Why do the Greens get such an easy ride? Part One

With so much going on in the world (Syria, Eurozone, Egypt), it is unsurprising that I have seen no coverage in foreign media about the NZ election.  It is National's election to lose.  The Nats have played the traditional role they always have done well - upset no one - look confident, even though the record in Christchurch alone should send fears down the spines of any business owner, the mainstream media (MSM) has been absymal in confronting this issue.  The performance there has been an utter disgrace, to the point where I think anyone who ticks National who thinks she is supporting a pro-business, less government, is at best naive, at worst wilfully blind.

Labour is, understandably, lacking fire under Phil Goff.  A man who I think was probably too good to be leader of the Labour Party, as he didn't feed the vile envy laden, nasty bullying streak that has characterised the Party under Clark - until the latest round of campaign leaflets, which are a shadow of what is now seen in the repulsive self-indulgent and deliberately self-serving nihilism of Sam Mahon.  Imagine if a similar image had been painted of Helen Clark. Yet, he has been unable to attack the Nats convincingly because most of his team are waiting to do to him what was done to Mike Moore after the 1993 election.   Goff is on the right of the Labour Party, an anomaly at best as the last inheritor of those who had their fingers coloured by participating in Rogernomics.  He can't convincingly argue against asset sales, especially since he was in the Cabinet that sold 100% of Air New Zealand, Telecom and Postbank originally.

Beyond the two horse race, most of the attention on ACT has been about the John Key/John Banks meeting and a recording of it - trivia par excellence - and the loud campaign by ACT and National to promote support of Banks in Epsom, and the equally loud call by Labour and the Greens to back, the National candidate in Epsom.  I've already said I believe ACT should also have pushed for electorate votes for Don Brash in North Shore, given Wayne Mapp has retired from the seat.  ACT has fumbled this campaign and faces a media hostile to it on an almost tribal basis.  Compared to National, ACT could offer a change, but not one the media is interested in telling.

The Mana Party/Maori Party show is not getting that much national/non-Maori media attention, although there is a surfeit of material on the Mana Party mob that should render them unelectable (and frighten people if they are not).  However, beyond that the media loves giving Winston Peters the oxygen of publicity to try to bring him down and he loves that the media does it.   It is like a pantomine show, where he gets portrayed almost as a villain, and thrives on it with his shrinking geriatric racist Muldoonist voting base.   Nothing Winston likes more than proving the media wrong, and casting his supporters as heroes for rejecting what the media says of him.

Yet the real winner in all of this looks like being the Greens.  The Greens have, once again, become media darlings.  It's not because the environment is really an issue that would explain the "brand attractiveness".  After all, the words nuclear, GE or even global warming are not exactly important to most voters at the moment.   What it looks like is that the Greens have targeted disgruntled and uninspired Labour voters, on the basis that Labour looks almost certain not to lead the next government.    However, what is also shows is that the mainstream media is giving the Greens a very easy run - topped off most recently by TV3 broadcasting a documentary on child poverty in New Zealand, most certainly presented from a strong leftwing point of view.  Indeed, had TV3 broadcast a documentary that was how high taxation and regulation stymied growth (like John Stossel's series comparing Hong Kong with India) it would be accused of being in the pocket of ACT.

However, all is fair in politics if it is your side doing it.  Yet according to research by the University of Canterbury on the election media coverage up till the halfway point, the media coverage of the Greens has been more positive than for any other party.  51.5% of its total coverage has been positive.  On top of that, coverage of the Greens has been higher than for any other minor party at 9.7%.  

Why is that and is it justified?

On the why, it is rather easy to see.   Party names are potent brands, and only some of the parties have names that lend themselves to instantly reflecting the image they want.   Greens, NZ First, Maori and Mana are the clearest.  Labour is less obvious, but still fairly clear.  National is meaningless (there are no regional parties after all), and the acronym ACT means little to most.  So the Greens start off with a name that is instantly linked to trees, pastures, rivers, lakes and wide open spaces - the types of things many New Zealanders have affection for.   On top of that, it is the only party name that can also be used as a collective noun for its caucus and membership.  Nobody says the Nationals or the Labours or the ACTs.  

So "brand Green" is pretty special, this potency was seen in 1990 when the Greens got 6.85% of the vote under First Past the Post, with relatively little publicity, beating New Labour under Jim Anderton (who still won his own seat).

The images that brand cogitates with reporters are instantly positive, indeed so positive it seems almost counter-intuitive to go against them.  How can one oppose or attack people who love clean air, oceans, rivers, and animals?   It's not just emotive, it can even be seen as rational, given the love of the outdoors and the obvious value of unpolluted air and water.   I think for many reporters that is enough, and to be seen to attacking the Greens may be like attacking parks, pets, home cooking, grandparents and so many things that are "good".

Beyond the brand, the Greens themselves carefully nurture policies and principles that at a high level can appeal to many.   Besides being against pollution (who isn't?) and supporting endangered species (who argues against endangered species?), the Greens carry simple, easy to understand messages that are difficult, on the face of it, to fight.

Who wants to be against peace and peaceful dispute resolution?  The Greens are against war, it takes a hardy soul to be in favour of war when necessary.   Statements like "we shouldn't be involved in other countries' wars" require some effort to claim "what about our allies" and then rebut the string of questions around "What did the Afghans ever do to New Zealand".  Most reporters aren't up to that or delve into a foreign policy agenda that is decidedly apart from Australia and the Western world.

The Greens talk passionately about addressing child poverty.  Children suffering, who will openly attack policies aimed at that, without having to be seriously armed on the philosophical and economic fronts?  The Greens wont say loud that this is resolved by taxpayers spending more on social welfare benefits and giving poor people who breed more money from others. 

The Greens talk of full employment, about meaningful jobs, about increased incomes, about better health and education, about communities, about all of the things that most people find it hard to disagree with at a high level.  What reporter dares think that unemployment is good, that health and education should be worse or that communities aren't important?   However, the Greens don't emphasise the need for much more government spending, and tax revenue to pay for it, nor how they would regulate employment and employers.

The Greens talk of "fairness" "equity" and other carefully honed words that describe and define little, but are general phrases that are again difficult to confront directly for most reporters.   Pushing lower taxes for the poor (and higher taxes for the rich), looks fair to those raised on a basic diet of believing in egalitarianism.   The idea that the poor should be helped, and that society should be "fairer" is powerfully simple to promote, it is rather more difficult to dig underneath that to see what it really means.   Again, the Greens are clever to talk about their goals much more than the means, the goals are more generally accepted than the means - increasing welfare payments.

The Greens talk about "investing" taxpayers money (but they never mention that part) on things that are also hard for reporters to criticise, like "renewable energy", railway lines, schools and the rather amorphous "jobs" in "green industries" and "green businesses".   The Greens are less loud about cutting spending on road maintenance (they will happily talk about a handful of big road projects that would be stopped, as if that would save enough money), or the need to spend more on subsidies for renewable energy and trains, or exactly who or where these "green industries" are, or what happens to the other industries in an environment of much more regulation and tax.

