New Zealand Election 2020: Electorate vote Part Two - General Electorates Mangere - Wigram and Maori electorates

As the nation waits in anticipation for the Libertyscott opinion of who you should vote for in electorates, I present the following (and yes, I'll accept any additional information to change my mind about any of them, I simply did a cursory search online for those I don't know):

Mangere (safe Labour): Labour's William Sio is a sure thing here, note he opposed gay marriage. National's Agnes Loheni is standing again, and she speaks well about avoiding a victim mentality.  Her maiden speech included "That soft bigotry of low expectation is the road to hell laid brick by brick with good intentions". She's conservative on abortion, although I don't think late-term abortions on demand are consistent with individual freedom. There isn't much other choice here, Fuiavailili Alailima from New Conservatives talks little about freedom.  Agnes Loheni - National

Manurewa (safe Labour): There is a whole story around why Louisa Wall, the sitting MP, has effectively been ousted by internal party infighting.  So the Labour candidate is now Arena Williams, a young lawyer who looks like being very much in the mould of Ardern. Nuwanthie Samarakone is the National candidate, who is a young entrepreneur (so that's a step up). ACT doesn't have a candidate here, although the breakaway TEA Party does, there is next to no information about its candidate, Wella Bernardo.  New Conservative candidate Mote Pahulu is too conservative for me, s say yes to Nuwanthie Samarakone - National

Maungakiekie (marginal National): Denise Lee is the National MP, she's inoffensive, and her rival is Labour list MP Priyanka Radhakrishnan, whose main achievement has been around campaigning against domestic violence across ethnic communities (which is laudable). On balance I'd prefer Lee in a marginal that Labour might win, but there's little from her background to suggest she's any great advocate for less government. The ACT and New Conservative candidates both say some good things about less government, but none are compelling.   Take your pick

Mt Albert (safe Labour): You'll want to vote against Jacinda Ardern. National list MP Melissa Lee is trying again, and her record in the Key Government is nothing particularly exciting (voting against gay marriage and in favour of NOT raising the alcohol consumption age).  About the only signal you can give here is to try to narrow Jacinda Ardern's majority by voting for Lee, and also keep the young  hard left Green candidate Luke Wijohn at bay Melissa Lee - National

Mt Roskill (safe Labour): Labour's Michael Wood is the MP, and of course was previously a union negotiator and spent years in local government.  National list MP Parmjeet Parmar is trying again to win this seat, but there is little in her profile that suggests she believes in less government.  Give Chris Johnston of ACT your vote.  Chris Johnston - ACT

Napier (marginal Labour): It's hard to see Stuart Nash being unseated here, but this was a secure National seat for some years.  Katie Nimon is head of a long-standing family business and has a shot at unseating Nash, which is good enough for me (especially since this is now my electorate).  Katie Nimon - National

Nelson (marginal National): Nick Smith is no friend of small government, and although the profile of Rachel Boyack of Labour just grates (former union organiser with a big Green bent), I'd be tempted to vote for her to help excise Nick Smith from Parliament (he's number 18 on the list). If you can't cope with Boyack, then Chris Baillie from ACT is an excellent choice, given his commitment to free speech.  However, given Nick Smith's record on the RMA, he is central to the housing crisis and the hand-wringing corporatism that held back the Key government.  Rachel Boyack - Labour

New Lynn (marginal Labour): Deborah Russell is the Labour MP, who effectively said the small businesses failing under lockdown was their fault. Lisa Whyte is the National candidate who despite having been in local government, does appear to support lower taxes and opposes Kiwibuild and the Twyford tram.  Lisa Whyte - National

New Plymouth (moderately safe National): National MP Jonathan Young is socially conservative, but I'm not holding that against him. ACT's Ada Xiao although originally from the PRC appears to support freedom in Hong Kong and supports Taiwan, although that seems a strange pitch for the people of New Plymouth and may be to push back against concerns that she was an aircraft designed for the PRC government.  No strong feelings here.  Take your pick

North Shore (safe National): Maggie Barry has retired, which is no great loss.  National is putting forward Simon Watts who is a health administrator.  Nick Kearney of ACT has openly opposed land tax. Give Kearney your vote.  Nick Kearney - ACT

Northcote (safe National): Dan Bidois is standing again for the Nats, he's quite a clever chap and his maiden speech actually lauded free enterprise.  He's only be there a couple of years, so give him another go.  Dan Bidois - National

Northland (marginal National): NZ First hopes this will be its lifeline, so a vote for Matt King is to stop this and remove one party of corporatist pork barrelling (it isn't insurance against Labour, for obvious reasons).  Matt King - National

Ohariu (marginal Labour): I'm not fan of Greg O'Connor, Labour MP and ex. Police unionist.  Brett Hudson, National list MP is running again, and although he quoted John Stuart Mill in his maiden speech that's not enough to woo me. Jessica Hammond (who I know) is a very bright and very engaging candidate for TOP, but if she were elected she'd bring in TOP MPs, and there is no need for more enthusiasts of new taxes/ex. policy wonks in Parliament.  My friend Sean Fitzpatrick is standing for ACT, and as an entrepreneur and self-made man, who believes in freedom and personal responsibility, he deserves your vote.  Sean Fitzpatrick - ACT

Otaki (moderately safe National): Nathan Guy isn't standing again.  Wing Commander Tim Costley is the new National candidate and although he sees himself as a natural leader (uh oh), he's probably worth a shot this time compared to Labour's Terisa Ngobi, who is clearly in favour of more government.  Tim Costley - National

Pakuranga (safe National): So do you want to keep Simeon Brown?  He's socially conservative, but believes in free speech and talked well about government governing least, yet has been big on advancing the war on drugs.  There's not enough about Mo Yee Poon for me to give him an endorsement.  So Take Your Pick

Palmerston North (safe Labour): Iain Lees Galloway is standing down, so the Labour candidate is Tangi Utikere. He's a former teacher and city councillor, and seems pretty much the bog standard moderate Labour politician. William Wood is the National candidate and is notable for being just shy of being a child, having turned 18 at January. While some think encouraging young people to be politicians is a noble goal, I think it is a waste for young minds to be focused on telling other people what to do, rather than building one's own life. Yet he got a lot of grief because when he was 14. 14! he impersonated Hitler. Now he then apologised and this beat up is so utterly over the top. No one should feel humiliated for what looked like poking fun at Hitler in your early teens, so for that alone, give him your vote.  William Wood - National

Panmure-Otahuhu (new electorate nominally Labour):  former Manukau East MP Jenny Salesa is the Labour candidate, and was a public servant before being an MP.  National list MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is running this time.  His maiden speech was promising, with the only major negative being his strong opposition to gay marriage.  ACT has no candidate, but Ted Johnston, the New Conservative candidate appears weak on freedom especially since he stood for TOP in 2017.  I'd pick Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi - National

Papakura (safe National): Judith Collins holds this and will keep it, so give Bruce Whitehead of ACT your vote, just so she knows some people in her seat have a penchance for individual freedom. Bruce has a long pedigree of being a strong supporter of individual freedom  Bruce Whitehead - ACT

Port Waikato (safe National): former Hunua MP Andrew Bayly is standing for the Nats.  He waged war on meth in homes, which is all very well, but shows little interest in less government.  ACT's Dave King is more promising, whereas Steven Senn of the New Conservatives is a bit too enthusiastic about citizens' initiated referenda for me (freedom doesn't come from the majority voting for whatever they want).  Dave King - ACT

Rangitata (safe National): Megan Hands is the new National candidate, nothing wrong with her (nothing exciting either).  The alternatives are Hamish Hutton of ACT (who seems reasonable) and Lachie Ashton of the New Conservatives (who seems like a Muldoonist).  However James Rae of Not a Party seems like he'd be more fun.  James Rae - Not a Party

Rangitikei (safe National): Generations ago this was the heart of funny money Social Credit, but not anymore.  Ian McKelvie from the Nats will continue to hold this seat.  In his maiden seat he said "I don’t believe we have any ‘rights’ in life – property or otherwise - we must earn them", well... no.   Neil Wilson of ACT is a better choice as he believes in "enlightenment values" and "Human happiness is a legitimate moral purpose and productive work is a good and noble activity. Reason is the tool of choice but without freedom neither happiness nor productive work can be achieved".  He'll do.  Neil Wilson - ACT

Remutaka (safe Labour): Chris Hipkins is the MP here, so you'll want to challenge him. Mark Crofskey is the National candidate, but you'd think he'd update his party website to have a statement that isn't saying Simon Bridges is leading the team.  Otherwise Crofksey seems ok. Hank Optland of the New Conservatives seems largely better, as does Grae O'Sullivan of ACT, but I'd pick Crofskey just to narrow the majority of Hipkins.  Mark Crofskey - National

Rongotai (safe Labour): My old electorate, Paul Eagle from Labour holds it, and I'm going out on a limb here, but I think he deserves it.  He's low on the Labour list and he got some flack lately because he challenged the cycling evangelists who wanted rid of some car parking around Greta Point. He is a shoo in, but what about National's David Patterson? He wants co-investment by central government in Wellington's water and sewerage system, and Council housing.  Bugger that.  Nicole McKee will get in on the ACT list anyway.  I'd be happy with Eagle holding on here.  Take your pick

