The Conservative Party Are Lunatics

I'd previously thought that they couldn't get any wackier than that whole moonlanding-chemtrail fiasco.

But, as ever, the Conservative Party looks mad keen to prove me wrong and shove splinters 'neath their fingernails as they attempt to plumb the bottom of the barrel for political sanity.

For you see, it would appear they're attempting to roll their leader again.

Again? Yes, again. This isn't the first time Colin Craig has found his woolly-mittened grip on the paler-shade-of-blue kingdom under threat.

Way back in March, a similar debacle seemed imminent with "murmurings" about an attempted leadership coup then in circulation. It looks on the face of it like somebody approached Conservative Party candidate and Sensible Sentencing Trust honcho Garth McVicar to take over the leadership, had him pegged to turn up to a board meeting ... and then watched in abject horror as McVicar chickened out at the last minute.

I suspect that the reasoning for this abjectly inexplicable decision (and the subsequent attempt to desperately breathe life into the coup attempt by leaking news of it out into the media) probably had something to do with the rumours then swirling about some decidedly un-conservative conduct by Mr Craig which had induced his long-suffering press secretary - one Rachel MacGregor - to resign highly publicly two days before the last Election.

Due to Craig's well-known penchant for defamation suits, and the fact that I am an impecunious quasi-journalist ... I have no desire to tempt fate nor finances by committing to print the precise nature of the rumours in question.

But the cynical reader is welcome to draw their own conclusions about why she referred to her erstwhile employer as a "manipulative man"; what caused her to take such umbrage against him as to stage her resignation so publicly and timed in such a way to do maximum electoral damage to his campaign; and why Craig subsequently refused to release her statement of resignation to clarify matters. It was a sorry affair, indeed.

Now even given Mr Craig's tarnished reputation amidst the desertion of one of his key staff and the resignation of two of his star candidates from the Party, a moment's consideration would appear to suggest that rolling your Most-Recognizable-Face-Cum-Main-Source-Of-Financing is *not* perhaps the greatest stroke of political genius since #DirtyPolitics.

But, then, nobody ever said one of the prime requisites for Conservative Party membership was brainpower or a keen sense of wisdom and political nous.

I was therefore rather less surprised than I perhaps should have been at last night's news that the Conservative Party's board was, once again, apparently considering rolling their leader in favour of someone Garth McVicar.

The lifeblood of any party outside of Parliament is media-oxygen, and on the face of it Craig's agreeing to be interviewed by TV3's David Farrier in a somewhat attention-grabbing context represented exactly that.

It's slightly quirky, yes - and I doubt that you could ever really call anything Craig does "dignified" ... but it's vitally needed attention and public salience which - along with Craig's millions - is the only thing seriously keeping the party alive.

I therefore find it slightly odd that he's being pilloried for it.

Unless, of course, what's actually happening here is the Conservative Party's more *ahem* "conservative" members are really just freaking out about their "core values" being undermined thanks to their leader sharing a sauna with a man whose sexual preferences include other men.......

