New Zealand election 2011 - party vote options

Whilst I traditionally write about the political parties and their relative interest in freedom, that might read a bit like a cracked record.  It's obvious Libertarianz is the party most committed to individual liberty, private property rights and economic liberty, setting aside that the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party would leave everything the way it is, except for legalising cannabis.  If freedom matters to you, your vote will really only be a debate between whether you support Libertarianz or ACT (or ALCP if cannabis is all you care about), which is a matter of whether you support a pure vision of individual freedom or a diluted vision, which has a reasonable chance of getting MPs elected.

That decision is one for another post.  For now, I want to quickly go through the parties that are standing lists, with a summary of my view on what they all mean, and their chances, in alphabetical order:

ACT - Most have forgotten that ACT stands for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, and I suspect most forget ACT was spawned by defectors from the Labour Party.  As much as the angry left might seek to ex.communicate them all, the simple fact is that Roger Douglas convinced more than David Lange and Richard Prebble of the wisdom of free market reforms.  Stan Rodger, Koro Wetere and yes Phil Goff, along with David Caygill, Michael Bassett and Bill Jefferies all bought into it.  Helen Clark willingly entered Cabinet and supported the reforms at the time.   Since then, ACT has picked up political refugees from National and most recently has been remodelled after a coup against Rodney Hide. 

The decidedly mostly libertarian Don Brash (his remarks on cannabis are notable) faces tension from the more conservative wing of the party in a final dash to make a real difference, given that the past three years have been disappointing (indeed was the greatest achievement voluntary membership of student unions?).   A party vote for ACT is, first and foremost, a vote for Don Brash to help keep the Nats from going backwards (John Banks is not first on the list, but rather fourth), with Catherine Isaac deservedly in second place (notwithstanding the late Roger Kerr's passing), and Federated Farmers' ex.leader Don Nicolson in third.   ACT is finally with a leader who is unafraid to talk publicly about personal freedom (and with considerable personal integrity). An honourable vote for the freedom lover, if you can hold your nose regarding John Banks and the odd policy about Fiji.   My prediction is ACT will scrape through, with three seats, one being Banks.

Alliance - Oh how the mighty have long fallen, and the true believers keep the faith.  Again, I am sure few remember the Alliance was a merger between Jim Anderton's New Labour Party, the Greens, the Democrats (followers of the wacky "Social Credit" faith) and the "original Maori party" Mana Motuhake.  The so-called "Liberal Party" of the erstwhile Gilbert Myles also joined in.  Of course it was the Jim Anderton party, and in 1993 Jim won his seat, along with Maori radical Sandra Lee, and the party gained its highest ever support that year - when those who voted Alliance knew it wouldn't mean the party getting into a position of power with 18.2% of the vote in a First Past the Post election.   The Alliance dropped to 10.1% in 1996 under MMP with 13 seats (including such intellectual giants as Pam Corkery, Liz Gordon and Alamein Kopu), in 1999 it dropped to around 7.7% and 10 seats having lost the Greens in the first divorce - but gaining coalition with Labour.   However, then the solidly socialist ideals proved too much.  In 2002, there was a second divorce, with Jim Anderton setting up his own personality cult party taking his seat with him, leaving the Alliance to the power crazed Laila Harre (that's another story) who failed to get the workers excited enough to do more than steal her billboards, with only 1.3% of the vote.  2005 and 2008 have been disasters. 

The Alliance faces too much competition on the left, with the Greens and now the Mana Maori Party both likely to get elected, why vote Alliance if you're a socialist, unless you're neither a radical environmentalist nor a Maori ultra-nationalist?  Still there is buckets of force and state violence in the manifesto, with much more tax, renationalisation of Telecom, airports and power companies, bans on any serious foreign investment, compulsory wage rises to match inflation and masses of new regulation and massive expansion of welfare.  Hilarious to think people believe this.  However, with the competition it faces, I predict the Alliance will have its worst ever showing and wont manage 1,000 votes this time.  The party list and leadership says it all really.

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party - Michael Appleby perenially standing for legalising cannabis.  No other policies.  Yes, it is one I agree with, so yes if for you freedom just means legalising cannabis, then tick the leaf.  Honourable mention to Richard Goode, number 9 on the list, former Libertarianz candidate and a principled man.  However, the ALCP peaked in 1996 with 1.66% of the vote, since then the Greens have cannibalised the cannabis liberalisation vote, although there was a minor gain in 2008 given the departure of Nandor Tanczos.  As sympathetic as I am to the single issue, I think having MPs who will spend three years on one issue as a waste, and I'm unconvinced that there is any point voting ALCP.  I expect ALCP might pick up a few more votes this time, given Labour has little chance of being in government and the Greens are ignoring the cannabis vote, but the impact will be zero. Yet if ALCP members joined ACT or Libertarianz? (but then they would have to reject the welfare state)

Conservative Party - Effectively the successor to the Christian Heritage Party, Family Party and the Kiwi Party, without the disconcerting branding (and hypocritical leader).  Besides the second party with a Kevin Campbell as candidate (the Alliance has one), and the unremarkable ex. United Future MP Larry Baldock on the list, it has not much of note.  To be fair, I agree with some of what it says, some useful points on welfare and law and order, and there is a distinct lack of much to do with religion, abortion and sex.  However, the war on drugs is on as far as this lot is concerned.  On top of that, Colin Craig's intellectually lazy press release in response to independent candidate Stephen Berry says a lot - a new bunch of control freaks who want to criminalise alcohol consumption.  There is nothing new here.   The law and order emphasis already sits with ACT, along with being tough on welfare and repealing ETS.  What's left is smacking kids and toughening the law on alcohol.  Given the Kiwi Party gained 12,000 or so votes last time, this party may well get quite a few votes, but it wont come near getting a seat in Parliament.  Frankly, unless telling people what to do with their lives is your thing, I can't really see the point of voting Conservative.  I estimate it will pull in about 10,000 votes though as it reaches through churches and with a lot of money to spend on electioneering (and because there are easily that many frustrated busybodies around).

Democrats for Social Credit - Not to be confused with fascists for Social Credit of course.  It is an oddity that New Zealand has sustained a movement based on the bizarre ravings of the vaguely anti-semitic Major Douglas (if you haven't heard of them, don't worry, he only got a following in parts of New Zealand and Canada).  If you study the "A+B theorem" long enough you will go mad.   So are the policies of this lot.  It include some heavy handed xenophobia (foreign investors beware, except this lot have no chance), and yes it is funny money.  You'd have to believe in conspiracies to think this all makes sense and that the only reason it doesn't happen is that there are forces out there stopping it.  It's an embarrassment of New Zealand's political history that doesn't die and was only sustained because nobody else could be bothered sustaining a third party during the hey day of First Past the Post, other than these "true believers".   Ironically, the global financial crisis will have given this lot some backbone, so expect another 1,000 votes or so to be thrown at this, truly one of the religious based parties.  If you encounter one of this lot, try debating and see how far you get before he or she resorts to conspiracy based arguments.

