Archive
The housing crisis: NZers deliver their verdict
.
.
New Zealanders appear to have rejected National’s on-going carping at the Coalition government’s ‘Kiwibuild’ programme.
In a recent Ipsos Survey, 50% of respondants chose housing as the country’s most pressing problem facing New Zealand. (A similar question put to Australians yielded less than half – 24% – as being concerned about housing.)
A further 63% chose other social problems (healthcare 31%, poverty 32%).
An Ipsos media release pointed out that New Zealanders generally trusted Labour to be better equipped to handle critical social problems;
Labour is also viewed as the political party that is most capable of managing five of the top six issues facing New Zealand today, especially the issue of healthcare – at 41%, Labour’s ability to manage the issue of healthcare is 19 points ahead of National (22%).
Labour is also positioned 26 points ahead of National with regards to managing poverty-related issues in New Zealand (43% believing Labour to be better than National, at 17%)…
Managing Director of Ipsos NZ, Carin Hercock, pointed out:
“The fact that housing is rated as the most important issue by 59% of New Zealanders who have an Income over $100,000, the highest importance rating across all income levels, demonstrates that housing is not just an issue for the poor. Addressing social issues has become more important to New Zealanders over the last 6 months, while the importance of factors such as the economy, unemployment, taxation and household debt have all reduced.”
Only 9% picked “the economy” as a trouble-spot. This appears in stark contrast to successive business confidence surveys which puts a more negative spin on the economy.
Some, like former Reserve Bank economist, Rodney Dickens, expressed skepticism about business confidence surveys. He “believes the survey has a major political bias. Basically business leaders are likely National Party supporters and this view biases them against the new Government more than any actual concrete business risk“.
Research Manager for Ipsos NZ, Dr Richard Griffiths, under-scored Ms Hercock’s assessment;
“We know from media coverage that many New Zealanders are facing challenges relating to the housing market. Other issues such as poverty and healthcare have also been widely reported which is likely to increase New Zealanders’ awareness of these problems.”
Dr Griffiths made the insightful observation that social problems eventually touched more and more people and/or their families;
“As these problems continue to escalate, the likelihood of our respondents being personally affected by these issues will also have been growing.”
Meanwhile, National’s Simon Bridges has dismissed the Coalition’s Kiwibuild programme;
“[It’s] private developers doing stuff, they stop, Phil [Twyford] comes in, he pays them more with taxpayers’ subsidised money and then he sticks a stamp on it.
“That is a KiwiHoax.”
The previous National government – of which Mr Bridges was a senior cabinet minister – oversaw a massive sell-off of Housing NZ houses.
In 2008, Housing NZ’s state housing stock comprised of 69,000 rental properties.
By 2016, that number had fallen to 61,600 (with a further 2,700 leased) – a reduction of 7,400 properties.
Even former Prime Minister, John Key’s, one-time state house that he grew up in, was not to be spared privatisation;
.
.
No one could accuse National of being “overly sentimental” on such matters.
As state houses were sold to private owners, the surge in homelessness was predictable, forcing National to put homeless people – including entire families – in motels. National spent $8.8 million in just three months on motel accomodation for homeless – $100,000 per night.
Even senior/retiring “baby boomers” were feeling the effects of growing homelessness in New Zealand;
Barry Mills, chairman of supported living facility Abbeyfield Nelson, said they had to turn away two men, who looked to be in their 60s, in the last year.
He said in both cases they were single men from out of town, living out of their car with no place to call home.
“We couldn’t do anything for them because we didn’t have any rooms vacant.
“Even if we did have a vacancy, we probably still couldn’t take them because we have a process to go through and a waiting list.”
He said Abbeyfield in Stoke had 12 rooms and the one in Nelson 11, which were both full, with about 16 people on a waiting list ready to move in.
By February this year, a report authored by economist Shamubeel Eaqub;, University of Otago Professor of Public Health, Philippa Howden-Chapman, and the Salvation Army’s Alan Johnson revealed that homeless was far worse in New Zealand than had previously been revealed.
The report referred to “a burgeoning “floating population” – people without safe and secure housing, including in temporary housing, sharing with another household, or living in uninhabitable places“.
National’s response had been to invest in the motel market;
.