Rotorua (fairly safe National): Todd McClay of National is expected to hold onto this seat fairly safely, but he is a bit of a mixed bag. Referring to the Xinjiang re-education camps in China as "vocational training centres" rules him out of contention. Sure he may have said more about human rights later, but there should be no tolerance of obeisance to the PRC's nonsense. If only is opponent wasn't so clearly leftwing in the form of Claire Mahon, who has an impressive career funded by UN agencies and Amnesty International, which makes you wonder what she aspires to as the MP for Rotorua.  So both aren't going to be advancing more freedom in New Zealand. Vote Pete Kirkwood from ACT given he at least talks about choice and freedom. Pete Kirkwood - ACT

Selwyn (safe National): Nicola Grigg is the National candidate here who is a shoo in as well.  She was a press secretary to Simon Bridges.  Nothing remarkable here, so give your vote to ACT's Stu Armstrong, who talks about freedom, unlike Bronwyn Lyell of the New Conservatives who is an enthusiast for referenda as well.  Stu Armstrong - ACT

Southland (safe National): Joseph Mooney is the National candidate, and he would be new to Parliament.  He seems like a nice chap, who joined the Nats because he believes in limited government (well someone has to).  There is no ACT candidate and the New Conservative candidate, Fiona Meyer, shows little interest in limited government.  Joseph Mooney - National

Taieri (new electorate, nominally Labour): Clare Curran is stepping down and this new seat which includes rural areas is ripe for the taking. Ingrid Leary is the Labour candidate, and she goes on a bit about rail, which is silliness really. Liam Kernaghan is the National candidate who lists abolishing the RMA as a target, but he was a political advisor to Amy Adams. I can't get enthused about him.  The ACT candidate is from the shooters side of the party, which isn't enough for me and the New Conservative candidate also says little about freedom.  You might vote for Liam Kernaghan because it will annoy the Labour Party, but take your pick

Takanini (new electorate, marginal): Dr Neru Leavasa is the Labour candidate for this new electorate, and seems moderate.  Rima Nakhle is the National candidate, and she seems moderate.  Mike McCormick of ACT is vocal about the size of the state, so vote for him. Mike McCormick - ACT

Tamaki (safe National): National MP Simon O'Connor is standing again, and he is mixed on a range of issues, being socially conservative on some and liberal on others. ACT's Carmel Claridge is a better bet here, Carmel Claridge - ACT

Taranaki-King Country (safe National): National's Barbara Kuriger is standing again here and will be a shoo in again, so Brent Miles from ACT would better earn your vote as he is interested in freedom of speech.  Brent Miles - ACT

Taupo (safe National): Louise Upston is standing again for National and she is a mix as well and has little chance of being unseated. Some social conservatism on gay marriage and alcohol, but she was a benign Minister for Women. David Freeman of ACT is campaigning on liberty, so give him your vote. David Freeman - ACT

Tauranga (fairly safe National): Simon Bridges ought to be ok here, but do you really want to endorse him? NZ First and Labour have no real chance here, so give Cameron Luxton from ACT your vote, given he believes in defending freedom.  Cameron Luxton - ACT

Te Atatu (marginal Labour): Phil Twyford? No. National's Alfred Ngaro has most recently been controversial in his campaigning, but I'm generally not keen on his views.  ACTs Simon Court is likely to be in on the list.  The TEA Party's Frank Amoah might be interesting, but I have seen nothing about his views on anything.  I'd give Ngaro a tick just to try to oust Twyford, but honestly ? Take your pick

Tukituki (marginal National): National's Lawrence Yule is facing a battle with Labour's Anna Lorck for the second time (though this is Lorck's third time). Yule was Mayor of Hasting and head of Local Government NZ, none of which is really consistent with less government.  Lorck is a PR consultant, so there is reason to try to block her third attempt because this is no better than Yule.  If it weren't a close race, I'd damn both their houses and back another, but you should decide if you prefer Yule over Lorck, I'd probably pick Yule but Take your pick

Upper Harbour (fairly safe National): With Paula Bennett standing down, this seat is more competitive than usual. National is offering Jake Bezzant, who is a bit of an entrepreneur, so is a safe choice.  He supports reforming the RMA.  The others aren't much more inspiring, I'm not sure Karen Chhour of ACT is going to be keen on less government and it's hard to find much about Winson Tan of the TEA Party. Take your pick

Waikato (safe National): Tim Van de Molan is the National MP, and to his credit states that he believes in individual freedom of choice.  James McDowall is the ACT candidate, and at number 6 on the list is may get elected anyway. He's led ACT's firearms policy.  Even Caleb Ansell, from the New Conservatives, states a firm belief in individual rights. Given this, you actually have a reasonable choice between them.  Take your pick

Waimakariri (safe National): Matt Doocey is the sitting National MP and he gets credit for quoting Adam Smith in his maiden speech, and talking about how his wife's experience of living in Communist Hungary.  That's not a bad start, so you could do worse.  ACT's James Davies is young and seems to believe in lower taxes and abolishing the RMA.  More notable is New Conservative Leader Leighton Baker, but his focus appears to be referenda and empowering local government over central government.  Matt Doocey seems just fine, but give James Davies your vote in this safe seat.  James Davies - ACT

Wairarapa (marginal National): Mike Butterick is trying to keep this seat for National, with Alastair Scott standing down. There is little to suggest his views on the role of the state.  Labour list MP Kieran McAnulty is trying to win it, he was a bookmaker and a council worker before, and is socially liberal (noted for wanting NZ to become a republic).  As a close race, benefit of the doubt might lie with Butterick, but he's going to have to do more to get my endorsement, so I'm saying Roger Greenslade of ACT is a better choice.  Roger Greenslade - ACT

Waitaki (safe National): Jacqui Dean is the sitting National MP, and is likely to keep it, but who can endorse her? She's obsessed with banning substances, so much that she once called for water to be banned because she didn't know what dihydrogen monoxide is.  I don't want someone that easily tricked having power, so what about the Labour candidate? Liam Wairepo is preferable to Jacqui Dean, even though he is a bit of an activist, he hasn't proven himself to be a fool.  If you can't cope with him, vote Sean Beamish for ACT.  Seam Beamish - ACT 

Wellington Central (fairly safe Labour): You'll want to oust Grant Robertson, so should Nicola Willis of National be given a chance? She's alright, and is currently a list MP. Brooke van Velden is a better choice, albeit she is number 2 on the ACT list.  On balance, given the Greens like to think they might have a chance here (one day), I'd give Willis the vote, just to keep this seat a bit more mobile, given it has been a National and an ACT seat in the past, and because the chance of a National MP would really upset many many people.  Nicola Willis - National

West-Coast Tasman (marginal Labour): Damien O'Connor is one of the conservative Labour MPs, opposing voluntary euthanasia and gay marriage,  as well as abortion decriminalisation.  Sure I disagree on two of those things, but it is good to see Labour isn't quite the closed club to those with different opinions.  National's Maureen Pugh famously described as "fucking useless", is not worth your vote given her opposition to pharmaceutical drugs (these have saved my life).  ACT's William Gardner isn't inspiring, neither is the New Conservative candidate, so I'd support Damien O'Connor just to give the Nats the message to not select Pugh again.  Damien O'Connor - Labour

Whanganui (marginal National):  National MP Harete Hipango is socially conservative and gave quite a maiden speech, although there was precious little there about minimal state.  ACT has no candidate, and the New Conservative thinks the ETS goes to the UN.  Labour's Steph Lewis seems fairly mild, so there is no real reason to fear her much.  Frankly, I'd not bother. None of the above

Whangaparaoa (new electorate, National): Rodney MP Mark Mitchell (National) is standing here and was a cop, so he talks about safety rather than limited government.  Paul Grace from ACT isn't stellar, but he's better than Mitchell.  Fiona Mackenzie of the New Conservatives doesn't mention limited government.  Lorayne Ferguson of Labour is not worth your vote, given her history in the UK Labour Party.  Paul Grace - ACT

Whangarei (safe National): Shane Reti of National is a reasonable fellow and much better than Labour's Emily Henderson (who seems just painfully leftwing).  The other David Seymour is an ACT candidate with Motor Neuron Disease who supports the End of Life Choice Bill. Take your pick

Wigram (safe Labour): You don't want Megan Woods do you? ex. the Alliance/Jim Anderton's Progressive "Coalition". National is putting forward Hamish Campbell, who is a scientist. Miles McConway is the ACT candidate and he is a solicitor who talks a little about freedom.  Take your pick between Campbell and McConway.

