James Ihaka at NZ Herald reported:

Five years on, the Herald revisits the street made famous by John Key and finds McGehan Close residents positive and proud. They’re free of the gangs that plagued them and happy to let their children play outside.

Five years after they were thrust unwillingly into the political spotlight, things have changed for the residents of McGehan Close – much of it for the better.

Excellent.

Gone are the wannabe gangsters who terrorised them, along with the broken glass, the graffiti on fences and homes and rubbish that littered a nearby stream.

Instead there are children playing outside, neighbours speaking with each other over their fences and people wasting little time reporting any suspected crime.

So how has this change happened?

It is a street where everyone knows everyone – and where people say they’re proud to come from.

Among them is Halahetoa Haukau, who was 12 when the media showed up in droves after the Prime Minister’s infamous 2007 speech at the Burnside Rugby Club, in Christchurch.

Now 17, the retail student said many of the street’s problems went away when local gang Dope Money Sex stopped using their local park as their watering hole.

“A lot of them are either in prison, shanked [stabbed] or have kids of their own and have grown up and moved on.

“It was pretty scary back then. No-one would come out of their homes because they were too afraid, you would never see any children at the park, ever.

“But they’ve gone … it’s probably because of that,” she said, pointing to a liquor ban sign above the park.

Gangs destroy a local community.

Ms Santos said the publicity had galvanised the street’s residents and while many of the people the Herald had spoken to in 2007 had now left, she said McGehan Close showed how a neighbourhood can take ownership of its problems.

“It’s a really good place and yeah, people are proud to live here. They used to be too scared, now they will call the police if they see anything going on.

“The people who live here have hopes and dreams too, they want better for their children.”

She conceded the Government had done some good with homes being recarpeted or fitted with new kitchens, bathrooms and curtains – part of a $125 million investment into state housing upgrades.

She said Housing New Zealand and the Auckland City Council were proactive in dealing with complaints, particularly with graffiti, which is cleaned up almost as soon as it appears.

Police also respond quickly to their calls while a footbridge built in the last couple of years runs over a nearby stream that is surprisingly free of any rubbish.

“But really with a lot of the changes I think it’s the community that has done most of this,” Ms Santos insists.

I agree. I think Government, both central and local, can help out – but it is the community itself that has the most power.

Every second Thursday Alpesh Macwan holds a barbecue at number 13 McGehan Close.

He regularly gets about 15 kids and a few parents showing up for a sausage or to play with his rabbits while a couple of local youth workers also pop by to lend support and listen to the children.

What a great idea. Little initiatives like that can make a difference.

Do not read these if you are of a nervous disposition. Bear in mind that they are not yet official Labour Party policy. They are merely up for consideration. But nevertheless read on with horror what utopia New Zealand is planned b Labour Party grassroots activists and read their policy remits to be debated at their annual conference. Here’s a summary:

• Nationalisation of any partially sold assets
• A financial transactions tax
• Require all private boards to comply with a 50% gender quota within five years
• A universal child benefit so millionaires get paid money for having kids
• 52 weeks paid parental leave (why stop there – go for 18 years I say!)
• Lower the voting age to 16
• A gender quota for the House of Representatives (why not a race and sexual orientation quota also!)
• Compulsory Te Reo Maori until age 15
• End all funding of private schools (which ironically will force them all to be integrated and go from 25% funding to 100%)
• Bring ban the food police to school tuckshops
• Ban seabed mining for minerals oil and gas
• Ban fracking
• A tax on aquaculture
• Ban all coal mining
• A mineral exports tax
• Ban plastic bags
• Fund a brand new commercial free TV broadcaster
• Fund a Pacific TV broadcaster
• A Super Gold card for transport for under 21s
• A rail link to the airport for Auckland (think how much taxes will be gong up to pay for all of this)
• A petrol tax to fund rail
• Set up a state owned insurance company to compete with private insurers
• De facto compulsory unionism by forcing all employees to “contribute to the benefits of enterprise and multi-enterprise bargaining”
• Turn contractors into employees
• Reverse employment law changes and destroy NZ as a location for international film making
• Ban companies that do not pay a “living wage” (which is much higher than the minimum wage) from winning government contracts
• Compulsory worker representation on large company boards
• Direct Kiwirail as to whom must win their tenders
• restore the social obligation to the SOE Act (despite the fact they were never repealed!)
• Insert the Treaty of Waitangi into the Constitution Act
• Raise the age of Super to 67 – except for Maori!
• That the Government should create state owned and managed retirement homes
• That all single benefits be increased by $50 a week!!!
• That any NGO receiving even minimal government funding be required to have a 50% gender quota on its governing board!
• Bring back compulsory membership of student associations

Once you have returned from the bathroom, comment below on which ones are the most hideous. I think the fixation with gender quotas might be it for me – they want them not just for Parliament, not just for company boards but also for any NGO which gets even $1,000 of Government funding.

It will be fascinating to see which ones pass.

I blogged previously on some boundary gerrymandering in Pennsylvania by the Republicans. To make it clear both parties gerrymander equally enthusiastically, here’s a good article on what the Democrats did in California:

This spring, a group of California Democrats gathered at a modern, airy office building just a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol. The meeting was House members only — no aides allowed — and the mission was seemingly impossible.

