The views from level 8 were lovely. At almost twice the height, they will be magnificent. I wonder if I can talk some one into giving me a window seat?

I understand that over 700 people will be shifting over the weekend, with the new Ministers taking over the Beehive, the new opposition taking their offices and a massive shuffle across Bowen House.

I will personally inspect Winston’s fridge for anything chilled he may have left behind.

I laughed out loud at this image over at Tumeke this morning, in a post from Bomber. I’m not entirely sure who gets the image credit, but perhaps it is best ascribed to John Key himself, as quoted in the NZ Herald:

Do [New Zealanders] want to put in a National government with a fresh view that will work going in one direction with a small group of parties, or do they want a potentially five-headed monster?

[Frog: It turns out it was Tane over at the Standard who deserves credit for the awesome image!]

Sam did make it clear during the election period that if elected, he would continue as Councilor. He also made it clear that he would donate his Auckland City salary to charity. That is all very laudable, but it still doesn´t answer the legitimate question of whether the interests of the people he is elected to represent are being served.

I am close enough to the corridors of power to recognise and acknowledge the mammoth workload of the vast majority of MPs of all parties. I think they deserve every penny that they are paid. Only a few MPs from the big caucuses are left to wallow without workload and it is often not their fault.

Sam is tipped as an up-and-comer within the National Party ranks, so I hardly expect him to suffer the kind of workload exile that Bob the Builder suffered during the last term. But only that kind of exile would leave Sam free to serve the City Council with any kind of focus and energy. (Never mind family pressures)  It´s a bad look for him and a bad look for the Citizens and Ratepayers majority on the council that they fear a by-election so much that they would consider continuing with such a farce.

My two cents? Sam should resign as Auckland City Councilor. What are your thoughts?

But it is clearly not what most voters want or believe should happen. Around 80 per cent of them vote National or Labour and when they go to the polling booth they believe they are choosing a Government. If their party is beaten at the ballot box they accept it is fair and square. Parties trifle with that result at their peril.

In recent years there have been a series of governments (or, to use the technical term, multi headed monsters‘) formed under proportional representation systems in Scandinavia where the party with with most seats has not been part of the government.  Interestingly, all of them have been right leaning governments. For instance -

Norway Storting: 1989-1990

Government Coalition Partners:

• Kristelig Folkeparti (Christian People’s Party, KRF) = 14 seats
• Senterpartiet (Centre Party, SP) = 11 seats
• Hoyre (Conservative Party, H) = 37 seats

Party with the most seats:

• • Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party, A) = 63 seats

Norway Storting: 1997-2001

Government Coalition Partners:

• Venstre (Liberal Party, V) = 6 seats
• Kristelig Folkeparti (Christian People’s Party, KRF) = 25 seats
• Senterpartiet (Centre Party, SP) = 11 seats

Party with the most seats:

• • Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party, A) = 65 seats

Norway Storting: 2001-2005

Government Coalition Partners:

• Hoyre (Conservative Party, H) = 38 seats
• Kristelig Folkeparti (Christian People’s Party, KRF) = 22 seats
• Venstre (Liberal Party, V) = 2 seats

Party with the most seats:

• • Det norske Arbeiderparti (Norwegian Labour Party, DnA) = 43 seats

Sweden Riksdag: 1991-1994

Government Coalition Partners:

• Centern (Centre Party, Ce) = 31 seats
• Kristdemokraterna (Christian Democratic Party, CD) = 26 seats
• Folkpartiet liberalerna (Liberal Party, Li) = 33 seats
• Moderata samlingspartiet (Conservative Party, Co) = 80 seats

Party with the most seats:

• • Arbetarepartiet-Socialdemokraterna (Social Democrats, SD) = 138 seats

Sweden Riksdag: 2006-

Government Coalition Partners:

• Moderaterna (Moderate party, MS) = 97 seats
• Folkpartiet liberalerna (Liberal People’s Party, FP) = 28 seats
• Centerpartiet (Centre Party, CP) = 29 seats
• Kristdemokraterna (Christian Democratic Party, Kd) = 24 seats

Party with the most seats:

• • Socialdemokraterna (Swedish Social Democratic Party, SD) = 130 seats

Denmark Folketing - 1988-1990

Government Coalition Partners:

• Det Radikale Venstre (Radical Liberals, RL) = 10 seats
• Det Konservative Folkeparti (Conservatives, Con) = 35 seats
• Venstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti (Liberals, Lib) = 23 seats

Party with the most seats:

