Identity politics lays down a path of Orwellian thought control

In the UK at the moment, one of the main news items is the criminal trial of Chelsea football club captain John Terry for allegedly making a racist comment to footballer Anton Ferdinand.

Terry isn't exactly a great thinker, and given that one of his contract conditions is not behave in such a manner, he certainly deserved to be reprimanded if guilty and be subject to whatever punishment is appropriate in that context.

However, now he faces criminal charges, essentially for hurting someone else's feelings.

In New Zealand, Dr Cat Pause (yes, imagine the university thesis on the psychology behind that name) not only embraces this, but wants a similar approach to be taken to discrimination on the basis of mass.  She is a taxpayer funded university lecturer at Massey (yes, agriculture clearly isn't enough), and her belief in criminalising make fun of obesity, in opposing businesses selling diets, exercise and in her hatred of the fashion industry.  She even hates the airline industry for not having wide enough seats for the obese.

She is hosting a conference on "fatism" and of course she has been the subject of the obvious jokes from Whaleoil.  It is easy to poke fun at someone with an amusing name who is seeking to normalise a condition that health professionals regard as dangerous and a key contributor to a vast range of chronic diseases, particularly a condition that is largely a matter of personal choice.  

However, I'm not laughing that much, because the wedge that has opened up the chance for taxpayers to fund discussion, debate and study into this perspective was created many years ago.  It's the embrace of identity politics, and its neo-Marxist, ultra-collectivised, power stereotyping that pigeon holes absolutely everyone into categories, whilst claiming it is actually about empowering people.

The conference Pause is leading demonstrates this:

Fat bodies politic: Neoliberalism, biopower, and the ‘obesity epidemic’ by Jackie Wykes

This paper will argue that the discursive construction of the ‘obesity epidemic’ mobilises neoliberal concepts of risk and responsibility to produce fat people as failed subjects across various sites of power, including capitalist production, profitability, and reproductive (hetero)sexuality.

In other words, "fatists" blames capitalism for creating a subjective "myth" around obesity as showing people as failures as productive individuals and as being fit to breed.   The existence of plenty of successful overweight people, men and women, is blanked out, because it doesn't fit the story being manufactured.   

Then there is this paper:

The role of diagnosis in marginalising corpulence by Annemarie Jutel

In this presentation, using overweight as a heuristic, I will describe the social model of diagnosis and how it assists us to understand contemporary attitudes to health, illness and disease.  At the same time I will explain how the ascendance of diagnosis and the paradigm of evidence based practice have forced the emergence of overweight as a disease category.

In other words because evidence is used to inform medicine, being overweight is seen as a disease.  Now I think it isn't a disease, because it can't be caught and it doesn't spontaneously emerge, but it is a "state of being".  People aren't born that way (unlike race and sex).  However, is it seriously being argued that medicine should not be evidence based?

It is easy to go on, but Cat Pause claims she is "promoting the idea that fat people deserve the same rights and dignity as non-fat people".

Yet there is no objective assessment of not having the same rights.  The rights she appears to want are demands upon the persons and property of others to make special provision for obese people.  Of course she has a precedent in this, in the "disabled rights" movement demanding accessibility and people to be made to pay for their private property to be accessible to people they don't know.  She claims airlines kick fat people off planes, and then demands that economy class have wider seats (although she pays for premium classes herself - which is the same point with better food anyway).

Of course she goes further.  She wants to criminalise "fat hatred"  Why?   "fat phobia, or fat stigma, or fat hatred, is harmful. It stigmatises fat people, which is harmful for both physical and mental health. It also affects non-fat people – making many of them terrified of becoming fat. Being shamed, or bullied, is never good for anyone"

It's Orwellian thought control, she wants it to be wrong for people to think it is wrong to be overweight, wrong to seek to change their bodies, wrong to sell goods or services to facilitate that.  She wants to criminalise people being hurt by what others say. 

 

Yet people don't have a right to not be insulted or hurt.  It is a fact of life.  A person throwing an insult because of how you look isn't nice, and isn't fun, but is it a matter for the criminal law?

Should the state be there to protect people from stigma, hatred, fear or shame?  

What is next?  The obvious next characteristic to pursue is hair colour.  Red headed people are probably sick of being called gingas, or being thought of as angry.  Blondes are probably sick of being presume to be ditsy, stupid or even slutty.  Should short and tall people demand "rights"?  How about people who wear glasses being thought of as being smart or geeky?  How about commenting about what people wear?

Those of us who embrace individualism and the treatment of people as individuals have no problem with the moral dimension of being open to who people are, what they think and what they do, but it does not mean surrendering the personal right to not have to surrender to what others want to claim from you.

If you own a business, should you not have the right to decide who you trade with, who you buy and sell from and who you employ?  Indeed, similarly as a consumer you should also be able to assert the right to buy from whomever you wish, and refuse to trade with those you don't wish to. 

Moreover, you do have a right to not like people.  There is a right to not be polite, to not be considerate and accommodating.  That doesn't mean using force or fraud, but it does mean you can blank out people, ignore them and yes, laugh at them. 

Sterilising expression and discourse by criminalising it is disturbing.  

It can be seen in the thin line between actions that insult Islam and Muslims who claim they are being "discriminated against" because they have beliefs that I, and billions of others, regard as peculiar or even evil.

It can be seen in the way that some people can throw around racist insults, promote racist policies without shame because the identity politics touters claim people of some races "can't be racist" - even Members of Parliament can be "oppressed".

Meanwhile, hatred of wealth creation, entrepreneurs and Christians is all allowed.

Human rights legislation banning discrimination should itself be struck off the books.  The proper response to racist and sexist activity by businesses is to boycott and shame them.  Indeed, if the fat women (and it is women) have a problem with how others treat them, then they can boycott, protest and the like.  That is entirely appropriate and the only way to really change behaviour, and to isolate those who are bigoted, rude or simply intolerant.

However, they and others should not claim a right to be treated a certain way by law by private businesses or individuals.  For those who do are as intolerant as those they seek to bully and force to treat them the way they demand.

In a free society we all have freedom of thought and freedom of expression, and that includes the right to say things other people don't like and to act on that basis as private individuals.  

Dr. Cat Pause and her gang of reality evading subjectivist post-modernists can create all of the fictional fantasy conspiracies, can proclaim victimhood and demand that people be forced to accommodate their demands, but for all of that they shouldn't be allowed to make people do what they want.

Her philosophy portrays itself as being about acceptance and tolerance, where it is about hatred and intolerance.  It is about reality denial and a grand claim upon the minds, mouths, pens, keyboards and deeds of everyone else.

It takes the right to be an individual and to live you life as you see fit, and morphs it into an artificially constructed "identity" with "oppression", "victimhood", an "interpretation of history" and as a result endless demands for taxpayers to be forced to pay for her studies and to investigate accommodating this self styled identity group, at the same time as taxpayers are being cajoled to deal with obesity as a key factor contributing to multiple chronic diseases (with children who are obese being a specific concern).

If it continues to get government support, then I propose that someone invent a "blonde studies" course and start doctoring up some post modernist snakeoil that would be easy for any half smart person to manufacture.   Then the "dim witted", "low IQ" and "not very smart" can claim the same, how they are insulted by being expected to know stuff.

The rest of us will be getting on with our lives.

Where to from here for those of us who believe in freedom?

ACT, Libertarianz, Freedom Party, Liberal Party, whatever name there is for the future of those at the libertarian/freedom oriented end of the political spectrum is not important right now. What is important is that those of us who share some fairly core values and principles agree to sit down and talk. The options that have been taken up till now have been somewhat spent. ACT has long been the pragmatic option, but until 2008 was never part of government. In government, many (including myself) believe it under-delivered, and certainly the strategy taken by the leadership the past few months has been an abject failure. I wont repeat my previous views on this, but needless to say ACT as a liberal force for more freedom and less government cannot limp along simply led by John Banks to the next election.  I suspect even he realises that the status quo isn't sustainable.

To be fair to Libertarianz, every election since the 2002 administrative debacle has been an improvement, both in campaigning style and result. Yet without getting virtually any media attention or having enough money to buy advertising, it struggles to get heard. Even when it had its peak in 1999, it was due to Lindsay Perigo’s leadership and presence on a nationwide radio station. Yet this end of the political spectrum has been sadly filled with the sorts of chasms and arguments that are not entirely dissimilar from that of the far left. It occasionally has been a little like the Trotskyites vs. the Stalinists vs. the Maoists. ACT has blamed Libertarianz for being too purist, Libertarianz has blamed ACT for being soft sellouts and others have said that Christians have felt excluded, along with non-objectivists, or even those who are conservatives in their personal life and have conservative values, but don't believe the state should impose them.  Bear in mind I’m an objectivist libertarian and Libertarianz member who has voted Libertarianz four times and ACT twice since MMP came along.

