Anderton right to call Key's approach Muldoonist

Yep more stinking pork, now it is National promising Tauranga money for a road - like the very worst in politics, without even knowing the cost and without knowing how worthwhile that project is compared to others - or even whether those who use it would pay for it. Like a King going round making promises to the little people.

Anderton says "There may well be a good case for the road in Tauranga, but it needs to be transparently compared to the business case for other possible infrastructure uses for $100 million, and there needs to be a very transparent total pool of funding available" which there is, and in fact another use is to give it back to those who paid it. If National simply applied its policy from the 1990s, it would be just as Anderton describes - even though he opposed it at the time.

Funny old world politics isn't it? It isn't about policies - it is about being scoundrels to principle.

Will John Key announce National will fund the much needed widening of the Victoria Park Viaduct ( now foolishly an overly ambitious tunnel project) in Auckland? That is one of the best road projects in the country - objectively speaking - but clearly winning votes among Auckland commuters is less important that beating Winston.

Or maybe he will announce funding the Kapiti Western Link Road, one of the best projects in Wellington, or maybe he'll announce the Schedewys Hill realignment north of Auckland? Maybe he hasn't heard of any of these? Because he's a politician and if you rely on politicians to make decisions on things like this, they'll make mistakes, they'll spend money to get votes, not to deliver best outcomes.

That's Muldoonism and oh John, it's Winston Peters, Peter Dunne and the Labour party too.

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians admitted they DON'T know what's best for everyone?

I mean other than Libertarianz of course.

Greens have another anti-science policy

I blogged about this a couple of months ago - the scaremongering hysteria of Sue Kedgley about cellphone towers.

Now it is Green Party policy - a policy on electromagnetic radiation!

Kedgley barked:

"Communities all over New Zealand are fighting the construction of cell towers. Many are desperate as some towers are near their homes and even children's bedrooms, and they are worried about the potential health effects - as well as the effect on their property values."

Only because you're scaring them you evil conniving bitch. How utterly despicable she is, "children's bedrooms". Have you mapped all of the TV translator locations near "children's bedrooms"? Have you told them the REAL evidence you have of health effects?

No.

You go around the country scaring the scientifically dumb, scaring them for votes. Painting the telecommunications industry as evil, threatening the health of children and with what evidence?

Nothing.

However, big foreign telecommunications companies are an easy target for a mediocre, scientifically illiterate socialist.

Do you talk about the effect of broadcasting transmitters? No. Even though they have been around a lot longer, have far higher powers. Because you couldn't tell people TV and radio is harming them could you.

Do you talk about the effect of EMR from electric railway catenary? No - because you like electric trains. After all, there couldn't be EMR from

Do you stop using your cellphone? No of course not, don't be silly.

Oh and Sue? You're bathed in electromagnetic frequencies every day - in fact you're about to hit the period of the year when it gets most intense. Visible light is electromagnetic radiation you ignorant twit.

So what WOULD this policy mean?

It would ban any new TV or radio stations, the sale of home wireless routers, laptops with wifi capability, cellphones. Because:

"protecting public health and taking preventative action before certainty of harm is proven must be the basis of decision making" (sic) would mean no more EMR".

Kids wont use laptops, wont use radios (they emit EMR as well as receive it), will stay indoors, and will not use lights because the Greens will "Minimise exposure to electromagnetic radiation especially for children". After all light, infrared, ultraviolent, radio waves (which is what cellphone towers emit) are all forms of EMR.

You might find you can't use your cellphone at all in many areas because the Greens would "Not permit cell phone towers in residential areas or near schools and childcare centres, and ensure communities get to decide where they go".

So that's it - why have a cellphone? You wont have coverage near your home.

The policy is utterly brainless, it is completely divorced from science and evidence, and shows exactly where reason and the Greens are located - on other planets. The worst part of the policy is how the despicable scaremongering Sue Kedgley scares ignorant mothers to think their children are at risk from cellphone transmitters.

That is simply plain evil.

Maori Party want more welfare too

Yes it's not just abolish the dole, according to the NZ Herald, it's also give $500 to the poorest families - taken of course from everyone else.

