NZ Centre for Political Research

AT last the Nats are starting to hurt their voters and supporters. Their biggest supporter is unhappy. Great.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/04/two_b ... ent-684438

Two bad votes from National

Very disappointed in two first reading votes case last night by the National Party.

The first was against the bill to allow a separate youth minimum wage (went down 5-117). Not only is this a u-turn from the previous position (National voted against Labour abolishing them in 2008), but it is bad public policy. The record high youth unemployment is partly due to young unskilled workers having been priced out of the market.

I wouldn’t be so annoyed if National was voting against it after it had been to select committee. But by voting it down, they are saying we don’t even want to hear the pros and cons of whether having a separate youth minimum wage could help get more young people into work.

SINCE WHEN are attributes such as:

Cheeky
Cool
Out There
Funky
Unusual

AT ALL RELEVANT??? to the LEADERSHIP of a NATION???

And just where do we draw the line between marketing & political leadership?!?!?

Is it OK for the entire world to be reduced to a giant money making SCAM?

And do ANY political parties STILL have SOME PRINCIPLES which benefit humanity FOR THE GOOD???

Good on you Nellie for telling the Nats what you think where it hurts - in their pockets!

Yes, the foreshore and seabed petition is going great guns - 1953 have signed it now!

I hope everyone visiting this site has signed. If not, the link is here: http://www.nzcpr.com/petition_fandsb.php.

The big test will be whether the Prime Minister takes any notice of it. I suspect he damn well won't but at least we are all trying!

Unreal isn't it!! The signatures are mounting in Muriel's petition - now up to 1886. Marvellous - hope they keep on coming.

P3erhaps they will give the note to Nick.
Will he take any notice? No
I will refrain from putting the words in his mouth for you but you maybe can imagine what they will be.
Arrogant A******e that he is.

And here just to remind you of the born to rule attitude from them.

http://nominister.blogspot.com/2010/04/ ... -then.html

Quite a timely article, Amy. Today I received notification for renewal of my National Party subscription which I didn't renew in December when it was due. I have returned the letter with a note on it stating in no uncertain terms why I won't be renewing my membership or even voting for National in the next election. I listed everything that I'm unhappy with very clearly. I felt a teeny weeny bit better for being able to thumb my nose at them. So unlike me to be so nasty. Everything they are getting up to must be bringing a side out in me I hadn't thought I had.

Have you seen Mike Butler's suggestions about the National Party on Breaking Views - http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/.

I couldn't agree more! Now maybe if everyone did it, National would start to get the message!

And the knighthood, Peter!! That's one of the first things he prepared for by bringing it all back when he first got into office - remember? I agree with everything else you said. If it won't make any difference, why sign on then?!! I hope you are all counting down as Pita will be preparing his submission to the United Nations to start on his separatist road. What's the bet it happens soon??!! He's probably already prepared it in advance and filed it while he was over there for the signing. My word, they kept it quiet didn't they. Is there a worse word than 'disgusted' which doesn't seem to quite represent the intensity of my feelings?

Wow !!! John Key certainly knows how to stick it to people.I get the feeling he is using an old technique that suggests he get it all over with well before the next election in the hope that all the objections will be forgotten by then.
I have just read a press article where he says that signing on to the declaration of rights of indigenous people will make no practical difference,why the hell sign on then.
With all his big noting off shore it is obvious that he is planning for the future,like Aunty Helen in the United Nations somewhere.

I absolutely agree with you, Amy. I can't get rid of a deep sinking feeling in my stomach today. I feel there is no hope for us at all, or at least until we get rid of them but in the meantime goodness knows what havoc they are going to wreak upon us. Why on earth are they still riding high in the polls? Are the people in this country total idiots? I feel we now have to press on refuting that people of Maori descent are indigenous. They came here like the rest of us in boats and there is evidence, though suppressed, that there were people other than Maori here before them.

Apparently 17 cabinet ministers were against the ETS but cabinet ruled it must go ahead!!

We must now fear very much what is going to be offered regarding the Foreshore and Seabed. Whatever it is, (and it will be something we won't like, of that I'm very sure) I'm definitely not voting National in the next election. Will look to ACT (please get into gear Rodney) or the Kiwi Party (will have to learn more about the latter). Maybe Winston might be in contention even, though I can't believe I just said that!! I surely must be desperate.

God I'm disappointed in National!

First the ridiculous ETS.

Then the foreshore and seabed.

Now the declaration of rights of indigenous people.

John Key is a disaster. Power has gone right to his head. He has no principles. Why the hell his colleagues don't pull him into line I will never know - they must all be totaly gutless!