Green Party - The most successful big government, pro-state violence party, which is getting a boost as leftwing statist voters abandon Labour and go for what they really want.  The Greens benefit from a friendly cuddly brand that suggests panda bears, trees, clean air and oceans, whereas behind that is a rampant series of policies designed to tax and regulate, including state supervision of whether newspapers are acting "in the public interest".  If that doesn't send a chill down the spine of any human rights advocate or believer in freedom, what does?  The Greens have advocated nationalisation of children as promoted by neo-Stalinist Cindy Kiro ("cradle to grave monitoring of people"), includes the obnoxious prick Russel Norman, the woolly headed lunatic Catherine Delahunty and with Marxist Keith Locke and control freak Sue Kedgley retiring, adds new lovers of big government such as Eugenie Sage (environmental radical), Sue Bradford acolyte Jan Logie, anti-American Steffan Browning, unionist Denise Roche and spin advisor Holly Walker.  Not a long list of achievers, but certainly a bunch to support the Marxist "we know best" policies the Greens promote.   I suspect the Greens might pull off around 8% of the vote this time, a record amount, but will only do better if they aren't seriously confronted and Mana doesn't siphon off votes on the left (along with ALCP now the Greens are quiet on cannabis).  It will largely depend on how much of a free ride they get from a docile sympathetic media.  There is nothing honourable about voting Green, unless you get a thrill out of pushing other people around and feeling self-satisfied.

Labour Party - The government in waiting, which will still be waiting.  A solidly centre left-wing party, believing in government providing solutions, led by a man who isn't too unsympathetic about ACT, but who has hoisted himself to a career that he probably suspects, has reached its nadir.  Andrew Little, an annoying little leftwing unionist, is the highest placed non-MP on the list.  Labour may claim to be more frugal, but is trying to sell capital gains tax, which will be one of its downfalls.  Still, it has a chance of governing, if a coalition of perhaps the Greens, Maori Party, NZ First (!), Mana and Peter Dunne might be cobbled together.  Labour is partly dependent on unionised civil servants and on welfare beneficiaries who want to keep the tap.  It does have an honourable history of reform.  Let's be honest, Labour makes more reform than National when in power.  However, only in 1984-1990 did it largely do any good on that front, and the results were mixed.   Labour has a large tribal vote, by that I mean hundreds of thousands who vote Labour because it's in the family and because they think the alternative means National - a party they instinctively think is "for the rich" and "against them".  If only many of them started to realise that the only person they can rely on is not a politician, and certainly not a political party that says it will "do things for them", but themselves.  Yet, I think Labour will be lucky to reach 30% this time round, although Helen Clark survived getting 28.2% in 1996, Phil Goff must know his role is almost certainly to be the fall guy.

Libertarianz - Still surviving, still declaring the unabashed belief in the freedom of the individual, private property rights and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and private property.  I need not say more, as I've been a member for 13 or so years.  Still the only choice for those who believe in much much smaller government, so government exists to protect people from the initiation of force, not being the chief perpetrator.  Libertarianz face the challenge of ACT led by Don Brash, but the opportunity presented by National looking like a sure thing is for freedom lovers to see they can vote for what they really want.  Indeed, ACT voters who can't stomach John Banks have a natural home in Libertarianz.   Of course I'd like Libertarianz to get 12,000 votes, a 10 fold improvement on 2008 - it would only take a small fraction of past ACT voters to give the tick to freedom.  However, I suspect the actual result will be closer to 1,200 than 12,000.   And no, it is NOT a wasted vote to vote for what you believe in.

Mana - The new far-left party, making the Greens look centrist and the Maori Party look not so racist.  This is Maori nationalist socialism, with massive state transfers from the successful to the not so successful, serious controls on tobacco and alcohol, and if you claim Maori ancestry, expect the state to smile upon you more than others.  It has Annette Sykes, who once noted a risk of terrorism in the quest for Maori sovereignty, although she reassured Maurice Williamson she didn't support such action.  The same woman who said she cheered when she saw the news about 9-11.  Hone Harawira himself once said "Our fight for a better world will only be won . . . when the white man comes home", and who cheered Osama Bin Laden as a "freedom fighter".  This is truly the vile party, the party that isn't just about state violence, but sympathises with those who have used terrorism and has candidates that no only have cheered mass murder, but also empathise with Islamist misogynistic totalitarians.   He said ACT policies are like that of Hitler.  This is the politics of the gutter.  Hone Harawira will no doubt get elected though, but will there be enough votes to get a second candidate?  I think probably not, and if the media did its job thoroughly enough, it would treat this party as what it is - the Zanu PF of New Zealand.  Mana makes the Greens look honourable, which quite frankly in comparison, they are.  A case for abolishing the Maori seats if ever there was one, but that would be painted as being like the Holocaust.

Maori Party - No party list seats going to be won here, but it wont win back Hone's seat and will probably lose another.  National's other partner in government, that wont tolerate talk of colourblind government, but which only exists because of the Maori seats.  Is a party for Maori a racist party? Well it is a nationalist party, and a party that is driven by what it sees as the interests of one race, one nationality, by definition.  Not exactly a friend of freedom.  Essentially a breakaway from Labour that is more focused on pragmatism than political tribalism, but as such will probably suffer from having supported National and the loss of its radical wing to Mana.  3 seats with less than 2% of the vote.

National - If you're happy and you know it, tick National.  So if you don't like change and you thoroughly approve of the confiscation of private property and the grotesque mismanagement of Christchurch since the earthquake, then tick National.  Frankly if you claim to be pro-business, pro-property rights and believe in small government and vote National you're a fucking hypocrite or a fool.  I am convinced this debacle is mostly due to Ministers taking the advice of officials and letting council and central government bureaucrats do as they see fit.   It's a disgrace and is destroying downtown Christchurch.  Don't vote National if you believe in property rights, don't vote National if you are in any city and fear what government will do in an earthquake or volcanic eruption or any other major disaster.   The proof is clear - government will run roughshod over those who fund it.

NZ First - The "Asians are coming" party (with an Asian candidate just to "prove you wrong"), which so disgraced itself in 1996-1998 with politicians who were people so inept they sought and enjoyed the baubles of office, and then again in 2005 when Winston didn't want baubles, then became Minister of Foreign Affairs.  By natural attrition, NZ First will probably grab 3% of the vote this time as the slippery short arse Winston proclaims how "unfair" the media is.  Tired populism without the real commitment or modern campaigning skill to really get there again.

United Future - Peter Dunne might scrape through again, having survived common sense, religious conservatism and supporting Labour and National in government, but it's going to be touch and go whether the party vote drops so far that he is an overhang MP.  Nothing to see here because Dunne will go whatever way the wind blows, so voting United Future means you don't care whether Labour or National is leading a government, and you don't mind either so much you want to change them, which means you don't really have strong views on anything, except maybe Transmission Gully, drugs and the creation of the "award winning" Families Commission (oh and outdoor recreation, lots of policies on that).

