Nicky Hager - the agitprop agitator

Speaking of attention seeking pseuds, there is Nicky Hager.

Nicky is a poor little rich boy who like many others allegedly cares so much about poverty because he had none as a child.

He portrays himself as an "investigative journalist" but is no more impartial than Ian Wishart, but with a different point of view.  He is no journalist.  He is an agitprop activist, whose book is motivated, like his others, to help the Green Party at the election.   The way that his leftwing sycophants swallow his every word, and the Greens cheer him on, should make it clear that he isn't a supplier of objective assessment of evidence.   He writes propaganda designed to stir up opposition to the government, to push his own agenda, which is hardly difficult to follow.   His own far left activist history is hardly secretive, although most New Zealand reporters are either too lazy or too sympathetic to question him on his motives.

All of his books have been written from a perspective of far left anti-Western, anti-capitalist politicking.  His 1996 book (election year) Secret Power - New Zealand's Role in the International Spy Network raised nothing than anyone comfortable with New Zealand's place in the Western alliance of free liberal democracies would be concerned about.  However, Hager has had a long history in so-called peace movement, which always demanded the West disarm, whilst never showing much concern for its enemies.  

His 1999 book (election year) Secrets and Lies: The Anatomy of an Anti-Environmental PR Campaign again would not have concerned anyone who think state owned enterprises should pursue maximisation of the returns of their shareholder.  However, he wanted to scare people into thinking a government agency was advocating cutting native forests, something he thinks everyone right thinking should be opposed to.

His 2002 book (election year) Seeds of Distrust: The Story of a GE Cover-up again was much ado about absolutely nothing.  A technicality that had no material effect whatsoever, under a law that was practically unenforceable, was blown out of proportion, with unscientific scaremongering and hysteria.  Of course it is Green Party stock and trade to frighten.

His 2006 book (after the election) The Hollow Men: A Study in the Politics of Deception was an attempt to claim that because the Exclusive Brethren supported National, it was somehow a conspiracy because the Nats knew the church was spending money on campaigning in favour of a change in government.  Apparently National wasn't allowed to have a political campaign that wasn't fully transparent.  Hager hasn't written about Labour or the Greens and their political strategies, funnily enough.   Apparently only the National Party deceives about its agenda.

His latest attempt is another book to influence the election.  The book Other People's Wars naturally implies opposition to the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan with support from New Zealand forces.  The claim is that New Zealand's "independent foreign policy" (something Hager wants and which means never supporting the USA) was compromised.   He, of course, used property that wasn't his to write his book, but like Assange  "that's ok"  as for him, the ends justify the means.

If New Zealand had effective reasonably balanced journalists, he would be questioned severely about his personal political allegiances and agenda, and asked why he doesn't do a book about Labour's campaign strategy, or about the internal divisions in the Greens.   He ought to be balkanised for what he is - a Green Party supporter and leftwing activist, who is all very well preaching to the converted, but who can hardly be seen as balanced.   Trevor Loudon wrote a little about his background.  It's about time he was treated as what he is - the Green's highest profile campaigner outside Parliament.

Peter Cresswell knows exactly how to treat him too.

What went wrong on council estates?

An interesting programme on BBC 4 last night largely lauded the massive expansion in local government owned housing in the UK in much of the 20th century, driven partly by socialist beliefs that the state could supply people with better housing than they had, to the point where eventually 60% of the population lived in council housing.

However, it brought out some rather interesting points that showed both the dark side of the spread of council housing, but also what went wrong.

The dark side was how it was an excuse for slum clearances.  Large swathes of cities, populated by people in poverty, but living on otherwise empty land or in very cheap rental accommodation, were bulldozed to put in housing estates - for other people.  They were not built for the homeless or the needy, but were built for the employed, for couples and families and people had to pay rent sufficient to keep the place maintained.   

To get council housing, people needed to be vetted.  They needed letters of reference from their employer to prove that Mr. X was a fit and proper person, didn't have any criminal convictions and earned enough money to pay the rent.  Those on welfare alone, those without work and those who had committed crimes were not going to get homes provided by the state.  Indeed, their homes could be swept aside with aplomb so that the aspiring working classes could get homes.

The result was that even when the grotesque Corbusier style housing estates started popping up around the UK (many built by private investors with extensive state subsidies), their first generation of residents were proud aspirational people on relatively low to middling incomes.  

They were almost entirely couple or families.  Intact families, not single parent families.  They were almost entirely employed and as they were all people who aspired for a better life, instilled the work ethic they had into their children.  They lived as a community together, and instilled the same ethic in each others' children.  Most of all, because they had to be able to afford to pay rent, they treated these communal areas as their own, with some pride.  When a family gained such a flat, they had it until they wanted to leave as long as they paid up.  If they stayed, their children could inherit the right to remain tenants.