Grrrrrrrr......

Finlayson Compromised.

Top lawyers criticised for refusal to talk
By PHIL KITCHIN - The Dominion Post
Last updated 05:00 19/04/2010

The Crown's two top lawyers are under fire for not explaining their failure to correct a submission to the Supreme Court.

The submission – on a case involving a Supreme Court judge now under investigation – was later found to be glaringly wrong.

Solicitor-General David Collins, QC, said he would not comment on any issues involving a complaint to the judicial conduct commissioner about Justice Bill Wilson.

Dr Collins said that, because Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, the Crown's senior lawyer, might have to make a decision on the complaint, it would be inappropriate for either to comment.

Their refusal to speak on the subject was criticised yesterday by Peter Radford, a wool grower at the centre of the controversy.

"It is too late now for the attorney-general to take off his boots, clean his fingernails and pretend he is an independent referee," Mr Radford said. "His elbows are still muddy from intervening in the Supreme Court, where he encouraged the court to adopt the statement of his friend Justice Wilson."

Mr Finlayson has previously said all decisions on Justice Wilson were made by Dr Collins. He once told Parliament the real test of a politician was not if he stood up to his enemies but if he stood up to his friends.

Justice Wilson failed to disclose that he owed Queen's Counsel Alan Galbraith $242,000 when he sat on a case in which Mr Galbraith represented the former Wool Board.

The board was appealing against a High Court decision in favour of a group of wool growers seeking millions of dollars from the board. Justice Wilson and two other Court of Appeal judges found in favour of the board.

But then Mr Radford – one of the growers – discovered deeper business links between Justice Wilson and Mr Galbraith than the judge disclosed.

The Supreme Court then heard Mr Radford's claim of apparent bias by Justice Wilson, and at that hearing the solicitor-general intervened on behalf of the attorney-general because the case involved the administration of justice.

The attorney-general's submission said Justice Wilson's disclosure of his financial ties to Mr Galbraith should be accepted and there was no reason for the judge to have stepped aside.

The court agreed, but also said that, if Justice Wilson had been in debt to Mr Galbraith, the outcome might have been different.

In the following months Mr Radford discovered more on the business links.

At the same time, retired judge Sir Edmund Thomas alerted Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, Mr Finlayson and Dr Collins to allegations that Justice Wilson owed Mr Galbraith hundreds of thousands of dollars and was being pressed to pay it.
Ad Feedback

Sir Edmund alleged Justice Wilson had not made full disclosure to the Supreme Court "when under an obligation to do so".

"The integrity of the court must be the primary concern," he said.

Justice Wilson was asked to provide more information and finally disclosed that he owed Mr Galbraith hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Supreme Court then held a second hearing and ruled that its earlier decision was unsustainable and Justice Wilson should not have sat on the case.

The attorney-general made no submissions to the second hearing.

Judicial Conduct Commissioner Sir David Gascoigne is now investigating complaints against the judge.

The Dominion Post asked Mr Finlayson and Dr Collins if they had felt an obligation as officers of the court to correct their earlier submission immediately on knowing the facts had changed.

Mr Finlayson referred the question to Dr Collins, who would not comment, but said more details "may be" provided when Sir David completed his investigation.

Mr Radford said that, considering Mr Finlayson's "actions to date and his friendship with Justice Wilson", the attorney-general should not be making decisions when the judicial conduct commissioner's investigation was concluded.

He should explain why his submission was not corrected when he became aware that Justice Wilson's statement was not full and frank, Mr Radford said.

Oh but Nellie there was a global financial crisis!
One we had before anyone else and one that seems destined to continue here for sometime.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/04/no_mo ... ent-677837

Put a few thoughts on the subject here.

And yep you are right spot on in the target. 40 ish?

Viking, you must try to stop winding me up and who said I'm middle aged - though I suppose you can be classified as getting there from the early 40's?! I've admitted and apologised for my folly and am now taking my punishment, along with the rest of us. I've quite gone off our local MP of late I'm sad to say, even though he is a good constituency MP, and didn't put my name forward when they asked for 'helpers'!!

There will be no lollies that will tempt me other than decent leadership and doing what's right for this country and we aren't seeing anything much in that direction at all. There are a couple of glimmers but they should have come out of the stocks fighting right from when they got into power. Their rhetoric was such during the campaign that we expected no less.

Bolger is gone. New appointments out yesterday.

Nellie, you are right in the middle of Key's demographics that he wants to please. Middle aged ladies are his swinging voters.
He will have a lolly for you somewhere.
Of course we must remind you that you fell in love with his clown from Nelson.