Friday, 29 February 2008

Sacha Cobern's column a slap in the face for Deborah Morris-Travers

Sacha Cobern has this week sparked debate from those sensible people with commonsense, who believe smacking a child should be a valuable tool in a parents toolbox and that government have no business putting their sticky beak noses in our business. The fear that parents now have over the anti smacking law, has already led to many parents labeled as abusers for lightly smacking their kids and has undermined the authority of good parents all around the country.

I am aware myself of two cases of children telling on their parents and these two accounts haven't hit the media like others have, probably because parents want to keep things secret for fear of being labeled abusers by do gooder socialists. There are bound to be more of these undisclosed cases.

Sacha's piece has sparked a violent, incoherent, high minded and intellectually offensive outburst by a former minister of Parliament, Debra Morris-Travers, an employee of the State backed Barnardos, a former advocate for children but now an extension of the Labour Party propaganda machine.

"If anything, that side of the debate has been too earnest and intellectually-based and that's why so few people seem to understand what has driven the law change.

The media's refusal to give coverage to the evidence and research supporting the law change is the only reasonable argument for a lack of intellectual rigour in the debate".

Morris-Travers contends that she practices what she calls "positive parenting" so by exclusion labels parents who smack negative and clearly criminal for "assaulting" their children by lightly smacking them.

In another poke at the average Kiwi she labels them as too stupid to understand the "intellectual debate" over the repeal of section 59, when it is clearly very simple, parents need to be able to correct their children's behaviour with every reasonable tool possible. Nothing complicated about that.

Like Helen Clark she blames the media for it not revealing the facts supporting her case. The reason none have been forthcoming is that those "facts" do not exist.

Read both and then decide for yourself who is talking garbage and deserves a smack on the behind.

c Political Animal 2008

Sacha Coburn: Smack on the hand worth time in jail

5:00AM Tuesday February 26, 2008, NZ Herald
By Sacha Coburn

I agree with Bob McCoskrie and Larry Baldock. Eight words which churn my stomach as I write them. When left-leaning, social liberals like me are forced to align with the fundies speaking in tongues and organising petitions, you know our little country at the bottom of the world has gone mad.

I want to smack my daughter. At least twice today I'm likely to threaten it and may even make meaningful preparations to carry it out. Send her to her room. Get the wooden spoon out of the drawer. Enough to be arrested for an attempted smack, I'd have thought. Is it wrong to fantasise about a night in the lock-up?

"You mean that in solitary I'd be by myself for 23 hours in a row?"

Smacking my son was a parenting strategy of last resort and was immediately effective when dealing with defiance and dangerous situations. I've never smacked in anger and never without issuing a final warning first. I'm a text-book smacker. Pin-up girl has a certain ring to it.

But now, with my precious Portia, aged 2 years 8 months, my tool box is looking a little empty.

"No," she says. "I won't put my seat belt back on." Try reasoning, Aunty Sue B suggests. "If we crash, you'll get hurt."

"No, I didn't."

Try praising the good behaviour, says Aunty Cindy K.

"Mummy loves it when you wear your seatbelt."

"No! I love Daddy!"

Wait out the bad behaviour, advises Aunty Dianne L.

Good idea until my phone rings: "Hello Sacha, are you coming to get your son from school today? It's 5.30pm and the cleaners are going home."

"Not yet," I reply. "Just wearing Portia down, should be there by midnight."

Scare her, suggests my guardian demon.

"If you don't put it back on, tonight I'll close your bedroom door and leave the light off." Cue screaming, but still no seat belt. What kind of parental monster uses fear of the dark as a legitimate tool?

The problem for me is that I love the law and the democratic process. As a lawyer, I understand the benefits of obeying the law and the potential consequences of disregarding it. I want to parent within the law and I want to be able to use smacking as one of many parenting tools.

I'm a bloody good parent; well-read, patient, on the Board of Trustees even. I know that clothes driers are for clothes only and that I shouldn't leave my child with the man next door who's on bail awaiting trial for manslaughter. I understand the food pyramid and surely I get brownie points with the Greens for breastfeeding both babies past 12 months.

I don't believe smacking is for every parent or every child. I don't believe that it's an effective tool once children get beyond four or five. I wouldn't insist that you smack your child, but I don't believe Parliament fixes anything by taking away my right to smack mine.

Sue Bradford told us that we had to stop treating our children as property. They are people too, with their own minds and their own rights. Illuminating stuff. But the police officer who pulled me over and asked why my child was wandering willy-nilly around the backseat didn't buy it. I am apparently totally responsible for her well-being and behaviour, but not to be trusted when it comes to making parenting decisions about how to develop her sense of right and wrong.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the whole smacking debate is the lack of intellectual rigour evident on both sides of the issue. To continue the rhetoric about child abuse and smacking having any casual link is absurd - as all of us who were smacked-not-beaten as children can attest. And to suggest on the other hand that God gave us the right to smack is equally offensive - he also okayed some other pretty dodgy ideas.

The obvious victims remain. Children who are violently abused in their homes are no more protected than they were before the law change. But my own daughter is undoubtedly a victim too and our whole family suffers the consequences of her strong sense of self-above-all-else.

She has, in the past six months, learned that there are few sanctions I can impose on her that are meaningful enough to deter her from her intended course of action. She knows that if she screams loudly and for long enough she might not get her way but, by golly, there'll be a flurry of action around her. In short, she has learnt that behaving badly works.

How ironic if, in years to come, the lack of corrective smacking in childhood is raised in mitigation of criminal offending.

* Sacha Coburn is a Christchurch businesswoman, lawyer and mother.

Thursday, 28 February 2008

Helengate: Retreat while you are behind

c Emmerson 2008

Related Reading

Electoral watchdog looks at websites
Blog: It's time for real answers, Winston
Blog: Peters fury over handling of millionaire donation story
'No-one's talking about deporting Herald editor'
Helen Clark:"silly campaign"

Watch Video: Winston's outburst

New Zealand Herald Feature: Democracy under attack

Continuing with her media attack this week, the mother of the nation, Ms Clark drew on the similarities made by journalists, also by Political Animal, between the ousting of a Journo from Fiji this week and Clark's paranoid attack on the media and especially the NZ Herald this week.

