I'm the most terrific liar you ever saw in your life

There's nothing I like better than sloppy PR - it gives me a warm feeling when people try to sneak in something under the radar to no avail.




Take Friday's late night announcement by that wonderful institution, NZX. They let the market know at 5.45pm on a Friday that they were going to have write off $20 million from the value of their TZ1 carbon registry which they sold for a stack of cash. No harm in that I suppose, but you'd expect a little more transparency from the bourse regulator about a fairly material impact on its balance sheet.



It wasn't the first time the NZX has put something out late on Friday, but the result was much more satisfying - investors weren't too keen on the announcement, and 8.9% was slashed from the share price, taking it close to a 10-month low.



That's not necessarily a good thing, as the NZX is a very well run company (if somewhat toothless regulator), but it is satisfying when something that looks like a stupid PR ploy backfires.



I can only hope our Labour Minister isn't trying something similar - she put out a fairly innocuous looking document today calling for submissions on a discussion document on Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act. Ms Wilkinson's statement says the law is required to be reviewed after three years, and "affects industries such as cleaning, food and laundry services, where work is often contracted and the change of a contract can create a restructuring or redundancy situation."



What this means, I have no idea as I can't quite draw myself to wade through the document at this stage, but a bit more clarification in the minister's release would've been nice.......



Maybe it'll be some weekend reading.....



PB.

Nothing sways the stupid more than arguments they can't understand

Here's one for Jacinda and Darien - if you're going to come out swinging at some batshit crazy idea like reintroducing a youth minimum wage, don't just run your attack lines, point out why it's batshit crazy and somewhat (read very) concerning that the Labour Minister is thinking about it.

Youth rate affects workers under the age of 18. Unemployment rate for people between 15 and 19 is 27%. That's roughly 45,000 people. Take out the 18 and 19 year olds and that's what, about 30k? And your participation rate at this level is 53%. Why?

Because they're kids.

They're meant to be in school. Or training. Or figuring out what they're going to do with their lives. Unemployment isn't the most important thing to be worried about at this age.

What's concerning is that the government is considering providing an incentive to employers to tap the labour market at the expense of training (vocational and otherwise), and leaving the 20-24-year-old age brack, with its unemployment rate of 12%, participation rate of 74% and total number of people out of work at about 27,000.

Making school kids a more attractive option for employers is the wrong incentive to offer if you want them to consider some kind of training if school doesn't work out for them.

Making a song and dance about how they need more protection from employers ain't the way to go about it.

And it's not a very good lead-in to have another dig at the gummint's incompetence in creating youth employment opportunities.

So guys. Just look at things like a reptile and they'll all fit into place.

And gawd's sake, it's Roger!!! There's no real need to make a song and dance about what he's doing.....

Jeeeeeez - next you'll be telling me people take Wishart seriously......

PB.

Goddam money. It always ends up making you blue as hell.

Interlude as I reconsider my silence all these years.....

Isn't it curious that when Helen took over and came out swinging at Winz, it was all about the culture of extravagance with the department's management, and since John picked up the reins it's all about the culture of extravagance by the benes.....

Just sayin'....

PB.

the blog and turfs and the brandywine bankrompers

I was seriously considering throwing in this blogging thing earlier today - as an experiment, it's essentially failed (if you take aside its initial incarnation as a diversion while at work and the brief flurry while I was at school).

That was until I read an old compadre of mine this afternoon that incensed me for no apparent reason. It's an innocuous entry that makes a small contribution to the ongoing battle between Lew and Chris Trotter over the future of the country's political left.

Yet it was this simple statement that got my goat (my emphasis added):

Lew at Kiwipolitico has the kind of post up at the moment that reminds me why mainstream media is such an unsatisfying read/consume when it comes to political commentary.

There's a common refrain in the blogosphere that the mainstream media has failed, yet I remain unconvinced - yes it has its short-comings, but it can't be everything to everyone.

And that seems to be the over-riding concern for a number of my friends - it doesn't coin things in a paradigm that they've bought into.

For every lament as to why our top political commentators aren't delving into the growing divisions of the Labour Party movement, we get insightful pieces from the likes of Colin James, Pattrick Smellie (I'm contractually obligated for this one), and Fran O'Sullivan as to how political language is being re-written, why Don Brash is a naive idealogue rather than the spawn of Satan, and what the government is doing wrong in addressing youth wages.

They are doing what they do, and the majority of them do it very well, even if it doesn't touch on a number of keystone issues that the blogosphere wants to enter the main lexicon.

To be honest, the internal politicking of the wider left-wing movement in New Zealand isn't actually that important when it doesn't have any power, or prospect of taking power in the next five years (just saying).