What do they get that for?
What did they do to earn it?
What will they spend it on?

The Herald asks Adelaide Wharakura, a mother working part time, who would get the money if she backs it, she obviously says yes, but even so she is wiser than the Maori Party. She said:

"Who it makes a difference to depends on which families you give it to. There are a lot of drugs and alcohol. If I'm being honest [there are some who would] rather spend money on things like that. This money shouldn't be spent like that - there should be some checks or rules"

Yes, money taken from hard working taxpayers as a handout, which some will use on drugs and alcohol.

Even the Maori Party's candidate for Hauraki-Waikato said "it was likely that for some children the money wouldn't trickle down and the majority would miss out"

So a bit of theft and giving money for nothing is still ok - take from more successful families to pay for less successful ones.

Marxist Maori Party nonsense - it wants to take your money and give it away for nothing.

and Labour and National will both go to bed with it for power. So why would you vote for them?

UPDATE: Not PC posts eloquently on the nonsense of the "multiplier effect" of boosting the economy by taking money from people in the first place.

National's agenda after the election

Stuff reports that after tax cuts and an increase in welfare:

"He also intends introducing at least seven big bills dealing with violent offenders, criminal gangs and youth crime, DNA testing for every person arrested for an imprisonable offence and increased police powers to protect domestic violence victims."

Yes, you read it. DNA testing for every person arrested for an imprisonable offence, whether guilty or not.

ACT's website has no recent press release on this, but it does have them from 2004 and 2002. Then ACT supported having a DNA database for all convicted criminals, any taken from suspects who are cleared should be destroyed.

I'd like to know what ACT policy is now. I know Libertarianz would categorically reject a database of DNA from people who are not convicted who did not consent to it.

Labour wipes out $56 from your pocket

That's the writedown in value of Kiwirail according to the Dominion Post. The book value for Kiwirail on the Crown's accounts is now NZ$448 million, after Dr Cullen took your money to pay NZ$690 million. NZ$56 for ever New Zealand resident gone.

That's what I meant a while ago when I said when politicians use the word "investment" it is nothing of the sort.

The Greens are full of "investments" like this as well. National's "investments" are roads and telecommunications.

I needn't remind you that Libertarianz believe in investments too - that means you spending your own money, not government spending it.

English is a fool but hardly a warrior

So the tape of what Bill English said about Obama is Labour's latest ploy.

English was concerned Obama might reduce the role of the US and be unwilling to take decisive military action when needed. A fair point, although I think Obama will be less unwilling than many would have thought, given his more recent statements on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So what does Phil Goff say? "The reality is that underneath it all National leaders are the same unreconstructed Cold War warriors they have always been"

Hold on, what does that mean? That National leaders have always been willing to fight on the side of the free world against Soviet (now Russian) tyranny? Heaven forbid - how awful! What Cold War?

Does it mean Labour has always been more ambivalent about the Cold War, after all Russia - USA - both the same right?

Clark said "If there's a war going, they want to be a part of it".

Unlike Labour's "independent foreign policy" which in the 1980s was a great big finger in the face of Western allies, which took New Zealand out of the Western alliance and made it "neutral" - a vile unforgivable position against the tyranny of the USSR and its satellites. Clark quite happily distanced NZ from ANZUS and the Western alliance.

National isn't abandoning the irrational anti-nuclear policy, National didn't argue that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was moral and correct, National has virtually no foreign policy difference from Labour. Bill English was foolish to talk indiscreetly about his views on Barack Obama, but he is no warrior - the National Party will make no substantive change in foreign policy. It didn't in 1990 and wont in 2008.

Labour lackey gunning for Maori Party

Remember Gregory Fortuin? The sickeningly leftwing former Race Relations Conciliator hand picked by Labour who resigned after he offered to mediate in the political dispute between factions of the Alliance at the time. This was in 2002 when the Alliance split between Jim Anderton's Progressive Party and the Alliance. Fortuin foolishly thought that being a quasi-judicial public servant meant no conflict of interest in helping the government's coalition partner!