She, however, didn't see the obvious similarities that the New Zealand public saw emphasised by this quote from the Prime Minister:

"Democracy of course involves elections but it also involves freedom of media and freedom of speech and you're not going to be able to have a proper democratic process and elections in a years time unless those basic freedoms are upheld."

Earlier on this week Clark's paranoia escalated to lithium sized proportions when she attacked the Herald for running an active campaign for the last 91 years to discredit Labour and that the papers revelations last year over the anti freedom and anti democratic Electoral Finance Act were motivated by greed and a lust to retain advertising on the Herald's part.

Clark of course forgets that the majority of the media also railed against her fascist bill and most sensible people will tell you that the Herald is far left of centre, mostly favours Labour and has done so for her 9 years in the big swiveling chair.

Her Husband, Peter Davis, has dropped his apron and rubber gloves to pen another opus to the NZ Herald over what he calls the papers "
happy mischief and headlines" and their attacks on Labour, Owen Glenn, and his rather uniquely attractive wife.

"The Herald has had great fun at the expense of a wealthy donor and a political party.

Fair enough, perhaps, but does this incident not underline how perilous it is for our system of electoral financing to be so dependent - as it is - on (generally secretive) wealthy individuals and corporates?

Electoral financing in most well-ordered countries relies on a judicious mix of expenditure limits, state subsidies, individual contributions, and some transparent, larger donations.

Is it not about time the Herald did some even-handed reviews of the area, rather than just foment happy mischief and headlines?"

Dr Peter Davis, Kingsland

Now I'm not sure if Dr Davis has stopped taking his medication but he writes about "secretive, wealthy" people giving money to political parties but that is the very thing the subject of his letter is about. Glenn loaned $100,000.00 secretly to the Labour Party in 2005!

Now I'm not against individuals or corporates giving any amount of money to a political party, there should be no limits, as is the case in many civilised democratic countries, but I do agree with Davis that those donations should be made in a transperent way.

"some transparent, larger donations"

Davis is clearly referring to Owen Glenn's $500,000.00 donation to Labour for the funding of the 2005 election and it is also significant to the 2008 election because Labour added a specific clause into the Electoral Finanace Act to allow donations for expat individuals such as Glen, who live mostly overseas, to give to the party.

"Is it not about time the Herald did some even-handed reviews of the area"

Obviously Davis shares this view with his good wife and they seem simpatico on such matters.

What galls about New Zealand's first couple attacking the media and the Herald specifically, is that they are merely reporting what has transpired. It happened, get over it, move on, its getting bloody tired and quite frankly not a very statesman like way to behave.

Because you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean you should try and shut down debate by throwing your pitiful socialist labels around like a drunken teenager ejaculating on his bedsheets.

I'm embarrassed for her and her administration and look for more in a leader.

Labour's chief lap-dog Winston "Baubles" Peters also got into the act today. He abused media in a press conference that looked like something from "Yes Minister" crossed with "The Osbourns" and brought back distant memories of a drunken Rob Muldoon, Prime Minister back in the 1970s -80s.

Did Winston have a drink or two on the plane back from meeting with
Condoleezza Rice in Korea or did he have a quick swig of duty free in the Airport toilets prior to going before the cameras?

Of course first class travel, five star hotels and late nights can be very stressful.

This attack on the media from the left just has to stop, not for their sake, because it is clearly comedy gold for the media, but for the sake of the Labour Party and its prospects for the coming election.

They should be worried.

Related Political Animal reading

Helen Shoots herself in both feet

Helen Clark's slipping Teflon leaves her naked
Labour's Teflon in Tatters

Clark's rudeness to Glenn plumbs new depths
Colmar Brunton Poll and comment
Labour Party election funding murky at best
Electoral Finance Bill: The purpose is clear
Owen Glenn given the cold shoulder
Snouts in the trough bent out of shape
The Owen Glenn story: Singing the same tune but hitting a bum note
Victim of Electoral Finance Act forced to close website
Mike Moore turns knife on Electoral Finance Bill
Electoral Finance Bill: Day of Protest Auckland Nov 17, 2007

c Political Animal 2008

Tuesday, 26 February 2008

Helen shoots herself in both feet

"Democracy of course involves elections but it also involves freedom of media and freedom of speech and you're not going to be able to have a proper democratic process and elections in a years time unless those basic freedoms are upheld."

Helen Clark Feb 26, 2008, on ousting of journalist by Fiji Govt for critiquing them

Tom Scott cartoon
c Tom Scott 2008 No Comment

Now, Aunt Helen has either completely lost track of the attacks by her this week on NZ journalists over things they wrote which she disagreed with, and clearly the passing of the anti freedom of speech Electoral Finance Act last year slipped her mind like a 175km an hour car trip through the streets of an unimportant small New Zealand town.

Related Political Animal reading

Helen Clark's slipping Teflon leaves her naked
Labour's Teflon in Tatters
Electoral Finance Bill: The purpose is clear

c Political Animal 2008

Labour Party tax move on Airport attack on property rights

Stand back because I'm gunna blow!!!
Michael Cullen's retrospective tax changes over the AIA sale
effectively removes shareholders property rights

Additional reading on this story - direct links to article

Radio New Zealand

Southland Times

The arrogance, the stupidity, lack of moral and legal right and communist sort of garbage Michael Cullen is up to by retrospectively changing tax law to grab even more of New Zealand citizens and Auckland International Airport(AIA) shareholders money from them is not surprising, because we saw it in 2006 when the Labour government changed law in hindsight to make the theft of taxpayer money by them legal.

What is surprising is that Cullen and his mates around the cabinet table haven figured out or don't care about( I suspect they just couldn't give a hoot) the repercussions of their move: for business as a whole in the future, individuals and specifically the 50000 odd New Zealanders with shares in the airport-especially in an election year! Its just mind boggling.