Hauraki-Waikato (safe Labour): Princess Mahuta is solid here and doesn't face a serious challenge, so your only choice is actually Richard Hill from the New Conservatives, as his profile refreshingly focuses on excessive government spending and debt.  Richard Hill - New Conservatives

Ikaroa-Rawhiti (marginal Labour): Meka Whaitiri is the Labour MP, her biggest challenger is the Maori Party's Heather Te-Au Skipworth. Personally, I'd vote Whaitiri to keep the Maori Party out.  Meka Whaitiri - Labour

Tamaki Makaurau (marginal Labour): Peeni Henare is facing a serious challenge from John Tamihere, in his latest attempt to gain political power. Henare is not a bad MP, having said the causes of poverty are many and varied, with no single fix. Tamihere on the other hand, is an attention seeker who dreams up new policies to gain attention depending on what he is standing for.  Now with the Maori Party, he's hitched up with ethno-nationalism, and wanting to create a series of Maori client businesses that government would be legally obliged to contract with, when undertaking work, which is a recipe for tokenism and rent-seeking, given experiences in the US.  Tamihere should be stopped, so vote for Henare (and ignore Marama Davidson). Peeni Henare - Labour

Te Tai Hauauru (marginal Labour): Adrian Rurawhe is the Labour MP and he is challenged by Maori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.  She shares Tamihere's simplistic vision, of guaranteed contracts for Maori businesses, simply "raising incomes" and attacking fossil fuel industries.  Vote Rurawhe to stop the Maori Party.  Adrian Rurawhe - Labour

Te Tai Tokerau (fairly safe Labour): Kelvin Davis ought to be fairly safe here, and compared to other candidates, he's ok. In his maiden speech he said " Blaming the system implies we are too weak as a people to help ourselves—that we are victims. Bad stuff has happened, but we must cease to be victims. Māori need to sort ourselves out. Education is the passport, but we need to put ourselves on the flight to the future".  Ka pai! If you need to vote for another, vote for Maki Herbert of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, but I'd stick with Davis.  Kelvin Davis - Labour

Te Tai Tonga (fairly safe Labour): Rino Tirikatene will be safe here, as it is the family electorate in essence. However, don't be too complacent as the Maori Party's Takuta Ferris is the main opponent.  Anituhia McDonald is the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party candidate, so it is hard to beat someone who supports freedom on one issue (and I'm not keen on multi-generational electorates). Anituhia McDonald - Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Waiariki (marginal Labour): TV's Tamati Coffey took this for Labour last time, and is being challengd by Rawiri Waititi.  We're better off, just, by having Coffey holding onto his seat rather than opening for the Maori Party to get in through this seat.  Tamati Coffey - Labour

So there you have it, if I had my way, the electorate seats would add up as follows:

National 33 (and I think I'm being VERY generous here)

ACT 25

Labour 8

New Conservatives 2

Not a Party 2 

ALCP 1

Now that's a sound balance of power!

New Zealand Election 2020: Electorate vote Part One - General Electorates A-Mana

As with previous elections, I think the party vote is often the easier choice, because that is a vote for a party, a set of principles, philosophy and policies.  I'll write about the party vote later, because for those who believe in more freedom and less government, there are a few options.  Party votes determine power much more decisively than electorate votes, although it is clear that electorate votes in a few cases can open a path to a party getting representation in Parliament.  In Epsom, this has kept ACT alive.  In Auckland Central, the Greens are half hoping Chlöe Swarbrick can provide an insurance policy. NZ First has hopes in Northland as well.  However, most of us are not in those seats.  So what's my criteria for picking an electorate candidate? It's a mix of positive and negative factors:

• What is the candidate's view of the role of the state? Does she or he want more or less directly, or indirectly?
• What is the candidate's view on taxation?
• What is the candidate's view on free trade? (this is an indicator of not having fascist views)
  
• Does the candidate want more or less regulation, overall, of both economic and private personal activity?
• Does the candidate advance, reject or is silent on philosophies that are authoritarian in nature, such as Marxism, versions of theocracy, ethnic nationalism or post-modernist structuralist theories?
• What is the candidate's views on freedom of speech?
• Does the candidate have a generally positive or negative view of capitalism?
• Is the candidate malignantly nationalistic?
• Does the candidate believe in environmental policies regardless of cost and benefit?
• Is the candidate personally just unconscionably awful?
• Is anything in the candidate's career or background indicative of her/his views on anything?
  

Beyond this is a more fundamental factor:

• Is the current MP worth replacing?
• Is there a candidate positively better than the current MP?
• Is the candidate most likely to replace the current MP worse than the encumbent?
• Is the electorate one of those that could allow a new party to enter Parliament for < 5% of the party vote?

I'm not going to comment on all candidates, because most have no chance in hell of getting elected.  My methodology for assessment goes as follows:

1. Who is the current MP?  If that MP is good enough, then she/he get endorsed especially if the alternative is worse.
2. Who is the challenger from the second place party last time?
3. If either are just beyond the pale, are there any worth throwing a vote at?  
4. If none are any good, don't bother.
   

So here goes:

Auckland Central (Highly Marginal National): With Nicki Kaye retiring, this three way race is tight. In 2017, both Kaye and Labour's Helen White (who led in the latest poll) lost votes compared with 2014.  The main strategy here is to stop Chlöe Swarbrick from providing a beach head for the Greens to get elected if they happen to drop below 5% (and to avoid the trend seen in Melbourne of the Greens setting themselves up in an electorate for good, making the Greens more difficult to oust in the future). Swarbrick is one of the better Green MPs, but keeping the Greens out of Parliament is important to keep Marxist, anti-capitalist, anti- Western and post-modernist philosophies away from Government.  It is tempting to consider Labour's Helen White to keep Swarbrick out, but she is a solidly leftwing employment lawyer, who thinks that there is a "right" to a job.  Emma Mellow as the National candidate is polling second and could well sneak in if the leftwing vote splits.  Mellow is socially liberal, and likely to be wet, but what matters here is keeping the Greens out.  Emma Mellow - National

Banks Peninsula (Marginal Labour): This is a new electorate created out of the Port Hills electorate, including southern and south eastern suburbs of Christchurch as well as Lyttelton and the peninsula itself.  Ruth Dyson is retiring, and the new boundaries may mean this seat could go either way. Labour candidate Tracey McLellan is a union organiser, which typically means wanting more government and more protectionism. National candidate Catherine Chu is a banker, City Councillor and Canterbury DHB member.  I'm rarely a fan of local politicians, although her profile indicates fiscal prudence. On balance, give her a shot to take this seat from Labour. David Fox from ACT is a perfectly credible alternative. Catherine Chu - National

Bay of Plenty (Very Safe National): National's Todd Muller (remember him?) has this and is standing again.  It's a safe seat (he got 61% against 27% for the Labour candidate last time), so he's a shoo in. He's a nice enough guy, and he'll get in again, so you ought to vote for someone to push him towards thinking more about less government.  Bruce Carley of ACT solidly believes in smaller government.  Bruce Carley - ACT

Botany (Very Safe National): This seat is only marginal because Jami-Lee Ross left the National Party under a cloud.  He's not standing, so this ought to be Christopher Luxon's for the taking (62% National electorate vote in 2017). Luxon was CEO of Air NZ and is clearly capable in business. Much has been made of him being an evangelical Christian, but that's not enough to make me wary of him, given how capable he is. ACT's Damien Smith speaks of free trade, property rights and freedom of speech.  Damien Smith - ACT

Christchurch Central (Marginal Labour): Labour's Duncan Webb took this off National's Nicky Wagner. Webb supports the racist BDS campaign against Israel so it's worth trying to vote him out, given his focus. National candidate Dale Stephens is best known for appearing on Crimewatch for the Police.  He's currently a government employee working for NZ Trade and Enterprise, and it appears most of his career has been in government. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but ACT's Abigail Johnson is young and is unafraid of advancing individual freedom.  Webb is likely to win this seat, and as much as I'd like him to be defeated, Stephens isn't going to make much of a difference.  Stephens only deserves your vote to get rid of Webb, but Johnson deserves to be encouraged (and for her deposit to be refunded for her efforts).    Abigail Johnson - ACT

Christchurch East (Safe Labour): Poto Williams is the Labour MP, and given she has suggested removing the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases, she's fundamentally unfit to be a lawmaker.  It's well motivated, but the idea that the accused in such cases should have to prove consent, is dangerous and a disturbing undermining of a key safeguard in the criminal justice system that would see innocent people being criminalised. Lincoln Platt is the National candidate, and although he's unremarkable, nothing I've seen from him is negative and it's important to try to remove Williams from Parliament (she's 21 on the list so she's unlikely to go, but this is a start).  Lincoln Platt - National

Coromandel (Safe National): With 55% for Scott Simpson vs 21% for Labour in 2017, this one time Green seat is safe with Simpson. He's campaigning for roads, mobile phone coverage and a rescue helicopter for his electorate, and his maiden speech was promising (they often are).  David Olsen from ACT doesn't impress, given he has history in local government and his profile says little about values. Michael Egleton of the New Conservatives is focused on opposing identity politics, so I'd be tempted to give him serious consideration.  Egleton is explicitly opposed to legalising cannabis, Simpson isn't saying much about it.  Given this, on balance, I'd support Simpson.  Scott Simpson - National

Dunedin (Safe Labour): The old Dunedin North now includes Otago Peninsula, so David Clark is effectively the encumbent MP.  I don't care too much about his hypocrisy in cycling during lockdown, other than it indicates a poor sense of judgment. Michael Woodhouse is your National candidate, and really I am no more enthused about him than I am about Clark. Callum Steele-Macintosh gets forgiven for having supported Labour and National in the past, as he's now the ACT candidate.  He deserves your support, although I see someone trying to get elected to local government as usually a negative, he did oppose rates rises.  Callum Steele-Macintosh - ACT