He's a professional bureaucrat, now a member of the Families Commission, but he can't keep his mouth shut.

He's interfering in politics again, maybe it's something he learnt from his beloved ANC - which is well known for how corrupt it works within South African politics.

Fortuin is predicting, foolishly, that the Maori Party will win all of the Maori seats and in his article in the New Zealand Herald is all for it. This wont win him friends in Labour.

This identity-politics defined simpleton thinks that because it is the "Maori Party" it represents all Maori - because, of course, a race can only have one political view.

He calls for "sustainable constitutional arrangements that will endure no matter who's in government or whatever happens to our demographics" which is fine, except he doesn't say what this means.

He goes on about nation building and:

"What we need is harmonised diversity; many strings on one guitar making music together. The challenge is to develop the single hymn sheet"

No talk of individuals, and individual diversity. No. He can't think outside group speak.

However surely what is more telling is that this Families Commissioner is endorsing a political party. Good to see public sector neutrality in New Zealand - somewhere.

Electoral Finance Act strikes again

The sycophantic bottom feeders who inhabit the world of the Labour party didn't listen when people from left and right told of how the Electoral Finance Act would suppress political speech.

So how will they react with the report from the NZ Herald that Rodney Hide has now received a letter from the Electoral Commission stating that his yellow jacket might be an "election advertisement" requiring an "authorisation statement".

Never seen Helen Clark's red clothes needing one of course, but she doesn't have a logo on it. Hide has the ACT logo on his jacket.

Apparently some tiny minded little prick made a complaint in July about it. Rodney is ignoring it, thankfully.

John Key - seeking Anderton voters?

Apparently in the latest leaders' debate John Key pledged to never sell Kiwibank

"ever ... we've ruled it out"

Why John? Is it critical the New Zealand government owns a bank? Why did National so fervently oppose this 8 years ago? Or are you trying to hoover up the votes of Jim Anderton's Personality Cult Progressive Party.

As if anyone who believed in less government needed another reason to vote Libertarianz or ACT!

A vote for Labour is a vote for the Greens

So says Helen Clark who is reported in the Dominion Post as saying:

"The Greens have waited a long time to be in Government. Their time is here"

So if Labour wins it wants to a dart to the left, a dart to the anti-science, control freak, nanny state loving Green Party. This comes along with Clark's declaration, which we all knew anyway, that NZ First is unlikely to get elected. Along with Peter Dunne hopping off the sinking ship, Labour is stuck to going Green and seducing the Maori Party.

So now you know what a fourth term will mean. One could say that at least Clark has nailed her colours to the mast. That's something I can certainly respect. She is not afraid to declare what she stands for and what she seeks, and I see another Labour term being one which intends to change direction, decisively toward the left even more.

Why shouldn't she, when National is so determined to be the classic conservative party and do virtually nothing to reverse anything she does.

John Key ought to think carefully - if Labour wins is it because it actually, convincingly, believes in something other than simply being in power? Labour believes in nanny state, so do the Greens.

Who is campaigning against this?

State radio openly biased

Not PC points out, the "impartial, balanced and independent" state radio - that you are forced to pay for - has a political editor who is willing, a week out from a general election - to openly call Libertarianz "nutbars".

Now Liz Banas can believe whatever she wants. We all know John Campbell of TV3 is a raving socialist, but you don't pay for TV3, you don't own TV3.

You do own Radio NZ and you are forced to pay for it, whether you listen to it, or not.

It's a mockery of the so-called independence - which of course Labour, the Greens and others on the left say is the hallmark of "public broadcasting".

Liz Banas has proven she isn't impartial, independent or balanced. Many of you may think Libertarianz are "nutbars", but as Libertarianz Leader Bernard Darnton points out "All parties other than Labour ought to be concerned when a week away from the election, it is clear the RNZ political editor isn't afraid to let her political views get in the way of her job".

Who else does she think are nutbars, who does she not think are nutbars, how can anyone have confidence in her editorial decisions?

Moreover, why should we be forced to pay for a broadcaster that hires people who clearly wouldn't care less about sabotaging a political party's campaign?

