Excerpt from the maiden speech of National's new Taupo MP, Louise Upston

"Let's not be mistaken. The police are good. The criminals are bad. It's that simple."

link

Oh, so THAT'S what the police are "there for"!

From today's Sunday Star-Times, this story from Nicky Hager and Anthony Hubbard:

"Anti-terror squad spies on protest groups"

Police teams set up to identify terrorism threats and risks to national security are spying on protest and community groups, including Greenpeace, animal rights and climate change campaigners, and Iraq war protesters.

Police officers from the Special Investigation Group (SIG) have carried out surveillance and used a paid informer to gather information not just about planned protests but the personal lives and sexual relationships of group members.

The police informer, Christchurch man Rob Gilchrist, whose activities are revealed in today's Sunday Star-Times, was a key member of various community groups during the past decade. He helped arrange protests and was close friends with leading campaigners, and advocated radical and illegal activities by the groups.

The Police are saying they "will neither confirm nor deny the identity or existence of any informant within any group" - and I think you can work out what that means.

What really struck me in this article, though, was the response from Police Minister Judith Collins. Collins says, "This government wants to ensure [the police] have the tools and the support they need to keep the public safe." So far, so good - one does hope the police have the resources they need to keep us all safe.

But she goes on to say, "From time to time it may be necessary to use paid informants. I think most New Zealanders would find it reassuring that the police are out there keeping a watch on the whole community. That's what they're there for."

Hey Judith, I don't find it AT ALL reassuring that the police are monitoring the political action and personal lives of political activists. And having informants "advocat[ing] radical and illegal activities by the groups" is NOT what the police are there for, and sounds awfully like entrapment to me.

I think I might write a wee letter to our Police Minister this afternoon, and if you'd like to do the same thing you can freepost it to:

Judith Collins
Parliament Office
Private Bag 18888
Parliament Buildings
Wellington 6160

Turns out it's not just the disgruntled losers of the left

If you're feeling just a tad uncomfortable with the new government's first steps in power, you're not alone: notoriously Tory paper The New Zealand Herald has an editorial and an opinion piece from the political editor decrying National's methods.

The editorial, "Drug decision should be left to Pharmac", addresses "the ad hoc funding of Herceptin":

"National's decision to disregard Pharmac creates several problems. In the first instance, the Herceptin extension sets a difficult precedent. It suggests the Government is open to the sort of pressure that prompted the coining of the rule of rescue. Other small groups of sufferers may impose just as strong an emotional pull. Wisely, the previous government was content to leave such tough decisions to Pharmac, a body tasked with, and experienced in, making them.

... Ironically, a National government established Pharmac in part to prevent just this lobbying."

Meanwhile, political editor Audrey Young sez, "New Government wrong to ram through legislation":

Legislation is being rammed through the House without going through the scrutiny of select committees. Five bills are to be put through all stages this week and next.

... It might be okay for National to push one bill through all stages under urgency but there is no excuse for so many to be - other than to give the perception that the Government has ''momentum''.

Pushing bills through all stages without such scrutiny should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.

... National argued strongly before the election that Labour's changes to the emissions trading scheme bill warranted a return to select committee scrutiny.

In the words of Steve Maharey, perhaps that was just one of those things you say in Opposition."

On a related note, I created what I hope might serve as a hub for people organising political discussion and activism here on Facebook. Please pop over and take a look!

ACTing up on the news pages

Cartoons later today, I promise, but first I have to share this rage-inducing tidbit with you.

From today's Dom Post article, "Setback for Hide on climate study bid", the dancing canary has this to say: "The previous government took it that human-induced climate change was a sort of fact. It isn't a fact, it's a theory the evidence doesn't appear to support."

And this guy is now very near the top of the political food chain.

However, Peter Dunne, who will chair the committee studying changes to the emissions trading scheme, was surprisingly reassuring. "A variety of international bodies have done the ground work. It's not the competence of a parliamentary select committee in New Zealand to go and completely revisit all of that."

The upshot of the article is that the committee will not be looking at whether human-caused climate change is taking place. Wodders is claiming a victory for the "sceptics" because the committee can "look at the accuracy of climate change predictions." This ridiculous fight ain't over!

Also of note in the news pages is an NZPA story from Stuff last night, "Tax cuts debated under urgency", which quoted three people: Finance Minister Bill English introducing the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill; Labour's finance spokesman David Cunliffe arguing that the Bill was badly designed because it delivered benefits for upper and middle-income earners while low income families were the losers, it was undermining Kiwisaver, and cutting the R&D tax credit is folly for a government "targeting productivity and supposedly innovation"; and ROGER FREAKIN' DOUGLAS!!!

"ACT's new MP Sir Roger Douglas said it was 'a small step in the right direction' in marked contrast to anything Labour had done over the past nine years.

Sir Roger said core government expenditure increased by $18.2 billion above inflation during that time.

'This increased expenditure cost every New Zealander, on average, $1000 a month or $12,000 a year,' he said.

