Open mike 03/04/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:55 am, April 3rd, 2014 - 114 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

114 comments on “Open mike 03/04/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. anker 1
    3 April 2014 at 7:57 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11230900

    This off the Dim Post. Audrey Y at it (writing Key’s press releases) again.

    I feel a complaint to the Press Council coming on.

    • tc 1.1
      3 April 2014 at 7:20 pm

      Why dont you post audrey a wet bus ticket and save time.

    • swordfish 1.2
      3 April 2014 at 10:46 pm

      Audrey’s from an impeccably Tory family.

      Father was a long-time National MP for Miramar, brother-in-law is Mad Max Bradford (uber-Neo-Liberal end of the Bolger/Shipley Governments), sister Rosemary was a Wellington City Councillor (in the Prendergastian Right faction) a decade or so ago, while younger sister Nicola is a current Wellington City Councillor very much on the Thatcherite Right (recently penned a Dominion Post opinion piece on why the very idea of a living wage is abhorent. We don’t want those absolutely horrid little working class fellows getting above their station).

      Audrey’s as Blue as a New Tatoo.

  2. Draco T Bastard 2
    3 April 2014 at 7:57 am

    The collusion of charities in the dismantling of the welfare state

    All this positivity in the portrayal of illness or disability may have helped the government with its welfare reforms. It feeds the notion that there is hardly any condition, no matter how severe, that can prevent a person from working, and the inference that those who aren’t working are using their illness to freeload off the taxpayer. We are now in the position that people with terminal cancer can be forced to do unpaid work or lose their benefits.

    It’s about England and how the conservatives there are attacking welfare but we’re seeing the same things happening here.

  3. miravox 3
    3 April 2014 at 8:03 am

    “You put in a hard day’s work, you expect a fair day’s pay,” says Mr Te Amo. “If you don’t get paid, you jump up and down. I would not commit any of our subbies to come here and work for us if I didn’t think that I could get their money at the end of the day.”

    Brand new car park ripped up.
    The comments on this article and the Facebook link are generally supportive of this contractor standing up for his subs and himself after a dispute over costing with an developer in Christchurch. These disputes happen everyday and it seems the public are pretty aware that contractors and subbies are being shafted.

    • cricklewood 3.1
      3 April 2014 at 8:38 am

      Ripping it up is the worst thing he could have done, he will get hammered for reinstatement.
      The only thing you can do is get a letter drafted saying you will cease work until such time as all outstanding payments are up to date. Generally for Subbies at the end of a job the tactic is very effective as the threat of liquidated damages usually means payment is forthcoming.
      Been there and done that with the recently demised nationwide main contractor got the ‘don’t expect to work for us again’ speech but got paid and as it turned out good riddance.

      I do note it is interesting that it is a dispute over ‘how the job was costed.’ You have to hope he didn’t make a tendering error or similar and has painted himself into a corner. Having tendered a few projects for new countdown stores previously I do recall them having some interesting fine print and from memory at least one was a Gross Maximum Price tender where basically there is no going back for additional funds regardless.

      Obviously the subcontractor agreement between the parties was less than black and white if there is a dispute of this nature as it seems more complex than outstanding progress claims..

      • BM 3.1.1
        3 April 2014 at 9:13 am

        Yeah I get the feeling he’s fucked up his quote.

        Dumb and irrational move by that individual, all he’s done is kick himself in the nuts.

      • miravox 3.1.2
        3 April 2014 at 9:18 am

        Because there was no analysis of the reason for the dispute, I was more interested in the effect the dispute had on Mr Te Amo and the public reaction to it.

        The reaction is bigger than the dispute, almost to the level of one of those little tipping points where public dissatisfaction spills over into something much more, and depending on how part 2 plays out on the tv, it may do just that.

        • cricklewood 3.1.2.1
          3 April 2014 at 9:33 am

          No one likes when a small contractor gets beaten up by a bigger one and it happens all to often. Especially when it comes to withholding final payments and retentions for as long as absolutely possible while the money sits in a bank account gathering interest. Doubt outside of some internet outrage much will come of it and even that may dissipate depending on the nuts and bolts of the dispute.

          What will happen is regardless of the dispute he is going to get hammered for reinstatement costs and any associated liquidated damages.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1.1
            3 April 2014 at 10:07 am

            It was probably the wrong thing for him to do but I suspect he’s going to get a lot of moral support over it.

            The laws need to be changed so that contractors don’t get screwed over the way that they do now.

            • cricklewood 3.1.2.1.1.1
              3 April 2014 at 1:55 pm

              I would be in favour in a law that that required all payments, retentions etc being held in trust.
              Once a claim has been made and approved by the client the trust pays the monies directly to the various parties rather than the current system which relies on the benevolence of the head contractor to pay subcontractors when due.

    • Tracey 3.2
      3 April 2014 at 9:36 am

      builders and designers now have a 10 year personal liability following any building they work opn. Developers dont.

      So developers will continue to open a company, borrow money, draw salaries, build stuff, take the profit, close down and move on.”

      Builders and designers can lose the house.

      Change that law, make developers personally liable for ten years AND any trust they hold a beneficial interest in, and watch the cowboy developers drop like flies. leaving us with developers with well earned reputations for quality work and hiring.

      So simple, but seemingly beyond the wit of our politicians… I wonder why (rhetorical)>

  4. logie97 4
    3 April 2014 at 8:19 am

    I won’t provide a link, but excuse my ignorance – who in hell is Jojo Maddren.
    Should we know? Should we care?
    But his/her political savvy appears to be non existent, yet she/he somehow gets opinion space on Stuff today … If you haven’t read it, don’t bother, – he/she is shallow as.
    There now I hope I haven’t raised your curiosity – I probably shouldn’t have shared this.
    On the other hand, if she/he is a captain of industry or someone who is believed to be of import, we should be concerned at the lack of intellect …

    Okay here’s the link (have your bucket ready)
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/what-issues-will-get-your-vote/9896499/Election-issues-National-have-my-vote

    • ffloyd 4.1
      3 April 2014 at 8:53 am

      M
      Jojo madden shares ‘their’ thoughts?

      • mac1 4.1.1
        3 April 2014 at 9:10 am

        Yeah, spotted that, too, ffloyd. I presume this is a way of using a possessive adjective for one person whose sex is unknown, rather than ‘his/her’.
        I would put quotation marks around the word ‘thoughts’ because there was not a high level of intellectual input in that reader’s remarks, especially in the over-blown praise of the PM.
        At least it wasn’t a regular journo guilty of that hagiography of secular Saint John.