So that's it, the full spectrum from authoritarian racists to freedom lovers, and all sorts of blends in between.  Don't vote National, it doesn't deserve it.  Don't vote Labour, you're better than that.  Don't vote for lunatics (Social Credit), control freaks (most of the above) or those seeking to pander to the worst in you (Mana, NZ First).  A party vote should express your political philosophy, what do you want government to do.  If the status quo is National, you have a lot of choices for government to do more, and it would appear only three to do less. 

Asset sales bad, asset purchases good?

A simple, impertinent question, to ask all those on the left of the political spectrum in New Zealand.  Labour, the Greens, Mana, NZ First (socialism can be nationalist) and the Maori Party.

You are all trying to scaremonger, use barely shrouded xenophobia to frighten the average voter into being opposed to the government selling assets.  The first thing you all emphasise is that "foreigners" will take over, with the implication that foreigners will be out to rip off consumers.  Even in competitive sectors (like electricity, which has five suppliers, or aviation where Air NZ ran 100% private for 12 years, including 4 years under a Labour government).  The implication being the foreigners are devils, unlike the benign, beloved New Zealand government.

The second thing you do is contradict yourself.  Whilst you imply that the assets you want to keep provide cheaper services (and goods if you include Solid Energy) than they would if owned by foreign devils, you then say the government will be losing out on lucrative revenue.   Hold on.  This lucrative revenue comes from the consumers you don't want ripped off.   Are you implying the government could make more money from consumers that it does now from these assets (given you think the government making money from selling goods and services is a good thing), or that taxpayers (the people who effectively carry the liabilities, but don't directly carry the benefits) are getting a lower rate of return than they would have done, had you simply gone out and bought them shares on the stockmarket on their behalf (or better yet, let them invest the money themselves)?

However, your biggest contradiction is in your attitude to the two sides of the government asset ledger.  The government buying assets has considerable costs.   

Labour bought Kiwirail at a price well in excess of its market value, and subsequently Labour and National have spent over NZ$750 million - which is greater than the purchase price itself, in buying more "assets" for the business.  This is money that has come from borrowing, it is money from taxpayers pockets, and is money that is almost certainly never going to be recovered ever from them.  The main beneficiaries of this are the foreign (devils they are not now) businesses who manufacture these assets (don't even start claiming you can make tiny short runs of trains in New Zealand when mass production of cars is grotesquely inefficient on the scale of a country this side), and the small number of New Zealand businesses that benefit from rail freight being effectively subsidised (Fonterra, forestry companies, Solid Energy, freight forwarders, shipping companies).  Why is this good?  Don't use words like "strategic", "environment", "future-proofing", use financial measures, like you use for asset sales.   Why can't you?   Why don't you consider the enormous transaction costs of that purchase, and the Air New Zealand transaction? 

Beyond that obvious example, there is Kiwibank, Air New Zealand and indeed any capital expenditure by the state in any sector.   You don't seem to care when the state increases its pool of "assets" (regardless of whether they raise revenue, most don't), you don't care whether consumers get a good deal from those assets or their owners,  you don't care whether taxpayers make money from them.   

In other words, you don't apply the same standard to asset purchases as you seek to apply to asset sales.

Is that because you are all really full-blown socialists who believe in public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and like the growth of government ownership of the economy?  (surely you don't all think like that?)  

Or is it because you are conveniently using this rather modest policy (yes National doesn't have many that are easy to argue or communicate), one that in almost every OECD country would be considered relatively benign and inconsequential by the political mainstream (far-left and far-right excluded), to bait the rather deep seated xenophobia and "tall poppy" suspicion of quite a few New Zealanders, who are inately suspicious of foreign business people, and subscribe to the Muldoonist paternalistic feeling that you can't really trust business people to "see you right"?

You want to frighten people into thinking that foreigners will rip them off, will "asset strip" these "great assets" and the country will be "worse off" because people like you don't control them and don't spend the money raised by them.  You like them to believe you are better at spending their money than they are, and that you're a kinder gentler business person than they are.

In other words, aren't you all just playing the Winston Peters card?

Labour allegiance to Mubarak's party

Having read the vituperative and somewhat nonsensical hatred expressed by a couple on the left about John Key's comments on the situation in Egypt, I thought I'd do a little digging and found a slightly more substantive link between the New Zealand Labour Party, Australian Labor Party and the British Labour Party, with the ruling (at time of writing) National Democratic Party (NDP) in Egypt.

You see as much as the left now rage against Hosni Mubarak, the truth is that the NDP has been aligned with all three Labour Parties since the NDP was allowed to join Socialist International in 1989.

You see, until 30 January 2011, they all shared membership of Socialist International, the international non-government organisation that allows socialists to network.  It is dominated by leftwing parties from democracies (it doesn't have Chinese or North Korean membership), but they are all expected to share philosophies and political alignment.  So there you go, time to label Phil Goff, Ed Miliband and Julia Gillard as all leading parties that have provided warm camaraderie between Egypt's dictatorial ruling party and themselves, for it is true.

Time for a loud rant about how disgusting and despicable it has been that these parties have all provided succour to the NDP?  Philosophical comrades for over 21 years.

Of course that doesn't fit the leftwing monologue about Mubarak being a dictatorial tool of neo-cons, when his politics have actually been aligned with centre-left parties.  

Now a bit of rational reflection will tell you that this link is rather tenuous, but if you belonged to a political party, which belonged to an international organisation that invited the NDP to speak, what would YOU think?

Maybe Lianne Dalziel needs to be asked, since she attended Socialist International's last Congress in Athens in 2008, with Mohamed Abdellah of the NDP of Egypt.

The NDP being expelled from Socialist International 30 January doesn't make up for the 21 years of friendship, during which time Egyptians were getting imprisoned, tortured and harassed for objecting to this party.

The simple truth is that the parties of Socialist International can't begin to claim the moral highground given they were parties to giving the Egyptian NDP and effective one-party state legitimacy and moral authority, by allowing it to be associated with them.

Stepping back from this you need to look at the history of the NDP, which was created by President Anwar Sadat, but was essentially a partial reformation of the previous Arab Socialist Union, Nasser's own party which has its origins in the third world anti-colonialist philosophy that developing countries only need one political party to unify the people - in other words a ruse for dictatorship.

The philosophical parent for Egypt's dictatorial and corrupt ruling party is socialism.  It was embraced by liberal democratic socialist parties across the world.  So let's not pretend that Mubarak, the NDP and indeed Egypt's entire post-colonial political history are all nothing to do with the left and socialism, when they most decidedly are, as inconvenient as that truth is.

Labour approved of part-privatisation in 2002

Cast your mind back to the last Labour Government.  A government opposed to privatisation? Not quite.

The evidence is clear, as Michael Cullen issued a press release on behalf of the government in 2002 approving Qantas buying 4.99% of the mostly nationalised Air New Zealand, and approved an application by both airlines to get Commerce Commission and ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) approval for Qantas to ultimately buy 22.5% of Air New Zealand.

