A Free Press or Free to Repress?

I know its old news but Bryan Gould once again raises the spectre of Bradley Ambrose and the Teapot Tapes over at the Herald.

The police will support threats issued by the executive to deter the media from publishing material that as far as we know was lawfully obtained and that was of substantial public interest.

Lawfully obtained? I'm sure that hasn't been proven yet, Bryan. So does Bryan advocate the fact that most politicians speech and communication should be recorded because its of "substantial public interest"? And who then defines "public interest"? Should we just record everything and then appoint a panel to review whats important? We could call this panel a "central committee" - for the people and by the people.

I'm still wondering why few people have made the connection between the fact that Bradley was the poor bloke just caught in the middle, trying to do his job and the fact that, apart from John Key's security detail, was  probably the only person there trained in covert surveillance.

Charter Schools: Jim Hacker says "Yes!"

Did these guys know something that we don't. There's a good argument in there somewhere:

No Helmet Hone

This from Stuff.co.nz:

The motorbike incident happened two months ago, when he met a group of anti-violence demonstrators on the forecourt and took a short ride on one of their bikes.

It was pointed out at the time that he wasn't wearing a helmet, but he laughed it off.

TV One News reported tonight that a couple of viewers had complained to the police.

Now this is just getting silly. I agree that if it was anyone else that someone would have complained and not targeted at Hone but, FFS, this is just pathetic!

It's like New Zealand has become a nation of Patricia Bartletts. Lets complain about anything and everything. No harm no foul, I say.

C'mon New Zealand. Get your shit together.

Where is Annette?

I just commented over at Chris Trotter's blog Bowalley Road about a post on Grant Robertson when the question rose: Where is Annette King?

Granted that they probably want to keep the focus on Phil at the moment however Robertson taking Goff to task over the Nationhood speech lead me to ask where  is the communication between Goff and his caucus. I would have thought Annette, being the capable communicator (the EFB aside) would be busy doing the deputy's job and calling the indians around the fire for a pow wow.

Yet we haven't seen Annette at all over the past fiew months.

What is Labour's deputy doing?

A bad job, some might surmise, after the Robertson affair.

ETS Far Removed.

Is anyone else feeling slightly removed from the ETS debate?

If you go to Kiwiblog there are comments, accusations and epithets flying from one corner to another. But once again, this war seems to be fought over ideological grounds rather than the minutiae of the the bill itself.

The general public have heard what the media chooses to spout at us - mainly the potential cost to the taxpayer over 40 years - and except for Brian Rudman here, there seems to be precious little analysis and forthright, plain english explanations. I've had a look here and there and think I've at least got the gist of whats happening. Everyone should have the gist! Everyone should be Gistified!

With the background of the Maori Party deal sending up smoke in all directions, the real issue is obscured. What are we, as a nation., doing to help the environment?

Few people would say that doing nothing is the way to go. Most people have accepted that we need to change our lives in order to secure the future health of this planet - or at least join in the saving for political expediency. So if there is such little understanding out there, why not take a break from urgently ramming through this bill and explain to Kiwis what it is we are doing. Given the magnitude of the issue I think it would be good to have this better explained now rather than some complaining about it later.

So while all the whirlwind of rhetoric goes on around me in the beltway over maori and whatever else, I still feel removed from the biggest environmental decision our country has made in the last 100 years.

And I think there is something wrong with that.

Labour's Leadership Crisis

The Labour caucus is still having trouble with deciding how to deal with this new government.

David Farrar over at Kiwiblog posts how inane the opposition's attacks are regarding the Governments planned fibre roll out strategy to better serve our broadband infrastructure. As was posted on Kiwiblog a wee while ago, they were having a little trouble deciding a)how to attack JK et al and b) how to be an effective opposition. This proves once again that they still have issues (aside from rampant socialism that is :-)).

In the past, all oppositions did just that: the opposite - sometimes whether they agreed with a policy or not. Now, with JK at the helm and a more open and results (rather than politics) orientated government that is bi-partisan in it's approach, the traditional rules no longer apply. As exhibited with Clare Curran's approach to s92a, there is a glimmer of hope. Unfortunately, you still have A King and P Goff at the helm who authorise these "attacks" because they know nothing else. Thats how they have been taught. In politics when you resort to blatant untruths, such as we have here, you can tell that the party is failing to get any traction. They tried this in the election campaign (remember Mike Williams' little side trip) and the strategy didn't work then and, in the face of a disciplined government, it won't work now. This is another great example of where leadership is being tested for Labour and is failing. Bring on the likes of Shane Jones who is far more credible, focused and able to adapt while bring the likes of Jacinda Adern up with him. While not being a Labour supporter, New Zealand still needs a credible opposition for things to function well. I hope Phil Goff can get past his own hubris, see this problem for what it is and act upon it or, god forbid, he may end up having to be moved involuntarily.

Make no mistake, Andrew Little, for all his conciliatory words on Q+A two weeks ago about supporting Phil and Annette, is just the bloke to enact change when needed and be prepared to step on toes if he thinks it is in the best interests of his party. He is cognizant of the fact that to achieve a result for your point of view, a conciliatory approach works a lot better than an adversarial one. You only need to look at his style of leadership in the EPMU for that. Many employers have a great respect for Andrew and give him credence where the likes of the old guard such as Ken Douglas, would never have achieved his levels of success for his people.

The whole Labour movement needs to smarten up in this new era. It's spokespeople are still living in the wrong century - or at least their politics are.

One just needs to go to Chris Trotters lament of the demise of that era to realise that they are still beholden to the past rather than to the future.

The Labour Party is in a crisis, no matter how much they deny it. The current leadership just can't get a grip on the reasons why people changed their vote in such numbers and why the National Party retains such support post election. People want results - no matter who initially thought up the idea. National is delivering this. Labour is still stuck in the mindset that if it isn't our idea then it isn't an idea at all.

Phil Goff should remember Plato's Repuplic - that in the absence of any leadership at all, a new leader will emerge - whether he wills it or not.

Hat Tip: DPF, Kiwiblog

I Miss Agenda.

I've just experienced my first Q + A and I'm not impressed. Not impressed with Holmes at least.

Paul did well to bow out when he did however his half hour, magazine style of interview just doesn't cut it. A great example was the interview with Andrew Little. Andrew did well I thought in the face of a badgering questioner that seemed more intent on getting him to trip up rather than allow him to put forward his views which, surprisingly enough, he managed to do with a certain amount of style and credence.

The show was too rushed without giving the panel to give deep analysis. All on the panel are competent commentators however the format just doesn't allow for them to display their smarts.

There are a few things that need to happen to ensure Q+A's success.

Firstly, poor old Paul needs to slip back into retirement. This is no slight on his intellect. More that the show just doesn't suit him and I think he is past it.

Secondly, the format needs to be paced better. It might have been me but it felt rushed.

And lastly, they need to retain Therese Arsenaeu. Mmmm.... political eye candy :-)