Discretion Is Part Of Natural Policing, On Licenses And Elsewhere - Ron Mark

Once again, Ron Mark perfectly encapsulates my views. ANYONE on the roads who's unlicensed or driving outside the conditions of their restricted is a potential hazard. Helping to ensure they get their license can be a positive step - but if this policy of non-ticketing unlicensed Maori drivers in South Auckland is a good one, then its benefits ought not be restricted on the basis of race.
Not least because, as some have pointed out, an officer might have a hard time working out who is and who isn't Maori for the purposes of the scheme. As Ron Mark - NZ First MP notes, there are a not insignificant number of blonde haired and blue eyed Maori these days. And surely if the argument behind the policy is that it's geared toward reducing offending and criminalization of an underclass, then Pasifika New Zealanders and hell, any Kiwi from a lower socio-economic background ought to qualify too.
Also, the way the Police Minister has handled this - by simply turning on those officers under his management and making out like it's their fault exclusively rather than fronting up and taking responsibility for the conduct and policy of the Ministry he's nominally in charge of - is just not on.
We saw the same thing with the dangerous "Zero Tolerance" speeding policy over Summer. When the heat went on, the Minister washed his hands rather than do his job.
Finally, and arguably most importantly, Ron raises the very sensible point that the terms being discussed - "Police Discretion" and "Diversion" used to be far more common hallmarks of "natural policing" than they are today.
There was nothing abnormal in the 1970s about a policeman using his discretion to frog-march a young (minor) offender back to their parents rather than insisting on charging him or her and putting them through the wringer of the official (even criminal) justice system to emerge with a black mark against their name.
As the host points out - not a few of our politicians would, today, be living lives *very* different to the ones they've got had they been in receipt of a conviction rather than a somewhat kindly disposed and understanding police officer. And our Nation would be all the poorer for it.
The use of discretion in community policing is sensible, and can do a power of good. But only if it's available to be applied across the board rather than exclusively on the basis of race; and further, as a matter of individual circumstance rather than top-down ham-fisted imposition.
Speaking of top-down ham-fisted impositions, it's a shame the Parliamentary boys in blue are so quick to throw the *real* boys in blue who protect our streets under the bus with such alarming regularity.
Mark my words - if this keeps up, there will be many a policeman voting NZF come Election Day 2017.

Dirty Politics: Coming To A TV Station Near You

Oh dear. Not content with caving in to Prime Ministerial pressure in getting rid of John Campbell, MediaWorks has now managed to go from really bad to almost inconceivably worse by headhunting former Herald gossip columnist Rachel Glucina.

You know, the woman outed in Dirty Politics as an active agent of Cameron Slater.

The one who got called in by the Nats to run snowjob interference over #PonyTailGate in the most dodgy piece of "reporting" this year.

The alleged "journalist" who wasn't above tricking a victim of workplace harassment into an interview using the most deplorable of false pretenses.

Yes. THAT one.

Well, she's announced that she's quit the NZ Herald after being "head-hunted" by MediaWorks.

Truly, as Sophocles wrote in Philoctetes: "Nothing evil ever perishes; the gods somehow give them most excellent care - they take their pleasure in turning back from the gates of the Underworld, the villains and the tricksters."

Between this and Paul Henry (him of the abysmally low ratings and former National Party candidacy for Parliament) ... it isn't hard to view TV3 as descending into perhaps the lowest pits of iniquity possible for a serious mainstream broadcaster.

This is pretty bad. And from a cursory examination of the comments offered by MediaWorks chief executive Mark Wheldon, it looks like the idea is to use Glucina's talents for sensationalism and muckraking to produce viral videos lambasting the right wing's preferred choice of targets.

"Snackable, shareable content", eh?

Well dine out on this.

Unless TV3 and Mediaworks put some serious investment - not just money, but actual credibility - into resurrecting their brand and its scruples, it is going to continue to nose-dive into the volcano of public sentiment.

Replacing quality investigative journalism (a la Campbell) with tawdry gossip-rag rumourmongering is NOT what the people want!

No matter HOW useful it might be to National and Glucina's shadowy paymasters.

That Burning Sound You Hear Is The Gateway Drug Argument Going Up In Smoke

Well this is interesting, isn't it. A "massive new study" from the US has clarified that the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes DOES NOT lead to increased cannabis usage amongst teenagers.

Given the new climate of debate around medicinal marijuana here in New Zealand, this is an important revelation.

Back in January, the National Party's Justice Minister was still speaking against medicinal marijuana by citing the gateway drug argument. She even appeared to claim that legalization of medicinal marijuana would lead to methamphetamine use.

Now, from where I'm sitting, this is manifestly ridiculous. Some cancer-patient using cannabis to ameliorate their suffering is hardly likely to conclude that the next logical step in their treatment is to seek out the local crack-den and load up on crystal. Equally, a child being treated with a cannabis oil extract in order to control debilitating seizures is hardly likely to grow up and conclude that this makes sticking themselves on the end of a chuff-pipe a good idea. In fact, I'd contend that psychostimulants we ALREADY treat our young people with including ritalin and dexamphetamine (which, let's remember, is only a single chain of atoms away from methamphetamine anyway) are FAR more likely to lead onto subsequent stronger stimulant abuse in adulthood. And yet nowhere do I see Ministers making the same vitriolic claims about "gateway drug" potential for these medicines as they do for cannabis.