In previous years, the party had used its perennial control of California’s state Legislature to draw district maps that protected Democratic incumbents. But in 2010, California voters put redistricting in the hands of a citizens’ commission where decisions would be guided by public testimony and open debate.

So how to gerrymander the boundaries when you no longer have direct control?

The citizens’ commission had pledged to create districts based on testimony from the communities themselves, not from parties or statewide political players. To get around that, Democrats surreptitiously enlisted local voters, elected officials, labor unions and community groups to testify in support of configurations that coincided with the party’s interests.

When they appeared before the commission, those groups identified themselves as ordinary Californians and did not disclose their ties to the party. One woman who purported to represent the Asian community of the San Gabriel Valley was actually a lobbyist who grew up in rural Idaho, and lives in Sacramento.

A bit like being a struggling desperate home owner, who happens to be the Labour Party Vice-President!

California’s Democratic representatives got much of what they wanted from the 2010 redistricting cycle, especially in the northern part of the state. “Every member of the Northern California Democratic Caucus has a ticket back to DC,” said one enthusiastic memo written as the process was winding down. “This is a huge accomplishment that should be celebrated by advocates throughout the region.”

Statewide, Democrats had been expected to gain at most a seat or two as a result of redistricting. But an internal party projection says that the Democrats will likely pick up six or seven seats in a state where the party’s voter registrations have grown only marginally.

A very nice bonus.

The losers in this once-a-decade reshaping of the electoral map, experts say, were the state’s voters. The intent of the citizens’ commission was to directly link a lawmaker’s political fate to the will of his or her constituents. But as ProPublica’s review makes clear, Democratic incumbents are once again insulated from the will of the electorate.

They want insulation – they need a party list!

Read the full article – it is lengthy, but fascinating.

This week Kiwiblog had the 9,000th user registration, which is what allows someone to make a comment.

We’re also a few posts away from 24,000 posts and are up to 912,000 comments. We’ll need a party for the one million mark!

There are 4,565 different tags or topics also which is a bit disturbing!

Yvonne Tahana reports:

North Shore students have been banned from hugging during school hours because too many of them – mainly girls – were consistently arriving late to their classes.

Umm, then you should ban being late to class – but not ban hugging.

A trend among groups of year 8 students – 12- to 13-year-olds – had driven the call, Mrs Cattell said.

“It’s just a little thing that they’re doing. It got out of hand towards the end of morning tea time especially. There would be groups that got back to class 10 to 15 minutes late because they were going around making sure they’d hugged the whole group before they got back to class.

I think hugging is a very healthy positive activity. It’s great kids want to show their friendship for each other with hugs.

More than 600 attend the school and there were also concerns that some children’s feelings could be hurt if they were left out.

Oh dear God.

Parent Lorna Subritsky, whose daughter attends the school, said she could understand it might be annoying for teachers for have stragglers to their classes but the issue could be dealt with by addressing the lateness, not the physical contact.

Exactly.

Victoria University publish a book reviewing each election campaign the year after.

The 2011 book is called “Kicking the Tyres:The New Zealand General Election and Electoral Referendum of 2011”

It’s a must read for political professionals and enthusiasts. You can pre-order it from the link above, and it is launched on the 26th of November by no less than the Prime Minister.

Some of the topics are:

Kicking the Tyres includes among its authors some of the winners of the 2011 election – New Zealand First’s Winston Peters; the Greens’ Metiria Turei; National’s Steven Joyce; United Future’s Peter Dunne; and the Greens’ Mojo Mathers. 

What went wrong is the subject of chapters written by participants from other parties, including Labour’s Grant Robertson and high-ranking candidates from the Maori Party, Mana and ACT. 

Kicking the Tyres views the campaign and the election from a variety of angles and perspectives. New Zealand’s wittiest political commentator, Jane Clifton, writes about ‘the worm’ and other inanities of 2011. Jon Johansson and Colin James discuss John Key’s leadership and the impact of the Pike River mine disaster and the Christchurch earthquakes on the government and the country. Other contributors examine the images and ‘brands’ of New Zealand’s political parties and their leaders; the role of Facebook in the election campaign; the opinion polls and pollsters – which were the worst, which the best; how well New Zealand television performed with its political experts and ‘pundits’; how the government’s coalition was formed; and Maori politics, Parliament, and the future of the Maori vote.

Kicking the Tyres includes a special section on the MMP referendum, with chapters from the leaders of the pro- and anti- groups – the ‘Campaign for MMP’ and the unsuccessful ‘Vote for Change’ – and an analysis of the vote and its aftermath by well-known commentators Therese Arseneau and Nigel S. Roberts. 

I’m looking forward to buying and reading it.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers

1. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s economic programme helping New Zealand families by increasing savings, keeping interest rates low and minimising cost of living pressures?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on jobs and employment?
3. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements have been made as part of the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children to take stronger action against child abusers?
4. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “What we do environmentally matters a great deal, but we also want jobs and we also want to make sure we’re not prioritising that over everything else. I think we’ve got that balance about right”?
5. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcement has been made about Block Offer 2013?
6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Was the Prime Minister correct when he said on 12 October 2012 that “our unemployment rate’s not rising”; if so, why?
7. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in September 2010 that “there is no doubt that unemployment has peaked”?
8. TODD McCLAY to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What steps is he taking to ensure the environmental integrity of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme?
9. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement that “the Government is taking an active, work-based approach” to her welfare reforms?
10. BARBARA STEWART to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied that District Health Boards have done enough to promote understanding of the Pharmacy Services Agreement?
11. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to promote awareness and support those with hepatitis C?
12. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Has he received any advice on the impact on New Zealand trade resulting from his decision not to sign up to the Second Commitment Period under the Kyoto Protocol; if so, what was it?

