Luxon keeps contradicting himself

What is it about right wing leaders thinking they can fit their narrative to whatever audience is in front of them? It’s almost like they aren’t aware of how modern day reporting works. Or perhaps they think they can simply bluff their way out of any given sticky situation they’ve created for themselves.

A prime example of this was on display last Monday when newbie National Party leader Christopher Luxon told a predominantly right wing audience that he would get tough on people he described as bottom feeders, namely beneficiaries who’re living in state houses. I’m sure this beneficiary bashing went down well amongst Newstalk ZB listeners, but if Twitter and Facebook are anything to go by the majority of people who keep an eye on politics these days certainly didn’t think his comments were appropriate.

Luxon then did a backflip during an interview with John Campbell where he attempted to explain away his divisive comments. He even claimed that he was all for increasing benefits to ensure people reach their potential. However, after listening to Luxon’s initial interview and considering his previous fervour while attacking impoverished Kiwi’s, Luxon’s claim that he now cared about “bottom feeders” clearly needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

On Wednesday, 1 News reported:

Christopher Luxon explains his 'bottom feeding' comments

Breakfast's John Campbell questioned Luxon about his comments in the bulk of their interview - nine minutes to be exact - on Wednesday.

In part of his interview with Kerre McIvor on Monday, Luxon had said: "I've got to be honest to all of your listeners. This is a fantastic country. This is the best country on planet Earth, but we have to determine we want to realise our maximum potential economically, socially and environmentally, and we want to be a place everyone can flourish. And if you want to have a go and you want to make something of yourself, we don't just do bottom feeding and just focus on the bottom, we focus on people who want to be positive and ambitious and aspirational and confident, right?"

The comments made it to Twitter and Reddit.

Asked first off who he has aspiration for and who he wants to lift up, Luxon responded: "My general theme is look I think we've been playing quite a small, negative, inward, fearful game and I think New Zealand is a place that's about confidence, ambition, aspiration, going forward. I'm ambitious for every New Zealander. I want all New Zealanders to be able to flourish in this country. I want everybody to realise their potential and that's what we're here to do."

Replaying Luxon his Newstalk ZB comments, Campbell then asked him what he meant by "bottom feeding".

"My general theme there, John, was exactly what I just talked about before which was saying - look we want to have confidence, ambition, aspiration for all New Zealanders and we've got to celebrate that. It's important we celebrate that. What I was meaning there was the fact that the reality is we actually believe and want to help everybody who's doing it tough in this country as well and so we've got to care deeply about everybody."

The problem for Luxon and the National Party is that he’s obviously losing his credibility by explaining. Lux Flakes might be getting a bit of media attention, but he’s also offending both right and left wing voters with such mealy-mouthed indecisive statements. Instead he should stick to one statement concerning what the National Party would stand for under his leadership and not attempt to back track all the time.

We witnessed Luxon doing exactly the same thing in regards to his comments about wanting women who require abortions to be jailed and treated like murderers. After a backlash, he then miraculously changed his fundamentalist belief system. It would therefore appear that the new blue “team” leader is attempting to play both sides of the field and failing miserably! Similarly, John Key would often score own goals by using this dishonest tactic while trying to illicit public support. In fact this questionable method was a major component leading up to Key’s resignation and National losing the 2017 election.

So instead of making contentious claims or aspirational statements that he later sweeps into the bin, Luxon should come up with some actual budgeted policy ideas that don’t simply copy policy the Labour Government has already, or intends to, announce. We need to see a plan of how the National Party proposes to govern New Zealand for them to be considered a viable alternative. Because at the moment all we’re hearing are the unreliable words of someone who appears to be a complete political novice.

Sean Plunket - Asshole of the Week

After this weekend you’ve really got to wonder if The Opportunities Party is trying to be the new Association of Consumers and Taxpayers party?

Not content with mansplaining Lizzie Marvelly about her latest Herald column for most of Saturday, Sean Plunket and his subordinates then moved their attention to Metiria Turei for most of Sunday, obviously jealous of the publicity the Green party received over their most excellent social welfare policy announcement.

To their detriment, TOP's director of communications, Sean Plunket, and other right-wing affiliates have been feverishly throwing every attack line they've ever developed at the Green party co-leader.

Unfortunately this has meant that the policy's attributes and Turei’s most honourable admission of a crime of necessity to highlight the plight of beneficiaries has been somewhat lost in mainstream media translation. Oh well, there's no such thing as bad publicity I guess.

Generally speaking the media didn’t really want to engage in a productive discussion about what needs to change in order to fix our broken social welfare system. Instead they adamantly tried to solely focus on an overpayment from 25 years ago. The beneficiary bashing and hypocrisy has been quit extraordinary!

Here’s churnalist Plunket implying on Twitter that Metiria Turei shouldn't have had a child.

Why did she have a child then, clearly being on good terms with a drop kick dad more important than obeying the law

— Sean Plunket (@SeanPlunket) July 23, 2017

Let’s explain how things work for the ignorant Sean Plunket then shall we. A woman has a child because it’s her body and her choice. If woman were only allowed to have children when all their circumstances were acceptable to people like the chauvinistic pigs in ACT and TOP the world would be a very lonely and mediocre place indeed.

It’s a slippery slope when bigots with a few dimes start attacking the family members of politicians they don’t like and promoting a type of eugenics based on wealth. That’s why Sean bloody Plunket wins this week’s Asshole Award. Why Bomber Bradbury is advocating for these sexist pricks is beyond me?

National punishing the poor

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Welfare benefits will go up by just 0.61 per cent from April 1 because the Government has decided not to give beneficiaries any compensation for higher cigarette prices.

The increase is the lowest for many years and represents only an extra $1.25 a week for a single unemployed person aged 25 or over, or $2.08 a week for a couple.

But superannuation rates will go up by 2.44 per cent in line with the net average wage, providing an extra $8.50 a week for single superannuitants living alone and an extra $13.08 a week for a couple.

That seems entirely unfair... If superannuitants get the full increase, why aren't beneficiaries? That makes Nationals decision discriminatory, and it also makes a mockery of Paula Bennett's claim that benefits would match general inflation.

It's incorrect to make the calculation by averaging inflation across the board when most beneficiaries rent the house they live in. Rents have increased dramatically; therefore the cost of living for beneficiaries has increased more than the average waged person.