• • Socialdemokratiet (Social Democrats, SD) = 56 seats

Denmark Folketing - 1990-1993

Government Coalition Partners:

• Det Konservative Folkeparti (Conservatives, Con) = 30 seats
• Venstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti (Liberals, Lib) = 30 seats
• With support from Radikale Venstre (Social-Liberal Party) = 7 seats

Party with the most seats:

• • Socialdemokratiet (Social Democrats, SD) = 71 seats

Iceland, the Scandinavian country that we hear the most about recently for not being able to handle the current financial crisis, does not seem to have had such a coalition government.  Likewise two-party, first-past-the-post systems with out the checks and balances of proportional representation don’t seem to fared so well for Britain and the United States when it comes to financial crisis prevention.

Green Party Fisheries spokesperson Metiria Turei put up an amendment to the Bill to ensure that in the face of stock uncertainty, the TAC should not be increased. If they were, it would breach the precautionary principle and would obviously be unsustainable.

Preventing increases would also incentivise the research to get quantitative estimates so we can be certain the catch is sustainable. We invest less today on stock assessment research than we did 15 years ago. In real terms, it is under half what was spent in the early 1990s.

Unfortunately, most parties in Parliament are quite happy to see our fisheries continue to be exploited, despite their rhetorical commitments to sustainability. The only party to support Metiria’s amendment was the Maori Party, and they deserve credit for that.

Very soon the Minister must set a TAC for bluenose, which has woefully inadequate information on fish stocks. At least he can now set the TAC, but the fact that the law allows him to increase the TAC in this situation is outrageous.
Fortunately, the Fisheries Act is up for a review next year, and the Greens will be in flippers and all. The EU has realised its QMS is flawed is also undertaking a full review at the moment.

Amazingly though instead we got this: “Goodbye“.

I’ll be looking forward to his memoirs (which will presumably be issued via txt message).

Ok, so as speeches go the atmosphere is not quite Barack Obama in front of faux Greek pillars, but it’s a pretty clear annunciation of why Russel voted to censure Winston Peters.

Ingredients:

1 Labour policy (ripe)

1 cup of meaningless statistics

1 National Party spokesperson

1 cup of self-righteous bile

standard seasonings

Implements:

A dark, damp closet

1 re-usable RMA reduction casserole dish

Chef de Mission: Crosby-Textor

Take one Labour policy (preferably ripe) and dice into small size chunks. Mix in 1/2 cup of self-righteous bile, 1/2 cup of meaningless statistics and pepper liberally with empty criticisms. (If the Labour policy is especially ripe, use less bile here and save for the spokesperson) Spread evenly in your RMA reduction casserole dish and place in a dark, damp closet for several weeks. Check regularly for leaks.

A couple of days before serving, take the remaining bile, meaningless statistics and the spokesperson and baste gently over a medium heat until boiling, then reduce to a simmer. Season to taste. If no leaks have occurred in your casserole dish, you can glaze the diced labour policy with the simmering bile. Allow to stand briefly and seek sign off from the Chef de Mission, Crosby-Textor. This is a critical period, as pouring the simmering glaze over the ripened policy can often cause fractures which can lead to leaks, particularly when the overheated spokeperson is rapidly exposed to fresh air.

Serve the  spokesperson and the policy at the same time, seasoning liberally.

That’s about it.  Other than the suggestion of switching from methyl bromide to Phosphine, a fumigant that is already under investigation because pests have developed resistance, there isn’t a shred of anything new in this policy that isn’t already Labour’s. As usual, we are none the wiser about what National really plans to do should they occupy the benches after November. Mores the pity.

For a more palatable recipe for sustainable forests, see the Green’s forestry Policy.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister tell us what routine tests New Zealand applies for detecting melamine in dairy products imported from China; if there are none, how can she deny New Zealand consumers the right to know where their food comes from, so they can make their own decisions?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No country routinely checks dairy products for melamine. This has been a situation that has arisen in China in respect of the addition of melamine in the chain of supply, and, as I made the point the other day, one of the products we found that might potentially have had dairy product from China in it had come via Australia. The product did not, in fact, have melamine in it, so I hasten to reassure people about that. But the product had the country-of-origin labelling that is required in Australia, and that labelling said: “Made from domestic and imported products.�, and therefore it did not assist in identifying whether the product came from China.

So the answer is that the government says you don’t need to worry about where your food comes from because New Zealand food safety standards will ensure all food is safe.  Except when they don’t test for poisons like melamine.  In those circumstances you’re not allowed to know either.