Mollyhawk versus mollymawk

There’s confusion over the difference between a mollyhawk and a mollymawk after Shane Jones referred to Gareth Hughes as a mollyhawk.

Mollyhawk squawk over ironsand hearing

Mr Jones says it’s not appropriate for a member of parliament to shoot down a statutory organisation fulfilling its statutory responsibility.

“What has irked me is not the existence of the process but the perception there are two standards here. I’m being required, after I raised issues to do with the supermarket, to void speaking too much about the role of the commerce commission so they have got clear air to do their job.

If it’s good enough for me, in Labour, it’s good enough for the Green mollyhawk to do the same thing with that statutory organisation,” he says.

According to NZ Birds Online there’s a distinct difference.

Mollyhawks:

Larus dominicanus
Conservation status: Not Threatened
Other Names are: karoro, kelp gull, dominican gull, black-backed gull, mollyhawk, seagull, blackbacked gull, black backed gull

Pacific gull

Larus pacificus
Conservation status: Vagrant
Laridae, Larus

Other Names are: jack gull, Australian gull, large-billed gull, larger gull, mollyhawk

Mollymawks:

Chatham Island mollymawk

Thalassarche eremita
Conservation status: Naturally Uncommon
Diomedeidae, Thalassarche

Other Names are: Chatham Island albatross, Chatham albatross, toroa, Chatham shy albatross, Chatham mollymawk

Campbell black-browed mollymawk

Thalassarche impavida
Conservation status: Naturally Uncommon
Diomedeidae, Thalassarche

Other Names are: Campbell Island mollymawk, Campbell black-browed albatross, Campbell Island albatross, toroa, black browed mollymawk, blackbrowed mollymawk, black browed albatross, blackbrowed albatross, Campbell mollymawk, Campbell albatross

And more varieties of mollymawk here.

UPDATE: a comment at Kiwiblog from Maggy Wassilieff:

Sorry P.G….. mollyhawk is a variant word use of mollymawk…. check out H.W. Orsman ” The Oxford Dictionary of NZ English”.

ps. you’ve gotta know how to check facts if you’re editing a fact-checking service.

pps. personal disclosure: I was the plant editorial advisor for DNZE

That wasn’t a comprehensive fact checking exercise. I thought NZ Birds Online was a reasonable source.

Collins dictionary online:

mollyhawk
(New Zealand) the juvenile of the southern black-backed gull (Larus dominicanus)

mollymawk
(New Zealand) an informal name for mallemuck

I don’t have that version of the Oxford Dictionary of New Zealand English.

Online is The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary, it only lists mollymawk.

The Encyclopedia of New Zealand:

New Zealand’s smaller albatrosses
Mollymawks The Thalassarche albatrosses, sometimes known as mollymawks, are considerably smaller than the great albatrosses.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/search/teara?keys=mollymawk

No entry for mollyhawk.

It’s not surprising that the two might get confused in general usage.

Additional facts and references are always a possibility in research.

See also: Shane Jones – mollyhawk or mollymawk?

Adams slams Cunliffe’s claims on offshore drilling

Further to Cunliffe and Hughes wrong on public ‘muzzling’ Environment Minister Amy Adams has slammed David Cunliffe’s claims in Govt rides rough shod over democratic rights where he said:

The Government has today revealed its true contempt for democratic rights by ploughing on with plans to override Parliamentary majority and gag local communities, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says.

Kiwis also lose their rights to have a say on exploratory drilling off their local beaches under new rules coming into effect today.

“This is an outrage and the latest from a Government which continues to chip away at democracy.”

“The muzzling of local communities concerned about oil exploration shows the Government has once against backed the interests of multinational corporations over the rights of ordinary New Zealanders.

“New Zealanders have a right to a say in what happens in their oceans.

Gareth Hughes said:

National are intent on eliminating New Zealanders even having a say,” said Mr Hughes.