To a non-socialist it sounds absurd, the state providing permanent housing, but it was the state effectively providing housing on a similar basis to the private sector.  By renting to people who aspired, to people who gave a damn, and who had a stake in their new rental homes, it meant the social structure was of people who were not an underclass of criminal parasites, who did not vandalise and terrorise, and who did act as a community of voluntary interacting adults (and children).

What changed?

Some on the left would blame Thatcher and mass unemployment, because it left many families struggling and men in particular lacking "purpose" and motivation.   However, the change happened in the decade or so before Thatcher.

Some on the right would blame mass immigration.  Yet it was pointed out that quite a few residents of these estates WERE Afro-Caribbean or South Asian families, with the same aspiration and work ethic as the indigenous British.   Some would blame a change in the traditional family, as women did not stay at home to look after their children, but went out working.

One factor is certainly the social change in the 1960s and 1970s that saw the rise of divorce and single parent families.  Included with that is the cultural change from families that were tight knit, well disciplined and bound by a Judeo-Christian code of ethics that had hardened during the war, to a moral relativist attitude of "do what you like".   The breakdown of traditional families hit both indigenous British and Afro-Caribbean families the most, as migrants from India and Pakistan tended to retain close family ties.

However, the single biggest factor, explained by the programme, was the removal of vetting for council housing.  It was deemed "discriminatory" for people to be vetted based on income, so council housing was there for the poor, regardless of employment or indeed criminal history.  Council estates became the places were people went to live when they got out of prison, it became the place to live when you couldn't afford anything else or private landlords wouldn't rent to you.   The culture of hard work and aspiration was eroded by a culture of violence, thieving, vandalism and disregard for the property and lives of others.

It was exacerbated by the expansion of the welfare state into supporting single parents who had never been married, or de facto couples, into paying more for every child, and so rewarding fecklessness. 

Council estates moved from being places were having a home was a privilege, earned by meeting minimum standards set by the owner (the council) and paid for, to places where anyone could go.  The result was that they became the breeding grounds for the parasitical entitlement led mob that recently went on a rampage.  

It is what happens when you reward fecklessness and bad behaviour, whilst penalising frugality and hard work.  Consider that the British government is currently printing money and producing ultra low interest credit on a scale that means the average bank account owner LOSES 5% of his money every year, but still insists on adjusting welfare to that inflation (although few working in the private sector are having pay rises to match inflation).   

Consider that there is a debate only now about whether to deny convicted rioters and looters welfare, or to evict them from council housing (and of course the shrill cries from the left about how "unfair" it is and it will just make them do it again - as if their policies stopped it).

The socialism of the 1960s and 1970s saw council estates in the UK sink into the abyss of squalor, bad behaviour and welfarism, as the end of full employment, the breakdown of traditional families, the rewards of unconditional free money and housing, and the end of vetting council tenancies saw the worst of society being hothoused in what one old council tenant described as "holes".

It has failed.  It is time to sell out these estates, to stop building new ones, and to let the criminals, the feckless and the anti-social try their luck with charity.   Of course those who claim to give a damn about all of them rarely think it is right that they pay out of their own pocket voluntarily, for a charity to help house rapists, thieves and child abusers - but they want you to be forced to do so.

A prescription for the UK

It has been a week since thousands of mostly young people across London decided it was time to steal, destroy, assault, abuse and ultimately murder others, in a decadent frenzy of Anthony Burgess style amorality.  The responses have been extremely varied, but the overwhelming one has been concern about the need to restore law and order.  Two main concerns have driven the discussion, one has been the importance of adequate policing, the other has been discussions as to "why".

Once one takes away the vile ambulance chasing point scoring of many on the left (and the Green Party in NZ has disgustingly decided to take advantage of the suffering of others to advance its own agenda of "give 'em more money and make some jobs for 'em"), and the undertones of racist anti-immigration and calls for serious violent intervention from some on the right, there must be an acknowledgement of a whole series of government policies which can be said to have failed to address the creation of what is at best, a feral, parasitical underclass of people with no hope, little aspiration beyond hedonistic whim worshipping and with substantial "chips on their shoulders".

The ridiculous argument that this was about racism is shown up for its absurdity in the overwhelming diversity of those arrested and filmed participating.   However, there is certainly an element of distrust of police in areas dominated by, in particular, the Afro-Caribbean community.   Yet the same is true of the "chavtowns" filled with neanderthals.

The link with poverty has more substance, but it is not real poverty in the sense of starvation, homelessness or no access to education or healthcare, but poverty of aspiration, concentration and determination.   However, this doesn't answer why the roll call of people turning up in courts are from backgrounds of being in middle class employment, or university graduates, or even upper class schoolkids.  These "individual examples you can pick out" as one leftwing commentator claimed, are inconvenient, for they don't fit the race-poverty classification that fits the philosophy.

So what should be done?  As I wrote before, I naturally resist "throwing money at the problem", the idea that more government welfare and manufactured government jobs (which takes money from others who create jobs) is a solution is simply absurd, for there has never been this much welfare, and making people less independent and less successful by making them clients of the state even more, is not going to change attitudes of esteem and expecting others to solve their problems.