Beyond that, the Greens also seem nationalistic, playing on some of the strings Winston Peters is happy to pluck.  They paint foreign ownership, foreign investors and imports as negative, dark, pernicious and taking "our" jobs, and taking "our" money away to go overseas - that distant, unfamiliar place where we can't protect, regulate or look after our interests.  This is caught in the word "sovereignty".  Who argues against having sovereignty?   Yet, do the Greens ever face a challenge to their rather fanciful notion that has malignant notions of "them" (foreign investors) and "us" (New Zealanders), or that an exporting trading nation can hardly close itself to the world, or it faces not being able to afford what it produces?

The "non-violence" label is one they use themselves, but it never gets challenged that this belief in non-violence doesn't extend to violently breaking and entering property and occupying it, and the violence of the state regulating and taxing, is not seen as violence at all, but as the people exercising their democratic sovereignty.  The image very deliberately put out by the likes of Jeanette Fitzsimons, but now Metiria Turei and Russel Norman is one of friendly, smiling, thoughtful, engaging people, people who wouldn't hurt a fly - not people eager to get their hands on power and to use the state to be as interventionist as Rob Muldoon was in his heyday. 

Finally, the Greens are keen to call out labels of negativity to support those they claim are oppressed by the major parties.  "Racist", "sexist", "blaming victims" is how the Greens respond to policies that they disagree with, if the impacts appear to be higher on certain groups.  Criticising such points takes some effort.   However, the Greens are very strongly supportive of government spending, institutions and authorities that are race based.  The Greens tend not to emphasise any of this, for they probably know that this doesn't go down well with most voters.

The easy ride is something the Greens have masterfully managed to manufacture.   It is obvious to anyone with some political nous that the Greens are far to the left of the Labour Party, yet the mainstream media persists in discussing the idea that there could be some accommodation between the Greens and the National Party.  Not that both parties wouldn't think about it on some level, the Nats will negotiate with anyone except Winston, and the Greens would argue that if they can make some progress on a major issue for them (e.g. RMA or transport), it would be worth it.

Yet a look at Green press releases, commentary and policies over the past few years should have induced investigative journalism into exactly what the party means by certain statements, it should have put all sorts of claims of fact under scrutiny and it should have resulted in the Green brand not looking as unsullied as it is - especially compared to other parties.   Take simple points such as how the Greens advocate non violence and democracy, yet fought to deny university students the right to decide whether they wanted to join a student union.   The Green policy of having a new state regulatory institution for print and broadcast (and presumably online) media that could "impose appropriate sanctions against media outlets in cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that it has exhibited wilful or negligent abuse of power and by doing so has either visited material harm on another party or pursued its own self-interest at the expense of the public interest" should have been highlighted, as it literally means a state bureaucracy censoring the press.  What is "abuse of power"?  The right to decide what you broadcast or print?  What is "material harm"?  Reduced the reputation and membership of a voluntary organisation?  What is "the public interest"?  Whatever the government of the day thinks it is?

So it is time a long list of questions were asked of the Green Party.  Questions voters should see, and that Green MPs and candidates should respond to, and be expected to be questioned about.   For a party that looks like having its best ever result in a general election, and looking to be a serious coalition partner for a future government, the "public interest" demands no less.  It would also be a welcome shift in attention from the childish side-shows around Winston Peters and the Johns' "cup of coffee".  The fact that papers and broadcast media haven't done so, doesn't surprise me, but it is no excuse for it.   Traditional Labour supporters who think they are getting a friendlier, cuddlier version of Labour may think twice, and first time voters might learn that, as in advertising private businesses, marketing does not mean all is as it seems.   I will attempt to raise some of these questions in the coming days...

Fear unbridled government? The answer isn't a coalition

When Geoffrey Palmer wrote "Unbridled Power" his concern was primarily about the lack of constitutional limits on government in New Zealand, and how Cabinet would dominate single party government which itself would almost always dominate Parliament.   Jonathan Milne has taken the latter tack in his latest article in the NZ Herald.  His hypothesis is that small parties will do badly this election, and that there is a real chance of something "dreadful" - one party government.

Of course he might think he looks like he is making a rather generic point about the advantages of coalitions and minority governments compared to single party majority government.   Yet he hardly hides his colours at all.  He doesn't pick on Rob Muldoon "banning inflation", spending billions on Think Big and bribing voters with national superannuation, he doesn't pick on Norman Kirk for creating big government businesses, expanding the welfare state and greatly expanding subsidies for government trading departments.  He wouldn't.  You see he isn't exactly an economist, or a historian or a political scientist, he's a leftwing reporter.  What other explanation is there for this comment:

The controversial free market reforms of the Rogernomics era were pushed through by the all-powerful fourth Labour Government without warning or by-your-leave. Similarly, there were few fetters on the National Government when Ruth Richardson presented her slash-and-burn Mother of All Budgets. No presidential veto, no senate or upper house sitting in oversight, and no small coalition partners to soften the hard edges of these governments.

All governments are "controversial", but you'd only say that if you thought that.  Except Jonathan is naive.  In 1987 Labour asked for a mandate to continue the reforms, got one and continued.   "Softening the hard edges" is the sort of comment one would only make if you disapprove, and those who disapproved were Jim Anderton and Winston Peters, and their bands of socialist, nationalist and xenophobic state worshippers they founded.

I opposed MMP in 1993 primarily because I had seen the previous two governments implement the most politically courageous policies in modern history.   Governments that cut subsidies, cut public spending, including cutting benefits.  They restructured government departments, made thousands redundant and privatised in the face of venal xenophobic hysteria.  Farmers, state sector workers, beneficiaries, pensioners and unemployed people were unhappy at the time, not a state of affairs most political parties are keen to promote if they want to be re-elected.  Contrast that era to the smile and wave of John Key, and Helen Clark's middle class welfare, and cash thrown at various interest groups (and craven acceptance of support from Winston Peters).

Even at the time of the 1984-1993 governments, the "hard edges" had plenty going the other way.  The fourth Labour Government opened up the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process, created bureaucracies for conservation, the environment, womens' affairs, youth affairs, Pacific Island affairs, and sowed the seeds for the Bolger government to pass the RMA.  Foreign policy saw New Zealand effectively step away from being aligned with the United States in the Cold War.   Education and health care remained firmly within the grip of the state sector and the rent seeking unions that dominated them. 

For Jonathan, stopping governments doing all they want is a good thing.  Which of course would be all very well, if what they wanted to do is more.  However, Jonathan's opposition to single party government is not that, indeed he rejects it because of history when governments were deliberately pulling back from spending money they didn't have, and telling people what to do.

He showed a childish thrill to think of the Greens and National working together on transport policy - because two conflicting ideologies must produce the best results.   He mentions NZ First, ACT,  Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne and the Maori Party, as if he misses them having influence (remember the positive influence of NZ First after 1996?).

Somehow he links Brian Tamaki to Peter Dunne, and then concludes while the Greens might not be good on "roading policy", one party government is "far worse", and his only evidence is the reforms of the 80s and early 90s.   That's just being rather vacuous.

