spokeswoman Moana Mackey.

MP Sue Moroney, seen as in the Cunliffe camp, said she would back Mr Shearer.

But no-one would say what they would do in February’s vote.

“I don’t think there has been any challenge issued, actually.”

Before Mr Shearer had sought her backing, no-one had asked for her support for a leadership bid.

She had seen no evidence of disloyalty by Mr Cunliffe.

“I’m quite surprised at the level of the attack on David Cunliffe . . . in the last 24 hours,” she said.

There’s a fair few in Labour arguing that it is unreasonable to expect any MP to state how they will vote in a secret ballot in three month’s time. Having said that, I think Cunliffe could have chosen words that would not have been so destabilising, yet left him wriggle room.

Former Labour Party General Secretary Mike Smith says there was clearly a coup planned:

My first indication that something was up was the rising temperature of comments on the Standard, culminating with anonymous posts days before the conference calling for Shearer to stand down. I don’t know if the posters are Labour members or not, but it now looks like an attempt to destabilise Shearer days before his first conference speech. …

The next intimation I had that something more was afoot was when I turned up at the Conference on Friday night to be told that the affiliates meeting had ignored the Party Council’s recommendation for what may trigger a leadership vote across the Party, and supported a motion from Northland and Te Tai Tokerau to turn the long-standing majority confidence vote, held at the start of each year, to an endorsement vote with a 60% threshold. 

This was quite unexpected by the Party leadership but as became clear in the debate the following day, not unexpected by some in the unions, a few caucus members and some of the electorates. …

Cunliffe refused to rule out a February challenge. If it walks like a duck…

I was the first to say that the three posts (and one column) calling for Shearer to go were orchestrated. Quite a few doubted that. I’m pleased to see Mike Smith saying that he also saw it as part of a destabilization attempt.

A pro-Cunliffe view comes from “Blue” at The Standard:

The ABC club would have us believe that David Cunliffe has ‘openly undermined’ both David Shearer’s leadership and Phil Goff’s before him.

They appeal to the need for a ‘unified team’ and want David Cunliffe shot at dawn for supposedly threatening it.

These attempts to rewrite history are amusing but factually inaccurate. We all know who undermined Phil Goff’s leadership and it wasn’t David Cunliffe.

It was Grant Robertson and Trevor Mallard who made the decision to keep Phil Goff off the Labour billboards at the last election, openly admitting during an election campaign that they considered their leader a liability. Phil Goff’s stumble in the ‘show me the money’ debate was no one’s fault but his own – he got caught out not having done his homework on a flagship policy and only the most determined denier of reality could try to pin that one on anyone else.

We also know who has been undermining party unity during David Shearer’s leadership, and again, it isn’t David Cunliffe. It’s the ABC club who ring up Duncan Garner for a giggle about how much they hate their own colleague.

I think the great winner from all this has been Grant Robertson. He has kept entirely out of this, allowing the two Camp Davids to go to war against each other. If Shearer’s leadership becomes unviable at some stage then Robertson is poised to take over.

Grant has huge sway within the party. His supporters are in all the influential positions on the NZ Council and the like. If he had taken a call in the debate and argued against the 60% threshold for a vote in February, then I believe that would have made the difference in what was a very close vote. But he was smart and has kept his name away from all the infighting – making him the unifying choice in future.

UPDATE: NZ Herald editorial says:

A more experienced leader would have dismissed any suggestion he should try to “call out” a challenge with an early vote. When a leader wins – as usually happens the first time – the question does not go away. It merely leaves the party divided and ensures the discontented faction will choose its moment to make another bid.

The damage is long lasting. The Cunliffe faction will be seething at the fact that Chris Hipkins so publicly slammed David Cunliffe and accused him of undermining both Goff and Shearer. They understand that such a public denunciation means that Cunliffe can never have a meaningful role again under Shearer. You can’t say someone has been backstabbing leaders for the last four years and then rehabilitate them.

But if at some stage Cunliffe did become Leader, then MPs such as Hipkins would be unable to continue in a senior role also. Having called Cunliffe a backstabbing fink, he could never serve under him. This is why it is so very rare for MPs to openly denounce each other. They have to work together day in day out – sometimes for years to come.

What will be fascinating to watch next year is what new rules get agreed to for selections and list ranking.

UPDATE2: Zetetic at The Standard names names:

For the past four years, Labour has been controlled by a clique of 3 has-beens and 2 beltway hacks: Goff, King, Mallard, Robertson, and Hipkins.

This old guard clique led Labour to its worst defeat.

Trevor and Grant ran the campaign. Goff and King fronted. Not sure what Chippie did!

A year later, with their second choice frontman as leader after they ignored the members’ will, Labour’s still below its 2008 result and on track for another defeat. (Funny story, since the start of the year, Hipkins has been telling all and sundry in all seriousness that ‘if these trends continue’ Labour will win in a landslide in 2014 – I parodied him here – now, take a look at the real trend)

Oh Chippie is the polling guru!

The Douglas clique at least had an ideology they were working for. This clique what do they stand for? What are their values other than power for themselves? The failure of Labour to define a value set over the past four years is a reflection of this clique’s lack of values.

The membership voted no confidence in the old guard on Saturday. In retaliation, they’ve gone nuclear on the membership. The response of the old guard has been to unleash a nasty side that many who watch Labour politics have known about for some time, but never thought we’d see expressed quite this openly.

Next year’s conference could be fascinating.

The attacks on Cunliffe usually take the form of what we’re seeing right now, with unnamed ‘senior Labour MPs’ telling media Cunliffe is a ‘fink’ and an ‘egotist’ and calling for him to be ‘cut down’. This talking campaign has been going on since beore the last election and I know because I’ve heard it from the old guard’s proxies more times than I care to count. Mostly this doesn’t surface publicly, except for the odd stuff up like when Goff and King went to Garner to shop a story that Cunliffe was despised by the caucus in an effort to undermine his position. It’s been relentless.

Most people assume it was Trevor. Interesting speculation that it was Goff.

They’ll try to take him down today with an open ballot leadership vote – a Stalinist tactic that will hurt them next year and will be fruitless today because Cunliffe has launched no challenge and today’s vote will be unanimous. Their goal is to get Cunliffe and the membership out of the way so that when Shearer is replaced – it will be an open field for Robertson

While I doubt there is a lot I agree with Zetetic on, I agree with him that the real end goal is Robertson succeeding unopposed. Not so sure it will work.