Furthermore, simply adopting an authoritarian kneejerk approach to policing, including the notion that the state should shut down social networks at times of crisis, is simply too late, as well as sacrificing the freedom of the law abiding on a grand scale, to address the criminality of a small number. 

So my approach is to look at the stages of life of a typical member of the underclass, and to pinpoint the failures of public policy in all of them.  The key is that the government is not the solution, but changes in public policy should make a difference.  However, there is no quick fix unless one wants to take an authoritarian eliminationist approach that would permanently deprive any criminals of freedom, and have the state police parenting on a terrifying scale.  That could eliminate a feral underclass by creating a feral police state. 

The areas that matter are, in summary:

- Welfare policy should not reward breeding by people unable or otherwise unwilling to be parents;

- Welfare policy should not remove responsibility for raising children or paying for children from both parents;

- Welfare policy should not reward additional breeding by people already on welfare;

- State and council owned Corbusier style hothouses for crime demolished and the land sold.  One of the grimmest failures of social engineers has been putting large numbers of underachievers together in close proximity;

- People on low incomes should not pay income tax;

- Parents, teachers, police and others in loco parentis should not fear disciplining their children using reasonable force for restraint or to protect themselves, others or their property;

- Serious violent and sexual criminals should never be permitted to reside in the same household as anyone under the age of 16;

- Schools should no longer be funded based on politically specified criteria, but on whether parents send their children to a school (or do not);

- Governance of schools, including curriculum, rules and philosophy of education should be driven by those with the greatest vested interest in its success, parents of children at the school;

- Schools should have freedom to pay good teachers what it takes to attract and retain them, and the means to incentivise better performance by poor teachers, or remove them;

- The criminal justice system should be focused on protecting the public from the acts of criminals, particularly recividists;

- The criminal justice system should offer one chance for rehabilitation for first time offenders that are not a danger to the public;

- Parents of underage offenders should be presumed to have civil liability for the acts of their offspring, and criminal liability for incitement to commit crimes;

- The justice system should not spend time and money on victimless crimes;

- The state should not fund culture, music, television or other media that may be implicated in promoting a sub-culture of violence, hate and misogyny;

-  Tax and economic policy should allow people to keep the fruits of their efforts, and not be seeking taxpayer money;

-  Laws and regulations should positively support private property rights and welcome entrepreneurship that respects this, and not welcome those who seek to restrain such rights to protect their own businesses and homes from competition;

-  Laws and regulations should not make it difficult to hire people at pay and terms and conditions they are willing to accept, nor to remove them if they fail to meet the terms and conditions of the contract;

-  Politicians and bureaucrats founds guilty of theft from taxpayers or corruption should be subject to the full force of the criminal justice system;

- The state should not bail out businesses that fail, nor those who invest in them.

None of that is detailed, but it is in recognition that decades of welfarism and "we know best" interventions by politicians have failed.  They have nurtured an underclass that is willing to attack and destroy those that pay for its very existence.  They have nurtured an education system on the wistful hope that everyone will be equal, but which rewards poor quality teachers and starves funding to pay excellent teachers well.  They have promoted a culture of entitlement and dependency whereby large numbers of people expect they have "a right" to the money of others, and fear having to fend for themselves.  They have promoted a culture of blame and bigotry by the underclasses towards anyone but themselves.  Never blame those who didn't study at school, never blame those who bred with little thought of the consequences, never blame those who don't turn up to job interviews, never blame those who vandalise, steal and assault, always blame those who set up businesses and "didn't put anything back into the community" (one excuse I heard in the past week), always blame "the rich", the so-called "lucky", the "racists", the police, the council, the government.

For decades now, the Western world has been beset by this corrosive philosophy of:

- You have rights, you should always assert rights, many of those rights are over other people to give you what you demand;

- You can't get anywhere unless other people "give you opportunities", you're implicitly unable to take care of yourself without the government, the council or other people giving you "respect";

- You have a right to express yourself, however you wish, to whoever you like, and they have to give you that right, and after you've abused them, and even vandalised their property, they STILL should give you a job, paying you what you want, to work when you want, how you want, dressing how you like, turning up when you feel like at, because "it's your right";

- It isn't your fault if you do anything wrong, it's because of "society" or "the government" or any other group you care to feel aggrieved by;

- You're not responsible for your life, other people are responsible for giving you what you need to stop you attacking them;

- If you do something wrong, it's ok, because "everyone else does it" and because "some people don't respect you" and because "the system doesn't fit people like you".  

It is ALL that.  That is why there were riots in the UK, it is why some parts of the UK are feral no-go areas for anyone who look half respectable.  It is why a significant minority of children leave school functionally illiterate, innumerate and socially inept, and then go on to do the one thing humans are good at, breeding, because they get rewarded for it.   It is the culture and philosophy of post-modernist, moral relativism, it has a Marxist thread running through it, and it is de riguer in universities, local authorities, teachers' training colleges and all left wing political parties, and more than a few in right wing parties.