East Coast (Marginal National): With Anne Tolley not standing again, the Nats are putting forward Tania Tapsell.  She's been a Deloitte consultant, which I wont hold against her.  Her opponent is Labour list MP Kiri Allan who lauds the far-left activists Annette Sykes and Moana Jackson as mentors, and the economic nationalist socialist Jane Kelsey.  Give Tapsell a go to keep Allan out of this electorate.  Tania Tapsell - National

East Coast Bays (Safe National): Erica Stanford is the National MP who replaced Murray McCully.  She's a BlueGreen, which isn't necessarily a problem, but she does appear to be a bit of a NIMBY, although her defence of a local charter school is laudable. Michael McCook is the ACT candidate and unlike Stanford, does talk about public debt and waste of taxpayers' money. Don't be tempted by Susanna Kruger or Mathew Webster. Michael McCook - ACT

Epsom (Fairly Safe ACT): He's done a fantastic job in revitalising ACT, it is a no brainer.  David Seymour - ACT

Hamilton East (Fairly Marginal National): National MP David Bennett is socially conservative, opposing gay marriage and legalising cannabis even for medicinal use.  He is a safe pair of hands, but that's about it.  Labour list MP Jamie Strange is trying to win the seat, which was Labour until 2005.  Strange is a former music teacher and church minister who opposes voluntary euthanasia.  So not much between either of them, but I'd prefer Bennett over Strange. Young ACT candidate Myah Deedman comes from an interesting background and far more worthy of your vote than either of them.  Myah Deedman - ACT

Hamilton West (Fairly Marginal National): National MP Tim Macindoe is standing again.  He once was in the United NZ party and is socially conservative. Nothing much inspiring on the freedom side of the spectrum here.  Gaurav Sharma is Labour's candidate, and is a doctor who seems to support more welfare spending and favours a fast train boondoggle between Tauranga and Auckland.  I'd consider voting Macindoe to keep Sharma out, but that's not a recommendation on freedom grounds. Take your pick

Hutt South (Marginal National):  Chris Bishop sneaked into first place in 2017 after Trevor Mallard retired and he's worked like a galley slave for the Hutt South ever since. Labour list MP Ginny Andersen is trying to take it back for Labour.  Bishop is far preferable to Andersen, not least because of his advocacy for more infrastructure that the electorate needs (transport and housing), but also because he is an economic and social liberal having spoken supportively of the reforms of the 80s and 90s.  He's spoken about how wealth growth enables environmental improvements. Andersen has late Marxist-Leninist unionist Bill Andersen in her family and spoken about following in his footsteps. It will annoy Labour intensely if Bishop remains in Hutt South, and he deserves to keep his seat.  Chris Bishop - National

Ilam (Fairly safe National): Gerry Brownlee's closest opponent in 2017 was an independent, Raf Manji. Sarah Pallett, Labour candidate, is the usual academic/unionist who wants taxpayers to pay for tertiary education.  However, I can't endorse Gerry Brownlee.  Paul Gilbert of ACT is a better choice.  Paul Gilbert - ACT

Invercargill (Safe National): National has selected Penny Simmonds to replace Sarah Dowle. She's CEO of Southland Institute of Technology.  Nothing remarkable about her on the freedom point and there is no ACT candidate in Invercargill.  Labour has list MP Liz Craig standing, who is focused on child poverty (which hasn't gone well under Labour).  I can't be enthused about anyone in Invercargill, but I'd give Simmonds the benefit of the doubt for now.  Penny Simmonds - National

Kaikoura (Safe National): National MP Stuart Smith is standing again and he's a solid local MP, with an entrepreneurial background. Richard Evans of ACT supports medicinal but not recreational cannabis use, so I'm not sure if a vote for him is worth much more, likewise with David Greenslade of the New Conservatives.  Take your pick

Kaipara ki Mahurangi (nominally National): Former Helensville MP Chris Penk is standing for the Nats.  The former naval officer is relatively moderate and benign.  He's up against Labour list MP Marja Lubeck (unionist).  He's not really at risk, so give ACT's Beth Houlbrooke a vote.  Beth Houlbrooke - ACT

Kelston (Safe Labour): Labour's Carmel Sepuloni has this seat.  She's a socialist, so support National's Bala Beeram instead. Bala Beeram - National

Mana (Very Safe Labour):  Labour's Kris Faafoi has decided not to contest this seat, and Labour has selected Barbara Edmonds who "was a key contributor to the Government’s law reforms following the March 15 Terror Attacks" and "has been heavily involved in the Government’s tax, social policy, small business and economic responses to COVID-19".  National list MP Jo Hayes has not much of a profile and her list position means she is at risk.  Richard Goode of NAP (Not a Party) believes in voluntarism, and encourages a no show at the election.  So give him your vote. Richard Goode - NAP

 

 

Wellington Airport Runway Extension: Definition of a Cargo Cult: Part One

For those unfamiliar with the term "cargo cult" it is a description of what might best be called as a naive practice of some cultures with low levels of scientific understanding and a high belief in animist religions that certain rituals will result in untold riches arriving from the skies.  Nowadays it is often shortened into "built it and they will come".

Such is the hype around the planned extension to the runway of Wellington Airport - a proposal that completely lacks pure commercial merit and has no net wider economic benefit - but is being promoted by the opportunistic, encouraged by the naive and to be paid for, largely, by those will get no benefit from it at all.

I say this as someone who grew up 1.5kms from the airport and knows a bit about the aviation sector, having recently been part of the team that reviewed over 50 proposals for expanding airport capacity in London.  I know Wellington Airport very well, and the likelihood that there will be long haul flights into that airport that will generate net benefits to Wellington ratepayers to recover the costs of subsidising the runway extension is very low indeed.

Let's remember the airport is a commercial concern, two-thirds owned by Infratil, which itself is not willing to contribute two-thirds of the capital costs of the project.  It's the owner of the other third - Wellington City Council - that is the problem, because it is willing to force ratepayers (along with other Wellington councils) to cough up half of the liability to boost the value of Infratil's investment. This in itself should cause both believers in the free market and socialists to baulk at public subsidy for a predominantly private entity, but no - they have cargo cult syndrome.

They believe that magically if an airport extension is built, there will be long haul flights from Wellington to Asia and the Middle East, making the city more attractive for business.  However, it is far from clear exactly:

- Why airlines will fly long haul to Wellington;

- Are the assumptions about the the benefits claimed valid?

NZ election 2014 post-mortem

Every election that comes about inevitably has some hacks saying it is “interesting”, “historic” etc, which of course they always are.  Elections always change governments in some way, even if not the ruling party. Psephologists (an area that I am often tempted to drop into) are keen to dissect some greater meaning from a vast range of individual decisions made at the ballot box or to not go to the ballot box, and political parties are even more keen to use that data to inform their future utterings of rhetoric, promises and contortions of fact.

The 2014 New Zealand General Election is, though, a bit more than all that.  For it needs to be seen in the context not only of 20 years of MMP politics, and an vigorous level of campaigning by opposition parties, that saw many pundits thinking the election would be close, either due to wishful thinking on their part, or because governments seeking a third term usually only scrape through (see 2005, 1996, 1981). 

In the height of economic recession, a majority of voters chose to change the electoral system, thanks to sustained campaigning by a coalition on the left, poorly focused counter-campaigning by those on the right (remember Janet Shirtcliffe?) and the feeling by a significant number of voters that they had had enough of radical reforms they neither understood nor felt were helping them.  Bear in mind in that same election in 1993, National won by one seat, with 33% of the vote.  First Past the Post meant that opposition votes were split between Labour, the Alliance and NZ First.

Today, opposition votes are also split between Labour, the Greens (which have succeeded the Alliance as the far-left faction in Parliament) and NZ First, but National has won an election in its own right, with the system many on the left thought would deliver them sustained so-called “progressive” majorities of Labour supported by a leftwing partner, and perhaps a centrist party maintaining a balance.  Not now.  Despite a campaign whereby the left DID campaign on a lot of policy, and dishing up a fair bit of dirt, a majority of New Zealand voters weren’t swayed.   National getting its best ever result since 1951 and Labour its worst since 1922 speaks volumes not of the split on the left (which has not grown, as the Greens are sustaining fairly consistent levels of support), but on a series of factors that should result in some introspection, particularly from the left...

I'm voting ACT

New Zealand citizens who live abroad are entitled to vote in the New Zealand general and local elections, provided they have visited the country once within three years.  Since I have been to New Zealand no less than five times since January 2013, it was hardly an issue for me, and I do have an interest in what happens in the land of my birth.   So I am going to vote.

It is just coincidence that Peter Cresswell has written a lot of what I was going to say about ACT, that it has finally become the party I long wished it would be.  

So I'm coming out now to say I am going to party vote ACT.  

Why?  Because it offers the best (indeed only) chance at influencing a future government towards focusing less on violating people's rights, and more on protecting them.  