Frankly, if either National or Labour were committed to privatisation, commercialisation, cutting government spending and winding back the state, I'd say bring on one party government.  However a Labour-Green-Maori-Mana government would be a four headed hydra of disaster, which would easily spook foreign investors and send more aspiring New Zealanders abroad. 

Unfortunately Jonathan hasn't really bothered to check what the two main parties have on offer.  National is hardly driven by a desire to engage in major reforms, it is instinctively conservative.  Labour is hardly seeking to engage in radical reforms, although is at least masochistically more interesting than National.

So no Jonathan, one party government after this election wont be perilous or dreadful, it will be "meet your new boss, same as old boss".  Politicians wanting to boss people around, spend their money while saying "it's good for you".  The only difference with a coalition is that the flavour changes.  Maybe if National needed ACT, and ACT gained 10 seats, there might be something more radical - presumably that's when Jonathan gets upset because that's not what he meant.  You see to him, like so many reporters in New Zealand, government should be there to fix problems, not get out of the way.

Sloppy Dominion Post

I don't know Bronwyn Torrie, but her article called Councillor headed for North Korea demonstrates once again my point that journalism in New Zealand is hard to find.

She should be ashamed, the article should be withdrawn and rewritten.

The story is about how the Deputy Mayor of Porirua City Council has been invited to North Korea by the regime.  She is going paying 40% of the cost of the trip herself, the rest paid for by North Korea's useful idiots in New Zealand, the wholly sympathetic Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)- New Zealand Friendship Society.

Bronwyn's first faux pas is in calling it the "Korea-New Zealand" Friendship Society, as if there is one Korea.  Her second one is failing to do any research on it, otherwise she would have found out that the Society is very pro-North Korean.  Its own website admits this with the vapid comment "We were impressed by the DPRK position of forming an independent political philosophy and system which was Korean".  Impressed by the Orwellian pseudo-Stalinist ultra nationalist, ultra-militarism behind the most pervasive and absurd personality cult ever known?  Oh please.  Wouldn't have taken long to find that gem Bronwyn.   I can excuse that she didn't do the research to reveal that Society Chairman Don Borrie (who has visited North Korea many times) praised Kim Il Sung publicly in the 1970s in a book published in North Korea a copy of which resides in the Victoria University of Wellington library.

However, it is after she has reported the basic "ins and outs" of the story that she makes the biggest and most embarrassing amateur mistakes:

She said "Relations between North Korea and New Zealand have been cool since Kiwi troops fought to prevent South Korea falling to communism in the 1950s.

Relations became more frosty when North Korea began testing nuclear weapons in 2006."

What? So New Zealand's relations with North Korea were worse when it had diplomatic relations (which it did in 2006) than when it was fighting with the UN Police Action to overthrow the DPRK after it invaded the south.  How could it be MORE frosty when New Zealand had diplomatic relations from 2001 (which were suspended in 2006) compared to fighting a war?

"The North Asian country has been largely closed off from the rest of the world since it became a communist state in 1948."

Well Bronwyn, it didn't exist before being a communist state in 1948.  There was no "DPRK" or "North Korea", there was Korea, indeed the north was claimed by the Republic of Korea which was declared weeks beforehand.  Better to say that "after it was formed as a result of the division of Korea by the Soviet refusal to recognise the government in Seoul" beforehand.

Other statements were correct, but then she comes out with this banality:

"foreigners have to gain permission to enter the country"

Wow, amazing.  Like getting a visa?  Like you need to do for China and Russia?  Like permission you get at every single border control point?  With the exception of the Schengen area in Europe and the British-Irish border, this isn't unusual.  Do you really expect to enter most countries without visas?

Finally, she finishes with this awful statement:

"Although the New Zealand Government opposes North Korea's regime, politicians have made visits there".

Bronwyn.  Where did you get this from? The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade?  The Minister of Foreign Affairs?  Your own laptop? How does the government "oppose" the regime? Do you think the DPRK would maintain relations with a country that "opposes" it?  How do you think the Ambassador from the DPRK accredited to New Zealand would take this report?

This article is best when it is reporting the basics, but it falls apart when Bronwyn tries to write about history or politics.  It has mistakes akin to a high school newspaper.

It's just another reason why New Zealand newspapers are NOT world class, indeed articles like this are simply unprofessional.

Shame on you Bronwyn Torrie, shame on the editors for letting this get published.

McCarten a ranting fool

For some time Matt McCarten has had a profile in New Zealand politics, because he has been able to express himself rather well.   For he has not been much of a success story, having been President of the New Labour Party then the now virtually defunct Alliance Party.   Bear in mind the Alliance peaked in vote in 1993, when first past the post made it a safe protest vote at 18%, 1996 saw it drop to just over 10% and when it was almost certain to get into power in 1999 it dropped to just under 8%.   After losing its personality cult leader of Jim Anderton, McCarten's Alliance fell out of Parliament in 2002.  Quite why he still has a column in the NZ Herald remains a mystery, and the Herald should think very carefully about whether he still deserves it after his latest rant.  For rant is all it can be described as, being as devoid of fact and pithy analysis as many talkback callers.

We start with a headline that tells us that McCarten basically doesn't believe in liberal democracy.  Quite something for a man who has had such high level involvement in a party that sought power and was part of a coalition government for one term.  The "idiots rule" at poll booths.  Unlike Matt, who knows better.   Not that many of us who comment in politics don't sometimes wonder why people vote as they do, but for him to suggest that voters are stupid implies he is better than they are, and should make their decisions for them.   I guess given his political heritage that may not be all that surprising.

Of course he doesn't mean New Zealand voters (yet) but rather Americans.  Nothing like bashing a whole nationality of people, particularly Americans.  I mean had he said Indians, or Chinese, or Kenyans or Samoans or... but he wouldn't would he?  It's ok to bash people according to their nationality because in Matt's world white Americans have power, and can be insulted and denigrated.   Not that he would tolerate anyone saying people of his nationality are stupid with "naivete and proud ignorance" (sic).

Then he has his own vision of the Bush years "Two years ago the Republicans, led by that boofhead, George Bush the younger, idiotically ran their own form of Rogernomics: giving the rich huge tax refunds; slashing public services".  Matt did you actually follow US public policy over that period or just fit it into your binary left-right framework that fits New Zealand rather well, but doesn't fit the US?  Where do punitive tariffs on steel imports fit into Rogernomics, where does bailing out banks, where does expanding state education ("No Child Left Behind" was a bipartisan initiative with that known "Republican" Ted Kennedy), where does increasing state spending and deficits fit into Rogernomics Matt?  Yes there was a tax cut, which applied from middle to upper incomes, but slashing public services?  No. Any privatisations? No, even though USPS, Amtrak and the FAA are all easy targets.  

No, you see Matt is dumbing down US politics so you can understand it, except it's so dumb he's wrong.  It is why the Tea Party opposed so many Republican nominations for the mid term elections and why the Tea Party has specifically rejected the past politics of both main parties.   Such details confuse Matt, he obviously forgot Rob Muldoon was one of New Zealand's most socialist Prime Ministers, because he opposed him at the time.