It is bankrupt, and the vast bulk of the population knows it is so.  The empty calls for "more jobs", and "understanding" are wrapped in demands to effectively pay protection money for those who have failed.

The road out of this cesspool is going to be long.  It requires fundamental welfare, housing and education reform at the root and branch.  It requires a change of approach to the criminal justice system.  However, more than anything it requires a long term cultural and philosophical change in attitudes towards the family, communities and the individual.

I'll write more about these policy areas in due course, and the fundamental philosophical changes that are needed.  This is not a call to go back to times when women were treated as second class citizens, or when one set of religious teachings were to be imposed on all, nor to return to the patronising bigotry towards people because of race, sex or sexuality, but it is about recognising an age when people did respect others, had consideration for the lives and property of others, and took responsibility for their own lives and actions.

It is, most of all, about removing the state funded safety blanket for anyone whenever they do anything harmful to themselves or others, bearing in mind that nothing stops people choosing to provide whatever they want to others on whatever terms they wish.

Greek crisis is taste of things to come

So says City AM editor, Allister Heath in his latest column.

You see Greece is ultimately going to default. The alternative is for the hard-working taxpayers of Germany, France and other wealthy Eurozone countries (and possibly non-Eurozone) to be ransacked by their own politicians to prop up the profligacy of the Greek public aided and abetted by the politicians they voted for over decades.

Heath says:

The real problem is that the Greek public doesn’t really want to change and simply doesn’t accept economic reality – and that the EU has been too slow to learn the lessons of the crisis of 2008. One poll found that 47 per cent of Greeks reject the austerity plan and want new elections – and just 35 per cent back the measures. The Greek public is in denial: it doesn’t want to start living within its means – and yet ordinary hard-pressed taxpayers in other countries are being called upon to stave off Greece’s total collapse. There is no justice in that.

A default would be right, because not only are the Greek public unwilling to balance their budget, but the financial institutions who loaned money to the Greek government to continue its unsustainable way banked on Greece being bailed out.  That bet should fail.  The banks (mostly Greek, German and French) should bear losses as a result, but the inevitable will be more painful.

Is there an alternative? Well there was.  The Greek public could have voted for politicians who promised to balance the books, but they voted for politicians who promised Western European style socialist welfare, health and education systems paid for by borrowed money.   The fact that Greek politics is dominated by thieving socialists speaks volumes.  Of course ordinary Greek citizens think that they are not to blame, after all they couldn't have borrowed as the state did, or spend other people's money so flagrantly.  However, they did sit by and let it happen.   In a democracy (Greeks shouldn't need reminding of this), power is meant to reside in the people, and in this case they don't want the responsibility of their casual blindness to what the last few decades has been built on - borrowed money.

So Greece will default.  Its banks will collapse, it will leave the Eurozone, and the savings and incomes of its population will be wound back around 15-20 years.  There will be more riots on the street.  Foreign investment will flee and the Greek economy will be rebuilt on tourism and low value exports in a highly devalued currency.

Meanwhile, EU politicians will try to evade reality for a little longer, for fear their own banks will face collapse once more.  That shouldn't scare them, as long as depositors up to a certain level are protected, the banks should fail.  It will be an object lesson to the Europhiles that their federalist economic experiment is a failure.  Ironically, but unsurprisingly it will be under the watch of supposedly centre-right governments in Germany and France, though there should be no delusions that it would have been different had the left been in power in either country.

However, there is more to come.  Yet it is important to note how much of this crisis is NOT about the privately owned banking sector being profligate, but about government evading economic reality.

As Heath says:

the biggest error is the establishment’s inability to accept that increasingly, the biggest systemic risk will come from states, not private financial institutions. It is not just Greece, Portugal and Ireland – Belgium is in real trouble, while Spain and Italy are also in the frame. At some point, something will have to change in Japan, a country with an exploding national debt and a weak economy. America is also in terrible trouble, and not just because of short-term issues over debt ceilings.

During times of austerity and cutbacks the left thinks it has an advantage, as it typically promises to spend other people's money on the things that give comfort, like pensions, health, education and subsidised pseudo-employment.   Yet it is failing to capitalise on it, because enough of the public actually understand that governments cannot perpetually run budget deficits and accumulate debt.    Even 35% of Greeks support serious levels of austerity, not a majority, but a significant number are facing the truth.

The obvious biggest accumulation of problems is in the Eurozone, where even France has a longer term issue of sustainability with its finances.   The ramifications of a Greek default and break up of the Euro will be profound.  In the long run it will be good for Europe, but the casualties along the way will be high.  Those are casualties caused directly by the failure to face austerity and controls on government spending in the past.   The people who benefited from profligacy will, in many cases, not be facing the cost of it.