What I'd be much more keen on seeing would be the internal divisions of the labour movement, which will have a lot of power in the coming years.

So I guess this is really just a gripe, and I've fallen into that trap that so many bloggers (and New Zealanders) do of identifying a problem without providing an answer. So let's pull a Kevin Smith a la Zack and Miri and tack something into the credits: ummmm, bloggers can do thier ultra-specialised commentary that will be taken with a vat of salt and MSM columnists (why am I even getting worked up over columnists - excepting Garth George, Michael Laws, Jim Hopkins, Richard Long, etc etc etc) can stick to their turf of churning something out in 40 minutes as deadline looms.....

Oy vey...

PB.

It is a terrible thing for a man to find out suddenly that all his life he has been speaking nothing but the truth

Maybe I'm being petty - no, no maybe, I am - but it's recently come to my attention that me and my team (okay, my bosses and their team) really need to boost our profile.

It's more a case of what tabs our esteemed bloggers look at, but last week I stumbled across a presentation by the Treasury secretary which I dutifully wrote up.

We splashed it across the wire and Stuff and the Herald picked it up - no probs there.

Imagine my consternation the following day when I see not only Danyl, but DPF (he who knows all) attributed it as a Herald report. Hmph. I couldn't handle three hours on the Herald, let alone be a part of their politics press team.

I'm still a baby after all.....

Anyways, the curious aspect is that it was up the previous day on both the Herald and Stuff business tabs - my favourite bloggers only picked up on it 'cos the Herald ran it in its political tab too - hence the attribution (I'm looking for any excuse to excuse 'em).

Still, it would've been nice if it was "BusinessWire reported".....

Oh woe is me - will I only ever be taken seriously by the blogging world if I make it into the politcal realm......?

PB.

(Anyone know why Whitehead's out in the trenches rallying the troops....? I for one would love to see an uprising by senior executives and board directors in the coming year..... the streets would run red with Central Otago pinot noir.... 'twould be beautiful....)

Slippery adj. 1. difficult to hold firmly or stand on through being smooth, wet, or slimy

I've been playing this one out in my mind for quite a while.

It was one of those moments when you realise "ah crap, now I've gone and done it...."

A few weeks back a friendly, but difficult to get hold of, press sec came through for me and tee-ed up a chat with his guy. He's a fairly busy fellow and I don't tend to want much on his major portfolio, so I'm down the pecking order - I can deal with that.

Anyway, here's how the exchange should have gone:

Me: Hello minister, how're you going?

Minister: I'm pretty well -
how're you finding Brent?

Me: You must be working him like a dog,
'cos he's always tough to get a
hold of...

Minister: Ahahahahaha....

Chat proceeds as it should.

Here's how it actually went.....

Me: Hello Minister, how're you going?

Minister: I'm well - how're you finding Brent?

Me: Uhhh, well, he's a bit slippery?

Minister (incredulously): Slippery?!?

Me: Uhh, yeah, I mean, he always returns my calls.... (inward groan)

Chat proceeds - call comes straight away:

Brent: Slippery?!?!?

Me: Uhhhh, I was, it just, I didn't mean....

This is when it pays to remember the second definition of slippery:

2 (of a person) evasive and unpredictable.

Not to mention the amount use it got last year..... jeeeeez being a baby reporter can leave you with a lot of red faces.....

When I'm back on speaking terms I'll let y'all know....

PB.

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception

The life of the baby reporter can often be a disheartening thing.

Not so much because you come across such horror as to send you into a spiral of despair (although that happens too), but from having to front up to the most ridiculous mistakes. Regularly.

Here's a tip for those who have yet to suffer this pitfall:

When you're floating an idea with the flack for a chat with the top guy, be prepared to talk to the guy straight immediately.

I had the pleasure of having a half-decent idea ruminating in my skull for a couple of days - put in the call to the company's minder (not a bad sort) with some vague topic for an interview, and got a call back 30 minutes later sayng I had the head honcho on the phone.

Needless to say, I wasn't prepared and had to put it off.

Fortune smiled on me in this circumstance (it hasn't in the past, but I'll go into those when I try addressing them... my face still burns when I think of one of them), and I got my ten minutes with the guy and should be able to spin a half-decent yarn out of it. I'll tell you about it later...

But god, the flack had a point when he said he'd never expect a hack to turn down an interview with the CEO of one of the country's biggest players.

What was the lesson you ask?

Well sniffing the Smellie breeze, if you can't be prepared, just put your best foot forward and wing it.... I'm not sure if my man under the hill would agree, but I never seem to be short of red faces at the moment..... I'll tell you about them soon.....


PB.