The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Together, politicians Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon took the quest for Scottish independence from long shot to strong possibility.
But now Scotland's former leader and his successor as first minister are locked in a feud that is tearing apart their Scottish National Party, even as its goal of an independent Scotland outside the United Kingdom is closer than ever.
The two former allies have traded accusations for months over who knew what and when about allegations against Salmond, who was tried and acquitted last year on sexual assault charges.
Salmond was scheduled to tell his version of the story Wednesday to a Scottish Parliament inquiry into how the Edinburgh-based government handled the allegations. He claims the sexual misconduct accusations, first leveled in 2018, were part of a witch-hunt, and he won a civil lawsuit when Scotland’s highest civil court ruled in 2019 that the way the Scottish government had handled the matter was unlawful.
But Salmond on Tuesday canceled his appearance after his written witness statement was removed from the Scottish Parliament website. He had refused to testify, if it was not made public. It was taken down after the national prosecutors’ office expressed concern about potential contempt of court, and later partially republished with some sections redacted.
Salmond accuses people within the Scottish National Party and the Scottish government of a “malicious and concerted effort” to sideline him and hurt his reputation. He has also accused Sturgeon of lying about her meetings with him and of breaking the code of conduct for government ministers. If that was found to be true, she would have to resign.
Sturgeon, who is due to testify in the inquiry next week, accused her predecessor of making “wild claims” that there was a conspiracy against him.
“It is time for insinuation and assertion to be replaced with actual evidence,” she said. “There is no evidence, because there was no conspiracy.”
The case has exposed a bitter rift between two former allies who have dominated Scottish politics for a generation.
Salmond, who led the SNP for two decades and was Scotland's first minister between 2007 and 2014, built the separatist party into a major political force and took the country to the brink of independence by holding a 2014 referendum.
He stepped down as first minister after the “remain” side won, and Sturgeon, his friend and deputy, replaced him.
In 2019, Salmond was charged with sexual assault and attempted rape after allegations by nine women who had worked with him as first minister or for the party. Salmond called the charges “deliberate fabrications for a political purpose," and was acquitted after a trial in March 2020.
The SNP has become increasingly split between Salmond's supporters, who want a new independence referendum come what may, and supporters of the more cautious Sturgeon. Sturgeon and her allies are also critical of Salmond’s efforts to stay in the public eye, especially his talk show on the Kremlin-funded English-language television station RT.
Sturgeon’s popularity, meanwhile, has been boosted by her response to the coronavirus pandemic. Her calm, measured style in regular media briefings contrasts with the erratic messaging and frequent policy shifts of U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is unpopular in Scotland.
The crisis is amplified by the hothouse atmosphere of politics in Scotland, a small nation of 5.5 million. Among the Scottish National Party figures accused by Salmond of colluding against him is chief executive Peter Murrell — Sturgeon’s husband.
The feud threatens to derail a party that is riding high in the polls and increasingly confident it can secure its long-held goal of leading Scotland out of the United Kingdom.
Scotland's 2014 referendum was billed at the time as a once-in-a-generation decision. But the SNP says Brexit has fundamentally changed the situation by...

Helping 12 families own their own homes in seven months is being called a considerable achievement.
The Government's Progressive Home Ownership Scheme has helped 12 families break into the housing market since July.
Housing Minister Megan Woods celebrated the results, while National mocked - saying the government had put out more news releases about the scheme, than families into homes.
New Zealand Housing Foundation boss Dominic Foote told Mike Hosking it's a brilliant concept, but not an easy task.
"It's working with families who have been locked out of the market because their incomes haven't kept up with property prices - and that takes a lot of time and investment."
LISTEN ABOVE