The Labour Party constitution:

Co-operation, rather than competition, should be the main governing factor in economic relations …

Bloomberg reporting on the Chinese Communist Party:

Zhou’s comments underscore pledges by the ruling Communist Party, which last week completed the most important phase of a once-a-decade power transition, to promote freer movement of capital in and out of the country for investment purposes and to make the exchange rate more market-based.

Ironic, as NZ Labour argues against foreign investment and having the Government set the exchange rate.

“Expectations are high” for change as government intervention, ranging from excessive regulation to rigid price controls, has become “unbearable” over the last couple of years, said Li Jiange, head of the country’s biggest investment bank and a vice chairman at the government-run company that holds stakes in state-owned lenders.

Rigid price controls? You mean, like on houses?

“We need to review what the Chinese Communist Party decided 20 years ago: that is, to let market forces play a fundamental role in allocating resources,” he said.

So 20 years ago the Chinese Community Party decided to go in the opposite direction of what NZ Labour is now promoting. Note their growth rate!

The new leadership will probably unveil market-oriented changes in late 2013 after a plenary session of the party’s central committee, Li said. Reforms will focus on reducing government intervention in the economy and breaking up state monopolies, he said.

Excellent. A growing Chinese economy will be good for New Zealand.

The yuan has appreciated about 33 percent against the dollar since the revaluation.

And Parker and Norman think we can stop the US dollar depreciating against the NZ dollar!

They may face economic expansion of 7 percent in 2013, the slowest in 23 years, according to Pacific Investment Management Co., which runs the world’s largest bond fund. Standard Chartered Plc sees a risk of annual expansion slumping to between 3 percent and 4 percent within 10 to 15 years without market-driven change to introduce more competition for state enterprises.

Hmmn, competition for SOEs. We could do with more of that in NZ!

The Herald reports:

One of the jurors on David Bain’s retrial has spoken out about the case for the first time.

The woman, one of 12 jurors to reach a unanimous verdict of not guilty on all counts, says while she doesn’t dispute the final verdict, she wants her perspective on the meaning of the verdicts to be clear.

“I think there’s been a lot of confusion about what David Bain’s not guilty verdict in the second trial means,” she told TVNZ Sunday reporter Janet McIntyre.

“There’s been a lot of speculation that it means that he was found innocent. And I was a juror and I never found David Bain innocent,” she said.

She pointed out that the jury was never asked to find Bain innocent, but whether or not the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

“And that they did not do,” she said.

The woman said she didn’t believe Bain should get compensation “on the balance of probabilities”.

It is useful to have clarified that there is a big difference between not guilty and innocent. Also interesting to hear a juror say that on balance of probabilities, someone who heard all the evidence believes it is more likely David Bain was the killer.

However we are now at a stage where the opinion that counts is that of Canadian Justice Binnie, who was appointed to report on whether Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities. The media have reported that he has concluded he is. While this goes against my beliefs, I have to respect the opinion of the jurist who spent months reviewing all the evidence. Having said that, I will be fascinated to read his report and reasoning.

The woman alleged that some of the other jurors broke the rule of sanctity by bringing outside material about the case into the jury room.

Three other jurors also went to Dunedin “of their own volition” to visit the Every St crime scene, she said.

Auckland University’s associate professor of law Bill Hodge, whom the woman sought for advice, told Sunday that the allegations were serious.

“I haven’t seen anything as significant in 40 years of looking at juries in New Zealand.

“In most trials, a visit to the scene is something that should be controlled and visits are unruly and possibly a form of misconduct.”

Bringing extraneous material into the jury room is a matter of great concern as jurors must base their decisions only on what they hear in court, he said.

That’s outrageous, if correct. I wonder if the jurors who allegedly did that could be in contempt of court or committed an offence?

But the revelation comes too late to change things. Justice Binnie’s report is with the Government, and if he recommends compensation then I reluctantly say that it should be granted.

Maxim Institute and the the VUW Institute for Governance and Policy Studies have arranged two public lectures/panels discussing the quality of public debate in New Zealand. The panels are:

• Richard Harman (ex Political Editor TVNZ, produces The Nation)
• Bernard Hickey, interest.co.nz
• Mai Chen, public lawyer

The details for each are:

• Wellington – Wed 28 Nov, 6.00 pm – 7.30 pm, VUW Law School GBLT1
• Auckland –  Thu 29 Nov, 6.00 pm – 7.30 pm, Auck Uni Bus School Level 1 Foyer

If you want to attend, RSVP Maxim by 23 Nov.

One of the Homecrew crew seems to be a bit upset that I said the taxpayer shouldn’t fund events where they get to yell obscenities at the PM. They’re entitled to call him what they want, but I’d rather not have the taxpayer fund it.

Anyway it seems they are on Twitter, and you can see why they are a Labour Party favourite that plays at fundraisers for them. Some tweets:

• Hey David Farrar lick my balls asshole. You mad coz you ain’t at the awards you fuck face.
• @dpfdpf You’re just as ugly as I thought. Fuck you! Lose some weight fatty!
• David Farrar didn’t take 2hrs & 45mins to finish that walk he said he did. He’s actually still walking the fat cunt!
• If I see David Farrar anywhere I’m gonna roll his fat ass down the road. Someone set this up? It could be a YouTube hit.
• Anyways.. What does his fat asshole know about music? Stick to politics David, your whole face looks like a dickhead.
• David Attenborough > David ‘Fat Ass’ Farrar.
• I bet you without using a mirror, David Farrar can’t see his own dick.
• @dpfdpf Stay on the treadmill & those exotic walks you’re been taking & shut the fuck up. People will like you more.
• @dpfdpf Sorry we don’t do 9XL Listen To Homebrew t’s, otherwise I’d send your biter ass one.
• He sucks @JohnKeyPM‘s asshole every night

My reply was to encourage him to stand for the leadership of the Labour Party!

Southern Walkway

EveryTrail – Find hiking trails in California and beyond

On Sunday myself and Jordan and Ski Bunny Girl and Gym Girl did the Southern Walkway. My plan is to do 13 great Wellington walks over 13 weekends. This was the first of them.

Despite growing up in the southern suburbs, I had never done the Southern Walkway before. We started off in Island Bay and walked around the bays to Houghton Bay. I bored everyone with stories of my how I used to deliver papers there and my techniques for maximising tips!