.
The number of motel rooms purchased by National was a fraction of the 7,400 properties sold off from Housing NZ’s stock. It was a drop in the tsunami of homelessness sweeping the country.
Meanwhile, National’s current spokesperson on Housing and Urban Development – Judith Collins – has lately been ‘busy’ on social media, disparaging the Coalition government’s ‘Kiwibuild’ programme;
.
.
Two ‘tweets’ in particular appear to have constituted spectacular own-goals from Ms Collin,
On 13 September;
.
.
The article Ms Collins reposted in her ‘tweet’ referenced a Labour government led by the late Norman Kirk. It had been in power less than a year, following twelve years of National government.
The pattern is similar; a housing crisis after success National governments, followed by voters rejecting the lack of focus on social problems and electing Labour to clean up the mess. Judith Collins inadvertently reminded her followers of this fact.
But her next ‘tweet’ was not only an own-goal but a candid – if subconscious – admission how National views homelessness;
.
.
Her comment – “4. Are there alternatives to houses? Yes: cars, Motels, camping grounds, tents. Which would you choose?” – left some of her followers stunned and scrambling for a credible explanation. “Sarcasm” appeared to be their preferred excuse for the incredibly callous comment.
The Ipsos poll reflects the understanding of most New Zealanders that a fair, egalitarian, socially-inclusive country is not readily possible under a National government. That task is best undertaken by a left-leaning government.
For National, under-funding and cutting corners in core social services and privatisation is their number one priority.
Only when the consequences of their policies becomes to much for New Zealanders to stomach do they rebel at the ballot box and change tack by changing government.
Judith Collins’ ‘tweets’ and other public statements by her and other National MPs will ensure they remain in Opposition in 2020. They are not good stewards of our social services.
I doubt they even fully understand what our social services are for. Or the consequences of neglecting them.
But New Zealanders certainly do.
.
.
.
References
Scoop media: New Zealanders’ concerns about housing issues grow
Fairfax media: Fact check – Business confidence surveys have little to do with actual economy
Radiolive: KiwiBuild a ‘hoax’ – National leader Simon Bridges
Housing NZ: Annual Report 2008/09
Housing NZ: Annual Report 2015/16
Mediaworks/Newshub: Homelessness on the rise in New Zealand
Fairfax media: Older people forced to sleep in car as housing crisis bites video
NZ Herald: Homeless crisis – 80 per cent to 90 per cent of homeless people turned away from emergency housing
NZ Herald: Govt to buy more motels to house homeless as its role in emergency housing grows
Parliament: Judith Collins
The Standard: Which National MP leaked Bridges’ expense details?
Twitter: Judith Collins 12 Sept 2018 2.25pm
Twitter: Judith Collins 12 Sept 2018 2.24pm
Twitter: Judith Collins 9 Sept 2018 6.19pm
Twitter: Judith Collins 13 Sept 2018 3.34pm
Twitter: Judith Collins 13 Sept 2018 11.34am
Twitter: Judith Collins 13 Sept 2018 8:13 AM
Wikipedia: Elections in New Zealand
Twitter: Judith Collins 8 Sep 2018 11.37 AM
Previous related blogposts
National’s blatant lies on Housing NZ dividends – The truth uncovered!
National continues to panic on housing crisis as election day looms
National’s housing spokesperson Michael Woodhouse – delusional or outright fibber?
The Mendacities of Ms Amy Adams – 2,000 more state houses?!
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 16 September 2018.
.
.
= fs =
Kicking a person when they are down is never a good thing
.
.
The resignation of Clare Curran from her remaining ministerial portfolios has created a wider fallout that has enveloped Radio NZ’s Political Editor, Jane Patterson.
In a recent ‘tweet’ on Twitter, Ms Patterson drew angry responses after posting a comment directed at former Labour MP, Marian Hobbs;
.
.
Ms Patterson’s ‘tweet’ was roundly criticised by a majority of Twitter commentors – though one of the eightytwo ‘Likes’ was by a well-known right-wing blogger;
.
.
Which is ‘curious’ to put it mildly. Cameron Slater has expressed nothing but hostility and contempt for Radio NZ in the past, often referring to it as “Red Radio”.
