John Campbell: Should Paul Henry be sacked?

Short on time this morning so a quick post.

John Campbell ran a text poll last night from 6.30 to 7.30 which was responded to by 29,000 (from memory): Should Paul Henry be sacked?

The result was 41 percent said yes and 59 percent, including me, said no.

The site is also polling and the yes/no split is currently at 35/65.

Paul Henry is a very funny man. Sometimes he laughs at things that I don't find funny. Like a lone donkey being hoisted up and flown out to sea under a para-glider. Some say the way he behaves is 'inappropriate' for his role. But what is his role? Breakfast TV seems to be a work in progress to me. It's still a relatively new phenomenon. If Henry wasn't on it I'd find no reason to watch. In the same way as when he left Radio Pacific I stopped listening.

Home of public service wealthiest

I extracted the regional tables from the latest Income Survey released yesterday and made a simple graph which provides an unpretty picture of bureaucracy looking after itself.

Bradford calls Treasury recommendations "evil"

An interview from National Radio Morning Report yesterday;

Treasury recommendations "evil" and "ridiculous"

The Alternative Welfare Working Group, which includes former Green MP Sue Bradford, is describing recommendations to move sickness and invalid beneficiaries onto the unemployment benefit in order to get them ready for work, as"evil"and"ridiculous".

The interview includes comments from Phil Goff and me. My focus was on the DPB which Treasury had identified as having the greatest potential for reform.

Treasury finds greatest opportunity for reform with DPB

A Treasury report prepared for the Welfare Working Group has correctly identified that the greatest opportunity for welfare reform lies with the Domestic Purposes Benefit. Treasury identified six ways in which welfare reform could improve outcomes for both beneficiaries and the economy. They are improved labour force participation; reduced poverty risk; fiscal savings; improved intergenerational outcomes; greater individual and social well-being and increased economic growth.

The DPB ticked 4 of these boxes as presenting a large opportunity. The Invalid's benefit ticked 2, the sickness benefit one, and the unemployment benefit, none.

Treasury has also identified the DPB as being the most expensive benefit at $1.7 billion in the last financial year, with the highest future liability costs. Liability associated with current domestic purposes beneficiaries is around $17 billion compared to only $3 billion for the unemployment benefit yet 'administration expenditure is primarily focused on Unemployment Beneficiaries'.

It has long been my contention that the DPB is most in need of reform because it is adversely affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of children many of whom will grow up to be beneficiaries themselves. The report states that, 'child poverty rates are almost 75 percent for ‘work-less households’ compared to 11 percent where at least one adult is working-full time, ' and, ' living in a benefit dependent home has serious impacts on child wellbeing. '

In light of this, Treasury's recommendations are disappointing. Guaranteed entitlement based on having dependent children is preserved. There is no recommendation to cap the number of children a beneficiary can add to a benefit (with increased payments each time). While they identify that mothers entering the benefit system aged 16 and 17 have a high probability of remaining there for a very long time, changes to eligibility or conditionality for teenagers is not explored. Perhaps most surprising is a lack of discussion about time limits, which have the greatest potential to change expectations and behaviour.

Women's Refuge propaganda exposed

The Women's Refuge is a highly politicised propaganda machine. In a welcome new development they have been taken to task for exaggerating about the number of New Zealand women "living in fear". I will not support this organisation on principle. That is unfortunate because there are women who desperately need the sort of help provided by the refuges. But the distorted image of NZ women, and by implication NZ men, they promulgate serves no useful purpose. In fact it is detrimental to their cause.

TV3 reports;


Women's Refuge breached advertising standards by claiming that "one in three" New Zealand women were "living in fear" because of domestic abuse, without having adequate proof, the Advertising Standard Authority(ASA) has ruled.

The ASA made the ruling in two separate decisons after receiving complaints.

The upheld complaints related to two separate advertisements, one printed in the Waikato Times and the other broadcast on television.

The advertisements were part of Women's Refuge annual appeal which was held in July.

Both complainants argued the advertisements breached standards because there was no evidence to back the claim, which asserted that one in three women needed help because of abuse, and the complaint about the print version also argued the advertisement discriminated against men.

"This is absurd and it's impossible that they can produce honest stats proving this," one complainant said.