Adams responded with a media release:

Tricky Cunliffe continues to mislead

Hon Amy Adams
Minister for the Environment

28 February, 2014 Media Statement

David Cunliffe latest attempt to rewrite history on oil and gas exploration highlights an on-going, casual relationship with the truth, Environment Minister Amy Adams says.

“As a minister in the previous Labour Government, David Cunliffe knows there was no environment oversight and certainly no public involvement in the exploratory drilling process under his watch,” Ms Adams says.

“Once again he has been caught out being tricky with the truth. He is trying to create a distraction from Labour’s woeful environmental credentials.

“Under his government, 36 wells were drilled in the EEZ between 1999 and 2008 with no legislation in place to protect the environment.

“In fact, the Labour regime only required the Minister for Energy and Resources to sign a permit and required no formal environmental assessment at all. That’s it – no public comment, no submissions, no consideration of environmental effects.

“The ridiculous thing about David Cunliffe’s argument is that the EEZ Act introduced by this Government actually replaces a non-existent environmental regulatory regime for drilling in the EEZ, where the public had no say.

“Under this Government, the public will for the first time get a chance to have a say. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can call for submissions from the public prior to granting a consent for exploratory drilling, if the EPA feels it is required. And before any production drilling can take place, a full public process must be held.

“This means before an oil company can make a single dollar of profit, they have to go in front of the people of New Zealand and make sure everyone has a say in the full process.”

A far more robust consents process is now in place.

This also addresses claims made by Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull, Greenpeace spokesperson Steve Abel and Oil Free Otago spokesperson Niamh O’Flynn in Deep-sea drilling change slammed (ODT).

Cunliffe and Hughes wrong on public ‘muzzling’

David Cunliffe and Gareth Hughes are wrong on claims of public “muzzling” over new non-notified consent regulations for off-shore exploratory drilling.

Envirinment Minister Amy Adams announced new regulations on Thursday. The public cannot oppose this drilling via the consents process – see Non-notified consents for exploratory drilling confirmed – but this doesn’t change how it was.

Labour leader David Cunliffe has attacked this in a statement Govt rides rough shod over democratic rights but makes misleading or false claims.

The Government has today revealed its true contempt for democratic rights by ploughing on with plans to override Parliamentary majority and gag local communities, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says.

Kiwis also lose their rights to have a say on exploratory drilling off their local beaches under new rules coming into effect today.

“This is an outrage and the latest from a Government which continues to chip away at democracy.”

“The muzzling of local communities concerned about oil exploration shows the Government has once against backed the interests of multinational corporations over the rights of ordinary New Zealanders.

“New Zealanders have a right to a say in what happens in their oceans.

“A Labour government will make sure deep sea drilling consents are subject to full transparency and require international best practice.

“Off their local beaches” is emotive and inaccurate, the drilling this summer has been 60-100 km away from the beaches.

Kiwis have not lost any rights and have not been muzzled. Amy Adams:

But in terms of it being non-notified, well the public has no say on them now and never has had,  and so you know I think that’s left out of this debate. People are talking as if the ability to feed in this is removed.

There has never been a process for the public to have their say on exploratory drilling, and there’s never been a process for  any regulator oversight.

She says there has been no change to public having a say in the consents process, they’ve never had any say. I’ve seen nolthing that contradicts this claim.

And the public have not been muzzled, they can still speak and protest as much as they like.

“The non-notified discretionary classification is the pragmatic option for exploratory drilling, and will provide a level of regulation proportionate to its effects,” Ms Adams says.

“The classification will provide effective oversight and environmental safeguards without burdening industry with excessive costs and timeframes.”

The Government has put in place formal processes, oversight and safeguards. It could be argued that this doesn’t go far enough, but it’s an improvement on what we had, which was described by Radio New Zealand:

Until now the drilling has been in a grey zone regulations-wise.

So the new regulations for exploratory drilling are better than we had and make no change to the public having a say.

Is this good enough?

We aren’t having this debate because of the rhetoric and false claims of opposing politicians like Cunliffe.

