The future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades

Well Jianqi has corralled his lambs and just about got his coalition organised. And when you think of it; coalition is a good name for it since it will be putting out a lot of heat and black smoke and it will bring tears to your eyes before very long.

So what is that blinding light on the horizon? Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Of course not, you silly buggers; it’s that brighter new future we were promised so many times during the last month.

What’s that? You can’t see it? With all due respect, I think you need to take the blinkers off NOW, because Jianqi’s brighter future is here and just keeps getting brighter each day.

Take the economy for example (I wish someone would...). Is that bright or what? Treasury figures are just out on the country’s operating deficit for the four months to Oct 31, 2011. Treasury gave all us voters the low down on how this would work out six weeks ago and now we find they were absolutely...wrong. It was out by 4.1 percent, which doesn’t sound much, but considering this prediction was only made six weeks ago (and half-way through the period in question) it is not particularly bright.

They tell us it was down due to lower Crown revenue and a smaller tax and GST take. So the taxation policy is working well, then...NOT. They can hardly blame the economy on Labour now they’ve been in total control for the last three years!

Maybe we should check out the brighter health outlooks instead. I see National Disgrace is promising to provide even more elective surgery. Goodness me, that sounds great. Furthermore they have a goal of all patients booked for elective surgery to wait no more than four months. Wow – two months less than now. Or is it? Actually no. The whole waiting times issue is a load of lies and deceptions.

You see the current system ‘guarantees’ patients on the list will be seen in six months, but how can they guarantee this, you might ask? Easy, I answer. If they don’t think they can see you in six months; then you don’t get put on the list. This was exposed on National Radio’s Nine to Noon programme of 10 November 2011 where surgeons told Kathryn Ryan exactly how it works and why we have Charity Hospitals in Auckland, New Plymouth and Christchurch performing much needed varicose vein and hernia operations as well as many other surgeries for painful conditions that the DHBs are ignoring.

Okay then let’s look at the brighter future for jobs. That’s always one to get everyone excited. Jianqi tells us the abolition of the youth rates lost us 9000 jobs in one fell swoop. Let’s suspend judgment on that for a moment while we check out the Nats’ brighter future answer to this.

They are going to introduce what they have dubbed a ‘starting-out wage’ which apply to 16 and 17-year-olds beginning work and 18-19 year-olds who have just come off a designated benefit as well as 16-19 year-olds in training in certain recognised industry training courses. It will be equivalent to 80 percent of the minimum wage (wow $10.40 before tax -such generosity). For new young workers this will apply for the first six months with the same employer. Which means if for some reason their employer decided to toss them out after three months (and what is to stop him/her?) they have to start again with their next employer at $10.40 for another period of six months. You see after six months the employer is obliged to pay them the adult rate, so with an easy out at three months it is easy to see what will happen to many.

So what is really giving us a brighter future Jianqi? Certainly nothing in this lot. But perhaps it is your plan for asset sales ... er sorry ‘the mixed ownership model’? Now in the lead up to the election we were told the change to the ‘mixed ownership model’ would net us $7B. That sounds quite a tidy sum, but how did the Nats arrive at it? Well, unfortunately we don’t know because they muzzled treasury and the Ombudsman before the election. I can think of only one reason why they would do that, and it has nothing to do with ‘commercial sensitivity’. It is ‘political sensitivity’ because when you discover the whole concept has been built upon figures that don’t add up, it suddenly becomes a far more worrying matter than simply losing the income from these assets. After all that pain was supposed to bring gain. But realistically what sort of gain could it ever bring other than a very brief elation rather like when you sell your house and have a whole lot of money ....but nowhere to live, because you didn’t get as much as you thought for it.

I am the first to admit that my understanding of economics is rudimentary at best, although lately I have begun to realise I share this level of expertise with those in treasury who get paid far more than I could hope to earn. So at this point I should defer to those who actually work in the money market.