Today there are five questions from National, four from Labour, two from the Greens and one from NZ First.

Labour are asking on welfare reforms, the environment, and twice on employment. The Greens are asking on employment and the Kyoto Protocol, and NZ First are asking on the Pharmacy Services Agreement.

Patsy of the day goes to Katrina Shanks for Q1: How is the Government’s economic programme helping New Zealand families by increasing savings, keeping interest rates low and minimising cost of living pressures?

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill – committee stage
2. Electronic Identity Verification Bill – committee stage
3. Identity Information Confirmation Bill – committee stage
4. Legislation Bill – committee stage (cont.)
5. Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill – second reading

The Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill was introduced by Judith Collins and restores the rank of QC as well as restricting eligibility for that rank to barristers sole. It passed its second reading by 63 votes to 56. Labour, the Greens, NZ First and Mana all voted against.

The Electronic Identity Verification Bill and Identity Information Confirmation Bill were introduced by Chris Tremain and  set out the regulatory framework for the administration and application of the new “RealMe” online identity verification service. It passed its second reading with unanimous support.

The Legislation Bill was introduced by Chris Finlayson to modernise and improve the law relating to the publication, availability, reprinting, revision, and official versions of legislation and to bring this law together in a single piece of legislation. It passed its second reading with unanimous support.

The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill was introduced by David Carter and amends the principal Act’s purpose to explicitly target cost-effectiveness, as well as making a raft of other amendments relating to the operation of local government. It barely passed its first reading by 61 votes to 59, with  Labour, the Greens, NZ First, the Māori Party and Mana all voting against. The Local Government and Environment Committee reported it back to the House on 30 October.

EDIT: Have changed the post to reflect that the Legislation Bill committee stage is the only one of the four that is being continued – I had inaccurately labelled the other three as continued. – speters

I’ll let the article speak for itself:

Yesterday the three MPs regarded as having leadership goals – Grant Robertson, David Cunliffe and Andrew Little – all ruled out any immediate challenge and rejected suggestions they were involved in any attempt to undermine Mr Shearer.

Not exactly Shermanesque denials.

Video from interest.co.nz of David Shearer outside Caucus this morning. A good performance by Shearer.

Jack Ralston died a couple of months ago.  Brother Bill writes in The Listener about him. He spent a lifetime as a sports coach.

Whale Oil blogs:

Just over 9 weeks ago the sporting-world, in particular New Zealand’s young and developing athletes lost a legend, mentor, coach and all-round terrific guy with Jack Ralston’s death.  So many of us feel that Jack left such a huge legacy which is too great to simply end at this point.  So we have formed the Team JR Development Trust – run completely by volunteers.  This Trust has been set up with the specific purposes of:

– Providing a mentor support structure for promising young athletes aimed at assisting them reach their potential.
– Providing a network of support for encouragement and inspiration and advice.
– To challenge national bodies towards excellence and developmental structures on the athletes behalf.
– To ensure promising triathlon, road and track athletes are adequately funded for coaching and development.
– To identify and provide development opportunities & pathways for young athletes.

We are pleased to announce the Team JR launch function will be held on Thursday 29 November at the Millennium Stadium in the Olympic room and take great pride in extending this invitation to those of you in New Zealand to attend.  We will outline the upcoming activities of the Trust, introduce the Trustees and ambassadors to the Trust who are all people that have been touched greatly by Jack Ralston and hold our first fundraising event in the form of an auction on the night. Light refreshments will be provided.

A tribute to Jack that makes it clear what kind of man he was.

You can ‘like’ and follow Team JR Development Trust on Facebook.  You can also donate any amount to the Trust by emailing  teamjrdevelopment@gmail.com and we will provide the necessary details for you to do so.

Event Details
What: Team JR Development Trust Launch (no fee to attend)
Where: Millennium Institute of Sport and Health
When: Thursday 29 November 2012
Time: 6.30 pm – 8 pm
RSVP: email teamjrdevelopment@gmail.com

Thank you for your support and we look forward to seeing you then.
The Team JR Development Trust

Marika Hill at Stuff reports:

After hearing of a distraught school girl forced to marry by her parents, National MP Jackie Blue knew she couldn’t stand by and do nothing.

The 100 teenagers – most of them school girls – who marry each year in New Zealand would require a court’s permission to walk down the aisle under Dr Blue’s proposed amendment to the Marriage Act.

Marriage under the age of 16 is illegal in New Zealand, but 16 and 17-year-olds can marry with parental consent.

More than 1000 teenagers gained consent to marry over the past decade, according to Statistics New Zealand.

Four out of five of those were female.

Dr Blue said only a small number of teenage nuptials would be marriages forced upon girls for cultural reasons.

“The majority are probably quite legitimate, but the majority of those minors are young girls. I can’t not do anything. If it saves one young girl it’s going to be worth it.”