Green MP Gareth Hughes also criticised the change in regulation and oversight (but no change in public input) in New oil drilling regulations muzzle New Zealanders:

“The Government legislated to stop people voicing their opposition at sea, and now they are locking them out on land,” said Green Party energy spokesperson Gareth Hughes.

National are intent on eliminating New Zealanders even having a say,” said Mr Hughes.

“I am deeply concerned this will mean that the public will not get any say at all on extremely controversial proposals,” said Mr Hughes.

Greens don’t want just the public to “have a say”-

“The Government shouldn’t allow companies to risk our environment and economy with exploratory deep sea drilling in New Zealand’s waters.”

- they want no offshore drilling at all. For Greens the public “having a say” means giving the Greens and Greenpeace more opportunity to protest and delay and stop drilling.

Labour standing another party insider for Ohariu

It’s no surprise to see Labour about to confirm a female candidate who has been a party insider to stand in Ohariu against Peter Dunne.

In Stuff’s Today in Politics:

Labour  picks hopeful to take on Dunne

Labour will tomorrow confirm Virginia Andersen  as its candidate for Ohariu to take on UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne. 

Ms Andersen has worked for the Office of Treaty Settlements,  police and as a private secretary and senior political adviser with Labour in Parliament.

Many Labour candidates seem to be selected (or hand picked) from party insiders.

Last election was strongly contested by current MP Peter Dunne (UnitedFuture) against Labour’s Charles Chauvel, Green’s Gareth Hughes, with National’s Katrina Shanks supposed to effectively stand aside (she campaigned more than was expected).

Chauvel resigned mid-term and took on a UN job in New York.

Greens have shifted Hughes to campaign on the list only to try and attract a wider youth vote.

Shanks resigned last year to take up a private sector job. She wasn’t expected to have much prospect of progressing through National ranks.

A comment on Facebook:

There are no people outside the labour machine willing to stand. I said it ten years ago and it is still true today.

Labour is not the workers party. It is the party workers party.

Greens overstating oil spill risk

Following the Shell announcement they will test drill off the Otago coast the Green opposition is quick off the mark overstating the risks of an oil spill.

There is very little chance of finding oil. They are looking for gas. Great South Basin oil find very unlikely:

  • Chance of finding no hydrocarbons = 70%
  • Chance of finding gas = 30%
  • Chance of finding oil = <1%

But this hasn’t stopped Greens with their predictable opposition. Gareth Hughes in Mixed response to Shell drill announcement:

Green MP Gareth Hughes says it’s an extremely rough location – and a risky one.

“Big storms wash though, it’s far from the worlds oil infrastructure and help if needed and I think many New Zealanders would struggle to believe that New Zealand waters could cope with a large scale oil spill.”

Mr Hughes says the announcement is “deeply concerning” for the local environment.

It is risky for sure (although big storms are common around the world, not just here), but there’s a very low risk of an oil spill, especially a large scale spill.

Gareth Hughes not standing in Ohariu

Gareth Hughes won’t stand in Ohariu in next year’s election, according to a Stuff report.

GREENS GIVE HUGHES THE NOD TO REMAIN UNSEATED

The Greens have given MP Gareth Hughes an exemption from the party’s usual rule that candidates must stand in electorate seats. Instead, he will run in 2014 as a list-only candidate so he can focus on boosting the party’s youth vote. He stood in Ohariu in 2011, but the party has chosen Tane Woodley to stand there next year. Mr Woodley is a planner with Civil Defence and an army reservist. He has had 22 years in the army as a regular and as a reservist.

Hughes contested Ohariu in 2011 against Peter Dunne (United Future), Katrina Shanks (National) and Charles Chauvel (Labour). Tacticval voting by National supporters helped Dunne retain the seat. Chauvel and Hughes totalled a little more than Dunne’s votes.

Chauvel has already resigned and now works for the UN in New York. Shanks has announced she won’t be standing again.

Dunne has said he will be standing again next year. He will have a fresh set of challengers. How National approach the electorate contest could have a major bearing on the result and possibly (like this term) that could have a significant effect on the balance of Parliament.