Clare Curran responded to Ms Patterson’s ‘tweet’ describing it as an “incredibly nasty comment”. Shortly thereafter, Ms Curran closed her Twitter account, according to a NewstalkZB report.
Ms Patterson’s on-line remark capped a disastrous week for former Broadcasting and ACC Minister, Clare Curran. Sensing Clare Curran’s vulnerability over recent gaffes, the National Party relentlessly piled on the pressure.
Ms Curran was rattled – her self-confidence badly dented – judging by her handling of answers on 5 September to questions from National MP, Melissa Lee.
Sensing the Minister’s vulnerability, National Opposition MPs continued to attack her in Parliament and through on-line social media.
It was the most primal of interactions between creatures; a pack of predators hungry for a kill, circling a solitary, wounded creature. The ‘pack’ pursued her, drained her of strength until all resistance crumbled, and she relented;
.
Acknowledgement: Bryce Edwards
.
On 7 September the Minister announced her resignation. For Ms Curran, the fight for (political) survival was over.
The Opposition Pack had claimed their ‘kill’ – her ministerial ‘scalp’ the first from this government.
To be utterly, brutally fair – the Labour Opposition scored their own victories during nine years of Key’s administration, claiming one ‘scalp’ after another;
Todd Barclay
Judith Collins
Aaron Gilmore
Phil Heatley
Mike Sabin
Kate Wilkinson
Maurice Williamson
Pansy Wong
Richard Worth
Some, like Hekia Parata, resigned for “personal reasons” – political code for stepping down under intense political/public scrutiny and pressure – but not wanting to give the satisfaction of a ‘scalp’ to the Opposition.
In Ms Parata’s case, her role as Education Minister had been abysmal, drawing strident criticism from parents, principals, School Boards, and teachers alike. During the classroom-size controversy, former PM John Key was forced to intervene during an overseas visit to dampen the firestorm enveloping his Minister.
Ms Curran’s resignation drew unexpected sympathy from an Opposition National MP not usually associated with any sense of compassion – Judith Collins.
On the same day Ms Curran resigned, Judith Collins told Mediaworks’ The AM Show;
“I thought this is someone who seriously needs to think about whether or not they want to come back into that environment. I felt quite sorry for her, and even though it’s our job to hold her to account – and Melissa Lee’s done an excellent job – I think we that we all felt a bit sorry for Clare as a human being. She should have been relieved of her posts properly a couple of weeks ago.”
For someone like Judith Collins to express sympathy – whether feigned or real – puts Jane Patterson’s less-than-charitable into stark contrast. The point that Ms Patterson made a comment that was ‘Liked’ by a far-right blogger should give her pause for thought.
A comment so widely criticised and more likely to come from Mike Hosking, Duncan Garner, or Leighton Smith should give Ms Patterson something to reflect on.
Clare Curran faced an ignominious week. The National Opposition did it’s ‘job’. She resigned under a cloud. Judith Collins expressed a measure of compassion.
A seasoned professional like Jane Patterson, working for the most respected media outlet in this country, should know better. Dumping on a person when they are down and out, at their most vulnerable, has no other name: bullying.
I would like to think Ms Patterson has made an honest mistake – and god knows we all make them. Removing the ‘tweet’ would be a good start. A personal phone call to Ms Curran should follow next.
It’s what good people do when passions and tempers cool.
.
.
.
References
Twitter: Jane Patterson – Clare Curran – 7 September 2018
Whaleoil: Radio NZ/”Red Radio”
NewstalkZB: Clare Curran hits back at RNZ journalist’s ‘incredibly nasty’ tweet
Radio NZ: Clare Curran’s resignation: ‘This pressure has become intolerable’
Radio NZ: Clare Curran’s resignation: ‘This pressure has become intolerable’
Fairfax media: Clare Curran on personal leave after horror Question Time
Twitter: National Party – Clare Curran – 6 September 2018
Fairfax media: Nothing wrong with Hekia Parata’s husband’s health – not why she’s stepping down
Fairfax media: Backlash forces Government class size U-turn
Mediaworks: The AM Shows – Judith Collins felt sorry for Clare Curran ‘as a human being’
Other Bloggers
No Right Turn: Dishonest
No Right Turn: Good riddance
Pundit: Ministers be warned – Next time the Band-Aid will come off fast
The Daily Blog: Clare Curran shows grace and resigns as Broadcasting Minister
The Standard: Curran resigns as a Minister
The Standard: The right work themselves into a frenzy about Ardern and Curran
Previous related blogposts
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 9 September 2018.