Matt ignores that "going to war against two countries" was in part retaliation for 9/11.   Of course he would rather the US sit back, take 9/11, feel guilty and let the Taliban be emboldened and maintain their totalitarian rule in Afghanistan without interruption.   He would deny it, but that is precisely the implication of his statement.

He continues to be wilfully blind on Obama "."He used his majority in both houses of Congress to get an economic stimulus to save greedy capitalists from themselves and then introduced a health system to cover just about everyone who got sick".  Actually Matt, the Bush Administration was playing big spend ups and bailouts first, but you were ignoring things at the time.  The "health system" is compulsory health insurance, which you opposed when it was actually Roger Douglas's policy for New Zealand in a slightly different form.   Too complex I know, just blank it all out Matt.

"Obama also saved millions of skilled jobs by nationalising the car industry" Steady on Matt, keep a tissue handy.  Your economic illiteracy only gets you excited by seeing money taken off of millions of people somehow "saving jobs" by going to a few thousand.

"The liberals and progressives have been sidelined to a large degree. In New Zealand, the power of corporations and wealthy individuals in United States politics seems extraordinary" Yes you noticed how rich all those Tea Party supporters and American voters are.  Oh that's right, they didn't decide things really did they?  The US media was completely against Obama from the start, not that you'd notice this on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, PBS, New York Times or the LA Times etc, but Matt doesn't bother consuming much foreign news, obviously.

"Can you imagine a corporation in this country being able to spend as much money as they liked to get a policy they want adopted, or unlimited funds to get a favourite candidate elected?"  You mean like the campaign for electoral reform?  Oh you mean spending their own money as much as they liked - their own money.   However, you think it isn't their money do you?  You think anyone with money must have taken it from someone somehow.   Bit of envy is it, or just disbelief as to how free people actually function on a grand scale?

"the calibre of the "teabag party" Republican candidates are just plain scary. Many of their serious contenders oppose abortion openly, even in cases of child rape or incest on the basis that it is "God's plan". One of them opposed masturbation. Others argued that if they didn't get elected their supporters would take up arms to overthrow the country ."

Many? Really Matt?  Or is that just your own spin again? Yes that's right.  One opposed masturbation once yes, but it wasn't her policy platform, and your party had Alamein Kopu - one of Parliament's greatest non-entities, and screaming Pam Corkery, an enormous intellect there.   Maybe had you quoted the Tea Party website which had only three policies you might have had some substance there: fiscal responsibility, smaller government and lower taxes.   Hard to paint that as hysterical madness isn't it?

"Attendees at their rallies carried assault weapons" How many Matt? Do a handful at hundreds of rallies count at significant?  Does this not happen with Democrats? 

"The leader of the Congress Republicans campaigned actively for a candidate who dressed in Nazi regalia,"  Yes as a joke Matt, and your Sandra Lee once compared what happened to Maori as a Holocaust.  Given Obama's past links to far-left radicals and a pastor who blamed the US for 9/11 and made numerous anti-semitic remarks, you might want to look in your own ideological backyard.  

Then, finally, Matt sees this as advice for Phil Goff!  "Working people need a party with specific visionary policies. Merely being a more pastel version of the other party won't get you elected next year, Phil."

Why not? It worked for John Key, he was Labour lite par excellence.  Your party had a vision, and it didn't get close to the 5% threshold once it lost its "great leader" Jim Anderton.  

The message Matt didn't get from this is that many Americans became scared at vast overspending by government of THEIR money (Matt doesn't understand that taxpayers think their money is theirs!) and borrowing ever more that will have to be paid off.  He didn't get that maybe a lot of Americans WANT more of their money back, and don't like ever growing government doing more for them.

You see Matt, while you and your ideological compadres were thinking the USSR was simply an alternative way of looking at things, and it was best to be neutral in the Cold War, Americans by and large did not.

It would help if you took down the hammer and sickle in your brain and opened your eyes.  You're more prejudiced than most Republicans, you're more stupid than many of them too because you can't even engage in basic research or read sufficiently widely to figure out what was going on in the US.

US voters rejected Obama because he was elected on a vapid bubble of hype, empty slogans of "change" and "can we fix it, yes we can".   There was nothing behind this but the hype of believing one man could make people's lives better.   That bubble has been burst, and Americans fear being pushed into second place by an Administration that keeps spending far more money than it gets in taxes.

Sadly, because you can't think beyond your ranting leftwing cage, you spout out empty nonsense which has at best a few grains of truth in it.

Hwang Jang Yop's passing deserves more coverage

If you watched or read most of the media in the last day or so you'd think the key news about North Korea was the appearance of Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un at the 65th Anniversary celebrations of the founding of the Workers' Party of Korea in Pyongyang.  After all, the authorities in Pyongyang invited foreign journalists and TV crews to cover it.

Sadly on the same day a man died in South Korea who sheds more light on the regime than the spectacle of military parades in the (surprisingly small) Kim Il Sung Square and pictures of an ailing autocrat and his youngest son (with a face allegedly reshapen by plastic surgery to look like his grandfather).  

Hwang Jang Yop was President of the Committee for the Democratisation of North Korea, and the highest ranking defector ever from North Korea.  He was International Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and Chairman of the Supreme People's Assembly from 1972 to 1983 when he was removed and "softly" purged (criticised and demoted rather than incarcerated and condemned).  He subsequently defected in 1997 by walking into the South Korean Embassy in Beijing whilst on an official trip, after which he spent his remaining years in South Korea, writing books and memoirs of the regime in North Korea.

He passed away at his home in Seoul due to a heart attack on 10 October 2010, the day North Korea commemorates the 65th anniversary of the founding of the Workers' Party of Korea.   Thankfully his passing does not appear to be suspicious, as it was well known that he was a leading target for North Korean agents  to assassinate.

His defection was bitter for the regime, and he was aware of this, as he fully expected his wife and children would suffer enormously as a result.  North Korea imprisons entire families for the political crimes of one, including children and the elderly with no limits on age.  His letter to his wife expressed his belief that he had to defect for the people of North Korea and could not go on with things remaining as they are.

He wrote 20 books after his defection, about the regime, the Kims and strategies to bring its downfall and reform.  In his memoirs he claims to have written the Juche Idea (the national ideology associated with Kim Il Sung), he tells about the long history he lived through from Japan's brutal colonialism, the Korean War, the rise and fall of socialism, the death of Kim Il Sung and the so-called "Arduous March" when mass starvation saw Kim Jong Il prepare for war whilst millions died.

His excellent regular column in the Daily NK website was one of the most incisive commentaries on the regime and its nature.  His final column mentioned the annointing of Kim Jong Un as Kim Jong Il's successor:

“Kim Jong Il has turned his entire country into a huge prison; a place where a few million people starve and he enslaves the rest...Kim Jong Il is the worst kind of thief; a man who stole a whole country...Now he is making fun of and humiliating the North Korean people, making them shout ‘Hurrah!’ and ignoring the world after conferring a boy with the title, 'general'."