Women's Refuge argued that it was not in breach of standards as the assertion was based on a World Health Organisation (WHO) study which concluded that 33 percent of woman in Auckland and Waikato experienced physical or sexual violence from a partner in a life time.

The ASA disagreed and said it was concerning that Women's Refuge had used a local study as the basis for national statistics.

The majority of ASA members also thought it was inappropriate to base the claim that "one in three" women were living in fear on statistics which concluded one in three women experienced partner abuse in a "lifetime".

The ASA did not uphold the complaint that the print advertisement discriminated against men.

The ASA found both advertisements to be in breach of basic principle four which says "all advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and society" and rule 2 which says advertisements should not make exaggerated claims or mislead consumers.

"In the Complaints Board's view there was nothing in the advertisement to indicate that it reached threshold to cause serious and widespread offence in relation to it's portrayal of men," the ASA's decision read.

A minority of ASA members disagreed that the advertisements breached standards in both complaints.

The minority members should be sacked.

Prison populations and sleight of hand statistics

A commentor from yesterday points out that most prisoners serve only short sentences hence they do not qualify for rehab programmes. That is why only slightly more than half of the prison population is working or training apparently.

The commentor links to this;

Clearly the majority of offenders ending prison sentences spent relatively short periods of time (less than six months) in prison as sentenced prisoners. Less than five percent of those released each year have spent more than three years in prison.

Now that paints a very different picture from the last Prison Census (discontinued after 2003) which looks at a point in time population as opposed to all prisoner movements. This table shows that only 4.9% of prisoners were serving a sentence of 6 months or less. Granted that was 2003 but the statistical phenomenon will persist. The same happens when considering how long people spend on benefits. If it is worked out over all people who ever used a benefit, the time is dramatically shorter than if it is calculated at a point in time.

Leaving aside the issue of remand prisoners, it looks like over 90 percent of prisoners are serving sentences over 6 months but a large chunk of them are not involved in work or training.

And returning to the remand or short sentence inmates, given the illiteracy and life skills deficit problems surely there should be mandatory programmes operating for these inmates as well.

Welfare discourages prisoner rehab

Surely the following statement will provoke the same response in most readers;

More prisoners are undertaking job training and literacy and numeracy education than ever before, Corrections Minister Judith Collins and Associate Minister of Corrections Dr Pita Sharples said today.

In the 10 months to July 2010 the number of prisoners in employment and job training increased 9 percent (from 4415 to 4791). More than half the prison population was in some form of employment or training during the 2009/10 year.


What the heck are the rest doing?

According to Corrections;

The 20 prisons situated throughout New Zealand house over 8,000 prisoners. The majority of these prisoners have limited education or work experience. The last prison census (2003) identified that 52% of prisoners had no formal qualifications and only 45% were in paid work before going to prison.

My own data from OIA requests shows that in 2009 there were;

4,192 cancellations of a benefit for reason ‘going to prison’
3,496 grants of a benefit for reason ‘leaving prison’

The problem is that prisoners only participate in employment or training on a voluntary basis. Whereas a beneficiary can be sanctioned for refusing the same, there is no penalty that can be applied to a prisoner. But it does appear that for many people who have been on a benefit prior to incarceration, prison actually presents a real opportunity to learn some useful skill. And an uptake and acceptance of just over half is pretty appalling. Perhaps if inmates knew there would be no benefit on release they might be more inclined to make the most of what ever is on offer.

So there is yet another example of how welfare has a perverse and unintended effect. It works against rehabilitation.

No wagering with welfare money

Not content with banning the use of benefits for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco some US states are now eyeing gambling. Imagine the outrage in NZ if even the first was proposed (although I am not sure how it is effectively enforced). There would be a vigorous human rights debate calling for beneficiaries to be allowed to spend their money in the same way as anyone else. But there would be no individual rights debate about the philosophical problem of removing one individual's property to furnish the lifestyle of another's.

Welfare recipients have long been banned from using their benefits for alcohol and tobacco. Some state lawmakers are eyeing the vice of gambling, a move some advocates for the poor see as unnecessary and unfair.

More

I must need rehab

The Manawatu Standard has an interesting piece on Lesley Martin and her continuing advocacy of voluntary euthanasia. She now lives in Ashurst. She speaks about her 15 months in Arohata;

"What a pointless exercise. Going to jail didn't change my views. It didn't rehabilitate me. It didn't make me remorseful, make me feel that I would never do it again. If one of my sons was suffering interminably and asked me to assist, I would."

