This Guy

The left seemed, last week, to have been overcome by a strange desire to find something to fight about.  Not a good fight with the government, an internal fight.  The battle grounds selected were Julian Assange and David Shearer's leadership of the Labour Party.

On Julian Assange:
He's accused of rape.  He's actively avoiding extradition to the country where he is accused of rape and is wanted for questioning.
That's it, for me.  The rest is a side show.
The thing about sideshows is that they are ephemeral, and illusory.  The discussion at The Standard reflect this in spades.  Extensive threads of people with entrenched positions that they will never budge from.  It makes for dull reading.
What I saw in the sideshow is:

• Wikileaks is not Julian Assange, nor vice versa.
• "I'll get extradited to the USA and will face the death penalty" is just "the dog ate my homework" on amphetamines.
• Ecuador have offered asylum on the principle that "my enemy's enemy is my friend".  More often than not this is wrong.
• Britain must respect the Ecuadorian Embassy, under the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
• Avoiding the justice process on outlandish pretexts is cowardice, not the actions of a freedom fighter.

I really don't care how the sideshow turns out.

On David Shearer:
I'm merely someone who votes for Labour, occasionally.  Usually the electorate vote, in a rural electorate where the National candidate regularly wins by more than 10,000 votes.
The issues that are beguiling the Labour Party seem to be complex.  And Scott at Imperator Fish helpfully compiled a list of what to do about it.
Since I'm not nearly as clever as Scott, I'm tempted to leave it at that.  But I can't, so I'll observe that the Greens seem to have got themselves together and are working coherently, without frightening the horses.  I think that copying the Greens or stealing all their policies is not a good idea for Labour.  But maybe asking them how they do it might be a start.  And it's a lot more palatable than asking to be a junior coalition partner with the Greens in a few elections time.

The Clean - Odditties, 1982

Three To Get Ready

Yesterday I mentioned, in passing, the recent questionable behaviour of three  current ministers; Paula Bennett, John Banks and John Key.  In a spare moment I took the opportunity to compare their actions:

John Banks had a fit of pique over the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, which include some minor changes to the MMP system.
I have a little empathy for John Banks.  He senses a threat to his seat on the gravy train (though it seems obvious that he will be off the gravy train at the next election, I reckon I can count the number of people who think otherwise with a few fingers and thumbs to spare), the increasingly bizarre ideals he stands for are at risk, and he is doing his best to defend them.  No problem with that.
His inability to comprehend that his actions, and those of his ACT predecessors in the last parliament are the best and most recent example of what is wrong with MMP.  Their behaviour has been a model for many of submissions to the Electoral Commission's review and as such this is like a case of contributory negligence.  The bronze for bad politics goes to John Banks

I'd like to try to defend what Paula Bennett did, even as an intellectual exercise.  Play the devil's advocate.  But I can't.  There are only a limited range of circumstances where the government should use information it holds on a person against that person, and this is not one of those circumstances.  Otherwise the information must be held securely.  End of story.
The only bright light I can see is the suspicion I have that some form of confidential settlement was made.  It's not much of a bright light, then, especially when you consider that the issue involved the government intimidating people who criticise government policy.  At least it stayed out of court.  With that bit of grasping at straws done, the silver for bad politics to Paula Bennett

Which means the winner of the gold is John Key, for going to the game, and not going to the funeral.
Ultimately it is the Prime Minister who decides to deploy troops to combat zones.  It is therefore beholden upon the Prime Minister to do the right thing by these troops.  When they are killed in action the PM must attend the funeral.  It's that simple.
I do understand that politics is hard on families, especially children.  But like the duty to the troops, it's part of the job.  Anyone who thinks politics is easy has not had much to do with it.  And it's been that way for ages, anyone who is not up for putting their duties to the country ahead of their family should not run for public office.  It's that simple.
I have a guiding principle - you should always attend funerals.  Because the dead only die once; it's not like you can attend their next funeral.  Whereas the living will, in all likelihood, be here tomorrow.