If it was good enough for Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Trevor Mallard and Paul Swain (and the rest of Cabinet including Phil Goff, Annette King et al) then, why is it not any good now?

I opposed that at the time for the simple reason that the whole Air NZ nationalisation debacle was partly caused by the government sitting on its hands and not approving Singapore Airlines's request to lift its shareholding in Air NZ/Ansett Australia to 49%, because Qantas lobbied the government saying it had a "better idea" even though all of Air NZ's private shareholders opposed it.

It was a classic example of corporatist lobbying which successful killed off a competitor.  Qantas got what it wanted; the failure of Ansett (its biggest competitor) and a chance to gobble up Air NZ to ensure it was never threatened in its own patch again.  The latter didn't ultimately happen, but let's be clear.  Whilst Air NZ/Ansett did make poor business decisions, its collapse was precipitated because of government interference in a business decision that would have saved it.

That is the level of competence of those in the Labour Party who think, somehow, that they can manage large businesses well, when they have helped bring one to its knees, thanks to its competitor helping it out.  Then Labour sought to hand over part of what is now deemed to be a "strategic asset" (whatever that is) to its biggest rival.

The Greens did oppose any sale, because the growth in the public sector is seen as a "good" by those who think the people = the state.   However, it's sad that while Labour has no credibility, National can't have the courage of its convictions to argue that government should be in the business of owning businesses at all. 

Labour's land policy can be extended

Labour Leader Phil Goff today announced that given the warm reception of his policy against foreign own land and businesses that he would apply the principle more generally.

“Given that foreign investors can often have a pernicious, non-Kiwi way of looking at land and infrastructure operations, we understand that only the Tangata Whenua, meaning not only Maori but non-Maori Kiwi blokes and blokesses know how to treat land as more than an investment, but a link to the nation and the people. This link isn’t just across Aotearoa but is local too, so I have decided to announce that Labour will restrict sales of South Island land to South Islanders only.

For many years now more and more farms, businesses and infrastructure in the South Island has been owned predominantly or exclusively by North Island companies and individuals. These people do not have a direct link with the land, and are less likely to appreciate the cultural, economic, social and environmental sensitivities involved. The Queen Street Farmer with properties in Otago must come to an end.

The inflation in prices that this allows has been rampant, so I will institute a policy that such sales will only be allowed if they are in the interests of South Islanders.

Given the wisdom of this approach, I intend to empower local authorities to institute similar such rules, so that the people of Hamilton do not face Aucklanders buying up properties and shutting them out of the market. Similarly, the overpriced Kapiti housing market will be set free by keeping Wellingtonians out.”

He continued:

“There are big North Island buyers with money to burn who want to control and own the supply chain for food production. Instead of adding value to production in the South Island, they could decide to do it in the North Island.

That would cost the South Island jobs.

They’re going from the North to the South Island to buy what’s currently South Islanders’ and they will be doing it more often.

South Islanders are more vulnerable as land values fall.

We are at risk of our land being priced on a national market beyond the reach of South Islanders.

When South Islanders have to compete against North Island buyers, we have to ask ourselves - what will happen if the prices paid lock us out of owning our own land?
Where does it end up if we say to ambitious young South Islanders that you can only buy into our best and productive assets if you come from the North Island or you are born into a wealthy family.

That is not the South Island I want.

No North Islander has the right to buy South Island land - it is a privilege.
It is a privilege we have granted too easily.

Today you have my commitment that Labour will turn the rules on selling land to across Cook Strait on their head.

We’ll guarantee that South Islanders’ interests are put first.

We will reverse the presumption that any North Island purchase of South Island rural land is good for South Islanders.”

He continued to explain that he would be consulting on whether to first restrict inter-electorate sales of land ("can't have those Cantabrians buying West Coast land willy nilly can we?") or inter local authority sales ("Carterton for Cartertonians"!), noting that local authorities themselves may decide to impose more local restrictions if need be.

"Parnell for Parnellians, Miramar for Miramaranians, Taradale for Taradalians" he could be heard banally crying out.

He noted finally that this policy was in alignment with the great philosophy of self-reliance of Juche, adopted from Pyongyang.

Fifth bailout in twenty years

The announcement by the New Labour National government that it is spending NZ$750 million of your money, to strengthen a company that the Old Labour government bought for NZ$690 million ought to provoke outrage on behalf of those supporting the current government, and should condemn Labour and its cheerleaders the Greens to history for being the most egregious destroyers of taxpayer wealth since Sir Robert Muldoon.

It should be so obvious to a child that buying something that is worth NZ$690 million and having to spend $750 million to save it is lunacy. Labour receives the blame for the former, and now New Labour National does for the latter.

What to know why you're not getting a real tax cut? Ask both of those gangs of reckless spendthrifts. Why their parents didn't spend a couple of hundred bucks to buy them train sets when they were kids so they could indulge in this pastime is beyond me? (mine did by the way).

Will Kiwirail make a profit that will even approach to recovering this (and the other money poured into it in the past year or so)? No. Indeed, the goal is to be "self-sustaining", which presumably means make an operating profit, not recover the long run cost of capital in this very capital intensive business.

The problem is we've been there before. Government is regularly using your money to rescue railways in New Zealand. The first time was understandable, the second time could even be partly excused as due to the legacy of Think Big, but ever since then it has worn a little thin.

The simple truth railway enthusiasts (and I count myself as one of those) have to accept is that the economically viable future for railways in New Zealand is to operate a severely curtailed network carrying moderately high volumes of containers and bulk commodities.

Two years ago I wrote this post, still valid today, where I outlined what looked to be viable and what did not. Railways north of Auckland have little future, as does the line north of Masterton and between Stratford and the main trunk. The Napier-Gisborne line has had a fortune poured into it, so may be best to keep mothballed in the event of traffic.

David Heatley from the NZ Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation has an excellent presentation called "The Future of Rail in New Zealand". I wrote about it as well.

You see the railways were bailed out in 1982 when transformed from a government department to a commercially oriented corporation (the first "SOE" before the term SOE was coined).

The railways were bailed out again in 1990, in part to pay the full cost of the main trunk electrification approved before corporatisation (and which was found to be a loss making capital investment even if the electricity was supplied for free), and in part to pay for the restructuring following the removal of the monopoly on long haul freight.

Then it was privatised in 1993.

It was bailed out once more when Dr Cullen bought the track from Toll Rail (having earlier paid over the nose for the Auckland rail network), and then refused to enforce the cost recovery track access charges needed to pay to maintain the network.

The fourth time was the renationalisation, by paying well over the market price for the "business" it kept it open, except that it is unprofitable.

Now you're paying more, this time to make it "viable".

