It's official - the government doesn't care!

The Hobbit, a book by JRR Tolkein or a defining moment when workers rights were sold down the river by John Key and his merry men?

There are always two sides to any story, the left and the right (unions and employers), those directly affected, those who the issue will have no effect, those who care, those who don't - and those in NZ and those outside.


In today's NZ Herald there  appeared this poll - and from the early results the majority seem to think it is wonderful that the PM has forfeited the rights of workers and plans to pass a change in labour laws in under 24 hours to appease a Hollywood media giant. Contrast this with yesterday's comment piece, where many, particularly those from overseas, could see that New Zealand, well maybe not all the country but the government, was being played by big business. As Brian Rudman put it,

Not so long ago, the rest of the country guffawed at Wellington planning to rename itself Wellywood.

Now the whole country seems to have taken leave of its senses, demanding we rename New Zealand "Hobbiton" and elevate the Gnome of the Wairarapa, Sir Peter Jackson, to be our Lord and Master. Have we no sense of shame, or of the ridiculous?

On Monday, Samuel Parnell, the father of the eight-hour day, would have turned in his grave at the way the day set aside in his memory was desecrated. Up and down the land, crowds marched and rallied to pledge to be servile to a Hollywood movie conglomerate.

The story has not escaped other news sources (ITN for example) - so globally the people of NZ are seen as Kowtowing to 'save' the production of a movie; The Guardian used the headline 'Picking up the Bilbo'

Key is quoted as saying yesterday

"We will be moving to ensure that New Zealand law in this area is settled to give producers like Warner Bros the confidence they need to produce their movies in New Zealand,"

So they require 'confidence', not money?

So why the change from his earlier stance?

“We'll have to make an assessment about whether we think a clarification in the law would assist economically. If we do, then we might make some changes,”

 So from a might to changing law in 24 hours. And as John Armstrong pointed out today

What kind of a country, however, sells its democratic soul for 30 pieces of silver?
The answer is a small one. And one where the economy shows little sign of recovery in the short term.

As I said before there are lots of sides to every story - lets examine those -

1. So the actors wanted more money? Well they actually wanted the same powers as every other worker, the opportunity to seek a collective agreement in terms of wages and contract conditions - nearly every other group in the country has this, be they doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen. The actors wanted the same deal and were vilified as 'corrupt' and 'uncaring'. So an overseas film company can dictate what rights employees in a sovereign nation - so if a New Zealand company want to runs their business in a uniquely 'Kiwi' way, they'd be encouraged to do so and the laws of that country changed to meet their needs?
2. The film was already a done deal? Well actually no; MGM is broke, the original director walked away and the project is well behind schedule.
3. It isn't about money? Warner's have stated that the budget was US$500 million; now two years ago that would = NZ$1 billion; with exchange rate movements that figure is nearer NZ$1.5 billion - New Zealand is no longer a cheap option (although our pay rates are far less). One bonus California has over NZ is the ability to use non-union labour, a great way of keeping costs down, and if you can achieve the same in New Zealand....
4. But the tourists won't come to New Zealand! Prove it - tourists came in their droves before The Lord of the Rings trilogy was filmed here and they will continue to come freely long after. Some come for scenery, some for adventure, many to see ex-pat family.
5. Everyone wants the movie here? Well not me if it means workers lose their rights!

Another slant could be added to this; this government has been openly challenging to unions, pro-employers and only too happy to court the popular vote on every occasion. If you had asked me yesterday i would have said this debacle could have been the National governments downfall, instead they may have played their joker and actually picked up support - but wait till the full picture come out.

Another ridiculous idea!

So, it’s official, the government are going to tackle the obesity epidemic and are contributing a massive $2 million to the fight. So, what will they spend their money on I hear you say? Surely, lots of public information campaign using the best brains from the media agencies? Maybe a mass education of families to ensure they have access to home prepared, healthier food? How about funding for sports, so people are more active? A crack team of nutrition advisers working with disadvantaged communities?

Wrong, wrong and wrong again! The $2 million is being spent on ‘increasing surgery’ for the morbidly obese. That’s right, a grand total of 300 operations.

Don’t get me wrong, these people deserve treatment, but why not spend the money STOPPING them from eating themselves to death; why not invest in proper education, stop every corner having a McDonald’s, a KFC or similar on it. From my office window I can see the queue at the drive through at 9am, and they are doing a roaring trade every day.