He is being commemorated in South Korea now as a great man whose defection helped challenge the views of many who supported North Korea, and highlighted much about the reality of the regime in Pyongyang. 

The Daily NK visual tribute is here.  His memoirs were published, in serial form, on Daily NK here.

Sadly his passing is likely to get only a brief mention in Western media, compared to the military display and show of Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang yesterday, for which the BBC, CNN and other major TV broadcasters were invited.   I note none of Stuff, TVNZ and RNZ websites are carrying this news (NZ Herald carries an AP report), but all carry the story, video and pictures of North Korea the regime want to show.  Even CNN doesn't have the story on its Asia page.  While the BBC does, it puts greater headlines on Michael Law's being an attention-seeking airhead.

Journalism? Ha!

Sell it and change the channel

Yes Paul Henry was a dick for his comment about the Governor General.

However, doesn't it show once again why you shouldn't be forced to have an ownership interest in TVNZ?

TVNZ should be privatised. The last National government was confidentially investigating exactly that at the time, but time wasn't on its side before the rise of Helengrad.

The rise of digital TV (first by Sky via satellite and Telstra-Clear via cable, some time before terrestrial broadcasting) will mean much more radio spectrum will be available for TV channels. There is no need for the state to own four of them.

TVNZ has long been a laughable excuse for a public broadcaster, caught between trying to be the lowest common denominator folksy, once over lightly, reduce everything to parochial or sporting analogies, asinine banality, with the ernest attempt to try to be the repositary of kiwi kulcha and the need to produce news and documentaries for adolescents.

Selling it would mean Paul Henry would be with an employer who would respond completely to what its customers (advertisers or subscribers) wanted.

At that point (and right now) you can simply abstain. Don't watch. If enough of you do that then the democracy of the market will remove him from the airwaves, but you can remove him from your screens now - just don't put that channel on when he is on.

Last UK papers declare their hands

The Daily Telegraph stuns the nation by calling for a vote for the Conservatives. The editorial for Wednesday rightly says "Tony Blair's "project" was undermined from the start by two fundamental flaws. The first was the conviction that only big-government solutions can bring about lasting change; the second was the belief that to throw money at a problem is to solve it. The consequence was a spending binge of unparalleled profligacy conducted by an ever-expanding state machine – almost a million people have been added to the government payroll since 1997. When Labour came to power, public spending accounted for 40 per cent of GDP. Last year, the figure was 52 per cent."

Yes, of course, and largely right (although exaggerated) to say "Britain has become the most spied upon, regulated, nannied society in the Western world. Virtually our every move is caught on camera, ever more of our personal details are kept by agents of the state (and frequently lost by them, too). The state dictates where we can smoke and tries to tell us what we should eat and drink. This is not so much big government as Big Brother."

Sadly the Telegraph unwinds itself by saying "The Tory vision of the Big Society plays strongly into these new political realities. Built on the concept that the state should do less, better, and that decisions are best taken as closely as possible to where they impact, it addresses the straitened circumstances of the time. There is a coherent body of policies to support this vision, notably on education, welfare, law and order, and immigration. A smaller state means lower taxes"

There is nothing small government about the Big Society, there is little in the Conservative manifesto about a smaller state and precious less about lower taxes. The instincts and philosophy of the Daily Telegraph has a lot to commend it, sadly the Conservatives are letting them down.

The Independent unsurprisingly calls for a vote for the Liberal Democrats, or if that has no chance of success, a vote for any party to keep the Conservatives out. The key agenda is electoral reform, a rather odd priority at a time of record public debt, budget deficit and the risk of the economy slipping back into recession. However, the Independent hasn't been a successful business for years, so it is hardly surprising that it is incapable of understanding economics.

Finally, the most sane editorial yet comes from Allister Heath in City AM. He is supporting the Conservatives, as the least worst option of the main three. At least philosophically that newspaper has a positive grounding in capitalism. It isn't objectivism, but it is light years away from the rest:

City A.M. is proud to be an independent newspaper; yet that does not mean that we are free of values or devoid of a worldview. We support the City, London’s financial and business community, capitalism, economic growth, hard work, low taxes and a real free-market economy with no corporatism, bailouts or handouts. Good firms should be allowed to make (and keep) vast sums of money; bad ones should go bust. Success as well as failure should be privatised. We stand for meritocracy, where anybody, regardless of background, creed or gender, can get on in life; as well as for a truly compassionate society, whereby the better off have a duty to give the poor a helping hand and support those who cannot look after themselves.

A newspaper that supports capitalism, a free market economy without subsidies is a rare thing. Oh and City AM is free, funny how greedy capitalists can give away something for free isn't it? Herein lies one of the grand myths of the statist self-righteous "we know best" left.

He continues:

"We stand for internationalism, free trade, cultural openness and global engagement but shun unaccountable global bureaucracies and despise totalitarian movements. We like competition and open markets and dislike monopolies, cartels and state-granted privileges; we support knowledge, scholarship, sound science and evidence-based policies and reject irrationality, hysteria and obscurantism. In short, we are classical liberals in the tradition of Adam Smith, David Hume, Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek."

Yes, stone the crows, the UK isn't just about who can compete for the socialist vote, although Heath makes it clear that the choices are not great:

"None of the parties in Britain truly reflect this strand of thought. All have concealed the need to cut spending. All have promoted a simplistic, vote-winning narrative of the crisis which trashes the City indiscriminately, rather than trying to understand the complex and often policy-induced causes of the recession."

So he supports the Conservatives on the basis that most candidates are pro-free market and have the right instincts.

I can only hope he is right.

Meanwhile, as Labour faces accusations of lying about Conservative policies on child tax credits only ONE major national UK newspaper supports a vote for Labour in this election. The Daily Mirror. It's only useful contribution is flooding its working class readers with cries to not support the BNP.

Of the rest, the Guardian and the Independent are supporting the Liberal Democrats, and all of the rest are supporting the Conservatives. As newspapers like to back winners, it is more likely to be wishful thinking than any real influence upon voters. For most papers they back who their readers are likely to back. The Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and the Independent would support the Conservatives and LibDems respectively regardless. The Sun and The Times try to back the winner. The Guardian is the most interesting decision, turning its back on Labour.

None of these means very much, but it DOES mean that the UK papers are full of a diversity of perspectives and columns across the mainstream political spectrum, albeit not as wide as I would like. None of the main parties get away without strident criticism and critiques of their policies (although the perspectives of those critiques are not necessarily that diverse).

Contrast that to the near empty void of the NZ press.

UPDATE: London's Evening Standard is backing the Conservatives, because it fears a hung Parliament and believes change is needed.

Stuff stuffs up

This article has the wrong title and the first two paragraphs are wrong.

The proposed Transmission Gully motorway does not pass through the Kapiti Coast, it ends there.

The petition from Alliance for Sustainable Kapiti is not about Transmission Gully, it is about the Paraparaumu-Waikanae bypass.

AAP and Stuff need to print a retraction. However, they are no more stupid than Sue Kedgley, who makes the same mistake in a speech in Kapiti.

$60 a year for Radio NZ listeners to pay

Brian Rudman unsurprisingly loves Radio NZ, an outlet for the statist world view that he shares, that argues about what government should do, rather than what it shouldn't do.