Darren Hughes has said the $750 million isn't enough, because $11 billion is being spent on roads. Yes well done Darren, noticed a railway to every business and home? Noticed how many people use roads compared to railways (most lines you can wait hours for a train of any kind to appear)? Might you be better asking why YOU voted for taxpayers to pay over the odds for this dog of an asset? What is he trying to achieve besides looking like he's addicted to spending bad money after bad? Does he want to spend $11 billion on railways??? He says "I think we need to be looking at how we move freight from, say Gisborne on the east coast, to Napier port". Who is this "we"? Because almost all of it goes by road, as it is substantially cheaper. This was looked at when you were in government Mr. Hughes the simple answer is that there is damn all freight from Gisborne to Napier, because Gisborne has a port. The distance is far too short for a viable rail freight operation.

This example shows all too obviously how inane the Greens are on railways (believe in them, believe in them), how blatantly wasteful the Labour was in renationalising it and how the Nats are too damned scared to do what actually needs to be done - get Kiwirail to borrow the money for its renewal itself.

If there are people willing to buy trains and run them on the network paying to use it, then let them. If there aren't then mothball parts of the network and offer to sell it to whoever wants it.

The arguments that the railways save money are clearly ludicrous.

If there is a desire to ensure rail and road are on an equal footing then set up the highways as a profit oriented corporation that borrows and invests in its network paid for by user fees.

Then both networks can be self sustaining, and be privatised. Hopefully then the ongoing political fetish of saving a network that, by and large, has had its day and is now only viable for a few core freight tasks, will be over.

Who owes a huge debt?

One of the likely contenders to lead the Labour Party, as it moans and groans about how the incoming government is paying for the debt it incurred, is Ed Miliband.

Apparently he tweeted "We owe Gordon a huge debt: Britain is a fairer country and our world is more just because of what he did."

No Ed, the country owes a huge debt because of Gordon. You lying lowlives pretended this wasn't real, scared the people who you've made dependent on the state that they would be out in the cold if it was addressed.

Gordon Brown has left the UK with record public debt, a record budget deficit (at levels akin to Greece) and a legacy that will burden taxpayers for many many years, including the children of taxpayers.

Good riddance. It was the most optimistic outcome of the election that you spendthrift liars were ejected from continuing to borrow your way in office by propping up those who you depended on for power.

Back to the 70s

Given this inane story, here's some ideas:

Government companies making locally built computers, TVs, shoes, ships, mobile phones, cars....

Yes the railway workshop builds freight cars, successfully, following competitive tendering. Yes it overhauls locomotives, successfully. Yes once NZ railway workshops built everything for the railway, including rivets, nails, bolts and the like - often at many many times the unit cost of importing the same. Imagine any business building all of its own components, but not selling those components to anyone else - how sustainable is that?

It just shows some idiots haven't learned from the past. New Zealand cannot economically sustain a car ASSEMBLY industry, for thousands of units per annum, let alone sustain building bespoke passenger trains and locomotives. It is worth remembering the Ministry of Commerce report in the late 1990s which stated that the cost of each car assembly job was over $100,000, for people paid a quarter of that.

Last time it assembled passenger carriages it was the 1950s (the old Wellington units about t obe replaced by new imported trains), the last locomotives assembled were a handful of shunters in the early 80s.

Of course it does raise the very real point about how stupid Labour is - given that it happily let the Wellington Regional Council order 48 new electric units being built in South Korea, while it was in power.

Still, the government shouldn't be surprised this sort of silliness is brought up, given it owns the railway and is spending half a billion of your money on the folly of a rail network that will serve the needs of perhaps 2% of all trips in Auckland, and will lose money year after year. Still, a majority of you voted for that.

NZ home insulation foolishness tells a lot about attitudes

Following on from the Australian catastrophe in subsidising home owners who can't be bothered paying for their own energy bill savings, there is now the consequences of the New Zealand scheme. However, what it says about the general public speaks volumes about the trust they have in the state, trust that anyone who has spent time working with the bureaucracy knows is misplaced.

The New Zealand Herald reports that many insulation installers are upset that:

"the government subsidies are allowing competitors to hike their prices and still undercut them using taxpayers' money.

They say customers are avoiding them because they see government approval to offer subsidies of up to $1300 for insulation and $500 for energy-efficient heating as a "badge of quality".

Of 249 companies wanting to join the $347 million scheme for the next four years, 60 were chosen based on factors including geographical coverage, financial stability and their ability to carry out self-audits."

So in other words, 60 firms are suckling off the state tit, whereas the rest are out in the cold, helping to PAY for their competition to undercut them.

It speaks volumes that the EECA subsidy is seen to be a guarantee of quality, the same stupid mistake Australians made thinking government approved installers were somehow a higher standard. Seriously, do people think bureaucrats exist that check the quality and standards of insulation installers? Do people think that if a state approved installer does work for them that they have a greater degree of sanction if it turns out to be poor quality?

The notion of this is ridiculous. I've known literally hundreds of bureaucrats, most of whom know the limits of their competence. There simply are NOT people out there able to check this sort of thing. Yet people believe the state is somehow benevolent and offers some sort of reassurance.

Now I oppose the fundamentals of the scheme. Yes it might save energy bills, but that is a private good. Those with insulation shouldn't pay for those without to save money. Yes it might improve health of some, but when are people meant to take responsibility for the cold and damp in their homes?

The political reaction to this is predictable. Energy Minister Gerry Brownlie effectively endorsed the idea that the scheme ensures a "tight control" on quality of work, although it isn't clear quite how that quality is being ensured. This contradicts EECA claims that just because some aren't part of the subsidy scheme does not mean their work is poor quality. So is Brownlee just knifing those who don't get taxpayers money to run their business?

Labour spokesman Chris Hipkins thinks the subsidy should be offered to everyone, doing a Peter Garrett.

You see a better response is this:

- Stop the subsidy scheme;
- Tell homeowners that if they want to make energy savings, they should buy their own insulation and use recommendations, word of mouth and other means to explore the market to find good installers and suppliers;
- Tell homeowners who already have insulation that it is unfair to tax those who already have insulated their homes to subsidise those who haven't;
- Used the savings to cut the budget deficit, working towards tax cuts WITHOUT countervailing new taxes. Hiking GST wont help people pay for insulation.

After all, if people paid less taxes they would have more money to spend on discretionary expenditure, and if would rather pay higher heating bills than insulation, why should nanny state save them?

UPDATE: Not PC also has a recommendation of a GOOD installer. A recommendation I'd trust over any government "endorsement" that apparently isn't one.

Labour thinks you're too stupid to lose weight

Labour Health spokesperson Ruth Dyson says this "The Government apparently thinks people will simply be able to change their diet and exercise without any assistance or form of nutrition education"

I'm astonished. Changing your diet is impossible without the government. The carefully hidden knowledge that eating mostly vegetables, fruit, lean meat, fish and cereals, and avoiding high fat and high sugar foods helps you lose weight is something that almost nobody knows surely. In addition, without the government how COULD people go to the gym, or go for a walk or swim?

Does anything more clearly show the patronising and condescending attitude the Labour Party, and indeed many statists have for the general public than that? The idea that without the government, people can't look after themselves, don't know any better and wont change.