Having an increase of only 0.61 per cent in comparison to general inflation will simply cause more inequality, which is a shameful result that indicates a failure of governance to properly look after the populace. New Zealanders don't want a country divided between the haves and the have nots... We want an equal society where everybody can prosper.

The diverging trends mean that the super rate for a couple will stay fixed at 66 per cent of the net average wage, while the benefit for a working-age unemployed couple will slip further from 42 per cent to 41.3 per cent of the net average wage, continuing a trend which has been steadily downwards since the late 1980s.

A Treasury paper prepared for the Long-Term Fiscal External Panel in January forecasts that benefits will roughly halve again as a proportion of wages as wages continue to increase faster than prices out to the year 2060.

With many areas not having any opportunities for people to work themselves out of poverty, reducing benefits in comparison to inflation will simply have an adverse effect on society. It will dramatically increase inequality and hardship.

For instance, less beneficiaries will be able to afford health care, which accompanied by higher prescription costs, will lead to an increase in acute cases of illness and subsequently more time spent in hospital. That being the case, one has to ask whether Nationals attempt to save money is going to save any at all?

Salvation Army analyst Alan Johnson said a "low-income consumers price index", based on typical spending by low-income families, rose by 1.4 per cent during the year, significantly above the 0.9 per cent official average.

Which clearly shows that the governments decision to effectively cut benefits by by 0.79 per cent will adversely impact on those who are already struggling, and not just smokers I might add.

Unfortunately National is ideologically hard wired to punish the poor, and their stupidity looks set to increase inequality in New Zealand even further.

The Herald also reported:

Sweeping changes to the welfare system came closer to passing into law despite losing the support of New Zealand First and official advice that the changes would lead to a decline in poor families' health.

After a fiery, personal debate in which Opposition members accused former beneficiary and Social Development Minister Paula Bennett of "kicking away the ladder", the reforms passed their second reading 61 votes to 60.

That one vote is why nothing will be done about the corrupt John Banks.

Ms Bennett said that despite "hand-wringing" by the Opposition and claims of beneficiary bashing, National campaigned on the changes in 2011 and was overwhelmingly supported by New Zealanders.

Overwhelming support by New Zealanders? With a million Kiwis deciding not to vote at the last election, National only receiving 47% of the vote and such a slim margin of MPs supporting the defunct legislation, one has to ask whether the current government has a mandate to pass these detrimental changes into law at all?

But Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei pointed to Ministry of Health advice, released under the Official Information Act, which warned ministers that the economic benefits of the changes could be undermined by health impacts. Families who were sanctioned were likely to defer healthcare and increasingly show up in emergency departments instead of primary care.

The ministry also warned that making Well Child checks compulsory for beneficiaries' children could change the relationship between families and health providers and make the system less effective.

So, the government is once again ignoring its own official advice, and instead ramming through ideological changes that will have no benefit to society at all. There's also no benefit to the governments budget, which makes Nationals archaic policy changes not about helping the poor, and all about punishment for the sake of it. How stupid is that?

Tax evasion is not OK

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Recent research also confirms that the legal system treats beneficiaries more harshly than tax evaders.

In a pilot study comparing three years of tax evasion and welfare fraud, Victoria University lecturer Dr Lisa Marriott found welfare fraud was significantly more likely than tax crime to be prosecuted, even though the sums involved in tax offences were far larger. In 2010, it was calculated that tax evaders cheated New Zealand of up to $6 billion.

Benefit fraud involved an average of $70,000 and the offender had a 60 per cent chance of being jailed. Tax evaders, with an average fraud of $270,000, had only a 22 per cent chance of being imprisoned.

That's a huge difference that clearly shows our current political and judicial system is biased.

On February 20 this year, Associate Social Development Minister Chester Borrows announced new measures - not to crack down on the $2.6 billion owing in child support or the money lost through tax evasion, but to "prevent, detect and catch welfare fraud".

Chester Borrows is obviously playing to his constituency of beneficiary bashing tax evaders.

So it is not surprising that a UMR Research survey released last month found New Zealanders believed beneficiaries had now become the most discriminated-against group in the country.

Unfortunately having somebody to blame is a common human trait, and with the media and politicians invariably putting welfare instead of tax evasion at the top of their list, beneficiaries will continue to be unfairly persecuted.

That unfair discrimination has a detrimental effect on all people who are welfare dependent, which in turn costs the country in ways that most politicians don't often consider. Our high rate of youth suicide for instance can often be directly attributed to discrimination.

One way to help people out of poverty would be to ensure that tax evaders were pursued more vigorously, and that tax evasion became less acceptable within "polite" society.

In order to do that, we need to change the public focus away from beneficiary bashing and onto tax evasion, which is easier said than done when there's no political impetus to catch let alone prosecute more tax evaders.

Maybe that’s because many politicians also avoid paying their fair share of taxes as well.

Nationals revolving prison door

Today the NZ Herald reported:

Government announces 40-hours of work a week for inmates in plan to cut boredom and reoffending.

Up to 1400 inmates will be working 40 hours a week - without pay - by the end of this year as part of a plan to create more "working prisons" in New Zealand.

Prime Minister John Key announced in his first speech to Parliament for the year that the number of prisons with fulltime work programmes would be expanded as part of a drive to cut reoffending.

Will making prisoners work 40 hours a week with no pay cut recidivism rates? This is a somewhat complicated question to answer, being that no studies have been conducted in New Zealand to verify the Prime Ministers claims.

Instead we have to look to where the prison policy National has been copying at the behest of the Sensible Sentencing Trust is coming from, the United States.

A study conducted in 2004 by the Developing Justice Coalition (PDF) found:

Work programs can be administered while in prison to provide inmates with experience and skills that increase their employability upon release. There is no national program designed to provide inmates with useful opportunities to work while in prison. The types of programs that are in place, however, are not necessarily designed to reduce recidivism. Work programs are implemented for a variety of reasons, including earning revenue for the prison and occupying and pacifying inmates. Although the programs were not specifically intended to reduce recidivism, studies of some work programs report reduced recidivism rates, but qualify these findings by admitting biased data. As mentioned earlier, the selfselection process of program participants results in a group who are less likely to revert to criminal behavior with or without the program. Studies have shown substantial effects of employment programs on reducing recidivism for older men.