What sort of candidate Labour put up and how much Labour and Greens promote tactical voting could also be significant.

Greens have already indicated Tane Woodley will be standing for them. he was 24 on the Green list in 2011.

Woodley stood in Rimutaka in 2011 with relatively modest results – his electorate vote 5.98%, the Green party vote 9.97% which was less than their overall party vote.

Green reaction to MRP

After the Mighty River Power share price and buyer statistics were announced last night the Greens were active.

The official word from Russel Norman:

Mighty River con revealed

The Mighty River sale has been shown to be a con on New Zealanders with less than 3 percent of Kiwis buying in and most of the shares going to corporates, Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today.

“The charade is over: ‘mum and dad’ New Zealanders haven’t bought the shares; the big finance institutions and foreign corporates have,” said Dr Norman.

“John Key’s talk of ‘mum and dad’ investors was a con – less than 3 percent of Kiwis have bought shares in Mighty River Power.

“The fact that Kiwi retail investors are having their allotments scaled back so National can sell shares to foreign corporates shows what a farce this has been.

“The multi-million dollar ad campaign has failed to con Kiwis into buying Mighty River, they want lower power prices instead.

“The supposed 440,000 pre-registered investors turned out to be a figment of John Key’s imagination. The number of retail investors is only half the number who bought into Contact and less than half of what Treasury forecast.

“Over two and a half times as many Kiwis have signed the petition calling for a referendum on asset sales as bought Mighty River shares – that tells you what Kiwis think of John Key’s asset sales.

“John Key has wasted as much as $100m on the sale of Mighty River. That’s nearly $1,000 per retail investor. It’s been a disaster. He should cancel the rest of the asset sales and focus on creating jobs for Kiwis, not payouts for financiers,” said Dr Norman.

Comparing the number of share buyers with the number of petition signers is ridiculous. Signing a piece of paper costs nothing and often spur of the moment, purchasing shares is a significant financial decision.

Greens were active on Twitter:

@metiria
@patrickgowernz and so 300,000 ‘fake’ registrations Will you report the MRP disaster like that too? Hmm?

@patrickgowernz
@metiria nope

@metiria
@patrickgowernz really? What a surprise.

It’s not a surprise, there is no indication there were anywhere near that many ‘fake’ registrations – many people who registered simply decided not to buy (like me) –  although there were obviously some:

@metiria
I was registered fraudulently at least twice, another MP 5 times. I complained to treasury & they wouldn’t fix the system

And ditto on fake claims of the scale of fake registrations from Russel Norman:

@RusselNorman
So only 113000 retail investors in MRP. So by Key’s logic there were 330,000 fake MRP registrations. Key the conartist

@RusselNorman
So by your logic, Key had 75% fake registrations @patrickgowernz? Will you run that line?

@patrickgowernz
nope

@RusselNorman
no surprise there Paddy.

And…

@RusselNorman
Nats have spent $1000 of taxpayer money per retail investor in MRP. 100000 investors for $100m. Nats waste public money yet again.

More pertinent is querying whether the cost of promoting the share float would have been returned in increased sales interest and value of the sales. That can’t easily be measured – but it would be relevant to compare the cost of promoting this with the cost of promoting other share floats.

The party line:

@NZGreens

Key’s ‘mum & dad investors’ line revealed as a con. Less than 3% of Kiwis bought Mighty River shares http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/mighty-river-con-revealed … stop the sales

@PeteDGeorge@ClintVSmith If that’s why people rejected MRP, it’s only a recognition that NZ Power will bring down prices to fair level

Fair time to announce a policy affecting power prices & excessive profits was before the sale. Not like Key’s secret GST rise

Mighty River sale cost up to $100m: brokers ~$50m, bonus shares ~$40m + ads, fees, etc. What a waste. Stop the asset sales.