Yet Japan and the USA on top of this are more worrying.  Japan has been engaging rampant Keynesianism for well over a decade now, and failed miserably to restart its economy.  Given it is on the doorstep of China this is scandalous and shows just how featherbedded and corrupt the Japanese state became under the good years, with the Liberal Democratic Party so deeply entrenched with protectionist business (and indeed the Yakuza).   The USA at least has some facing reality, although that doesn't include the President.  Sadly the forthcoming Presidential election shows little sign that the Republican Party can lay old ghosts to rest in favour of a candidate who actually believes in the economy first.

No doubt some time will be bought for Greece with other people's money.  The bigger question is how long is the inevitable going to be delayed, for the longer it is, the more painful it will be - and very few politicians elected in liberal democracies like having to face up to spending less of other people's money.

Labour allegiance to Mubarak's party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hungary leapfrogs to authoritarianism

Hungary has long been known as one of the countries that openly defied the Stalinist brutality and inhumanity that was imposed on it by Moscow after WW2, and having one of the first set of gutless mice who scurried off when Mikhail Gorbachev told the Soviet satellite countries that it wouldn't intervene if their regimes faced overthrow by popular acclaim.

Since then it has reformed, opened up its economy, joined the European Union and NATO, and made huge strides towards being an independent relatively liberal open country, with a vibrant civil society, embracing freedom. The old cliche that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance is only too true, as the coalition government of Fidesz-KDNP is proving too well.

The 2010 Hungarian election saw a collapse in popularity for the Hungarian Socialist Party, which despite its name (and being the partial inheritor of the old communist Socialist Workers Party), has helped lead many free market reforms in Hungary for some years.  The communist element left very early to form a tiny hardline party that has never done well.  The socialists had been in government in coalition since 2002.  However, the biggest blow to the socialists was in 2006, not long after the last elections, when a recording was released of the socialist Prime Minister, Ferenc Gyurcsány, openly saying his party had lied to win the election.  Mass protests erupted.  The government remained tainted and stank for the next four years, voters never forgave the socialists.  The 2010 election saw the socialist vote collapse from 42% to just under 17% of the vote.  Those votes had to go somewhere.

As a result, two opposition parties did comparatively well, Fidesz and Jobbik.

Fidesz has had a laudable history as one of Hungary's first independent political parties, being pro-freedom, anti-communist and youth oriented.  However, its electoral success was more limited as parties flourished after the end of one-party rule, so that it had a respectable 7% of the vote in 1994.  Then the party transformed into a conservative party, adding the name Hungarian Civic Party to its name.  It adopted an approach of social conservatism and greater nationalism, and grew to 28% support in 1998.   In 2010 it won the greatest plurality with nearly 53% of the vote, up from 43% (the socialists had been governing in coalition with the Alliance of Free Democrats, a liberal free market party).

Whilst Fidesz could govern in its own right with 262 out of 386 seats, it had campaigned jointly with the Jobbik party.

Jobbik (or Movement for a Better Hungary) was originally set up as Christian oriented conservative party, with strong nationalist credentials (although distinctly non-racial, rather culturally nationalist).  It was sceptical of EU accession.  The 2006 protests gave it a perfect platform to campaign on, as it simply said the communists are still in charge (given the socialists lied).  Jobbik claimed the electronic media was on the side of the government, so that it was ostracised unfairly.  It claimed crime was on the rise and needed to be addressed.  It developed a manifesto opposing free market capitalism, social liberalism and multiculturalism.  It promoted granting citizenship to Hungarians who live outside Hungary.  It was "very nearly" fascist, in that it avoided anti-semitism, anti-Roma and other such language, but was strongly pro-Hungarian.  It got just under 17% of the vote.

So Hungary elected a conservative government, with an ultra-conservative coalition partner.  It has sought to radically change the Hungarian state, and one of the early controversial moves has been the creation of a new media law.  This law creates a media regulator which judges whether TV and radio stations, and newspapers have provided "balanced coverage", and can fine or shut down those deemed to have failed.   The Prime Minister has evasively said this is "just like" other European countries.  It's not.  It is state control of the dissemination of debate and opinion, and it is unacceptable.

If that wasn't enough, the government has found a new way to address Hungary's public debt.  It is confiscating the private pensions of citizens (or rather saying "hand them over to the state or get no pension at all").   The current Hungarian system has some parallels to Roger Douglas's compulsory retirement savings account idea, although it retains a significant public sector component.

All Hungarians are required to put 8% of their salary into a private pension fund of their choice, another 1.5% is effectively taxed to pay for current state pensions.  Employers were also expected to make a contribution, with pensions received being a combination of private and state funded pensions.  Now it is being confiscated, and mixed messages are being given as to whether receipts will reflect contributions or not, the strong suspicion is that this is easy money.  The government has said it is about dealing with the budget deficit, a deficit not caused by people saving, but by overspending.  However, the same government is increasing state pensions and increasing maternity leave.