He claims imposing a funding freeze is "bullying", but can't for the life of him figure out that making everyone pay for a station most don't listen to ISN'T bullying. "I like Radio NZ, I am happy to pay for it, but only if I make you pay for it too" is rather distasteful.

He throws up some strawmen, like the Ministry of Culture and Heritage commissioned study by KPMG that said Radio NZ was underfunded. Hardly surprising, since the report was part of the Ministry's wider strategy to get more state funding for its remit. Consultants can be adept at giving clients reports that tell them what they want.

The UNITEC study for the Ministry (PDF) was another strawman. Setting aside the minor mistakes throughout (like calling South Korea - "Democratic Republic"), the figures quoted on per capita spending on public broadcasting are seriously flawed. The report itself admits the figures for each country used are from different years. All of the figures are converted from local currencies into US$, with no transparency about the exchange rates. Moreover, the per capita spending is not on a Purchasing Power Parity basis. In shorthand that means the report thinks £10 buys the same in London as it does in Wellington, which is nonsense. The figures make New Zealand look cheap and nasty when that isn't the truth. The report is also full of ridiculous statements like:

“there is much evidence of market failure insofar as a purely commercial model of broadcasting tends to overlook the needs of commercially unattractive segments of the audience (such as ethnic minorities),”

although the US is full of minority language radio stations all commercially run.

It also has a distinctly anti-commercial broadcasting bias:

"That is certainly not to say that commercial broadcasters can never produce high quality content, but where they do so on a consistent basis there are usually factors other than market forces and commercial revenue at work.”

The word "quality" is in the eye of the beholder of course, but this sort of statement is absurd. It is like saying that without state funded books, newspapers, websites, art or music, there wouldn't be any "quality".

However, it is when Brian talks about the small cost of Radio NZ that he actually makes a point that Radio NZ supporters are closing their ears to.

He says "Of all our state-funded cultural institutions, Radio New Zealand is probably the most vital of all. It's the town hall of a community of 4.35 million people, widely dispersed from North Cape to Stewart Island.”

No Brian, it is 650,000 people, given only 15% of radio listeners tune in to RNZ stations.

Then he says "It costs under $9 per person a year to run. For that small outlay we provide ourselves the only venue to hear extended and serious discussions on politics, the arts, medicine, lifestyle - you name it. We also provide for ourselves a newsroom with valuable competition for the two or three big metropolitan papers."

Well if you leave out those who don't listen, then you mean $60 per person a year. Not a lot of money is it?

So go on Brian, cough up, ask Radio NZ supporters to cough up. Stop wanting non-listening taxpayers to fund what YOU like, indeed if it is so valuable you should be jumping at the chance.

Does it just speak volumes about the hypocrisy of those who say how "valuable" it is, how much "we" should appreciate it, that THEY wont spend a dollar of their own cash to help out?

THAT Ladies and Gentleman is the difference between those who are statists and those who are libertarians. Those that think something is good, and want everyone else to pay for it, and those who think if you like something, YOU should pay for it.

I like reading the Economist and the Spectator, will you pay for my subscriptions? If not, why the hell is it any different?

UPDATE: Facebook now has a group OPPOSED to further state funding of Radio NZ.

Herald misses point on Radio NZ

The NZ Herald editorial makes this statement:

"The quality of Radio NZ's service will be compromised for a minor monetary gain at a time when the broadcaster says audiences are at an all-time high"

Nonsense. If you are worried about the quality of Radio NZ's service (a subjective measure, but I'll leave it to you), then you CAN do something about it.

Donate money to Radio NZ.

Not used to paying for things you like? You should be. It's what you do if you subscribe to Sky TV, or buy books and magazines, go to the movies etc. Why is this any different?

Stop wanting to bludge off of other taxpayers for your own personal choice. If audiences are at an all time high then great. You too can set up a campaign to support Radio NZ.

Seems a bit hard? Well you might learn something. Businesses don't (typically) get handouts to start up, neither do charities.

Or would you rather spend your money on dessert, a bottle of wine, a holiday, some CDs you like? Because when it comes down to it, you only care enough about Radio NZ to lobby the state to make others pay for it.

Love Radio NZ? Well cough up...

The Government is putting pressure on Radio NZ so that taxpayers wont be forced to pay for it so much. There is plenty of potential to do this. The ridiculous introduction of FM simulcasting should end for starters, setting free those frequencies for those willing to pay for it.

The NZ Herald reports that Labour Deputy Leader Annette King says " it would be like living in a Third World country if National Radio had to shut down between midnight and 6am"

Really Annette? I didn't know the UK was a third world country. The UK equivalent of National Radio is BBC Radio 4, which between 1am and 6am closes down and simply carries the BBC World Service. Better yet given the time difference, National Radio could simulcast Radio 4, or the World Radio Network.

However, this is all fiddling beyond the real point.

It's all very well for Helen Clark, who is barely a taxpayer in New Zealand (and not at all one in New York excluding local sales taxes), to defend Radio NZ. However, for the likes of Clark, King and the irascible Sue Kedgley to make a difference there is only one moral option.

Use your own money and donate to Radio NZ.

Why should anyone else be forced to pay for the broadcaster? Radio is not a "public good", and given that 85% of radio listening is not done with Radio NZ, then is this not simply one of the most explicit forms of elitism that is propagated by the left?

The view would be that Radio NZ is "good for you", which begs the question that if this is true, then 4 out of 5 members of the public disagree, or are stupid. Which justifies making them pay for the remaining 1.

Now I'm not going to pass judgment on Radio NZ myself, since I did use to listen to it regularly in NZ. I might even be willing to pay for it, if it rid itself of its inherently statist bias (how many panels does it have on shows that include nobody who believes in LESS government?).

However, the answer to all those who may bleat about Radio NZ is this. National isn't planning on removing the state tit from your favourite radio station, but if you think it is underfunded then dig into your own pockets and start making regular contributions.

If you wont do that, then why is it moral to make everyone pay for something a small fraction actually use or appreciate? Or is it just because it happens to correspond with your world view that government should exist to spread information and entertainment?

NZ Herald late and lazy on Air NZ's squeeze

The NZ Herald has finally woken up to what has been mentioned by me on January 26 and by others for weeks now - that Air NZ's new economy class cabin will be a tighter squeeze for everyone NOT in a Skycouch.

What appalls me particularly is that the reporter, Grant Bradley, has done NO research whatsoever to check the claims by Air NZ's spokesman, Ed Sims, that "10-seat rows were becoming the industry norm in the new 777s. "Emirates has been operating 10 abreast for many years, as have Air France and KLM."

How hard was it for Grant Bradley to go to website seatguru.com and check that claim?

He could have looked at all of the airlines serving NZ with 777s and found out that Emirates is the only one with a 10 abreast configuration. The others (the links show the seat maps), Korean, Malaysian, Singapore Airlines and Thai Airways all have a 9 abreast configuration. How hard was that to check?