No. Key has wasted $100 on a sale that makes no sense & Kiwis oppose. He should be working on jobs, poverty, & sustainability

Plus every single poll has shown a large majority oppose sales.

And the troops – Gareth Hughes:

@GarethMP

First asset sale is a total con. Despite spending millions on ads: less than 3% of Kiwis buying in & most of the shares going to corporates!

@Matt_Green sure, but excessive profits in the past should never be guaranteed into the future.

@Matt_Green yeah, I think many did that too. The Govt did sweeten the deal with taxpayer money.

Have a listen to my short speech on #NZPower today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zjWCjqi7nOk … Greens coming up with solutions while Govt focused on spying laws

@Matt_Green yeah, fair point. I dont think we ever had. We designed #NZPower if assets kept in Kiwis hands or flogged off.

MRP Share price $2.50. Asset sale costs $120m. Free share bribe $400m. Keeping assets Kiwi & delivering cheaper, cleaner power. Priceless.

 

Andrew Campbell:

@Andr3wCampbell

@patrickgowernz disaster for govt. way fewer than valid signatures on asset sales petition. Where are all the mums and dads buying?

@johnkeypm should apologise for the rort. How many fake registrations for MRP shares?

@CactusKate2 it was less than Govt said it would get and less than Treasury predicted. Worse than Contact original offer #epicfail

And Hey Clint doesn’t seem happy about it…

@stevenljoyce onyl 113,000? that’s a disaster. So much for ‘mum and dad’ investors

Only 113,000 ‘mum and dad’ investors in Mighty River. What a disaster. that’s half what Contact got. only a quarter of pre-registrations

@felixmarwick @katieabradford It’s the largest now because 2/3rds of Contact shareholders have sold. 113,000 is half Contact’s float number

@k8chap except that less than 3% of Kiwis have bought shares

@patrickgowernz guess the other 330,000 pre-registrations were fakes and false #Keycons Less than 3% of Kiwis have bought shares. Disaster

@VernonSmall Did the other 330,000 even exist? There were dozens fake Russel Normans. Less than 3% of NZers buy MRP, so much for ‘mum & dad’

@patrickgowernz what % of ownership is ‘mum and dad’? Sounds like most is institutional

@VernonSmall so they’re scaling Kiwis while selling shares to overseas corporates?

So much for ‘mum and dad’ investors. Nats are scaling back their investment to sell shares to overseas corporates

@hardsell @patrickgowernz because that would be a taxpayer subsidy, NZ Power gets rid of electric companies’ superprofits creates fair price

massive fail, 97% of Kiwis don’t buy MRP shares. Mr FixIt, Mr ForgetsIt, and Double Dipton f*ck up again @stevenljoyce

@CactusKate2 less than half what Treasury expected, half what Contact got 14yrs ago. So much for ‘mums and dads’ Most shares to institutions

@CactusKate2 what % of Kiwisaver savings are in MRP? What % of MRP do Kiwisaver funds own?

@patrickgowernz @metiria @GuyonEspiner so people who sign petition then move = fake. but 2 dozen Russel Normans pre-registered = real?

@thekiwicanary ‘mum and dad investors’ is Key’s term to make the asset sales more palatable. Hence my inverted commas. Take it up with him.

@sthnjeff would you have preferred the Greens kept their plan to lower power prices secret until in govt? Like Key did with GST?

@CactusKate2 That’s why I thought I’d ask you. #330000short

@patrickgowernz @RusselNorman mate, $100m spent on MRP sale, 113,000 retail investors that’s failure. Asset sales referendum is gonna happen

Hey, where was Key at the Mighty River sale announcement? This is his one economic policy. Such a disaster he wouldn’t front up. $100m waste

@thekiwicanary john key’s twitter account is @johnkeypm if you want to abuse him for calling you a ‘mum and dad’ investor #patronising

@kht27 @patrickgowernz that’s key lies. nz power means only fossil fuel plants affected by ets. Under nats ets, hydro owners get a windfall

@Garner_Live @liamdann @patrickgowernz treasury thought 250,000 would buy. We never imagined it would be this low. Thought at least 200,000

@duckky007 @kht27 @patrickgowernz why? NZ Power eliminates economic rents to hydrodam owners, they’re making those regardless of yr discount

@thekiwicanary @stevenljoyce shld they have kept their lower power price plan secret past election asJoyce & Key did w their sneak GST rise?

xxx

Green power bid pushes lamentable Labour

Now that Labour’s NZ Power pushing is turning to custard attention is turning to how they got into this hapless situation, facing a crisis of confidence while their leader David Shearer is out of the country.