The bare faced truth that needs to be admitted is that there is a difference between seeking to win Parliamentary representation and influence, and to be a lobby group that seeks to influence more widely than that. Those on the left, including the environmentalists are expert in doing this, having set up a number of moderate to high profile lobby groups that focus on specific issues. Those of us who want less government, need to do more organising, less in-fighting and recognise the difference between running a successful political party, lobbying on issues and being movements of populism or philosophy. 

I agree with Peter Cresswell that those of us who are freedom lovers need to start talking. So I suggest there be a conference of some sort in that light.

The default invitees being senior members of ACT and Libertarianz, and others specifically invited by people from both parties (who may come from National or elsewhere inside or outside politics). It should be a session to think, not necessarily to decide what to do, but to spend time to chew the fat and provide the catalyst to do more thinking, before acting.  It shouldn't be a session to grandstand or for publicity seekers, but a serious closed conference.   It wont be to make final decisions, but to make substantive progress on what to do next.  It should form the basis to produce proposals for discussions with existing party members, and to reach a conclusion within a year.

The agenda should be as follows:

- Introductions ;

- What sort of objectives should exist for a political party of freedom;

o Principles and values; 

o Political goals 

- Understanding philosophy (where do our principles and values come from ((intention to understand, not debate, how different people came to the freedom/liberal/libertarian end of the spectrum));

- Key policies and issues (identifying policies that unite us, and those that divide us. Not looking for detailed discussion about tax rates, but to establish common ground and to understand clearly the issues that cause some of us problems and finding a way to address, discuss them);

- What’s right about ACT and Libertarianz, and what is wrong;

- What a successful party of freedom would look like, campaign like, and focus on;

- What to avoid (Open, frank and honest discussion about what a future party should avoid);

- Options (revitalising ACT, strengthening Libertarianz, starting from scratch, rebranding and merging) with the objective of narrowing down preferences to two;and

- Next steps (widening discussion with respective parties, another meeting to create concrete proposals). 

This should happen next year, around mid-year (so people will want to stay inside). It should be good willed, good natured and well disciplined. It shouldn’t just be a meeting of suits, or a meeting of loud mouthed angry ranters, but a meeting of good people, with good intentions, who have by and large, shared values, but haven’t been talking from first principles and objectives with each other.  Bear in mind also that what may finally come could be a two pronged strategy - one involving a political party, another involving a think tank/lobby group (or two?).

The most important thing of all, for everyone, will be to listen. 

In advance of that, those of us in ACT, Libertarianz, and indeed freedom oriented members of National, ALCP (and others if they find themselves in a less conventional political home) should sit down and talk amongst ourselves, and with each other.  It is time to rise above the morass of noise, detail and personality clashes.  Nothing should be in or out, but it should be obvious that unless there is a consistent belief in there being less government and more freedom, then we will get nowhere. 

It’s time to not be too solipsistic and realise that this election less than 1.5% of the public voted for parties that expressly espouse less government. Many of us have been doing this for some years, but we also have eager, hard working and enthusiastic young people who reject the mainstream view that the answer to any problem is automatically that the government should do more. Let’s do it for them, do it for us, do it for the country we want New Zealand to be - I believe that at the very least it means free, prosperous, optimistic, where people are judged not by their ancestry, sex or background, but by their deeds and words. A country where being a tall poppy is not something to sneer at, but something to celebrate and aspire to. 

The conservative right has got its act together, and has built a highly credible platform that could cross the 5% threshold in 2014. 

We must do the same, but better.

Who’s with me?

P.S.  The reports that John Banks is talking to the Conservative Party to consider some sort of relationship, simply exemplifies the fact that ACT is finished.  LET Banks take whatever is left of ACT with him, let him go.  He'll never win Epsom under that banner.   I'd don't need to say the three word phrase that starts with "told", but I am SO glad I did not vote ACT to be represented by Banks.   It isn't schadenfreude at all, it's just frustration when this whole debacle is res ipsa loquitur.

New Zealand election 2011 electorate voting guide

Ah yes, I've done the hard work for you, it has taken hours, but I've gone through every electorate candidate list.  My test is simple, is there someone to positively endorse who is more freedom loving than the status quo? If so, vote for him or her.  If not, is there someone positively evil and anti-freedom worthy to oppose, if so vote for whoever will remove him or her. Remember, in most seats this is the vote that doesn't count much, but in a few it is critical as it is a lifeline to some minor parties, and it also helps replace someone on the party list

So...

Auckland Central – David Seymour - ACT

Having removed Judith Tizard swiftly, Nikki Kaye gets some serious kudos for lifting the standard of Parliament across several dimensions.  It looks like a two woman race between Kaye and the Labour list MP Jacinda Ardern.  Now given I endorsed Kaye last time, and Ardern is of the Helen Clark school of wanting to tell people what to do, it would seem an easy choice this time.  Yet, last time removing Judith Tizard was a purposeful mission, now Kaye looks more like the wily political operator than any real defender of freedom and property rights.  She’s supportive of the mega city, thinks the environment is the greatest gift given to New Zealand (people should leave then) and she wants to “help progress” the inner city rail loop and a tram line.  None of that helps reduce the size and influence of government.  As such, you can’t really vote for her for positive reasons other than to disappoint Ardern and the Labour Party.  In any case, Ardern is number 13 on the Labour list and Kaye is 33 on the National list, which means both are likely to be elected anyway.  As a result, I much prefer David Seymour, the ACT candidate.  He has a solid background in electrical engineering and pushing for less government through a think tank.  Help David Seymour get his deposit back by voting for him.

Bay of Plenty – abstain/spoil your ballot

Anthony Boyd Williams Ryall still has this seat in the bag. His 17,604 majority is fairly unassailable, but can you really vote for the Minister of Health who has little apparent interest in serious reform? He doesn’t need your vote. The Labour alternative has no chance and appears to be on the left and there is no ACT, ALCP or Libertarianz candidate.  Brian Carter of United Future has no profile on that party’s website.  Ray Dolman of NZ First is phobic about privatisation.  Peter Redman of the Conservatives is an ex. cop who wants to nationalise the foreshore and seabed and raise the drinking age (although abolishing ETS gets a tick).  Sharon Stevens of Mana is a hardened unionist.  Now you might think I’d say hold your nose and vote for Ryall, but really that wont do.  He is a shoo in, he has a high list position.  He doesn’t need your positive endorsement to keep being a senior Cabinet Minister in a government that confiscates property rights.

Forget about the electorate vote here, or spoil your ballot.

Botany – Jami-Lee Ross - National

Botany was Pansy Wong’s, until she misused her Parliamentary travel perks and so it is now Jami-Lee Ross. (I said Kenneth Wang from ACT last time).  I was damning of him for simply having been a professional politician with no private sector achievements.  Yet Motella noted his maiden speech quoted Thatcher and Reagan, and Whale Oil also noted him approvingly.  He did say “the problem with this approach and the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend. The problem with trying to spend your way towards closing the gap between rich and poor is that eventually we all collectively become poorer.” I was wrong about him, and to be fair his name is a little disconcerting.  He’s head and shoulders above most Nat MPs in my book and while ACT’s Lyn Murphy is a perfectly acceptable alternative, I think that given Ross has only been in Parliament for less than a year, it’s worth giving him a tick.

Christchurch Central – Toni Severin - ACT

Brendon Burns is the Labour MP, with a narrow majority.  As I said last time, he was Labour’s chief spin doctor in the Beehive, and was well up the Clark hierarchy.  Burns is once again ranked fairly low on the Labour list (number 29).  It’s easy to vote against him.  Yet the National candidate is, once again, Nicky Wagner, the list MP.  The debacle that has been the government’s handling of the earthquake is an absolute scandal.  No supporter of business and private property rights can vote for a National candidate in Christchurch Central, particularly one who is an MP in any case.   Whilst Burns was an evil spin doctor, what he did is nothing compared to how National has destroyed businesses and harmed the lives of the productive in this city. Luke Chandler, independent, has incoherent policies and has literacy issues, and so while Toni Severin of ACT is unremarkable and has little chance, she is your best option

Christchurch East – Michael Britnell – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Lianne Dalziel still has this one cornered, with National’s Aaron Gilmore having little chance. Although I endorsed him last time, the government’s response to the earthquake should have forced him to resign because of the gross violations of private property rights and as such, the principles of the National Party.  The only candidate you can trust to be pro-freedom, at least on one issue, is Michael Britnell of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.

Clutha Southland – Don Nicolson - ACT

Bill English is a shoo in, and really can you think of a good reason to vote for him?  Don Nicolson is number 3 on the ACT list, and has ending the ETS as a priority.  As a former Federated Farmers’ President, he will do nicely to send a message to Bill not to take the locals for granted.  Don’t be seduced by Tony Corbett of the unregistered New Zealand Sovereignty Party, he’s anti-privatisation.  Give Don Nicolson a positive endorsement.

Coromandel – Jay Fitton – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Sandra Goudie is retiring, so it is an open contest, although she had a majority of over 14,000 so it is likely to be Scott Simpson’s to lose.  He is inoffensive, but unimpressive.  Not a good reason to support Labour’s Hugh Kininmouth.  Crazy woman Catherine Delahunty is standing for the Greens, but she isn’t a threat.  Jay Fitton of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is at least standing for freedom on one issue.  Give him a tick to remind the Greens and National of the importance of that issue in this electorate at least.