Labour transport announcement nothing new

Yes, nothing to see here. It is just trying to publicise what it had previously announced months ago. It isn't a new NZ$19.4 billion.

It is saying it is dedicating all fuel tax, road user charges (RUC) and motor vehicle registration (MVR) fees to land transport, when the latter two were fully dedicated before Labour was elected. Oh and the fuel tax dedication came after National campaigned on it in 2005.

The NZ$19.4 billion is over 6 years, a good 35-40% of that will be for road maintenance - so business as usual. The rest is divided between public transport and new road construction.

However it ISN'T news. The money is already being collected from road users, the only issue is how that is allocated. Presumably National would spend the same.

Trying to steal another election with other people's money?

Well desperation isn't the word for it.

According to the Press, using your money, through the Labour Party Parliamentary research unit, to dig dirt on John Key should be a turning point for how people with any sense of morality consider the Labour Party.

Labour should spend its own money on digging dirt, not its taxpayer funded policy unit.

Of course given Labour supports compulsory taxpayer funded of political parties, you shouldnt' be surprised. Labour thinks it is good for the country, so you should be made to pay for it.

I think political parties are clubs of like minded people who seek power. You shouldn't have to pay for any of them. You should choose who you pay for.

Remember, Labour believes in making you pay for the party.

Libertarianz unequivocally believes political parties should be funded voluntarily, and broadcast advertising for political parties should be funded and broadcast voluntarily.

National?

Why grow the welfare state?

Think about it:

Been in a job for five years
Lose the job
Doesn't matter if you have a partner or not

Perfect for many outgoing Labour MPs.

Vote communist?

Yes you can do so, if you think the Greens are gutless libertarians in the advance of the state in stealing, thieving, regulating and controlling your life, the Workers Party is for you.

Having said that, a quick glance at its nine policies sees three Libertarianz wouldn't be shy in supporting. Specifically:
- Abolish GST;
- Abolition of all immigration controls (although Libertarianz would deny any access to a welfare state, state health and education, and wouldn't allow those convicted of genuine crimes whereas the Worker's Party would let the world enter!);
- All Elected Representatives on the Average Workers’ Wage. Yep no problem with that.
- and part of the fourth policy which is to abolish the Electoral Finance Act.

However, the other six policies look a lot closer to the Greens. In fact given how close they are, and the Worker's Party is avowedly Marxist-Leninist, thinks Barack Obama is an instrument of capitalism, then you can see how leftwing the Greens really are.

Vote Labour for your taxes to subsidise importers

Yes, the Prime Minister took a train trip from Wellington to Paraparaumu where she was briefed about a very expensive project to duplicate the rail tunnels between Pukerua Bay and Paekakariki. The press release says it would cost NZ$150 million, not a small amount of money, and for what? Well it will allow bigger containers to operate on freight trains between Palmerston North and Wellington, and allow more frequent train services to the Kapiti Coast.

Who are the main beneficiaries of this? Well large containers coming into Wellington are primarily about imports, as the goods flow southbound is primarily about delivering consumer goods to Wellington and the South Island, after unloading and dispatching from Auckland based distribution warehouses. Exports tend to flow out of more regional ports, so in fact the south-north rail freight flow has historically been lighter than north-south. Wellington doesn't produce much that goes north by rail.

Secondly, of course, are Kapiti coast commuters who would enjoy perhaps a 3-5 minute travel time saving on the train trip, and the chance for a major increase in train service frequencies at peak periods.

So who is Helen Clark expecting to pay for this? The freight customers who presumably would want to pay a premium for " improving journey times, reliability, and capacity for freight trains" as she says. No. Presumably the benefits aren't good enough for Kiwirail to borrow and charge these customers appropriately for the added convenience.

What about the commuters? Shouldn't they expect to pay more for some travel time savings, and a more frequent service? Shouldn't enough extra passengers make it worthwhile? Well no. You see they already don't pay enough to cover the cost of running the existing trains, and a more frequent service would mean buying MORE trains, which is an added cost - and most of the day those trains would be sitting in yards doing nothing.