Having said that, I'm sure that some people DO start their drug-journey with marijuana and wind up on meth. But then, I'm also quite definitely sure that others started with alcohol - or even prescription medications - and wound up in exactly the same place. I've met them.

There is some currency to the idea that people who take mind altering substances may eventually take other mind altering substances. But that isn't necessarily to say it's a direct result of the nature of the substances themselves - which often seems to be the nature of what Gateway Drug crusaders are claiming.

What actually seems to happen is something I call "Gateway Context"; wherein people in the market for one drug (such as cannabis) wind up in contact with other drugs (such as ecstasy, mushrooms, or even the dreaded methamphetamine) thanks to the nature of the black market. People don't tend to make sudden leaps from purchasing a tinny every now and again to scoring point-bags. You wind up introduced to other substances slowly, and perniciously, over time. Perhaps your dealer's out of whatever it is you're after for a protracted period (such as the recent cannabis drought over summer this year), and he winds up attempting to hawk you something else instead.

However it happens, it's the context in which you're engaging to procure your drugs that leads most people on to harder substances. Not the nature of the drugs themselves.

So a clear solution to this problem would be to remove the alleged and widely consumed "entry-level" drug from the potentially pernicious context it's these days often found in; thus removing the slippery slope before anyone has to risk sliding down it. But that is a conversation and an argument far beyond the scope of a piece in defence of the strictly medicinal provision of cannabis and/or its derivatives.

As an aside, I'm also happy to report that there seems to be a strong and flourishing anti-crackie culture amongst many recreational stoners these days - precisely because they've often seen up close and all too personal what meth can do to people and communities. It therefore additionally occurs that any teleological imperative between meth and marijuana is, if anything, hopefully weakening through the admittedly highly imperfect mechanism of community self-regulation.

In any case, the political tide on medicinal marijuana appears to slowly be shifting. Just last week, for instance, we were treated to the spectacle of that political bell(end)-weather-par-excellence, Peter Dunne, eating his proverbial hat and approving a one-off treatment here in New Zealand using a cannabis-derivative.

Happily, this appears to have had some positive impact for the stricken lad in question.

Now let's be clear about this. In the wrong hands, cannabis can be a damaging and debilitating drug. While the media and Ministers often like to hype these sorts of things up for scare value, it's definitely true to say that some people - their families, lives, and communities - suffer as a result of its abuse and over-indulgence.

But then, it also appears to be the case that marijuana - and drugs which are derived from same - do have legitimate therapeutic and medical uses.

Even without considering the broader societal questions around decriminalization and legalization (and I note we've advanced to a point wherein Winston feels perfectly comfortable talking about same on the campaign trail), the revelation that making medicinal marijuana a reality doesn't increase teenage consumption rates is an important one.

I know I'll never convince certain people that marijuana is anything other than a short and very slippery slope down to meth ... but either way, I'm hopeful that this kernel of evidence will be useful in helping to secure a rational, useful - and above all, helpful - approach to the medicinal use of cannabis by our state.

Because as with the TPPA and PHARMAC - the health of our citizens is far better served by evidence-based policy than it is by right-wing political scaremongering.

"Nothing to hide? Nothing to fear." Unless you're the Prime Minister

Well this is interesting. Apparently the Prime Minister disposes of his cellphone every three months because he's concerned about people snooping through his text messages.

The irony of this is palpable, given his government has previously passed legislation which allows our own security services to wiretap just about any text-message they please ... while those wonderful American "allies" and friends of his have apparently been doing exactly that to the vast majority of txts sent in New Zealand anyway.

So it's little wonder the Prime Minister's feeling a bit concerned about his own privacy. He knows EXACTLY how violated the privacy of our digital communications is for the rest of us.