"Though the accounts are not linked to any underlying assets, an individual’s pension entitlement is tied to the sum recorded in that account, giving earners an incentive to contribute more. But the government’s most recent statements suggest the individual accounts will be no more than a regular statement of the value of the pensions contributors can expect to receive, with no relationship to contributions made."

In other words, a money grab. Unadulterated theft on behalf of the state. 

The EU has lodged protests about the media law, but not the state theft (which is unsurprising).  Given Bulgaria, Poland and Ireland have all embarked on related confiscations of pension funds to cover short term overspending, and the EU strongly supports state confiscation of private property, why be surprised?

The media law should be scrapped, and private pensions should be sacrosanct.  Indeed the only safe policy is to keep it completely out of state hands altogether.

Bear in mind that in New Zealand, the equivalent is a pay as you go pension, that promises you absolutely nothing, that pays nothing if you die before you retire, and bears absolutely no relationship to what you pay the state.  So no need to worry about state theft of your pension in New Zealand, it is simply par for the course as it is exactly what happens to anyone paying above the average amount in tax or dying before age 65!

Idiot Savant wrong about London student protest

I’m fascinated about the authority Idiot Savant claims to talk about a protest in a city he wasn’t in, based on media coverage he was selective at looking at.  From his post you’d get quite a distorted picture of what happened, but then he couldn’t possibly know.  Not even the Guardian and Independent articles he quotes support his distorted propagandist view of what happened.

He’s either stupid, lying or just wilfully blind.   You see I actually am IN London and SAW the protests.

Let’s start. 

He said “The UK government is currently trying to balance its budget by shifting costs onto the young, through a trebling of university fees. This will prevent many kids from poor families from going to university”.  Bearing in mind this is shifting costs from future unborn taxpayers to current students.  However, he is wrong about it preventing kids from poor families going to university as they can get student loans to pay for fees, that they do not have to start paying back until after they earn the average wage.   A barrier to poor students?  Hardly.  In fact, the threshold to repay the loans is being increased as well, but that fact spoils the tale the socialists are stringing out to justify their protests.   That’s just him swallowing the spin of the Socialist Workers’ Party.

Then he claims that the protest was kettled (when the Police surround a group and confine them) and THEN the students rioted in response.

No.  Quite where he got this from is curious, as none of the major media reported this either.

In Whitehall a group descended on an unused Police van and vandalised it, others vandalising bus shelters and ticket machines, Transport for London reported objects had been thrown at buses carrying passengers at Trafalgar Square, smashing windows.   Buses were diverted away to avoid further incidents.  Some spray painted slogans on buildings.  To be fair a handful of schoolgirls who were skiving off school tried to stop some of this, but to no avail.

The kettling happened after this as the group descended on Parliament.  The Police responded appropriately to protect property and the public, and it isn’t surprising why.  There are reasonable grounds for opposing kettling, but to keep a protest contained when it has become violent is quite acceptable.  However, Idiot Savant is painting a picture of students surrounded, kept confined and THEN lashing out - which is completely wrong.  He should know better, but he isn't driven by reporting the facts, but by his own socialist agenda.

You see he completely ignores what happened on the last protest, when students ran amok, vandalised the Conservative Party headquarters, occupied the roof and one threw a fire extinguishers onto the Police below narrowly missing them (that person has since been charged).   Does he really think the Police should stand by and let private property be destroyed and peaceful citizens be threatened and intimidated by a mob?

No.  He wasn’t there.  I have seen both protest marches and the aftermath.   I know what the policy is (and I didn’t vote Conservative or Liberal Democrat) and it isn’t keeping the poor out of university education.  This is largely a group of naïve middle class students who are bemoaning the fact that when they start earning above average incomes, partly due to their education, they might have to pay the majority of the costs of that education.   These protests are hijacked by violent criminals (anarchists who don't recognise property rights).  The Police acted appropriately.  

Maybe Idiot Savant should concentrate on protests on cities where he is actually there, or maybe he should either report what actually happened rather than undertake a Gramscian reworking of the facts to fit his political agenda.

Oh and if students want something to protest about, how about that university education in Scotland has no fees, that this is funded from Westminster and on top of that the European Union demands Scotland offer the same education to students from any OTHER EU Member State.  That does NOT include England, because England is deemed to be in the same Member State as Scotland (which is true).

So English taxpayers subsidise free Scottish tertiary education so that Bulgarians, Romanians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Poles, Finns, Swedes, Danes, Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Austrians, Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, Cypriots, Maltese, Portuguese, French, Belgians, Luxembourgians, Dutch and the Irish can get a free tertiary education - but they can't.


That's a serious reason to be pissed off with the European Union, the Scottish government and the whole devolution experiment.   However, socialists love the European Union because they think it can help make everything "free".

Marxist thuggery takes over London protest

The UK government faces a chronic budget deficit and so one of its policies has been to significantly increase university tuition fees so students pay a far higher proportion of tertiary education costs.  Given the benefits of university education are carried almost exclusively by the people getting the education, it is hardly unfair.   The state student loan scheme even allows students to borrow their fees and not have to pay back the loans until they earn over £27,050 a year.   So it hardly forms a barrier to anyone, unless they fear their education isn't worth it once they start earning the average annual income. 