Want to fund these operations – then slap a burger tax on every burger sold – you’ll soon raise $2 million (and then some). It will also act as a deterrent, encouraging people to actually think about what they eat and penalising them for unhealthy choices. The evidence shows that the biggest influence of change in smokers is increased taxation.

The use of the right word

Maybe it is a sign of aging, but I am increasingly becoming aware of the inappropriate use of certain words. When I was doing my under graduate degree my supervisor was a chap called Peter Callery. One thing that sticks in my head is his criticism of how I attempted to make my writing some how more ‘academic’ by the selective use of big words – as I progressed down my academic career I realised how right he was.

Dr. Callery really disliked the word ‘utilise’; I would have a sentence like

In this paper we utilise the following approaches….

His preference was the word ‘use’ – simple, correct and far more readable. I later found out his first degree was actually in English Language!

So, to the point, what word is bothering me this week?

Well, should you ‘use’ insane or inane?

I guess that depends on the sentence, but generally you hear people, objects (e.g. cars, journeys, buildings, etc) or even policies being described as insane – the definition of which is

not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.

of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.

utterly senseless: an insane plan.

The word you hear less frequently is inane, definition –

lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions. 

empty; void.

something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space. 

So, in real terms people are doing exactly the same as my ‘utilise’ experience, they are using a word inappropriately. The next time you want to be clever, just replace the incorrect ‘insane’, with the more apt ‘inane’, you’ll feel and look much more smart.

Governmental control

Earlier today I received the following message in an e-mail. Of particular note is the three words at the end of the first sentence

support Government policy

So, regardless of whether the information is best practice, evidence based, culturally appropriate or cost effective, if it does not reflect the policy of the current government, thou shalt not produce it in a form that a member of the public could read. Sounds a bit George Orwell to me!

Turning green

Yesterday I lost my virginity – well to be more precise my Hybrid car virginity. A work colleague took a Honda Insight out for a test drive and I hopped in for the ride. Was I impressed? Well it was very plastic inside; it was very quiet in economy mode and the little dials and stuff were impressive. Less impressive were the screams of the engine as it supplemented the system as we climbed a relatively steep hill (at 6000 rpm it reminded me of an electric drill on full power). This got me thinking when in the shower this morning.

The first thought was have I turned green; quite by chance I haven’t eaten any meat for nearly two days, so I must have reduced my carbon footprint considerably, seeing as the production of meat is one of the most energy consuming activities going (as is the refrigeration used to keep it in an edible state). However, the lengthy shower where I have these thoughts probably makes up for any savings.

I also got to thinking about renewable energy sources. I had seen the previous day that the proposed Severn Barrage had been cancelled in favour of several nuclear power stations. As a kid I loved nuclear, it was modern age, it was a symbol of power and it seemed all too good to be true – that was before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl – as an adult I am far more cautious.

Now I can understand that there are ecological reasons behind the cancellation, but are there as big ecological reasons as nuclear waste or accidental radiation release? It is about time governments started selling their green credentials a bit more and actually looked at renewable's in a more proactive manner.

The best advert on New Zealand TV

And they do make some good ones!

Lotto 'Lucky Dog' by DDB NZ and The Sweetshop
- Watch more Music Videos at Vodpod.

And here's another - some people suggest it is fake - possibly!



However, exactly which one came first?

How do you become the CEO of Telecom?

Just been browsing the internet and came across this fella - like me he is Scottish, unlike me he has a doctorate in Geology (well, I have a Masters, but not in Geology). His name is Paul Reynolds and he is the CEO of Telecom. Not really a very bad job - he gets a mere $7 million per year, 17 times your average MP, and probably quite a bit more than the sub $50K that is the average wage.

So how do you get a job like that? I don't mind being their CEO, indeed I wouldn't mind just being a director - look what they get!

During the year ended 30 June 2010, the fees paid to non-executive directors were as follows:

• For the Chairman NZ$435,000;
• For each non-executive director NZ$145,000;
• For the chairman of each of the Audit and Risk Management Committee and Human Resources and Compensation Committee, and Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee (if a different person than the chairman of the board) NZ$30,000; and
• For each member of a board committee NZ$15,000 (excluding the chairman and those persons who chair a committee).*
• For the Telecom board representative appointed to the Independent Oversight Group NZ$30,000.