Because he's the one that allowed it to happen.

Now I've been in this position before, myself. And I can tell you that there are few things more terrifying than having a detective from the counter-terrorism division of the Special Investigations Group of the NZ Police, accompanied by a spook from the state's intelligence services (who insists on wearing sunglasses and a hoodie even while *inside* your house) ... sitting directly across from you in your living room and telling you that you've been under wiretap surveillance for the previous 18 months.

You suddenly realize that your *entire* life has been laid bare to the state.

Every fight with your parents down a phone-line; every flirtatious text you've sent your then-girlfriend; and every dodgy joke or emotional crisis you've flicked through facebook to a mate.

They've read it all. Archived it, and logged it.

And then it hits home. You've been targeted by that security and surveillance apparatus - not because you're a bad person, or some evil ISIS recruiter ... but because your politics and your personal beliefs were seen as a "Threat to National['s] Security".

The very edifice of state which we've built to keep us safe - to protect us, and to look after us - has turned into some gigantic glowing Eye of Sauron capable of peering into the deepest, darkest and most intimate corners of your private life.

And it's aimed itself at you.

So I'm glad that Key gets a small taste of that. And I'm especially glad it's been big enough to ensure he has to take countermeasures to protect himself from the possibility it's happening to him, too.

Because he's made it so that all the rest of us have to deal with that paranoia every day and with every text message, ourselves

Serves him right.

I can't help but wonder if there's anything more interesting than a string of texts to Cameron Slater that'd turn up if you were to bug his phone...

You'd Have To Be High To Think Our Drugs Are Safe Under TPPA

On Wednesday, the fine folks at Wikileaks published the draft sections of the TPPA dealing with Healthcare.

It makes for pretty grim reading.

Basically, regardless of the Prime Minister's breathless assurances that PHARMAC will be protected ... the TPPA will grant pharmaceutical companies unprecedented rights of access and challenge to PHARMAC's decision-making process.

Company representatives - who've already been granted *far* more information about the text of the treaty than you or I or even our MPs - will be able to sit in on PHARMAC's meetings. Not only that, under the Investor-State Dispute mechanisms in the TPPA ... if they don't like a particular decision, they'll be free to sue OUR state in order to get their way.

So as far as I'm concerned, when John Key says PHARMAC will be protected by his government - he is simply lying. Just like he did when he promised his government would not raise GST.

New Zealand First's Fletcher Tabuteau MP puts it bluntly: "We’ve already had the Saudi debacle in which the government paid a bribe to two businessmen. At the same time the Prime Minister claims we can’t stop Koreans buying land here because of the free trade agreement. That’s why New Zealand First is determined to stop any future governments signing agreements that allow corporations to sue us, which is what our Bill, Fighting Foreign Corporate Control, is all about."

He's absolutely right. Time and time again, this government has used international agreements and the lure of filthy lucre as "justification" to renege on its commitment to our citizens in favour of rolling out the red carpet for foreign capital.

That's not good enough. And I, for one, am infinitely glad that New Zealand First has taken the lead in defending our sovereignty on this one.

If you're interested, you can check out the text of Fletcher's awesome Fighting Foreign Corporate Control bill here.

Meanwhile, you can help the struggle by writing to your local MP and making it plain how you feel about this issue. Better still, write to a Government MP - and get your friends, family and co-workers to do the same.

I know that when it comes to consultation, this government seems to have the tinniest ear of any in living memory - but as we saw with the backdown over mining in the Coromandel, when they feel they may be facing swathes of electoral oblivion ... they CAN be forced to be reasonable!

Over to you.

Social Bonds for Mental Health are SCARY. Here's what you can do.

From where I'm sitting, as somebody recently discharged from hospital and presently going through a WINZ-moderated pathway towards re-employment and getting myself back on my feet ... the Government's recent announcement that mentally ill New Zealanders are about to be subjected to an experiment in policy called "Social Bonds" is hella, hella scary.