Yes, there is room for improvement, indeed a lot.  After all, I haven't supported ACT since the 1996 election (and in 1999 I voted for Richard Prebble in Wellington Central if not the party).  Rodney Hide was utterly disappointing as Minister of Local Government, and John Banks is far away from m position on so many issues as to have almost rendered ACT extinct.

However, there are now some people leading ACT who are, by and large, facing the way towards more individual freedom, less government where it should be doing less (whilst undertaking its core role more effectively).  The original principles of the party are coming to the fore. 

The other choices are:

• to vote for a cozy, comfortable, corporatist National Party, which has lazily slipped into how it traditionally was on policy, by scaring people about the "other lot";
• to vote for the "other lot", a toxic swill of an increasingly deluded Labour Party led by a smug, self-satisfied bully, grouping with an increasingly confident socialist Green Party expertly shrouding their control-freak instincts with warm words about clean rivers and child poverty, and the corrupt coalition of communists, ultranationalists and Al Qaeda supporters called the Internet Mana Party;
• to vote for one man bands (Dunne, Peters, Horan) largely focused on their own aggrandisement;
• to vote for a well-meaning control freak who hasn't ruled out supporting the smug bully (Craig);
• to vote to legalise cannabis, but otherwise support any of the others;
• to vote for various other has-beens, or funny money lunatics.

My real choice was ACT, ALCP or National.  Of course I personally support ALCP's policy, but it is highly unlikely to progress, after many years of trying, and although you can argue such a vote is "clean" from a libertarian point of view (you are voting for less government, albeit in one sense), ALCP would grant confidence and supply to any government legalising cannabis.  Including one that would take away many other liberties.  

National ought to be the party of less government, and occasionally you hear the phrases about it wanting people to keep more of their own money.  It isn't the National of Rob Muldoon, but it also isn't the National of Ruth Richardson (and even that barely was).  National will offer three more years of tinkering, more spending and will do absolutely nothing to increase individual freedom or deal effectively to the RMA or the state education system's continued dominance of young minds.

A vote for National may be "safe", but it is a dead-end for freedom.  ACT's chances this time are dependent on David Seymour winning Epsom, but assuming he can (given that ACT managed it with John Banks before), a party vote for ACT can deliver a handful of MPs, and so give National a coalition or confidence/supply partner that will influence it in the right direction.  At a time when the Maori Party is shrinking, Peter Dunne at best will lead a one man band and Winston Peters looms as the back up choice, it makes sense to support ACT now.

Could the campaign have been improved?  Hell yes.  It could have embraced a more positive message for government that is about getting out of the way, that makes it easier for property owners, that lowers taxes by scrapping agencies that few people would ever support, that emphasises school choice with vouchers that will allow far more kids to go to independent schools, that takes on the welfare state and the corporate welfare state equally (a major criticism of the left).  

It could have been the party that attacks privilege granted by the state to anyone, whether it be race based boards, corporatist claims for subsidies, trade unions seeking higher pay for public servants with no performance, monopolies, and all of the rent-seekers wanting government to give them help at the expense of others.  

ACT can survive this election and get around 2% of the vote and build upon that for a result in 2017 that is closer to the 6-7% it got in previous elections.   It can stake a place being the only party that is consistently against more welfare for business and individuals, and less tax for both.

However, that's for the future, for now ACT's transformative changes deserve endorsement.  It really is a party that we can build more freedom on.

As far as electorate votes are concerned, I'll be writing my familiar voting guide for freedom shortly, but for now it's fair to say that two electorate votes matter more than any others right now:

- Epsom - David Seymour (for the reasons outlined above).

- Te Tai Tokerau - Kelvin Davis (Labour), to evict Hone Harawira and so keep Laila Harre and Annette Sykes out of Parliament.

So how does ACT measure up against what I said in 2008 it ought to do?

Tough on law and order?

It's always an easy one for parties to trot out. I've seen it time and time again. Jim Bolger did it in 1990 with the slogan "A Decent Society". At the time it called for a referendum on capital punishment, which was quietly shelved.   ACT and National have both gone down this path in the past, but I'd take a more nuanced approach.

For me, a good law and order policy comprises several dimensions. It isn't merely "hang the bastards", it is a balance - as follows:

1. Recividist violent offenders should be kept from committing further crimes: It's simple, you have one chance if you are a violent (including sexual) offender, to do time, to rehabilitate and live a life of peace, but if you repeat you are deemed a threat to others, and detention is preventive. It is about protection of future victims, punishment coming second. Preventive sentences could be for a decade or for life, depending on the threat to the public. 

2. Rehabilitation for the first time offender: At the non-violent end of the spectrum, people make foolish, damaging mistakes. However, it is not a reason to write them off. The criminal justice system must exist to deter and punish, but for those entering it the first time the best efforts need to be made to make it the last time. That means not throwing young foolish men into dank prisons where they learn to be "staunch" and can learn how to be a tougher, harder criminal. It's more clever than that.  It deals with issues of literacy, teach useful skills, anger management and therapy if needed, in short it is a concerted effort to turn people around.

3. Protect the presumption of innocence: Our criminal justice system is built upon a simple presumption. You're innocent till proven guilty. That should never be watered down.  It must remain central to the criminal justice system.

Dirty politics?

Nicky Hager's book, which of course like the healthcare, housing, education, incomes, public transport and much else of what Hager wants from government, should be free.

Kim Dot Com should be letting one of his "customers" copy it and spread it widely amongst the public if he was true to his belief in "freedom".

However, my first reaction was to notice how Russel Norman, who like the Green Party more generally, escapes a lot of serious scrutiny, bleating on about "negative attack politics"

The same Russel Norman who once decided to engage in name calling against me on the Green's Frogblog, as a response to my criticism of the scaremongering over EMR from cellphone towers, yet no such scaremongering over radio broadcast towers.  I wrote about it here.   It's hardly a big deal, but this is how politics is.

You see, attack politics are actually normal.  It's the norm for many politicians to be pejorative.  The left's primary pejoratives are to claim policies are "racist" and "sexist", or that those on the right "hate the poor" and are only in politics for the money (they of course, donate most of their salaries to charity), and finally there is the anti-semitic attacks on John Key and the childish "fuck John Key" contribution to intelligent discourse.

What is apparent is anger.  Anger from those who think they are entitled to spend other people's money without their consent, anger from those who want to tell other people what to do with their property, anger from those who don't like foreigners, or foreigners buying things they themselves can't or wont buy, and conversely anger from those who are fed up with being told they owe others a living, fed up with being told that some people are entitled to be listened to more, because of some aspect of their background.   The anger in politics is due to polarisation.  Those on the right are becoming more clearly cynical of answers that involve more government, while those on the left are less inclined to compromise with business, with those arguing to be left alone, and those who offend and upset them.

People are angry because most of them don't understand a lot about the complexities of modern economics or societies, and want simple answers, they also want politicians who will pander to their own prejudices about why things are as they are.  Conspiracies attract the feeble minded, and those who think governments have all the answers to block individuals doing things they don't like, don't like people saying no.

The real answer is that politics do not provide good answers for most problems in the world, but human initiative does.  By releasing people's ability to create, produce, organise themselves and to build, share and help each other, there are ways of resolving problems.  Government's don't do that, they use force.  Hager embraces the use of force, and is rather upset at there being a government that doesn't do it enough to the right people.

Hager's book from what little has percolated out simply seems to report that some bloggers are affiliated with the National Party.  Who knew?!?  Hager wont write a book about those affiliated with the Labour Party, or the Greens, or heaven-forbid the Kim Dotcom/Alliance Revival/Harawira Whanau First Party, because they are who he wants to have in power.  He talks about how bloggers deliberately try to get media attention to support one political point of view, yet he is guilty of exactly the same tactic when he puts out his books.

Hager's biggest problem is that what he purports others to do, is exactly what he is trying to do himself.  Pass himself off as "independent" and dedicated to exposing secret political deals, but he is anything but independent, and completely ignores anything going on on his side.

The Greens - nationalising children so you can pay for everyone else's

So the Greens are cleverly pulling at the heart strings, with images of children and landscapes. You're meant to vote for them, yep, someone else's kid, because the Greens think we all belong to everyone else.   It's the antithesis of individuals living their lives responsibly and interacting freely with one another, but rather the heavy hand of the #lovenz state taking your money out of "love" to pay for other people who at best don't care about where it came from, and at worst hold you in contempt (you rich c*** you, probably with Pakeha and male privilege that you inherited from your thieving racist/sexist ancestors, go on feel the guilt). 

People who breed and barely raise kids at all, who then go on to repeat the cycle, maybe bullying your kids in the process, or (the Greens hope) become angry political activists who go on to talk to the hilariously named Child Poverty Action Group (so named because it undertakes the minimal possible action to address child poverty by simply demanding the state do something about it with other people's money).  

One law for all?

Jamie Whyte's "one law for all" speech was disappointing.  Not because of what his end goals are (which are largely ignored by his critics because he gave them so much else to aim at), but because the rhetoric was clumsy and in my view, counter-productive.