How about other operators of the 777? Well we know Emirates and Air France/KLM (which is one airline with two brands) both have 10 abreast seating. Any others?

Aeromexico - 9 abreast
Air Canada - 9 abreast
Air China - 9 abreast
Air India - 9 abreast
Alitalia - 9 abreast
ANA - 9 abreast
American Airlines - 9 abreast
Asiana - 9 abreast
Austrian - 10 abreast
British Airways - 9 abreast
Cathay Pacific - 9 abreast
Continental Airlines - 9 abreast
Delta - 9 abreast
El Al - 9 abreast
Etihad - 9 abreast although reportedly moving to 10
Eva Airways - 9 abreast
Gulf Air - 9 abreast
JAL - 9 abreast
Jet Airways - 9 abreast
Kenya Airways - 9 abreast
Qatar Airways - 9 abreast
Turkish - 9 abreast
United - 9 abreast
V Australia -9 abreast

So Emirates, Air France/KLM and Austrian Airlines, and perhaps Etihad - that's it. How is something becoming the industry norm when out of 30 airlines, 3 are doing it (and a 4th reportedly is)?

Don't ask Grant Bradley at the NZ Herald - he just reports what Air NZ tells him.

The mainstream media wonder why some people think bloggers do a better job than they do?

It isn't hard at times.

Since when does 100% = 50%?

When you read it in the Dominion Post, reporting on proposed bus fare increases in Wellington:

"One option would mean the $1 city-section fare would be replaced by an increased one-zone cash fare of $2.

That would effectively mean inner-city bus passengers were facing a 50 per cent increase in bus fares"

Hmmm, good job paid journalists are out there making sure they double check stories and are so thorough, unlike those rogue bloggers right?

So Kerry Williamson let's learn maths:

$2 = $1 + $1

$1 = 100% of $1

Therefore an increase from $1 to $2 is?

Oh and while you're figuring that one out, how about a real question, such as what is the current proportion of cost recovery from bus fares in Wellington? What is the average subsidy per trip and per km? How many services are commercial (unsubsidised)?

For example, on average 51.5% of public transport costs are recovered from fares, is it planned to increase that, as that is the lowest level for Wellington in a four year period surveyed by NZTA?

In other words, how about some information that doesn't just involve reporting what the Greater Wellington Regional Council says?

Who would Matt McCarten prefer?

Oh yes, it shouldn't be a surprise. Matt McCarten's tired old Marxist rhetoric about US foreign policy. Apparently wanting to be an ally of the US is "fawning support", something no country apparently should seek. Why? Because it Matt's world, the US is bad - very bad. In fact given his political heritage I wouldn't be surprised if he missed the Soviet Union, given that the anti-nuclear policy he supported was, in effect, New Zealand opting out of the Western alliances that saw it siding clearly with the US, NATO and Australia against the Soviet Union and its satellites. The middle ground was the middle ground of not giving a damn about which side won.

So what does he believe in?

1. That after 9/11 the US should NOT have attacked Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrown the regime that provided safe haven and support for the 9/11 attacks. Of course not. Did the US deserve it Matt? Do you believe it was a conspiracy? So you prefer the stoneage misogynists of the Taliban who deny girls an education? No, you wont answer them. It's simple enough, the US shouldn't respond militarily when attacked. Of course not. The US is to blame anyway, right Matt?

2. Israel shouldn't build settlements in the West Bank. Well funnily enough Matt, the Obama Administration doesn't believe in that either. However, what would you do? Cut all aid from Israel? Tell Israel it's on its own? Let all of Palestine become a bloodbath of Islamist terror against the state of Israel? No. He doesn't have an answer to this.

3. Gaza should have open borders, and Israel should allow Hamas to import whatever it wishes, presumably including rockets to start attacking Israel again. Oh but it's ok for war to be waged by heroic militants isn't it Matt? You relate to them. After all, just because they attacked Israel proper doesn't mean anything. Not that you're going to tell Hamas to stop waging war, because it's only peace if the US or Western side surrenders right?

4. Iraq is apparently "occupied". Who by Matt? I guess that democratically elected government is illegitimate, although you claim the war against the Saddam Hussein criminal gangster regime was illegal. That means you believe the Hussein clique was legitimate. You'd prefer the Iranian back Islamist insurgents ran Iraq? The same ones who impose draconian sharia law in areas they controlled? Ahh they're not backed by the US so MUST be ok right? Yes, would have been far better to let the insurgents win. Better still to have left Saddam in power. After all, he didn't occupy Iraq did he?

5. New Zealand shouldn't be in a military alliance with the USA. Why? Because Matt and his buddies on the left don't like it. Would it harm New Zealand? Well hardly, but it does put New Zealand squarely against a whole range of rogue states that Matt presumably would like to appease. So why not Matt?

Or is it just your inherent hatred of individual freedom and capitalism that the US still (with many flaws) represents that drives you?

The sideshows

So politicians like to take advantage of their salary and perks that come with it, some within the rules, some outside the rules.

Like you should be surprised. Of course it isn't quite on the grand scale of rorts that the British House of Commons has been, but still it demonstrates self seeking that people bizarrely think shouldn't occur from people meant to represent you.

Are you surprised the MSM spends so much attention on it? You shouldn't be. You see it has two characteristics that work so well for the modern reporter:

1. It's a scandal that people are interested in. It is something people can relate to.
2. It's incredibly easy to get the concept across. MP, gets paid a lot (well, to the average punter), gets overseas holidays, flying business class. It is an outrage.

However, as much as it gives sound reason to be a little cynical about them all, it is chicken feed in the scheme of things. It doesn't require much analysis, as a binary deal, it fits in with television especially, where TV news in essence likes to boil things down to an All Black test. Good vs bad. Right vs wrong. Simple.

You wont get any real debate about whether education should continue to be a compulsorily funded state system, or not. You wont get any real debate about whether the war on drugs is really the right response to the problems with P. You wont get any real debate about whether it makes sense for the state to own three power companies and a coal company. You wont get any real debate about whether spending half a billion dollars on electrifying Auckland's train system is good value for money. You wont get any real debate about climate change, whether New Zealand should sign up to something that far richer and larger CO2 emitters per capita are having little to do with.

In other words, debate about policy.

Too many in the MSM pander to a tabloid sensationalist view of politicians. However, do any ever ask "why should you trust these people to buy your health care" or "retirement income" or "accident insurance" or "kids' education" or "transport system" etc? Is it because you don't actually care, but just care about personalities? You're that vapid?

For you see, both Mr Hide and Mr Harawira are in part responsible for the current government and passing supply bills to do all of those things. If you get annoyed at these antics, and antics of past politicians of all colours, why do you keep thinking putting your trust in them is going to get better?

Socialism rules on water

or so you'd think from the Herald comments section on water privatisation.

Profits are evil, you shouldn't expect a return on money spent on assets, no of course not. I'm sure all those posting would work for a stipend to cover the costs of going to and from work wouldn't they?

Foreign companies are evil, not like New Zealand local government, it would never rip you off would it? Those people who can take your money by force, borrow money and make you pay it back by force. Yep nothing like government to look after you.