        • McFlock 4.1.1.1
          3 April 2014 at 1:20 pm

          They refer to “the poor old Kiwi battler”.
          I can’t say I’ve heard about the kiwi battler. Have heard about the “aussie battler”.
          According to google and bing, “Jojo Maddren” exists nowhere in the internet but this article and talk about the article.

          Which suggests to me the the article is an astroturfing construct by aussie marketing contractors. Which also suggests to me that it would have follow-up support in the comments as part of its release. So it’s quite possible that the few supporters of jjm are also paid marketers, and that the only real nzers offering their unpaid opinions think “jjm” is full of shit.

          We can but hope 🙂

    • Bearded Git 4.2
      3 April 2014 at 9:04 am

      She may be a nonentity but oddly enough she puts her finger exactly on the argument Labour/Greens will have to counter in the upcoming election.

      Meanwhile not getting many headlines is the fact that dairy prices have fallen 18% in 2 months, where dairy represents 30% of NZ’s exports. Here’s a link to this:

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11231079

        • Olwyn 4.2.1.1
          3 April 2014 at 11:07 am

          I agree that Labour needs a greater sense of urgency, especially since National already have it. National supporters are not complacent – they fear losing what they have gained under National, and lobby for them quite naturally. The older guy in the site shed, for instance, who has about five rentals and is thinking about taking an early retirement, saying authoritatively, “That bloody Cunliffe is useless.” Some of the South Auckland ministers who say they will go National, have quite possibly been treated to a deep-and-meaningful or two about how we must protect the morals of the young from the mad lefties, and so on.

          While the policies Labour has released seem fine, we do not have anything so far that would give us that kind of immediate and direct leverage. I will hassle people to vote for them anyway, since I want to see the back of this government and I also think that the more members in caucus, the less traction there is for the Labour right. But it would be a whole lot easier if it was more obvious to people that their lives would be better under Labour – like the site shed guy in relation to National.

          The man that shouted at Cunliffe yesterday was effectively saying “a plague on both your houses.” If Labour could convince people like that man – who are frightened and angry at what is happening to them under National – a big part of their job would be done.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1.1
            3 April 2014 at 1:56 pm

            The man that shouted at Cunliffe yesterday was effectively saying “a plague on both your houses.” If Labour could convince people like that man – who are frightened and angry at what is happening to them under National – a big part of their job would be done.

            That man could probably be persuaded to vote for Mana or the Greens.

            • Olwyn 4.2.1.1.1.1
              3 April 2014 at 4:03 pm

              Someone like that man may not view the Greens or Mana as being able to do all that much to help – Labour is still seen by many as the party that is able to take effective action on behalf of beleaguered people. The big question is whether or not it has the will to do so, and to what degree. The young and the politically engaged seem more inclined, on the whole, to go for the Greens or Mana.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                3 April 2014 at 4:10 pm

                I get the impression that he’s upset enough to take another look if someone points him in the right direction.

                • Anne …
                  3 April 2014 at 4:50 pm

                  A passing observation. When I saw the TV1clip on TV last night my first impression was oh god… Waitakere Man having a red-neck moment. Then I watched the TV3 clip online and I saw a very hurt man – a man who perhaps has lost his job through no fault of his own and has been badly treated ever since. He’s at the end of his tether and I would like to see David Cunliffe approach him (if he can be identified) and listen to his story.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    3 April 2014 at 6:05 pm

                    I haven’t seen either of the news clips of him but the Unemployment isn’t working was a jibe against Labour in the 1980s and that he also said that the “unions were dead and you killed them” (paraphrased) which makes me think he’s an old time Labour voter and he’s really, really pissed off.

                    DC was very wrong in his reaction there.

          • Jim Nald 4.2.1.1.2
            3 April 2014 at 2:30 pm

            And Cunliffe should extract a winning line (good luck) from T.I.N.A. Parker for the stupid policy of increasing the age for superannuation ….. the framing has been set by Natz already and is being disseminated by Tory Woteva:

            “Raising the pension age has turned into a story about making hard-working Kiwis work longer so a Labour government can spend more of their hard-earned taxes, according to National’s narrative.”

    • Te Reo Putake 4.3
      3 April 2014 at 9:06 am

      A schoolkid, I’m guessing, logie. Or maybe a a uni first year?

    • ianmac 4.4
      3 April 2014 at 9:07 am

      Tried to interpret the “settings” logie. Seems to be a soapbox where anyone can say what would get their vote. The Jo Maddren piece is pointless really. No issue other than he/she will vote National.
      Maybe they are students? Hence Assignments.

    • freedom 4.5
      3 April 2014 at 9:22 am

      Introducing Stuff Nation was a master stroke of the Stuff propaganda machine.
      They say they are letting the public have an open voice in the MSM and everyone can contribute. Hard to argue with that and best to ignore the often right leaning regularity of published opinion because what makes the Stuff Nation contributions so interesting is they usually have comments open.

      Over the 2 years (?) of this feature being active, the comments section on these pieces are often a lot more interesting and more well informed when compared to comments (and articles) elsewhere in the ‘newspaper’.

      • Tracey 4.5.1
        3 April 2014 at 9:39 am

        I wonder how many aliases Slater has used?

        • freedom 4.5.1.1
          3 April 2014 at 9:45 am

          🙂 There does seem to be some similarities now you mention it.
          … but does Slater know that many words?
          I only ask because many of the comments are longer than Slater’s articles

    • Draco T Bastard 4.6
      3 April 2014 at 10:11 am

      It seems to be part of Stuff’s citizen journalist campaign.

    • David H 4.7
      3 April 2014 at 11:27 am

      Yeah but getting spanking in the feedback for the ‘in her mind’ drivel.

    • millsy 4.8
      3 April 2014 at 11:45 pm

      When I saw the title “National have my vote” I decided to not waste my time.