Dunedin North – Guy McCallum - ACT

With Pete Hodgson’s retirement, Labour is putting forward David Clark for a seat that Hodgson won with a majority of just over 7,000.  Clark is a fairly predictable moderate leftwing Labour candidate, who lists “fairness” as his first issue – which actually means promoting wealth transfers, he is proud of helping create the ETS and likes the anti-nuclear policy.  Clark needs to win this seat to get elected, as he has a low list position.  The National candidate is list MP Michael Woodhouse.  Although his maiden speech was unremarkable, his speech on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill was forthright in supporting voluntary student union membership.  However, why vote for Woodhouse when ACT’s Guy McCallum is more convincing.  He is young, keen on reducing the size of government and government spending.   On top of that, Metiria Turei is standing for the Greens and any vote for Guy will annoy her.

Dunedin South – Joanne Hayes - National

Clare Curran is the MP, with nearly 6,500 vote majority.  As I said in 2008, she’s a vile little PR hack who is seeking to portray National as enemies of the people.  She has also played silly politics by campaigning for Auckland’s new trains to be made in Dunedin, even though the new Wellington trains, ordered when Labour was in power, are being made in South Korea.  It’s better to tick Joanne Hayes, the National candidate. Kimberly Hannah, the ACT candidate, doesn’t have enough information on her profile for me to give her a recommendation over Hates.  Hayes is unremarkable, but Curran deals in dirt and deserves to be made to worry a little.

East Coast – John Norvill – ACT (if you must vote)

Censorship enthusiast Anne Tolley holds this seat, with a majority of around 6,400.  She is no friend of freedom, as her support for a major crackdown on any material that discusses sexuality among young people demonstrated.   Moana Mackey, the Labour candidate, isn’t either as she is leftwing, she likes unions, compulsory Maori language and bleats on about the 1990s being a horrible time.  John Norvill, the ACT candidate, is a business owner, although he wears his religion on his sleeve and there is nothing on his profile about reducing the size of the state (he wants to “stop the rot” whatever that means).  On balance, if you have to, you might give him the benefit of the doubt, given a history of owning small businesses, but don’t feel guilty if you don’t vote for any of them.

East Coast Bays – abstain, spoil your ballot

Murray McCully is a shoo in, so doesn’t need your vote and frankly doesn’t deserve it either.  ACT candidate Toby Hutton has a three line profile which is completely uninspiring, so isn't deserving either. Labour candidate Vivienne Goldsmith is a teachers’ unionist so should be avoided.  Conservative Simonne Dyer is, well, conservative, and was once deputy leader of the Kiwi Party, not a friend of freedom.  McCully is not the worst Cabinet Minister, but I can’t positively endorse him.  He wont bring more freedom to government.

Epsom – abstain/spoil your ballot

Rodney Hide had a huge majority, nearly 12,900, when he won it last time, with an absolute majority.  This time you know the score.  National’s Paul Goldsmith at number 39 on the list, will probably get in on the list anyway.  He’s a historian and public affairs consultant, but rather inoffensive.  John Banks, well you all know his record of fiscal imprudence and social conservatism.   Independent candidate Matthew Goode has some merits, but these are cancelled out by his policies to ban mining, introduce some new taxes to replace others, ban guns, pay mothers a living wage and a belief in fighting global warming by penalising car use.   So you can’t avoid the obvious choice.  Do you tick Banks knowing he is the passport to getting Brash and Isaac elected, holding your nose? Or do you tick Goldsmith?  There is no good reason to tick Goldsmith and he doesn’t need it.  The question for you is can you live with yourself having endorsed John Banks for three years, knowing ACT depends on him, and his decidedly authoritarian views on personal freedom?  If you accept that ACT could get 2-3% of the vote and bring in Brash and Isaac, then you could justify voting for Banks, even though you’ll need to shower afterwards.  Yet I couldn’t do it.  I couldn’t vote for the man who as Mayor led an overspending council, who voted to keep criminalising consenting adult homosexuals, who has absolutely no interest in the idea that there are victimless crimes.  Consider this, do you honestly think John Banks, fan of Rob Muldoon, will vote for MORE freedom than John Key?  Really?  Now of course you're being told that the entire Key government depends on John Banks.  Think about this.  


Who fought the reforms of the 1980s? John Banks.  
Who didn't resign in sympathy with Ruth Richardson being demoted?  John Banks
Who pushed for a supercity as long ago as 2001?  John Banks


When National next pushes to increase search and surveillance powers, when National next ramps up the war on drugs, when National next moves to deny Christchurch downtown property owners the rights to enter their property and recover it, do you really think John Banks will be crying out for individual rights and property rights?  Do you really think he wont have the upper hand in the ACT caucus? John Banks and ACT have five days to prove me wrong and change my view.

Hamilton East – Garry Mallett - ACT

David Bennett is the National MP for this seat, with a respectable majority of 8,820, but he is likely to win again and has been unremarkable.  Labour candidate is the former Student Union President, the easy on the eye, but frightfully politically correct Sehai Orgad.  Former ACT President Garry Mallett is a perfectly respectable candidate to endorse, as an entrepreneur and a man who has supported ACT being about less government.  Give Garry a tick.

Hamilton West - Tim Wikiriwhi – Independent

National’s Tim Macindoe narrowly pushed Labour’s Martin Gallagher out of Parliament.   Yet he led Arts Waikato, and seems to be into environmentalism (Sustainable Business Network).   He’s not really worth endorsing, even though he is up against the awful Sue Moroney, who wants a subsidised passenger train service to Auckland (that would be slower than a bus), and wants to force “pay equity” and longer compulsory paid parental leave.  Moroney is number 10 on the Labour list so is a sure thing, Macindoe is 49 on the National list so may not make it if he loses here, but then that isn’t a real loss for those who believe in less government.  Yet there IS a candidate who does passionately believe in freedom and less government.   Although he has chosen not to stand for Libertarianz this time, he is still worthy of my support.  Vote for a man who has turned his life around, and who is passionate about what he does, and works very hard to get across his message.  He is his own man, true to himself through and through, and while you may not always agree with him, he deserves your vote – Vote Tim Wikiriwhi.  If he got in, Parliament wouldn't know what’s hit it.

Hauraki-Waikato - Nanaia Mahuta - Labour

Princess Mahuta won this narrowly last time, against Angeline Greensill for the Maori Party.  The hard leftwing Greensill has slid over to Mana, so Tau Bruce Mataki is representing the Maori Party.  Princess is no hero, but it makes sense to vote for her to keep Maori and Mana from having an overhang, and to keep a Labour list candidate out.

Helensville – Nick Kearney - ACT

John Key doesn’t need your vote, he is in on the list and with a majority of over 20,000 he is at no risk from Jeremy Greenbook-Held from Labour, who himself is quite pathetic (Whaleoil revealed that) and a great believer in more government spending.   I don’t have strong reasons to support Nick Kearney, the ACT candidate, but he deserves your vote more than the others and sends a small sign to John Key that he isn't the bearer of all Helensville votes on the right.

Hunua – Ian Cummings - ACT

The awful patronising prick Paul Hutchison (I am speaking from experience here) is the National MP with a majority of just over 15,800.   Young Labour candidate Richard Hills is predictable demanding higher incomes and hates privatisation, and then implies ACT is sexist, racist and homophobic, so he should just STFU.  Quite a few wacky candidates here, but you could do worse than vote for Ian Cummings from ACT.  He says “I strongly believe that people should be able to keep what they earn and to invest, save and meet their needs as they see fit. So, for the most part, the best thing government can do is to simply extract itself from its citizens’ lives to the fullest possible extent”.  That’s a man you can vote for.

Hutt South – Alex Speirs - ACT

Trevor Mallard doesn’t need your vote here, and why would you give it to him with his majority of 4,000 (and a high list position).  National is throwing up Paul Quinn again, who is a reasonably respectable National list MP, who at 54 may or may not make it through.   ACT candidate Alex Speirs says he “is a passionate advocate of freedom, both social and economic, and individual choice”. Speirs deserves your vote in his own right, but you could do worse than Quinn as a Nat MP.

Ikaroa-Rawhiti - Parekura Horomia - Labour

Parekura should hold this with his 7,540 majority.  The alternatives are Mana candidate Tawhai McClutchie and Maori candidate Na Raihania (no Derek Fox) and the rather odd Maurice Wairau.  Hold your nose and vote for the big man Parekura Horomia – he will be in anyway on the list, but this is about reducing the Maori and Mana Party potential overhangs.