We all know Cullen and his socialist mates hate private property rights and clearly business because here he is again stomping his little legislative pen and clipboard all over these rights.

That is, people have a property right in the shares they own in the airport and they have a right to sell them to whomever they wish, under the current tax laws which exist. Retrospectively changing the tax laws just because you can isn't a sensible way to oversee business because business needs to be able to function with surety of the current laws in which they trade under. They no longer have that in this respect.

By becoming involved in a transaction between its private citizens in this way the Labour Party have effectively wasted the time of all the parties involved. CPPIB , Auckland Airport and the shareholders involved.

Millions of dollars have also been flushed down the bog, because it costs to do these large deals. In this case it has cost shareholders like me money. Lots of it.

The interfering has wiped hundreds of millions from the capital value of the airport- down 13.5% or 38c to NZ$2.45- and therefore shareholders wealth and given notice to other overseas companies thinking about buying businesses in New Zealand to think again-if the government doesn't want it sold they will simply regulate in some way to stop it. It isn't your business anymore if you don't have the ultimate say about what happens to it.

Now investors know that Cullen and his minor party supporters have been against this sale from the beginning, almost 1 year ago. Winston "baubles" Peters has spoken about this many times and so has Cullen, Both early in the sale saga.

My question to Cullen is then, if you were against this sale from the beginning then why didn't you move to stop it at its inception? He certainly knew about the "tax issues" with the airport amalgamation but chose to sit on this harebrained half arsed intention till the very last minute.

He has also been aware that the announcement made today would have been consequential to the sharemarket value of AIA and has kept it secret from the NZX, CEO Mark Weldon's office and therefore the shareholders invested in AIA, and so should have informed the market alot sooner and alot less clumsier than he has.

I wonder if Weldon will be giving the minister a "please explain" letter? Doubt it.

The Canadian Pension Plan Investment board say they will "push on" with the deal and were aware of IRD approval when making their bid. I'm sure they didn't factor in todays turbulence though.

Finally, pissing off 50000 mums and dads when you have been nuked in the polls, your leader is melting down, and in an election year just isn't very bright.

Related Share Investor reading

NZ Herald: Airport Deal not so sweet after tax break blocked
NZX Press Release: AIA directors recommend shareholders sell
AIA profit stays grounded
Softening opposition to CPPIB bid for AIA
Directors of AIA bribe brokers not to sell
What is Auckland Airport worth to you?
Second bite at AIA by CPPIB might just fly
AIA new directors must focus on shareholders
Auckland Airport merger deal nosedives
The Canadians have landed
AIA incentive scheme must fly out the window
Government market manipulation over AIA/DAE deal
DAE move on AIA: Will it fly?

Disclosure: I own AIA shares

c Share Investor & Political Animal 2008

Monday, 25 February 2008

Helen Clarks slipping teflon makeup leaves her naked

Cartoon of the Day
c Moreu 2008, from Stuff The crystal ball

Watch Video: Helen Clark on poll result (Newstalk ZB)

Helen Clarks spectacular outburst today, blaming the media for her and her party's bad showing in the latest political polls out last week, on a rampant media with the sole purpose of having her removed from parliament seems more than a little laughable considering the huge left-wing bias in the majority of the mainstream stuff written.

Clark has had them in her clutches, and mostly on her side for the last 9 years and her conspiracy theory that the media are out there to get her have shades of Robert Muldoon(yes I'm that old) as he crumbled drunk from office, and the worlds greatest conspiracy theorist when it comes to the media, Winston"Baubles" Peters.

I guess it is true what they say huh, you lie down with lapdogs...

The thin veneer of humanity left in Clark has slipped, like last weeks chardonnay and fish and chips, into the compost bin.

You can almost see her true personality soaking through the gritted stained teeth, and the unhinging looks more lovely everyday.

She has attacked the media in the past, when they don't say what she thinks is acceptable and a usually politically savvy Clark(probably the best political animal NZ has ever seen) has attacked a media, rightly or wrongly, in election year as being too stupid to make up their own minds about the PMs popularity.

Does she now expect them to go easier on her after that?!

Audrey Young and Fran O'Sullivan are no doubt sharpening their pens for another bite at the bitch again tomorrow, pass the dynamite.

Still there is always the ever present Electoral Finance Act for her to fall back on. Its eyes over ones shoulder are ever present.

I'm picking a landslide win to National come election 2008.

Related links

Labour has 'work to do' - Clark

c Political Animal 2008

State backed sub prime mortgages in New Zealand a recipe for disaster

If large banking institutions like Countrywide, Citibank &
Bank of America are affected by todays sub prime mess why
is the New Zealand Labour Government about to embark on
our own sub prime fallout in the future by lending taxpayer
money to individuals to buy houses who wont be able to pay
back the loans?

"government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem".

Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address
West Front of the
U.S. Capitol
January 20, 1981.

The fuss made last Tuesday over Helen Clark's "state of the nation" address by politicians on the left and their supporters has left me dazed and confused.

There was much talk of the "problems" that must be solved post a 2008 election and also that the Labour Government had worked hard for the last 8 and a half years to solve many of the problems that faced the nation over that time.

Surely if the hard work had been truly fruitful we really wouldn’t be facing any major problems now?

That’s where I got confused, the dazed part came after Helen Clark’s address but more about that below.

Ronnie was and is right, Governments, of all colours, make problems and then politicise these problems in the media when they offer to “fix” them.

Labour though has been the biggest problem maker in this small countries political history.

The most public example of that lately has been the anti graffiti legislation. Something made worse by Labour’s casual attitude to law enforcement and socialist family centered legislation like family group conferences instead of jail time or appropriate punishment are the problem.

The legislation is actually there already, but it is election year and Labour are merely grandstanding for votes.

You can pick through any of the huge problems that this Motley Crewe have either engineered or been responsible for and it is quite clear that Labour cannot “fix” what it has fucked up.