.
.
= fs =
I spy with my multitude of Eyes
.
.
Several pieces of legislation enacted under the previous government saw a vast increase in State surveillance. The GCSB – first created in 1977 by former National PM, Robert Muldoon, – was initially set up to provide overseas surveillance during the Cold War era.
By May 2013, the powers of the GCSB were extended to permit domestic surveillance of New Zealanders by former National PM, John Key.
A variety of state “security” and extensions of surveillance powers have been enacted over the past sixteen years;
Labour:
National:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill (aka Customs and Excise Amendment Act 2014)
Not to be outdone, the private sector also dabbles with surveillance. On most occassions, that surveillance is subtle.
In other instances, it is overt and in-your-face.
An example of this is the recently (and currently on-going) re-developement at Kilbirnie Pak N Save supermarket in Wellington’s Eastern suburb. The store’s internal up-grade has included the sprouting of dozens of security cameras. In some areas, the high-security of CCTV cameras, descending from the ceiling on poles – eerily like some mutant upside-down mushroom – would be more appropriate for a top secret military installation.
Upon entering the store, the first camera is apparent;
.
Foyer at Kilbirnie Pak N Save
.
Walking through the turn-styles, into the first part of the super-market – more cameras;
.
.
The Fruit & Vege section;
.
.
Meats…
.
.
Chilled goods, heading toward the Deli and Bakery;
.
.
The Bakery section…
.
.
Down the side of the building (greeting cards, breads, et al)…
.
.
And a close-up of the all-seeing eyes…
.
.
Until we reach the check-out – and the ubiquitous cameras become a parody of surveillance as their numbers become apparent;
.
.
.
In case the reader has difficulty making out the individual cameras, they are highlighted here;
.
.
Even banks don’t have as many cameras.
In an age of tracking by online corporations like Google and Facebook; by the apps in our smartphones; by CCTVs in buildings, streets, offices, etc – we have reached a surveillance state far surpassing anything envisioned by George Orwell.
Some of us will recall the days of the friendly corner grocer;
.
Acknowledgement: Wairarapa Times-Age
.
Once upon a time, retailers functioned with not a camera in sight;
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald
.
Those days now seem long gone.
Perhaps this is the price of “progress”?
Ironically, the advent of the Surveillance State and Surveilled Society has been long foreseen by academics, writers, activists, etc. As surveillance increased – both State and commercial – the public became more and more inured to every-present prying eyes.
The constant warnings of encroachments into our privacy; against increasing State power; alerting us to the perils of Big Data held by offshore (and domestic) corporations have become a Cry Wolf! to most of the public. Unless you are a left-wing blogger or investigative journalist who become an irritant to The Established Order, the public perceive no threat to their glacial erosion of our privacy.
Couched in terms of “preserving law and order” and/or “fighting terrorism”, people will think little of our own country as a Surveilled Society. Especially if they perceive no “down side” to their personal liberty. Previous warnings of a Big Brother State have – apparently – not become reality.
Like the frog-in-the-pan-of-heating-water fable, fears gradually gave way to blasé acceptance. We have arrived to a society where the presence of literally dozens of overhead surveillance cameras in a supermarket now barely raises an eyebrow.
.
.
.
References
Wikipedia: GCSB – History
Parliament: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill
Wairarapa Times-Age: First class First St grocer
NZ Herald: (story removed from website)
NZ Law Society: Privacy Commissioner issues guidance on personal information and transparency reporting
Fairfax media: Police apologise to Nicky Hager over Dirty Politics raid as part of settlement
Previous related blogposts
Surveillance laws, Strikebreaking, & Subversive groups
2013 – The Year We Became a Policed Surveillance State
The Growth of State Power; mass surveillance; and it’s supporters
Copyright (c) Notice
All images stamped ‘fmacskasy.wordpress.com – thedailyblog.co.nz’ are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
» Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
» Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
» At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
» Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 9 September 2018.
