National remains on top, with 47.3 percent – down 2.3 percent. Labour goes up to 33.1 percent; that’s up 2.9 percent. The Greens are up a tad, at 12 percent.
New Zealand First drop to 2.2 percent, beneath the 5 percent threshold required for leader Winston Peters to get back. . .
Patrick Gower says that’s proof the LabourGreen power play appeals to voters.
National has jumped six points and is sitting pretty on 49 percent.
Labour has dropped three points, now at 33 percent.
The Greens have lost a big chunk of support, now in single digits on nine percent, while New Zealand First picked up a point to be on four percent. . .
Both polls are close enough to each other and both show that National is still fairly close to the support it got in the 2011 election which is an amazing feat given the natural and financial challenges the government has had to tackle.
But polls aren’t elections and there’s still nearly a year and a half until the next one.
We understand from inquiries that the animal shown had suffered a major injury. A vet had attended and a decision was taken to end its suffering; this was appropriate, humane and has absolutely nothing to do with the current drought.
Members of Federated Farmers are rightfully concerned the photo is in bad taste and lacks context.
Federated Farmers feels the NZ Herald has made a story fit an image. It wrongly creates the impression there are widespread animal welfare issues when in fact there aren’t.
We have asked the Ministry for Primary Industries and they report the condition of stock coming through for processing is no different now than it was before the various drought declarations.
Farmers are responsibly sending stock away while they are in good condition. Furthermore, livestock have to meet all animal welfare requirements on the transportation of stock. For the occasional animal that has suffered a debilitating injury or illness, then humane slaughter on-farm may be appropriate under the animal welfare code.
But Federated Farmers spokesperson Willy Leferink says the cow was not suffering from starvation and was euthanised in the presence of a vet because of a major injury.
“This was appropriate, humane and has absolutely nothing to do with the current drought.”
Mr Leferink says farmers cannot just kill stock if they cannot feed them because it is against the law.
“A farmer has to get in contact with the authorities and ask for help if they cannot feed their cows. They cannot just shoot them, that is against our laws,” he told 3 News.
“NZ Herald has made a story fit an image. It wrongly creates the impression there are widespread animal welfare issues when in fact there aren’t.”. . .
Farmers are permitted to humanely slaughter an animal on their farm if is it is justified by severe illness or injury.
That’s what the photo shows but the headline and story would lead readers to think it was being shot because of the drought.
It is an out of context photo that tells the wrong story and sensationalises a serious issue of drought which is not one of animal welfare.
Northland kids have been drinking more milk – at school and at home – since the Fonterra Milk for Schools programme kicked into gear in early 2012, according to an independent evaluation by the University of Auckland.
Fonterra commissioned the report to understand the impacts of its school milk pilot on children’s consumption and attitudes to dairy.
Associate Professor Cliona Ni Mhurchu, who led the evaluation, says the results show a significant increase in children’s milk consumption following the adoption of the Fonterra Milk for Schools programme in Northland schools.
“A key highlight of the results is that the rise in consumption has happened both at school and at home – with the evaluation showing a 28 per cent increase in the number of students who reported drinking milk five or more days a week.”
In addition, the evaluation showed a clear increase in the number of children drinking milk at least twice a day – with students consuming milk twice or more each day increasing from 66 to 77 per cent.
“The evaluation provides evidence that Fonterra Milk for Schools is helping to increase children’s milk consumption not only during school time, but overall as well,” says Associate Professor Ni Mhurchu.
Carly Robinson, Fonterra General Manager Co-operative Social Responsibility, says the Co-operative is encouraged by the findings.
“Our goal with Fonterra Milk for Schools is to make a lasting difference to the health of New Zealand children. New Zealand is the largest exporter of dairy products in the world, but at home, we’re not drinking as much milk as we used to. These findings show that this programme can help get Kiwi kids drinking more milk.”
116 Northland primary schools are participating in the Fonterra Milk for Schools pilot – making up 85 per cent of the region’s eligible schools.
“Each term we survey the schools and our latest results showed that around 90 per cent of schools that responded were either satisfied or very satisfied with the programme,” says Ms Robinson. . .
The milk is free to the schools but it costs the company and in turn its suppliers.
But if the programme is helping children and increasing milk consumption then it’s worth it.
Labour leader David Shearer says his party has “asked the question” of the Prime Minister, by claiming that Mr Key was recorded mentioning Kim Dotcom at the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) before the date Mr Key says he first knew about the man behind Megaupload.
But an increasingly stressed Mr Shearer now faces serious questions himself.
The central one is: was a recording actually made? Did the GCSB tape ever actually exist?
There is no evidence that it does or ever did and Shearer’s colleagues aren’t rushing to support their leader.
Quote of the day on that goes to Shane Jones:
“I’ve had a guts full in my career of talking about video tapes – believe you me,” says Shane Jones.