*No more than one amount for membership of a Board Committee will be paid where a director is a member of more than one Committee.

Unreal - $435K for being the chairman and attending meetings - gees, I could do that!! Obviously there is a catch

No superannuation was paid to any director for the financial year ended 30 June 2010.

Poor directors losing a perk there!

So exactly how do you become a director - does anyone 'ordinary' actually know?

Gross generalisations…. Part Two

After last weeks pointing out of the inane but confusing here are a couple of others.   

Why do people buy hideously coloured cars – egg yolk yellow springs to mind, generally on Mitzi Evo’s, over accessorised Ford’s, etc. In general they also seem to sport ‘bling’ and awful clothes?

Similarly, but oddly different, are those who choose the ‘Ute’ as their ride – again, a gross generalisation, but they are either ‘Rock Chick’ or ‘Bogan’. For those unfamiliar with the term bogan this is what I mean. With no taste in cars, alcoholic beverages, music or sport, this species is highly prevalent, especially in the central north island, Waikato and Manawatu

A typical young, pre-beard bogan

A bogan with their plumage removed

Classic bogan

The Nanny State?

Who needs remote control
From the Civic Hall
Push a button
Activate
You gotta work an' you're late

The words of Joe Strummer – in a recent blog I considered was NZ too democratic for its own good. Now, having had the chance to reflect on that, the outcomes of the local body elections and the political context of New Zealand (as we seeing Rortney Hide going toe to toe with the Maori Party over access to beaches), it would be good to discuss the concept of the ‘Nanny State’.

Returning to the lyrics of the song above – who exactly needs ‘control’? Do we leave ourselves open to be ‘controlled’, do our ‘leaders’ need to have ‘control’ in order to maintain their status and the general equilibrium of society (NB according to Thatcher there is no such thing as society, yet she was one of the most controlling politicians ever!)

 

There is a very interesting and understandable explanation of how politics became ‘left’ or ‘right’ here. What is less well defined is the concept of ‘nanny state’

It is interesting to see how it has been identified as a force for good; in my musings earlier this week I mentioned obesity, tobacco and other harmful things (gambling springs to mind). Anyway, is a government who has ‘controls’ to prevent harm coming to various members of its population actually a nanny state? Some examples

• Having speed limits on roads
• Increasing taxation on harmful substances
• Preventing children from being smacked
• Banning smoking in public places

All four have been contentious issues in New Zealand, generally within the last Labour led administration, and they are arguably one of the reason Labour were voted out. However, whilst exerting ‘control’ all four do exactly what governments are elected to do – to ensure the safety and well being of the population of the country.

Speed limits are there to ensure safety, reduce accidents, minimise wear and tear on roads and structures. Taxation on say Tobacco products increases revenue to assist in treating the ailments cause by that addiction, but also acts as a barrier to taking up smoking. Harming children is just bad – normalising violence is not good (in any case the right did not really explain what the repeal of section 59 was actually for). Same with banning smoking in bars – in prevents the exposure to smoke for those who want a smoke free environment.

None of these are nanny state. So why are the National government afraid to act on our obesity epidemic, our excessive drinking culture and most importantly, ignoring the evidence that drink driving kills? Thinking back to when I studied social policy, rather than taking a pluralist approach, the current government are only really interested in business; their view is self determination, do what suits you, minimise state intervention.

Looking at the second image all I can say is how irrational is that!! Is it time to tell the world about how irrational behaviour will, in the long run, cost the control more than just dollars and cents?

Gross generalisations....

First in a series of I don’t know how many…. I guess this was somewhat inspired by those ‘people of Walmart’ pictures, the train wrecks of life, obese cross dressers, fat women in short skirts, the mis-shapen, the child neglecters, etc…..

Anyway, I frequently have to walk through Rotorua Central Mall, as it is where my work is located. To describe it as a ‘mall’ is a bit misleading, it is a collection of shops, with an enclosed food court, but mainly open to the elements. From my observation today I bring you generalisation number one -

If, as alleged, smoking helps to keep you thin and/or suppresses your appetite, why is it that all people sat on their butts out side the food court, engaging in the self destruction called smoking are in excess of 100kg – and that is the women, not the men, they are even larger?

This links to generalisation two –

Why is it that shop security people are so big that they could not possibly chase any sticky fingered youth? Is it a pre-requisite for the job?