So only work programs where prisoners have a choice have shown any benefit in reducing recidivism rates and older men are shown to respond best. Typically effective work programs include courses on job preparedness, career development skills and help with job placement.

Other things that have been shown to actually reduce recidivism include sophisticated risk assessments, meticulous re-entry planning and post-release supervision carefully tailored to each offender’s circumstances.

Clearly John Key isn't talking about voluntary work programs or any of these other worthwhile things when he blathers on about the plan to create more “working prisons”. The Prime Minister obviously just wants to create a large group of people who will work for free.

Asked whether working prisons were a form of cheap labour, Mr Key said: "Not really. There already are work programmes which are ... sometimes controversial because they take work ... off the private sector. But the aim here is to build up that skill base.

Giving prisoners menial work for 40 hours per week with no pay has no benefit to society or the prisoner... It only benefits those who are using the free labour force.

Therefor the main effect to Nationals prison privatization and unpaid work program will be to undercut the job seeker who will often be competing for the same position as prisoners. They will of course not be able to compete, because the prisoners are being paid nothing. This is more commonly known as slavery and along with having absolutely nothing to do with reducing recidivism rates, is currently against international law.

Another point to make is that putting released prisoners into lowly paid jobs upon their release without any career path doesn’t reduce the recidivism rate either.  There’s no question however that released prisoners need employment to avoid involvement in criminal activity, but it’s only high quality jobs in terms of pay rates and/or viable career paths that have been shown to reduce recidivism.

So the main problem is the creation of enough well paid jobs, and that’s an area where National is completely failing.

Instead of learning from the United States' mistakes, National seem intent on copying the worst their system has to offer. This is the height of stupidity, being that the US had a re-incarceration rate within three years of 43% in 2004, largely because prisons are now treated as a business enterprise and not a way to rehabilitate people. Studies have also shown a recidivism rate 3% higher for convicts coming from private prisons.

Despite a decline in crime rates, there was a huge prison population increase of 705% between 1973 and 2009 during the private prison boom times making the United States the world leader for all the wrong reasons. They spend a staggering one in every 14 general fund dollars on incarceration, so that’s clearly not a system we should be emulating.

National has unfortunately been busy building many more jail cells than even the Corrections Department predicts will be require, while Garth McVicar has been busy scaremongering in order to get harsher penalties imposed. The SST receives funding from the private prison industry, or more precisely Serco, which puts into perspective McVicar's get tough on crime crusade.

National will fill those thousands of extra prison bunks by changing laws to ensure more low-risk offenders are sent to prison instead of granting them probation. That’s what the right wings attack on the Justice system and particularly legal aid was really all about... Creating more prisoners.

After all, John Key has made no secret of wanting to lower wages even more, and having a slave labour force available will do just that.

Labour's answer to the housing crisis

Today, the Labour party leader, David Shearer, gave a speech:

Today I’m announcing that we will put 100,000 Kiwi families into their first home.

That’s the sort of big change we need to make a big difference to people’s lives.

We’ll oversee and invest in a large scale 10 year building programme of entry-level houses that Kiwis are crying out for.

Yes, it’s a big commitment and it’ll take a couple of years to ramp up, but we can do it.

I won’t stand by while the dream of home ownership slips away from future generations.

At the peak of last decade, about 30,000 new homes were built a year. Now it’s less than half that.

These are the missing rungs on the housing ladder. And it shows what an active and responsible government can do to help.

The start-up cost of the building programme will be financed through issuing government stock called Home Ownership Bonds.

The money we make from selling the houses will go back into the pot for building more.

The houses will be compact in size. Some will be stand-alone dwellings and others apartments. All of them will be good quality and energy efficient.

The homes will be sold to first home buyers who’ve saved their own deposit, like with KiwiSaver.

We estimate that the maximum needed to be raised for a kick-start will be $1.5 billion.

It will quickly become self-funding though. And because it’s a capital investment, it won’t affect our commitment to balance the books and return to surplus.

I can already hear our opponents complaining that this is too bold. That the problem’s too big and there’s nothing we can do.

I won’t accept that. I won’t give up on the Kiwi dream of an affordable home.

I have spoken to Auckland Mayor Len Brown to take up his offer of a partnership with Auckland council to make land available.

In addition, we will introduce a National Policy Statement under the RMA to ensure that planning rules and consenting decisions support affordable housing.

This is most excellent news and acknowledges the huge and growing need for more affordable housing in New Zealand. It also acknowledges the success of other state housing initiatives in New Zealand that ensured many Kiwis, including the current Prime Minister John Key, had security through affordable housing.

David Shearer might understate the effectiveness of such a policy, but like the state housing policy after WW2, there's a distinct possibility of a financial return on the governments initial investment.

The opportunities inherent in such a large scale plan to save costs by buying in bulk should ensure it's cost effectiveness. Being that the government can match the housing required with the people who require it through better technology should also ensure savings and efficiency. This policy will also boost the economy, which has been limping along under Nationals stupid neo-liberal agenda.

There is the political angle to consider, in that some property investments might not increase in value as fast as they are now once the state houses come on line. But I don't think there's any other choice and something must be done to address the overheated market in New Zealand and the fact that we're not building enough houses to meet demand.

Clearly one of the biggest positive to Labours housing policy (PDF) is that it will give those who've lost all hope of ever owning their own home a chance to get onto that all important property ladder. The social benefits to this are huge and shouldn't be underestimated.

So well done David Shearer... That's exactly the type of thing I would do if I were Prime Minister.

Jacinda Ardern vs Paula Bennett

Time to lower the voting age

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

It is unfair to deprive young people of the right to have their say on laws that affect them simply because of the actions of a minority of delinquents - a minority that probably won't even bother vote even if they could, much like the million adult voters who didn't turn up last election.

In my opinion it's not because some young people are delinquents that they don't have the right to vote yet, that's just one of the excuses being used... It's because the current government is ageist! Clearly they don't want young people to have a say in how things are being run, which can only be described as outright discrimination against youth.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with Nationals stupid idea to reintroduce youth rates, whereby an older generation is proposing policy that openly discriminates against 16 to 19 year olds. Paying people $10.80 per hour effectively turns them into wage slaves, because the cost of living uses up all their remuneration and little to nothing is left to socialize with.

The argument that its good for a young person to struggle for a while because it hardens them up is entirely obnoxious! No young person should go without proper food, a warm and dry house to live in and some decent clothes. However the current regime has many young people living in abject poverty and things are getting worse.