Mediaworks for the broadcast of The Jono Project on TV3 on 4 November 2011, which in the Electoral Commission’s view was an election programme, contrary to section 70 of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
Five comments posted by members of the public on social media on election day, which in the Electoral Commission’s view were advising or intended or likely to influence any elector as to the candidate or party or referendum option for whom the elector should or should not vote, contrary to section 197(1)(g)(i) of the Electoral Act 1993.
The offending episode of the Jono Project is here.
I haven’t watched it nor do I know what the comments on social media were and where they were made.
But this is yet another example of how our electoral law is failing.
If we have laws about acts which might influence the election they are ineffective if they’re not policed and any breaches acted on before the election.
The so called teapot tape has been released on YouTube..
It’s not easy to hear what is being said by John Key and John Banks in their pre-election conversation because of the background noise.
But from what I could hear and understand there is absolutely nothing to cause embarrassment or upset to anyone.
If that is all there is, the Herald on Sunday and TV3 who had the tape and made such a fuss about it really need to look at themselves, their standards and motivation.
They inferred implied the contents were politically sensitive and potentially embarrassing.
They told us it was in the national interest to release them. If that’s all there is it wasn’t. They are simply boring.
The HOS and even more so TV3 turned a non-event into a potential scandal and then someone from one of those media outlets or Bradley Ambrose, the reporter who, inadvertently or not, recorded the conversation, gave something to Winston Peters which enabled him to do what he does best – manufacture outrage to generate attention.
The only embarrassment is to the media who created an issue out of nothing.
I am not linking to the recording because I am unsure of the legal position but if you can’t find it you’ll save yourself 10 minutes and 46 seconds of boredom.
NZ On Air says it has been accused of political bias following TV3′s screening of Inside Child Poverty: A Special Report four days ahead of the general election on 26 November last year.
In documents released under the Official Information Act, NZ On Air says it was not happy with TV3′s decision to screen the documentary on 22 November.
It says it takes its political impartiality very seriously and now stands accused of political bias.
If censorship is the answer they’re asking the wrong question.
The mistake wasn’t NZOA’s in funding a programme nor was it TV3′s in screening the programme. The mistake was the station’s failure to balance the screening of a politically biased documentary with a range of other views.
All media should be free to cover any and all political issues in the run-up to an election but when public money is involved it should not be used to push a particular barrow unquestioned.
The documentary in question gave the poverty industry’s side of a contentious issue and TV3 made no attempt to balance that with contrary views.
The answer to the accusations made of NZOA isn’t censorship, it’s fairness and balance.
. . . it seems the Maori Party do not want Dr Sharples as co-leader any more and his position will come up for grabs.
The male co-leadership will be contested by Te Ururoa Flavell – the only other male MP in the Maori Party.
Sharples said before the election that this would be his last term and it makes sense to hand the co-leadership over in plenty of time for his successor to make his mark.
But being happy to stand down is not the same as not being wanted, so is he jumping or being pushed?
THE ELECTION campaign has brought to the fore a new style of television journalism. It is aggressive, confrontational, highly opinionated and designed to provoke a reaction. Its chief practitioners are Patrick Gower and Duncan Garner of 3 News. . .
The Gower approach illustrates two trends in modern political journalism. One is to strive at all costs for what former British prime minister Tony Blair called “impact” – something to excite the public blood lust.
The other is to put the journalist at the centre of the story. The modern political reporter is no longer content to be a passive observer, but wants to be a player – a maker and breaker of careers.
He has followed this up by asking what’s going on at TV3? It is worth reading in full so I’m not going to paraphrase it.
I am however, pleased that someone who admits he’s voted Labour more often than National, shares my disquiet over both the tactics and the bias.
Justice Helen Winkelmann has declined to give a ruling on whether the conversation between John Key and John Banks was private because it would prejudice an on-going police case.
”I have not reached any view on whether this was a private communication,” Justice Winkelmann said in her decision.
“Indeed my decision turns upon the inadequacy of the evidentiary material before me to reach such a view, and in any event, the inappropriateness of my undertaking a mini trial as to whether certain conduct constituted a criminal offence … in advance of a police investigation or trial.”
The decision means legal doubt remains over whether the conversation between Prime Minister John Key and Act’s John Banks was private, and it may be illegal to publish the tape.
Up until now media with copies of the tape or a transcript have been reluctant to publish because of the risk of legal action.
If the Herald on Sunday and TV3 had been sure it wasn’t a private conversation they would have published a transcript of the conversation.
Instead they made do with insinuations and someone passed at least some of content on to Winston Peters to enable him to do what he does best – saying something to grab attention but nothing for which he could be held to account.
More moments later: Reactor on phone sticks on 100 when I want it at zero and zero when I want it at 100.
More moments later: decide if wasn’t a political tragic would have given up by now.