And to close today observations

It would appear that the ability to use a cars indicators in inversely proportional to the size or volume of the exhaust – e.g. if you have a big bore ‘muffler’ (contradiction in terms) you can’t use your indicators – probably as your seat is so far reclined you can barely reach the steering wheel!

So what exactly is racism?

And more to the point, how does it happen, is it appropriate, is it worse in New Zealand or the UK; and possibly why even bother to try to start to explain

* I am explaining as it gets it off my chest - me, today!!

According to the dictionary definition racism is

• the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
• discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

The UN doesn't actually define racism, but instead

• the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. 

So, let's consider some recent media stories, both here in New Zealand and from the UK. In the UK there has been some interesting research on the make up of the prison population - in the 10 years from 1998 to 2008 (when the UK has been under a Labour government) the number of black inmates has doubled. There are now seven times the number of Afro-Caribbean prisoners than the percentage of similar people in the mainstream population; Muslims make up a stonking 12% of the prison population (despite being less than 3% of the general population. So, why is this? Are all black and Muslim people criminals, or, are they more likely to be singled out for custodial sentences - this would certainly link to the second definition. Similarly in New Zealand it is well recognised that Maori and Pacific Islanders are over represented in custodial statistics. Maybe there is some truth to the over representation by virtue of committing more crime - if you are in a situation that is perceived by you as hopeless, where your peers are in gangs, where the education, welfare and health systems have failed you, you are more likely to go off the rails - and of course minorities are over represented in these groups.

Meanwhile in the media in New Zealand we have witnessed not one, but two media 'personalities' engage in real 'racist' activity. The first is the Paul Henry case - he's gone, which is good news. The second is the Michael Laws case; he is another outspoken individual, another who has set race relations back many years. In both these cases the perpetrators were offensive to specific ethnic groups and both asserted that they were somehow superior - racism as per definition one. Hiding behind an excuse of 'but it's funny!' is weak - it may be a chuckle, but not when you are the population that is affected, offended or disadvantaged through no fault of your own.

Why has this whole debacle upset me so much? Well simply because I believe that left unchecked inequalities are harmful. I am extremely worried with the road New Zealand is going down, it is not healthy. Labeling individuals in the manner these public figures have done is not productive, it undermines any attempt to have a fairer society, arguably something the current government have failed to nurture. What is reassuring is that you can actually find some real empirical evidence of measures that do work, that help communities to have stronger, more egalitarian societies and in doing so rid populations of the scourge of racism.

The real face of evil......

Sorry to disappoint anyone tuning in who was expecting Wayne Rooney, the Curtis/Kuka family, the Yorkshire Ripper, Charles Manson or even Freddy Kruger. It goes without saying that the most evil, uncaring, nasty monster ever has to be that dragon Margaret Thatcher. For those of you who do not know the story, here goes.

A monster for sure!!

She was only a grocers daughter, but she ended up as Britain's first female Prime Minister - very conservative, very right wing, she wore the trousers and her ministers sat at her feet. She singled handedly destroyed British industry - first it was the coal mines, taking on the might of the National Union of Mineworkers, effectively using the Police as her army (there is an episode of the series 'Our Friends in the North' which deals with this in a truly accurate manner), following this the steel industry was killed off, and with it much of the UK's heavy industry - leaving lots and lots of people unemployed - 3 million + in fact. As my late Grandad said

She did more damage than Germany did during World War two

Then we had the Falklands Conflict, conveniently timed to allow a sense of Nationalism to occur, which allowed her another term in office. There were many scandals; who can forget her weedy husband Denis managing to get arms contracts from the Saudi's. And then there was her son mark, got lost during the Paris Dakar rally. A few years later he was arrested for trying to arrange a military coup in Africa - mummy must have been so proud.

I came across the picture while looking through some newspaper websites and I could not resist getting a dig in! The sooner she rots the better.

Memories

I have just been to our bedroom, which overlooks our neighbours section.Out there are the neighbours two children and one of their friends. They are currently digging a cave into the side of the hill, using the excavated materials to form an outside wall. The whole process is methodical and engineered, albeit in a kids manner.