Then up the hill through Melrose and Mt Albert with good views of the Southern and Eastern suburbs. Then you head down through Newtown hitting the boundary of the zoo and seeing the orangutans. Go through the hidden away Truby King Park which looked so nice I’m going to head back just to explore.

We then headed down to near Kilbirnie, then up Mt Victoria. Eventually hitting the lookout where the girls doted on a huge dog (it was only 6 months old, so will grow to double its current size which was already close to a polar bear!), and finally a winding path down to Oriental Bay, with some stunning views on the way.

The guide says it takes four to five hours, and we did it in two and three quarters of an hour so a reasonably good pace considering there are two hills large hills to traverse.

Next weekend is the Sanctuary to Sea walkway.

David Shearer has called an emergency caucus meeting for 4 pm tomorrow to try and shore up his wounded leadership.

There seems little doubt he will win the vote tomorrow. David Cunliffe has even said he will vote for him. I imagine the vote will be unanimous.

The real action will be after the vote. How far down the order will Cunliffe be demoted. I understand he is definitely off the front bench. Less certain is if he keeps his portfolio at all. Some MPs are understood to be urging to push Cunliffe as low as possible so that he quits politics all together.

Also of interest is will Shearer do his wider reshuffle. The talk is that some of Cunliffe’s supporters may be punished also.

Senior Whip Chris Hipkins has slammed Cunliffe:

Hipkins today hit out at Cunliffe’s ambitions and said his undermining of Labour’s collective team effort “makes it very difficult for him to continue in a senior role within [our] team”.

“At a time when we should be focused on getting out there holding the National Government to account and selling our policies and our message, David Cunliffe has been working in the shadows to undermine the current leader and prepare for a leadership challenge. That’s unacceptable.”

“If David Cunliffe wants to challenge for the leadership he should come out of the shadows and get on with it….. it is totally unacceptable to say I’ll support David Shearer for now while I work over the summer break to destabilise the leadership and get the numbers to move against him in February.

And further:

Labour MP and senior whip Chris Hipkins said Mr Cunliffe had “openly undermined the current leadership” and should either openly challenge Mr Shearer or leave.

“He’s made it clear he intends to challenge for the leadership. I think saying he’s not going to do so until February is dishonest and disingenous. He needs to bring it on.”

He said Mr Cunliffe should be open and upfront about his intentions.

“Weasel words about supporting the leader for now simply don’t cut it.”

He said Mr Cunliffe had actively undermined two leaders in a row – Mr Goff and now Mr Shearer.

“That has made it impossible for him to continue in a senior role within the Labour team.”

That is a telling comment. Hipkins is saying Cunliffe undermined Goff as well as Shearer. It’s good Labour MPs are now saying openly what they think of Cunliffe, rather than speaking off the record to Duncan Garner about him!

Las month I ran a guest post from John Stringer on his story of living with dementia. Martha Stettinius, who has written a book on this subject, saw the post and offered me a guest post, which I’m happy to run as so many people responded so well to John’s post.

A Family Caregiver Shares an Inside Look at Dementia Care

Alzheimer’s disease and other kinds of dementia are truly becoming an epidemic. One in 8 people over the age of 65 will develop Alzheimer’s disease or another dementia, and those aged 85 have a fifty percent chance of developing the disease. Even if we don’t get dementia ourselves, we are likely to become a family caregiver for someone with the disease. If we are unable to care for that family member or friend at home, it’s important to know what to look for in a dementia care facility, and how to distinguish assisted living from “memory care” and nursing homes.

At age 80, my mother, Judy, is living with advanced dementia (vascular dementia and probable Alzheimer’s disease), and I’ve served as her primary caregiver for 7 years. She’s lived in my home with my husband and two young children, then in assisted living, a rehab center, a “memory care” facility, and now the dementia ward of a nursing home.

In the spring of 2005, my mother lived with us briefly, but she was unhappy and needed more independence, so we convinced her to move to a nearby assisted living facility. Many of the assisted living residents had some degree of dementia, but activities and care seemed tailored to the so-called “Independent-Living” residents. Staff did not receive extensive dementia training, and interactions were minimal. To my dismay, Mom spent most of her days watching TV.

In 2007, after falling and fracturing her pelvis, my mother suddenly became incontinent. The fall may have accompanied a small stroke. After Mom spent some time in a rehab center, the assisted living facility staff were not allowed (by their contract, and by our state’s regulations) to physically help my mother change her adult diapers. I had to hire private aides to come in for several hours a day. The facility’s case manager told me that my mother’s needs had fallen into a “gray area.” It was time to move her. But where?

I toured a local “memory care” cottage, most impressed not with the plush, home-like environment—the light-filled windows, the green plants, the white, long-haired cat lounging on the hearth—or the seeming contentedness of the residents who listened to oldies on a CD—but the forthrightness of the administrator who gave me the tour. When I asked her, “At what point, exactly, would my mother have to move out?” she told me, “Residents must be able to feed themselves, and be able to walk for at least a few steps, for example from the bed to a wheelchair.” That’s the kind of answer I’m looking for, I thought. No “gray areas.”

Mom would live in this memory care facility for nearly 3 years—years that seemed her happiest in a long time. Mom rewarded the staff’s affection with lots of smiles and laughter. Firmly in the middle stages of dementia, she joined the activities, sparked a romance with one of the men, and generally enjoyed living in the moment, no longer tortured by awareness of her disease. Although she had her moments of agitation, the staff all received special training in dementia care, and they knew how to keep her calm and feeling safe.

By May of 2010, however, she seemed to have forgotten how to feed herself, and was losing weight. I looked for a nursing home in the area that was on The Eden Alternative registry—a nursing home that follows the philosophy of person-centered care championed by Dr. Bill Thomas and his wife, Jude—but the closest was 3 hours away.  Mom moved into a local nursing home, where for the past 2 years she has received excellent physical care, if not the emotional sustenance and vibrancy one might find in an Eden Alternative nursing home (available in New Zealand and many other countries. Visit http://www.edeninoznz.com.au/html/s01_home/home.asp for more information). She lives on the dementia floor, where staff members receive some specialized training, but residents in the final stage of dementia rarely enjoy individual attention or appropriate stimulation.