From the crippled health “service”, crumbling education standards, record high crime figures to record numbers of New Zealanders on welfare.

I would like to dig deeper on a future “fix” that Labour seem stuck on.

In Clark’s verbose and unsustainable “address to the nation”, she mentioned the word “sustainable” more than a dozen times, she made a feature of her governments efforts to fix the “housing unaffordability crisis”, whatever the hell that means.

The fact is, houses have always been “unaffordable” but in this day and age it seems unacceptable to those on the left for people to start at the bottom, earn their own money, save for a house and then buy one themselves. Logical isn’t it but it worked for us in a previous less politically correct life.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

Ronald Reagan, 1984

Don't worry citizens, Labour is going to help you buy a house, providing taxpayer funded loans or “shared equity” subsidized hand outs to those on “low wages”, in most cases up to 100% of the value of the house!

To fix the “housing unaffordability crises” Labour also propose to build more cheap taxpayer funded homes in increased densities, you know, like the ones they built in the 1930s onwards, the ones that still breed poverty, crime, dependence and hopelessness. Most sensible individuals call those housing developments slums.

Little boxes made of "ticky tacky" should remain as
part of a song or on the monopoly board, not causing
repeated social decay generation infinitum as State

housing always turns out to be.

They will go further than that though. They will force local government to get involved and local housing commissions set up, ones that in the United Kingdom in the past were filled with corruption and favouritism and led to the current social mess they are having. Tower blocks of hell filled with poor dependant UK nationals and disaffected immigrants, some with Koranic scythes to grind.

It’s a fact that slums don’t and never have worked. Labour propose to follow this well worn path of failure, evidenced here and in every other nation. If they did work we wouldn't still have them decades after they were introduced.

You want to know the really funny thing about Labour’s ultimate “solution” to this thing they call a “home unaffordability crisis”?

They helped cause it!

Record high taxes have burdened lower paid workers with low take home wages, while those same record high taxes have funded a government that have spent the proceeds recklessly on social interference and handouts to those undeserved of taxpayer largesse.

Even a third form economics student at the bottom of a class full of deaf and dumb mutes could tell Michael Cullen that his spending was inflationary.

That reckless spending has led to record high mortgage rates, the highest in the “developed world” and increases in local rates, petrol and food prices and all the essentials of life.

Not much left over for mortgage repayments huh Helen and Mike?

I haven even got to the main thrust of this piece though(I’m sure many of you lefties wish you hadn’t read this far-I hope you can grasp what it is I am saying)

By attempting to “fix” this self made “problem” Labour will set up the economy for a fall, one such fall that is having repercussions on us at this present moment.

I’m talking about the sub-prime mess in the United States.

The sub prime fallout was basically caused by defaults in fringe private institutions and Freddie Mac and Fannie May, two state run lenders, lending money to those borrowers in the USA that wouldn’t normally be able to get funding to buy a house.

Surprise, surprise, they eventually couldn’t pay back the loans. Labour propose to State back these same sorts of loans because they are being politically and philosophically motivated to get another 3 years at plundering the treasury benches.

If we in New Zealand are unlucky to get this vermin voted back in again will the same government propose to “fix” our own sub prime fallout when it inevitably happens here and will we forget that they caused the problem in the first place?

I question the veracity and honesty of Labour’s position on this and urge them to seriously rethink a socialist backed dream of all of us owning a state funded house. I question a New Zealand mainstream media, especially the business and finance sector, that would let this lunatic idea go unscrutinised and unaddressed.

Here at Share Investor and Political Animal , we see our job as that of informing readers of things that are not ordinarily looked at or maybe looked at in a deeper or alternative way. A commonsense approach if you like.

Labour’s intention to foist this future “sub prime” housing fallout on Kiwis should be a major concern to all sectors of the economy, from business, to the higher and lower wage earners. It will impact on all of us if their plan gets snowballing.

The push into the Sub Prime lending market in New
Zealand will affect more than house prices, the economy
will be seriously affected when the fallout comes, and it will.

Look around now. The US sub prime fallout is already negatively affecting your share portfolio, your mortgage rates and is having a serious impact on business lending and therefore business and economic growth.

Imagine if you will the direct impact it will have on a small fragile economy like New Zealand.

The word serious would be understatement.

“The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away”.

“Don't be afraid to see what you see”.

Ronald Reagan

Related Political Animal and Share Investor reading

Share Investor Blog

Current credit crunch a blessing in disguise
What happened to risk?

Share Investor Friday free for all: Edition 12 -
2nd story "I'll be baacck"

Political Animal Blog

Labour's Socialist Peril
Labour's State control out of control
Pointing fingers in the playground

c Political Animal & Share Investor 2008

Sunday, 24 February 2008

John Key gives good Facebook?

Photo c John Key, Facebook, 2008

According to Madonna, Bette Davis gave good face, will John
Key on Facebook?

Johnny Key has joined Facebook, to get some facetime with the voting age yoof who would normally vote for a leftie government. 10 people joined up while I was!

A good move by John, should have been made ages ago but never mind.

Contributers, watch what you say OK? the Electoral Finance Act is peeking over your shoulder.

Labour party hacks, please stay off it unless you have something sensible and erudite to say.

Related Political Animal reading

Electoral Finance Bill: The purpose is clear
Victim of Electoral Finance act forced to shut down website
John Key's Facebook page

c Political Animal 2008

Cindy Kiro gets violent
c Blanch 2008

Cindy Kiro, the Children's Commissar, has gone feral over the weekend and it looks like a violent reaction to the truth about child rearing has smacked her in the face and waken her from her slumber in her deep welfare dependent taxpayer funded black leather chair.

In the wake of the anti anti-smacking petition getting the required amount of signatures, Kiro's mouth continues to cash cheques that she cant back up with any real currency.

She calls those who voted for the petition"extreme" and I guess by definition and inclusion the majority of New Zealanders, who would like to be able to use a small smack on the hand or a safe part of the body, as a part of good and loving parenting, without going to prison or being told on by their children, other parents or teachers.