Yet more moments later: audience reacts in first obviously spontaneous reaction - worm plummets as Goff tries to justify not ruling out Winston Peters.
More moments later: All over bar the panel which declares it a draw by 2:1. Wonder if wasting an hour on this is going above and beyond call of duty, even for a political tragic.
The worm used for a telelvision debate between party leaders in 2002 influenced the result of the election.
Peter Dunne made a few sensible comments which the worm, recording reactions of undecided voters in the qudience, responded to positively.
That got media coverage and whatever his party was called then got its best result.
An updated version of the worm, the Ray Morgan Reactor, is being used for tonight’s debate between John Key and Phil Goff on TV3.
Given that people self-select its results will be unreliable and a distraction from the debate. Just another example of media focussed more on entertainment than enlightenment.
That said, it you want to play the game you can download the reactor for iPhones here and for androids here.
I don’t know which is worse, that they’ve wasted time and money and insulted the intelligence of viewers with such a survey or that having done so they didn’t include the two female co-leaders.
Or would it have been worse if they had included them?
The Bent Spoon was awarded telepathically by those gathered for the annual NZ Skeptics Conference which, appropriately given the winner was held in Christchurch at the weekend.
On his website, he says there is a “potent” lunar alignment in the last week of September, same as the one that existed at the time of the September 4, 2010 quake.
“Indeed, it may not happen, and we all hope not, but the main players will be in position,” he says. “For example we might observe that Dan Carter and Ritchie McCaw are on the field, but that does not guarantee a win.”
Given that, why bother reporting this latest prediction? There is no news value in further predictions from someone whose predictions have been proved inaccuarte and even with the qualifications giving the prediction coverage is taking it seriously.
All media should ignore his predictions as the unscientific guess-work they are and anyone with any doubts should read, or re-read, David Winter’s scientific evaluation of the predictions.
Campaigning 101: a) stay on message. b) don’t take attention from the leader.
You could excuse Labour MPs for ignoring the first rule when the party hasn’t got much of a message to stay on. But flouting the second is either an act of deliberate sabotage or plain stupidity.
Then in another desperate attempt to gain attention he does a tabloid blog post. (I’m not going to link to it, but here’s Keeping Stock’s reaction.
Did Mallard fall on his head when he fell off his bike?
That might provide an explanation for what is bizarre behaviour for a senior MP but it’s no excuse for taking attention away from his leader who whichever poll you look at – NZ Herald, TV3, TVNZ, - needs all all the help he can get.
If he can’t depend on getting it from the party campaign manager who else is going to give it to him?
“What’s this thing about my hair. I’m getting fed up with being described as having a dead possum on top, all sorts of other things like that from people who think it’s untidy, it’s too grey, it’s too coiffeured.
“I think it’s really bald-headed men. I go on the Close Up show with Mark Sainsbury. It’s really very awkward because he is not looking at me, he is looking straight up here.”
He said he doesn’t appear on Campbell Live because John Campbell doesn’t like him, but added: “Sorry John, I quite like your plastic hair, too.”
Mr Campbell has since posted on Twitter that he’ll have Mr Dunne and his hair on his show tonight.
“I’ll interview them both at once. Or, my hair will interview his.”
He’s obviously combing hair, here, there and everywhere for publicity. Does someone this desperate deserve the brush off?
The advertisements encouraging people to apply for Working for Families made it quite clear it was aimed at middle and upper income earners and this is the result:
. . . 3 News has obtained the details for 2009 – the latest data available.
It shows:
Those with a household income of between $60,000 to $80,000 claimed $240 million on Working For Families tax credits
While those on $80,000 to $100,000 claimed $55 million
Families on more than $100,000 claimed $10 million that year in tax credits.
“Working For Families does some important and good things – it relieves child poverty and gets solo parents into work – but at the same time it’s not very well targeted, so a lot of money goes to the wrong type of people,” says Jean-Pierre de Raad of the NZ Institute of Economic Research.
Few would begrudge welfare for people in genuine need but giving to people in want means we’re all working to provide welfare to the wealthy.
It wouldn’t be a good idea if there was a budget surplus, it’s a really bad idea when we’re in deficit.
No sensible individuals would borrow to buy luxuries when they didn’t have enough for necessities and it makes even less sense for a country to do it.
TV3 has started broadcasting early morning news again, no frills, no fluff, just news.
I like that in theory but it doesn’t fit my with morning routine in practice.
Television has pictures which mean you need to look at them at least some of the time and that’s not easy to do when doing other things which need to be done at that hour of day.
And when the pictures are rarely more than the faces of the interviewer and interviewee there’s not a great deal of difference between that and radio.
TV1′s morning business half hour is similar to TV3′s new morning news and both are much better than the chit chat and advertisements which take up most of the time on TV1′s Breakfast programme.
But if I’m not looking at the pictures I might as well be listening to the radio.
Posted by homepaddock 