Though she can no longer speak, and is immobile in a wheelchair, Mom continues to enjoy people, and shares her brilliant smile. Counter to the stereotype of people with dementia as “all gone” and “shells” of their former selves, Mom is still “here”—still Judy. In addition to visiting her myself, I’ve hired what I call “paid friends” to see her regularly—a massage therapist who specializes in working with elders, and one of the resident assistants from her memory care facility, both of whom have continued to visit Mom each week.

I hope that we will see an increased public understanding of Alzheimer’s and other dementias, and the need for specialized care. Most countries must bolster, rather than cut, federal funding for dementia research and community support for family caregivers. And we need to press for minimum standards for dementia training for all health care providers and facility staff, from home care to assisted living, memory care, nursing homes, and hospice. As the 35.6 million with dementia worldwide in 2010 doubles by 2030 to 65.7 million, and then nearly doubles again by 2050 to 115.4 million, we will be glad we prepared for the “silver tsunami.”

Martha Stettinius is the author of the new book “Inside the Dementia Epidemic: A Daughter’s Memoir,” available at major online book retailers, including New Zealand’s Mighty Ape (www.mightyape.co.nz). She serves as a volunteer representative for the U.S. National Family Caregivers Association. For more information about the book, please visit www.insidedementia.com.

Martha, with her mother, Judy, in 2012″

Google has updated their transparency report for New Zealand. We learn:

•  There were five removal requests in 2011 – three from court orders and two from the Government (prob Police)
• Of the 13 requests since 2010, 23% were for defamation, 15% privacy and security, 8% hate speech and 8% violence
• The requests were for removal from web search, from Google Docs (once), Blogger and YouTube.

Their copyright page is also interesting. In just the last month they had requests for 8.5 million URLs to be removed.

It’s great that Google is transparent about the number and nature of requests for removal.

1. After losing post election ballot, make visionary speeches to party activists on issues outside portfolio areas. 
2. Make sure you invite columnists and bloggers to the speeches
3. Have party supporters push for future leadership votes to include party members, where you have majority support
4. Have bloggers and columnists call call for a change of leadership just before the conference
5. Have party activists vote down hierarchy’s rule changes and get threshold for leadership challenge lowered to 40%
6. Get party activists to pass a specific resolution to schedule a caucus vote early next year needing only a 40% threshold to challenge.
7. Refuse to pledge loyalty to Leader after vote
8. When Leader looks to do a special vote immediately, pledge support and loyalty for now
9. Have angry old guard insist you be sacked or demoted, so that you are made a martyr
10. Wait for polls to drop for party, due to infighting, so that 40% of caucus will vote for a leadership ballot in February
11. If you don’t quite get the numbers in February, then have very angry and noisy party activists get to work on yet to be agreed new selection and list ranking rules.
12. Get new selection rules in place, weakening power of NZ hierarchy in selections
13. Have your supporters win selections in winnable seats and gain high list rankings
14. Then at first caucus meeting after the next election, you have at least 40% to challenge for leadership and force a ballot – which you win

Eddie at The Standard says that the results of the last leadership ballot was:

Shearer – 17

Cunliffe – 13

This may not be precise, but it shows that if Cunliffe can merely keep all his votes from last time, that may be enough. It is not clear if he needs 13 or 14 votes to force a part ballot. Tumeke thinks it may be just 13.

UPDATE: The Dom Post reports:

 “We have 23 solid for Shearer,” an MP doing the numbers said.

That means 11 for Cunliffe. He needs 13 or 14 to force a ballot. Can he pick two off?

Some wavering MPs also indicated they were put off by Mr Cunliffe over-playing his hand by refusing to rule out a challenge in February.

Yes, his refusal was too blatant. What he could have done is say “My expectation is that caucus will unanimously back David Shearer to remain Leader”. That implies he will vote for Shearer but leaves him wriggle room to challenge by saying expectations change. One of the skills in politics is the wording you use to pledge loyalty to the leader but leave you wriggle room so that you are not a liar if you do challenge. Cunliffe did stuff up somewhat by being so overt.

UPDATE2: The Herald reports:

David Cunliffe has given David Shearer an assurance he has his “absolute support” and would back the Labour Party leader should an early leadership vote be held.

However Mr Cunliffe could not pledge he would support Mr Shearer in February when the leader faces a formal confidence vote.

This is a smarter tactic from Cunliffe. If all of Camp Cunliffe vote for Shearer next week, then everyone knows it is not the real vote. No one actually believes he has unanimous support. Then if Shearer makes any mistakes between now and February, they can say things have changed and try and get the votes then.

There is no doubt Shearer will win an early vote. The question is will he demote Cunliffe, and if so what will the reaction of the Auckland activists be if he does?

UPDATE3: Patrick Gower has asked every MP how they are voting. He has:

• Will not endorse Shearer publicly – 12
• Saying they endorse Shearer – 20
• Ambiguous – 2

Some of those who will not endorse Shearer publicly may go with the flow, Gower says. But if they can pick up Ross Robertson and Shane Jones, then that is 14 votes and all they need. Arguably they only need 13.

However Camp Shearer claim they have 23 votes. I suspect they are right, but I have found out the hard way that you can have the numbers the day before a vote, and lose the vote on the day. MPs do vote by secret ballot.

The Washington Post reports:

At the start of a three-day trip to Southeast Asia, President Obama said at a news conference in Bangkok on Sunday that Israel has a right to defend itself.

“There’s no country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside it’s borders. So we are fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself from missiles landing on people’s homes and workplaces and potentially killing civilians. And we will continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself.”

It’s funny how weeks and weeks of missile attacks on Israel rarely warrant even a minor news story. It is only when they strike back that the world’s media give it 24/7 coverage!

But, the president added, “we are actively working with all the parties in the region to see if we can end those missiles being fired without further escalation of violence in the region.”

It is sad when people die on either side. I note however that for Hamas their definition of success is killing as many civilians as possible while for Israel, it is killing as few civilians as possible.

No doubt many from the safety of their homes, advocate that Israel should do nothing about rocket attacks on them from Gaza. Maybe they believe that they threaten only a few homes near the border. Well thanks to the Israeli Embassy, here is some perspective.

A peace settlement on 1967 borders is only possible if there is actual peace for land. But when the land already given up is used to launch thousands of rocket attacks on civilians, then it hardly provides much of an incentive to give up even more land.