Auckland financial analyst Brent Sheather, and NZ Herald business columnist Brian Fallow have both laid out a very convincing analysis of the situation You can find details of their analysis at http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2011/11/24/gordon-campbell-financial-analysts-jump-ship-on-asset-sales/ but in a nutshell Sheather says To get these asset sales, the Government will need to price the companies at price-earnings multiples of somewhere around 14 to 16 times, which implies after-tax earnings yields of 6 to 7 per cent. The 7% is the profits of the company after tax. So the company could pay out 4% as tax free profit, and re-invest the other 3% for more growth. Either way, that’s going to be nearly twice the 4% cost [of the borrowing option.]. Again, these sums indicate that ordinary New Zealanders stand to lose by selling down the assets.

 Both commentators seem to be of the opinion their views are pretty widely shared within the financial community, who is pulling Jianqi’s chain? And more to the point; where is this brighter future coming from?

Maybe it’s coming through the communication companies who are rolling out faster broadband ‘all over the country’. Wow! But wouldn’t it be better if all of us had decent cellphone coverage and television reception first? I mean how fast does broadband have to be? You can only type or click so fast.

Or maybe it’s coming from those nice mining companies. You know the ones. . These guys bring lots of work – they are the good guys. We’ve got a mining inspector so it’s okay. The companies are responsible people. It’s just that they don’t need all that health and safety nonsense because they employ real men, not cry-baby scaredy-cats who worry about being entombed in their workplace, or blown to smithereens.

But wouldn’t our future be so much brighter if everyone just stopped complaining about silly things such as child poverty child abuse, drunk drivers, lousy employers, a failed health system, dirty dairying, degraded environment and a failed education system and just got on with helping Jianqi to help us?

Yeah, right! I might as well toss my shades away for the next three years.

What if they held a party and nobody stood?

I wasn’t going to do another election blog before the end of the RWC (kerchang – sound of copyright lawyers tallying my sins), but events have driven me to it. I mean the idea of Don and Rog sharing a toke or two and sniggering about how JB just ain’t hip, was too tempting to leave.

I can’t help but wonder if Don HAS actually been at the weed, and consuming far more than is good for him, because to pull an idea like that out without first sorting things out with the one horse they are backing who might just get over the finish line seems, well pretty out of it, actually.

Without it ever being one of their poster campaigns, ACT has always been in favour of decriminalisation of dope, albeit more because of their views around personal freedom, but to chuck it out front at this stage of an election year does sound a tad desperate. It is all the more bizarre when espoused by somebody as unlikely as old Dong.

But then I guess the ACT Party has become a bizarre animal that just keeps getting weirder by the day. I don’t know how many of you have visited their website lately, but it is fronted by two grinning geriatrics and a younger male who appears to be gurning. Either that or he is from Dannevirke or Tasmania or Barnsley or...(fill in your own local inbred capital here).

First stop should be the ‘People’ tab which reveals ‘ACT’s People’. The only trouble here is that this includes Rodders who has basically been fired, Bosco who has allegedly just quit, Hevva who was also shown the door, Hills who has also been rather unceremoniously dumped and the aged incumbent Rog who has also signalled his retirement from Parliament.

And if that isn’t bizarre enough; take a look at their 2011 Party List. Now here we have a really funny situation. When you click on any of the three links in the top of the site to meet the team you encounter a most unusual ‘list’.

Grinning inanely back at you from the top is Dong and sitting in number two spot is one of the more shadowy members of the ACT of Stupidity Party, and number three slot is also occupied by a similar dark silhouette of a man. To save you looking it would seem that candidates two and three on the AoS Party list are top secret and we not only may not see their faces; neither are we allowed to know their names. Just fills you with confidence, doesn't it voters?

In other words the ACT list currently has nobody at numbers two or three. This seems bizarre enough on its own, but how do the others sitting at positions four to ten feel about that? I can imagine Dong having to explain how they are all worthy of their respective positions, but it’s just that none of them are good enough to fill places two or three. Dong apparently doesn’t want any of his current batch getting too close to him and presumably has a couple of tame patsies lined up to fill those spots nearer the date when it is too late for any of the others to make a fuss.

That seems the most logical explanation to me. Either that or the AoS Party simply doesn’t want anyone to notice they can’t even muster a list of ten candidates for the election. Perhaps Dong thought the voters were too stupid to notice he had not named anyone for slots two or three?