Probably the most useful thing she achieved in jail was cataloguing Arohata Women's Prison's 4000 library books, and guiding some of her fellow inmates to better reading.

"When they first come in, they want books about crime and drugs and bulldogs and demons and dragons. Then you see the rehab start to work, and they'd read Maori culture and mana, self-help books, poetry, books about peace. Nice fiction."

Funny. I'd read a book about crime and drugs any day over a self-help book. And you can give me bulldogs over poetry too. I must need rehab.

Updating artist blog

Updating artist blog. Working yesterday in Tawa, nothing gives me more pleasure than school kids getting excited about what results can be achieved with a few pastels. A couple of ten year-olds chatted at length (how can you see green and purple in a dog? How do you make things look near and far?) and then left, armed with tips and insights, to hopefully try drawing their own black labrador. Increasingly I am thinking about teaching but need to explore possibilities. Not being academically trained I don't want to pass on bad habits. But I keep getting asked if I do give lessons and hate saying 'no'.

Here I started with an error. I used the side of the paper with bolder texture. But whenever I make a mistake I persevere to see what can be salvaged.

US - soaring costs of anti-poverty programmes

This table is from the Cato blog.

Obviously the deep US recession has contributed to soaring costs but those areas equivalent to the DPB (TANF), IB abd SB (SSI) are reasonably contained. That is because there is a much stronger focus on providing assistance in kind rather than in cash.

And Medicaid, public health provision for uninsured low income working age Americans, makes up most of the absolute increase (contrary to what many leftists believe - that there is no public health provision in the US). The figures relate only to federal spending. States spend on their own anti-poverty programmes. In the case of TANF, from memory, spending equates to around 70 percent of what the federal government puts in.



A comparison to NZ is difficult.

Cash spending (minus Super) has risen from $7.8 to $12.9 billion (non inflation adjusted) but it is impossible to extract health spending on low income families alone. Housing (not including the accommodation supplement which comes under cash spending) has risen from roughly $68 to $365 million. The figures are based on Core Crown expenditures.

Matchbox calculations, if those totals are divided by population NZ spends around $3,000 per head (excluding health) against the US at $2,100 but remember that the US spending is only federal and US dollars are worth more. Their poverty threshold is around US $11,000 for one person. A large chunk of left liberals seem to think NO money gets spent on the poor in the US.

The redistribution (and slight reduction) of crime

The police have issued some new statistics relating to various measurements of crime prevention, crime detection and crime reporting. They compare monthly statistics for August 2009 to August 2010 and can be viewed nationally or by district.

From these graphs it is noticeable that where more crime prevention measures are applied less crime is reported. Unfortunately the input isn't consistent across the country. For instance I have compared Counties Manukau with Lower Hutt on just a couple of measures. In the Hutt 'foot patrols' have almost halved and 'vehicle thefts' have risen. In Counties Manukau the opposite applies.

This isn't necessarily consistent across other areas but it is clear that the police are putting resources into particular areas (functional or regional) at a cost to others. It would be interesting to see what plugging in all the various data shows.

Nationally, reports of crime are down slightly by 4.4% and detected crimes are down 2.7%

That of itself is interesting because leftists usually link increased poverty (recession) with increased crime. This is however a comparison between months - not years.

Why?

Why did the NZ Herald use this photo with this story?

Work-testing single parents apparently part of the feminist plan

The following is in cached form only. The site has disappeared. Over the years I have heard bits and pieces about the 'sisterhood' conspiracy but haven't seen it laid out in print (I don't read Wishart). Not sure I follow the logic re the motivations of government and cannot tell whether the writer approves or disapproves of feminism. But the way I see it, work-testing single parents should strengthen the family in the long-term, which would be a blow for the radical feminists who sought to destroy it as an institution. Why? Because many women want to raise their children personally and to do that they need a supportive partner.


Single mothers are being forced to work - but why?
By Julie, on May 21st, 2010

There’s quite a few single mothers unhappy with our leading single mother, MP Paula Bennett at the moment for her openness about single mothers working when their children turn 6 years of age. If you walked into a WINZ office and said MP Paula Bennett was terrific, you’d cop it from both sides of the counter.