Ms. Dyson might wonder if one of the reasons Labour became far less popular is that people are sick of being treated as imbeciles, and sick of being forced to pay for bureaucrats to hand hold people.

If people get obese and do nothing about it, then it isn't anyone else's business. If you want to address rationing the health system, then maybe linking its provision to what people pay for it, might make a difference. Imagine, for example, if most people had health insurance and paid more every year if they were deemed to be obese. How much of a better incentive would it be if you paid more for healthcare because of your risk factors, than for some patronising do-gooder to give you nutrition education and tell you to exercise more?

Why is it that so many politicians prefer telling people what they should do than have them face the costs of their actions?

Tough on crime, tough on rights

Not PC posts on the government's package of measures to get "tough on crime" and notes that Idiot Savant rightfully is worried about Judith Collins apparently being gleeful about the end of the burden of proof, obviously in relation to certain laws.

This all harks back to the political populism behind seeking to be tough on crime, something I happily support. What should this mean? Well it means you need to look at the whole process of resolving crime and dealing with criminals.

The first is to ensure the Police are focusing on crime according to its seriousness and crime that involves victims. This means crimes against the person are prioritised over property crimes, which are prioritised over crimes that are against no one.

The second is to ensure the Police have the tools available to do the job effectively but fairly. That does mean having access to records of all those convicted, it means having access to fingerprint records of convicts and DNA of convicts as well. It means being able to be issued with a search warrant or interception warrant if there are, on balance of probabilities, grounds to assume a serious crime is being carried out or planned by suspects. However, it also means disposing of evidence that proves nothing, and that includes the samples of those not convicted unless they wish to have it retained. The innocent should retain that status, rather than some murky halfway house of being "known to the Police".

Thirdly, the courts should have objective law behind them and fact finding processes so that juries and judges can make appropriate decisions based on legally obtained evidence. That means courts are not occupied by victimless crimes

Finally, sentencing should do what it is meant to do, protect the public and send a punitive message. Imprisonment exists to protect people from the perpetrator committing further crime, but must also be proportionate to the offence and the harm to the victim. Fines may be appropriate if the purpose is to punish someone who is unlikely to reoffend. Young offenders might be expected to be rehabilitated for a first time offence that is not a serious violent or sexual offence.

Debate around how best to manage the criminal justice system IS the primary area of public policy that would remain under a Libertarianz government.

Sadly, this government is seeking to use a sledgehammer to deal to crime, and it is doing so on the basis the Police like to do policy in this area - "let's get those bastards and give us the tools to do it, and you'll be right, you'll have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong".

Let's be clear what we are talking about in the government proposals:
- Seizure of assets if you can't prove you obtained them legally. Imagine right now the effort you'd need to go to in proving how you afforded your last major purchase? Imagine now how the most sophisticated gangs would establish shell companies and manufacture invoices, receipts and the likes to ensure that they could prove enough. Most of all, ask yourself why anyone should have to prove innocence?
- Wide ranging powers to enter properties, without warrant, if the Police suspect a person who has committed an imprisonable offence is on the premises;
- Wide ranging powers to stop a vehicle, without warrant, if the Police suspect a person in the vehicle has committed an imprisonable offence;
- Wide ranging powers to enter properties, without warrant, if the Police suspect a person is about to commit a drug offence;
- Wide ranging powers to stop and search people in public, without warrant, if the Police suspect a person is carrying a weapon, including knife or a "disabling substance" (yes women, that means you carrying mace or similar);
- Wide ranging powers to search any vehicle, without warrant, if there are reasonable grounds to believe stolen property is within it;
- Powers for the Police to enter your property lawfully (i.e. unchallenged) and snoop using their eyes, ears and recording what was seen and heard;
- Powers for the Police to require you to provide passwords to access your computer and any data you store.. and so on.

More here

What needs to be asked is why this is justified, and what are the specific problems that mean obtaining search warrants is proving too problematic for the Police?

Judith Collins thinks you are protected because of judicial review, but frankly this has little credibility. Parliament is sovereign, when it takes away your rights, the courts are not likely to overturn this. The Bill of Rights Act is only useful for challenging interpretation of general provisions, but the specificity of statute can override this. Beyond that she thinks the media and democracy save your rights, but frankly the NZ mainstream media is not up to the job, as you'll see below. Besides, when the Police Minister cheers the end of the presumption of innocence, then you should be afraid.

Bear in mind of course, guilt till proven innocent is what the tax system is about (and Idiot Savant probably isn't going to campaign to change that is he?)

Following on, it is highly ironic that the president of the Police union Greg O'Connor says this:

"New Zealanders have got to wake up. P has done for this country what the Prohibition did in the US – it's entrenched organised crime."

History delivered an answer to that. Perhaps Mr. O'Connor might be asked to comment on this?

Oh and while we're at it, notice how the Dominion Post article above looks essentially like a government press release with nothing but comment from those supportive of it? Notice how Britton Broun (who was graduating three years ago) did not approach any opposition parties, defence lawyers or anyone else who might be able to comment differently on his little piece of agitprop?

Is this the free media Judith Collins relies upon for robust and vigorous debate and defence of our rights?

If only Labour were right

Phil Twyford, (Labour's list MP with a non-existent profile) says of the government's Auckland mega council plans:

"Council-controlled-organisations are to be established for water, transport, community services (including libraries and community houses), land development, the waterfront, and economic development. Each of them will report to a council-owned holding company."

The HORROR. Like electricity, the railways, NZ Post, Air NZ all under Labour. Too many function though surely?

It's not enough though, Phil is concerned that if his train is late, he wont get a swift response from the Mayor - because the Mayor gets involved in day to day activities right?

"If the trains aren't running on time, or the footpaths aren't being maintained, the mayor will have to talk to the CEO of the holding company who will have to talk to the CEO of the council-controlled-organisation. who will have to talk to the contractor who is delivering the service."

Um, well given the government owns Kiwirail, and the ARC already contracts a private company (Veolia) to run the trains, how would that change Phil, given that's the arrangement that was in place when Labour set it all up?

However he presents the best claim next, he's scared his little friends will be lost:

"This is corporatisation gone mad. There will be nothing for the elected politicians to do. I don't know why people would bother standing for office under this model. It will be impossible to hold the politicians accountable because they won't have the power to deliver.

Phil Twyford said a rump CEO of the Auckand Council would be left to administer corporate functions like information technology, human resources and finance, and public relations."

I'll believe it when I see it, and I'm convinced it isn't true, but if it is..

speed the day. I'll take back most of what I said about the mega city proposal.

If it can stop local politicians in Auckland from meddling in operations, from pushing their own little agendas at the expense of ratepayers, from even turning up to council meetings, it will be a great step forward.

Shame it's almost certainly vacuous hyperbole.

UPDATE: Let's remember how trains in Auckland are run at the moment...