A guest post by Kiwi in America:

As someone who helped run political campaigns at a national level in a previous life in New Zealand, I view the mechanics of political campaigns through the lens of some who once lived and breathed the nuts and bolts of getting your man elected daily. Because some on the centre right were shocked by the election result on Tuesday, here are some of my thoughts about what happened. Before I do so we need to be clear how VERY CLOSE this election was. Comparisons the 2004 election are most instructive:

• Popular vote margin: Obama won by 2.4% and 3 million votes in 2012 – Bush won by an almost identical margin in 2004
• Electoral College votes: Obama won the EC in 2012 by 126 votes versus Bush’s 34 EC votes in 2004 – this is because Obama spread his victory very thinly where it counted. Compare the 2012 winning margins in the 4 key swing states of OH, FL, VA and CO: Obama won these states by only 406,000 votes – it took Bush DOUBLE that margin to win the same key swing states in 2004 (by 861,000 votes). Had Romney won OH, FL, VA and CO he would’ve won EC vote 285 to 253!

Obama’s winning margin of  406,000 votes comprised less than 2% of votes cast in 4 states and 0.03% of all votes cast nationwide. Such is the electoral system that the Presidency hinges on such a tiny number of voters.

 Incumbents rarely lose

It’s true and so Romney had a much steeper hill to climb regardless of how favourable he thought the adverse economic conditions were to his candidacy. Since 1896 no incumbent President fighting in a normal two party race, under normal circumstance and not facing a primary challenger from his own party has lost. There have been 4 incumbents in that period who lost but each faced unique factors that Obama never faced. Hoover was in office when the Stock Market crashed in 1929 and the Great Depression began. He had also been the Commerce Secretary of the previous Coolidge Administration so he was not new to the Executive branch like Obama. Ford was not an incumbent in the usual sense – he had not been elected and only assumed the Presidency after Nixon’s pre-impeachment resignation – Ford’s pardoning of Nixon also tarred him with the Watergate scandal. Carter faced a bruising Primary with Ted Kennedy (for a sitting President a rare event) and one that ate into his campaign costs and split the Democrat party. The unresolved Iranian hostage crisis was a weeping sore at the end of his presidency that cost Carter dearly. GHW Bush (41) had been Vice President for 8 years prior to his election as President AND faced a substantial third party candidate in Ross Perot who siphoned off a large number of right leaning votes. The US electorate usually gives an incumbent President 2 terms. Obama is in fact the first sitting President to NOT INCREASE his share of the vote in his second term.

 2012 was more like 2008 than 2010

Much has been written about the dueling views on polls – on the left was Nate Silver (whose baseball modeling skills he brought to political polling) whose model essentially aggregated and then weighted most of the public opinion polls – on the right was the view that most polls (except Rasmussen and Gallup) were too heavily weighting in favor of Democrats and if you realigned those polls to what they thought was a more realistic level, Romney was level pegging or ahead. Democrats were +7 of the overall national vote in 2008 and this swung dramatically to R +2 in the 2010 mid-terms. For a point of reference the split was D + 3 in 2004. The left claimed that Obama’s presence on the ticket in 2012 would see a result close to 2008 and thus it was – polls that had around D+6 were pretty accurate on the day or in other words a drop of only 1% since 2008. Republicans took solace in the massive turnaround in voter sentiment in 2010 that saw the largest reversal in an incumbent party’s House of Representative hold in 74 years. That, combined with a historic sweep of State legislatures and governorships, gave the right good reason to think that 2008 represented a high tide mark in voter support for the Democrats and that 2012, whilst nowhere near as dramatic as the 2010 mid-terms, would see a reasonable retreat from what they saw as a record turnout for Obama. Thus a turnout model close to 2004 (D+3) was seen by many on the right to be a more accurate assessment of the partisan split.

 The truth was that Obama’s winning coalition comprised a combination of groups that historically have had relatively low voter turnout – blacks, the young and Hispanics. Blacks have a higher representation amongst lower socio-economic groups who tend to lack the traditions and engagement with the electoral system. Young voters are fickle, easily distracted, feel they have little impact on politics and are so transient that they are hard to keep track of. Hispanics share some of the same turnout issues as blacks. Black turnout over the 3 elections prior to 2008 averaged 9% of the electorate – in 2008 it was 11% and Obama got 93% of that vote. He managed to get the exact same percentage turnout in 2012 AND he got the same percentage of blacks to vote for him. In the two crucial swing state of VA and OH he actually INCREASED the numbers of blacks voting as a percentage of voters and of course got the same very high percentage of them to vote for him. Ditto for the under 30 vote – historically the under 30 vote is usually 15% of the electorate but in 2008 Obama pushed this up to 18% and he managed to win 68% of that vote. In 2012 Obama stunningly managed to replicate this turnout amongst the young even managing to slightly increase the percentage of young voters to 19% and again scoring a huge margin over Romney – 60/27. But he saved the best for the Hispanic vote. It had been creeping up from 9% of the electorate in 2004 to 10% in 2008 and then 11% in 2012. In 2008 Obama won Hispanics by 67% (Bush has been the most successful Republican ever winning 44% in 2004) but in 2012 Obama managed to INCREASE his share of the Hispanic vote to 71%.

  Continue reading »

There’s a lot not to like about Labour’s housing policy from a fiscal responsibility point of view. But upon reflection, I think there is even more to dislike about it from a left wing focus on equality and poverty. In fact it looks like it could almost set a record in terms of ways one could rort the policy. Let’s go through the issues.