She calls the petition organisers "misleading" regarding how they got so much support for their petition. The mirror would be a good place to start when little Cindy utters this kind of clap trap.

I have been told a story about 2 young boys who discussed among themselves about whether they should tell their teacher about one of them being smacked lightly for being a horrible little child. The children didn't tell because the one who wasn't smacked told his father and both families got together and discussed it. The boys came to the conclusion that it would have been wrong to tell on the parent, and rightly so.

Kiro and the lefty lot who push their poisonous legislation on us want to undermine parents authority, that is clear in the example I explained above and it would have led to that parent being interrogated by the police, just for being a Father.

The fact is the majority of good parents in this country disagree with Kiro and would also share the view, that it is she with the problem and not those of us who know that a little smack is not child abuse and is good for the child when done with love.

Related reading

Commissioner Insults Generations of Parents
Kids Commissioner out of touch with reality

Related Political Animal reading

Anti Anti-smacking petition a slap in the face for out of touch Politicians
Sign the Anti Anti smacking petition

c Political Animal 2008

Poll and Comment: Labour's teflon in tatters

The latest Nielson Fairfax political poll shows that Aunty Helen and her mates continue to slip further behind. It reflects an earlier Colmar Brunton poll that came out on Monday and continues an ongoing slide for the Godmother of the nation.

The downwards trend for the Labour Party and supporting political players rolls on. It seems since the last poll 3 months ago their stance on the Electoral Finance Act. An act that stifles free speech against the government and stamps on political funding to opposition, and their hypocritical stance over secret loans made to the party during the recent Owen Glenn scandal, that run contrary to their moralistic masturbation over the EFA, have really taken their toll.

Mike Moreu cartoon
c Moreu 2008, from Stuff , " The Loan Arranger"

The possible inclusion of a referendum to coincide with the 2008 election, will be a further reminder to voters about the other restraints of New Zealander's freedoms that these mad socialists have foisted on us over the past 9 long years.

Related Political Animal reading

Colmar Brunton Poll and comment
Labour Party election funding murky at best
Electoral Finance Bill: The purpose is clear
Owen Glenn given the cold shoulder
Snouts in the trough bent out of shape
The Owen Glenn story: Singing the same tune but hitting a bum note

c Political Animal 2008

National opens up 23 point lead - poll

9:05AM Saturday February 23, 2008, NZPA

National has opened up its biggest lead over Labour, the latest poll showing it 23 points ahead with 55 per cent support.

The Fairfax Media-Nielsen poll of 1088 voters showed National gaining 10 points on the same poll last November, while Labour lost 8 points.

Labour's problems don't stop there; support for Prime Minister Helen Clark has dropped to 29 per cent, down 9 points in three months, while National leader John Key is 15 points ahead on 44 per cent, up 8 points.

The Greens 6 per cent support meant it was the only minor party to hit the 5 per cent needed under MMP to qualify for seats without an electorate.

New Zealand First had 3 per cent, the Maori Party 2 per cent and ACT 1 per cent. United Future and the Progressives both failed to rate.

If the poll was reflected in an election-night result, National would govern alone with 69 seats.

The poll, taken between February 13 and 19, had a margin of error of 3 per cent


Friday, 22 February 2008

Clarks rudeness to donor Owen Glenn plumbs new depths

Friday, February 22, 2008 By Rod Emmerson

"Helen's idea of Fidelity"

Ignoring the biggest donor to your 2005 election bid, Owen Glenn, at a function that you are supposed to be the figurehead of, at a school of business that bears the name of that donor and using the Maori race card excuse not to rub noses with him is pushing the envelope even for this sheila.

It is rude and disrespectful and certainly not something a balanced Prime Minister would do.

Its childish stuff and her modus operandi, but something that brain dead Labour party voters seem to ignore year after year when they vote this trollop back in.

The video of the opening of the school is a classic and if body language tells you anything here its that Helen Clark would rather at a National Party Election victory party(OK thats going too far) or perhaps at the main meeting house at Waitangi on a wet day.

Video from NZ Herald

There is much more dirt to dig up over this scandal and I think I can hear Fran O' Sullivan from the NZ Herald working on her word processor now.

Stay tuned!

c Political Animal 2008

Anti Anti-Smacking Petition slap in the face for out of touch Parliament

The anti, anti-smackers group have succeeded in their quest to get 300,000 kiwis to vote for their petition.

Congrats from Political Animal and congrats to those who cast their vote.

A real smack in the face for Bradford and the lemon suckers from Labour and other supporting players; Greens, Maori Party and the dopey National Party.

If there is a referendum this election, any elected party will be even dopier to ignore it.

c Political Animal 2008

Petition aiming to revoke smacking bill passes 300,000

NZPA | Friday, 22 February 2008

A group aiming to overturn the so-called anti-smacking legislation say they have enough signatures to force a referendum.

One of the organisers, Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock, told a news conference today the petition had gone past the 300,000 target.

"The actual target to force a referendum is 285,019, which is 10 per cent of the electoral roll, but we aimed at 300,000 to be safe," Mr Baldock said.

"As of today we have 322,252 signatures."

The petition asks: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Mr Baldock said nearly as many people had signed a second petition question, "Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand".

The petition follows the passing into law of Sue Bradford's bill last year outlawing the defence of reasonable parental correction in assault cases.

It was passed 113-8 after a last-minute amendment put forward by National stating police did not have to pursue inconsequential smacking.

Mr Baldock said the petition would be handed into Parliament at the end of next week, where parliamentary clerks would check on the number of duplicate signatures.

"We think some it impossible some people won't have signed twice - 12 months is a long time - but we are hoping it will be no more than 10 to 15 per cent."

If the petition reaches the official target Mr Baldock said there was a good chance a referendum would be put to voters on election day.

The referendum would not be binding.

Mr Baldock said politicians should not ignore the referendum if it was passed.

"It's not just about pro-smacking or anti-smacking, it's about our democracy. The most recent poll said 74 per cent of New Zealanders were opposed to the bill," he said.