The other argument the ageists often trot out is that young people don't understand politics. However the younger generations sure understand the negative consequences of having a bunch old old men in charge. In fact many young people understand politics to a far greater degree than older people, and getting people enthusiastic about exercising their democratic right at a young age would mean they're more likely to continue to vote as adults.

The fact of the matter is that young people no longer have the same opportunities as those who are making the decisions. Generally speaking, most young people will not have the ability to work themselves into a home they own, and they no longer have the benefits of a free education either. Unfortunately the governments ageist policy direction shows no signs of changing.

Is it any wonder then that young people are leaving New Zealand in record numbers? Is it any wonder that some young people drink to excess and take drugs? You could even say that the reason more young people kill themselves is because of the discrimination against them just for being young. In fact many of the negative conditions that young people exhibit are directly attributable to our ageist society, which must change if we want to see any progress in these important areas.

Giving young people the vote would go some way to rectify the problem... But don't expect National to do the right thing anytime soon.

Jacinda Ardern vs Paula Bennett

Doctors lose power to diagnose

Today, National reported on a speech given by Paula Bennett:

Not that long after I became the Minister for Social Development, a distraught woman told me a story about her son.

Her son was about 19, he had Asperger’s syndrome, but she described him as handsome (as only mums do) and very physically fit.

He had worked since leaving school, but left after a couple of years to visit his father in Australia.

On his return she found that he had lost all motivation.

He was smoking marijuana and drifting about, doing nothing.

To sort him out she sent him to Work and Income.

In her words she thought he would get the ‘kick in the pants’ he needed and help to get a job.

She thought this would be a turning point in her son’s life.

But she came home to her son on the couch, marijuana smoke everywhere, watching TV and looking deflated.

He had been told he didn’t need to get a job - they wouldn’t be putting him forward or helping him find one - because he was entitled to an Invalid’s Benefit, and they’d start it straight away.

He told her he had no hope left because even the government didn’t think he could do anything, he felt worthless, so what was the point in trying?

That’s the message our system has been sending to people with disability or illness.

Remember, Work and Income staff had just followed the rules and made sure he got his entitlement.

This seems highly unlikely... But let's asume that there was an 19 year old male who has Asperger’s syndrome, smokes pot and has a mum who contacted the Minister of Social Development about WINZ giving her son an Invalid Benefit sometime in 2008.

Actually let's not asume she isn't lying because she is: There's usually a stand down period for people who apply for the Invalid Benefit and in 2008 there was no automatic acceptance for a person who had been working. Somebody applying for an Invalid Benefit also had to produce medical evidence of their incapacity and then be examined by a doctor appointed by WINZ.

Once you get through the Minister's waffling, it appears that Paula Bennett is proposing to use the same process as ACC to move invalid and sickness beneficiaries onto the unemployment benefit in order to save the government money. In other words WINZ case managers will decide if a person is fit for work and Doctors will lose their power to diagnose patients. The applicant can appeal, but this process has recently been exposed as a complete farce by the media, which highlighted the lengths to which corrupt specialists go to in order to decline legitimate claimants.

Despite Labour introducing a stricter application criteria, between June 2004 and 2007 the number of people receiving the invalids benefit increased by 10%. This is because when ACC got into financial trouble it was instructed by the then government to remove as many claimants as it could. National when it gained power then implemented further measures to ensure a reduction in long-term ACC claimants, which increased the amount of invalid beneficiaries by 11% to 88,134 in 2011. Many of these people had no other choice but to apply for the Invalid Benefit when their ACC payments were cancelled.

In the long run National's policy to reduce the amount of invalid and sickness beneficiaries by simply moving them onto the unemployment benefit will cost the country more and cause further hardship and suffering for the unwell. This is because without proper rehabilitation back into employment, people will spend more time on welfare. But instead of creating jobs and ensuring people are able to fulfill them, National is only concerned with blaming the victims.

Bennett's shortsightedness is therefore not morally justifiable nor beneficial to the economy.

Listener editor government apologist

There's been a theme in recent months that the poor are responsible for their own state of affairs. This is true to a degree, but nobody can successfully argue that the unemployed are in a position to create jobs, and in many ways the mantra of personal responsibility is being used as a way to abdicate the government's social responsibility to look after the less fortunate.

With his now infamous comments that beneficiaries who resort to food banks do so out of their own "poor choices," John Key shows he has no proper understanding of what poverty is actually like. "It's all their fault" is obviously a belief that the Prime Minister holds dear as a way to not feel guilty for the hardship National's repressive policy changes are causing.

The irony is that Key, who apparently grew up in a state house with free education and Social Welfare Minister Paula Bennett who took advantage of education funding and purchased a house in Taupo while on a benefit have both prospered remarkably under the welfare system, and then set about removing the ladder so that the same opportunities are no longer available.

It's a very ugly side of politics and our society that's in no way helped when the MSM promote hatred towards the less fortunate with outright propaganda.

The Listener's latest editorial (not online yet) is a prime example:

Critics say punishing non-compliant parents by docking their benefits will impact most severely on their children, but in practice it will probably never come to that.

So what's the point in implementing policy that's never going to be used? Is Pamela Stirling saying that it's nothing more than another Balls-up Benefits dog whistle to get the hounds howling? Doesn't she understand that beneficiaries aren't stupid and will simply ignore any threats that aren't followed through?

The idiot editor is clearly basing her assumption that beneficiaries won't be bashed on nothing more than her own ivory tower ignorance. It's far more likely that National's policies that give WINZ the power to cut benefits if clients don't conform will be implemented whenever they can be justified, and sometimes even when they cannot be.

The flipside of their propaganda is the theme that New Zealanders generally believe everybody should have a fair chance in life. Strangely the MSM doesn't recognize the contradiction between giving everybody a fair chance and cutting welfare by $1.6 billion while the rate of unemployment continues to grow. The fact of the matter is that the government's social engineering is designed to save money and nothing more. It will not benefit society or help the welfare dependent one jot.

65,000 more people are unemployed since National gained power in 2008, but instead of focusing on creating employment opportunities, National is focusing on blaming the victims... And that makes them nothing more than a bunch of right-wing bullies. Role on the snap election.