Forget energy company privatization- that's a right-wing evil of a cold, impersonal and ultimately predictable nature.

Social bonds, by contrast, are new. Untested. Frightening.

Because while we can reasonably predict some of the pernicious and detrimental effects that will flow from this policy - as the commodification of human beings, and profiteering from human misery can only go so many ways - there are still many details which are yet to be hammered out in the cold light of day.

One factoid which ought to raise hackles for both mentally ill and resoundingly sane voters-cum-taxpayers alike, is the fact that the social bond scheme might actually wind up costing *more* to deliver than current mental health services. Again, for a highly uncertain return in terms of rehabilitation and reintegration as applies some of our most vulnerable citizens.

Bill English can't even tell us whether the private sector investors stumping up cash on the condition you get better, will be paid out a fiscal return of 5% or anywhere up to SEVENTEEN percent.

With so many unknowns attached to the policy, it's not surprising people are skeptical about why we're doing it in the first place.

And when you think about the possible motivations, it's hard to come up with anything other than a severely disappointing impression that Government has decided that in many cases, helping the mentally ill ... just simply isn't its problem any more.

Instead, the private sector is being left to pick up the slack from out of the "too hard" basket; in the vain hopes that this somehow generates an improved set of outcomes as compared to the status quo.

Because let's be honest.

What we're doing right now, as a society, is *also* not coming up with the goods.

I don't think it's an exaggeration in the slightest to insist that New Zealand is presently facing a Mental Health Crisis.

Whether we're talking about the ongoing (and unaddressed) psychological impacts of seismic events down in Canterbury; the way Government has consciously chosen to underfund services dealing with the aftermath of sexual violence like RapeCrisis; or even simply the everyday run-of-the-mill experience of the average mentally ill person working their way through the public health system ... in many cases, it's simply not working.

Therefore, one thing many commentators are united upon when they talk about the Social Bonds program, is the point that something needs to change.

And it's my challenge to ALL our Opposition parties - heck, even the Government and its lapdog support partners - to actually stump up with the goods and DEMONSTRATE that they've been thinking, consulting, and conceptualizing what we might do differently. In ways that will actually work FOR our mentally unwell whaunau - rather than as business opportunities available for the government's rich mates.

One idea which we might like to explore ... and I know this might sound radical and revolutionary ... is actually putting money into frontline services that deal with these issues.

Because seriously. If Bill English, as Finance Minister, is quite comfortable saying "we don't mind it being more expensive if we get results" about his precious social bonds policy - I feel quite entitled to ask why EXACTLY THE SAME LOGIC has not been applied to more conventional approaches to sorting and supporting the mental health concerns of our citizenry.

Anyway.

Now as for what you can do:

You might not be a psychotherapist, counselor, or cutting-edge PhD researcher at some tertiary institute somewhere. You might not even be in a position to directly support someone with mental health woes (or, perhaps, offer them a job).

But one thing we ALL can do is add our signatures and our voice to the Action Station petition on this issue presently in circulation. At the time of writing, it's on just under 7,000 signatures - and will be presented when it's hit the target of 10,000.

Beyond that, one thing I'll definitely be doing - and something which I am URGING anyone else politically engaged who's got a perspective to contribute on the present workings of our mental health system - is writing to MPs and other decision-makers.

Because most of them don't have direct engagement nor experience with these parts of either the public health system or Work and Income. I can't speak for all of them - but I can say with certainty that it's highly unlikely that many of those at the highest level of our politics have a strong grasp of what it's actually like to be either seriously mentally ill, or to have to support somebody on a path to wellness from some of the darkest places a mind can bare.

MPs are only as good as their information-flows and understanding. They've often got a capacious depth of goodwill, understanding and capacity for empathy - and that is commendable.

But if we're serious about doing mental health better in this country ... then that means helping our legislators to make the right choices.

And whether by signing your name to a petition; submitting to a Select Committee hearing; or calling up your Party's Social Development spokesperson to have a yarn (Hi Darroch) ...

If we want better policy, it's time we spoke up and helped inform them what it looks like.

Over to you.