Co-organiser Christine Rankin said Ms Bradford's bill would do nothing to stop child abuse.

Owen Glenn given the cold shoulder

c Stuff 2008

A picture tells at least a $600,000.00 story.

Billionaire Owen Glenn is protected by bully boy Trevor Mallard from the clutches of her former friend and secret donor to the Labour Party.

Trevor was hear to say from someone just out of frame of this picture-possibly Winston Peters, " Helen my dear, should I do to Glenn what I did to Tau Henare?"

Related Political Animal reading

Snouts in the trough bent out of shape
The Owen Glenn story: Singing the same tune but hitting a bum note
Labour Party Election funding murky at best

Mallards new anti violence advert
Trevor mallard must go

c Political Animal 2008

Thursday, 21 February 2008

Owen Glenn: Snouts in the trough bent out of shape

If you haven seem Emerson's take on the Owen Glenn scandal I thought I would share it with you here.

NZ Herald's coverage of Owen Glenn Scandal

Labour president offers to quit over Owen Glenn saga
Glenn offered Howard Morrison $1m to stand as MP
Honour not for loans, says Clark
Peters fury over handling of millionaire donation story
Donor now says Labour offered Monaco post
Business school 'crucial' to NZ success
Clark must explain quote, says National
Big heart, deep pockets
Labour should squirm over links to billionaire
Clark denies offering post to supporter
This building means business

The little Labour piggy though clearly got kicked out of Owen Glenn's "rich prick" billionaire sty because the chief sow wouldn't go anywhere near him today.

Trevor Mallard occupies Owen Glenn (right) and keeps him away from Helen Clark. Photo / Paul Estcourt
Photo Glenn Estcourt, NZ Herald

Glenn is spirited away from Clark by
Trevor "the bash" Mallard. Clark kept her
distance the whole evening of the opening
of the business school that bears Owen Glenn's
name, and the reason he got a Government
Honour in the New Years list.

For the life of me I cant understand why a political party like Labour would first of all take a donation for the 2005 election from the likes of an individual who they would call a "rich prick" and pays no tax, which they also despise, then take a secret "loan" from him after the election and then try to avoid him at all costs.

At the time of the concealed secret $100,000.00 loan made by Owen Glenn to Labour, Helen Clark and her minions were railing against "big money" and "secret donations" that the National Party had apparently benefited from, when they debated the anti democratic , anti freedom of speech Electoral Finance Bill.

So its only big money and secret donations when your opposition gets the benefit. It seems that is it.

There is more to go on this scandal and it has all the participants running for cover, covering up, lying to protect themselves, political friends and their careers.

In a saga and acting job worthy of an Oscar for best fictional adaption of a screenplay, Clark asked her Labour Party President to render his resignation to her today and then refused it.

This is typical Helen Clark stuff, deflect the rightful responsibility for her or party's errors or corruption by attacking her rightful accusers, then blame either a public official, junior minister or in this case Mike Williams, the Labour Party Prez.

Even Clark's lapdog Winston Peters has got in on the act. Rumours abound as to where the money came from to pay off the $158,000.00 of taxpayer money he stole to fund his 2005 election bid last year.

A secret donation of around $100,000.00 was made into party coffers at the end of 2007. Was it from Glenn? Nobody from NZ First is denying the accusation.

Related Political Animal reading

The Owen Glenn story: Singing the same tune but hitting a bum note

Labour Party Election funding murky at best

C Political Animal 2008

Tuesday, 19 February 2008

The Owen Glenn story: Singing the same tune but hitting a bum note

The revelations over Owen Glenn and his murky donations to the Labour Party before and after the 2005 election have taken another turn today.

All sides are now saying what was reported in an interview with Glenn last week was a misunderstanding, taken out of context and statements made by Glenn, such as the assertion he made and was very clear about, that he was offered the post of Minister of Transport in a Labour Government by Helen Clark were light hearted comments misunderstood by the journalist.

Clark initially denied any such offer had been made when the proverbial hit the fan last Friday commenting that " didn't happen" but yesterday was reported as saying:

"... could not remember discussing the issue with Glenn, but if it had come up, it would not have been a serious conversation".

Typical Helen Clark backtrack stuff.

Followed by Glenn's statement to the Media:

"I was not offered a Cabinet position. My comments on this matter were light-hearted and have been taken out of context," he said.

"It is unfortunate that some comments I made to a journalist last week have been taken out of context and are now being used as a political football".

The blanket agreement now over what really happened seems a little too convenient for this reader.

As to the murkiness over the secret "loan" of $100,000.00 made after the 2005 election the fact that Labour kept it secret seems more than a little disingenuous when the money was gifted during the heady days of the electoral finance bill debate, where the contention by Labour was that political funding "should be transparent" and political parties must be upfront about just who is funding them.

Clearly this didn't apply to themselves.

So far this major controversy hasn't hit the mainstream media, The Herald, their competition and the blogs have picked it up but the TV networks have done their best to avoid it like the plague.

The media saturation over the secrecy of the Brethren donations in 2005 stands in stark contrast.

Parliament sits today Listen to Parliament (only during sitting, Tues-Thurs, 2.00pm , NZ time) and National must seize on this with both hands and take it to Labour.

We have a Government steeped in a very murky funding issue and their assertions over the Electoral Finance Act, that" funding must be transparent" must be given closer scrutiny.

Related Political Animal reading

Labour Party Election funding murky at best

C Political Animal 2008

Monday, 18 February 2008

Poll cements National Party as Election winner
c Stan Blanch 2007

It looks like the momentum has gained traction and polls taken before Christmas have continued to show John Key the most preferred Prime Minister, should an election be held today.

The fact that Clark continue to slip behind as leader to a 27% Prime Ministerial approval rating means she is less favoured than the likes of the great George Bush as the leader of the country.

Previously Clark has had a historically very high ranking in the polls as most preferred leader.

Vote in our new Political Animal poll on the left of this blog, not far from the top. You must tick two boxes, one for your constituency and one for the party vote.