On the other hand, with this talk of decriminalising the old electric puha, maybe Dong has an even more bizarre agenda. What if he intends to actually run that list as is at the election, and he was simply too stoned when he put it together to noticed his omissions? And what if the electoral commission accepted said list? And what if the ACT of Stupidity Party actually pulled enough votes to land more than one of their space cadets in Parliament? – I know it’s a pretty wild concept, that last paragraph, but bear with me. What then would happen? Would they have to allocate an empty seat in the chamber for the invisible ACT list member?

I know this sounds nonsensical; but let’s not forget a certain John Hadfield who was able to jump parties mid-term, and win a bye-election on the ticket of an unregistered party. Furthermore he now draws a larger draught from the public trough on the grounds he is the leader of a Parliamentary Party that wasn’t even registered to contest the election that put him in as its leader.

Maybe we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss wild speculation where our political system is involved?      

Out with the old, in with the older?

Wonderful news! In election year we have another new party to deliver us from the boredom dished out by all the other losers in this un-beautiful game.

Well actually, strictly speaking it isn’t a new party; it’s actually a rather old(er) one that appears to be getting a new face-lift (or is that Botox injections?).

You see the new re-vamped and dynamic party that is going to take New Zealand by storm is the Association of Consumers & Taxpayers (that’s ACT – not Act as so many nitwits write).

Yes the old party is getting new life – or should that be the new party is getting old life? God help us there are enough dried arrangements among them to hold a florists convention.

Time was (and still is, I hope) when we had begun to celebrate the fact that most of us live longer than our forebears. Ref: the forebears were: Mummy Bear, Daddy Bear, Baby Bear and Lodger Bear.

We were proud of the fact we carry on activities long after the use-by date our ancestors thought appropriate. And for the most part it has been a good thing – apart from a few horrendous old bats dressing up in clothes designed for their grandchildren or great grandchildren and some silly old buggers fathering kids in their 70s, which I think is just plain wrong, not to mention an abomination for their 30-year-old wives.

Repulsive those these images are they are like a beautiful vision upon which to meditate compared with the implied rejuvenation of the ACT party. I think all politicians should be required to complete an Enduring Power of Attorney in regards to their care and welfare so that when they go completely ga-ga we can remove them to a place of safety and (more importantly) AWAY from the corridors of power.

Just look at the new face of the ACT party. It is not the sort of visage one associates with bright NEW opportunities. Their front bench even includes one old bugger who’s still on the reserves bench at the very least until after November. As for the rest of them, I doubt if there are more than two who could possibly be under fifty years of age. Sir Rogernomics is nearly 80; Dong Brash is 70 odd; Rodders is for the high jump (probably because he is too young for their new vision; Boscawen can’t be far short of 60; and Hilary Calvert must be 50 odd, given she was a lawyer for 25 years.

I reckon ACT will be lucky to return with as many seats as they have currently. But if they do it is going to be with an extremely aged caucus. Voters might do well to give thought to whether they would have enough years left in them to still be on the perch come 2014.

If you consider Brash, Boscawen, Banks & Bob the Builder (who seems to be their latest bright young thing) as likely then between them their combined ages must push close to 300 – and with all this surge of geriatric energy old Rogernomics might decide to stand again and take tea average age up to around 70.

So what is it with the ACT party? Why do they imagine that a bunch of old farts would be better than some new blood? Well first of all I doubt that anyone under 50 would have a bar of ACTs policies and secondly, and I think this is the real reason; these old buggers are suffering from a rare type of dementia. It’s called Prick’s Disease; rather like Pick’s disease which causes changes in character, socially inappropriate behaviour, a decline in the ability to speak coherently and poor decision making, The difference between Pick’s and Prick’s Disease is the type of people it affects.

Thankfully this is all just a sideshow and ACT has about as much chance of getting good voter support as I do. Nobody much under 60 will vote for them anyway and most of their potential voters will forget which day is polling day or get lost on the way to the polling booth. Should they manage to conquer those two obstacles they will the n have to remember what it is they went there for and who they were going to vote for should they remember the first bit.