The strangest part is that single parents have been forced to work for years yet it’s been so subtle, they’ve not noticed it. I can only assume single mothers on the DPB thought everything they’ve been offered over the past years was to make their life more comfortable and to give them choices. Maybe, they’ve never stopped to question what the cost would be.

Well, I think it would be a good time to look at the bigger picture and explore the reasons government would give money away – after all, they would never do it unless there was a pay-off for them whether cost saving or profit…… Funny, single parents do both. Anyways, the first thing I’d liked to share is a bit of history because to understand the present and future, you need to understand the past.

Divorce


In England prior to 1857, only an Act of Parliament could permit a full divorce allowing remarriage and it could only take place in England. This was very expensive so 10 years later the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act was passed in New Zealand which meant the judgement on divorce proceedings was passed over to the courts where it had to be heard in Wellington before three judges. A husband could divorce his wife on the grounds of her adultery while a wife could divorce for cruelty, desertion or bigamy. In 1881, it was changed from three judges to one judge and all the way up to 1968 law changes were made to give up to 24 grounds of divorce and lessen the time to wait.

Divorce rates rapidly rose in the 60′s and 70′s with all these new ‘faults’ as ground for divorce, making the way for even further changes. In 1980 the Family Proceedings Act was passed that removed divorce from the High Court to the newly created Family Court where for legal purposes, the term divorce became ‘dissolution of marriage’, and with it came ‘No fault’ where an application for dissolution on the grounds that the marriage had broken down irreconcilably, could be made jointly or by either the husband or wife, provided they could satisfy the two-year separation requirement.

There were 4 divorces in 1857 while now one third to 50% of marriages end in divorce (research varies). Added to this are women and men living in de facto relationships, women by choice being solo mothers through sperm donation and men being solo fathers through surrogacy.

Benefits

The Old Age Pensions Act 1898 established the basis of the present welfare system. During the following 30 years the pension system was extended to include widows (1911), Maori War veterans (1912), miners (1915), and the blind (1924), while the size of the pensions was steadily increased and conditions of payment were made less stringent, though always subject to a means test. In 1926 family allowances were introduced at the rate of 2s. per week for each child in excess of two, again subject to means testing.

The passing of the Social Security Act 1938 allowed for welfare to be extended for anyone in hardship including unemployment, sickness and invalids. The principle of the means test was abandoned with respect to superannuation benefits and medical benefits and, to emphasise the contributory nature of the scheme, the term “benefit” was substituted for the terms “pension” and “allowance”.

The 1973 Social Security Amendment Act introduced the Domestic Purposes Benefit to New Zealand’s social welfare system so that widows and single mothers could stay at home to take care of their children. Today there is 97,000 single parents on the DPB and in the year ending 2009, 10,000 extra single parents applied for the DPB.

Feminism and single mothers

“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” — Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

“Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.” — Andrea Dworkin
“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them”

(Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school’s Centre for Research on Woman).

I want to see young women who come right out of school and start running for office or start moving into some positions where they will be able to shape the institutions that define our culture. And so if there are men who just don’t get it, then they’re just going to have to get it. —Patricia Ireland
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

— Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
How does feminism affect women today?

Feminist and Communist Kay Goodger attended the first-ever feminist United Women’s Convention as well as Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson, Marilyn Waring and Silvia Cartwright along with nearly 2 thousand other women.

From this convention came the attack on the traditional family. It was concluded if they could crush the family, break it down or have it sidelined as irrelevant or portrayed as no better than other methods of child rearing, radical feminism could set the agenda for centuries to come.

Goodger’s 1973 plan was to make a utopian future for “Amazonian” reflecting what she believed was once a reality. She called on radical feminists to do all they could within political parties, government departments and communities.

Goodger back in 1973 knew that if women could work and children were raised in childcare the family would suffer a body blow. Radical feminists following this woman are intending to have Government funded 24 hour a day childcare. As of 1st July 2007, 20 free hours daycare was given in Australia and New Zealand and Europe with Australia forcing single mothers on the DPB to work and New Zealand encouraging women to decide for themselves work is the right choice. Sweden has compulsory childcare from the age of 1.

Margaret Shields says, “We began to reorganise the Women’s Section of the Party so that it became an agent for change; through organising, training and encouraging women to take a larger, more strategic role in politics” She says things are not done by accident.