Ilam – John Parsons - Labour

Gerry Brownlee will slide into this easily, with his majority of nearly 11,900.  He does not deserve your vote as he has been the Cabinet Minister responsible for the response to the Christchurch earthquake.  So while it would be easy to support ACT candidate Gareth Veale (number 20 on the list, not 3 as the ACT profile suggests) as he “describes himself as a classical liberal, believing in smaller effective government in all spheres of life - social and economic freedom”, Brownlee has been such a disgrace that it is worth considering voting for Labour candidate John Parsons to deprive Brownlee of his electorate (although he’ll be in on the list), National’s only Christchurch electorate (which is a reason given for his role in the earthquake reconstruction).   So do so, hold your nose and vote John Parsons to shrink Brownlee’s majority – he can’t be any worse, as Parsons has long been a businessman, and was once Dominion/Air New Zealand businessperson of the year

Invercargill - Shane Pleasance - Libertarianz

National MP Eric Roy should manage to keep Labour's Lesley Soper out of Parliament (she’s just another braindead unionist), and Roy is just one of the mediocre middle ground of National. So give Shane Pleasance your electorate vote, he’s the Libertarianz candidate, Director of the Southland Chamber of Commerce and he believes in Invercargill, freedom and personal responsibility.  He definitely deserves it.

Kaikoura – Ian Hayes - Libertarianz

National’s Colin King is comfortable here against Labour’s Liz Collyns with a majority of over 11,000.  However, Libertarianz give you an alternative.  Ian Hayes believes in freedom, so give him your vote in this safe National seat.

Mana - Richard Goode – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Labour’s Kris Faafoi took this in the by-election last year and Whaleoil revealed the rather appalling tactics that were used there.   Yet the awful “Pakeha owe Maori loads” public sector consultant/list MP Hekia Parata of National is simply vile - from personal experience. You wont get a colourblind state sector with her.  Richard Goode, standing for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is mild mannered and one of the most rational speakers on liberalising drug laws in New Zealand today.  He has decided not to stand for Libertarianz this year, but he is still libertarian. Vote for Goode.

Mangere – Claudette Hauiti - National

Labour's Sua Sio won this last time and has a fairly unassailable majority of over 7,000, but now Philip Field has been removed, there is no good reason to support Sio – who is singing the usual Labour song of promoting a Capital Gains Tax and more state intervention.   National is putting up Claudette Hauiti, a lesbian Maori businesswoman who used to be Labour affiliated.  Lindsay Mitchell rates her well, as she talks of less government and more personal responsibility.  So give Sio a bit of a wake up, by ticking Hauiti.  Casey Costello of ACT is an ex. Cop and ex. Police unionist, which isn’t enough for me to think she is more deserving.

Manukau East - Kanwal Bakshi – National or Jono MacFarlane ACT

Ross Robertson is one of the Labour MPs I dislike least, and he isn’t on the party list, which means if he wins, it helps keep the likes of Steve Chadwick out of Parliament. However, he is pretty much guaranteed to get elected with his majority of over 12,000. Kanwal Bakshi of National is a businessman who set up a voluntary organisation to help teenagers. Jono MacFarlane of ACT is a Christian Conservative who does not believe government is the solution.  Either man is worthy of your vote, I would lean towards Kanwal because he has a better chance of narrowing Labour’s majority, but don’t let Jono’s Christian background put you off him. 

Manurewa – David Peterson - ACT

With George Hawkins retiring, Labour is putting up Louisa Wall who needs to win here as she has no list position.  Hawkins had a majority of around 6,700, so Wall is likely to win.  She doesn’t deserve to though, she says “A measure of this leadership is how we distribute society's resources”, so your property is everyone’s in her book.  Given last election she talked about how she used to “advance the needs and aspirations of Maori working within public bureaucracies as a Maori specific representative”.  So, as a Maori lesbian, her identity matters for you.    Dr Cam Calder is National’s candidate, and a list MP at number 50 (which on current polling means he is probably ok) but he is no libertarian.  He has a health background, and is a Blue-Green.  He mentioned freedom once in his maiden speech, but has simply been a loyal lieutenant in the government, so really it makes little difference if he keeps Louisa Wall out or not.  ACT’s David Peterson is proudly libertarian, believes in Austrian school economics and says “I support letting peaceful people live their lives how they like, even if they're making personal choices radically different to those I would make as freedom is universally for all not just those I agree with”.  He deserves your vote.

Maungakiekie - Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga - National

This was a surprise win for National after Mark Gosche’s retirement in 2008, and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has a majority of nearly 2,000 in a seat Labour believes should be its own.

The vile Carol Beaumont of Labour is vying for this seat. She’s a proud unionist and thinks Labour has benefited democracy, and that asset sales will raise prices.  Although at 22 on the list, she has a good chance of getting in anyway.  Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has been a good local MP, and has a strong business background, and believes in lower taxes and less bureaucracy.  There are no other candidates that come close to this, so you can vote for him positively to try to keep the Marxist Beaumont out of Parliament.

Mount Albert – Steven Boyle - ACT

Helen Clark won this with a majority of over 10,000, and David Shearer took it for Labour again with a slightly lower majority in the 2009 by-election.  He doesn’t talk about his pro-mercenary background nowadays, preferring to focus on “social justice” (the euphemism for fiscal transfers).  Yet he voted against Voluntary Student Union membership and was sarcastic about it.   National is putting up Melissa Lee, list MP who is number 34 on the list (so is fairly certain to get elected).   She’s notable for being the first Korean woman to be an MP outside Korea, but also for her comments on crime, race and the new motorway.  She’s not exactly a great success, and there is no sign she is a great supporter of less government.  Steven Boyle is ACT’s candidate, he’s a civil engineer and more deserving than Lee.

Mount Roskill – Jasmin Hewlett – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Phil Goff gained a majority of 6,400 last time, and I DID endorse him because I figured he’d pull Labour back from the Helengrad left, and he has – a little.    National list MP Jackie Blue is standing here, and at 46 on the list is reasonably likely to get elected.   However she is keen on the war on drugs, so you can’t give her support.  Pratima Nand is ACT’s candidate, but her profile shows no sign of an interest in less government.  Jasmin Hewlett of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party shows a passionate belief in addressing the injustice of peaceful people imprisoned for using cannabis.  She deserves your vote, especially to send a message to Jackie Blue.  Goff, after all, will be history in a few months.

Napier – John Ormond - ACT

Chris Tremain is the successful businessman who is now the local MP, a Nat, and his 9,000 vote majority in what was once a safe Labour seat is notable.  Labour list MP Stuart Nash is standing, and at number 27 is fairly comfortably in anyway.  Nash is not one of the worst Labour MPs, but then again Tremain as a local businessman has lots of “plans for Napier” which isn’t exactly consistent with less government.   John Ormond is ACT’s candidate is a strong opponent of ETS, so deserves your vote.  Tremain should be safe in any case at 22 on the list.

Nelson - Maryan Street - Labour

Maryan Street is one of Labour’s best and smartest candidates. Yes she is Labour left through and through, but she isn’t Nick Smith. Nick Smith is the most loathsome of National MPs, a little control freak, who doesn’t believe in private property rights, who embraces the RMA. Nick Smith is a major reason why National looks a lot like Labour.  So vote Street, because for all she is, she is better than Smith.  Smith has a majority of nearly 8,500, and ACT’s Paul Hufflett has no profile.  Smith is number 6 on National’s list and Street is number 7 on Labour’s so both are guaranteed in, but Smith deserves a bloodied nose for simply being completely uninterested in private property rights.  Hold your nose and tick Street, at least she is honest about what she stands for,  but if you can’t handle that, you can vote for the unknown Hufflett knowing it wont make a difference.

New Lynn - Tim Groser - National

Local MP Silent T is a vile nasty character, whose intelligence belies a cold instinct to love power and step on those who get in his way.  He has proven his vileness even more this time with his sexist comment about Judith Collins.  He has the knife out for Phil Goff assuming Labour loses in this election.  Silent T has a 4,000 vote majority, which isn’t unbeatable. National’s Tim Groser is a list MP at number 12, so is a shoo in, silent T at number 3 is as well.  Barbara Steinijans is the ACT candidate who strongly supports free markets and is critical of the welfare state.  You may choose to vote for her, but I’d prefer a vote for Groser, to give Silent T a kick where it hurts.  He is, after all, one of those vying to be a future leader, and his political career is worthy of cauterising.

New Plymouth – Jamie Dombroski – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Jonathan Young of National slipped past Harry Duynhoven in 2008, with a razor thin majority of 105.  Jonathan Young opposed allowing Easter shop trading, and as Venn Young’s son, he isn’t exactly a great friend of freedom.  ACT has stepped to one side to ensure Young fights Labour’s Andrew Little, a long standing unionist, but that's hardly consistent with more freedom and less government.  Little is number 15 on the Labour list, so is in anyway, Young is number 45 on National’s so is probably in too.  The only candidate supporting freedom is Jamie Dombroski of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, so give him a tick. 