  5. Ron 5
    3 April 2014 at 9:06 am

    Film Tax Credits – Costly Giveaway to Hollywood

    A recent “The Economist” (The Economist Jan 18 2014) has an article on “Corporate Welfare” a peculiar type of aid to the movie and television business which consists of USA states making interest free loans and tax credits to production companies.
    Louisiana for example have a 40% Tax Credit available, while New York has a budget of $420m dedicated to film making.
    The problem is how do you calculate the benefit a dollar spent on film as opposed one spent on other normal state services e.g. roads.
    The article noted that Pinewood once a home to major British productions is opening a 288 acre facility in Georgia USA, citing its “great crew base” One would imagine the great crew come at a cheaper rate than back home in UK . The article further states that independent research finds that tax credits for film makers, serves mainly to help film makers.
    One study in Louisiana found that for every dollar the state received in revenue from film production it spent $7.29 on credits. Furthermore jobs created by productions do not last.
    Asking why the schemes are so popular they opine that partly because politicians like having their photo being taking with films stars.

    Interesting that Michigan thought that pouring money into film makers pockets would offset job losses in the car industry. It didn’t and the project has been scaled back.

    One wonders about the NZ reports that lauded the pouring of money into Hollywood as being so good for NZ. Of course I accept that our Prime Minister would never be so facile as to want his photo taken with film stars – would he.

    For those interested in The Louisiana study you can find it here. Well worth reading
    Film Funding

  6. karol 6
    3 April 2014 at 9:09 am

    Interesting Matt McCarten innovation: Labour Caucus “war room”

    Will be watching to see if this makes an impact.

    • Skinny 6.1
      3 April 2014 at 12:58 pm

      Ha ha I laughed when I read this in this mornings NZH, there will be a few MP’s noses outof joint. I would not be surprised if there were no chairs for people to lounge around in, typical Matt it’s all hands on deck. Big fan of McCarten I love it!

  7. The Baron 7
    3 April 2014 at 9:37 am

    So what’s with The Standard these days? Over the last couple of weeks, most of the content seems to be syndicated from other blogs, with only Mickey coming along with the same laughably wrong analysis he helps Cunliffe with and karol over analysing everything as a neoliberal conspiracy.

    I would have thought that in an election year, the standardistas would be lining up to try take the govt down. Instead… Silence. And linking to those actually with something to say.

    Seems like you’re giving up already, Lynn et al.

    • Tracey 7.1
      3 April 2014 at 9:42 am

      Maybe the contributors here have to work unlike Slater and Farrar who one way or another are paid to blog?

      Kind of a relfection of the views each blog represents. The Standard has people who have to work for a living and can only champion causes in spare time, while KB and WO are actually well financed organs of politically aligned well-heeled personages? Just a thought. It does mean Open Mike is well used, and general commenters can draw attention tot heir own stuff.

      maybe at WO and KB it’s very important to keep feeding the info from the top so the readers know what to “think” each day?

      • mickysavage 7.1.1
        3 April 2014 at 11:37 am

        Aye Tracey.

        The Standard has always survived on voluntary efforts from people with lives and jobs. If only the left had the same resources that Slater clearly enjoys …

      • Mainlander 7.1.2
        3 April 2014 at 5:11 pm

        Awww i love your blog envy Tracey or might i suggest infactuation the way you continue to bring up Slater, almost as amusing as your h ate filled John Key attacks

    • anker 7.2
      3 April 2014 at 10:04 am

      Actually many of us have joined the I am In campaign and working our buts off at the Coal face to get Labour (Green/Mana) elected.

    • thatguynz 7.3
      3 April 2014 at 10:29 am

      Yet you still find the time to drop by and regale us with your “witticisms” Baron… Scoot back off to blubber boy where the quantity and “variety” of articles is clearly more to your liking.

    • weka 7.4
      3 April 2014 at 10:40 am

      “Over the last couple of weeks”

      Stephanie Rodgers has written a number of post, and there have also been posts from Lynn, Bill, Bunji, Mike Smith and Geoff.

      Some of the Notices and Features have been put up by ts authors as well, but it’s not as obvious as it used to be because the syndicated blogs are also put up under that login.

      I’ve been enjoying the syndicated posts. Baron, not sure why you think that ts should be meeting your needs, but by all means keep on telling ts authors what they should be doing, esp Lynn.

      • bad12 7.4.1
        3 April 2014 at 11:27 am

        Indeed weka, i was going to suggest that ‘the Borer’ arrived here at the Standard this morning with the bowl out begging for ‘a ticket to ride’…

      • Tracey 7.4.2
        3 April 2014 at 11:29 am

        “keep on telling ts authors what they should be doing, esp Lynn.” ROFL

    • lprent 7.5
      3 April 2014 at 12:53 pm

      Yes, well we don’t have the habit of KB and WO of simply quoting newspaper and other blogs with the off “indeed” interspersed. That appears to be the majority of their content

      The posts on the site have always waxed and waned depending on who has time and capability to write. Over the past year, a number of previously active authors have been pulled into new roles where they don’t have time to write or where it is inadvisable for them to blog or where I consider that they have a conflict of interest. It takes time and effort to bring new authors on.

      I’ve been busy. So has everyone else. Fortunately I have about 9 weeks of available holiday before september and Lyn is using most of hers up on film related stuff (that I avoid). My last projects is pretty well through both release and distribution. So that is probably going to change over the winter because I’m planning on taking most of it off to concentrate on this and a few other minor projects..

      But as you say, we have a number of other sites that allow us to showcase their work. So we do in any area where none of our authors has covered the same issues or where it has been done from a different perspective. In the case of most of those sites, there are few or no comments normally. Are you saying that they shouldn’t be commented on here? That is what this site is for…

    • geoff 7.6
      3 April 2014 at 7:28 pm

      Stealing lines from Wayne now?

  8. ianmac 8
    3 April 2014 at 11:05 am

    I have had a reply from the standards committee for media works over the complaint re the 5 March “3 News can reveal David Cunliffe failed to declare a financial trust as MPs are required to do with investments. ”
    Complaint was under fairness and accuracy.
    They do go through the detail comprehensively.
    They end up with:”The Standards Committee has not identified any breach of the relevant standards and accordingly declines to uphold your complaint.”

    Well they did consider the complaint and since they say that they had received complaints (plural) so maybe Paddy might be a bit more circumspect in the future. Maybe.

    • Tracey 8.1
      3 April 2014 at 11:32 am

      Did they give you their reasoning behind the decision?

      • karol 8.1.1
        3 April 2014 at 12:40 pm

        Thank you for your email outlining your concerns about a news story that screened on 5 March 2014 at 6pm.