1. Generally the state provides assistance to people and families either on a universal basis or a targeted basis. All children get free compulsory education and all under 5s get free healthcare for example. That is a universal approach. A targeted approach is stuff like Working for Families (the lower your income the more you get) or even state house rentals (the rental is linked to your income). But this new housing policy is neither universal or targeted. It is a Lotto policy. If there are more applicants for these cheap sub $300,000 houses than there are houses (which of course there will be), then they will be allocated by random ballot. Now just think about this. As the median house value is $410,000 the lucky winners of these ballots will be arguably gaining $100,000 or so of value. Do you see why this should be called a Lotto policy!! You may earn less money than Jane and John next door but if they win the ballot they effectively gain $100,000 and you get nothing. Anyone from the left who seriously backs this policy is being sycophantic to Labour. They should be demanding the houses be allocated to the lowest income families – or given to Housing NZ to become state houses with income related rents.
2. Purchasers who win the ballot will stand to make huge profits. If they buy the house for $300,000 and the market value is $400,000 then many of them will sell them as soon as they can to make a profit. Yes the policy says they may be required to retain them for a certain period of time – but that will just delay the cashing in for a profit. Also what will stop them moving out and turning it into an investment property? Will the state send inspectors in to check they are actually living there? Smart people, to make money, will find ways. They may get in “flatmates” but in fact not live there themselves.
3. Rich families will love this policy. Huey, Dewey and Louie will each get a cheap taxpayer subsidized house for their 21st birthdays.
4. This will be a boon for lawyers and trusts. The policy is that people must be first homeowners. So what the smart people will do is make sure their family trust buys their first home. They’ll then still be able to get a taxpayer subsidised home as technically they are still a first time homeowner. Cactus Kate is already making plans to make some arrangements so she qualifies for the handout.
5. This policy will do little for poor families. They can;’t afford to buy even a $300,000 home. A better policy for Labour would have been that they will build 5,000 houses a year and turn them into state houses for low income families. But instead they are doing the housing equivalent of Working for Families – trying to buy the votes of middle class voters who hope they will win the Lotto ballot for a subsidized house.

So from a fiscal sanity/centre right point of view there is a lot to attack this policy over. But I think the strongest criticisms can be made from a left point of view. It won’t help the poor, it will be great for the rich who can buy homes for their kids, great for family trusts and those who receive this huge subsidy will be chosen by random ballot!

Imagine if Labour announced Working for Families was going to be replaced with a system where instead of support going to families with children who earn under a certain threshold, they were going to just give away $100,000 a year to 10,000 people drawn out of a ballot. That is the equivalent of this policy!

I suspect this policy was thought up a few days ago to try and gain some positive headlines for the conference. It is something you’d expect from Mike Moore in his heyday.

I’ve been involved with InternetNZ and Internet policy issues for around 15 years now. One of the things I enjoy is the intellectual challenge, as you deal with such a huge diversity of issues. InternetNZ staff compiled the below list of issues that have been discussed at our policy meetings in 2012.

1. 111 System Review
2. APNIC Policy
3. Briefings to Incoming Ministers
4. Chorus’ Role in the UFB and RBI
5. Commerce Commission Fibre Demand-Side Study
6. Communications (New Media) Bill
7. Convergence (Telco/Broadcasting)
8. Copyright
9. Data Caps
10. Digital Dividend
11. DNSSEC
12. Privacy
13. Economic Studies of impact of Internet on the economy
14. Electronic Identification Verification Bill
15. ICANN’s new gTLD programme
16. InTAC (Internet Technical Architecture Conference)
17. International Mobile Roaming
18. International Telecommunications Regulations
19. IP Interconnection
20. IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 adoption
21. NetHui
22. Network Measurement Lab
23. News Media Meets New Media Law Commission paper
24. Policy Principles for future Internet submissions
25. Southern Cross Cable
26. Telecommunications Development Levy Determination
27. TelstraClear and Vodafone Merger
28. Trans Pacific Partnership
29. Radio Spectrum 5-Year Outlook
30. Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
31. UBA, UCLL and UCLFS pricing determinations

In 79 days it will be the first Tuesday of February, when under Labour’s new rules David Shearer must win a secret ballot of his colleagues to prevent a party-wide leadership ballot. David Cunliffe needs to get only 13 votes (plus his own) in 79 days.

It is worth recalling that Shearer has promised to have a reshuffle of his front bench and in fact overall caucus responsibilities and portfolios. He needs to make significant changes, but can he afford to do so?

Claire Trevett at the NZ Herald reports:

Labour MP David Cunliffe has left little doubt that he intends to overthrow David Shearer as Labour’s leader – a job made easier by a surprise change to the party rules.

The rule change was part of a chaotic day at the party’s annual conference in Ellerslie, during which delegates ignored the pleas of several senior MPs and voted to allow just 40 per cent of caucus to force a full leadership vote. All it would take is a vote from 14 of the current 34 MPs.

That puts Shearer’s leadership on much more precarious ground, and last night sources indicated the leader could move to bring matters to a head by forcing a vote, rather than letting it fester over summer.

Shearer can force a vote early. But as I understand the new rules, that in no way removes the constitutional requirement to also have a vote in February. Also an early vote would have a different threshold to the February 2013 vote. An early vote would only trigger a leadership election if 17 MPs voted against him. The Feb 2013 vote needs only 14 MPs.

Shearer’s supporters were clearly rattled by the change, but also confident he would secure the support – one stating they would easily “head (Cunliffe) off at the pass”.

Of 13 other MPs spoken to, most including Andrew Little, Clare Curran, Grant Robertson, Trevor Mallard and David Parker, said they would support Shearer in February’s vote.

Louisa Wall would not answer the question: “It’s irrelevant for me now – we’re in the middle of the conference.”

Phil Twyford said he supported Mr Shearer “because he is our leader now” but his vote in February would be a secret because it was a closed ballot.

The key words are “now” and “secret ballot”.

Charles Chauvel – who was a supporter of David Cunliffe last December – said he did not want to talk to the media.

How unusual!

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

In its headlong rush to give grassroots members a greater say in future leadership votes, the Labour Party may have just pushed its current leader over the cliff.

Even if the damage to David Shearer isn’t fatal, it has made the party’s already difficult job that much harder.

However good his speech is today – and he was already under pressure to deliver a blockbuster full of core policy and “mongrel” – for the next three months he is the man on a knife edge.

If just 14 of his 33 caucus colleagues opt for change, the first two months of 2013 will be steeped in Labour bloodletting.

Possibly more than two months.

That’s the upshot of constitutional changes passed by delegates yesterday after an impassioned debate that exposed a bitterly divided party. It was the most extraordinary internecine political warfare since Rogernomics split the party in the 1980s, all played out on the conference floor.

In general the left, the unions and the north – let’s call it the Cunliffe camp – heavily backed the 40 per cent trigger with Wellington, the right and most MPs backing a simple majority that would have given embattled Shearer much greater protection.

It is manna from heaven for John Key’s fraying political machine that has just negotiated another week from hell.

Now National can run the line hard that if Labour wins in 2014, a minority in the caucus backed by dark forces in the party could, in just a matter of months, replace the people’s choice of prime minister.