I think this is a good idea. A 16 or 17-year-old is still officially a minor and is far more likely to be able to be coerced by their parents.

Yes some 16 and 17 years olds want to marry on their own initiative. But I don’t think the proposed change really disadvantages them. Either they merely have to wait until they are 18 (they can be engaged until then) or they get the permission of the court which will check the marriage is truly desired.

The idea I think is that it will discourage parents from forcing their child into an arranged marriage if they know a Judge will question their child on whether they really want it.

This is not a huge problem in NZ, but I don’t see the proposed law at having much downsides, and if it saves even a handful of young girls for a forced marriage then it is worthwhile.

This got covered by others last week, but worth a mention here. Steven Cowan at Against the Current blogs:

This statement represents a complete change of heart by the EPMU officialdom for it was never critical of  Pike River Coal (PRC) during the time that  the mine was open.   The EPMU represented approximately half of the 140 miners on the site. 

After the first explosion the EPMU strongly  defended the management of PRC. 

EPMU National secretary Andrew Little (now a Labour MP)  told the New Zealand Herald on November 22  2010 that   there was ‘nothing unusual about Pike River or this mine that we’ve been particularly concerned about‘.

He then appeared on TVNZ’s  Close Up  to again defend PRC management.

He told Close Up that underground mining was inherently unsafe and the risk of gas explosions, particularly on the West Coast, was high.

While the industry was aware of the risks and took the necessary precautions, unfortunately these kinds of incidents still happened, he argued.

And further:

On November 26, 2010 the Dominion Post  ran an article that   denounced  ‘wild’  rumours that the mine was not safe. It declared  that  “Any suggestion of obvious or known safety lapses does not find traction with unionised staff or union leader Andrew Little.’

Andrew Little’s conciliatory views toward  PRC management were echoed by Labour MP Damien O’Connor. He suggested that no one was responsible for the accident and that the  disaster was ‘just one of these things that the West Coast unfortunately has had to get used to over the years’. …

But despite the overwhelming evidence that there was  something seriously and dangerously wrong at the Pike Rive rnine, the officials of the  EPMU did nothing. 

The mine opened in November 2008  and on not  one occasion did the EPMU  initiate   industrial action or even  criticise PRC’S  safety standards, even after a group of workers  walked off the job to protest the lack of basic emergency equipment.

The walk out by miners was revealed by miner  Brent Forrester. He  told TVNZ’s Sunday  on December 5 2010 that  he once helped organise a walkout of about 10 miners to protest the lack of basic emergency equipment, including stretchers and an emergency transport vehicle. They received no support from the EPMU .  Andrew Little  even insisted that  PRC ‘ had a good health and safety committee that’s been very active.’

It was exactly this benevolent attitude  by the EPMU that allowed PRC – and the Department of Labour – to continue as if it was just ‘business a usual’. It appears that no-one was  protecting the interests and concerns of the workers on the mining site.  The EMPU failed to organise industrial action  to address safety concerns  at the  mine in favour of  ‘cooperating’ with management, what it and the CTU sometimes  refer to as ‘modern unionism’.

There won’t be any resignations from within the EPMU for dereliction of duty and, of course, Andrew Little  has escaped to Parliament.

I think the Royal Commissions recommendations should be implemented, unless there are massively good reasons not to. But it is worth noting that the suggestion that union sift inspectors would have prevented this tragedy may be more wishful thinking than reality.

Ben Heather at Stuff reports:

A big quake could leave Wellington reliant on barges and helicopters for survival, new disaster predictions show.

Massive landslides would cut off Porirua, the Hutt Valley and Wellington from the rest of New Zealand and from one another, with inbound roads taking up to four months to clear.

All three areas would rely on barges and helicopters to ferry in food, clean water and vital medical supplies.

The would be no power, water or gas for at least three weeks, and for more than two months in some Wellington suburbs.

Wellington city would be cut off for the longest, with no power for at least two months and no gas for three.

It would take at least 55 days to open State Highway 2 between the Hutt Valley and Wellington, and three weeks to connect the capital and Porirua. …

Regional Emergency Management Group co-ordinator Bruce Pepperell said road access would be the biggest priority. “Parts of the region will be completely cut off from others.”

The stretch of State Highway 1 sandwiched between the coast and cliffs along Centennial Highway would probably be the most difficult to clear.

Another reason why Transmission Gully is a very good idea. That if is the Greens don’t manage to kill it off, as they are seeking to do.

Image from here.

To be fair to Romney he did get a majority of votes of white women also (by 14%) but overall lost the female vote by 11%. The margins for each gender and race demographic were:

• White men – Romney +27%
• White women – Romney +14%
• Latino men – Obama +32%
• Latino women – Obama +53%
• Black men – Obama + 76%
• Black women – Obama +93%

It will be difficult for a Republican to win any of the last four demographics 0 but they need to at least be a bit more competitive.

Michael Tanner at Cato notes:

The economy may have been showing feeble signs of life in the last couple of months, but it is hardly robust. No president had won reelection with unemployment above 7 percent since Franklin Roosevelt; it is now 7.9 percent. Three-quarters of voters thought the economy’s performance is poor or just fair. Throw in a health-care law that voters opposed 49 percent to 43, turmoil overseas, and assorted scandals, and an observer from Mars would have said that there was no way Romney could lose.