This was the 30 year plan the sisterhood made from their list of demands.

Abortion to be free and on demand DONE
Sex education/Birth control at all levels DONE
An end to coercive family laws DONE
De facto relationships to have same status as marriage DONE
The rearing and education should be from society not parents BEING DONE TODAY
Discrimination of homosexuals outlawed DONE
Abolish laws victimising prostitutes DONE
Paid maternity of 12 weeks without loss of seniority or job DONE
Free Government paid 24 hours a day child care for all children from infancy NOT DONE
Reference: Investigate Magazine, May 2005, page 39.

Kay Goodger is now a senior Government advisor on policy initiatives earning hundreds of dollars an hour in pay, still mixing with Marxist organisations in Europe and is mentioned in dispatches on the website of the Portuguese Communist Party.

Margaret Sheilds is a former Minister of Customs and organised the 2005 conference for women.

Helen Clark was New Zealand’s Prime Minister and now works in the United Nations making a global tax.

Margaret Wilson first entered Parliament on the Labour Party list in 1999 and gained a Ministerial post immediately after her election. Her Ministerial positions included Attorney-General, Minister of Labour, Minister responsible for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and Minister of Commerce. She was elected the first woman Speaker of New Zealand’s House of Representatives in March 2005 and was re-elected Speaker in November, 2005

Marilyn Waring is Ruth Richardson’s replacement on the board of directors of the Reserve Bank.

Silvia Cartwright became the 18th governor general of New Zealand. She also became the first female high court judge.

As you can see, single mothers working and placing their children in childcare is a feminists issue. It doesn’t matter if the left or right wing political parties have power for either way, women will proceed with the plans of feminists from 1966.

Another factor to be considered

The DPB traps single parents in poverty as it’s just a means to make ends meet. On top of this, working part-time does not add extra wealth but rather takes away extra money single parents receive such as accommodation supplement, disability, childcare costs and temporary additional support. It can also put a single parent above the financial level to receive a community service card.

There is no other way to get many single parents out to work than forcing them when they see no benefit financially to work.

Bottom line, you be the judge on whether this is MP Paula Bennett’s fault or whether she is just the right person in the right place at the right time to make further progress for women’s rights.

New benefit rules from tomorrow

According to an e-mail I received from the Ministry of Social Development, from tomorrow;

• Sole parents whose youngest child is six or older will need to look for part-time work. We’ll help people find suitable jobs that fit their role as a parent and may be able to help with after school care if needed.

At the end of August there were 112,500 people on the DPB. Last year 43,000 had a youngest child aged 6 or older.

The pro-welfare advocates say this new requirement is "draconian" but it only brings NZ in line with Australia and the UK. Other European countries and the US have a much lower youngest-child criteria.

Crucially, what is omitted is some sort of rule to prevent addition of children to the benefit extending eligibility.

• People who are unemployed will need to reapply for Unemployment Benefit every 12 months. A case manager will work with people to complete a comprehensive work assessment to determine what they can do and how we can help them find suitable work.

A yearly reapplication should be the very least that is required.

• People who are unable to work due to illness will be encouraged to look at what they can do. From May 2011, if someone is assessed as being capable of working at least 15 hours a week, they’ll be expected to look for a suitable job.

The success of this strategy will rest with the medical fraternity delivering objective assessments. The risk is more people will attempt to transfer to an invalid's benefit. And....

• People on Invalid’s Benefit will see no change to the eligibility. We will continue to support those people who are unable to work because of permanent and severe sickness, injury or disability.

• People applying for Hardship Assistance will be given more help to manage their money.

Compulsory budgeting advice.

• A young person supporting themselves on Independent Youth Benefit will be encouraged to stay in education or training that will better prepare them for future work.

Encouraged. What does that amount to? Why not 'required' to stay in education and training?

All in all these changes are fairly wishy-washy yet have taken almost two years to implement (in the case of changes to the sickness benefit, almost 3). They will modify how compliant and motivated beneficiaries behave, but those who are only interested in the status quo of their current situation will find ways around them. In some respects the changes may provoke some very unwelcome responses, especially among the existing and would-be DPB population. Dependent children - their own or someone else's - will remain the key to long-term eligibility.