Probably about 40 years ago I moved house, to a new council estate in Blantyre. The council kindly built a few play resources nearby, a couple of climbing frames, one like a witches hat, one like an igloo, one we called a rainbow (it was an arch), the last we called the spider, even though it wasn't.. At the far side of this playground was a grass embankment and at the top the cemetery wall. We dug our own little den like the neighbours kids; it was out football stand, it got so deep we could stand up in it. We kept digging, until eventually we hit that cemetery wall - rather than go through it underground we started digging through at ground level, until we had a hole in that wall; that hole got bigger and became a new entry gate - all  structurally unsound. Eventually the council spotted our work and blocked the hole and filled in our den. The last time I was there you could see the different mortar on the wall and an uneven patch on the grass where our excavations took place, reminders of our engineering.

It is pleasing to note kids will be kids, that a shovel or a spade can be great toys and that adventure and imagination still exists in children!

Pub Charities, and in particular one based in Hamilton

Some of you may know that I take my kids sport pretty seriously, I could never be described as a shrinking violet, I am that screaming abusive parent on the side lines - sorry, that's just me!! Some of you also know I take it to the next level, getting involved in the organisation of these, often being the poor bugger left to do the applications for funding.
For anyone outside of New Zealand let me explain what exactly Pub Charities are; these are 'trusts' that are organised to manage the 'Poker Machines' - the casino type machines where you pop in your silver in the hope of getting three kings and a payout. Unfortunately, whilst these are seen as a legitimate 'leisure' activity, in really they target the lower end of society and New Zealand has a real problem gambling issue. The Pub Charity trusts, of which there are many, take the net proceeds and divvy these up to charitable and philanthropic groups so they can fund certain projects. Very noble, real latter day Robin Hood's, taking from the poor and giving to many others - at least the profit doesn't end up where it shouldn't - or does it? Well let's consider the group below

The Grassroots Trust, by all accounts is one of these fair and transparent organisations. Now, all the 'trusts' are supposed to give back to their local communities. Well the Grassroots Trust was established by the Waikato RFU, and guess what, they get a nice $250K per month. That's right people a cool $3 million per year goes straight to the group that controls rugby in the Waikato (not Rotorua where we have a few of their venues); of course the process of giving grants must be transparent - not if each member idenitifies and affiliation with the major recipients - I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine!
In the second three months of this year their 'donations were as follows

BOPRFU		Waikato RFU				Other Rugby
22724		210000			Hamilton Marist	112022
40000		150000			Te Rapa	25000
		250000			Hamilton OB	30000
					Waitete	5000
					Tauranga Sports	6103.39
					Te Awamutu	47245
					Hautapu	91021
					Leamington	20000
					EBOP	2000
					Marist St. Michaels	1894
					Morrinsville	15000
					Raglan	10000
					Thames	2000
62724		610000				367285.4

So over a million dollars to two rugby bodies plus nearly $400K to clubs, the majority of which are in, yes that's right, Waikato. (and about $300K went to Waikato basketball and Northern Districts cricket, leaving $200K for everyone else)

Now, their charter says they help amateur sport - the Waikato provincial team is professional (as the the BOP), so are Northern Districts cricket AND the Waikato Pistons basketball franchise - none of which draw sell out crowds. Now I could guess and suggest that the $3 million that wings its way to Waikato RFU pays the wages of this lot because technically they govern and support amateur sport (as well as having a professional team) - 24 staff!! Compare that to Waibop football who have more players, cover a larger geographical area and have about eight staff!!

A quick call to internal affairs - yes they know the trust, yes they know the situation, no they are powerless to do anything - why? Because the RFU themselves set the trust to fund THEMSELVES - that's right people, they place gambling machines in my community to fund their enterprises - grossly unfair. Other trusts it has to be said are much fairer (step forward the likes of the Lion Foundation, Southern Trust and Pelorus Trust, all of whom make sure the communities get back what they put in)

So next time you place a buck in a pokie machine, ask yourself, who is going to benefit?

Immigration, Nationalism, TV Journalists and Facebook

I had a very interesting conversation with a work colleague today, a Californian lady who is also a Facebook friend. She had read my status on October 1st, which went a bit like this

Ian would like to thank the New Zealand government for increasing GST to 15% and adding 7c per litre to petrol. You folks know how to get people to leave New Zealand

Now I thought this was pretty self-explanatory, so much so that a couple of people clicked the 'like' button. But oh no, some people found this offensive and came out with lines such as

if all you can do is bag nz ian, why not just faaark off home!?!?!?!?!????

OK  I thought, better revisit that post and see what I said that was derogatory about New Zealand. I was derogatory about the current government, which I have been openly critical of. The fact of the matter is people are leaving New Zealand in record numbers, something John Key promised to stop - FAIL!