So it's simple. Helen Clark wants your taxes (or to borrow, your children's taxes) to give Kiwirail freight customers a subsidy, presumably damaging the business of the competing trucking (and shipping) companies, so they can shift containers of largely imported consumer goods into Wellington and down to the South Island more cheaply. She also wants you to give the safe Mana and highly marginal Otaki electorates Kapiti Coast commuters a subsidy for their trips into Wellington.

I looked at this project in some detail a few years ago, and it isn't worth it. If Kiwirail wants to pursue it, it should borrow the money and recover it from charging customers over the depreciated life of the project - which would admittedly be many years. However it wont. It's not worth it. It's a waste of your future taxes. It's money you should have back yourselves, to decide what to spend it on.

Greens want Nanny State to control broadcasting

Basically the Green Party press release on broadcasting policy says it all:

"It's pretty much open slather in New Zealand. Unlike most countries, there are no rules around local programming, foreign or cross ownership of the media."

so says Sue Kedgley, as if it is a bad thing! This control freak loathes and despises the very notion of freedom in broadcasting, and freedom in the media because how dare people use their own money, buy some spectrum rights and broadcast what they think people want to watch and hear, seeking to attract audiences and give them what they want. Don't people realise that they don't know what is good for them?

It's those foreigners I tell you, once again! Foreign programming, foreign owners. How can our nations socialist kultur be protected from the foreigners.

Typically it calls for more money to be taken by force to pay for programming that the Green Kultur Ministry deems good for the nation and "our children".

Free speech? Screw that because...

"The Green Party believes all broadcasters should be required to meet public service obligations in return for the right to broadcast in New Zealand, such as a requirement to screen local programming"

The fact that local content requirements are contrary to New Zealand's international trade obligations, and CER means that Australian content is deemed to be New Zealand is obviously a detail that wont get in the way of this Nanny State policy.

The Greens would encourage Labour to put more broadcasting under state control and direction, and remove the freedom of broadcasters to broadcast what they see fit. It is an anathema to the Greens that broadcasters broadcast what they want. It isn't good enough for the state to own 7 TV channels and 3 radio networks.

It's a xenophobic rant, it is pure nationalism, that the National Front would support. It is socialist in that the means of communication can't be left to private individuals to decide how to use it.

Do you want the state to have anything to do with broadcasting at all?

Grab the Green sick bag file

"With the Green Party vote spread across the country, only a proportional system of representation will see the future of our children and the planet represented in Parliament at all" says Jeanette Fitzsimons

Whose children? They are not yours, not the state's, not the Green Party's.

and most parents look after the future of their children rather well, without you.

So kindly stop talking about "our children", they are not yours, and more than 9 out of 10 New Zealanders don't want them to be either.

Greens share National Front perspective

Oh dear, the Green Party’s agricultural policy continues the theme of “do as we say”.

It wants 15% of farms organic by 2015 and half of all production organic by 2020. The Greens don’t intend to do this by promotion or market demand. Indeed, they want food self sufficiency. Like Japan, like North Korea, like many dictatorships, like fascists. It smells so much of a centrally controlled state, with an attitude to both imports and foreigners that stinks of xenophobia. Clearly if you hate foreigners and foreign muck, vote Green – somehow I think most Green supporters wouldn’t really like the range of imported foods being banned because they don’t meet the strict standards they demand.

However if you vote Green you are voting to ban things – it’s compulsory or it’s illegal.