This is an issue not yet fully focused on. Even if Labour win an election, the Leader will now be able to be toppled by just 40% of Caucus the February after an election. Now you might say, that would never happen. But it is well known that in 1993 Helen Clark was plotting to roll Mike Moore well before the 1993 election, and even if Labour had won (which they almost did) Clark was going to roll Moore – and would have had the numbers to do so.

The delegates could have controlled the damage to Shearer’s leadership by not insisting on a caucus vote in February, leaving it till the next cycle in 2014.

Senior MPs Trevor Mallard and David Parker tried to steer them that way but they were simply not listening.

Because in the end this was not just about a new constitution to make the party more open and democratic. It was also about the Cunliffe camp’s revenge for being ignored after last year’s primary race when the caucus installed Shearer as leader.

This is also a key point. The ongoing requirement is just for a scheduled vote after each general election. Now Labour have already had one of those – they had a leadership contest in Dec 2011 and Shearer won. But the conference explicitly voted to have a non-regular vote in February 2013. This can only be seen as directed at Shearer. If they had not passed that resolution, then you would need 50% of caucus to force a party wide vote on the leadership instead of 40%.

Cunliffe all but confirmed his interest in a challenge after his victory on the conference floor although, as one senior MP observed, “more than 60 per cent of the MPs voted for the trigger to stay at 50 per cent” – suggesting Shearer is safe for now – a spill cannot be ruled out even before February.

And then what? A new leader with a majority in the wider party but with a caucus that opposed him? And a dreadful bloodletting during the 2014 candidate selection process – which is already so fraught the party postponed its reform till late 2013?

In the meantime, Shearer’s leadership, already under pressure, will suffer a thousand speculations.

He has yet to show his hand and may think he can drink from the party’s poisoned chalice and survive. But his inner circle were late yesterday contemplating his next move.

The nuclear option would be to call Cunliffe out, confront him, demote him or put his unspoken challenge to the party now so February’s vote becomes a formality.

I’m generally a fan of nuclear options 🙂

I would point again out that an early vote doesn’t remove the requirement to also have a vote in February 2013.

Patrick Gower at 3 News reported:

David Shearer’s leadership of the Labour Party is under threat from his rival David Cunliffe.

The challenge emerged today at the Labour Party conference on the eve of what was meant to be a major speech for Mr Shearer.

Mr Cunliffe is putting his hand up, refusing to rule out a challenge to Mr Shearer when the Labour leadership comes up for grabs in February.

Cunliffe could have killed these stories dead by saving clearly “I will be voting in favour of David Shearer to remain Leader at the first caucus meeting of 2013, and will be urging all my colleagues to do the same. He will be the next Prime Minister”.

By the way if anyone is still doubting my contention that all those blog posts and columns last week calling for Shearer to go were a coincidence, I still have that bridge for sale!

UPDATE: Vernon Small reports:

Shearer is moving to put his leadership to a caucus vote as early as next week in an attempt to end speculation about his position and draw out challenger David Cunliffe.

Shearer’s lieutenants were today meeting to consider ways a vote could be taken early under caucus rules.

That would likely not replace the scheduled vote in February at which only 40 per cent of the caucus could trigger a run-off according to new uses approved by the Labour conference yesterday.

But if the caucus gave him a strong endorsement, possibly in a vote that was made public, that could make the February vote more of a formality. No caucus meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, but an urgent one may be called.

There are also rules that require at last a week’s notice of a leadership ballot, but that may not be needed to simply endorse Shearer.

It is understood if Shearer wins the backing of caucus he will move quickly to demote Cunliffe.

It will be fascinating if he sacks Cunliffe off the front bench and from his portfolio. Cunliffe has a lot of support from the activists, and sacking him may go down very badly with them.

Also the move to have an early leadership vote appears to be an attempt to ignore the rule that the conference explicitly voted for. The conference said that they want a leadership ballot unless Shearer has over 60% support of caucus. They did not vote for 50%.

I guess the strategy is that a sacked Cunliffe will not be able to gain 40% come February. And it is possible he won’t be able to. But it does mean Shearer will have a ongoing significant disaffected faction in caucus and definitely in the wider party.

As bribes go, this is one of the bigger ones. Labour are promising 100,000 new cheap houses and all you have to do is vote for them. Let’s look at the speech:

The start-up cost of the building programme will be financed through issuing government stock called Home Ownership Bonds.

The money we make from selling the houses will go back into the pot for building more.

The houses will be compact in size. Some will be stand-alone dwellings and others apartments. All of them will be good quality and energy efficient.

The homes will be sold to first home buyers who’ve saved their own deposit, like with KiwiSaver.

We estimate that the maximum needed to be raised for a kick-start will be $1.5 billion.

It will quickly become self-funding though. And because it’s a capital investment, it won’t affect our commitment to balance the books and return to surplus.

Labour don’t seem to understand about this concept called interest. When you borrow money (unless you print it as Russel wants) then you have to pay interest on it.

Now let’s think about this 100,000 house bribe. The average sale price of a property is $410,000. with 100,000 houses that means around $40 billion of capital to be outlayed in advance. The NZ Super Fund say the risk free rate of return is 5.16% on average. Let’s say the Government can borrow at 5%. That is already $2 billion in interest if there is only a year between borrowing the money and selling the house. I am not a property developer but I suspect it takes much longer than that.

But now consider that the Government just selling then at the median price will not help families much. So presumably the Government will sell them at a discount. How much? We don’t know. Say it is a 10% discount or $40,000 per house. That is another $4 billion.

But here’s the sad thing. Unless we do something about the supply of land in Auckland, the increase in house prices will be greater than any discount from the Government selling homes cheaply. Rodney Hide sums this up in the HoS:

There are many reasons why Auckland house prices are high. A lack of tax isn’t one of them.

One reason is that Auckland councils have for years run a deliberate policy to hike house prices. The council doesn’t put it that bluntly, calling it “smart growth” or a “compact Auckland”. But the policy works by hiking house prices.

The policy’s purpose is to get us to live in apartments over train stations. That way we will be more likely to take a train and the mountains of cash that councils have sunk into trains, stations and rail lines over the years won’t look such a waste. …

The policy works by the council running a planning fence around the city, a fence called the Metropolitan Urban Limit. Inside the fence houses can be built; over the fence, not so much. It’s the fence that has us piling on top of each other.

It’s said that the housing market isn’t working. Actually, it’s working perfectly. The council is artificially holding down the quantity of land supplied and people are bidding up the price of the precious little that is available. That’s how a market works when there is a shortage.