National... Masters at passing the buck

People may have noticed a common theme running through Nationals policy direction... Bashing beneficiaries.  Welfare is after all the right-wings favourite bait and switch topic, with Paula Bennett's announcements invariably designed to grab attention away from a damaging hullabaloo being reported by the MSM.

In February, Stuff reported:

Sole parents on a benefit who have additional children will be required to work part-time when their baby is one.

Not only does this policy ignore all the scientific evidence concerning the detrimental effect of severing the attachment bond, it ignores the fact that there isn't enough work available to begin with... In no small way due to National bungling the economy.

Such policy also increases the stress of young parents at a time when stress is already abundant. The negative effect of placing largely unachievable requirements on young parents that impede a child's developmental process is the antithesis of good policy making. The detrimental impact on society because children who do not develop a proper attachment bond grow up to be overrepresented in all the negative statistics should not be underestimated.

Clearly National is attempting to ensure beneficiaries do not have more children through coercion and social engineering... A stupid plan that wont work and is mainly designed to pander to the ignorant bigots amongst us.

In May, the NZ Herald reported:

Women on benefits - including teenagers and the daughters of beneficiaries - will be offered free long-term contraception as part of a $287.5 million Budget package for the Government's welfare reforms.

But critics say the measure borders on state control of women's reproductive choices.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett and Prime Minister John Key announced the package yesterday, aimed at supporting beneficiaries to get into training or work.

It includes $1 million to pay for long-term contraception measures such as implants or intra-uterine devices.

I hate to say it, but there are similarities with the Nazi's eugenics program here. Before you invoke Godwin's law in order to dismiss my argument, please let me explain:

Only a pretext of choice exists with case managers having all the power over their clients, and there's a real possibility that contraceptive choice turns into forced sterilization. Why else would National only target beneficiaries with such a disgraceful policy?

Unfortunately many on the rightwing truly believe that poor people shouldn't be allowed to procreate, and soft selling the sterilization of the poor agenda means such fascism has been largely accepted by the general public. Through propaganda and encouraging resentment against beneficiaries many people are deluded enough to believe there are positive aspects to Nationals backwards policy.

But if that wasn't bad enough, earlier this month One News reported:

Beneficiaries with outstanding arrest warrants will no longer receive a benefit while evading police, Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has announced.

"Of the approximately 15,000 people with a current arrest warrant, around 8,200 are on benefits," Bennett said.

"If someone has an unresolved arrest warrant we will stop their benefit until they do the right thing and come forward to the authorities," she said today.

The person will be given 38 days to clear or challenge the warrant before their benefit is stopped, or reduced by 50% if they have dependent children.

National's policy to cut benefits or half them for people with dependent children because they're wanted for arrest will simply not work. In fact it will make many criminals need to commit more crime just to survive. I guess they have to fill all those empty jail cells they're building at Wiri somehow.

Such archaic policy will not help the growing amount of impoverished children in New Zealand, many depending solely on their parent’s meagre benefits. A recent report to the government showed that 270,000 kiwi kids now live in poverty, with inequality growing the fastest of all OECD countries. Clearly punishing desperate people and their children is not an acceptable solution to reduce the child poverty rate, which in my opinion should be at the top of the agenda.

As usual the theme is one of bashing those perceived to be somehow different or unworthy, reminiscent of another era mankind should feel highly ashamed of and never return to. A kinder gentler form of fascism is just as unacceptable!

This week, the Otago Daily Times reported:

New child-care rules - or "social obligations" - for beneficiaries announced this week have proved polarising. The rules include a stipulation that beneficiaries' children must attend early childhood education for 15 hours a week from the age of 3, attend school from age 5 or 6, enrol with a GP and complete core WellChild/Tamariki Ora checks, including immunisation.

If parents do not comply after three reminders, their benefits will be halved.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said the rules would ensure the children of beneficiaries - whom she deemed the "most vulnerable" - get the best possible start to life through access to education and health services.

Except the children from families where their income is halved wont get a good start in life at all. They will be even more impoverished and therefore unable to learn properly... In some cases children will not even be able to afford to attend school at all. How stupid of National is that?

Likewise health services will be largely unaffordable to families who are already struggling on welfare that has not kept up with the cost of living. The evidence that such policy will even work is non-existent and Paula Bennett is basing her repressive ideas on nothing more than ideological blindness. The shear ignorance of this woman is astounding!

Now we have an inadequate report (PDF) from private Australian firm Taylor Fry costing $800,000 to show how expensive welfare is for no other reason than to gain more beneficiary-bashing ammunition. In the midst of cutting budgets left right and centre, National has wasted nearly a million dollars gaining information that the Ministry of Social Development already has available. Unfortunately the cost of feeding starving children in schools so they can learn properly isn't as much of a priority for National as finding more reasons to hate the poor.

Instead of actually creating enough jobs to ensure there is less welfare dependency by increasing opportunity, National is playing to peoples fears and prejudices and fostering resentment against those they perceive to be inferior. Beneficiaries have become an ostracized and subjugated people that the government wants to get rid of in all the wrong ways... What an unfortunate and shameful state of affairs.

However beneficiaries are not less worthy... The only real difference is that welfare dependent people have been impacted detrimentally to a greater degree by the dysfunctional system... A system that is hell bent on blaming the victims for its own failures. The National government is happy to promote this failure in order to give people something other than the rightwing agenda to blame. National are after all the masters at passing the buck, which in the end will be the only claim to fame the current government has.

Update: Today, 3 News reported:

Beneficiaries who fail to answer three phone calls and a voicemail from Work and Income are being told they'll have their welfare payments slashed in half.

A step too far to the right off the ledge if you ask me.

Nationals lame excuses

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Contrary to economists' expectations, the unemployment rate rose by 0.1 per cent to 6.8 per cent in the three months to June, according to official data yesterday. It had been expected to fall to 6.5 per cent.

"It's a very small, technical rise," Mr Key said. "I'm not overly concerned, but we were hoping that number would fall slightly. From what we can see, employment is rising in all parts of the country [except] Christchurch. So the Christchurch numbers are dragging it down a little bit."

Mr Key said the Government was comfortable with the data.

The government should not be comfortable with such a high level of unemployment. It's interesting that National is making the same old excuses for its failure to create jobs. This week they again blamed the floundering economy on the global recession, while most other countries that were worse hit are outperforming New Zealand, which was in a good position to weather the storm prior to National gaining power.