The facts about childhood obesity

This is not an overweight child. It's a chubby baby for god's sake. Unfortunately it is running alongside a headline Number of obese Kiwi children 'scary'.



The highest rates of childhood obesity are concentrated in the poorest deciles and amongst Pacific and, to a lesser degree, Maori children. But does the report allude to those facts? No.

Meanwhile the susceptibility neurotic and angst-ridden middle-class mothers will be looking at their healthy chubby cherub unnecessarily agonising over whether she is over-feeding (and now under-loving) him.

Absolutely asinine suggestion from Mary Wilson

Mary Wilson, trying to emulate an abrasive Sean Plunket on National Radio this morning, makes the utterly asinine suggestion that ACT should sacrifice Epsom to prove it can cross the 5 percent threshold and therefore has a mandate. The 'interviewer' tries her hardest to make Rodney agree with Phil Goff's view that ACT is "terminal" but succeeds only in sounding rude and silly.

Here's a page from a February 2005 article from North and South.

Rodney has been written off many, many times. And yes, I am guilty of describing recent events as akin to a murder-suicide. But I have also predicted that Rodney Hide will survive, even if only as a Ron Paul figure.

Creative gravy train - an oxymoron

I am alerted to the following because I subscribe to a community and volunteer sector newsletter;

Changes to arts funding announced

Creative New Zealand will introduce two new and complementary multi-year funding programmes from January 2012 to provide clarity, stability and flexibility in the way it funds arts organisations and artists. The new funding programmes are:

* Arts Leadership Investment (Toi Tōtara Haemata) to provide support for between two and five years to well-run, financially sound organisations that fulfil a key role or roles in the creation, presentation and distribution of high-quality arts experiences to New Zealanders

* Arts Development Investment (Toi Uru Kahikatea) to complement the Arts Leadership Investment programme by offering greater flexibility in the range of activities it supports. Funding will be available for periods from six months to two years for arts organisations, groups and individuals. Applicants will not need to fulfil a key role (see above).

The changes follow a review, where the arts sector identified an ongoing need for skills development. Creative NZ will work to enhance existing capability building programmes to meet the needs of both emerging and established arts organisations. It will also look at ways to offer incentives for artists and arts organisations to collaborate on projects, such as the commissioning and presentation of new work or to provide support for young and emerging artists.

You may have noticed I have been blogging less frequently. This is because I am painting and sketching more frequently. Why? Because I need to contribute to our household income. A few weeks back I took my portfolio into a couple of framers with the proposition that I sketch on their premises (providing me with exposure) and any commissions I pick up, they do the framing. I have priced my sketches at a very accessible price. So far the exercise has been successful picking up 4 commissions, with three of them for multiple sketches and more in the pipeline. I also met a fascinating Maori man who has agreed to be a subject for some new paintings. It isn't hard work because I enjoy interacting with the public and I love creating with pastels. But it is honest work.

It pisses me off immensely that we have a 'creative' art gravy train in New Zealand. Firstly because you and I have to fund it. Secondly because it often turns out crap. Real talent will attract willing sponsors and patronage. Lack of talent relies on handouts. Thirdly is provides 'jobs' for bureaucrats and fourthly it removes audience and potential buyers from artists who are trying to go it off their own efforts. Bah. Back to work for me.

Update; Sam provides a useful link about NZ On Air funding which comes from the Culture and Heritage budget which was Helen Clark's own portfolio. Between 1999 and 2008 expenditure rose from $427 million to $1,107 million. And National seems to have accepted this level along with all the other Clark administration spend-ups.

On vouchers instead of benefit cash

Sean Plunket is now writing a column for the DomPost. His first provoked a comment from me which was published yesterday.

Not on-line, I was cutting out the letter for scanning when I noticed the photo under the headline it was given. I think I'll make an exception for her.

ACT voters least loyal

According to the latest Horizon poll of 3,673 voters ACT appears to be losing support to National;

National has 30% of decided voters (3% down on its 2008 share of all registered voters).



Labour has 22% (3% down on its 2008 share of all registered voters).



ACT has 2% (down from 2.7% in 2008) but only 40% of its 2008 voters remain loyal. Some 28% of ACT voters have switched to National while 19% say they don’t know who they would give their party vote to if a general election were held tomorrow.

Unfortunately the period over which the survey was conducted is not specified.