Foreign companies will price gouge and milk horrendous profits with privatisation. Even though this would seriously cut demand, and people would find alternatives (not easily mind you, but people can collect rainwater, bathe at pools, beaches or lakes, get watertanks, wash sparingly). Even though many rural water schemes today are falling apart because of gross underinvestment by councils. Blank all that out. Blank out the general public actually buying shares in water companies or even privatisation involving giving shares away. Real public ownership comes from politicians running things doesn't it?

Water is a "human right", which you need to infringe on the rights of others to provide. Funny how food is different. So if there is no water supply is someone having their human rights abused? Another bogus "right", bogus because it demands you force someone else to pay to make it happen - no genuine rights require anyone else to do anything, just let people be free.

Water is free, ignoring that it costs money to treat it, to pump it, to build and maintain pipes to reticulate it, and then to carry away the wastewater and treat it before ejecting it. Blank all that out.

"Electricity was privatised", just blank out the fact that 70% of the electricity market is held by three STATE owned enterprises (but leftwing hysteria is just catching).

The railways were "destroyed" even though a third of all railway lines were closed under state ownership, and when renationalised the railways were carrying record levels of freight on a per tonne km basis. Blank all that out, the myth is that something really valuable was destroyed and bought back for nothing - when in fact it was a business with a lot of sunk assets that needed to be fully depreciated, so it could focus on what it was good at. Another part of leftwing legend.

Finally, not one of the Marxist gits who post even consider that food, petrol, clothing and most housing are privately provided, most regarded as essential to most people, along with umpteen consumables like light bulbs, furniture, appliances etc. All by private companies, many foreign owned.

If you believed this showed what most New Zealanders thought you'd have good reason to understand why the GDP per capita of NZ is so absymal, being full of whinging non-entrepreneurial worshippers of the state, with a malignant view of economic incentives and overwhelming trust in government.

Who inculcates this hysterical hatred of private enterprise, belief business is just out to rip everyone off, overwhelming trust that state ownership makes things better and attitude of near class warfare about the provision of services that quite happily get done privately elsewhere?

Rudman's narrow thinking on drugs

Brian Rudman bemoans opiates as a "deadly scourge" effectively calling for the eradication of opium plants in Afghanistan. He doesn't have a suggestion as to what Afghan farmers should do instead, doesn't consider how this will shift production elsewhere, and doesn't even think that the criminalisation of opium creates many of the problems inherent in the trade. After all, opiates are used for medication, such as morphine.

He says "no one" is fighting it, which is patent nonsense, I guess he missed this. Although the futility of it is clear, since the Afghan government and so many in Afghanistan are reliant on the trade.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which has a vested interest in retaining the status quo, is his main source of information, and of course it is going to play up the threat. Nowhere are the questions asked:
- Is the main reason it is so profitable because it is illegal?
- Are some of the reasons it is so deadly because it is illegal?
- Is the criminal involvement in the trade because it is illegal?
- Will the elimination of opium in Afghanistan end the trade and supply of heroin?

Where does Rudman get this "fact " from, for example "It is triggering the spread of HIV at an unprecedented rate"? Really? So are the reports that in Africa the location with the highest prevalence of HIV, it is about sexual transmission NOT opiate use just nonsense?

Or is it that he has a terribly old fashioned view on the war on drugs, in that the decades of continued failure have passed him by?

BNP kiwis so what about communists?

The NZ Herald has used the leaked list of BNP members to call on New Zealanders belonging to the party to "explain themselves".

The BNP is odious, but quite why people should be contacted and harangued by a journalist is questionable. Any cursory look at white supremacist forums will find New Zealanders posting on them, and the same with communist forums, or indeed most political persuasions.

However, would the New Zealand Herald do the same if it found New Zealand members of the far-left RESPECT Coalition, led by the odious George Galloway (who misses the Soviet Union and has publicly approved of both Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad)?

Would it seek to find out if there are New Zealand members of the pro North Korean Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist?)

How about New Zealand's own Communist Workers' Party?

If not, why not? Isn't it the same issue Not PC pointed out here?

Any investigative journalists in New Zealand?

David Farrar raises an issue which only state radio has yet confronted, but which has not been picked up by newspapers or television.

The Leninist way Helen Clark is controlling media access to UNDP.

It sounds scandalous. No press conferences involving Clark as head of UNDP since she arrived. Absolutely no progress at all or reports or responses to a number of scandals, which were bubbling when she arrived. It doesn't help that the UNDP does not have transparent audited accounts.

I wrote on how the NZ media treated Helen Clark at the UNDP like a Womens' Weekly story, with no scrutiny at all of the serious issues surrounding the organisation. It is like Helen is "one of us" "doing good overseas" and "we should all be proud", and have no interest at all in the issues she confronts and, more importantly whether or how she confronts them.

There are major issues regarding nepotism and the UNDP's North Korean operations, which are being renewed, that aren't being answered.

This isn't an issue about the Labour Party, or the New Zealand government, but the reputation of New Zealand in putting forward Clark for this high profile role. If she hides from the media, if she wont openly declare her position on issues, if she wont confront them, it will be a damning indictment on New Zealand, and its chances to gain ANY traction at transparency and accountability at international organisations.

If Helen Clark is no better than any other UN bureaucrat, spending large amounts of money with accountability that is better suited to Malabo than New York, then she is an embarrassment.

An embarrassment the Key Government can only bear its fair share of blame for, in supporting her candidacy.

However, perhaps equally so, is the almost universal braindead silence of the sycophantic New Zealand media. With the notable exception of Radio New Zealand, none of the rest have shown any interest in serious issues surrounding Helen Clark's appointment as head of the UNDP.

Is it not time that some actually went to New York to find out why the former Prime Minister wont answer questions about the organisation she leads on a salary, paid by global taxpayers, of US$500,000 per annum, tax free?

UPDATE: David Cohen at the NBR essentially repeats what David Farrar and Radio NZ said, adding his small comment about his experience with Clark. Gee, newspapers in New Zealand are really at the cutting edge of journalism aren't they? Well done Mr. Cohen, given your "cutting criticism" of the blogosphere, you're really showing us up.

Taxpayer and TV rights

The NZ Herald says "The cost to the taxpayer of the bid for Rugby World Cup broadcasting rights will be "considerably" less than the $5 million speculated, Prime Minister John Key says."

So give one good reason why it shouldn't be nil?

This is a very popular event that many will want to watch, it presumably has some commercial viability for a broadcaster, New Zealand has four different free to air nationwide TV network operators that could do so (TVNZ, TV3, Prime and MTS), so for what conceivable reason should taxpayers be forced to pay to buy the rights to a sports event to be broadcast?

Oh, and doesn't this make the claim that National is about less government interference in your life rather vacuous?

Go on, look at your TV listings and find the long list of sports events and other events on free to air television that DIDN'T have you being forced to pay for it.

This whole issue has been a complete debacle, a waste of time and your money. The government should have had no more to do with this than it has had with other sports broadcasting rights over many years.

Yet the majority of you trust this lot to buy your healthcare, your kids' education and a retirement.

Why?