The result is easily seen. Average section prices in New Zealand account for 40 per cent of the cost of a new house. In Auckland it’s 60 per cent. There’s a 20 per cent council planning tax on Auckland houses.

It’s not hard to make houses more affordable in Auckland. Just loosen the fence. Land over the planning fence costs only 12 per cent of land inside the fence.

Unlock the planning fence and house prices would tumble. At the very least, the heat would be taken out of the market. Auckland families and couples would once again be able to afford a house

And best of all you won’t need to borrow $40 billion to do it!

UPDATE: Labour say they will sell the houses for under $300,000. I’d say the cost to the taxpayer has just exploded. This is the biggest bribe since Think Big. When the costs of construction exceed what they think it should be, the taxpayer will be left footing the bill.

From the annual report of the Christchurch Appeal Trust. They have had over $100 million in donations. Major donations of over $500,000 were received from:

• AEON
• AMP
• ANZ Bank
• America New Zealand Association
• Bruce Plested
• Commonwealth Bank Australia
• Fonterra
• Fox Studios
• Glenn Family Foundation
• Governments of Canada, Indonesia, Oman, China, Russia, Victoria and NSW
• Infinity Foundation
• James Cameron
• NZ Aluminium Smelter
• New Zealand Community Trust
• Salvation Army Hong Kong
• Seven and I Holdings
• The Southern Trust
• Valar Capital Management
• Warner Bros
• Wesfarmers Ltd
• William James Duncan

As well those very generous large donations, some great examples of community fundraising globally:

• The Gherkin stairclimb, London – on 22 May 2011 around 1,000 people raised GBP25,500 in a sponsored ‘Step Up 4 Christchurch’ climb of the famous Gherkin (30 St Mary Axe) in the City of London – that’s 38 fl oors and 1,037 steps – organised by Kent Gardner and Paul Kendrick of Evans Randall investment banking group.
• South Point High School Ohio, USA – on 29 April 2011 the athletes of South Point High School in Southern Ohio sprinted, shot putted, and high-jumped for the Appeal, donating the $1,832 proceeds from their annual track and fi eld meet which is named after legendary Kiwi running coach Arthur Lydiard.
• Radiothon, Cook Islands – the small Cook Islands community of Aitutaki held a radiothon and its Mayor of Aitutaki John Baxter said that in four hours the community collected $25,000 for the Appeal. Aitutaki is a small island more than 260km from Rarotonga with a population of about 2,000.
• NZ university graduates, Vietnam – a group of Vietnamese who studied at New Zealand universities over 25 years ago (1950 – 1975) raised $62,000. The 100 former students and their families, who now live all over the world said: “We were given not only an education, but also hospitality and love by the people of New Zealand. We sincerely hope, as members of the big New Zealand family, it can lend a hand in soothing and comforting earthquake victims as they rebuild their lives.”

Great generosity and initiatives.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Opposition parties are urging the Government to establish a regime to charge major fresh water users such as farmers.

The Land and Water Forum yesterday released its third and final report into how fresh water should be used and allocated.

The group of more than 60 organisations has been looking at the issue since 2009 but failed to reach a consensus on charging commercial water users.

Primary Industries Minister David Carter said the report provided a “solid foundation” on how water could be better allocated for high-value use, and how councils and communities could actively manage water quality in their areas. It also called for clearer accountabilities for resource managers and users.

Labour’s Environment spokesperson Grant Robertson said the report did not explicitly advocate resource rentals for water, but allowed for a regime that would see a “fair price” paid by major users.

Labour wanted such a regime developed in consultation with relevant parties.

If a resource is scarce or even limited, then a charge for its use is sensible and something I support. I think we should have all homes on water meters.

Farms with irrigation do not tend to use an intermediary such as a water supply company. They often get it direct from a river. In that case some charge is still appropriate, but it should be more modest and reflect the actual impact on the river and other users. If the impact is minimal, the charge should be also. But some cost can be appropriate.

Josh Martin at NZ Herald reports:

A charity auction with a novel twist is causing a stir on Facebook and Trade Me, all in the name of friendship.

Wellington sisters Lynda and Katy Grimmer are auctioning off the rights to their middle names in order to send their friend – who has terminal cancer – on the roadtrip of a lifetime.

The generous young women tell potential Trade Me bidders they will change their middle names and use them in their daily lives.

The auction is here.As of last night it was over $1,600.  Lynda and Katy state:

All money will be donated to our dearest friend Molly Frank 18 years from Paraparaumu who has had a long battle against an aggressive cancer called Rabdomyosarcoma.. This led her down a 42 week journey of intense chemo and radiation therapy. She finally finished her treatment in July this year. Molly was in remission for 3 months she started walking again grew her hair back became a normal teenage girl. We have unfortunately found out the cancer has returned and is too close to her heart to be removed. She would like a trip with her family down to the south island in a caravan as she was born there.

That’s a great act of mateship. Some of the Q+A are funny:

• What about Whangarei and Waitakere
• I’m thinking Lynda Katy and Katy Lynda
• Clearly the only choice is ‘batman’ and ‘superman’.

There is also a page on Facebook to support Molly. Those who want to help, but can’t afford to bid can do so in two ways.

1. If you live in the South Island, you may be able to offer some hospitality to Molly and her family.
2. One can make a donation directly to Molly Frank 01 0731 0230467 08. I’ve just donated $200 and encourage others who can and wish to donate to do so.

Michelle Robinson at Stuff reports:

Teenagers and fair-skinned adults may be banned from sunbeds under a proposed member’s bill.

The Health Skin Cancer and Trauma Prevention Amendment Bill calls for enforced regulations on sunbeds and cosmetic lasers.

A voluntary standard is all that prevents people with very fair photo type one skin from using sunbeds.

They would be barred, along with teenagers, from using the cosmetic tanning devices under National MP Dr Paul Hutchison’s bill.

Never used a sunbed, and doubt I ever will.

I don’t have a problem with not allowing teenagers (if that is shorthand for under 18s) from using a sunbed.

But if an adult wishes to use a sunbed, no matter fair skinned or dark skinned, and wishes to ignore the health risks – well no law should stop them.

However I would favour them losing coverage for any conditions likely to be caused by said sunbed exposure!

They say a picture is worth a thousand words!

Despite that, give us your words below. Funny, not nasty.

Photo from NZ Herald. Idea from Keeping Stock.