North Shore – Don Brash - ACT

With Wayne Mapp’s retirement, National is putting forward Maggie Barry, who is unlikely to get elected on the list at number 57.  Barry has nothing serious to offer in terms of fighting for less government.  She doesn’t deserve your vote and is an insult to thinking voters who believe in less government.  Labour's Ben Clark writes on The Standard, which demonstrates a love of gutter politics, so should be ignored.   However, there is one candidate who deserves your vote above all other.  Don Brash winning North Shore would do two things, it would shake National from its complacency in selecting a celebrity over an achiever, but it would also mean ACT would have a presence in Parliament that is NOT reliant on Banks.   As much as Michael Murphy, the Libertarianz candidate is a fine chap and unrelenting defender of freedom, Brash deserves your vote here.  This is ACT’s last chance to be the party committed to individual freedom, and so is by far the most important electorate vote for freedom lovers.   Most of all, it would free ACT from being dependent on Epsom and indeed is a natural constituency for that party.  Vote Brash, remembering that many of you did in 2005 anyway.

Northcote - Peter Linton - Libertarianz

Dr Jonathan Coleman is the Nat MP. He’s a clever chap but at 16 on the list he’s in anyway and has a 9,300 or so majority, so is at no real risk. Pick Peter Linton of Libertarianz because he'll send a signal about belief in small government.  He’ll stir them up and be a strong advocate for your self defence and your right to decide on your health care and education.  You can vote for Peter positively.

Northland – Lynette Stewart - Labour

Hone Carter’s retired so Mike Sabin is National’s candidate.  Carter held the seat with a 10,000 vote majority, so Sabin should be in, but does he deserve it?  Well no.  His profile is impressive, but his big thing is drugs.  He has a long history in drug law enforcement and in reducing drug use.  Now I can empathise with wanting to reduce drug use, but none of what I saw indicated an interest in considering an alternative approach to criminalisation.  Sabin is no friend of freedom.  

Labour’s Lynette Stewart believes in the government “resetting the economic environment” to increase wages and jobs, without really knowing how, so she wont be any help.  At number 39 on the Labour list, she might make it anyway.  Sabin is 60 on the National list, so he needs to win Northland.  Barry Brill of ACT has a long history in politics, having once been a solid National MP, and is now an opponent of ETS.   Now Stewart may not be any help, but she is better than Sabin.  Parliament has enough people who are narrow minded about drug laws and who don’t have any time for hating drugs, but respecting the right of adults to choose what they put into their own bodies.  So, I’d advise a vote for Lynette Stewart purely to stop Sabin getting elected.  If you can’t stomach that, then Brill is certainly deserving of your vote.

Ohariu – Sean Fitzpatrick - Libertarianz

Ahh yes a very important seat. It’s simple. Dunne has to go. This man has voted to keep Labour in power for two terms and to grow bureaucracy, and now he is Minister of Revenue.  The one thing you can be sure of is he will support whatever government is in power.  He lost his socially liberal credentials years ago when he merged with the Christian Democrats, and how can you back the man whose greatest recent achievement is creating the Family Commission - a new bureaucracy?  Dunne’s majority last time was only 1,000, with Labour’s Charles Chauvel and National’s Katrina Shanks closely behind.   Yet you can't back Chauvel.    Chauvel is 11 on the Labour list and is a fairly typical centre-left MP, he isn't going to help shrink the state.  Shanks is ok, but been an uneventful Nat MP.  However, Libertarianz Deputy Leader Sean Fitzpatrick is far more interesting.  He runs a successful martial arts school in Wellington, and a more honest candidate you couldn’t find.  Eschew mediocrity and focus group driven candidates, and proudly give Fitzpatrick your vote.   Bear in mind a few will confuse him with someone else!

Otaki - Peter McCaffrey - ACT

National MP Nathan Guy won this off of Darren Hughes, but he is into Transmission Gully, his maiden speech used the word “free” once and he talked favourably about how important Nandor’s “Waste Minimisation Bill” is. You can’t seriously vote for this guy, and his 1354 majority makes him vulnerable.  Labour’s Peter Foster talks about people paying a `’fair share of tax” and “core state assets”, so is far too leftwing to deserve a tick.  Nathan Guy may be a bit vacant, but he’s not so evil to remove with such a character.  Peter McCaffrey of ACT led ACT on Campus Wellington, and was instrumental behind pushing for voluntary student union membership.  He soundly deserves your support.

Pakuranga – Chris Simmons - ACT

Maurice Williamson’s seat. Maurice is one of National’s better MPs, being an opponent of the awful move to the left of English in 2002, and supporting Brash in 2005. Key had stomped on Maurice, but then he found the “leaky homes” issue a bit of a challenge.  Maurice’s majority is nearly 14,000 and he is 19 on the list, so he will be in anyway and having been emasculated why bother? Vote Chris Simmons of ACT, just to put ACT ahead of the Greens, again.

Palmerston North – Leonie Hapeta - National

Labour candidate Iain Lees-Galloway holds this seat with a thin 1117 majority. This man is just vile, being anti-individualism and a unionist. Vote to keep him out, he is 37 on the list so may not make it if Labour does badly.  Leonie Hapeta is National’s candidate, she is unremarkable (mispelt “safety” on her website), but Lees-Galloway would be good to remove and one can always hope that any new talent for National will help, at 65 on the list she needs to win this seat to get elected.

Papakura – John Thompson - ACT

Judith Collins holds the seat with a majority of over 10,000.  Labour’s Jerome Mika is a unionist and not deserving.  Give John Thompson of ACT your vote, as Collins is number 7 on the list, and is at no risk of being removed, it will remind her a little that some people want less government than John Key offers.

Port Hills - Geoff Russell - ACT

Dyson is awful, and National is putting up David Carter, list MP to challenge her. Dyson is number 5 on the list anyway, Carter is 10, so both will be in anyway.  Dyson’s 3452 majority is likely to keep her safe, but this seat deserves a shake up.  Vote ACT’s Geoff Russell to make Carter think about those who want less government.

Rangitata – Tom Corbett - ACT

Jo Goodhew is the Nat MP, she has a majority of just over 8,000 and at 23 on the list is safe.  She described herself in her maiden speech as one who “juggle work and family, who scorn political correctness, who value self-reliance and believe that working hard should bring personal benefits, not increased taxation”. Not great, but not bad, yet of course she is part of the government.  I backed her last time, but this time give her a little clip around the ears, vote Tom Corbett of ACT.

Rangitikei – Hayden Fitzgerald - ACT

Simon Power is standing down, so National has put forward Ian McKelvie.  He ought to win easily, as he has been Mayor of Manawatu and has a 12,000 vote majority to inherit.  ACT’s Hayden Fitzgerald says he is a libertarian, so is a far better bet for freedom than the unremarkable McKelvie.

Rimutaka – Alwyn Courtenay - ACT

Labour’s Chris Hipkins barely won this seat in 2008 with a majority of only 753.  National has chosen Jonathan Fletcher as candidate, with no list position, so he needs to be considered.  He says “At the age of 20, a visit to the United Nations inspired me with the vision that I could contribute to our country through politics.”  Hmm, not promising, especially since he has absolutely nothing on his campaign website saying what he stands for and what he wants to achieve.  I can’t endorse an open book, because someone else will write what he will do and think.  Especially given Hipkins is 30 on the Labour list so likely to get in anyway.  Annoy Fletcher by voting for Alwyn Courtenay of ACT.

Rodney – Beth Houlbrooke - ACT

Lockwood Smith is retiring, but he leaves a 15635 majority for National candidate Mark Mitchell who has a long career in the Police, as a hostage negotiator and built a business from scratch.  He will almost certainly win, but a better bet for freedom is Beth Houlbrooke from ACT.

Rongotai – Joel Latimer - ACT

Annette King is hardly threatened by Chris Finlayson, with a 9,000 vote majority and being number 2 on the list, although he is one of the better Nat candidates, that isn’t a high threshold to cross.  Vote ACT’s Joel Latimer, as the best option to make a small stand for less government.

Rotorua – Abstain, spoil your ballot

Todd McClay is the National MP with a 5,000 vote majority and he is no friend of free markets and small government.  The empty headed Steve Chadwick is running for Labour so no better.   You really can’t do anything here, so abstain or spoil your ballot.  McClay isn’t worth saving.

Selwyn – Jo McLean - Labour

Amy Adams of National is the MP with a majority of around 11,000.   However, she has been supportive of the response to the Christchurch earthquake.  Labour’s Jo McLean has no chance of being elected, she is not on the list, Adams is 28 on the Nat list so is likely to be elected anyway.  Tick McLean to give Adams a bit of a fright, but if you can’t, just abstain or spoil your ballot.

Tamaki – Stephen Berry -  Independent

Sadly Allan Peachey passed away recently, so National selected Simon O’Connor to succeed him.  However, one candidate stands out above the others.  Stephen Berry is a libertarian and fighting tooth and nail for freedom in this electorate. This is one candidate you can soundly tick for and know he believes in less government.

Tamaki-Makaurau - Pita Sharples - Maori Party

Pita Sharples is the MP with a majority of nearly 8,000.  Shane Jones is Labour’s challenge, and although he is a list MP who will be in at number 18, he is really just a professional bureaucrat.  For all his faults, Sharples is the only Maori Party MP worth supporting.   It’s a tough call.  After all, eliminating the Maori Party removes a barrier to eliminating the Maori seats, but Sharples will probably make this his last term.  He’s a better man than Shane Jones, so he should – just, deserve support.