In my opinion, New Zealand should achieve in line with its own capability. It is our internal economy that is failing because of Nationals policies that have sucked money out of communities and the public purse... Passing the buck after nearly four years in power is simply unacceptable.

The fact that there were earthquakes in Christchurch way back in February last year is also no excuse. National had previously stated that the rebuild of Christchurch would be exactly what the economy needed; they also said the tax cuts for the wealthy would create jobs. Unfortunately their mismanagement and indifference to peoples need has ensured that there's been no proper start to the rebuild and therefore no kick start to the economy... Giving the wealthy even more money has not created jobs.

In light of the continued excuses by National, who have absolutely failed to provide the vast majority of Kiwis with a brighter future, shouldn't we look towards a political party that might ensure all New Zealanders have a chance to find proper employment? A political party that has a plan to create jobs would have my full support. Unless there are jobs, no brighter future is available... It's as simple as that.

Beneficiary bashing is a National sport

There's been a huge uproar about a speech made by Labour Leader David Shearer that he gave to Grey Power in Auckland on Monday. Many have claimed that Shearer was beneficiary bashing and that an apology is appropriate.

In my opinion there really isn't anything to apologize for, mainly because Shearers comments were very specific and should not be taken out of context. Much of the furore is the result of rightwing propagandists stirring up trouble for Labour, and many people who are outraged probably haven't even read Shearer's speech yet. Here's exactly what he said:

Last year before the election, I was chatting to a guy in my electorate who had just got home from work. In the middle of the conversation, he stopped and pointed across the road to his neighbour.

He said: "see that guy over there, he's on a sickness benefit, yet he's up there painting the roof of his house. That's not bloody fair. Do you guys support him?"

From what he told me, he was right, it wasn't bloody fair, and I said so. I have little tolerance for people who don't pull their weight.

We don't like others ripping the system off - and those who get most incensed about it are people like this bloke who works hard, does what he believes is the right thing and earns close to the minimum wage.

His comment cuts to the heart of something very important to New Zealanders: fairness.

Fairness is a core feature of New Zealand. It is heavily ingrained in our DNA. I believe it stems from our history, a country built on equality, free from the old class addled system of Great Britain.

We have a social contract in New Zealand. It works like this: if you need help because of something unexpected: an accident, a loss, or if misfortune befalls you, you will be supported.

But once you're back on your own feet, we expect you to pull your weight once again and contribute back to society.

Personally I think his comments are correct if somewhat ill advised. Even the most liberal among us should concede that there are people who abuse the welfare system. The problem arises when the media and politicians disproportionately promote that abuse, causing widespread misconceptions that stigmatise all beneficiaries. The hatred this creates towards the less fortunate among us is an illness that cuts to the very heart of New Zealands dysfunction, and it's therefore dangerous for those on the leftwing of politics to even raise the issue of welfare fraud. Did Shearer's anecdote disproportionately promote the problem? I don't think so. It's the development of social media that allowed his speech to be blown out of proportion, and the mistake was in not understanding how social media works to disseminate information.

It should be said that to reduce the amount of people abusing the system is in fact beneficial to those who truly need help, and a few bad apples in this respect really do spoil the bunch. Unfortunately highlighting the bad apples and developing peoples misconceptions has given National an excuse to implement harsh welfare changes as a part of their Future Focus regime. This has adversely affected many beneficiaries and those in need of assistance. Approximately 21% of the WINZ clients who were automatically removed from welfare simply disappear from the system and are not registered as finding employment, studying or leaving the country. This does not bode well, and means the statistics on the actual unemployment level are wrong and do not correctly reflect the hardship that is occurring throughout New Zealand.

The fact Shearer chose a topic about welfare fraud over others is of concern, and I would prefer to hear more on how he plans to reduce corruption from within Work and Income, which is where the majority of welfare fraud occurs. I would like to hear about how Labour will create jobs so that everybody has a chance to work themselves out of poverty, I want to here how they will reduce the huge amount of corporate crime that is an epidemic within New Zealand's business community, and I would like to hear Shearer outline Labours policy to ensure politicians cannot abuse their positions of power with perks, backhanders and by promoting legislation that is only beneficial to their vested interests. I think those issues are of far more importance and noteworthy than the few isolated cases of welfare fraud that gain too much attention.

Myth-busting rightwing prejudices - DPB mum's

Please note this article is currently a work in progress.

I happened to be reading through the Fifth Annual Report of the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee (PDF) and came across some data that was obviously wrong! Namely the graph on page 20 that makes it look like people in poor areas are having on average more children.

The proportion of babies born in the most deprived decile area in New Zealand (13.8%) is greater than the proportion in any other decile area, and the proportion of births increases fairly consistently with increasing deprivation.

At first glance this gives some weight to RWNJ's claims that people are "breeding for a benefit" and other such unsavory statements. But it 's not until you look into how the statistics are devised that you find the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee are presenting figures that paint an incorrect picture.

The statistics are taken from the New Zealand Index of Deprivation 2006 (NZDep2006):

NZDep2006 deprivation scores apply to areas rather than individual people.

The 1 to 10 scale is ordinal not interval.

From wikipedia on statistical ordinal data:

In statistics, ordinal data is a statistical data type describing data consisting of numeric scores that exist an ordinal scale, i.e. an arbitrary numeric scale where the exact numeric quantity of a particular value has no significance beyond its ability to establish a ranking over a set of data points.

…and ordinal scales:

Rank-ordering data simply puts the data on an ordinal scale. Ordinal measurements describe order, but not relative size or degree of difference between the items measured.

There are numerous other reasons why the graph being promoted as evidence to have prejudices is wrong! For instance the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee is effectively claiming that males aged 65 are having children. There is also the wage difference between men and women...

Women get paid on average 12.8% less than their male counterparts and a persons income dictates where they live. It stands to reason that women are more likely to be living in poorer areas opposed to men who get a higher wage. There is also a difference between the remuneration a young person receives as opposed to older people. Including males and people who cannot even have children in research that is about the amount of children being born into impoverishment is obviously incorrect.

So once you decipher the badly presented statistics and how they are devised, you find that people living in poor areas of New Zealand are having on average at least 10% fewer children than people living in more wealthy areas.

Idiot Professor - Cynthia Farquhar

Anybody with any type of real world experience already knows this. Finding, romancing and keeping a mate is obviously more difficult without money and many poor people choose not to have a family because they simply cannot afford it.