Yet Romney not only lost, he lost decisively.

There will be temptations to blame a poor candidate or a campaign that squandered several opportunities. And it is true that Romney was a flawed candidate, and his campaign’s strategy proved imperfect, too. He failed to press his advantage after the first debate, and seemed to switch positions at a whim.

But the Republican party’s problems go much deeper.

I don’t think Romney is why they lost. I think its is a wider issue also.

Much of the media will jump to the conclusion that the Tea Party is to blame for Republican losses. Yet tea-party candidates actually did well overall. In the House, fewer than five members of the Tea Party Caucus lost reelection.

On the Senate side, tea-party favorite Richard Mourdock went down to defeat in Indiana, a state Romney was carrying by a big margin. In Missouri, Todd Akin threw away one of the most winnable Senate seats in the country. But Akin, contrary to media wisdom, was never a tea-party candidate. During the primaries, most tea-party groups backed one of his opponents. Akin won because he had strong support from social conservatives while the other candidates split the more economically conservative vote. Meanwhile, Mourdock’s self-inflicted wounds were not a result of his tea-party background.

People often confuse the Tea Party and the moral conservatives. The Tea Party people are primarily fiscal conservatives. Some are also moral or social conservatives – but that is not what binds them together.

Asked if government does too much or should do more, exit polls showed that voters said “too much” by a margin of 51 percent to 44. Voters certainly seem receptive to a small-government message, at least in some respects, even when what appears to be somewhat more liberal and Democratic electorate is being polled.

So what went wrong? First, demographics. This election is testimony to the fact that Republicans cannot survive by being the party of old white men. The white share of the electorate has steadily declined for the last several elections, and this time around, whites accounted for just 72 percent of the vote.

As noted above.

Other demographic changes worked against Republicans as well. For example, single women now outnumber married women in the electorate, and they favored Obama by roughly 30 points. The gender gap overall was bigger this year than in 2008.

This is a huge challenge for the Republicans. In general terms, abortion is not as significant issue for married women, than single women. Single women see the Republican stance on abortion as akin to “Don’t have sex, and if you do then you must dedicate the next 19 years to raising a child should you become pregnant”.

Republicans must face up to the fact that their hard-line stance on immigration is disqualifying their candidates with Hispanics. Whereas George W. Bush once carried 44 percent of the Latino vote, Mitt Romney couldn’t crack 35 percent. To see why Romney appears to have essentially tied in Florida, for example, just look to Obama’s margin among non-Cuban Hispanics. Similarly, the growing Hispanic vote clearly cost Romney both Nevada and Colorado.

Again, I agree. No Government is going to throw out every illegal immigrant in the US. They do need stronger borders, but they also need a path to legal residency for those who are already in the US and are gainfully employed.

President Obama is likely to push immigration reform in his second term, and Republicans are going to have to find how to address the issue in a way that will not cost them the Latino vote for generations to come.

Hopefully. Obama failed to do anything in his first two years when he had a Democratic majority in both houses.

Second, social issues continue to hurt Republicans with women, young voters, and suburbanites. The problem is not just a matter of their stance on the issues, but their tone. It’s not just that Republicans oppose abortion or gay marriage, but that they often sound intolerant and self-righteous in doing so. Romney himself may not have put much emphasis on social issues, but the Republican brand was too easily associated with the words of Todd Akin.

Absolutely. There are ways you can express a view against abortion and gay marriage without offending people.

I was very fortunate to be a guest of the United States Marine Corps for their birthday ball last weekend. It was held in the Amora Hotel Ballroom, and was a great night. They had a video presentation on the history of the Marine Corps, and various speeches as part of an interesting formal ceremony. Then after that the dinner and the dancing.

In the booklet we were given, they had some quotes from or about the Marine Corps over time. Some of my favourites are:

The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps! – Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, 1945

Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don’t have that problem. 
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States; 1985

“Sometimes it is entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledge-hammer!” – MAJ. HOLDREDGE 

“Retreat Hell! We’re just attacking in another direction.” (Attributed to Major General Oliver P. Smith, USMC, Korea, December 1950.)

WARRIORS BY DAY, LOVERS BY NIGHT, PROFESSIONALS BY CHOICE, AND MARINES BY THE GRACE OF GOD.

The girls at my table like the last quote especially 🙂

Melissa Lee with Major General Ron Bailey, the commander of the Marines 1st Division. I’ve never seen a Major General dance Gangum Style before. We told Melissa that we expected her to be very proficient at it, as she is Korean 🙂

The US and Marine flags.

Cutting the cake!

Jordan and Stephanie having fun.

But not as much fun as these girls – that photo could have gone terribly wrong 🙂

Everywhere they are doing Gangnam Style!

Oh yeah, I couldn’t resist a photo with Glee Girl either.

Many thanks to the Marines and the US Embassy for a great night. Lots of fun, and great to support a fine institution. Semper Fi.

All the photos are from the US Embassy Flickr account.

Best dancer of the night was clearly Dr Duane McWaine!

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key has defended the Government’s decision not to sign on for the second stage of the Kyoto Protocol, saying the country is playing its part in combating climate change.

The climate change treaty’s first commitment period expires at the end of the year and New Zealand expects to slightly exceed its target.