Taranaki-King Country – Shane Ardern - National

Shane Ardern, yawn. Yep, what a star.  A majority of over 15,000 so he is a sure thing, and is 27 on the list.   Labour’s Rick Barker is having a shot, but doesn’t deserve your vote, as he is number 25 on the list so fairly secure.  You could vote Victoria Rogers of United Future, but there is no good reason to do so.  Tick Ardern because he is inoffensive and because he will be in anyway, and is likely to question ETS at caucus.

Taupo – Roseanne Jollands - ACT

Louise Upston is the MP, with a majority of around 6,400.  The quote attributed to her “The police are good. The criminals are bad. It's that simple” doesn’t bode well for freedom.  Labour’s Frances Campbell isn’t worth your vote on freedom grounds.  ACT’s Roseanne Jollands would give Upston a small message, but her profile is hardly inspiring either.

Tauranga - Simon Bridges - National

Simon Bridges helped keep Winston out in 2008 and gained a majority of over 11,000.  You could consider Kath McCabe from ACT, but she is an environmental lawyer.  Could you trust her to replace the RMA with private property rights?  I’d give Bridges another go, just because he deserves it for having helped keep out Winston.

Te Atatu - Tau Henare - National

Labour is putting Phil Twyford up to replace Chris Carter.  Twyford is a scaremongering socialist who reminds me somewhat of Sue Kedgley.   At 33 on the Labour list he is likely to get in anyway.  I’m going to endorse Tau Henare, if only because Twyford needs to be avoided.  Henare gives the Nats a bit of a shake up, which is actually worth something.

Te Tai Hauauru – Soraya Peke Mason - Labour

You can’t vote for Tariana Turia, she’s mad as can be. Tick Soraya Peke Mason of Labour, to remove her, and replace a Labour list candidate whilst reducing the overhang caused by the Maori Party winning more seats than it is entitled to get with party votes.

Te Tai Tokerau – Kelvin Davis - Labour

The loathsome Marxist Hone Harawira doesn’t deserve your vote.  Tick Kelvin Davis of Labour, he is the best bet to remove him, and at 23 on Labour’s list, you wont feel guilty about voting for him, as he is in anyway.  However, removing the Mana Party is a worthy mission like removing a cancerous growth on liberty.

Te Tai Tonga – Rino Tirikatene - Labour

Removing Maori Party MPs will remove the overhang and reduce a barrier to eliminating the Maori seats.  Vote Rino Tirikatene for a Labour MP who replaces someone from the list (who is typically worse) and to send these seats back to a party that thinks wider than race based policies.

Tukituki – Romana Manning – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Yes well Craig Foss is the Nat MP, with a majority of 7800.  He is also unremarkable. ACT’s Robert Burnside doesn’t have a profile that mentions freedom in any form, so how can he be endorsed.  Vote Romana Manning of ALCP, as you know what she thinks on one issue, and she wears a Police outfit on her profile - which is intriguing.

Waiariki – Louis Te Kani - Labour

Remove the Maori Party’s Te Ururoa Flavell by voting Louis Te Kani of Labour.  Bear in mind that this is also about rejecting the evil cheerleader of 9/11, Annette Sykes.  Again, returning this to Labour replaces a Labour list MP and helps eliminate the overhang.

Waikato – Robin Boom - ACT

Lindsay Tisch hasn’t been a star but with a majority of nearly 13,000 has this covered.  Kate Sutton isn’t the worst Labour candidate, but at number 35, she might be in on the list, so don’t give her a second thought. Robin Boom of ACT rejects the ETS and Tisch needs that message, so give him a tick for that, though not much else.

Waimakariri - Clayton Cosgrove - Labour

Keeping Clayton Cosgrove around will annoy the Labour left and Kate Wilkinson of National doesn’t deserve to win because of National’s performance over the earthquake (and is number 19 on the list so will be in anyway).  Tick Cosgrove as a protest against National in Christchurch and because he is a moderating influence in the Labour caucus.

Wairarapa - Richard McGrath - Libertarianz

Vote for NZ’s most freedom loving GP – Dr Richard McGrath for Libertarianz. He’s a fine man, and has a good profile in the electorate.  You don’t need to think twice about this.   National’s John Hayes will probably win given his comfortable majority of around 6,700, but I strongly endorse McGrath politically and personally as the one candidate of all I most would like to see elected, across the country.  He would shake up healthcare, the war on drugs and would always take a balanced and measured approach, that adds up to whether any government measure reduces freedom and individual rights or increases it.  Vote McGrath with pride.

Waitakere – Peter Osborne - Libertarianz

Paula Bennett of National has a tiny majority here of 632, and faces a real challenge from Carmel Sepuloni of Labour.  Bennett is number 14 on the list though, so she isn’t going to be out.  Sepuloni is 24 on the Labour list, so is also likely to be in as well.  However, you have a real freedom loving candidate here, Peter Osborne of Libertarianz deserves your vote more than Bennett.  After all, it’s not like either the major candidates face getting ejected.

Waitaki – Colin Nicholls - ACT

Jacqui Dean is the current MP and an enemy of freedom, voting against her is like voting against Jim Anderton.  She wanted to ban party pills and is a Blue Green.  Labour’s Barry Monks has NO profile on the party website, so I can't even start to consider him.  Jacqui Dean’s 11000 majority is unassailable, even with her number 41 list placing which is likely to be good enough.  ACT’s Colin Nicholls supports lower taxes, abolishing ETS, one law for all and privatisation.  That is the best deal you can get here, and better than Dean.

Wellington Central – Reagan Cutting - Libertarianz

Labour’s Grant Robertson has a majority of 1904 here, so National has a chance here with Paul Foster-Bell (his number 56 list placing is too low to be likely).  Yet while he claims to be classically liberal, he also claims to be a Blue Green.  Stephen Whittington of ACT is quite the libertarian candidate, but why vote for him when you can choose the real thing with Reagan Cutting.   After all it is better for him to beat the Alliance, Conservative Party and NZ First and show that Wellington Central isn't just bureaucrats voting to feather their nests.

West Coast-Tasman – Steven Wilkinson – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Chris Auchinvole is the Nat MP who ousted Damien O’Connor and gained a narrow 971 majority.  O’Connor is standing for the seat only, not the list.  He is better than any on the Labour list.  However, O’Connor is not exactly a freedom fighter, so no point ousting Auchinvole for O’Connor.  Auchinvole has list position 43 so is probably safe anyway.  You might consider Allan Birchfield of ACT, who is anti RMA but he thinks there is a carbon tax.  So on that basis, better choosing Steven Wilkinson of the ALCP for the obvious reason.

Whanganui - Alan Davidson - ACT

Chester Borrows is the Nat MP here, he thinks all children are ours and like Sue Bradford says “I want to live in a country that claims all children as their own and accepts the glory and the responsibility of that”. The Labour candidate isn’t worth ticking, as he was grateful for the welfare state even though he is decidedly middle class.  He also volunteered for John Kerry’s Presidential campaign!  ACT is standing Alan Davidson again, a man who strongly believes in personal freedom, so give him a tick.

Whangarei - Helen Hughes - Libertarianz

Phil Heatley is another shoo in here, so you can safely vote for someone who does passionately believe in individual freedom. Vote Helen Hughes for Libertarianz, with pride. She’s more charismatic and better looking than Heatley any day, and she'll mean more for freedom than he ever will.

Wigram – Geoff McTague – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Jim Anderton is retiring and his party is gone, so Labour expects to win this with Megan Woods, a former Andertonian.  It might be tempting to vote for National’s Sam Collins, but this is Christchurch and he is supportive of what the government has done.  You can’t endorse this.  Geoff McTague of the ALCP is your only choice for freedom.

It total this adds up to:


26 ACT
8 Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
2 Independents
11 Labour
8 Libertarianz
9 National 
1 Maori Party
4 Abstain

P.S.  If any candidate thinks I have unfairly ignored her or him, then feel free to plead your case for being a positive vote for more freedom and less government.  Social creditors, xenophobes and believers in theocracy need not apply.

Watch Syria, for that's the future

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Bashar el-Assad has turned the army on protestors and has shown little hesitation to create rivers of blood among his subjects.  Tanks firing on civilians, sniper taking out protestors, blocking hospitals to stop protestors entering according to a report from The Independent.   With reports of heavy machine gun fire, tanks shelling buildings and electricity and water being cut off from the city of Hama (where Assad's bloodthirsty father had massacred reportedly over 10,000 in 1982), it appears the regime will stop at nothing to remain in power.  Another report talks of tanks running over people.   Some claim over 1,600 have been killed by the regime since protests started in March, whilst this is likely to be somewhat exagerrated there can be little doubt the regime has been engaging on a spree of oppression.