        The Standards Committee has investigated the footage in relation to your complaint and considered it under the standards you have nominated, Standard 5, Accuracy and Standard 6, Fairness.

        In the introduction to the story it was said: 3 News can reveal David Cunliffe failed to declare a financial trust as MPs are required to do with investments. The Labour leader initially tried to keep the trust off the official record but was forced to make a late change. Political editor Patrick Gower with this exclusive report”

        Later in the body of the report it was clarified:

        Voiceover: “MPs are required to declare all financial interests over $500, yesterday Cunliffe admitted to two trusts.

        Cunliffe: “I’m beneficiary of the Bozzie Family Trust and a bare trust called ICSL which does savings investments.”

        Voiceover: “But a check of the latest register of MP’s pecuniary interests shows only one of these two was actually declared on time. That’s the Bozzie Trust which owns his house, Cunliffe left out the ICSL trust, he was forced to correct the register by making a late declaration posted on the website.”

        We have received a number of complaints about various aspects of this story and the Committee has responded to the specific concerns below. We consulted the reporting team and their comments follow an outline of the particular issue.

        Standard 5 – Accuracy

        We received complaints that it was incorrect to say that David Cunliffe was ‘forced’ to declare the ICSL trust and that he had ‘failed to declare’ the trust.

        David Cunliffe did fail to declare a financial trust. The 2013 Pecuniary Interests Register returns were due by 28 February 2013 – a deadline he failed to meet forcing him to make a subsequent declaration on 16 July 2013. David Cunliffe was forced to correct the register. He sought advice from the Registrar himself – who told Cunliffe to declare it.

        Standard 6 – Fairness

        We received complaints that the statistics provided in the report
        Patrick Gower correctly named David Cunliffe as one of 20,000 investors in the $8 billion fund. $8 billion evenly divided is $400,000. There was no suggestion the trust was evenly divided (we said “if”) – the figures were used to illustrate the size of the trust and level of investments.
        The Committee notes that in a live cross Patrick Gower conveys the information that the investment is less than $100,000. Overall the Committee is satisfied that the report did not mislead and was fair to Mr Cunliffe in this respect as all relevant information was provided to the viewer.

        Some complainants raised the issue that other National MPs had made supplementary declarations after the deadline and that these were not mentioned. The reporting team have said that the ICSL trust became an issue only after David Cunliffe’s problems with the TR Trust (the trust set up for his leadership campaign). They followed up on David Cunliffe’s comments in the stand-up on Tuesday and that’s how the story came about.

        The Standards Committee has not identified any breach of the relevant standards and accordingly declines to uphold your complaint. If you are not happy about this decision you have the right in accordance with Section 7(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 to refer your complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, (P.O. Box 9213, Wellington, http://www.bsa.govt.nz) for the purpose of an investigation and review. You have 20 working days after receipt of this email to exercise this right of referral.

  9. Penny Bright 9
    3 April 2014 at 11:12 am

    FYI

    (My comment – yet to be published).

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/auckland-rescue-helicopter-trust-loses-court-battle-funding-board-sf-154157

    (“Although the helicopter trust agreed to drop further legal battles, it hasn’t dropped its complaint to Controller and Auditor-General Lyn Provost asking her to investigate the operations of the funding board, going back to 2009.”)

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for NZ Auditor-General Lyn Provost to do anything – that’s my experience and considered opinion:

    Seen this?

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/presented/petitions/50DBHOH_PET3196_1/petition-of-penelope-mary-bright-and-13-others-that-the

    Petition of Penelope Mary Bright and 13 others

    That the House conduct an urgent inquiry into why New Zealand Auditor-General Lyn Provost did not disclose that she was a shareholder in Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd at the time she declined to conduct an urgent investigation into the failure of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand to carry out ‘due diligence’ on the increased risk of money-laundering arising from the New Zealand International Convention Centre (Bill) 2013.

    Petition number: 2011/101
    Presented by: Denis O’Rourke
    Date presented: 12 March 2014
    Referred to: Finance and Expenditure Committee

    Why have there not been any MAN ON THE MOON headlines about this development – given that New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be ‘the least corrupt country in the world’ – (and all that garbage) ?

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’

  10. Tracey 10
    3 April 2014 at 11:33 am

    Note to Judith Collins…

    This is how you deal with a conflict of interest… and note that even when you do it this way, it doesn’t look good… so imagine how it looks if you make no declaration

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11231136

  11. Enough is Enough 11
    3 April 2014 at 11:57 am

    I see the National Party run media has completley crossed the line now.

    National were not happy with the way Amy Adams clear conflict of interest was reported. So they have gone straight in for the kill and muzzled the media, to the extent of completley turning the story around.

    This is the kind of stuff you would expect in North Korea. But not here in New Zealand.

    If you care about press freedom and civil rights in New Zealand, you must vote Green in September.

  12. Richard@Down South 12
    3 April 2014 at 12:00 pm

    An email reply I just received re Patrick Gower’s reporting on Cunliffe:

    Standards Committee standardscommittee@mediaworks.co.nz

    10:20 AM (1 hour ago)

    to me, Jodie

    Dear Richard

    Thank you for your email outlining your concerns about a news story that screened on 5 March 2014 at 6pm. The Standards Committee has investigated the footage in relation to your complaint and considered it under the standards you have nominated, Standard 5, Accuracy and Standard 6, Fairness.

    In the introduction to the story it was said: 3 News can reveal David Cunliffe failed to declare a financial trust as MPs are required to do with investments. The Labour leader initially tried to keep the trust off the official record but was forced to make a late change. Political editor Patrick Gower with this exclusive report”

    Later in the body of the report it was clarified:

    Voiceover: “MPs are required to declare all financial interests over $500, yesterday Cunliffe admitted to two trusts.

    Cunliffe: “I’m beneficiary of the Bozzie Family Trust and a bare trust called ICSL which does savings investments.”

    Voiceover: “But a check of the latest register of MP’s pecuniary interests shows only one of these two was actually declared on time. That’s the Bozzie Trust which owns his house, Cunliffe left out the ICSL trust, he was forced to correct the register by making a late declaration posted on the website.”

    We have received a number of complaints about various aspects of this story and the Committee has responded to the specific concerns below. We consulted the reporting team and their comments follow an outline of the particular issue.

    Standard 5 – Accuracy

    We received complaints that it was incorrect to say that David Cunliffe was ‘forced’ to declare the ICSL trust and that he had ‘failed to declare’ the trust.