The treaty aims to curb international greenhouse gas emissions through binding national commitments but some countries have questioned its effectiveness.

Oh Kyoto is almost totally ineffective. The first commitment period excluded the major emitters and the second period would cover at best 15% of total emissions.

I support an international agreement to reduce emissions, but any agreement without China, India and the United States is worthless.

Here;s what the impact of Kyoto on global temperatures would be:

The first scenario looked at what would happen if, after the protocol expires, the Annex B countries continued to abide by Kyoto’s limits but did not make any new commitments to further cut emissions for the rest of the century.

This “constant compliance” scenario would shave 0.11 to 0.21 degrees Celsius (0.20–0.38 degrees Fahrenheit) off global average temperatures by 2100. Stated another way, instead of heating up by 2.5°C (4.5°F), a midpoint in the range of projections of global warming, Earth would warm approximately 6% less.

So after 100 years the increase in global temperatures may be 0.2 degrees less. It’s ridiculous.

Again, any credible agreement needs the big emitters in there, The top 10 emitters are:

1. China 16.4%
2. US 15.7%
3. Brazil 6.5%
4. Indonesia 4.6%
5. Russia 4.6%
6. India 4.3%
7. Japan 3.2%
8. Germany 2.3%
9. Canada 1.9%
10. UK 1.6%

Now the only countries in that top 10 who are in Kyoto are Japan, Germany and the UK.  NZ by the way is at 0.2%.

The Herald report:

Controversial broadcaster Paul Henry may be on his way back to New Zealand after having his Australian breakfast show axed by network bosses.

Australian network Ten released a statement saying Breakfast, which is fronted by Henry and journalist Kathryn Robinson, will cease production on November 30.

The show has lagged behind its rivals in the ratings since debuting on Ten in February.

It can be tough to break into a new market in a new country. Piers Morgan on CNN is finding it the same. Not suggesting the two gentleman are the same.

He has been tipped to take over from Mark Sainsbury once Close Up is axed at the end of the year, along with his former TVNZ Breakfast co-presenter Pippa Wetzell.

It will be very interesting to see if they do put him into the 7 pm slot. It will need a somewhat different style to Breakfast TV, but if he can pull it off the potential audience share he can gain is significant.

Where would we be without such research to tell us what we didn’t know:

Having sex and partying are two of life’s most enjoyable activities, according to a University of Canterbury research project.

What a surprise? Who would have known that sex is an enjoyable activity!!!

Spending time on Facebook and texting, on the other hand, are much less fulfilling.

What if you combine them with sex and partying? Then they are much more fun!

Unsurprisingly, Grimm found “sex or making love” ranked first in the four categories measured in the survey: Pleasure, meaning, engagement, and happiness.

Drinking alcohol or partying ranked second in the pleasure and happiness stakes, but was rated much less meaningful.

Partying is very meaningful! Well, when it leads to sex it is 🙂

Surprisingly, Facebook was seen as the least meaningful, and also rated poorly in the other three categories.

How about Twitter?

“Treasury is now including well-being measures – life satisfaction – in its higher living standards framework, so governments are into this well-being stuff,” he said.

Now this has potential. Treasury is now going to focus on measures such as well-being and life satisfaction. And this research has shown sex is what we rate highest for well-being. So I want to see Treasury do some policy proposals on how to increase the amount of sex New Zealanders are having.

The proposals should consider the issue from both a quantitative and qualitative viewpoint – more sex and better sex for all (adult consenting) New Zealanders.

Maybe it could also be a job for the Productivity Commission?

My understanding of the strategy in play, is that those in Labour wanting a change do not want an actual leadership challenge to Shearer. They are deliberately piling pressure on to force him to quit, so no one has blood on their hands.

I find it baffling that Labour gave Phil Goff three years as Leader, when it was obvious he could never be elected (not due to any personal qualities, but the fact he had been in Parliament since Muldoon was PM). Goff saw Labour consistently poll under the result he inherited in 2008.

Shearer has not even been leader for one year. Labour is polling on average 4% higher than at the 2011 election. Yet people are determined not to give him a fair chance. Why the unseemly rush to kneecap him before he even gets to to his first conference as leader?

Brian Edwards has blogged:

A quite remarkable thing happened this morning. Herald columnist Tapu Misa gave it as her view that David Shearer should stand down as leader of the Labour Party.

Misa is the finest columnist in the country – intelligent, informed, rational, considered in her judgements. More importantly, she is never cruel or unkind. Unlike most other columnists, including myself from time to time, she never sets out to wound. In keeping perhaps with her strong religious beliefs, she is ever a charitable critic.

Her politics are to the liberal left.

For these reasons I believe she will have thought long and hard before sending this morning’s column to theHerald for publication. It will not have been an easy decision. I can only assume that, after long deliberation, she concluded that this was something that, in the interests of the Labour Party and the country, just had to be said.

So why now?

Misa’s message is by no means new. The opinion that Shearer, however decent, however nice, is the wrong man for the job, is now regularly expressed by both right and left-wing commentators. Shearer claims not to be bothered by this groundswell of disfavour, but he is either in denial or putting on a brave front. It must be a dismal experience to be subjected day in, day out, to such relentless public humiliation.

And I think the strategy is to force him to quit, because he is a decent man.