The ARC has a council controlled organisation, called ARTA (set up under the last government) to CONTRACT OUT management of the passenger rail service, which it has done so to a company called Veolia. A private company. Veolia runs the trains, ARTA owns the trains (Kiwirail owns some too which are leased to ARTA), Kiwirail owns the tracks. Kiwirail is an SOE, effectively another arms length commercial organisation. So anyone complaining about the trains in Auckland going to a local politician would see that person following quite a trail of organisations down the line.

The Labour Party is complaining about the trains being just LIKE that, yet set the trains up to RUN like that.

So is Phil Twyford so stupid that even he doesn't bother to research the governance arrangements in Auckland for rail transport set up by the last Labour government before complaining about the current government doing what he says, is the same thing?

Helen Clark is still an MP!

So says the Labour Party website today

(I have a screenshot for when this is fixed)

Remember you trusted the leadership of this organisation to spend around half your money.

Of course given she is more popular than Phil Goff as leader, it might not be surprising.

(Hat Tip WhaleOil)

Manipulation of language

This post is NOT about the merits of deregulating and privatising ACC - you can take it for granted, I'd fully support full competition for all ACC coverage and privatising ACC itself. It is a debate about language used in politics, to manipulate public opinion. It is not a manipulation confined to those I am accusing in this post either.

In the debate about ACC, those on the left consistently refer to the policy of opening ACC up to competition as "privatisation".

Yet these are two very different things. A government owned entity can remain state owned and face private sector competition without it being privatised.

How? Let's take some of the major deregulations in recent years.

- Until 1982, trucks were banned from hauling freight further than 150km (with some exceptions), with rail having a monopoly. Was opening up long haul freight to competition the privatisation of New Zealand Railways?

- Until 1983, Air New Zealand had a statutory monopoly on domestic airline routes, in that competitors were only allowed by and large if Air New Zealand granted permission. Was the removal of this monopoly the privatisation of Air New Zealand?

- Until 1989, TVNZ had a monopoly on television broadcasting, and in 1991 the television market was fully opened to anyone who wished to purchase frequencies, satellite capacity or lay cable. Was this the privatisation of TVNZ?

- Until 1998, it was illegal for anyone other than NZ Post to deliver mail for less than 80c. Was opening up the postal market the privatisation of New Zealand Post?

So why talk about opening up the ACC market to competition as privatisation?

It's simple - it is the manipulation of language for political effect.

You see most people would not disagree with allowing competition. Prohibiting competition seems to be a bad thing, as it means a monopoly can take advantage of you, can underperform, and you have no choice. It doesn't even have to expect the threat of potential competition.

The left cannot attack ACC reform based on the word "competition", because most people will go "So what? I like competition, I don't like monopolies."

Privatisation is a bogey word. It brings up images of an "asset" being sold for less than it "might be worth", of control transferring to those horned devils called "foreigners" (spit) and it not "being our's anymore", even though people complained about it when it was.

So that is why they lie, explicitly, about the proposal. To have people think it is about selling ACC - which, sadly, would not happen in this term of the government, rather than opening it up to competition, which might.

So it should be challenged, repeatedly. NZ Post has NOT been privatised, neither has TVNZ, just because both are fully exposed to competition. Why should ACC be described as privatised if it is also subject to competition?

UPDATE: Both Frog Blog and the Standard repeat the lie, blatantly.

UPDATE 2: The Standard doesn't like being challenged. Take this nasty little remark about "learning my lesson".

Manufacturing rights

One of the trends in recent years from statists of both sides of the political spectrum is the manufacturing of "rights". Not genuine rights, the rights to free speech, rights to control the use of your body, rights to your property, rights to interact peacefully with others. No. Rights to something someone else has produced which is to be supplied to you by force.

It started with the "right to life" not being the right to repel anyone else trying to do violence to you, but the "right" to compel others to provide you with food, clothing, housing and warmth.

Then came a "right" to education. A "right" to health care. A "right" to a job. Nobody asserting these ever wanted to make it clear what rights would be infringed upon to deliver this, or indeed what would happen if everyone demanded a "right" to a living and sat around waiting for it.

You see the difference between a genuine right (sometimes referred to as a negative right) is that your exercise of it does not take away from the right of others to do the same. My right to free speech does not take away from yours. Oh, and to be clear, my right to free speech does not demand anyone else supply a platform for it, but it does demand that others not stop me from producing or negotiating to acquire my own. For example, if blogger stopped allowing me to publish this, it wouldn't be infringing on my right to free speech, it would be asserting its own property rights. Indeed, it has granted me limited property rights here, so I can write as I see fit and can block commenters if I like - blocking your comments doesn't infringe on your right to free speech.

So called "positive rights", require taking from others. You see everyone on earth could have free speech, and it would take away from no one (except perhaps the superstructure upon which many regimes are built). However, to grant everyone a "right" to a home, education, health care, broadband or whatever is the latest trend, would cost. Indeed, assuming rights should be the same for everyone, imagine the cost. Notice how none of the statists arguing for such "rights" assert them across international borders. Your "right" to broadband doesn't apply in Chad, nor does your "right" to heart surgery. You might ask why not, if it is a "right". The truth is that it is no such thing - it is a claim upon others using language to place what is a fundamentally socialist concept on a higher ground than it actually is.

It is worth remembering the main reason "positive" rights came about was because the Soviet Union reacted against TRUE rights being advanced at the UN. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was created in 1966, as a Western attempt to push true freedoms onto the UN agenda. It is far from perfect, but does include rights to freedom from torture, the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of life, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of movement including leaving one's country, freedom of association, freedom of speech etc.

However, this perturbed the USSR, which of course routinely ignored all of the above. So it created the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It included a "right to self determination" (not individual self determination mind you), the rights to work, social security, a minimum standard of living, etc.

None of this really matters, as New Zealand is a signatory to both, but then, so is North Korea. The US did not ratify the latter, but did the former with reservations.

So why raise it now? Because Brendon Burns, Labour's Broadcasting spokesman, has said you have a "right" to watch the Rugby World Cup on free to air television.

Yes, presumably in asserting this "right", he should provide you with a TV as well as the programming. Indeed, why can't I assert this "right" in London? If it is a "right" then why not?

Brendon is of course complaining about the ridiculous taxpayer funded Maori TV bid, but it's not just about that. He wants state TV to carry it. He specifically shuts out Prime TV, because of coverage reasons, and ignores TV3. So in other words, the Labour Party wants to force the NZRFU to give TVNZ the rights to broadcast the Rugby World Cup. Nationalisation of programming if ever it was.

Of course it is genuinely pathetic. Nobody has any "right" to watch anything. The Rugby World Cup is no more special than watching M.A.S.H, Ed Edd and Eddy, Bro-Town or championship fencing. Just because a lot more people want to watch it, doesn't mean there is some magical "right" imposed on the suppliers of the Rugby World Cup to hand over the rights.