It did try in recent years to put on a more moderate face.  Some thought that as Bashar Assad had been trained as an opthamologist and had not originally been seen as the successor to his father (his far more ruthless and "Uday Hussein" like brother Basil had been, before he died in a car crash), he would be more moderate, and there had been signs of a loosening of the totalitarian state his father Hafez had instituted, but it would be more like moving from Stalin to Khrushchev.   It didn't stop Vogue writing a gushing piece about Bashar's wife late last year (which it wisely has removed from its website). 

However, the truth is out.  Bashar wants to retain absolute authority and power, like his father.  He has the support of the armed forces, and the brutal Ba'athist socialist legacy of the ruling party continues.

President Obama has rightly condemned what has been going on, as have other Western leaders.  The regime's response has been to sponsor attacks against the US and French embassies.   Meanwhile you'll notice two major differences between the foreign reaction to Syria and the reactions to Libya, Serbia and other examples of what is typically referred to as "humanitarian intervention".

Firstly, the Western world is financially and politically exhausted as regards "saving the world" from the brutality of dictatorships.  Barack Obama has no appetite or inclination to do anything to intervene in Syria, not least because of the cost, but also because he firmly believes that it is for the UN Security Council to authorise any such action.  Is he pushing for this?  Well no, because he knows it wont be politically popular, he knows he'd struggle to pay for it and as he didn't support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (and was subdued on Libya) he doesn't believe the US should project itself militarily, in order to save the lives of others.  Meanwhile, as the UK and France effectively lead the continued presence over Libya, they are not so inclined to go into Syria either, because of money.  Germany opposed intervention in Libya at all.   Of course neither Russia nor China are in any way inclined to support intervention against a government that turns on its own people, given that both are quite adept murderers of their own domestic populations.

So the post-Cold War age of humanitarian intervention, which has had mixed results including the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Liberia and Libya (I count Afghanistan as being action against those that harboured an aggressor and Iraq as action against a proven threat to international peace and security), is now over.

You'll have to get used to watching TV coverage or hearing/reading reports of governments massacring their own people.  For the US and European powers are no longer willing to save them.  That is, in part, because they have nearly bankrupted their own economies through many years of overspending on bribing voters and interest groups with future taxpayers' money. It is also because the cost in lives and money of such interventions (and the organised forces against them from the left) have made it politically more difficult to support.   The UK was embarrassed about its previous sycophancy for the proven mass murderer Muammar Gaddafi, so could not stand by as he used helicopters to take out civilian protestors.  However, Syria has never been a friend of the West, so the guilt isn't there.

All of this should please the so-called peace movement and human rights advocates from the left who opposed the Allied invasion of Iraq and overthrow of that Ba'athist dictatorship, as well as the smaller group who thought the Taliban should have been left alone in Afghanistan, to keep harbouring Al Qaeda and enforce a dark ages Islamist year zero ultra-patriarchy.   The same people have been relatively quiet over Libya, except the usual tiresome claim that its only about oil.  

You see, the so-called peace movement have long held up Afghanistan, Iraq and even Libya as of late as being "the fault of the West".  This is a line whereby all NATO members and Western allies of military intervention in all these cases, must carry the blame for the actions of previous western governments in the Cold War.  Never ever is the finger pointed at Russia or the governments of the former Warsaw Pact countries and the like.

Afghanistan was the fault of the West supporting the Mujahideen against the brutal Soviet backed Najibullah regime.  The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was, after all, supported by Keith Locke of all people.   It takes a peculiar contortion of one's belief in human rights, womens' rights and freedom of speech to oppose the overthrow of the Taliban, but that is what the far left did (it would have been ok had the Afghan people done it on their own efforts though - like how it would have been good if the Jews had overthrown the Nazis in Germany).  Support for the Islamists in Afghanistan was a mistake, but it doesn't mean one cannot rectify it when they not only have proven to be brutally sadistic, but harbouring those who attack you.

Iraq was also the fault of the West, for the support Saddam Hussein got against the Iranian Islamists.  That piece of realpolitik (your enemy's enemy is your friend) was an appalling miscalculation, which was eventually figured out in the late 1980s when the West stopped arming and supporting Hussein (though one shouldn't forget the French help for Hussein's first attempt at building a nuclear reactor, which Israel swiftly dealt to).   Of course, the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries also extensively armed and assisted Saddam, but Russia and its former allies are forgiven, somehow.  However, that doesn't matter now, for notwithstanding Saddam's use of chemical weapons against his own people, his invasion and occupation of a neighbouring state (for oil) and his extended oppression and brutality against anyone who opposed him, he was deemed protected by international law by the so-called peace movement.  Invasion against this dictatorship was "illegal" and "unjustified" as the borders of a dictatorship are considered inviolable.  The left considered Saddam's regime as having at least enough moral authority for the actions to overthrow him to be considered less justifiable than letting him be.  

This Ba'athist hereditory dictatorship in Syria has so many hallmarks of being abominable it should be more surprising that it didn't long ago raise anger and activism among the legions of self-styled human rights protestors in Western countries.  You know, the ones who will raise a flotilla for the Gaza Strip, or rally against apartheid, or protest against the Chinese one-party state.

However, Syria's past can't be easily blamed on the West.  It gained independence in 1946, but between then and 1956 was marked by multiple military coups.  In 1956 it became explicitly allied with the USSR, and merged with Egypt in the ill-fated "United Arab Republic" of Nasser in 1958, before withdrawing in 1961.  A 1963 coup led by the socialist Ba'ath Party set the stage for the future of the country.  With Hafez Assad staging his own coup within the regime in 1970, he held power for 30 years, with an iron fist and a personality cult to match, with Bashar taking on the legacy in 2000.  Throughout the entire period since 1956, Syria has been allied with the USSR, and subsequently maintained warm relationships with Russia, Iran, North Korea and other regimes with an overtly anti-Western stance.

So for now, you can watch Syria's regime massacring its own people.  In the knowledge that the Western advocates of peace and human rights are rather quiet on it all, expressing concern, but not at all supporting intervention (how could they).  They will be quiet about a regime they have ignored for decades, because it never had Western support and was always antagonistic towards Israel (although Israel has for some years sought a peace treaty based on progressively handing back the Golan Heights, but Syria wont make peace until the Palestinian situation has been resolved).  

Meanwhile, with Obama in the White House, and largely uninterested in international affairs.  With Western leadership dependent on a fairly wet British Prime Minister who is in coalition with anti-interventionists, it may be up the the French (given Syria was a French colony) to seek action.   Yet, as China and Russia have no inclination to support it (and since few dare to ignore the UN Security Council nowadays), expect to see more blood flowing in Syria with no intervention.

It is, after all, the consequence of a policy of non-intervention and what the so-called peace movement and human rights movements want as a response.

Just some kind of democracy, not freedom, not peace for Egypt

That's what the Greens want for Egypt.

Well you'd think that if you believe the Green Party official blogger "Toad" with its comments, after I called for secular liberal democracy in Egypt that doesn't wage war with its neighbours.   This was the response (10.19PM 4 February):

@Libertyscott 9:58 PM

I will welcome an open free secular liberal democracy in Egypt, as long as it does not wage war against its neighbours directly or by proxy through terror.

How about just a “democracy”, without the qualifications. Not necessarily secular, not necessarily liberal (I suspect you probably mean libertarian). You know, one where the people decide!

And if the people of Egypt (as determined by genuinely democratic process) want to wage war, that is their democratic right.

But I would counsel anyone anywhere, including in Egypt, that war should be a last resort in resolving international disputes and should be engaged in only in response to serious human rights violations.

Read that again "not necessarily secular" so a theocracy is "ok" for the Greens?  OK if a religion takes charge and the only thing you can vote for is whatever shade of religion is ok?  Who'd have thought!! The Greens think religious based government is ok, better than dictatorship, though you might wonder what the real difference actually is when one sees Iran.

Not necessarily liberal?  Really?  Presumably the Greens don't mean "people's democracy" where a single party represents the "people", like North Korea.  Surely not, although the Greens have more than a couple of MPs who have been sympathetic to such regimes in the past.  Do they mean "third world democracy"? A patronising self serving justification of dictatorship based on traditional values that means societies are unified, not competitive, and work together in a grass roots party.  Like Zanu-PF likes to think itself as being.  No, surely not.   It has to just be Toad being ignorant of what "liberal democracy" means.

However it is clear freedom isn't important as long as people get to vote.

Moreover, Egyptians are allowed to wage war as a democratic right.  I thought the Greens believed in peace, and the UN Charter.  Hardly very peace loving is it?  On top of that war should only be in response to serious human rights violations.  On that basis Britain should not have declared war on Germany because it invaded Poland (but when?), but presumably the US could have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq if only to improve human rights.

However, we know what this is code for.  Egypt could invade Israel, because of human rights violations committed against Palestinians.  That would be ok.  As would Hamas setting up an Islamist democratic theocracy in the Palestinian Territories. 