One of the most corrosive elements in New Zealand is the widely held consensus amongst most political parties and indeed the bureaucracy and media, that there remains a strong element of racial determinism around the lives people lead, at least for Maori.  This being the idea that the reason Maori on average perform worse in terms of a wide range of social indicators compared to individuals from other ethnic groups, is due to a mix of the legacy of what happened to their ancestors (which seems not to hold back refugees from genocides from living memory) and a system that doesn't "meet their needs". The latter because "the system" is "designed for Pakeha" (not because state provided services aren't necessarily very tailored to individual need).

It is post-modernist structuralist theory which posits that because Maori are (the descendants of) the indigenous people of a land that was colonised (and then gained independence), they are structurally disadvantaged.  With this thinking you can conveniently blank out individual cases that prove how flawed all of this is, like the young Maori woman I once met who got a government scholarship to pursue her law studies, a scholarship open only to Maori - she was proud, because her parents were lawyers.  Not exactly a scholarship that was lifting someone from a below average background.

The view perpetuated by the Greens, Labour, Mana/Internet/Opportunist, Maori Party and much of academia is that she is inherently disadvantaged because she is a Maori woman (doubly disadvantaged).

Forget that her family easily had an income several times that of the average household (so one can argue that her family long ago climbed out of disadvantage), that gets blanked out - the system structurally disadvantages her against a young man from a single parent household with no family history of tertiary education.  Her race was deemed to transmit disadvantage in a system that "creates" it.  The same quackery justifies all sorts of affirmative action programmes, which when government funded (I couldn't care less if private companies run them) are picking winners on the basis of race, out of a sense of "fairness", as if treating individuals differently on the basis of race somehow "redresses collective unfairness".  That is, of course, nonsense.  There is no collective brain or life, just individuals living their lives, and if the state decides that one individual on the basis purely of characteristics she can't choose, deserves privilege over another, then it is simply engaging in the unfairness it is purporting to address.

Unfortunately Jamie Whyte's rhetoric hid the real point, which was I think a major strategic error for those of us who want to move on from racial determinism and neo-Marxist structuralist interpretations of power, capitalism and society.  The mistake many have jumped on is misconstruing a detail around educational quotas (which is not where the debate should lie) and the pre-revolutionary France comparison (which was historically wrong), but I think his two biggest mistakes were:

- To not focus on how the current system privileges a few Maori over everyone else (including other Maori);
- To not sell the optimistic case for individual empowerment and diversity.

Forgotten Posts from the Past: Planning transport

Yes Labour and the Greens always share a grand plan for transport that wont be met of course, because the targets bear little resemblance to what transport users want.  You see you can take two views about what transport users want.  You can take what they do, in response to their own demands and the price to meet those, or you can ask them what they want, and they'll usually want to pay less for a lot more.  It is the latter approach that guides what is the eco-socialist view of transport - which is that the system should be driven by what planners think is good for everyone, not by responding to demand according to what people are prepared to pay for.

Labour's 2008 transport policy had a range of goals which pretty much sums up the banal attitude to this:

- Cut km travelled by single occupancy vehicles in urban centres by 10% by 2015.  In other words, too many people are driving in their own cars in cities, and they should either not do so, or take someone else with them (it doesn't mean empty buses).  A target to reduce congestion would be to meet something people want, but no it is a statement that driving in your own car, on your own, is inherently bad, even if you bought the car, paid for the petrol, insurance etc (including the tax to pay for the road).  Too many people are being bad by driving themselves unnecessarily!

 - Increasing the movement of freight by ship and rail to 30 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. Whatever THAT means, because it could just be an increase in freight tonne km, which could happen anyway with a booming economy. However if it is about mode share, then there is no chance this could happen without taxing others to subsidise freight movements by more expensive modes.  The assumption is that moving freight by sea and rail is better, because of less pollution, but it ignores that the reason it doesn't happen as much as planners want, is cost. It simply costs more.  There is no quantification of the benefits of this mode shift, given it will cost money to achieve it, it is simply part of the quasi-religious belief that sea and rail transport is "better" than road transport, not anything based on evidence.

- Increasing walking, cycling and other active forms of transport to 30 per cent of trips in urban areas. You unfit slobs, walk! I tell you walk! Of course a good way of doing this would be to eliminate public transport subsidies, then more people would walk and cycle, as the main competition for public transport is walking and cycling. Yet Labour wants to double subsidies (euphemistically called "funding") for public transport.   Why 30% of trips?  It's a planning target.  It would improve physical fitness yes, it would also reduce demand for public transport so there could be savings there and delays in expanding road capacity, but how do you "increase" this?  Does pouring taxpayers' money into infrastructure make a difference?  Who knows, as it isn't evidence based.

 The truth is that the government cannot predict transport demand, technologies or geographical changes in demographics and businesses. The government's biggest influence is owning infrastructure it could see free through commercialisation and privatisation, but no, it wants to specify the "right level" of funding when it doesn't know where demand is heading.

Forgotten Posts from the Past : Residents Action Movement (sic)

The "Residents Actions Movement" (or Residents Action Movement, the website doesn't appear to be sure) is now a registered political party.

Hilarious. It doesn't even have a grammatically correct name - perfect party for the imbeciles and retards who used to vote Alliance because it promised everything would be free, and those mean old lazy rich people who do nothing all day would happily remain in the country and pay for it from their money trees. I wonder if the name was registered without the apostrophe? Moreover, maybe there isn't an error! It's all a bit post-modernist to mess with your mind.

Yes RAM is quite a group. Besides being an "action movement" (you know like rotating a shoulder), I'm unsure what the residents are all about, since they clearly have nothing to do with the action movement (given the name).

I have to laugh at them, really I do. Take this from the website:

"Stalls are being organised all over the country every week, with particularly strong activity around Whangarei, Auckland and Wellington. Every week hundreds of people are joining RAM on the stalls."

Lots of activity organising stalls around Auckland, Wellington and Whangarei! Bless! Hundreds of people joining RAM on the stalls - big stalls they must be to have all those people on them!

RAM has 10 commandments, again plenty of scope for humour here:

1. - Remove GST tax from all our food (in bold maybe because it is the only policy that may work, somehow. Anyway look forward to the Caviar being GST free. Though I'd abolish GST altogether, but anyway it's policy for simpletons).

2. - $2,000 'baby bonus' to every mum (of COURSE. Well done, you got knocked up and we'll make everyone else pay you for being so damned clever. I mean, you must have thought so carefully about how to do something the species has been doing for hundreds of thousands of years without a "bonus". Yes good on you mums, RAM will go from house to house to take money off others

3. - Offer first-home buyers a 3% interest state loan (Yep, let them printing presses fly Cletus, then sons and daughters of wealthy people can buy their first homes cheap too, after all nothing like lending money that doesn't exist right? Smart!).

4. - Lift minimum wage to $15 per hour (Of course the price of uneducated manual labour should go up, there is such a shortage, and it will put up prices to everyone else. Celebrate manual labour!).

5. - Free lunches in schools serving poor areas (Yay free stuff, yay. The government money tree working again. Go to school son, means you can get a feed right? Those parents breeding without us realising how much we owe them for producing children that we have no control over!).

6. - Free tertiary education plus a student living allowance (Free yay again. Can't imagine why more things aren't free. Yes nothing like students spending their lives studying and not earning a dollar).

7. - Free and frequent public transport in our main cities (We're free, I mean we're not because we'll be forced to pay for all these things we wont use, but they will be free. The roads will remain jammed up though - nobody has made this work).

8. Offer cheap solar panels to homeowners (Cheap, not free? Well subsidised anyway, those printing presses will be working hard though wont they? Money can just be printed after all!)

9. - Restore to workers their free right to strike (Yes, poor oppressed sods. Ridiculous to expect them to work for being paid and to not go off when they like striking for reasons nothing to do with their jobs. How fascist is that, requiring people to follow their contracts!)

10. - Enshrine the Treaty of Waitangi in a new constitution to guarantee the mutual rights of Maori and non-Maori (ohhh identified as a "non", those "non" people need rights too. Enshrine the Treaty will make everything better, of course take Stephen Franks's view of the Treaty and this means private property rights!).

Forgotten Posts from the past : 2007 in review

Well, it's about time to review the past year, which for me personally, has been almost entirely abominable. It's confronted me with death, twice, of people I was very close to. However this is not about me, it's about history, politics and what I found interesting.

NZ politics

This was the year the wheels truly came off the Labour machine. The well oiled spin doctoring, and schmoozing of the electorate has worn thin, and the public is truly fed up with Helen Clark and the Labour government. With polling now below when Labour got elected in 1999 (and remember Labour also had 7% from the Alliance to add onto that then), and National now polling at levels unseen since the 1975 crushing victory by Muldoon - and this is with MMP - it looks like John Key and National can sleepwalk to victory. Of course it cannot, Clark cannot be written off yet - the tax cut bribe is yet to come, and Labour can rely on a core 25% of voters who suckle off of the state tit in one mindless way or another. Expect it to get dirtier, Labour has already tried this and failed, several times, for it to stick. The true colours of Michael Cullen, once thought of as the steady hand on the finances, have come home to roost with his vile attack on John Key for being wealthy - the envious claw of the academic who loves political power over self made success. John Key and National have shown themselves as nothing greater than quietly keeping their mouths shut, unable to assert much or believe in anything. Note the opposition to the Electoral Finance Bill was a bit after the event, and after many others agitated against it - National sniffs the winds and goes with them - business as usual then.