Most politicians (who are largely removed from the real world) would probably incorrectly interpret the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee's misrepresented findings, being that a decile scale is usually divided equally and proportional to the amount of people and not mesh-block areas with no mention of the actual population living within them.

It must be difficult devising ways to misrepresent the facts to promote rightwing prejudices.

John Key's brighter future

National's nanny state

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

From July, up to 14,000 teenagers aged 16 and 17 who are not in education, work or training and teen parents aged 16 to 18 will be coupled with a private provider to help them with budgeting courses, parenting courses, training or job-hunting.

Their basic costs such as rent and power will be paid by the state, and they will have a payment card for living costs that can be monitored to ensure they do not buy alcohol or cigarettes.

They will receive an allowance of up to $50 a week, but this can increase by $10 a week for a good attendance record at school or for completing a budgeting or parenting course.

Likewise, providers will receive extra funding, but Ms Bennett said payments to them would be based on the results they achieved what she called "real outcomes''.

There are some major problems with this tinkering around the edges.

Firstly, the government will be deciding who the private providers will be. We have seen countless cases of National cronyism over the last few years, and this just opens up another avenue for those who are finding favour with National to line their own pockets.

Secondly, the government cannot hope to control direct payments to landlords so that there is no rorting going on. Having a mechanism whereby the government allocates money that goes directly to landlords is open to abuse.

Thirdly, and more importantly, young people need to learn to budget for themselves. National cannot hope to have people that can look after themselves if the state is controlling their money and perhaps where they live. But what is strange about this aspect of National’s proposed changes is that it goes against their personal responsibility motto.

The hypocritical Bennett needs to look at policy that will achieve real outcomes like creating jobs and providing proper incentives for training that actually meets market requirements. National’s beneficiary bashing will achieve nothing.

Stop the forced evictions meeting tonight

A blighted future

On 29 November, National announced a Boost in national preventive health:

Mr Ryall says these new national health target results demonstrate that the public health service remains fully committed to delivering better care for patients.

The Ministry of Health made a number of claims in their Health Target propaganda (PDF) that paints a rosy picture about the wellbeing of New Zealander's.

Meanwhile in the real world, third world diseases are becoming more prevalent than ever before.

Today, the Otago Daily Times reported:

AN ESCALATING level of reported cases of whooping cough has Tairawhiti public health officials worried. 

“In the past month we have seen 15 cases of whooping cough notified to Public Health. 

“At the same time last year we had no cases at all,” says Tairawhiti District Health medical officer of health, Dr Geoffrey Cramp. 

Whooping cough — also known as pertussis — causes a cough that usually lasts longer than two weeks. A whooping sound on breathing in gives the condition its name. 

The cough can cause young babies to stop breathing for a short time and turn a dusky blue colour.

Thanks to the insane policies of consecutive National governments, we now have the fastest growing inequality of all OECD countries.

Is this what John Key meant by a brighter future... children getting third world diseases in what used to be a first world country? It's shameful!

Asshole of the Year - 2011

The Jackal has been running a weekly asshole award with recipients automatically nominated for the coveted Asshole of the Year Award. It's what you've all been waiting for... here are the nominees:

Well this redneck asshole was awarded because of his unfounded hatred towards people camping in a public space in Dunedin.

The redneck went about verbally insulting the peaceful protestors, damaging their private property and then physical assaulting one Occupy Dunedin protestor. I'm not sure what his name is.

Hekia Parata has done a lot to deserve an asshole award. But what clinched it was when she said National had consulted with local East coast Iwi concerning deep-water oil drilling in their ancestral waters when they had not.

Her corrupt governance wastes public money on illegal Police surveillance of environmentalists to benefit her oily masters while brazenly dismissing the fact that deep sea oil drilling is a highly dangerous enterprise.

John Pfahlert won his asshole award for trying to say that oil from a ship isn't the same as oil from an oil rig when it doesn't matter to the environment where that oil has come from, it still needs to be cleaned up.

The fact that an oil spill further out to sea makes any cleanup process even more difficult seems to have been completely lost on Pfahlert, and many other pro drilling advocates and MP's for that matter.

Keith Abbott won his asshole award for being put back on the beat with another gun after killing Steven Wallace, a young Waitara man shot dead back in 2000.

In fact the actions of the entire justice system during this case shows a complete lack of respect for the family of Steven Wallace and the public's perception of the police. What were they thinking?

Murray McCully was awarded a prestigious asshole award after failing to ensure Aucklands infrastructure could cope with a huge influx of people, McCully then declared himself emperor of the waterfront, in some sort of delusional Machiavellian take over bid.

The Natz hate that Len Brown beat old John Banks in the super-city mayoral race, because they want Auckland to be a dictatorship entirely run from Wellington.

Another winner of the asshole award was David May who is the CEO of the Superannuation Fund Authority, which recently breached the Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 by investing over $2 million into nuclear weapons development companies and munitions companies.

Approximately 2000 civilians are killed each year from detonating unexploded cluster bombs, that's what they invested our money into.

Gordon Brown won his asshole award because he believes there isn't any real poverty issue in New Zealand. He also believes that the children who need breakfast provided at schools all have parents who waste their money.

He's rubbished a report (PDF) prepared by Infometrics Ltd for Every Child Counts, a coalition of organisations led by Barnardos, Plunket, Unicef, Save the Children and Te Kahui Mana Ririki.

The abuse of workers at sea has become prevalent and unchecked under a National led government. After many delays, public and political pressure finally made National launch a Ministerial Inquiry into the alleged abuse.

Associate Immigration Minister Kate Wilkinson won her asshole award because she tried to deport the crew of the Oyang 75, who were witnesses to the alleged abuse and required for a proper inquiry process.

Minister for Social Development, Employment and Youth Affairs, Paula Bennett was most deserving of her asshole award for trying to justify cutting the very benefit that allowed her to get her qualification.

Bennett went about removing the very advantage that helped her gain qualifications while being a parent. Sole parent beneficiaries can no longer access higher education (level 4 and above).

Waiariki MP Te Ururoa Flavell won his asshole award for suggested that a "very hard stand" should be made on suicide and promoted further stigmatizing families affected by suicide. He thinks that "one is almost wasting time asking why this happens." 

The Maori party are sadly caught up in National's negative politicking that will see them fail to reach the 5% threshold in the general election.