And the claims are growing that the Greens forced Labour’s hand and rushed them in to launching their poorly thought through power policy.

A Chris Trotter post lamenting Grant Robertson’s capitulation to market realities also suggests that Labour were pushed by the Greens.

Grant’s willingness to rule out any further anti-market forays by Labour shows how peripheral Energising New Zealand always was to the key power-brokers within Labour’s caucus. According to the National Business Review, the party’s self-denying ordinance had been tucked away in the detail of Labour’s policy announcement from Day One.

David Shearer’s refusal to postpone his trip to London so that he could be on the spot to defend Energising New Zealand is now explained. The policy wasn’t his initiative, he had no personal stake in its success or failure, and he was happy to leave the explanations to the actual man-with-the-plan, Labour’s Finance Spokesperson, David Parker.

Parker, himself, would probably have preferred to wait, but the imminent release of the Greens’ almost identical energy policy forced Labour’s hand. Rather than see their Green rivals steal yet another march on them, Labour’s strategists acquiesced to a joint announcement.

‘MARC’ adds to this:

Well, I thought all along that it was really the Greens setting the pace and leading the agenda on the electricity regulation policies. Having seen the announcement by Norman and Shearer on the TV news it was so clear, that it was Norman, who pushed for this to be announced. I saw Shearer stand there, turn left and right, glance over to Norman, and otherwise display a composure that betrayed a degree of half halfheartedness.

Yes, Labour were forced to join with the Greens, so they would not lose face yet again, standing there with the undies down below their knees, while the Greens were announcing another, somehow smart-sounding, new policy.

This fits with David Shearer’s late Sunday night press release, his waiting until the BERL report on Tuesday and then standing between Russel Norman and David Parker on Thursday at the big announcement.

It’s been a mess for Labour, and it may keep getting worse.

And it’s interesting in the context of Shearer claiming that Labour wouldn’t dance in time to National’s agenda – he said…

“We are working…according to our own timetable.”

But it’s now being claimed they were dancing to a Green tune.

And it goes some way to explaining the Labour muckiness:

  • Shearer looking like and sounding like moulded cheese in the Norman and Parker sandwich
  • Parker on The Nation looking like he didn’t own the policy nor conviction that it was sensible
  • Robertson pushing the party lines for a while, then switching to damage control

So what about Greens? Since the joint announcement it was suspected that it was Green policy that Labour had belatedly tacked a few of their own bits onto.

If the timing was dicated by the Greens that put’s more responsibility on the Greens for the MRP share float sabotage claims. Gareth Hughes failed to contain his elation at the news that the MRP had been (temporarily) suspended – see Clint too.

If this was all planned by the Greens why would they time an announcment for after the start of the share float, just before Russel Norman was due to go on two weeks leave overseas?

That probably wasn’t the original intent. It’s likely the Greens wanted to make their Empowering the people announcement prior to the share float, but when Labour got involved at the last minute they had to delay.

That led to the Greens having to rely on Gareth Hughes to fly the Green flag. That resulted in embarrassment with the Clint incident.

What now for the Greens? Will they just keep congratulating themselves on losing the country money – Mighty River Power $100m down under proposal – and wait for Russel to return from holiday?

But maybe the Greens should be worrying – worrying about their already dubious financial credibility taking a hit.

Worrying about how to present their MPs as credible independent thinkers and not just puppets in a media machine.