According to Stuff the policy includes:
- Sovkhoz (State farms) (ok I used that word) modelling the example of organic farming to other farmers, through Landcorp. Yes comrade farmer, learn from the state farm. Buy your organic produce from state farm number 13675;
- “Regional councils could advise farmers on cost-effective options, and land and water management plans such as nutrient budgets and stocking rate limits” Yes now the regional council is the State Farming Advisory Authority. Turn to your council for advice on how to run your own farm!
- “Landowners would be offered incentives for appropriate land use” Read landowners would be offered YOUR money taken from you to pay for what is appropriate. Don’t want to use your own land “inappropriately now do we”?
- “there should be incentives for maintaining or enhancing the environment, such as riparian plantings or preventing soil erosion and nutrient run-off” Earth to Greens, these already exist it is called “protecting the value of your property”. However that P word is one you just can’t grasp right?
- “cut pesticide use by 50 per cent in five years, and it says landowners using sprays should be responsible for chemical trespass when pesticides affect areas outside their property” Well how will you cut this use? However, amazingly suddenly property matters – and yes, landowners should be responsible, if damage is caused of course. It is basic tort law (just when you thought they didn’t understand);
- “Aerial spraying would only be permitted when it was the safest, least toxic, most effective method of control” Yes zee state wont allow it otherwise (couldn’t just make trespass the issue surely?);
- “levy vessels, passengers and freight entering the country to better fund biosecurity services” ah more taxes on trade and tourism, though the problem isn’t exactly defined. Keeps those foreigners out though from stealing “our jobs”;
- “prevent people buying land here unless they were residents or held New Zealand citizenship” Yes those foreigners, dirty little bastards, let’s decimate the value of existing farms instead. True loyal patriotic kiwi farmers will welcome this. Ka Pai.;
- “farmers should not have to face unfair competition at home from cheap imported food and agricultural products produced with lower environmental, health and safety standards, such as garlic from China and imported pork” No of course not, consumers should never be able to choose from filthy foreign muck. If the dirty foreigners wont let us export there, who cares – our people happily will be self sufficient, and paying a lot more for the satisfaction of food sovereignty;
- “Importers should have to show their products meet minimum environmental, labour, health and safety standards, and country of origin labelling for all single-ingredient agricultural products should be mandatory” Yes those filthy foreigners from poor countries try to undercut us at every moment, because they don’t understand how to run a fair society. We do, we are proud of it, so when you want to buy foreign muck it better meet our standards or else!

Oh that’s enough. I mean take this “Urban sprawl should be limited to stop prime agricultural land being taken for housing, lifestyle blocks and commercial developments”. Taken? Taken from whom by who? Taking is what the state does. It takes your money, you didn’t choose to do that.
Buying is what individuals do. They use their own money and buy from a voluntary seller.

You don’t know the damned difference. You also want “affordable housing”, but want to forcibly limit the amount of land available to it – so you can effectively force housing to be high density London type high rise next to your beloved railway stations.

The Greens are, once again, proving their addiction to big Nanny State, addiction to telling people what to do and not do, banning, regulating and subsidising. It is socialism, but the agricultural policy is far more sinister. It has so much that is “anti-foreign” that the National Front would have little to disapprove of.

Why do you trust them?

It's a simple point. One I have made before.

How much trust, belief and even faith does the average person put in the average MP?

How much trust, belief and faith does the average person put in the average bureaucrat?

So why would you choose to give up between 30 and 50% of what you earn/spend so such people can buy your:
- Healthcare;
- Childrens' education;
- Retirement income;
- Accident insurance;
- Income protection insurance.

Would you own shares in an airline, railway, logistics company, power company, bank, coal company, if you knew those choosing the directors faced no financial risk in getting it wrong?

So why do you vote for this?

At this election a vote for National (let alone Labour, NZ First, Greens etc etc) is a vote for the status quo - it is a vote for state funded and controlled education, health care and retirement income. It is a vote for MORE welfare. It is a vote for maybe getting competition into ACC employer accounts. Does that get you excited?

A vote for Libertarianz is a vote to say no to all of this. No to the fraud of National Superannuation, no to the fraud of state rationed health care and state dictated education. No to trusting people you wouldn't let do your grocery and clothes shopping from spending money you spent 2 days a week working for.

I know some on the less government end of the spectrum want to vote National. If this doesn't make you think again, what will? You already fear Labour could get in with less votes than National because of coalition deals with the Greens, Maori Party et al. Don't fear National getting less than Labour - because a National government that includes Peter Dunne - a man who created a new bureaucracy for families, and the Maori Party, a party full of Marxists and other collectivists who think in group speak and group responsibility, rather than individuals - will be nothing more than a different crew, same ship, same direction, slower speed.

Yes, I know, you're going to say what about ACT? Stay tuned.