    David Cunliffe did fail to declare a financial trust. The 2013 Pecuniary Interests Register returns were due by 28 February 2013 – a deadline he failed to meet forcing him to make a subsequent declaration on 16 July 2013. David Cunliffe was forced to correct the register. He sought advice from the Registrar himself – who told Cunliffe to declare it.

    Standard 6 – Fairness

    We received complaints that the statistics provided in the report

    Patrick Gower correctly named David Cunliffe as one of 20,000 investors in the $8 billion fund. $8 billion evenly divided is $400,000. There was no suggestion the trust was evenly divided (we said “if”) – the figures were used to illustrate the size of the trust and level of investments.

    The Committee notes that in a live cross Patrick Gower conveys the information that the investment is less than $100,000. Overall the Committee is satisfied that the report did not mislead and was fair to Mr Cunliffe in this respect as all relevant information was provided to the viewer.

    Some complainants raised the issue that other National MPs had made supplementary declarations after the deadline and that these were not mentioned. The reporting team have said that the ICSL trust became an issue only after David Cunliffe’s problems with the TR Trust (the trust set up for his leadership campaign). They followed up on David Cunliffe’s comments in the stand-up on Tuesday and that’s how the story came about.

    The Standards Committee has not identified any breach of the relevant standards and accordingly declines to uphold your complaint. If you are not happy about this decision you have the right in accordance with Section 7(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 to refer your complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, (P.O. Box 9213, Wellington, http://www.bsa.govt.nz) for the purpose of an investigation and review. You have 20 working days after receipt of this email to exercise this right of referral.

    • karol 12.1
      3 April 2014 at 4:52 pm

      That’s a really slippery standards check by TV3. Three significant bits, that really don’t address the ways the structure of the item, and the decision to make it newsworthy, are biased against Cunliffe in the way he will be seen by a large number of viewers:

      1) dancing on a pin over the meaning/implication of the word “forced’

      Standard 5 – Accuracy

      We received complaints that it was incorrect to say that David Cunliffe was ‘forced’ to declare the ICSL trust and that he had ‘failed to declare’ the trust.

      David Cunliffe did fail to declare a financial trust. The 2013 Pecuniary Interests Register returns were due by 28 February 2013 – a deadline he failed to meet forcing him to make a subsequent declaration on 16 July 2013. David Cunliffe was forced to correct the register. He sought advice from the Registrar himself – who told Cunliffe to declare it.

      That’s totally misleading. It suggested someone focred Cunliffe to make the declaration when he didn’t want to – rather than chaning it himself when he became aware of the issues.

      2)a) The use of the word “if” – how many viewers would take notice of its implications.
      b) ommiting to tell viewers that the money wasn’t evenly divided is misleading the viewers:

      Standard 6 – Fairness

      We received complaints that the statistics provided in the report

      Patrick Gower correctly named David Cunliffe as one of 20,000 investors in the $8 billion fund. $8 billion evenly divided is $400,000. There was no suggestion the trust was evenly divided (we said “if”) – the figures were used to illustrate the size of the trust and level of investments.

      The Committee notes that in a live cross Patrick Gower conveys the information that the investment is less than $100,000.

      3) failure to mention Nats missing the same deadline because Cunliffe’s Trusts issue had already become newsworthy – they fail to acknowledge that it was Gower’s (and others) previous news beat-ups that had led to this becoming “newsworthy”; they also fail to take into account that the two kinds of trusts (Cunliffe’s personal trusts, and the Labour leadership primaries trust), are two different things. They are misleading in connecting them.

      Some complainants raised the issue that other National MPs had made supplementary declarations after the deadline and that these were not mentioned. The reporting team have said that the ICSL trust became an issue only after David Cunliffe’s problems with the TR Trust (the trust set up for his leadership campaign). They followed up on David Cunliffe’s comments in the stand-up on Tuesday and that’s how the story came about.

  13. anker 13
    3 April 2014 at 12:18 pm

    I will keep you updated re my complaints about The Herald.

    I think it is worth doing this, i.e. complaining, even if the decision doesn’t go our way. It must be a pain for them to have to respond (even if the “win”). And at some level if they keep getting these complaints they will think twice, simply for the nuisance factor of being complained against.

    My complaints to the Herald were not responded to, so I went to the Press Council and they were informed by the Herald my email was “overlooked”. They asked for the chance to respond and guess what, I have heard nothing. Another 10 days runs out today at 5pm, so back to the PC.

    • weka 13.1
      3 April 2014 at 1:24 pm

      “I think it is worth doing this, i.e. complaining, even if the decision doesn’t go our way”

      I completely agree. If they get enough complaints then they will take more notice. That those complaints are being published and talked about on social media should make them take notice too.

  14. karol 14
    3 April 2014 at 1:18 pm

    Malicious. How can one get access to the reasons why people on benefits travelled overseas?

    People looking for work in Aussie? People who had good reasons for travelling but failed to get approval fromWINZ?

    21,000 people have benefit cut for travelling overseas.

    • Draco T Bastard 14.1
      3 April 2014 at 1:33 pm

      Every day we hear stories of how people can not live on the benefit. Today you’re hearing that literally thousands can not only live on it but can afford to travel overseas as well.

      Can’t live on it, can’t actually afford to look for work on it for that matter. This would indicate that the people going overseas while on the benefit are probably getting their money from somewhere or someone else. Perhaps they won the trip in competition.

      It certainly doesn’t, as Ms Bennett implies, mean that people living on the benefit are living high on the hog.

      • anker 14.1.1
        3 April 2014 at 6:08 pm

        Yes relative of mine kept getting jobs and then contracts would run out and he would have to start the job hunt again. Another relative gave that person money to go and check things out in OZ.

        They have had no trouble getting work over there.

        Surely though are beneficiaries not allowed to go overseas? Have a break from looking for work. Most of us are allowed a holiday.

        Many families now live in OZ and likely to pay for their down on their luck relative to have a break.

        I personally think this thing of benefits cut for not notifying Winz etc, is against human rights.

      • Colonial Viper 14.1.2
        3 April 2014 at 6:32 pm

        It certainly doesn’t, as Ms Bennett implies, mean that people living on the benefit are living high on the hog.

        This is simply a variation of Reagan’s classic “welfare Queens all drive Cadillacs” meme. Fucking Tories know the right buttons to push and keep pushing them.

