National has launched a cam­paign to axe the car­bon tax, includ­ing a ded­i­cated web­site.

Mean­while there is some endorse­ment from sone supris­ing sec­tors   

Greens, Jeanette Fitzsi­mons: “If you want to see more big trucks on the road and less use of rail, this is the cam­paign for you,” she said. 

Well Jeanette, fine exam­ple but unfor­tu­nately there is lit­tle option to move any­thing to the provinces from almost any­where with­out invov­ing trucks, so get a life you silly bint. 

Cullen was typ­i­cally snide and sar­cas­tic with his “Ho Hum” state­ment. The arro­gance of the man knows no bounds. 

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Sen­a­tor Joe Lieber­man, yes a Demo­c­rat has come out in the press say­ing “Amer­ica can’t aban­don 27 mil­lion Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.”

I am with him on this one and what is very inter­est­ing is that this is a Demo­c­rat say­ing this, in fact, he is one of the first to aban­don par­ti­san pol­i­tics and get in behind fin­ish­ing a job started.

“the Iraqi peo­ple are in reach of a water­shed trans­for­ma­tion from the prim­i­tive, killing tyranny of Sad­dam to mod­ern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood–unless the great Amer­i­can mil­i­tary that has given them and us this unex­pected oppor­tu­nity is pre­ma­turely withdrawn.”

It is a war between 27 mil­lion and 10,000; 27 mil­lion Iraqis who want to live lives of free­dom, oppor­tu­nity and pros­per­ity and roughly 10,000 ter­ror­ists who are either Sad­dam revan­chists, Iraqi Islamic extrem­ists or al Qaeda for­eign fight­ers who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern.

In my meet­ing with the thought­ful prime min­is­ter of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with jus­ti­fi­able pride that his coun­try now has the most open, demo­c­ra­tic polit­i­cal sys­tem in the Arab world. He is right.

In a plea for san­ity he bags wowser Democ­rats and worry-wart Repub­li­cans equally.

I am dis­ap­pointed by Democ­rats who are more focused on how Pres­i­dent Bush took Amer­ica into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Repub­li­cans who are more wor­ried about whether the war will bring them down in next November’s elec­tions, than they are con­cerned about how we con­tinue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead. 

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Benson-Pope has announced he is unavail­able for ques­tions at the Social Ser­vices Select Com­mit­tee next Wednes­day, appar­ently with no excuse proffered.

Judith Collins is after the way­ward min­is­ter with aven­gence.

 “I am dis­ap­pointed that Mr Benson-Pope is not pre­pared to front up and answer ques­tions about a big-spending Min­istry that con­sumes a large chunk of gov­ern­ment revenue.

 “Finan­cial reviews are extremely impor­tant and if this Min­is­ter isn’t pre­pared to be account­able then he should move aside for some­one who is.”

 Mr Benson-Pope’s fail­ure to attend next week’s select com­mit­tee fol­lows on from his no-show in Par­lia­ment last week to answer ques­tions about a police report into his­toric assault allegations.

 “Mr Benson-Pope should be tak­ing this oppor­tu­nity to show the pub­lic that he is back in the sad­dle and earn­ing his min­is­te­r­ial salary. Unfor­tu­nately, he has missed his oppor­tu­nity,” says Ms Collins.

Benson-Pope is a lame-duck min­is­ter, and this gov­ern­ment is fast liv­ing up to expec­ta­tions that it would fall into farce.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Karl du Fresne has joined the grow­ing list of jour­nal­ists and com­men­ta­tors that are lin­ing up Peters for his fall. They will all be will­ing helpers in mak­ing sure he fails again in gov­ern­ment, although I am nor sure how they will be able to pro­tect Aunty Helen for the shit that splat­ters when it all turn sour.

Any­way here are the money lines from his comentary. 

The prob­lem is, Mr Peters is just not genet­i­cally pro­grammed to be in government

At the moment his weapons sys­tem is con­fused because its nor­mal tar­get – the Gov­ern­ment – has been placed off-limits. That’s why his range-finder has locked on to the media, its nat­ural default set­ting. For their part, the media have sniffed blood and are cir­cling like sharks. How else could you explain the pres­ence of so many New Zealand reporters in Malta for an event as stu­pe­fy­ingly bor­ing as Chogm?

