Blogs respond to ‘Hit & Run’

Blogs have been abuzz on the Hager and Stephenson book “Hit & Run”.

At Kiwiblog David Farrar plays it down saying *if* and comparing 6 civilian deaths to total civilian deaths in Afghanistan (26,000) – TLDR: Hager book summary

So far at The Standard it has been left to comments with no posts other than Nicky Hager’s book launch but that does include some politically aimed tweets including:

And:

The Daily Blog had live stream coverage of the book launch but that was apparently quite unreliable. Martyn Bradbury has since had a major rant in a post targeting John Key – you have to tell NZ if you committed a war crime:

If we as a country are going to cheer when our troops go to war to fight ‘da terrorists’ then we have to demand accountability when they kill civilians! We deserve to know the truth before John Key steps down – did he or did he not order a poorly planned strike that killed 6 civilians?

Jesus wept this disgusts and angers me so deeply – if you send troops to a foreign land you are fucking responsible for what they do!

Brothers & sisters, we fund the NZ SAS – when they pull a trigger, we help pay for that trigger – Key has made us all killers here.

The Prime Minister has blood on his hands and we must demand some answers before he steps down.

In Bombers eyes know inquiry is needed, he has already tried and convicted the whole country. He seems to have missed the fact that Key stepped down from being Prime Minister last year. Key is due to give his valedictory speech in Parliament today and then leave. I’m not sure if he will have time to consider Bradbury’s demands.

Tim Watkin at Pundit – The O’Donnell raid in Afghanistan: The seeds of the new Hager book

The 2010 raid in Afghanistan detailed in Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson’s new book, Hit and Run, was first revealed on a TV interview I produced in 2011. It’s time for some official answers

Andrew Geddis at Pundit: Killing in the name of?

Nicky Hager and John Stephenson’s book, Hit & Run, presents compelling evidence that our SAS was responsible for killing at least six Afghani civilians, wounding at least another fifteen, and handing over a man to be tortured for information. And then we were systematically lied to about what was being done in our name.

He concludes:

I say that again now. If our SAS must dissemble and lie by omission or commission to those for whom they fight, then it should not be fighting. If military leaders and their political masters are complicit in those lies, then we should follow the German example and require their resignations.

For at a time when our defence forces are asking us to give them some $20 billion from the public purse to upgrade their equipment, it is incumbent on them to prove to us that they deserve it. And the first step they must take in doing so is showing that we can trust them to tell us just what it is that they do in our name.

I thought that a law professor might have listened to the other side of the arguments before coming to strong conclusions.

To date Whale Oil has no posts on the book. Perhaps they are disappointed it isn’t about them again. Apparently Slater has been otherwise occupied and no one else has stepped up. There have been some comments on it in Whaleoil Backchat.

ADASS

Advancing Debate About Super Solutions

There are increasing calls for a discussion on the future of our National Superannuation. It is expensive, and is going to get much more expensive. Can we as a country afford to change nothing? Or should we be considering options?

This blog is part of a campaign to promote discussion about our Super, with parties and MPs, in social networks, in the media. See:

During the last election Tim Watkins posted

Finally, we see the elephant in the room

The simple reason superannuation is such a big talking point now – and why Labour’s new policy is so significant – is that the super bill is one of the country’s biggest.

It’s the elephant in any room that has something to do with government spending.

Bigger than the dole.

Even bigger than the DPB. Because there are so many retired folk – many more than there are unemployed or sick.

Here are the numbers. This year’s Budget had a total social welfare spend of a little over $23 billion. So how does it break down?

Sickness benefit: 782.38 (3.40%)
Unemployment benefit & emergency benefit: 1,028.95 (4.40%)
Accommodation assistance: 1,264.23 (5.50%)
Invalid’s benefit: 1,346.84 (5.80%)
Student loans: 1,589.68 (6.90%)
Domestic purposes benefit: 1,894.64 (8.20%)
New Zealand superannuation: 9,575.37 (41.30%)

As you can see, superannuation is over 40 percent of the bill. Nothing else hits double figures. And as a share of GDP, the cost of super is forecast to double in the next 40 years.

And in a Herald column National’s Super problem David Farrar points out

Superannuation last year cost $8.8 billion and in four years time is forecast to be $12.3 billion.

It is a rapidly growing cost – does this make it a rapidly growing problem unless we address it? Should we at least be talking about it? Should our MPs be seriously looking at it?

John Key and Bill English think that nothing needs to be done while they lead National – National’s toes dug in Super and Key locked in opposition to cross-party Super, and Farrar:

He pledged that there would be no change not just if elected in 2008, but for the duration of his time as Prime Minister. He locked in the policy, and also said any breach of the pledge would lead to him resigning not just as Prime Minister, but as a Member of Parliament.

But Farrar thinks this was an unwise stance.

The lesson for both the current Prime Minister, and any future Prime Ministers, is to never ever make any pledge beyond the next term of Parliament. Doing so is both short-sighted and anti-democratic. Elections should be about choices. Policies should change as circumstances change.

So does Fran O’Sullivan:

Key sidesteps that old, old problem again

John Key’s Government would rather play the game of “pass the fiscal time bomb” than confront the real financial pressures that will beggar future New Zealand generations.

That’s the harsh takeout from the Prime Minister’s decision to (yet again) put off the day when a New Zealand Government has to foreshadow the introduction of policies to deal with its long-term liabilities.

It’s hard to believe the Government is prepared to sit on its hands until the 2014 election, by which time 2020 will be only six years off, let alone duck the issue until/or if it gets a third term in Government.

And Duncan Garner thinks something has to happen, starting sooner, for later:

Key’s superannuation position must change

John Key’s entrenched position not to touch the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation is unsustainable. He’s simply putting off a decision that must be made.

The Prime Minister is under mounting pressure to take a more responsible position.

No one is suggesting it needs to change now. But these things need lead time, and they need leadership – Key is offering none of the above on this issue.

He has promised not to change the settings as long as he is Prime Minister, but that surely doesn’t mean he can’t debate it. He can. And he should.

I agree. He should. We should. How do we make it happen?

Labour Leader David Shearer is actively promoting discussion on Super. He needs support from within his own party and from other parties.

There is a toe in the door – Dunne has given Key a get out of Super free card – this needs to be used as much as possible.

And we can encourage, cajole, push, insist. We can all play a party, and Your NZ is an active part of that. You can activate the campaign as well.