Just sell them

Labour is moaning about big dividends from electricity SOEs. Labour of course took big dividends when it was in power. However, the idea of cutting dividends and having this flow on to power prices is completely absurd. It would be unfair, because private power companies have less capacity to refuse dividends, and it would mean the taxpayer getting ripped off by the capital investment in the SOEs being undervalued. Of course, non-customers of the SOEs would get nothing, and given around 30% of the market isn't with the state, that's quite a bit.

So the best solution is simple: Privatise.

Partly by sale, when market conditions improve. Partly by giving away shares to taxpayers. Then the dividends wont just be money for the state to spend, but for people to choose how they wish to spend it.

That's true public ownership. However, those on the left don't like it, because they think they know better. You see you might spend a dividend on food, clothes, a holiday or your mortgage repayments, they'd spend it on state health, education and picking winners (or losers) in business or the voluntary sector.

However, you know the state will hold onto these for now, because the National Party thinks that the majority of you lot think privatisation is a dirty word.

Phil Goff is sorry?

He's sorry for a focus on "politically correct issues" like smacking, light bulbs and shower heads. Then he's sorry that the electricity SOEs make profits and pay dividends to the government (he wants to end this, but forgot there are a few privately owned electricity generators too). He could fix the dividends to the government by privatising it, like how he helped privatise Telecom.

It's more than that Phil - it is an attitude of "we know best", one that saw an enormous expansion of the welfare state with Working for Families instead of just giving people back their own money. An attitude that threw a fortune away on buying back the railways, well over the market price, just for control. A belief that private property rights didn't really matter, and most disturbingly an attempt to censor electioneering, because it would disadvantage Labour.

Frankly, I'd be sorry for the cheerless bunch of mediocre control freaks that comprises most of the Labour caucus since 1999. So good were they that Clark ran it like a tight ship, trusting only a tiny handful like Cullen and Hodgson, whilst regarding most Labour MPs as making up the numbers.

Most of all, be sorry that you gave the National party so many policies it wont reverse, so much spending it will continue with, and the philosophical basis for how it governs - political pragmatism.

What's he proud of?

Kiwisaver - a policy that encourages the myth that you are better off if the state invests your money for retirement than if you did (oh and if you die before national superannuation eligibility, tough luck your estate gets nothing).

Working for Families - the idea that low to middle income working families are entitled to welfare payments, shrouded as tax credits higher than the tax they paid in the first place. A massive extension of the welfare state from the needy to core floating voters... ahh I get it now.

Lowering unemployment - Expanding the state sector is a sneaky way of doing that, but beyond that you're not responsible for private sector job creation. Unless, of course, you remember you did participate in the reforms of the 1990s.

Oh dear Phil. You do have something to be proud of, you introduced serious university fees for students, making them think about whether they study or not. However, you don't want to say it too loud - the Labour party has made a jump to the left since then.

National's big motorway through private property

The NZ Transport Agency is going ahead with the scaled down tunnel option for the Waterview connection motorway - the last stage of the Western Ring Route in Auckland. It is important to note that funding has NOT been approved for construction yet. What has been done is that the route has been decided, and so the road will proceed, once funding is approved, whether or not the property owners agree.

Now I agreed with Steven Joyce pulling the plug on the Helen Clark Commemorative Goldway, which was sheer pork barrel politics of the worst kind - putting one section of a motorway underground because it went through the then Prime Minister's electorate, when all of the rest of the route is at surface.

I also fisked a lot of nonsense from some other blogs about the project. It never had funding agreed before under the last government, and the land was NOT designated for the route.

So what's left?

In principle I agree a motorway ought to be built, one day, to connect the southwestern motorway (SH20) to the northwestern motorway (SH16). However, under two conditions:

1. It should be built respecting private property rights. Yes it was foolish for Auckland councils to abolish designations for building a motorway between Mt Roskill and SH16 nearly 40 years ago, but local property owners shouldn't bear the burden of this. If properties can be bought to build it then so be it, but those who don't wish to sell should not be forced to. Frankly given the enormous construction costs of the motorway, it may simply be a matter of being more flexible about the exact route, or offering more. $88.2 million has been approved to undertake property purchases. Hopefully that will all be achieved voluntarily. It is wrong otherwise.

2. It should be built when it is worth doing. How do you measure that? Well, without a commercially run network it is difficult. As a single tolled project it wont stack up, because the Auckland City Council has untolled roads in parallel that it uses ratepayers money to partially pay for. So a private builder faces unfair public sector competition. So I'd argue that either enough money is generated from the future fuel tax and road user charges consumed using the road, to pay for it, or it generates enough savings in time, vehicle operating costs for the users (and those on roads they once used) to make it an economically efficient project (using standard NZTA benefit/cost analysis). At the moment, it isn't worth doing.

The Mt. Roskill extension has just recently opened, and there are no reports that there are big queues between it and SH16. The Manukau extension remains under construction, as does the duplicate Mangere Bridge. Similarly the Hobsonville deviation of SH18 (last section of the Upper Harbour Motorway) is under construction. Until they are all complete, it is difficult to determine if such a hugely expensive motorway is worth building yet, with the bureaucratically based road funding system that exists. Certainly the "supercity" will not help.

$3.4 million in final investigation funding has been approved and is effectively what officials are spending now to get the route designated and go through the RMA. However, full construction funding approval is still a little off. The National Land Transport Programme shows that $22.7 million will "probably" be approved to spend on detailed design in the next two years, with $42.4 million "probably" approved for pre-construction site work for 2010/11 before the full project can proceed. The full construction cost is put at $976.3 million, to start in 2011/2012, just in time for a general election.

Assuming, of course, the property owners let it be, the RMA doesn't hold it up and the costs don't blow out of control. One thing we can sure of, the Greens will oppose it, because they think we wont need new roads when oil "runs out".

Get rid of the colon in this headline

I don't think providing a training ground for future candidates and Labour MPs is a benefit everyone else should be forced to pay for. Do you?

Give Maryan Street a laugh with this line though "The problem with voluntary membership was that those benefits were not apparent to students attending university for the first time and they may not believe they provided value."

But we'll take their money, make them join and tell the world that we represent the views of students anyway. All for one and one for all right?

If the Nats fail to take this to where it should go, it will show how utterly bereft of any principle the National Party is, that it will keep privileging organisations that support National's opponents. For that is what student unions are - training grounds for the left. Training grounds for those who want to keep National out of power. If you can't put them on the basis that students wont be forced to join them or pay for them, then what can you possibly call yourself?

Whose tree?

Well it is still not yours, this doesn't make your property YOUR property.

However, at least we know where Labour stands on this. Thieving pricks. The Nats may be gutless wonders for only rolling the law back a notch, but Lynne Pillay and Silent T have shown themselves to be pilfering petty little busybodies. They'll be wanting half your income and to tell you how your kids should be educated next, what to eat and... um

If you like the tree on someone else's property, it's simple. Attempt to persuade the owner to do what YOU want with it OR buy it.

No need to resort to violence.

More importantly, no right to resort to violence.

However, for most politicians using violence is part of what they embrace isn't it?