What is both new and remarkable is that Misa, albeit reluctantly, has joined the chorus of opinion that Shearer is harming rather than helping Labour’s cause and that he cannot continue to lead the party. The writing on the wall could not now be clearer.   

It has been my view, expressed in numerous posts on this site, that the Labour caucus made a serious mistake in selecting Shearer as leader in preference to David Cunliffe. They are now paying the price for the infantile thinking of the ‘Anyone but Cunliffe’ brigade.

But if Shearer goes, will it be Cunliffe who succeeds him?

As an advisor to Helen Clark during the 2008 election I learnt to my cost the danger of underestimating Key as a debater. My view and the view of Helen’s other advisors was that Key would be no match for the Prime Minister. He was a new boy and she was a seasoned practitioner. She was ’Minister for Everything’ and had an encyclopaedic knowledge of every portfolio. She would make mincemeat of this upstart. Key, it turned out, had been hiding his light under a bushel. He was aggressive, interruptive and in his element. Helen lost the first debate and we had to regroup.

Why is this relevant? Because David Shearer could not hold a candle to Helen Clark as a debater. That is why I say Key will crucify him in any face to face debate. It’s already happening in Parliament.

So here’s what I think should happen: Shearer should announce at the Labour Party Conference that he has told caucus he wishes to step down as leader and will do so as soon as a replacement has been chosen.  To avoid the inevitable chaos (and possible collapse of the Labour Party) which will  result from the implementation of their proposed new rules for choosing a leader (which could be tested as early as February of next year), caucus should quickly select David Cunliffe to take them through the next election. Cunliffe is the only person for the job. There is no-one else.

I’d be interested to know why Brian thinks it couldn’t be Grant Robertson or even Andrew Little?

UPDATE: Lynn Prentice has also called for Shearer to go.

I should clarify something relating to my earlier post. I never suggested The Standard has a group view on Shearer. I know each author is independent. What I focused on is the fact that two (now three) of the most longest serving and prolific authors have all called for Shearer to go – BEFORE he even gets to the first party conference. The fact a couple of other authors have disagreed does not change the significance of this.

My statement that this was no coincidence was not referring to a co-ordinated effort between The Standard authors as a bloc. I meant that it was being co-ordinated by one or more MPs who have chosen to try and force the issue before conference.

Audrey Young at NZ Herald reports:

Dangerous repeat violent offenders and sex offenders could be monitored for the rest of their lives after release from prison, says Police and Corrections Minister Anne Tolley.

She wants to develop a comprehensive management scheme similar to one run in Britain and says a law allowing it could be passed by the 2014 election. …

Mrs Tolley returned last week from visiting the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements group (Mappa) in London.

It monitors about 58,000 registered offenders who are deemed to pose a serious risk of harm to the public on their release.

“They do a risk analysis of them and keep track of them essentially for the rest of their lives,” she said.

At a minimum, the offenders were required to register once a year.

Not a great burden.

Officials kept track of their address, job, family relationships and other things depending on the individual.

The officials kept an eye on their propensity for offending again but also worked with them to help them find another job if they lost one, or find housing.

Mrs Tolley said she was worried that once repeat offenders finished their parole or supervision orders they went out into the community.

“Take someone like Stewart Wilson – he’s on parole and then he is on an extended supervision order for 10 years, which is a really close monitoring of him, but at the end of that period he is finished and we just walk away.”

She hoped that because Wilson was older, his opportunities for reoffending would be few, “but there are some younger ones who will just disappear out into the community”.

Asked about civil liberties concerns, she said most offenders found it helpful to have that sort of structure in their lives “and know if something goes wrong, there is someone keeping track of them and they are not on their own out in the community”.

Sounds a worthwhile initiative if it can reduce reoffending rates.

NZ Herald Political Editor Audrey Young scores the Ministers out of 10. Her ratings are:

• Chris Finlayson 9
• Judith Collins 8.5
• Tony Ryall 8.5
• Bill English 8
• David Carter 8
• Jonathan Coleman 8
• Tim Groser 8
• Gerry Brownlee 7.5
• John Key 7
• Steven Joyce 7
• Paula Bennett 7
• Murray McCully 7
• Anne Tolley 7
• Amy Adams 7
• Maurice Williamson 7
• Simon Bridges 7
• Nathan Guy 6
• Craig Foss 6
• Chris Tremain 6
• Jo Goodhew 6
• Chester Borrows 6
• Phil Heatley 5
• Kate Wilkinson 4
• Hekia Parata 3

Only the National Ministers were ranked. The average or mean score was 6.8 out of 10 and the median was 7. 22 out of 24 Ministers got a 5/10 or higher.

If you take the 10 frontbench Ministers, the average score increases from 6.8 to 7.4 out of 10.

I am pleased to see Finlayson rated so highly. He has done a very good job, and I’d be inclined to look at keeping him in the Labour portfolio.

Audrey notes:

Chris Finlayson has emerged as one of John Key’s most valuable ministers in National’s second term. He has scored the highest rating of all ministers in my report card on the Executive prepared with colleagues in the Herald press gallery team. …

Mr Finlayson is Attorney-General and Treaty Negotiations Minister. He is also Labour Minister since Kate Wilkinson resigned after the royal commission’s damning report into the Pike River disaster.