Dave Brubeck Quartet - Time Out, 1959

Gutter Black

Puddleglum wrote an excellent post on the blueprint for the redevelopment of Christchurch's CBD.  Here's a link, I recommend it.  The post has been widely linked to from several prominent websites and has a good comment base, by quality and quantity.  Great work Puddleglum.
The overall theme of Puddleglum's post is that the Blueprint is a Christmas present.  Having deliberated, I think it is more like an easter egg.  A pretty shell, with a hollow centre.

The Hollow Centre
The anchor projects include a rugby stadium, a cricket oval, a convention centre and a sports facility.  Most of the time these will be empty.  More accurately, the people who come to these places will be transient, coming for and at a fixed time for a narrow purpose.  Outside these times and purposes....did you hear that echo?
What the CBD needs to bring it back to life is people.  Not only people passing through, also people who are there because it is their place.  To its credit the Blueprint does allow for this.  There's the health precinct. But that required very little brain power - the hospital was there already and it doesn't take a genius to figure it was best to leave it there.  The justice precinct - no great gain there, the police and courts were always in the middle of town.  And the innovation precinct.  I'm ambivalent as to whether it is a good idea or not, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.  So, why have it in the CBD? Access to fast internet where and when it arrives it Christchurch? No. Near other centres of innovation like the university? No. Near businesses that are interested in and supportive of innovation? No, they are spread out across the city and there's no certainty they will reconcentrate in the CBD.  Near transport hubs and links?  There's the bus exchange, I suppose, but no, not really.  Near where the people who do the innovating live (to make for a shorter trip to work)?  Hard to say.
What will bring people back to the CBD is somewhere to live and something to do.
The "somewhere to live" bit is addressed, nominally, through the demonstration housing.  Except of course the amount of housing actually provided is minimal.  There's no serious discussion of who the housing will be targetted at, though the proximity to the stadium suggests it won't be the elderly, families with young children or anyone who could afford to buy somewhere else.  Which leads to the idea that it might just be a roundabout way of saying we are going to build a slum.  If it were to be built between the justice precinct and the health precinct, it might make sense....
The something to do isn't really addressed at all.  Not living in the CBD, and not intending to, like many other residents I will have two or three reasons to go to the rebuilt CBD.  To work, to shop and to show visitors around.
My employer isn't moving back to the CBD.  It's too expensive compared to the suburbs, and my colleagues don't want to work in multistorey buildings.
I never shopped much in the CBD, and I doubt that will change much.  I tend to shop locally around where I live and work.  More and more I get things over the internet.  The whole idea of a CBD as a place to shop may well have had its day.  Cashel Mall is great, and more of that kind of thing will attract visitors.
As for showing visitors, what is there to show them?  The police building, the hospital, the sports complex, the innovation centre?  Without some inspired architecture, it's really just the earthquake memorial and whatever happens with the cathedral.

The Frame
I'd love to say something nice about the frame.  It's been lauded, generally, but I'm not convinced.  Latimer Square and Cranmer Square are often empty.  The frame just makes more empty space.
Christchurch is already well served for parks and open space.  There's nothing in the Blueprint that says why the frame is any different from the local park.  Why will people use the frame?  There are plenty of reasons why they might, but the Blueprint does not appear to have considered any of them.

That's where my concerns lie.  The Blueprint is vague, it lacks detail and substance.
Back when I started out a blueprint wasn't a collection of random things scattered about, apparently thoughtlessly.  Rather, it was a precise description, down to the finest detail, of what was to be done.  It was enough to create what was to be built.  According to that description, what we have is nothing like a blueprint.  I can only conclude that the meaning of the word has been co-opted to give the impression of completeness, while providing much less.  All we have is a glossy covering, a shell.
I want to be convinced of the why and the hows.  I want to know and believe that CERA know what they are doing.  But the Blueprint not only fails to convince me about the whys and hows, it completely omits them.
In part I think that this is due to the timeframe allowed.  The firm that did the work are competent and deserve their good reputation.  But this is not their best work.  The timeframe was arbitrary, and politically driven, to provide an illusion of action and hide a year of inaction by the government.  I can only imagine the outcome if the firm who did the work had a reasonable time and worked to a quality standard, i.e. if they focussed on getting it right, rather than getting it done.
As it is, it seems a lot of the work went into amending the District Plan.  If the District Plan had proven to be a good tool for sustaining and growing the CBD, then this would have been worthwhile.