The sooner Helen Clark pulls the plug on this unnat­ural exper­i­ment, the more we will be spared embar­rass­ment. And Mr Peters – who I note has adopted the alarm­ing habit of refer­ring to him­self in the third per­son – will be relieved of the humil­i­a­tion of hav­ing to pre­tend he’s some­thing he isn’t.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Cullen has announced today that he will pass changes to the leg­is­la­tion imple­ment­ing the loans pol­icy, despite him telling the house that, “No, I do not think there will be any sig­nif­i­cant impact in that respect”.

The changes will: 

• Ensure that refunds relat­ing to the 2004–2005 and 2005–2006 tax years remain sub­ject to interest.
• Pre­vent refunds being claimed for pre­vi­ous years unless the claims have already been lodged.
• Remove the oppor­tu­nity to apply for spe­cial deduc­tion rates below the stan­dard 10 per cent rate for the bal­ance on the cur­rent tax year. 

One won­ders about other loop­holes out there await­ing clos­ing that have no “sig­nif­i­cant impact”. Not only has he closed the loop­hole he will do it ret­ro­spec­tively. Ret­ro­spec­tive leg­is­la­tion is in essence an admis­sion of poor pol­icy, leg­is­la­tion and planning.

Some ques­tions for parliament;

1. Would the min­is­ter explain why if there was no “sig­inif­i­cant impact” he has closed the loophole.
2. Why is the min­is­ter mak­ing the leg­is­la­tion ret­ro­spec­tive when he told the house on 23 Novem­ber 2005 that “I doubt they would be made ret­ro­spec­tive”.
3. Given that the min­is­ter has said “I doubt they would be made ret­ro­spec­tive” on 23 Novem­ber 2005, could he please explain how he has not mis­lead the house in giv­ing that answer.

Why don’t these bozos just admit that the pol­icy is a crock and needs to be com­pletely dis­posed of or re-thought by some­one other than a failed his­tory teacher?

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

We’ve blogged pre­vi­ously about the Manukau City Council’s deci­sion to cre­ate a Maori stand­ing com­mit­tee and the unde­mo­c­ra­tic nature of that decision.

Wait­akere City Coun­cil has just taken the next step for­ward by appoint­ing Maori mem­bers to their reg­u­lar stand­ing com­mit­tees with full vot­ing rights. This takes the cake so far and will see unelected peo­ple mak­ing deci­sion on behalf of res­i­dents and ratepay­ers in Wait­akere City.

At least with the Manukau model the maori com­mit­tee will only have pow­ers of rec­om­men­da­tion which will be scru­ti­nized by the full coun­cil meet­ing each month. But with with Wait­akere model, the appointed Maori mem­bers will have exactly the same rights as a full elected Councillor.

Both sys­tems adopted by the Coun­cils are com­pletely unde­mo­c­ra­tic and fly in the face of all prin­ci­ples of fair­ness and equal­ity. In New Zealand we have two classes of cit­i­zen­ship – one for Maori, and one for every­body else.

And guess which gov­ern­ment changed the Local Govt Act to allow this to happen!?

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

We always knew that jour­nal­ists we left­ies and sup­ported the Labour party.

We have fur­ther proof of this with Sub­ur­ban News­pa­pers Limited’s staff going on strike tomor­row. Being union mem­bers, they all help to sub­sidise the Labour Party which makes their bias towards the left all the more obvious.

Don’t for­get to smile when you drive past the SNL offices tomor­row morn­ing at 666 Gt South Rd, Penrose.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Hat tip: LGF

Only Poms would do some­thing so fricken’ dumb.

A MASSIVE mosque that will hold 40,000 wor­ship­pers is being pro­posed beside the Olympic com­plex in Lon­don to be opened in time for the 2012 Games.