'And Labour spent that extra tax. . .on dubious programmes and failed social experiments that have not benefited New Zealand households by anywhere near the $1000 a month they took off them.'"

Why is this guy getting press parity with the Finance Minister and his opposition counterpart, especially when no other MP is? Is the press going to go running to Douglas for authoratitive comment on every economic issue? Key may have blocked Douglas from taking any formal position, but the press is certainly presenting him as a Very Important Politician, not one of many list MPs.

Politics, again

So it would appear that TV3 are playing right into Clark and Key's hands - playing the commercial considerations card, they've cancelled their leaders debate, and will likely schedule a head-to-head instead. Commercial imperatives or no, that's exactly the opposite of what they should have done - what C & K deserve is to be told, "That's just fine - you don't have to appear with the other leaders if you don't want to. I'm sure they'll all appreciate the extra time to talk. Just don't expect us to roll over and give you the cosy twosome you are demanding." It would be beautiful to see them come crawling back when they realise that such bully tactics are not acceptable. Ooh, it makes me so mad...

On the local politics front, I'm still not sure how I feel about the Awatea St stadium. Having absolutely zero interest in sports makes it hard for me to care about supporting it, but that's not necessarily great reason to take a position on it. If I was going to take a stand as a stadium opponent though, Peter Entwisle's Art Beat column in yesterday's ODT would be mighty fine ammunition - it is one of the more intelligent, wide-ranging, evidence-backed critiques I've seen in the pages of that august institution (or anywhere else for that matter), and it takes into account the aesthetics of the proposed design, something I don't recall being discussed much elsewhere. If we are going to have a shiny new showpiece stadium, it would be nice if it could be an architectural treasure.

And in international politics, the US veep debate on Friday is going to be great entertainment. I've loved the trainwreck fascination Palin has been providing with her interviews, so she should be good value. Biden, on the other hand, has faded into the background in the media coverage we get here, so it'll be a good opportunity to get a feel for him. They are both gaffe-prone, it would seem - surely there's some kind of drinking game to be played here?

The King and Queen have decreed...

I just saw on the news that Helen Clark and John Key have teamed up to decline appearing with other party leaders in the traditional Leaders Debates on TVNZ and TV3. They have agreed to only appear in head-to-head debates, with the logic that they are the only two possible people who will be our Prime Minister after the election. I'm not one to swear, but I am seriously fucking pissed off by this arrogant decision. Despite the way the major parties and the increasingly personality-driven media try to frame it, our election is not a presidential race. Nobody will be voting for Clark or Key except the people who choose to do so in their respective electorates. It's certainly not at all likely, but any other party could potentially get enough of the party vote to score their leader the top job.

In MMP it's the party vote that determines the composition of Parliament. At the Leaders Debates, said leaders are there as representatives of their party, to convince you to give your vote to their team (and not them personally). All the parties should be prepared to discuss all the issues, not just those prioritised by the major parties - who, after all, fit increasingly closer together on the political spectrum. Each party should get an equal shot; not a showcase for the big boys and a sideshow for everyone else (this is of course problematic, as we won't see the Kiwi Party, ALCP, Democrats for Social Credit, etc, lining up alongside either way; and TV3 had to be forced to allow the Progressives and United Future into the debate in 2005).

We already know National would like to trample all over MMP, but they haven't had their referendum yet. Labour's complicity is even more aggravating, given their supposedly egalitarian values and also their reliance on the support of valuable minor party partners, particularly during their last term.

The perception that the choice is simply between Labour and National - apparent in the rhetoric of politicians, framing in the media, and polls consistently showing the minor parties currently in Parliament struggling to break the magic five percent threshold - is frustrating. Given the circles I tend to run in, many people seem to believe that a vote for anyone but Labour is essentially a vote for National. But there are other parties they can vote for that are essentially a vote for a Labour-led coalition; and there are equivalent parties for National.

I gather that support for minor parties tends to increase as we approach an election, but arrogant moves like this jawdropper from Labour and National certainly don't help us shake the FPP mentality.

I know you all care passionately about American politics

So, we've finally got a date for our general election here in Aotearoa - so it looks like you've got a date on November 8. Don't miss it! And if you're not enrolled yet to vote, then why the hell not? Go to elections.org.nz to enrol, and for lots of other helpful and fascinating information.

And now to return to the title of this post, I just wanted to point out this article from the Business section of the New York Times:

In "Economic View: Would Obama’s Plan Be Faster, Fairer, Stronger?", Alan S. Blinder outlines the thesis behind Unequal Democracy, a new book by Larry M. Bartels, professor of political science at Princeton.

According to Blinder's article, the guts of Bartels' book is that "the two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality."

Simple, really..?

A Daily dose of Awesome!

This is a few days old now, but if you haven't yet seen it you really should. Over and over again.

Sometimes I get a little sick of Jon Stewart's smugness, but sometimes he hits one of the park - often by letting the douchebags speak for themselves, as in the following example:



Despite being part of the evil evil Viacom family, The Daily Show has a pretty great setup on the web. Full shows, up pretty much immediately. Top job!

PS. This one's pretty great, too.