My Californian colleague was actually quite surprised by the vitriol that such a comment could create. This brings me to the next thing - as immigrants does that remove our right to offer critical comment on anything Kiwi? Cue the idiotic Paul Henry, who whilst interview his 'best mate', John Key' proceeded to offer racist views regarding the governor general of New Zealand with his

Can the next governor general actually look like a kiwi?

A real Kiwi?

So what does a 'kiwi' look like? Being born, raised, educated and holding down senior position in New Zealand,  learning Te Reo Maori and being a good citizen (gaining a knighthood in the process) clearly doesn't make Sir Anand Satyanand a 'kiwi'. 


I love where I live, I love my lifestyle, I love the majority of the population of this country, but there is an incredible need for certain things to be sorted. The levels of racism are, in my opinion, as bad as racism in Europe. Often this is directly from people who are themselves immigrants. The sooner that 'Kiwi's' stop referring to everyone from South East Asia (be that Korea, China, Japan, etc) as 'Asian', the better. The sooner they recognise that Maori contribute to NZ in a positive way, the better - and lastly, the sooner racist clowns like Paul Henry are removed from prime time TV the better!!

It's a funny old game

Football, or in particular the Premier League. Once upon a time it was viewed as a four horse race between Manchester United (Scum), Arsenal, Chelski and Liverpool. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

I got up this morning and watch the Liverpool -v- Blackpool game. In any normal season this would be a banked for the reds, especially playing at home in front of the Kop. Against all odds it was Blackpool who looked the better team, more composed on the ball, more up for the game. Once upon a time Liverpool were invincible, but that was long before the Gillette and Hicks ownership debacle. A more or less home grown team, the only foreigners being Craig Johnson, Jan Molby (with the dodgiest Scouse accent ever) and Bruce 'Jelly legs' Grobelaar. The likes of Souness, Dalglish, Hansen, Toshack, Rush, even Sammy Lee! They were a team that were total football, all in a British style. Against Blackpool the standout for me was Charlie Adam, a bit of a journeyman at an early age. Bought for just half a million quid (that would get you one of the Chelsea first teams shin), he personifies the British game, uncompromising but with pace and skill and a desire to win.

So who is to blame for Liverpool's demise (and that of their neighbour Everton); well in Liverpools case the answer is complex. I personally don't think Roy Hodgson can be blamed; he's done well with Fulham, but he inherited a right pigs ear of a squad from Rafa Benitez. Is it Gillette and Hicks, who the fans believe are the problem? Well they have been tight fisted with transfer funds and undoubtedly know bugger all about proper football (and like the Glaser's at Scumchester), instead trying to make a fast buck. For me the blame lies with the players - the Liverpool players were a disgrace; lethargic, disinterested, weak. Previous Liverpool teams would have died for Shankley, Paisley, Fagan - the only thing these lot would fight for would be bigger bonuses.

So what about their nemesis at the other end of the East Lancs Road? They too have Yankee owners that appear to be destroying the club. Maybe it is simply that the likes of Sunderland know how to take a game to them, are not afraid to give it a go - and frankly they deserved to win at the Stadium of Light.

And Chelski - well they make it a one horse race, give them the title now; they have shown they are the team to beat, they have the depth of talent and still retain a desire to win. My prediction is that money talks and City will end up as runners up this year and may go one better next year.

Blackpool, I hope they stay up, they deserve too for the tenacity of their players and the tactical nouse of their manager, Ian Holloway

Today's the day....

That the jolly old National Government did their big economic recovery thing, increasing GST (that's Goods and Services Tax) to 15% and simultaneously added 7c per litre to fuel. Of course they claim that we will all be better off because of tax cuts - but will we?

Well, not in my household. The alleged tax savings have already been eaten up by

• increased power bills since they came into power
• increased rates since they came into power
• increased car registration
• increased ACC contributions
• reduced funding of schools means they are asking for more and more

So who exactly will be out of pocket? Well businesses aren't happy - the cost of changing prices runs into millions and the equation used to calculate returns is far more complicated. Consumers won't be either, everything is going up, which means the so called tax benefits will go to shrewd retailers.

But of course the government is fixing everything else - like murdering the health sector. When will New Zealand wake up from hibernation and realise they have elected a bunch of fraudsters to govern?