C Political Animal 2008

The full story of the latest poll, courtesy of the NZPA is below:

The TV One Colmar Brunton poll showed National on 53 percent support, down one point since its last poll in December, and Labour also down one point to 34 percent.

The gap between the main parties was 19 points - the same as it was in December.

National's leader, John Key, increased his lead over Helen Clark in the preferred prime minister stakes.

Mr Key gained one point to 36 percent while Miss Clark slipped from 30 percent to 27 percent.

Tonight's poll showed the Greens up from 4.6 percent to 6 percent, putting them safely over the 5 percent threshold the party must achieve in the next election to stay in Parliament.

New Zealand First was down from 2.2 percent to 1.7 percent while the Maori Party was up from 1.7 percent to 3.3 percent.

The Colmar Brunton poll usually rates National higher than other surveys.

On January 26 a New Zealand Herald DigiPoll put National on 47.5 percent and Labour on 38.7, a gap of 8.8 points.

On February 11 a New Zealand Morgan poll showed National slipping 6.5 points to 45.5 percent and Labour gaining three points to reach 36.5 percent, a gap of nine points.

Tonight's poll showed a small drop in the number of people who thought the economic outlook was getting better - 28 percent compared with 31 percent in December.

The poll was conducted between February 9 and 14. It questioned 1000 voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.


Sunday, 17 February 2008

Labour Party election funding murky at best
c Stan Blanch 2008

The stench surrounding the funding of the Labour Party by ex pat Kiwi Owen Glenn prior to the 2005 election just gets more pungent and darkly ominous, as the weeks and months pass.

Glenn gave NZ$500,000.00 to Labour Party coffers to bolster their empty pockets in the run up the the 2005 stolen election(Labour took over $800,000.00 of taxpayer money to illegally fund their campaign) nothing wrong with that, big money shouldn't be a problem to fund an election run.

It seems though that there is more than meets the eye to this generous individuals gift.

If the bestowing for Glenn, of a New Years honour this year wasn't enough, it seems that the layers of the onion that are the gift to the Labour Party appear to be peeling off to reveal a bit of a rotten core.

It certainly isn't the gift that keeps on giving.

Glenn has revealed that he gifted the money to Labour because of concerns that he had over the Brethren spending their own money(not taxpayers dear readers) to campaign against Labour and the Greens.

But curiously, Glenn made his first donation of $200,000 to Labour in 2004, well before the Brethren's involvement in the 2005 election became public knowledge.

A slip of memory on Glenn's part?

According to Labour Party president Mike Williams yes: "Owen is confused about the timing".

Williams seems very confused since he himself admitted in a May 5 2005 story in the New Zealand Herald that Glenn had been paying funds directly into Labour Party coffers beginning in 2004 and to the tune of $200,000.

The biggest possible scandal exists directly with the Prime Minister though.

Glenn has been reported as saying that he was offered the post of Minister of Transport by Helen Clark, in order to get him back to New Zealand.

Clark has denied Glenn's assertion that he was offered a job in the Labour Cabinet saying on Friday, " did not happen..."

Now we have all heard the Prime Minister lie before and caught out multiple times, so Fridays denial seems a trifle perplexing given the status Owen Glenn has reached in his business life. Impeccable business acumen, honesty and straightforwardness have been trademarks of his throughout his distinguished life.

Glenn also loaned the party $100,000.00 to employ fund raisers after the 2005 election, it was paid back without interest but the interest forgone seems to have been in breach of the electoral rules.

I'm unsure whether the changing of the appropriate electoral laws by Labour after the 2005 election to make their illegal pilfering of $800,000.00 of taxpayer funds legal has also made this latest reported breach legal retrospectively, but it bares thinking about when you cast a vote this year.

Whichever way you look at this situation it stinks worse than Parakura Horomia's socks on a wet hot day in Wellington.

Labour have passed laws to crack down on other political parties for the 2008 election but it seems they have some skeletons in the closet left over from 2005.

The funding from Labours wealthy foreign domiciled backers during the 2005 election needs to be looked at more closely by the appropriate authorities and the public of this country cant be fobbed off again by the likes of a Prime Minister who wouldn't know the truth if it came up and shook her hand then slapped her in the face with it.

The public have a right to the truth.

Clearly this scrutiny should also be applied to the coming election for if we can be sure of one thing, Labour will try similar ploys again.

Related Political Animal reading

NZ Herald gets nasty over the Electoral Finance Bill
Electoral Finance Bill: Day of Protest
Electoral Finance Bill: The purpose is clear
Mike Moore turns the knife on Electoral Finance Bill

C Political Animal 2008

Monday, 11 February 2008

Labour buys Tim Shadbolt's silence
c Blanch 2008

News out today that the Labour Party have caved in to the protestations of Tim Shadbolt over his promise to campaign against the anti democratic Electoral Finance Act should be no surprise to those of us with morals and standards.

Labour cut funding to various Southland education facilities because they didn't think anyone would notice or care.

Shadbolt, a former Auckland University colleague of a large number the current crop of Labour Socialists, including Aunt Helen herself, would have focused attention on the controversial Electoral Finance Act by publicly protesting, up until the general election, towards the end of 2008, so the fuse had to be short circuited and Labour backtracked by reinstating some of the funding. Something that Labour said at the time wouldn't happen.

It is a clear message to voters that the Labour Party are highly embarrassed over the Electoral Finance Act and will do anything to stifle the much warranted negative publicity over its introduction and inception on Jan 1 2008. An act that has already had a number of causalities, most notably the young man, Andrew Moore, who was threatened by the Electoral Commission to effectively close his website down because it criticised the Government-something those that voted for the Bill also said would never happen.

Related Political Animal reading

Victim of Electoral Finance Act forced to shut down website

Electoral Finance Act: The purpose is clear
The Political Animal marches against the EFB-plus pictures

C Political Animal 2008

Thursday, 7 February 2008

Michael Cullen's history on tax cuts comes back to haunt him

Michael Cullen's education as a Dr of History clearly lacked the basic tenant that as history is more often than not written down for posterity it can often come back to haunt the history maker:

"We just don't believe in tax cuts - it's against our fundamental philosophy - after all we are socialists and proud of it".