I think we can draw a fairly easy conclusion that when it comes to housing this government are hopeless.
So far this year, and it's only February, the Prime Minister promised to fix the housing crisis. Fix it, just like that. Grant Robertson then said he had tools he'd be announcing this month that would tilt the market in favour of the first home buyer.
The day after he announced his announcement, the Reserve Bank announced the return of steeper LVRs for first timers, thus making it harder not easier. So, yes, the market was tilted, but not their way.
Robertson then announced, although not loudly, that the announcement was indeed delayed. I suspect because, as we have said many a time, there are no magic bullets for housing.
And then this week we get the details around the government's progressive home ownership scheme. This is a $400 million plan, and it was part of Kiwibuild. That's the first, and of course, ultimate clue as to the simple truth this lot wouldn’t know houses, even if they were standing outside one with Mike Pero.
Progressive housing is about people being paired with community housing providers and they cut an arrangement. It could be leasing, rent to buy leasehold, or some sort of arrangement whereby they end up owning their own home.
So eight months on in this $400 million programme launched last year as part of the government's “blow Kiwibuild up and start again” announcement,  they have 12 families sorted.
That's one and a half families a month. The programme's target is 1500 to 4000, so quite a wide range in and of itself, almost as though it’s a guess.
At the rate of 1.5 a month, it will take 1000 months to hit their bottom target. That’s 83 years. If they're going for the top end that would be about 2600 months, or 216 years. One assumes the uptake might speed up a bit given we're all dead if it doesn’t. But you get the idea that yet again the promise is going to outperform the delivery.
Meantime the waitlist for social housing, an area where some progress is actually being made, is out to 22,000. But once again reality bites.
Are they building houses? Yes, a bit under 4000, but the queue is 22,000. Even their ultimate promise of 18,000 by 2024, if you believe that, is still short of the current list, which will have grown even further by then.
In other words, even by their own measures, they fail, they know they're going to fail, and yet they keep saying they are going to fix it.
The trouble with facts is they beat hot air. On housing this lot have broken records with hot air, but hot air doesn’t put a roof over your head.

THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Thursday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) No?/That Wraps It Up for Councils/We Can't Build Cars with Your Ghost Chips/Dental Memories

A good piece on Newsroom - What’s the rush? Law making in a hurry - deals with the governments use of urgency and specifically around the change to Māori wards for councils.
I am “for” the change only on the basis that it’s an anomaly. It’s the only thing a council does that you can rummage up some signatures by way of a petition and force a vote on their decision. The fact you have been able to, as it turns out, is very valuable - back to that in a moment.
But, given its unique, it’s therefore to some degree unfair, and that is the government’s argument for changing it.
It’s a dishonest argument of course even though it’s technically correct. It’s an argument of convenience.
They are really doing it because they want more Māori around council tables and democracy hasn’t worked, so they are gerrymandering the system to suit their cause.
The really egregious part of the move is that the labour party didn’t talk about it in the election, and there is a reason for that.
They knew full well what sort of reaction they would get.
So that is a case of fundamental political dishonesty for the most open honest and transparent government. It’s yet another example of what a joke that line really always was.
But back to the value of referenda. What we have been able to glean from those votes is almost universally people don’t want specific Māori wards.
Nothing to do with racism, because the beauty of democracy - free and open democracy - is anyone can stand for a seat, a ward, a council, a committee, a board.
Race is not an impediment to electoral success or voter support. Statement of fact. You want to stand, stand, nothing is stopping you.
The fact Māori don’t or haven’t is not the voters problem. The fact they’re not always elected because they don’t stand in large swathes is not the voter’s problem either.
The voter votes for the people with their hand up.
So by promoting Māori wards, councils, we know from the ensuing referenda, are acting against the will of the community.
And in then voting to not have a vote on the matter, which many a council has done, they are further acting against the will of the local community, and that has been the value of the law to this point.
You have tangible examples of what the council do vs what the people think. But you can forget all that, because central government, driven by colonial guilt and politically correct ideology, is putting all that to an end.
And they’re doing it has fast as they can have not whispered a word about it. Classy.