        • Draco T Bastard 14.1.2.1
          3 April 2014 at 6:40 pm

          Yep, it’s been a staple of beneficiary bashing by the RWNJs for decades now.

        • Olwyn 14.1.2.2
          3 April 2014 at 6:43 pm

          I cannot believe the propaganda levels today. That Bennett travel story was in the Herald, on Stuff, on Prime, on TV3 – I did not check out TV1. TV3 obediently reiterated the claim that people insist they can’t live on benefits but still manage to travel, along with the alleged $10 mill being saved by cutting their benefits. Then there was the TV3 story that South Auckland is going National, based on three individuals who said they had switched. Meanwhile, Stuff tells us that we are the most progressive people in the whole wide world. Are we going to have to endure this right through to the election, for God’s sake?

          • Draco T Bastard 14.1.2.2.1
            3 April 2014 at 6:45 pm

            Are we going to have to endure this right through to the election, for God’s sake?

            More than likely.

          • karol 14.1.2.2.2
            3 April 2014 at 6:59 pm

            TV One gave two sides to the issue. Comment from an Auckland Action Against poverty spokesperson saying it’s more beneficiary bashing. Comment from Metiria Turei saying they are allowed up to 28 days abroad for special circumstances.

            TV one also reported that about 4,488 people got their benefits cancelled because they failed to notify WINZ they were back in the country – that that brings the total figure down to 1,500 – what else?

            • Olwyn 14.1.2.2.2.1
              3 April 2014 at 7:17 pm

              I will have to start turning to TV1 – that at least sounds somewhat balanced. At the same time I’d like to know why Bennett’s press releases so frequently become news – these beneficiary bashing “news” items seem to appear with clockwork regularity.

    • greywarbler 14.2
      3 April 2014 at 2:26 pm

      I have heard that an older woman wanting to travel to Oz to see children was refused permission as she should be here in NZ looking for work. This shows the hypocritical lying attitude of right wingers who are always baying about family being vital, fathers being included, and so on, yet really do not care at all about the strength of families and their supportive human interaction.

      It’s just the money involved in government helping other people’s families not exclusively their own. It would be better spent on being invested in their own where it would ensure they would grow up well educated and schooled in all the arts of being socially impressive so they can be the new elite.

    • Aww 14.3
      3 April 2014 at 6:27 pm

      Could it be that a sizeable portion are…looking for work?

      Some will also be going over for health reasons, or to visit family. Visiting family might not sound like a reasonable decision, but what if you were a refugee who was isolated in the community, suffering from PTSD, and dreadfully homesick?

      The seething mass that used to be compassion in this country is a distant memory.

  15. greywarbler 15
    3 April 2014 at 2:39 pm

    Interesting stats on Chinese tourism from South China Morning Post of 2013. And on the rush of blood from being the tops, which was once the motivation for autocratic USA behaviour.
    http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1187272/forbearance-rude-mainland-chinese-travellers

    China’s Vice-Premier Wang Yang in May 2013 acknowledged that “uncivilised behaviour” by its citizens abroad was harming the country’s image. He cited “talking loudly in public places, jaywalking, spitting and wilfully carving characters on items in scenic zones”. Destination countries have been easing visa restrictions to attract more tourists from China, but reports have emerged of complaints about etiquette.

    Global tourism is being driven by mainland visitors, their numbers surging annually by double-digit percentages. Chinese are expected to become the biggest outbound market this year, overtaking Americans and Germans with 95 million trips and US$110 billion in spending. But while they are being welcomed with open arms by governments, they are not always as warmly greeted by locals. As in Hong Kong, manners and habits are criticised most…..

    a widely circulated video of a Chinese People’s Political Consultative Committee member in Yunnan province smashing an airport check-in counter in a fit of rage, the internet is awash with postings of how poorly behaved mainlanders can be when travelling

  16. Pete George 16
    3 April 2014 at 3:09 pm

    Those who think New Zealand is going to hell in a handbasket should instead be proud of our greatness.

    NZ Ranked World’s Most Socially Advanced Country

    New Zealand topped the rankings across a wide range of measures–according to the Social Progress Index 2014 which ranks 132 countries based on their social and environmental performance. The result was described as “exceptional” by Michael Green, Executive Directive of the Social Progress Imperative.

    Key New Zealand findings:

    Of the 54 indicators measured within each country to make up the overall Index ranking, New Zealand scores top spot in no less than 20, across a wide variety of different measures. These include tying in first place globally on measures of homicide (less than 2 per 100,000 people); levels of corruption and religious tolerance.

    Strengths:

    H New Zealand scores strongly on the ‘Access to Basic Knowledge’ component finishing 2nd globally. Included in this is secondary school enrollment on which New Zealand scores top.

    H New Zealand also finishes top ranked on ‘Personal Freedom and Choice’, owing to impressive results on religious freedoms and freedom over life choices.

    H On ‘Tolerance and Inclusion’ New Zealand scores fourth globally, thanks partly to its high tolerance for immigrants and religious tolerance.

    H On the ‘Access to Information and Communications’ measure New Zealand scores 7th globally, which is a relatively strong result compared to countries of a similar GDP. The result owes partly to an exceptionally high rate of mobile telephone subscriptions (more than 110 for every 100 people) as well as ranking number one globally for press freedoms.

    Other findings

    According to the researchers New Zealand doesn’t have any specific weaknesses.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1404/S00059/nz-ranked-worlds-most-socially-advanced-country.htm

    Maybe they didn’t look very closely in some of the political, and everything is relative, but this is a good pat on the back for the quality of life in New Zealand.

    • Tracey 16.1
      3 April 2014 at 3:12 pm

      did key get back to you on where he got his ece calculations yesterday.

      • Pete George 16.1.1
        3 April 2014 at 3:18 pm

        No. If you get anything from ministers it can be weeks rather than days, if ever.

      • Tracey 16.1.2
        3 April 2014 at 3:21 pm

        do you know where we were ranked 6′ 12, 18 years ago?

        • Pete George 16.1.2.1
          3 April 2014 at 3:29 pm

          This is a new measure so it’s not possible to compare with previous years or centuries..