.
.
= fs =
“Free speech” – The Rules according to the Right
.
.
The passionate debate over free speech for two visiting Canadian alt.right Polite Fascists drew (at times near hysterical) comment from everyone who cared sufficiently about the issue to proffer an opinion.
For many, it was a litmus-test determining how far our beliefs extended to preserving the right of free speech. Free speech extended to those whose views we despised.
For many others, free speech was not absolute. Spreading racist, homophobic, sexist, and transphobic vitriol belittled already-marginalised and disempowered people in our society.
For others, their Care Factor was zero. Faced with an empty refrigerator, or sleeping in a garage or car, or choosing whether to pay the power bill or medication for a child with rheumatic fever, was a closer reality for many New Zealanders.
If you were white, male, and straight – you would be right to feel safe from the bigotted chauvinism of two alt-right Polite Fascists . A White, Male, Straight could countenance violence as a price for “free speech”.
If you were a person of colour, gay, a woman with a career and a baby, or transgender – not so much. You might feel less inclined to welcome people into our country whose main purpose was to denigrate you; deny you your equality; your inclusivity in society; your very identity.
A Free Speech Coalition quickly sprang up to defend the right of the two Polite Fascists to be allowed to speak freely. The group consisted of;
Dr. Michael Bassett – Former Labour Party Minister
Dr. Don Brash – Former leader of the National and ACT Parties, and former Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Ashley Church – Business Leader
Dr. David Cumin – Senior Lecturer University of Auckland
Melissa Derby – University of Canterbury Academic
Stephen Franks – Lawyer
Paul Moon – Professor of History Auckland University of Technology
Lindsay Perigo – Broadcaster
Rachel Poulain – Writer
Chris Trotter – Political Commentator
Jordan Williams – Lawyer
The spokesperson the the so-called Free Speech Coalition, Don Brash, was very, very, very vocal in defending the right of the Polite Fascists to speak freely in New Zealand.
The same Don Brash who last year called for Te Reo to be removed from Radio NZ;
.
.
It seems that Free Speech is fine – as long as it’s in The Queen’s English.
The debate raged in every on-line forum and became – in most instances – a license for some pretty vile racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, islamophobic slurs to be uttered. It was as if the Free Speech debate suddenly gave every bigot with internet access a free pass to vent their darkest hates.
For the more rational angels on the side of the Free Speech debate, it was a necessary price to pay for a free society.
Unfortunately, it could be said that ‘price’ was paid mostly by those minorities and women targetted by our Polite Fascist visitors.
Meanwhile right-wing commentators and bloggers rallied to defend the rights of the Polite Fascists to speak unhindered. Which, in the case of Karl du Fresne is rather ironic, as five years ago he criticised Radio NZ as being too “left-leaning” and called for direct political intervention to “to take a tougher line against the editorial bias that still permeates some RNZ programmes“;
.
.
Said du Fresne;
RNZ is a national treasure, but it’s a flawed treasure, and that makes it vulnerable. By correcting the most obvious of those flaws, whoever takes over from Mr Cavanagh could help protect the organisation against political interference.
[…]
So what might the new RNZ chief executive do to enhance the organisation’s standing in a political climate that is less than favourable? One obvious step is to take a tougher line against the editorial bias that still permeates some RNZ programmes.
[…]
But on some programmes, a stubborn Left-wing bias persists.
Kim Hill is the worst offender. This is a problem for whoever runs RNZ, because she’s also its biggest name.
Chris Laidlaw lists to the Left too, as does Jeremy Rose, a journalist who frequently crops up on Laidlaw’s Sunday morning show. Rose appears to be on a lifelong mission to convince people that there are humane alternatives to nasty, heartless capitalism.
He’s perfectly entitled to believe that, of course, but he has no right to co-opt the resources of RNZ to pursue his fixation.
[…]
An editor-in-chief who was doing his job properly would crack down on such abuses…
None of it was true, of course, as I pointed out at the time.
The National Party – that bastion of personal liberty – chimed in, staunchly on the side for free speech;
.
.
Said current National Party leader, Simon Bridges;
“I disagree strongly with what these activists are saying but I think it’s a dangerous thing to say ‘because we don’t like what you’re saying we won’t let you in’.”