A hardly stunning admission by Michael Cullen a while back but hard to fathom considering his announcement of personal tax cuts in an address to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce today.

Cullen trumpeted 4 billion dollars of tax cuts annually and gave examples as: " working for families, business tax cuts and Kiwisaver.

Of course Working for Families is not a tax cut but welfare, Kiwisaver isn't a tax cut either and business tax cuts were long ago gobbled up by Labour Government imposed business taxes like increased holidays, Kiwisaver contributions and administration, Government imposed energy hikes and a whole range of other taxes too long to list here.

If there are any tax cuts this year or in the following years by Labour, they will be linked to a Government agency and distributed that way not by the usual method of more cash directly in the hand.

Strangely enough, a 66c across the board tax cut was promised in the 2005 budget, coincidently another election year, but Labour broke their promise after reelection because they commented that economic conditions didn't allow such a cut.

Now 3 year latter, and with a crippled stagnant economy tax cuts are going to happen?

The truth is though Labour were and never will deliver proper tax cuts because they are philosophically opposed to them:

"Tax cuts are a path to inequality. They are the promises of a visionless and intellectually bankrupt people".

— Helen Clark, speech to 2000 labour Party Conference

On the contrary though, tax cuts show true vision and are not only "intellectually enriching" but in the long term they enhance every sector of society, socially and economically.

What is "intellectually bankrupt" though is promising personal tax cuts in election year.

The facts are that any time is a good time for tax cuts. They stimulate business and economies and have an upside long term, not a downside on the tax take by governments, and are especially relevant during the tough economic times we are now going through.

Tax cuts have been affordable since Labour came to office almost 9 long years ago and the excuses used to dodge such cuts have been coming as thick and as fast as Parekura Horomia on speed.

Cullen sites several: "we will have to cut Government services", "tax cuts lead to inflation and higher interest rates", "we will have to borrow money to fund tax cuts".

All clearly bollocks.

What has led to inflation and the highest interest rates in the Western world is reckless Labour Party spending, cut that and you can afford to return stolen taxpayer funds.

Ditto borrowing and government services, cut back Cullen, New Zealanders have, and have had to borrow because of your tax and spend mentality.

Finally, Cullen hinted today that any tax cuts must be "fair" and he clearly meant that those who earn't high salaries, probably wont be getting a tax cut.

Those earning higher salaries don't traditionally vote Labour anyway so they will be left out if there are personal tax cuts, but in an ironic twist, those receiving welfare through "working for families" benefits, mainly middleclass voters who could vote either National or Labour, maybe getting some of the taxes back that they have been paying to fund WFF in the first place!

Cruel but true.

I will leave you dear readers with a quote Robin Hood probably originally made:

"Tax cuts are a very sort of blunt weapon to redistribute income"

— Mike Williams, President of the Labour Party

To sum it up Labour's real attitude to tax cuts. Firstly Labour clearly don't believe in them and they truly believe that the high taxes they have imposed are there to "redistribute income".

You certainly can't vote for a party like Labour, The Green Party, The Maori Party, NZ First, Jim Anderton because they all fundamentally agree with Cullen, the Labour Party philosophy on tax cuts and cannot be trusted to deliver as part of a Labour-led Government in 2008.

Vote for either Act or National, they have promised real tax cuts and have done for years.

Related Political Animal reading

Pointing fingers in the playground
At least Robin Hood was honest
The black economy makes sense
Labours State Control out of control

C Political Animal 2008

Monday, 4 February 2008

Having a multiple Muslim

A news report today on Muslim men in Britain officially getting benefits for multiple wives has got me more than a little hot under the headdress.

Apart for the immorality of collecting money for doing nothing and the small fact that it is indeed illegal to be married to more than one person seems to have escaped the reasoning of the radical left in power in the mother country.

The muslimization of Europe continues apace.

While listening to this account on the Leighton Smith talkback show(Listen to Leighton Smith Live(Weekdays 8.30am-Midday NZ Time) ) today there was also a caller that recounted the case of a wonderful recently arrived Muslim individual who just happened to have two wives, in two state houses, side by side and receiving the largess of the taxpayer twice for two benefits for his small harem.

She didn't say where these individuals lived but it is more than likely going to be in a place like Mt Roskill, the centre of the universe when it comes to all the waifs and strays that nobody else in the world will have but us poor saps.

It is also more than likely that the fine taxpayer funded Harem discussed above is not the only example of this gross stupidity.

I myself am aware of such a "family" living in the state house area in the suburb of Northcote, on Auckland's North Shore.

Would another faith be given this sort of leeway to break our laws in the name of cultural diversity?

I think not, be best it not be critiqued should the Mullahs get angry. We are all well aware the lengths they will go to to show their disapproval of our intolerance to their cultural practices.

Couple this with statistics out today about the number of kiwi born people leaving for the more golden shores and you can see the obvious problems we are going to face.

I'm not anti immigration, we need lots more people with skills and jobs, and who fit in with the lifestyle, to come from nations all around the world but we also need to keep the good kiwis here.

You don't do that by importing riff raff to take their place.

John Key commented that Labour had clearly lost support because people were voting with their feet, while Helen Clark was quite nonchalant about the record losses of New Zealanders leaving because, "The population grew by about 3 per cent in the first five of six years of this century and that was done by net migration".

She should be concerned about those of us leaving, and thinking of leaving, if we all go mad at the end of the year and vote her back in, but the reason for her casual attitude is the simple fact that those, like the aforementioned multiple wive crews, that enter the country, are more likely to vote Labour and conversely those who are leaving would have voted for an opposition party.

Who needs Kiwis when you have "cultural diversity" though !

Related Political Animal reading

Waiting for the backlash
Jihad and understanding
Labour's socialist peril

c Political Animal 2008