The project’s back­ers hope the mosque and its sur­round­ing build­ings would hold a total of 70,000 peo­ple, only 10,000 fewer than the Olympic sta­dium.
Its futur­is­tic design fea­tures wind tur­bines instead of the tra­di­tional minarets, while a translu­cent lat­ticed roof would replace the domes seen on most mosques. The com­plex is designed to become the “Mus­lim quar­ter” for the Games, act­ing as a hub for Islamic com­peti­tors and spectators.

More like a hub for bombers, ter­ror­ists and nut­ters. Oh well you reap what you sow.

At least the author­i­ties won’t have far to go.

Some com­men­tors at LGF had this to say;

Good to gather them all in one place.

Like #2 sez, a mosque for 40,000 and this lit­tle chromium switch here, …

Great place for a work accident.

Oh wow, just stick an army of ter­ror­ists right under the noses of the games. Rem­i­ne­scient
of the Ger­man 1972 games any­one?

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

From the Wash­ing­ton Times.

Irans nut­case Pres­i­dent is con­tin­u­ing to rail against the west and the US in par­tic­u­lar. This man is very dan­ger­ous, but he must also be really, really stupid.

Iran’s hard-line pres­i­dent said yes­ter­day the Bush admin­is­tra­tion should be tried on war-crimes charges, and he denounced the West for pres­sur­ing Iran to curb its con­tro­ver­sial nuclear program.

“You, who have used nuclear weapons against inno­cent peo­ple, who have used ura­nium ord­nance in Iraq, should be tried as war crim­i­nals in courts,” Pres­i­dent Mah­moud Ahmadine­jad said.

I mean draw­ing the ire of the most pow­er­ful nation in the world bar none and pok­ing a stick in their face.

Iran couldn’t defeat Sad­dam Hus­sein in 15 years of War. The US defeated the same army in less than 15 days. That same army is now bat­tle hard­ened and just across the border.

Iran con­tin­ues to defy the UN (I mean who doesn’t these days) over their nuclear pro­gram. Being told off by the UN is like being being gummed by a defanged, de clawed, geri­atric poodle.

It seems that the only nation capa­ble, will­ing and able to bring democ­racy to the world is the US.

What thanks do they get, zip, nada, zilch, only social­ist rant­i­ngs and muellings.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

From the Her­ald this morn­ing we find that Work­ing for [Other Peo­ples] Fam­i­lies has hit a spot of bother.

No, not from the right but from the left.

The Gov­ern­ment has been forced into a court bat­tle to stop ben­e­fi­ciary fam­i­lies mak­ing claim to $3000 a year under the Work­ing for Fam­i­lies package.

In a land­mark case, the Child Poverty Action Group has won the right to take legal action over Gov­ern­ment poli­cies it says dis­crim­i­nate against the 250,000 New Zealand chil­dren who have at least one par­ent on a benefit. 

Typ­i­cal fuck­ing social­ists, not sat­is­fied with a bur­geon­ing wel­fare state they now want to extend the new state ben­e­fits of the mid­dle class work­ing to those already on benefits.In effect giv­ing them a ben­e­fit for not working.

Biz­zarely the Human Rights Review Tri­bunal ruled the group can legally chal­lenge the exclu­sion of ben­e­fi­cia­ries from a new pay­ment which gives fam­i­lies an extra $60 a week from April.  The Human Rights Act pro­hibits dis­crim­i­na­tion on the grounds of being a beneficiary.

Looks like Liar-bour has told another porky, this time about the cost of Work­ing for [Other Peo­ple] Families.

The new name for this pol­icy make well have to be “NOT Work­ing for Families”.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Gman has suc­cintly laid out the case for Par­lia­ment find­ing David “Ten­nis­ball” Benson-Pope guilty of Con­tempt of House.

Firstly though he edu­cates the buly-boy min­is­ter on the def­i­n­i­tion of prima facie which it seems that every­one except labour MP’s Mar­garet Wil­son and the min­is­ter him­self are aware of.

Just in case he hasn’t been advised of that here is the def­i­n­i­tion from the Oxford Dic­tio­nary of Law.