Beyond the two main parties, the other parliamentary parties have at best been absent, and worst been shown up for the appeasers of big government that they are. The Greens have been burnt by the Electoral Finance Bill, and the absence of Rod Donald. Looking more and more like a tired cracked record wanting more and more government, they are no longer that interesting, but can't be ruled out. Few would bet the Greens will drop below 5%. NZ First is a thoroughly spent force, Winston Baubles Peters sold out on the Electoral Finance Bill, and his constituency continues to appear in the obituary columns than as new members. Peter Dunne's last minute opposition to the Electoral Finance Bill wont save his party from becoming a one man band, he looks like a Labour Minister, you clearly don't change the government by voting United Future. Finally, where is ACT? and the Maori Party continues its racist blunderings in sympathising with Robert Mugabe and throwing around the word "racist" whenever it doesn't get its own way.

The public thinks in a two party manner again, with the small parties having barely any relevance - except that National will not forget to remind voters than NZ First, United Future and the Greens keep Labour in power.

Footnote:  Yes the Nats won, Labour lost, and the Greens got a small boost.  Winston was wiped out to spend three years out, Peter Dunne lost his last colleague and ACT surprisingly picked up a bit, as did the Maori Party.  Still a lot has happened since. 

Chris Trotter: the Greens are the last hope for "we" ?

It is rare that a commentator on the left exposes so readily the fundamental difference in understanding and approach to politics as Chris Trotter most recently did in The Press.  In that article he posits almost exactly the narrative the Green Party would want you to understand - which is that the Greens, and only the Greens, are revolutionary and wise, and out for the good of the many, unlike the other parties out to sustain the status quo and the "counter narrative" of "neo-liberalism" - the pejorative term originating from the left, used to dismiss and debase any and all who promote capitalism.

The notion that the Greens are fighting a lonely vanguard in a fundamental struggle is understandably appealing to an aging Marxist, who has witnessed with almost endless bitter dismay, at the edifice of New Zealand's own - and dare I say carefully worded - national democratic socialism - crumble after it nearly bankrupted the country.  You see the autarchic, egalitarian, isolationist, "full employment" "golden age" Trotter harks back to, is reminiscent of the same sort of nationalist "golden ages" that autocrats all over the world point to.  An age that was destroyed by traitors to the cause, who "sold us out" to foreign capital.

Never fear, the Greens are here, because the new threat is global annihilation, and they alone are "dedicated to the practical application of ecological wisdom".  The "politics of ecological denial boasts some extremely powerful backers".

What untrammelled nonsense.   A ridiculously simple view that fits the intellect of someone who regards The Simpsons as a comprehensive social narrative, but one that doesn't actually fit facts.  It isn't Montgomery Burns vs. the people, as much as Trotter wishes it were.

Forgotten posts from the past: Nicky Hager's communist sympathies

Remember Nicky Hager?  Called "journalist" by so much of the NZ broadcast media, but who would be called at best an "activist" elsewhere, well hardline anti-communist activist Trevor Loudon has outed some of Nicky Hager's radical leftwing past. 

I started writing about him, but simply got bored.

It's well known Hager is the poor little rich boy, who has been able to avoid having a real job through his family's comfortable assets - accumulated through capitalism, which he has since spent much time criticising taking a fairly standard hard-left, anti-Western line politically.  Most recently being known for his book that claimed to be outing a "scandal" that the National Party hired consultants to assist in campaigning strategy.  The xenophobic boogie man that New Zealand voters were conned by lying politicians on the right - which stopped them voting for the parties that are really in their interests - i.e. the Greens.

Besides supporting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua (hey Helen Clark did too), he also was a key contact in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament - a pro-Soviet organisation that largely lamblasted the US, UK and France for their nuclear arsenals, calling for unilateral disarmament by the West (but never expecting the USSR, nor China, to do so).   He allied himself with the late Stalinist Ron Smith.

Of course anything Hager utters should be seen in the light that he is just a political lobbyist, he is no more "investigative journalist" than any other activist, but a supporter of the Green Party and everything he produces is intended to further his political goals.   Therefore, you'd hope that when he next comes out with some "shock horror" probe into how awful some business, centre-right politician or Western power is, that a real journalist would ask him some probing questions and take a critical look at his work.

However, such journalists are literally the proverbial hen's teeth in New Zealand.

After Helen (and Phil, and David)

From 2006

Whether it limps along to 2008 or not, Helen Clark will not be leader of the Labour Party within three years. Caucus must be looking at each other and considering who the successor could be... so I thought I'd go through some of them:

- Michael Cullen. Well he could, but he's part of the same tired generation, ex. Cabinet Ministers..

Update

and that's where it ended.  Phil Goff of course succeeded and did an admirable job of ensuring Labour couldn't move beyond its core.  David Shearer has repeated this, despite being a rather decent chap, and now it is Silent T.

Labour's problem is quite fundamental.  Nowadays it touts class warfare and mild xenophobic rhetoric in the hope it can win support from the neo-Marxist Greens and the fear-mongering NZ First, but none of this is new.

Until it can be innovative, and seek to advocate more than just the usual formula of more government spending and regulation, it faces being outdone on that front by the Greens, and being seen as relatively uninteresting.   Meanwhile, the Nats can always say it is risky to vote for Labour because you'll get whacky Green policies with it - and despite the lack of serious scrutiny of the Greens, most voters run a mile from their politics.

National meanwhile is playing the semi-Muldoonist "safe pair of hands" approach, so that a plurality of voters are happy not to rock the boat.

So Labour looks like getting relatively nowhere in the 2014 general election, hoping only that the Nats might have to get into bed with Winston Peters, which ought to poison the Nats enough to give Labour a reasonable run at power in 2017 or sooner.

It's hardly an inspiring strategy.

NZ Government's first full privatisation of the 21st century, unopposed

For all of the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth of the National-led Government's minority sale of a bunch of companies that have private competitors, you'd think that Labour, the Greens and NZ First would actually be holding the stop sign against the government selling ANY businesses at all.

Given the referendum, the claims that part-privatisation is anti-democratic and other hyperboles about the programme, you'd think if you believe in the state ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange like any socialist, you would want to stop the shrinkage of the state by all means.  The people (through the state) ought to own more and more enterprises according to any socialist, and the mere fact there is an undercurrent of "should we promise to buy them back" tells you how reactionary Marxist the NZ left has become.  So you might think.

However, I think they don't really give a damn, it's all about publicity and xenophobia.  For what is about to happen is no different, indeed this will be the first full privatisation by a New Zealand Government since the 1990s.

This little piece of news has received no comment from the Opposition at all, presumably because it is a government owned company that is doing the privatisation.  Kordia, which was once BCL, which was once a subsidiary of TVNZ and owns most of the TV and FM radio broadcast transmission sites in the country, is selling the ISP Orcon.

Orcon is in a vigorously competitive market, like Mighty River Power.  It sells services to end users, like the power companies.  

However, as Kordia is selling it, it isn't up to Ministers, so there is little political capital to be gained from opposing it, unless the Opposition wants to abolish the SOE model - which would mean it could never argue it wants to own businesses to make money for taxpayers, but rather go back to the politically directed approach of the age of Muldoon.  Yet I think there isn't even remotely that kind of coherence in the Opposition to partial privatisation. 

Waitangi Day is the annual picking of a sore

Whilst Peter Cresswell makes much of my point for me, I want to add a couple of others.

It's easy to criticise those who embrace the notion of Maori ethno-nationalism (that being a nationalism based not on a shared history of a common political body, but based on an ancestral heritage), who engage in patronising monologues about "partnership" and "engagement" and "dialogue", when anyone who disagrees with them is simply branded as racist and ignored.

It's also easy to criticise those conservatives who are dismissive of anything Maori that makes them feel uncomfortable, who disapprove of the use of the Maori language, of Maori immersion schools (because they are Maori, not because they are state funded) or those who consent to using Maori customs on their own property or in their own business relationships, or indeed those who worship Maori supernatural beliefs.  For after all, if people want to embrace a culture and a language in their personal lives and openly express it, that is their choice.

However, what's largely ignored is that most people in New Zealand do not see Waitangi Day as a day to celebrate anything, except for a day off work.  So many see it as a day when they will be reminded by people who are themselves elites, on well above average salaries, frequently paid for by taxpayers, claiming there isn't "justice".  They will be reminded of the desire of these elites to take more of their money, through the state, to enrich a new generation of trough feeders.  They will have noticed that a generation of settlements are not seen as enough by the loud and angry, a group who have been influential in teaching a new generation of young Maori to share their view of entitlement, and belief in the legitimacy if not the wisdom of using violence to achieve their aims.  It isn't helped by a Race Relations Commissioner who is sympathetic to the view of those seeking to use the state as a way of extracting more money from everyone else.

Most people see it as rent seeking, by those who have not personally suffered any specific loss, and more importantly, being paid for by those who did not create the loss.