On the face of it, that may not seem a natural fit – and it may be just a temporary appointment until the next reshuffle. But Mr Finlayson’s skill set may be the right one to keep the job for the rest of the term. He gets results. He has a big intellect and has a good head for detail. But he is also emotionally intelligent, and was a good choice to send to the West Coast to discuss the report with the Pike River families.

His achievements in Treaty Negotiations are the most notable. Who would have imagined two years ago the Government concluding a deal with Tuhoe?

The report card is done in consultation with the full Herald gallery team. Obviously Hekia Parata has the largest challenge in terms of restoring confidence. Eyes will be on how the Christchurch schools issue is resolved. There must be some change – you can’t ignore the earthquake’s impact on school rolls and damaged buildings. So there will be some people unhappy with the outcome no matter what. However if the communities down there feel they have been listened to, and that their views and arguments have had an impact on the final decisions, then that will help restore the reputation.

UPDATE: On reflection I think the Herald team have been a bit generous to a couple of Ministers. No, I won’t say which ones – but I’d say 21 out of 24 Ministers being 6/10 or higher is a bit generous.

James Shaw writes in the Dom Post:

Over the past 20 years, a slew of prime ministers have told us they believe it’s inevitable that New Zealand will become a republic. Generally while ducking any chance of letting it happen on their watch.

If it is inevitable, what can possibly be holding us back?

Do we really prefer the lottery of genetics and the trappings of bygone years to the will of the people, simply expressed? Is it the pageantry and splendour? We have our own, should we want to spend up large on it.

Is it the special character of the royal few? Charles seems like a good bloke. He and I support many of the same causes. His heart is in the right place and he’s coming to celebrate a special occasion for his mum. We can all relate to that.

We should wish them both and their family well and accord them every respect due a visiting foreign dignitary. Because in the end he is not a Kiwi, and nor is his mum. And we can’t expect them to be. When England faces the All Blacks, which team should the British Royal Family cheer for?

Exactly. A New Zealander should be our Head of State.

For a fully self-governing, mature nation to maintain the fiction of a monarchy that lives on the polar opposite side of the planet makes no sense.

For a multicultural, pluralistic, liberal democracy to personify itself symbolically in a hereditary monarch, is not merely illogical, it is bizarre. It is the relic of a bygone era, a political anachronism whose persistence is increasingly difficult to explain.

This is not to deny the cultural and intellectual inheritance that New Zealand has received from Britain. Our parliamentary system is modelled on Westminster, infused with a tradition of justice and rational self-rule that reaches back to the Magna Carta.

We have, if anything, done our Kiwi best to improve upon the model we inherited. We have pared away the vestiges that we don’t need, and adapted to changing circumstances. Our system works for us because we have made it our own. And yet we haven’t. Not entirely. Not quite. Why is that? It should be a simple matter to reform the means by which our head of state is selected. We could put it directly into the hands of the voting public. Or we could leave it to Parliament, as we leave it to them to appoint the governor-general. That seems to work pretty well.

I’d make the Head of State appointed by a 75% majority in Parliament, which will mean no politician or partisan could be appointed to it.

The Press editorial:

The desire expressed recently by Mayor Bob Parker for Christchurch City Council to take back more control of the city’s affairs echoes the feelings of many Christchurch people. The mayor spoke of the matter two weeks ago, when he said he was looking forward to the council regaining control of the central business district from the Central Christchurch Development Unit “sooner rather than later”. While acknowledging the important role the Government had in the rebuild, the mayor said: “We think [the city centre rebuild] is something that should be driven by the people in the city and council.”

An understandable desire, but it is worth pointing out that most Councils are equipped to deal with one or two major projects at a time. Dealing with a rebuild of an entire city centre is to be blunt well beyond the resources and capability of a city council.

The greatest interference with the council’s functions, though, came from the creation of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority as a government department and then later the CCDU as a unit within Cera to plan the reconstruction of the central city. This, according to Parker, has left the council’s elected representatives feeling “politically impotent” and accounts for the dysfunction (“so-called dysfunction”, according to Parker) on the council.

Here, Parker has got his analysis backwards. The creation of Cera did not cause ructions among otherwise efficient and smoothly functioning councillors to erupt. Cera was necessary for several compelling reasons. But one of them, surely, was a fear, among other things, that councillors would not be able to put aside their differences to face the mammoth task before the city without petty distractions.

Whatever the cause, councillors certainly proceeded to live down to expectations when in the midst of the calamity, and egged on by irresponsible outside elements, they plunged the depths of mindless backbiting and bitchery in an ultimately trivial row over the chief executive’s salary.

Exactly. The Council came close to being dismissed for their inability to function, as the backbiting was so extreme. Things have improved, but a long way to go.

Power over the city’s affairs will of course eventually be returned entirely to the council. So far as the CCDU is concerned, Parker is holding discussions with Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee. In order for him to be able to make a persuasive case, however, the council must show that it is capable of doing the job. Whether that is the case yet is far from clear. It is alarming, for instance, to hear that it is in danger of losing its accreditation as a building consents authority because of 17 identified shortcomings.

I think the saying is look after your own backyard first.

The fact the CEO thinks he can grant an extra 12 days paid leave to all Council staff without even informing the Mayor and Council of his intentions in advance, shows that there is still a fairly high degree of dysfunctionality.