Of course to the socialist National Union of Students (voluntary membership in the UK by the way, but universities fund it directly), it's unfair.  They moan that current generations of politicians got a free university education - back in the days when a far smaller fraction of people went into tertiary education and the welfare state wasn't draining taxpayers of so much money.  

This attitude that the world owes them an education, that the budget deficit isn't their problem (presumably they don't think they should pay more tax to cover the debt Gordon Brown threw their way) and that other people should pay for their choices means they are obviously disrespectful of property rights.   It shows too.

A bunch of them marched to Conservative Party headquarters, smashed it up, invaded it and one even threw a fire extinguisher off the roof at police officers below.

In other words, if you don't give us what we want, we'll take it and do violence.

and the Labour Leader of the Opposition is silent...

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.

Why does the left peddle such vacuous hatred?

So asks Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan in his Daily Telegraph blog:

He asks why he finds that "high-minded causes attract adherents who are looking for a way to validate their sociopathic tendencies, to feel good about the fact that they dislike so many of their fellow human beings. "

He cites the language used in various articles by some from the left " this one by the Labour MP Tristram Hunt, in which he claims that the Conservatives want to return to Victorian workhouses; this one, in which Polly Toynbee talks about the Tories’ “final solution for the poor”; this one, in which Labour’s John Cruddas talks about a million people being driven from their homes “as a result of the Coalition’s savage attack on the poor”.

Do those on the left really believe their vacuous rhetoric that those who are not on the left hate the poor, want them to suffer and (in the case of Toynbee's vile but carefully chosen words) want them exterminated?

As much as I oppose the welfare state it is not motivated by hatred or disinterest in those who are worse off than myself.   Even the trimming of the welfare state being implemented in the UK (largely about those who are on higher incomes claiming benefits and those claiming more than the average wage in total benefits) are seen as being a "savage attack" on the poor.

The left does not have a monopoly on compassion, indeed the speed and voracity at which it turns on those who dare to disagree with its solutions shows how shallow that "compassion" actually is.  How many on the left talk of dancing on Margaret Thatcher's grave, how many on the right talk the same about Tony Benn, George Galloway or Arthur Scargill?

The assumption of evil intent on the behalf of those not part of the left, and those who do not share the "correct line" is malignant and destructive.  It is used by media with a leftwing tendency such as the BBC to create a basic binary debate that puts the leftwing statist solutions against those who simply water those solutions down, rather than those who say the statist solutions are morally and practically wrong.  However, most of all it is a tool to provoke vapid emotional responses, particularly to spread fear among the less educated.   

Far easier to tell those on low incomes how much the government is hurting them, how much they are ignored, neglected and going to be harmed by a heartless government, than to engage on how the budget deficit should be cut.   Leftist tacticians know very well that playing to emotions, simple slogans about the right being "for the rich" and about "enriching their rich mates" provoke an instant response of hatred and disdain.   They also know that they can dismiss and ignore talk about real economic issues (which most people know little about) by using the language of "caring".

It's simply sad that far too many let them get away with this.   The simple question any journalist could ask leftwing activists who seek more government spending is "why don't you spend more of your own money or raise your own money from donations?".   This question exposes the point that the interest is not in outcomes, but means. 

UPDATE 1:  Deputy PM Nick Clegg has taken the vile Labour MP Chris Bryant on for saying that the new housing policy means the poor are "socially engineered and sociologically cleansed out of London". Shades of Bosnia when the Serb nationalist thugs rounded up Bosnian Muslim men and boys, took them out of towns and executed them.   Clegg pointed out that the new policy is about no longer subsidising people with housing benefit to live in areas where employed people on average incomes couldn't afford to live.   Again, leftwing politicians use the language of genocide (not unlike the use of the term "climate deniers") to criticise those who they disagree with.

National-ACT fails Auckland

Clap - clap - clap.

Margaret Thatcher once commented about how horrified she was in the 1970s when a senior Conservative MP expressed the view that socialism was "inevitable" and the Conservatives existed to slow it down and moderate it. In other words, when the Tories would get elected, it was to tinker, but by and large whatever Labour did in government would not be overturned.

One wonders if the current National minority government in New Zealand has the same profound inspiration - to preserve the legacy of Helengrad and tinker.

When I now see the results of the local government policy of that government then all i can say is well done. Because it passes the test of the Tories before Thatcher - maintain and continue with the policies of your opponents.

Auckland, all of Auckland, now has a Mayor - more empowered than ever before, to lead a council with the wide ranging powers granted to it by Sandra Lee and Judith Tizard in the height of the Labour-Alliance government that was Helen Clark's first term.

Why? Because Rodney Hide and ACT, cheered on and fully supported by John Key and the Nats, facilitated it.