Aucklanders are being told to stick to half a dozen chooks per household in urban areas.
West Auckland man Chao Su wants a million dollars compensation, saying people don't want to buy his house because of his former neighbour's 100 chickens.
He says the neighbour's moved on, but some of the birds have been left behind and are a major nuisance and health hazard.
Auckland Councillor Linda Cooper told Mike Hosking that under the Animal Management Bylaw, the maximum number of chickens allowed in urban areas is six.
"As long as you don't have rooster and your animals don't cause a nuisance like smell and a lot of noise, then that's fine." 
She says most people stick to that limit.
"Some people are really get themselves out of hand. We had people feeding hundreds of ducks in their backyard - any extremes don't work." 
LISTEN ABOVE

New Zealand faces an "unacceptably high" risk of as many as nearly three border breaches each month - and by some measures the country is more threatened than Australia.
That's according to a new analysis by public health researchers on both sides of the Tasman, who warn that risk of new Covid-19 incursions is growing even with vaccinations and call for urgent improvements.
The researchers looked at nine border failures in New Zealand, including the August Auckland cluster that resulted in around 180 cases and three deaths, and seven in Australia - six of which led to lockdowns.
University of Canterbury professor Michael Plank joined Mike Hosking to talk about the study.
LISTEN ABOVE

National leader Judith Collins has pulled senior MP Simon Bridges into line over his "wokester" attack-line on Police Commissioner Andrew Coster.
She has made it "very clear" to Bridges that his comments should be directed at Police Minister Poto Williams and not at Coster – New Zealand's top Police official.
"I've made it very clear that our focus is on those who actually set the rules and the agenda and that is the minister," she told RNZ this morning.
Bridges told media yesterday that Coster was not fit for the job of Police Commissioner as he was putting "being nice" ahead of applying the laws.
He called him a "wokester commissioner" – essentially implying that Coster was too politically correct and wanted to ensure he was not offending anyone with his decisions.
Bridges first made the comments on Twitter last week, saying Coster's "softly, softly" approach would lead to more gang and gun violence.
The problem with a politician, such as Bridges, attacking a public servant, is that Coster is unable to properly defend himself as he's not allowed to comment on political matters, such as this.
Collins said this morning that she has made it clear to Bridges that National "does not attack commissioners".
She said Bridges' position was "certainly not" the position of the National Party – "he's not the Police spokesperson".
He is, however, the party's Justice spokesperson.
But Collins argued that Bridges – a former National leader – was only reflecting the frustrations of frontline police.
Those issues, she claimed, include the Government promising more police officers but then not following through on recruitment.
This comes, she said, at a time when gang numbers continue to increase.
According to numbers from the Police Minister – obtained by National through written questions – gang membership in Wellington increased by 51 per cent in 2020 and has almost doubled since Labour came to office.
The figures show there are now almost 1000 patched gang members living in the capital."The fact they are gaining a significant foothold in Wellington is extremely troubling."
In a press release, she made it clear National was blaming "the Labour Government" for what she called a "soft approach to crime".
"If Labour doesn't stop sitting on its hands, gang harm will increase in every suburb of New Zealand as quickly as the methamphetamine trade has. It's time to take action."

An attempt to regulate Facebook has been quickly stamped out.
Australian lawmakers had tried to force the social media giant to pay news providers for their content.
Facebook hit back by banning news from Australia on its platform.
Alerts from Government pages, including health and emergency messages, were caught in the cross fire.
The pair have now agreed to negotiate.
Sky News AM Agenda Host Laura Jayes told Mike Hosking Facebook is scared it'll have to pay for news everywhere.
"The UK is watching what's going on, and New Zealand would be as well - and it's a fundamental change in Facebook's business model."
Jayes says in the end, the law will apply to Facebook, but Mark Zuckerberg won big concessions.
She says there's a lot more breathing room before Facebook's designated under the code - and still a threat to pull news if its not happy.
LISTEN ABOVE

THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Wednesday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) Poverty Not Solved/This Isn't Urgent/Bills To Pay/What a Swell Party This Was