And then there are the two missing pieces, funding and transport.
Questions in parliament since the announcement have clarified the question of funding.  The government expects CCC to sell assets to fund the plan that the government has foisted upon it.  Like a pirate being asked about prisoners who walked the plank, the government are suggesting that the council has options, and what they do is their choice.  Tui run a series of billboards about that.
Transport is just not there.  With the rebuild under way it's the ideal time to get multi-modal transport integrated into the city.  That means feet, bikes, cars, buses and something with rails.  I'd like to say why it's not there, but I can't figure it out.  And there's no good excuse for leaving something so fundamental out.

Hello Sailor - Hello Sailor, 1977

In the Lowlands

I went to see the annual Hopkins Lecture, hosted by Canterbury University and IPENZ (the Institute of Professional Engineers NZ), last Wednesday evening.
The subject was building resilience to disasters into societies, with an emphasis on how to do this as part of development an specifically development funded through aid.  I found it fascinating, partially because of my general interests and my day to day employment.  It's  bit of a dull subject, and I intend to not write about it, at least not here.
The speaker was the head of the UN Development Program and an ex-PM of New Zealand, Helen Clark.  It's the first time I've heard her speak.
Here's a link to the video, for those who are interested in the subject.  I've not watched the video (because I was there) but be warned, it's at least an hour long so unless it is edited down...

On the way home the news was about Paula Bennett and the seriously overdue findings from the investigation into whether she breached privacy by publishing personal details of an individual who criticised government policy.
This was hot on the heels of the violent reaction from John Banks to the proposed changes to MMP.  John Banks who solicited donations to an electoral campaign and then declared them as anonymous.
And John Key, going to watch his son play baseball instead of attending the funerals of two soldiers, killed in a fire-fight.

It occurred to me that there are three significant differences between this government and the last one.  The underlying intelligence, wit and sense of a moral compass are all absent.  In their place we have a venal bunch with a "can we get away with it" attitude.

Crowded House - Temple of the Low Men, 1988

Searching with my good eye closed

having some serious technical difficulties. hoping to have them resolved in.a few days.

soundgarden - Badmotorfinger, 1991

You're 39, You're Beautiful, And You're Mine

Just because...[link is to youtube]

Paul Kelly - Stolen Apples, 2007

You're Gonna Get Done

I'd like to say I shook my head in disbelief when I heard John Banks would not be prosecuted for his actions around his return on his 2010 mayor campaign.  But to be fair, I expected that he wouldn't be prosecuted, and that shows a deep vein of cynicism on my part.  I have a deep and seething anger over this.

So let's lay out the facts.  John Banks received almost $100,000 in donations where he knew who the donor was.  That's almost two years pay at the average wage.

An assistant filled out the declaration on the donations to the campaign.

Bank's probity extended only to asking the assistant whether the declaration was correct.

Once he had been told the declaration was correct, he signed it as being true and correct, without any further checking.

And apparently that satisfies the letter of the law.

We are asked to believe that Banks knew the law very well and ensured that he obeyed the letter of it, if not the spirit.  And that's despite the obfuscations that resulted from the initial questioning of the declaration; all the claims from Banks that he could not remember.  And we are asked to believe the fault lies with the law, not the man.  But there are too many problems.

Declarations should never be made lightly.  They deserve and require thorough reviews and checks to ensure their veracity and consistency, their accuracy.  When they are declarations relating to the institutions of our society, elections and democracy in this instance, they are even more important.  A properly made declaration shows the person making it means what they say, and says what they mean.

In stretching the law to its limits, in meeting the letter of the law but avoiding the spirit of it, Banks has shown himself to be contemptuous of the institution of democracy; a petty egotist.

Blaming the law is weak.  ACT have trumpeted the idea of personal responsibility, in the past.  Banks could accept personal responsibility in this instance, if he had any courage in his convictions.  But apparently he has none, and it is my hope that his lack of courage will bring the final curtain down on the disgrace that the ACT party is today.  His credibility is blown; the right will need to start a new fringe party.

Primmers - AK79, 1979