Peace?  No the Greens think a theocratic democracy can vote to wage war, but only to address serious human rights concerns in another country.   Quite what a theocracy knows of rights would be a fascinating question.   It's simpler than that, the Greens have never believed in freedom, have no real belief in secular liberal western style democracy and so their belief in human rights is vacuous. 

For the rights of those who don't belong to the religion of a theocracy by definition will be neglected.   However, far more sinister, is the belief that as a last resort, democratic theocracies can wage war, but not in self defence, but rather to remedy "human rights".

David Cameron tries to defend liberty

It is a debate that wouldn’t be had politically five years ago, couldn’t be had ten years ago, but is now mainstream. It centres around a single point – the response to citizens of a state that wish its downfall, not replacement of one elected government with another, but the destruction of the core foundations of that state and civilisation, and replaced with another.

Today it is about Islamists who seek to undermine liberal democracy with core values of individual rights and freedoms. In the past those who sought revolution have had different philosophical touchstones. Most have also adopted techniques of insidiously inculcating their values and beliefs into the mainstream by gentle steps. However, all have faced end points at which their philosophies rubbed against ill-defined core values that at the end of it all come down to individual liberty in one form or another.

Britain’s problem is both that these values do not have a solid foundation, nor have any solid protection in the constitutional arrangements of state.  It is an "understanding" which is very fluid.  This fundamental weakness serves Britain as poorly today as it has done so with more recent challenges to these “core values”.

Marxists spent much of the 20th century seeking just that kind of profound change, as they had stunning success with the Labour Party in nationalising much of the means of production, distribution and exchange in order to downsize capitalism. This included nationalising key services such as health, and crucially education, the latter important for it provided the means to ensure future generations would share their ethos. The downfall of some of this was that the reality of the crippling inability of the state to respond to changes in demand and supply, when trading with the more fleet of foot, came to pass in the 1970s. Margaret Thatcher wound much of this back, but she could not wind back those successes of Marxists that planted themselves in the psyche of the vast majority – state health and education. In that the seeds for the leviathan like nanny state that came with Tony Blair, that saw the state in “partnership” with business and the voluntary sector, interweaving pervasiveness, whilst letting the capitalism that Thatcher did unlock, continue to prosper.   Yet Marxists still won on the welfare state and in education, and still command the mainstream perceived "moral highground".

Every single infringement on individual liberty that came under Blair (and to be fair, under every British government beforehand) saw little fundamental challenge, for the state is sovereign. Protests within a radius of Parliament were banned. Authors wishing to read books in schools needed to be vetted not just for convictions, but mere suspicions raised by private individuals who would never face challenge. Meanwhile, membership of the European Union saw a new panoply of civil liberties “guaranteed”, such as how Abu Hamza, convicted of soliciting to murder, cannot be deported to the US because he would risk life imprisonment there for his own role in assisting to set up a terrorist training camp. UK prisons have increasing numbers of convicted violent and sex offenders, who as illegal immigrants cannot be deported because they claim they will be persecuted at home. Furthermore, the UK state is legally obliged to force taxpayers to pay for welfare for such criminals and their families. Yet the same state can impose criminal sanctions on people for not having a licence when they own a television set, it can criminalise people who put a recyclable object in a rubbish bin and criminalise a Christian B&B owner who would rather not have a gay couple pay to stay in his own home.

You see there is no consistent philosophical basis for any of this. You do not have private property rights because the state can override them, the council can restrict what you do with your land, the state can tax as it wishes, there being absolutely no restriction at all on the scope of this. Your relationships with others are subject to extensive rules on discrimination that were designed to eradicate old fashioned sexism and racism, but now give cause to a whole host of grievances based on unequal outcomes rather than treatment. Your own actions in terms of speech have always faced some restriction, but be careful of offending others, for that now may give rise to concerns of discrimination. Certainly there remains mountains of laws on businesses, from shop opening and closing times, to property developers needing to provide effectively subsidised accommodation, and the appetite for more remains among politicians seeking to do anything from protect the environment to having more women in management.

The idea that an autonomous adult might interact voluntarily with other adults, do as she wishes with her property as long as it does to infringe upon the right of others to peacefully enjoy their own, and to express as they see fit, as long as it is not incitement to violence, has no foundation bearing anywhere in the British constitution, which of course, does not actually exist beyond convention.

So when the British Prime Minister David Cameron declares “multiculturalism has failed” and “Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty”, he doesn’t do so from a strong grounding in the British state. For past governments have only ever been amorphous and fluid in their defence of liberty. Alan Turing worked hard to protect Britain from the totalitarian terrors of Nazism, only to have the police harass him because his private life was incompatible with laws that were more compatible with Nazism than liberty. It has always been liberty, except when it comes to fleecing citizens of their money for the state. Liberty with your land, except when it comes to grand projects, council planning and wanting to do virtually anything commercial. Say what you wish, unless you offend the wrong peoples. Nothing limited the last government and nothing limits this one, except their own consciences and fear of electoral backlash.  Only concern with treaty based commitments on human rights at the EU level has an impact, but that has most recently shown itself to be able to insist on prisoners getting the vote.  It might discipline totalitarian instincts around democracy and media, but any state that wished to go so far would be unlikely to care much about the EU.

Nevertheless, I welcome Cameron's speech, it is about time. It isn’t racist,  despite the vacuous name calling on the left.  Nothing he said is remotely about race or even about demanding adherence to Christianity.  For Hindus and Sikhs (3rd and 4th most popular religion after Christianity and Islam), there is no issue.  Only the far left and sympathisers with Islamism will want to tar it with this cheap slogan. It isn’t just that Islam is not a race, but that the concerns he raises are exactly where those who seek to more fundamentally undermine personal liberties and freedom rub up against the freedom to express ones views. Nobody called damning either communists nor fascists as somehow racist.

Cameron is saying no taxpayers’ money should go to organisations that do not embrace core values of individual liberty. I would go further than that, and not give taxpayers’ money to organisations that promote anything.  That would be truly liberal.  As would removing the vestigial role of the Anglican Church with the state, but this is hardly causing a problem, it is a mere detail.

More important is that he wants to cease access of such organisations to prisons and universities.  It is right to keep proselytising of Islamism from state institutions.   The question of whether religion should be restricted in prisons may remain moot, as many will vouch for its benefits, yet few would want it to come with moral endorsement to do violence.

Yet it shouldn’t just be about money, it should be about a robust defence of secular liberal democracy  built on the foundations of individual rights and freedoms. It means the uncontroversial right of freedom of religion belief and worship, and to live ones life according to these or other beliefs, but also to respect absolutely the right of others to live otherwise. Even more importantly, there is no right to have your religion or secular beliefs treated as greater than those of others. You have no right to be not offended or for your beliefs not to be laughed at.  Allowing humour at the expense of the BNP means allowing humour at the expense of Islam and humour at the expense of environmentalism and humour at the expense of atheism and humour at the expense of social democrats et al.

However, to make that defence robustly the Conservative Party needs more philosophical consistency. It has long ago expunged the sclerotic closet-racism of the past (to the dismay of the left because it was such an easy target) and embraced the leftwing “progressive” agenda of “positive-discrimination”. It has embraced the secular religion of environmentalism and has never looked particularly keen on private property rights. It is without any testicular fortitude on Europe, yet has imposed an absurd ban on new non-EU immigration that is hurting business (including my own employer which has concluded the bureaucracy required to put new expert foreign staff, who would help the UK win export work, through the process is not worth it at the moment). Moreover, it is engaging in fiscal austerity on the basis only of necessity, rather than also claiming that there are simply some things the state shouldn’t do – like pay benefits to people on high incomes. He is trying to draw a line in the sand on liberty, when he himself doesn’t appear to have one or much of a basis for it.

In parallel to this speech was a much feared so-called “far right” protest led by the English Defence League (EDL). It went off peacefully, despite being portrayed as racist fascists by the far-left “Unite Against Fascism” (supported by David Cameron) who countered the protest. The EDL denies this, and its website concentrates on Muslims needing to reform their religion to be compatible with British values.  It is easy to dismiss it as working class English people who are intolerant of difference, yet it is hardly surprising when confronted by Islamists who burn British flags and protest against British soldiers on Remembrance Sunday.

No doubt the EDL contains a fair few racists and, but the fuel for the fire in the bellies of those who join it comes from Islamists. It isn’t helped when so many who are anti-fascist appease Islamist fascists, such as Ken Livingstone undertaking book reviews on Iranian television. For the future of the UK demands that those who belief in the values of individual freedom stand up against Islamists, say that they do not see any role for Islam as a source of philosophy for the state, and that whilst individual citizens are always free to choose whatever religion they wish, they cannot and should not use violence or fear against those who disagree with them.  

No one should fear criticising any religion or any philosophy. The only philosophical basis to defend that position is to believe that the human individual owns his life and has the right to autonomy and self-determination. Sadly the actions of most mainstream politicians and the British constitution do not defend this.   Whilst liberalism in itself can provide a defence against Islamists it is not enough in itself when some use liberalism to wage war against it - then there cannot be tolerance of those who seek to destroy it.