          Social Progress Index launched to enable better understanding of worldwide progress and growth

          The Social Progress Index, created by a team led by Professor Michael E. Porter of Harvard Business School, is designed as a complement to GDP and other economic indicators to provide a more holistic understanding of countries’ overall performance. Measuring a country’s social progress outcomes the Index identifies a number of areas in which New Zealand is performing strongly compared to countries with a comparable GDP per capita, including on ‘Personal Rights’, ‘Water and Sanitation’ and ‘Personal Freedom and Choice’

          The top five countries are:
          1. New Zealand
          2. Switzerland
          3. Netherlands
          4. Iceland
          5. Norway

          Of course every country could be going backwards and we’re just deteriorating less, but this has to be a very positive accolade for New Zealand.

          • Paul 16.1.2.1.1
            3 April 2014 at 6:55 pm

            Just a pity then that our economic policies are so regressive. But the Herald and you won’t focus on that.
            Change some social policies, but ramp up the neoliberal doctrine so NZ is rapidly becoming one of the most unequal countries in the OECD.
            For 30 years NZers have been encouraged to turn away from looking at what’s been happening in the economic sphere..look at how the nuclear stand off puffed up our chests so much we forgot to worry what Roger Douglas was doing to the country.
            But the owners of the Herald and many others in the media have benefited from the looting of the country and so continue to provide the propaganda that NZ is wonderful country to live in.
            It may be for you Pete….but it’s not for the 285 000 kids in poverty.

    • karol 16.2
      3 April 2014 at 3:28 pm

      In a Stuff article, the Greens are reported to have pointed out some strengths and weaknesses of the Index, and NZ’s scores. For instance, they pointed out, there are some gaps in the data included in the Index

      The result was particularly impressive in the context of New Zealand’s “relative economic weakness” compared to countries that finished much lower on the SPI, Green said.

      “People always say it’s going to be the Scandinavians who come top, and they have done well,” Green said.

      “But what’s striking about New Zealand’s result is that it has only the 25th GDP in the world. Per capita, that’s half of Norway’s. On half the income, NZ can show higher social progress than Norway.”

      New Zealand did not have any specific weaknesses on the SPI, Green said, but its lowest scoring indicator – at 115th globally – was obesity.

      New Zealand also ranked poorly in suicide – 76th globally.

      Green said the project highlighted where there were data gaps, such as violence against women.

      “One of the things we want to highlight as part of this report is that we’re using the best available data that’s globally comparable. But there are data gaps.”

      SPI allowed individual countries to benchmark themselves against peer countries, both at the level of individual indicators as well as overall.

      “If you want to be a successful country, it’s so much more than economic growth,” Green said.

      “If we drive our world on GDP alone, we’re going to miss so much.”

      And the last couple of sentences support some of the points I made in my Rogernomics post today.

      • Pete George 16.2.1
        3 April 2014 at 3:32 pm

        There’s always weaknesses in indexes, and also in countries, but its worth striving to remain on top of the index.

        I agree that all is not good, especially on all violence, not just violence against women, and the closely related issues of alcohol and drug overuse and abuse.

        As Greens say (and I’m sure have said before) there are things as important as economic well being.

        • marty mars 16.2.1.1
          3 April 2014 at 10:27 pm

          “I agree that all is not good, especially on all violence, not just violence against women, and the closely related issues of alcohol and drug overuse and abuse.”

          I agree that violence must be addressed and it is all violence. The expression of violence is subtle and gross, obvious and hidden and should be intolerable in our society – but instead it is rampant and unrepentant. Once again we must look within ourselves to get to grips with that one.

    • miravox 16.3
      3 April 2014 at 8:19 pm

      Weaknesses: Basic needs, ranks 18th. (This includes affordable housing and electricity etc).

      We can be grateful for our largely state-funded health and education system for a strong foundations of well-being score – the other top nations are similarly blessed with public provision. Our relatively progressively-minded population seems to account for the best score in the ‘Opportunity’ section, imo.

      http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi#data_table/countries/spi/dim1,dim2,dim3

      • karol 16.3.1
        3 April 2014 at 8:32 pm

        It’s also a problem creating checklists, without showing how things like (UN) affordable housing and power impact on people’s alility to take up opportunities in other areas of their lives.

        • miravox 16.3.1.1
          3 April 2014 at 9:01 pm

          Yes, It has no ranking for economic opportunity, from the looks of it. We also rank poorly on availability of affordable housing but high on private property rights – these affect people is quite different ways in terms of opportunities.

          I also have a problem with the relative weighting of the variables. We don’t rank very well on ecosystem sustainability and the more I look into the health scores some are actually really poor. Life expectancy ranking probably pulls the score up.

  17. Draco T Bastard 17
    3 April 2014 at 3:39 pm

    Brian Fallow: Tax by backdoor an odious trick

    He confirmed there had been nothing further from the department since the issues paper, adding that “it is being looked at; it is definitely on the radar”.

    This does nothing to allay the suspicion that the Government is preparing to legislate to deny GST refunds to bodies corporate with leaky buildings.

    But that would be tantamount to saying: “You were legally entitled to register and claim those refunds. As soon as we realised that we stopped you from doing so by administrative fiat and now we are changing the law so you can’t.”

    Quite apart from that odious retrospectivity, it would raise difficult boundary issues.

    No, I don’t normally read Brain Fallow but he’s got a point here – is National trying to put through a nasty bit of unannounced legislation to stop a few people from claiming back the GST that they’re entitled to?

  18. Blue 18
    3 April 2014 at 6:30 pm

    This is a good news day:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1404/S00059/nz-ranked-worlds-most-socially-advanced-country.htm

    Hope that puts a smile on your dial. Cue negative spin in 3…2…1…

    • karol 18.1
      3 April 2014 at 6:47 pm

      Keep up, Blue. It’s already been discussed above.

      • Blue 18.1.1
        3 April 2014 at 7:37 pm

        Thanks Karol, missed it. You can’t blame me for being happy to live in the best country in the world. Least corrupt, most socially advanced, rock star economy. Wonderful.

        • millsy 18.1.1.1
          3 April 2014 at 11:48 pm

          Ask the people in that motor camp in Ranui if they are living in the best country in the world. They will have a different answer.

    • Puddleglum 18.2
      3 April 2014 at 11:29 pm

      Hi Blue,

      I hope you realise that many of the ‘socially advanced’ aspects were courtesy of left-wing initiatives? (Homosexual law reform and gay marriage – Labour and Louisa Wall; access to ‘advanced education’ (i.e., interest free student loans and student allowances) – Labour; public health and education systems – Liberal/Labour; public sanitation and water provision – public sector/local government, etc., etc.).