That was on 9 July.
Seven weeks passed.
National’s staunchness for Free Speech is now… well… not quite so staunch;
.
.
National’s immigration spokesperson, Michael Woodhouse, demanded Ms Manning be banned from entering New Zealand;
“She was convicted and sentenced to a 35-year prison term and as a consequence has no good reason to be coming to New Zealand.”
When pointed out to Mr Woodhouse that this bore an uncanny similarity to the debate over the recent visit of two Polite Fascists, he countered with this;
“This is not a question of free speech. [Ms Manning] is free absolutely to say whatever she wants but she’s not free to travel wherever she wants.”
Which, strangely enough, was precisely the same point made by opponants of the two Canadian Polite Fascists.
On pure principle alone, left-wing bloggers like Idiot Savant at ‘No Right Turn’ and Martyn Bradbury and left-wing commentators such as Chris Trotter have led the charge to preserve free speech. They supported the right of the two Polite Fascists to vent their bigotry in New Zealand.
Shamefully, the same – it seems – cannot be said of the Right-wing.
If we wait for the likes of Karl du Fresne, David Farrar, and the National Party to defend Ms Mannings’ right to speak unhindered in New Zealand – we will be waiting till the sun goes nova (in roughly five billion years time).
Yes, the Free Speech Coalition has come out in support of Ms Manning’s right to speak unhindered in New Zealand.
The spokesperson issuing the statement was Chris Trotter. Don Brash’s name was nowhere to be seen anywhere in the media release. For someone who loves lots of free speaking, Mr Brash was suddenly not so very, very, very vocal.
The reason was blindingly obvious.
As Danyl Mclauchlan pointed out with crystal clarity;
The upcoming visit of the US intelligence whistleblower appears to have some on the right reassessing their commitment to free speech and open debate. How quickly they forget…
… So Manning is an ideological enemy of the National Party. Two weeks ago it was, we were told, vitally important that we cherish free speech so that New Zealand could hear what Don Brash, Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux had to say. Now that they’re faced with the spectre of a high profile speaker with values critical of the defence and intelligence establishment, free speech is suddenly far less important to National. A cynic might say it was never about free speech at all, but the defence of racially charged speech under the guise of free speech.
For the Right-wing, free speech is fine. It just depends on who’s doing the speaking.
Did anyone seriously believe even for a nanosecond that it would be otherwise?
.
.
.
References
Southern Poverty Law Centre: Stefan Molyneux
Fairfax media: Southern and Molyneux good test for our free speech tolerance video
Mediaworks/Newshub: Jacinda Ardern ‘simply can’t’ be both a mum and Prime Minister – Stefan Molyneux
Fairfax media: Oscar Kightley – This free speech victory tastes a little strange
Free Speech Coalition: Home
Facebook: Don Brash – Te Reo – Radio NZ
Karl du Fresne: Let’s hear the Canadians for ourselves and decide then whether it’s dangerous
Kiwiblog: More anti speech fascists
Fairfax Media: RNZ’s bias needs to be tackled
NZ Herald: Bridges backs free speech for far-right writers banned from Auckland Council venues
Radio NZ: National wants Chelsea Manning banned from NZ
Change.org: Stop Lauren Southern from entering New Zealand
No Right Turn: The cost of a free and democratic society II
The Daily Blog: How the Woke Left lost the free speech debate and gave Southern and Molyneux a marketing victory
The Daily Blog: Free Speech Denialism Is Fascism In Action
Scoop media: Coalition condemns campaign to bar Chelsea Manning
The Spinoff: Chelsea Manning and the limits of free speech absolutism
Additional
Fairfax media: Why self-proclaimed ‘free speech champions’ aren’t helping the cause video
Newsroom: Emma Espiner – The threat of Te Reo
Other Blogs
Kiwiblog: Chelsea Manning in NZ
No Right Turn: Compare and contrast
The Standard: Let Chelsea Manning speak
Yournz: National’s Woodhouse wants to ban Chelsea Manning from visiting NZ
Previous related blogposts
Karl Du Fresne has a public baby waa-waa cry-session
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 August 2018.
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 