So roll on November. May you roll all over this useless shower that are going to be draining the money from our wallets for the next three years. Hopefully we will wake up in December and realise it has all been a nasty dream. Alternatively, if ACT does any good, it will be free mobility scooters and incontinence pants for all in the first budget next year.

The natives are revolting and they’re ugly!

Election year is definitely the time that brings out the worst in people. The naked lust for power, the grubby broom cupboard alliances, the sickening photo opps, the name calling....

Yep this is the sort of behaviour we have come to expect from those who ‘lead’ us. Small wonder the place is going to the dogs. (Sorry doggies, no offence, I just haven’t found a better expression for such a state).

Over the last 12 months the parties have all had the old wrecking ball out desperately trying to clear away the debris from their previous shambolic caucuses. Already there have been a few squeals from those getting trashed in the worst possible way.

Labouring’s Crass Carter even had the temerity to lob a couple of grenades back at his leader Phil Pants, but because he throws like a girl they kind of bounced back and blew him to pieces, but not in the way he would have liked.

Of course Pants also had his pulled down over the Darien Hoose saga. I think ol’ Phil was a bit unfairly slagged on that one. He did do the right thing; it just took him a while to make up his mind.

Of course the more alert ones among you will have noticed that both these Labouring examples were gay. Do we detect a little anti-gay bias in the Labouring Party then?

Hell no, Damien O’Gonner was just messing with them when he said that!

Of course the National Disgrace Party has had its moments as well. Patsy Went Wong got herself in the hot noodles when her hubby used OUR MONEY to go and further HIS business in China. But notice how leader JiangQi  made excuses for her short term memory loss, then gave her time to make up an excuse, er get her story together, then tried to hide her and send her on holiday before finally having to ‘accept her resignation’.

Then of course we have the case of John Hatfield, the most balanced politician in Aotearoa. Two fucking big chips; one on each shoulder and a superiority complex that defies all logic. This man is often spoken of as being very intelligent but I guess it all depends on what you call intelligence. It might be just me, but I think offending everyone including the party that put you into parliament is not one of those qualities that define a smart person. The guy is obsessed with being the centre of attention, and like a hyperactive child he doesn’t know when to stop. Even the bad attention seems to be better than none for him.

Still well done HH, I doubt that you’ve only sunk yourself; I suspect your antics have also put a whacking great hole in your ex party’s waka as well.  

Then Acting Party leader Rodney Lied caught a whiff of mutiny in the air and tried to dispatch Heather Royboy. But our Heather is a soldier and she was more than a match for Rodders. Royboy must have one or two influential friends in the party hierarchy because although he somehow managed to lever her out of the deputy seat, he couldn’t get rid of her altogether and she remains steaming in the corner and no doubt plotting her revenge.

I suspect that one of those chooks might be coming home to roost at this very moment, because it would seem that Rodders now faces a challenge from Dong Brash. Now it might seem silly and I can understand you thinking he has nothing to fear from probably the world’s most boring man, but it rather looks like the old dullard also has some big Acting mates.

It really is bizarre and you would have to wonder if the Acting Party strategist is actually working for the other side to even think of bringing back old Dong. Mind you they do attract quite a lot of bizarre characters into their parliamentary ranks.

The party has only been around a little over a decade and it has already had three ‘colourful’ leaders. I’ve always felt Rogered Douglas was a weird old bugger and Prebs was known as Mad Dog Prebble with pretty good reason and now they’ve got Rodney Lied who is actually madder than the previous two put together. Dong would probably be perfectly well suited among this sort of company. However despite the fact the old duffer is unquestionably as mad as the other three, there is still one thing they all had/have that he does not - a personality.

Now it might sound shallow but the reality is that you do need some sort of personality to win an election and this is even more important in the case of a party leader. You don’t have to be nice, though. If that were the case, then horrible little vermin like Mulledloon would never have had a show. To lead a party in an election and get its fair share of votes, means you either have to be fawningly, falsely charming or foaming at the mouth despotic. But you have to have some sort of profile. Dong who?