The Pike River Mine inquiry revealed that Peter Whittall did not even attend a test evacuation to see if somebody could escape up the 100 metre-plus vertical ventilation shaft, which is the mines only means of escape other than the main 2.3km tunnel. So he got a much deserved asshole award.

Peter Whittall now faces 12 criminal charges laid by the New Zealand Labour Department, over the 2010 mine explosion that killed 29 miners.

Lockwood Smith won his asshole award because he didn't allow Hone Harawira to swear his oath of allegiance to the crown in Parliament.

Lockwood had no idea if Hone was making the correct allegiance, as he did not employ the use of a translator. Even after Labour's MP Trevor Mallard attempted to get leave for Mr Harawira to return and read the affirmation, other racist National MP's objected.

David Garrett gained an asshole award because he stole the identity of a dead baby to obtain a false passport. He also failed to disclose his prior convictions before becoming an MP.

Police then failed to apply the law properly for what is a clear cut case of perjury. Garrett should be charged with obstruction of justice by violating an order of the court.

ACT on Campus Auckland vice-president Cameron Wayne Browne  won his asshole award for telling a lady he was debating to"go get raped." Rape crime is a huge problem that is not helped by people like Cameron Browne and his cognitive deficiencies.

I would suggest that he receive some counseling and if that doesn't work, let's just deport the asshole to Siberia.

Alasdair Thompson is clearly a fully fledged asshole and deserving of an award. He typifies the chauvinistic male pig, which is unfortunately a prevalent disease in this country. Thompson is the Jackal's runner up asshole of the year.

Thompson didn't intend to resign because of his comments though, arrogant in his sexist old man syndrome. He was subsequently fired for his misogynistic bullshit! Good job.

John Boscawen won an asshole award because he is a goober? Please note in the attached video the gesture towards his crotch when he says the word "fiddles." The frothing Boscawen also said; “Good on Maryan Street for raising the cost of living.” WTF is he on about?

Could somebody please explain to me why a subsidy to plant trees to offset carbon is going to increase our power bills? FFS!

Paul Henry won his asshole award because he's the quintessential rich prick! He offensively displays hoity-toity arrogance which tipyfies everything that is wrong with mainstream media.

The uncouth little man obviously believes his wealth gives him the right to act like a dick! Why on earth should such bigots like Paul Henry are given the ability to openly express their racism is beyond me.

Speaking of racism, the next asshole award recipient takes the cake. Muriel Newman is a sad example of the privileged being completely disassociated from reality. Her divisive preaching attempts to further subjugate the already impoverished. 

There’s nothing so contemptuous as those with wealth arguing that those with nothing should have even less.

Edward S. Lancaster is the head honcho of an Aussie mining exploration company called Grey Wolf Resources NL, which has recently been sniffing around New Zealand.

Lancaster is a complete conman and has a long history of fraudulence and deceit. Lancaster won his asshole award for openly stating that his priority is the all mighty dollar and not the environment.

The Christchurch based group of white supremacists clearly aren’t the brightest bunch of grapes on the vine. The sour grape known as Kyle Chapman being their leader is testament to that. This guy supports the KKK, a group well known to be the original terrorists.

Kyle Chapman won an asshole award for inciting racism, giving white people a bad name and generally being a dick head.

Generally, The Nation program ignores anything to do with what the left actually stands for. The most fervent observer of this is Duncan Garner, who in one particular interview with Phil Goff focused entirely on his political rise to Labour leader, which had little relevance with current issues.

Duncan Garner won his asshole award for a lack of professional integrity, personal vendettas, bias and hypocrisy.

Nick Smith won for his historic negligence and mismanagement of the Cave Creek disaster. Mind you there are a lot of more recent fuck ups by the idiot that would be equally deserving of an asshole award.

The report of the Commission concluded that given the department's state, "a tragedy such as Cave Creek was almost bound to happen".

This award should come as no surprise... Tony Hayward former President and CEO of BP is a complete asshole!

Hayward infuriated people by declining to respond to a congressional committee's findings that BP took shortcuts to save time and money on a well that was behind schedule. He went sailing while the Deepwater Horizon disaster was going on. In 2010, Tony Hayward earned a total of £9.2 million.

John Key won an asshole award for saying: “Any offshore drilling operation there's obviously environmental risks, but New Zealand has proven it can manage those risks.”

The Rena disaster proved that we cannot properly manage an oil spill of even small proportions. To get something so fundamentally wrong shows that he is not fit to lead this country. We need to get rid off the smiling assassin before he gets rid of everything we hold dear in this country.

Paul Holmes won an asshole award for his ravenous attack on Phil Goff with continued interruptions and disrespect. Insinuations that the Darren Hughes issue has caused a lack of confidence in Mr Goff as Labour leader have been a complete fabrication by the media and their National party rulers.

It is apparent that Holmes has absolutely no respect for proper debate and would rather arrogantly reside in delusional grand standing.

Once in a while Cameron Slater really outdoes himself. His comments that Arie Smith-Vorkamp should be gut shot was the epitome of nastiness... although his recent comment about old age pensioners is equally disgusting, "I’ve always said that a good hard cold winter and a virulent dose of bird flu would solve the Peters problem."

So for incitement of hate and hypocrisy, Cameron Slater won an asshole award. No surprises there then.

The main reason David Farrar won an asshole award is because he allows a multitude of racist hate speech on Kiwibog. He goes out of his way to write about things that ensures a raft of racist derogatory claptrap in the comments.

I also don't like Farrar much because Kiwibog installs malware on people's computers who visits his site. Not to mention his rather shady history with the Free Speech Coalition.

Cathy Odgers won an asshole award for her continued racist hate speech and disinformation campaign. In March Odgers made the argument that the country had overspent on welfare and so couldn't afford to help those in need after the Christchurch earthquake.

After I gave a rundown of where most of the additional spending had gone, Odgers became increasingly arrogant and deranged, resorting to guttering insults. It was all rather amusing.

Fran O'Sullivan was the first asshole award recipient for making the argument that Auckland is a drain on the countries finances.

Kind of seems a rather small thing in the light of recent events. However when put in context to her continued pro National propaganda, the award is highly appropriate.

Without further adieu, here is this years supreme asshole award winner:

John Keys unrelenting asshole behavior clinched it.

Judges decision is final.