      The clue to just what aspects of our society put us on top is the company we keep up there – once again it’s the Scandinavian countries (+ Switzerland) with their – still – more social democratic policies than anywhere else in the ‘western’ world.

      Are you appreciative of those social democratic policies or do you support their undermining, as is the general policy direction of the current government?

      It’s very odd that right wingers are trumpeting this result given that most of the means for rising up the ranks amount to left wing policy prescriptions.

      The areas we do poorly on (obesity, suicide, environmental sustainability) are where we have succumbed to the modern consumerist and exploitative world.

      In a supreme irony, the one ‘right wing’ mantra (private property rights) which NZ scores high in, is currently being bulldozed in Christchurch.

  19. greywarbler 19
    3 April 2014 at 7:07 pm

    The Social Progress Index, created by a team led by Professor Michael E. Porter of Harvard Business School, is designed as a complement to GDP and other economic indicators to provide a more holistic understanding of countries’ overall performance

    How amusing that this Porter fellow who had so much to do in helping us reach the top of the slide that we are now burning our bums on in our downwards direction should have designed this index and finds we come out so high. Which doesn’t fit with the observable signs around us or the statistics and known facts of our situation.

    I wonder how Japan would rate if it had been studied before Fukushima, and now? Which couldn’t happen as it is all new. But it would be a test of reality. Our reality indicates that we are like a theme park for the visitors to exclaim about, while we all wear masks with smiles. The occasional attack or death of a tourist is hushed up, the facts can’t get in the way of the alluring myths.

  20. amirite 20
    3 April 2014 at 7:08 pm

    Must be a rogue poll, eh? Being constantly ignored by the media.

    Labour/ Greens (45%) regain lead over National (43%) for first time since January while Mana Party & Internet Party discuss alliance

    http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5519-new-zealand-voting-intention-201404030447?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=5519

  21. ianmac 21
    3 April 2014 at 7:19 pm

    Yep Amirite and National down 2.5% to 43% means Hope still twinkles.

  22. Jim Nald 22
    3 April 2014 at 7:22 pm

    Greens on supermarket code of conduct:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1404/S00068/greens-compulsory-code-of-conduct-bill-for-supermarkets.htm

    “The Green Party has launched legislation that will see a compulsory code of conduct brought in for New Zealand supermarkets and a fairer, more transparent system for New Zealand suppliers.”

    Wow. Am about to have dinner and I think I like my greens even more 🙂

  23. greywarbler 23
    3 April 2014 at 7:31 pm

    Funding is going to be lessened then withdrawn from long-term biosecurity research into the fruit fly etc. I think it has been going on too long for the government, which we know has a very instant gratification focus.

    The facts are that scientists have made some breakthrough findings about fruit fly types (I’m not scientific but at least I do know that bio-s is important).

    However they applied for funding and had their names on the wheel which was revolved and the pointer came down on someone else’s project. So these scientists are just bad losers and moaning on because they lost. Like they think they are important or something.

    The Bio-Protection Research Centre, based at Lincoln University in Canterbury, has been told that it will receive no more money from the Tertiary Education Commission.
    The grants are worth about $3.4 million a year to the research centre.
    Bay of Plenty orchardist Chris Dunn says decisions like this are an example of the Government trying to give up responsibility for bio-security.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/240643/fruit-fly-'key-reason'-for-funding-research

    Another fruit fly found at Whangarei. There is a big marina there, popular stopping place and presumably there will be attention to this possible site of incursion?
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/240634/labour-wants-some-fruit-from-australia-banned
    Labour wants some fruit from Australia banned
    The male Queensland fruit fly was found on Tuesday in a surveillance trap in the harbour suburb of Parihaka. It was caught just 400 metres from where another was found in January this year….
    Labour’s spokesman for primary industries Damien O’Connor said the latest incursion shows there is a pathway for the pest into Whangarei that has yet to be identified and the Government’s lack of action is putting the horticulture sector in grave danger.

  24. greywarbler 24
    3 April 2014 at 9:15 pm

    I notice that my Mozilla Firefox is still saying Hello World.

  25. Scott1 25
    3 April 2014 at 9:31 pm

    I heard Sue Moroney on the radio trying to counter the story from Paula Bennett’s side regarding the people on benefits taking trips overseas and having their benefits suspended.

    I had a couple of concerns

    1) Her talking to the issue gave the issue legs. The radio was making a story of how Labour had responded to it

    2) Labour was clearly on the wrong side of that issue in terms of public opinion unless it was willing to come out and go “We’d hit them harder!”. Defending Beneficiaries rights to have their trips overseas paid for by relatives is something the Greens can do, but Labour has too many current or potential working class supporters who haven’t been overseas for years because they can’t afford it.

    3) She had a bit of difficulty staying on message in her response to the story. It is a tricky one because this is a straight forward trap set by the National strategy team – but you have to be prepared.

    Regarding the social progress story I think claiming it as Labour’s is an OK way to go – it is also a good point in that these things are not things you turn on a dime – they are the result of decades of policies and other factors.
    A more subtle way to do that is to highlight how NZ and the more socialist Nordic countries always top these studies instead of the USA etc.

  26. Clemgeopin 26
    3 April 2014 at 11:34 pm

    The latest Roy Morgan poll:

    Labour/ Greens (45%) regain lead over National (43%) for first time since January

    National………..43 per cent (down 2.5),
    Labour………….32 (up 0.5),
    Green…………..13 per cent (down 1),
    NZ First…………5.5 (up 2),
    Cons. Party…….2.5 (up 1),
    Maori Party…….1.5 (down 0.5),
    Act………………..0.5 (no change),
    United Future….0.5 (unchanged),
    Mana……………..0.5 (up 0.5),
    Internet…………0.5 (up 0.5).

    http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5519-new-zealand-voting-intention-201404030447

    • Zorr 26.1
      3 April 2014 at 11:47 pm

      This is also significant:
      “Of all electors surveyed 5.5% (up 1.5%) didn’t name a party.”

      And government confidence is down…

      There could possibly be something in this. Or not. But I live in eternal hope…

      • Clemgeopin 26.1.1
        4 April 2014 at 12:27 am

        It is the worm. The turning worm I think.
        Hopefully, people are beginning to see through National’s evil policies, lies and bullshit.