And worrying that their sole hope of being a part of Government, the Labour Party, looks more and more like a lamentable leaderless lost cause.

http://yournz.org/2013/04/23/clint-too/

Where’s Norman and Shearer?

A week ago David Shearer and Russel Norman announced a policy on power that was promoted as a game changer in both  the electricity industry and in next year’s election stakes.

Shearer referred to Labour’s NZ Power policy as “the big Kahuna”. He also said that timing his announcement with the MRP float was coincidental, and he has said several times “We are working…according to our own timetable.”

You would think the timing would reflect the supposed importance of the policy to Greens and Labour. How did Shearer and Norman promote their big new policy from there?

They had David Parker and Gareth Hughes front up for interviews about it on The Nation on Saturday. Parker and Hughes, and Grant Robertson, have since been interviewed on it.

In the meantime the party leaders have been conspicuous in their absence from promoting their great new policy.

David Shearer left for England on Monday. He is on a world tour which will also take him to New York and the UN.

It was announced on Russel Norman’s Facebook on Monday:

Russel is on leave from now until Monday 6 May. I (Izzy, Russel’s Executive Assistant) will be checking his messages and posting the occasional update, but Russel’s profile won’t be as active as usual for the next couple of weeks. Cheers, and happy recess!
-Izzy

Izzy has shared a few political posts on Facebook for Norman. Norman has posted once, apparently on holiday in Los Angeles.

Norman and Shearer chose a time to announce their power policies knowing that they would both soon be leaving the country.

In the meantime Gareth Hughes has botched an interview on Green media management and Green glee at sabotaging the MRP float.

And Grant Robertson is trying to repair the damage Labour has inflicted on itself by spooking and threatening the financial markets due to Labour’s lack of thought about the likely wider effects of their proposed socialisation of the power market.

And the Labour and Green party leaders have other things to do overseas.

The timing of the NZ Power policy has turned out to be terrible as far as ongoing party promotion and damage control is concerned.

This adds weight to the probability that the timing of the announcement last week was for one purpose, to try and upset the MRP float – something neither Labour nor Greens have credibly denied, they have avoided answering questions about this honestly, and Hughes inadvertently made it obvious what they wanted their announcement to do, inflict damage on National’s asset sale programme.

And Greens and Labour will be left floundering without their leaders.

Gower and Hughes confirm the obvious – intent to sabotage

In a blog post Broadcasting ‘Hey Clint!’ was right move Patrick Gower further confirms what most of the media have obviously known since last Thursday – that Labour and Greens timed their NZ Power announcement to inflict damage on the Mighty River Power share float.

Gower says exposing this was the key factor behind exposing the “Hey Clint” faux pas by Gareth Hughes. Good on him for doing that.

Now I know a lot of people watch “Hey Clint!” and find it funny.

But to me it showed much more than a bit of humour. It showed what we know – the Greens, like Labour, are trying to act like they are not gleeful that the policy is screwing with the MRP float.

In fact, it looked like Gareth Hughes was stoked. It was in the public interest to run it. No question.

It busted spin, in fact, it blew the spin apart.

It showed that the Greens, like Labour, are trying to come up with ‘lines’ to pretend that it’s not about wrecking the float.

And that’s fair enough; the Greens want to emphasise what they see as the good parts of the policy.

But, thanks to Gareth’s indiscretion, we could show what they really feel.

“Gareth’s indiscretion” revealed a practiced party puppet who broke a string and stumbled. It wasn’t a good look.

But more importantly, despite what they are claiming, it shows that Labour and Greens wanted to spike the share float, and were pleased that they had some success.

And they appear to not care about the affect on the share market, nor the return of the MRP float which has been estimated to cost the country $200-400 milion dollars.
It’s shameful that MPs and parties act this way, and it needs to be exposed for what it is more often.

Labour and Greens intended to disrupt the MRP float, and now they keep lying about their intent. Disgraceful.

The rest of Gower’s blog is worth reading to see how political reporting works, and how hard it can be to break through the practiced bullshit.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 226 other followers