“A case that has been sup­ported by suf­fi­cient evi­dence for it to be taken as proved in the absence of ade­quate evi­dence to the con­trary”.

Oh and a lit­tle hint davey don’t call cops bozo’s they might just revisit your lit­tle out­stand­ing prima facie case of assault.

Any­way back to the charge from GMan.

1. Benson-Pope was on Par­lia­ments grounds. [Evi­dence here]
2. Ben­son Pope knew that he had a ques­tion for oral answer in Par­lia­ment. Min­is­ters are not just politely requested to answer ques­tions if they are in the par­lia­men­tary precincts, they are required to be there and to answer the question.
3. Mr Ben­son Pope admits that this din­ner was not pre­arranged, but was held on the spur of the moment.
4. Fool­ishly, he sub­se­quently seems to have not only admit­ted that he was on Par­lia­ment grounds, but seems to be pos­i­tively gloat­ing about it. [Evi­dence:
   “It (lunch) was a real neat expe­ri­ence, much bet­ter than being in the debat­ing cham­ber,” Mr Benson-Pope told Radio Dunedin.]

Thus GMan asserts by these actions Min­is­ter Benson-Pope has breached Stand­ing Order 399 and in par­tic­u­lar Stand­ing Order 400 para (a), ® and (s). I would also add (q).

Now if the Par­lia­ment can just stand up to Speaker Wil­son we miught just get some­where.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

This blog has been fol­low­ing the debate over Maori rep­re­sen­ta­tion in Manukau City for sev­eral weeks. Now we see a new twist to the debate as a rather odd South African man enters the debate.

You would think that some­one who has lived in South Africa would despise any move that sep­a­rates two groups based on race. Not Mr Alan Phillips – the for­mer Cape Town City Coun­cil­lor, now liv­ing in New Zealand actu­ally sup­ports the Manukau City Council’s moves to give Maori spe­cial priv­i­leges by estab­lish­ing a Maori Stand­ing Committee:

“If you look at South Africa, there are stand­ing com­mit­tees to address the needs of the dis­ad­van­taged,” says Mr Phillips. “In other words, you’re giv­ing pref­er­en­tial treat­ment to peo­ple that have the same vote to raise their level, I’m sure the com­mit­tee will do the same for Maori.“In South Africa, the needs of black, coloured and Indian peo­ple are put ahead of white peo­ple. I’m not say­ing that’s right or wrong, but you need to raise the level of all South Africans in South Africa, just as you need to raise the level of New Zealan­ders in NZ.”

Mr Phillips is cer­tainly enti­tled to his view, but per­haps he should be open about his past as a Cape Town City Coun­cil­lor (1996–2000).

In the time that Mr Phillips claims he was a Coun­cil­lor, the munic­i­pal sub-council that he sat on decided to increase local gov­ern­ment rates in their area by an out­ra­geous 19% in one sin­gle year (1998)!

But not only did they hike the rates up by this much, because of the incom­pe­tence of the Coun­cil in for­get­ting to get the munuci­pal­ity reval­ued for 25years, the mas­sive increase impacted dis­pro­por­tion­ally on black home­own­ers in pre­vi­ously dis­ad­van­taged areas. The very peo­ple Mr Phillips now claims he strived to protect.

This case of dis­pro­por­tion­ally hik­ing the rates up on black com­mu­ni­ties was taken to the Cape Town High Court. In Lotus River, Ottery, Grassy Park Res­i­dents Asso­ci­a­tion v South Penin­sula Munic­i­pal­ity the court found that the way the sub-council rated the munic­i­pal­ity amounted to dis­crim­i­na­tion on the basis of colour.

So what exactly does Alan Phillips stand for? Using unde­mo­c­ra­tic meth­ods to give spe­cial priv­i­leges to Maori based on race? Or does he stand for hik­ing the rates up on low socio-economic areas by dis­crim­i­nat­ing against them on the basis of colour?

Either way, this sounds like one poor con­fused bas­tard. I’d also like to know why he skipped the coun­try to come to NZ if he thought he did such a great job as a Councillor?

Keep this guy away from pub­lic office!!

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

 

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]