It is a sore around individual identity vs collective identity, and the role of the state in overriding the former with the latter.  It is one Don Brash clumsily attempted to raise in the 2005 election (Kiwi/Iwi posters were scratching the conservative "dismissive of Maori" viewpoint, rather than confronting the strongly held belief that there is a small Maori elite gaining rents from the state).   It is one that needs confronting, but wont be, as long as the Maori Party (which is patronised by such an elite) is necessary for a majority government.   Evading the debate or labelling all those wishing to engage in it as racists, is not going to make it go away.   Indeed, that very evasion is the source of vast clouds of irresponsibility that are allowed to wash over those who abuse their children, neglect their children and engage in a frenzy of mutual destruction of themselves and their whanau.

My second point is simpler, and easier to confront.

Titewhai Harawira is a thug.  She brutalised the mentally ill, and she is treated as deserving respect because of her age.  If she were a man of non-Maori descent, he would be treated by her sycophants and apologists for what he would be - a thug.

The mere fact this woman, who attacked Maori who were vulnerable, is granted a shred of respect, is disgraceful.  No one, Maori or otherwise, should give her a public platform and given the atrocious statistics for Maori on Maori crime, she should be ostracised, for she is part of the problem.  A woman who normalised and institutionalised violence, and has never offered contrition for it.  

John Key should ignore her, should refuse to engage with her, and she should be told why.  It's not her politics or that of her vile racist rent-seeking son (for there are many of that ilk), it's what she did.

Those who express concern over racism always say they want people judged for their deeds.  It's time to do just that.  Titewhai Harawira is a violent criminal offender, let's treat her as such.

Worried about child poverty? Well use your own money then

If ever there was a reason to close down the Office of the Children's Commissioner, it should be this report on child poverty (pdf).  It is the classic socialist/statist treatise on taking more money from some people to spend money on others.  Philosophically it takes the view that the people primarily responsible for children are not those who created them or have taken responsibility (typically by default) to care for them, but the state.  It's hardly surprising given that the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty consists almost entirely of those who embrace a philosophical position of statism.

Let's take some of its key points:

Child Poverty is costly:  The counterfactual that children who are well fed, housed, taught and loved tend to thrive is true, but to claim that you can monetise "costs" that are born by society presumes that they are to be born by everyone.  Yes having children you cannot afford to feed, house or clothe restricts their likely opportunities and ability to thrive, but that isn't the fault of everyone else - it is the fault of the father and mother for breeding without thinking of the consequences.  The report claims that it "should not be tolerated".  Who by?  Is everyone who raises children in adequate conditions or does not raise children have to be obliged to bear the costs of those who do not take reasonable steps to prevent raising a child in poverty?  The claim is that child poverty affects the "nation's long-term prosperity", but all that really means is a presumption that government will tax everyone else's prosperity to pay for those who go on welfare because they have few saleable skills, those who commit crimes because they want the property of others or are angry at others, or who breed without concern for the consequences.  Maintaining that presumption denies the fundamental cultural shift needed to promote responsibility for the consequences of ones own actions.  That isn't promoted by the welfare state or the idea that all children are the responsibility of all adult.  They are not.

Child poverty can be reduced:  Yes, demonstrably, it has been happening for centuries.  It has been achieved through economic growth, and the growing amount of time that parents can dedicate to raising children.  That is not encouraged by a growing state demanding ever more taxes, restricting the supply of land for housing and so increasing the cost of living and the amount of work people must undertake to achieve their desired standard of living.  The main motivator for reducing child poverty has been parents who have strived hard to give their children a life better than their own.  Mine did that, countless others did, and they didn't do it because the state told them to do so, or handed them a cheque.  They did so because they were responsible and human.

Specific recommendations:  The overwhelming thrust of these measures is to treat children as a national asset that needs a national solution.  It wants universal benefits for children up to a certain aid, making all children rich or poor a source of income taken from taxpayers.  It wants taxpayer funded universal healthcare for children up to age 17.  It wants the state to build more houses.  It wants legislation to bind a Minister to targets that are primarily about what families, mothers, fathers and children do on the ground.  It is absurd and ridiculous to use law - an instrument which typically defines rights, mandates actions or prohibits them, to be necessary to hold a politician to what is a politically set policy goal.   It undermines democracy and clogs up the legal system with a law that is not fit for purpose.

It seeks to make every additional child worth the same amount of additional welfare from the state, promoting breeding for cash, a phenomenon that has hardly been a great success.   Why is it good for children for their parents to get more money from the state because they breed more?   It wants welfare benefits to grow according to GDP, in effect meaning welfare always looks like a reasonable option regardless of actual poverty levels.  

It wants the state to lend money at favourable terms to people in poverty seeking to get back into work, presumably because it doesn't think the public would support such a charity.

It wants a massive state intervention in housing to regulate rental housing, build more homes, but also subsidise low income people's mortgages.  The words "sub-prime" should come to mind, but then when middle income people struggle to save for deposits in Auckland and Wellington facing higher taxes to subsidise poor people in Timaru and Kaitaia buying houses, there might be some concern over equity.

Special money for Maori households to buy homes, because they are ethnically predisposed to not earn as much money as everyone else.   Nothing quite so readily breeds resentment as a pair of low income families and one getting special help because of who their ancestors were.  That's the nationalistic race based policy thinking, based on neo-Marxist structuralist theory (which means all Maori are disadvantaged and powerless, so the state must take from non-Maori to benefit Maori and "even the outcomes"), which simply does not reflect reality or responsibility.  

The reason more Maori are in poverty is overwhelmingly because they disproportionately make the wrong decisions in life, devaluing education, valuing whim, devaluing entrepreneurship and individual innovation, valuing "being one of the group" and valuing "not thinking you're better than the rest of us".  Giving them more money wont fix that.  Of course, this is a report that wants you to pay for "the development of Mäori-centric data that acknowledge and capture Mäori concepts of poverty and wealth".  Don't go there.

Having problems because you stupidly borrowed too much money?  Never fear, the state would bail you out if this recommendation was implemented:

We recommend that the government investigate and implement a public-private--partnership micro-financing model with the banking sector and community groups, with the aim of providing modest low-interest and zero-interest loans, as a mechanism to help low-income families access affordable credit and effectively manage debt.

How about promoting saving as a way of getting enough money to buy consumer goods and services, rather than tax everyone so that the least able can borrow more?

It wants a "child nutrition strategy" without saying what that really means, I think Sue Kedgley would love it, but those who want to promote personal responsibility will not.

It wants support for children with parents in prison to be increased, which isn't entirely silly, but doesn't for a moment suggest that the criminal justice system be reviewed to eliminate victimless crimes, such as drug laws, to reduce the rate of incarceration of parents who are relatively low risk offenders, nor does it blame parents when they have committed real crimes.

Conclusion

There are some worthy recommendations in this report, but it should be up to those who embrace it to raise the money themselves, voluntarily, and implement the measures, for only then will they have the incentives to get it right, to avoid people claiming inappropriately and have the moral authority to provide support given by those who want to support those less fortunate, rather than forcing people to do so.

However, the report's number one failing is its blatant disregard for the breakdown of family structures as being one of the key sources of poverty and abuse among children.  That has been sustained by the growth of the welfare state, and a cultural norm of responsibility for children not being primarily with parents but "society".   It is seen in the use of language that nationalises children, that treats all children in the country as being the responsibility of everyone else, but actually means that net taxpayers bear the cost and burden of raising the children of net beneficiaries.  It means that there are taxpayers who are earning money not only to raise their own children, but another parallel family.

The answer to child poverty is twofold.  One is economic growth, with more wealth, employment, opportunities for starting up business, to save money without it being devalued through inflation and to provide the legal and monetary environment to allow people to succeed.  The second is individual.  If you don't want children in poverty, don't have them when you are poor - contraception is cheap, and not difficult to obtain.  If you don't want other people's children to be in poverty, cough up, help out, give some of your own money, spend time with charities, use your imagination with other like minded people.  Do something directly.

One thing that wont help is this report, or the functionally inert Child Poverty Action Group - which has as its sole purpose, actually doing nothing substantive for child poverty, simply producing reports which demand the government take more money from taxpayers to pay the parents of children in poverty, because they are poor.

The philosophy behind this report has failed, it has been tried in one way or another for the last 40 years, to go this far would bankrupt the economy and chase enterpreneurial or aspirational people from New Zealand to elsewhere, further reducing the ability of the economy to catch up with the rest of the developed world.

However, the Greens will love it, because it buys into their "your child is everyone's child" nationalisation of children philosophy, and their admiration for a huge welfare state.  Now go to southern Europe to see what a roaring success that approach is proving to be.

Oh and New Zealand has had this sort of hand wringing, fiscally extravagant approach to social policy presented before.  The Royal Commission on Social Policy reported in 1988 wanting benefits and taxpayers' money for just about any group or individual identified as not having a "fair go".  The Lange Government to its credit ignored Rosslyn Noonan's post-modernist structuralist treatise on recreating a grand social welfare state, and it was called the most expensive door stop in history.

This report is shorter, and cheaper in real terms, but should have the same fate.