In 2008 when Labour was kicked out, there was hope from some that it would mean that the local government policy of Labour, that National and ACT opposed, would be rejected.  The hope being that local government would no longer have a "power of general competence" - which Labour and the Alliance (supported by the Greens) gave councils, allowing them to enter into ANY activity they wish, which of course means they can grow (what councils will shrink?).  Even with a change of government, local authorities could subsidise anything, enter into any business activity, enter into any form of social activity (schools, healthcare, housing and welfare even) and government could not stop them, without a change in the law.

With Rodney Hide appointed as Minister of Local Government, there was some hope that this would be wound back - that rates might not be increased unhindered, and councils could not engage in ever more new activities, crowding out private business, private non-commercial activities, and ever imposing higher financial and regulatory demands on the people they claim to serve.

To be fair he briefly tried in 2009 to change the powers of local government, but failed because National decided to keep the Local Government Act 2002.  

However more importantly he failed to answer the question "What should be the role of local government"?  

The answer implicitly given is the same as Sandra Lee, except she answered with conviction:

"Whatever elected local politicians want to do".

In parallel he inherited the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance commissioned by the Clark, Peters, Dunne regime.   He could have, rightly, decided to treat it as curious but out of step with the objectives of the new government.

No.  He embraced it.  With the exception of the blatantly racist pandering of the proposed Maori only seats (as New Zealand remains increasingly alone in ascribing credibility to the patronising fiction of democracy being racist), it was as if the government had not changed at all.  Same policies, different people implementing them.

So the "super city council" (let's not pretend Auckland as a city changes because the petty control freaks who seek to govern it have only one place to rule it from) was created.  Not only was one council created out of eight, but the role of Mayor shifted from being cheerleader and chairman of the council, to having power over money and private property.   

So the biggest local authority in Australasia has been formed, by parties ostensibly committed to free enterprise.

Some ACT supporters thought it was a cunning plan, believing that a bigger council would be dominated by the "centre-right" (which you should be glad for. "Better than the socialists" right?).  

The victory of Len Brown does not exactly demonstrate that.   He has already stated his priority is joining the railevangelists in making ratepayers (and the government) pay for three rail lines.  Projects that are not economically viable in their own right, none of which will generate enough in fare revenue to pay for their operating costs let alone the capital that will be destroyed in building them.

So John Key and Rodney Hide have created a powerful local government entity and Mayoral position that is unfettered, and now a cargo cult loving, "think big" socialist has been elected as Mayor.   Not only that, but this Mayor is talking about a referendum on having apartheid Maori seats. 

Well done.  I don't know quite what Labour can say to this - as I can't imagine it would have been substantively different if it was still in power.

Hide says it is "good for Auckland".   Well given he let it all happen, and endorsed letting voters choose a council that can do what it wants to Aucklanders, he can hardly complain.

It's politics not values after all.

So, if you're unhappy about all of this, will you be voting National and ACT next year?

UPDATE:  It is telling that Idiot Savant thinks this is an epic fail for Rodney Hide.  He's right you know.

So what would you do?

Whenever any government announces spending cuts, there are always those who are recipients of the money (that isn't their's) who claim it isn't fair that the state isn't taking quite so much money off of other people to give them some, and those who are on their side, constantly sniping about anytime the state does less.

Few governments cut spending while running surpluses, as it is only when years of past profligacy catch up that reality has to be faced, as it is in the UK.

However, "journalists" (I put inverted commas in place because so few of them understand making intelligent queries about what goes on or are capable of comparing current with historical events) rarely ask the two most important questions of such naysayers:

1. How would YOU cut spending or increase taxes? Who would lose out in your world? For example, if child benefit is to remain universal in the UK, what spending should be cut instead, or should the very people who currently receive child benefit pay more tax instead??

2. How much of your own money will you be using to compensate those who are losing out on the spending cut?

The typical answer to the first question is "I don't know". In other words, a mindless opposition to politicians who, to be fair, are simply trying to balance the books and reduce the rate of borrowing. The more philosophical ones of a leftwards bent would make a flippant comment about "the rich should pay more tax" (or bankers), or that defence spending (the left hates defence) should be cut.

The second question invariably draws a blank. Spend your own money helping the poor, or schools, or hospitals? Actually do something rather than call on government to force everyone else to do so?

No - it is the moral vacuum of too many of the left who have never really thought of voluntarily raising money or spending their own money to relieve poverty or keep open a school, hospital, library, art gallery or whatever it is they are so stouchly defending.

Whereas I simply think that if you can't be bothered contributing something substantial yourself then your advocacy for forcing others to do so, through the state, is morally bankrupt.

What do you do when you have a record budget deficit?

Go to an election promising to EXPAND the welfare state.

Yes, Gordon Brown has announced he would set up a National Care Service, described as "NHS for elderly care". In other words, he wants taxpayers to pay for everyone who needs it to have resthome care in their declining years.

Great! The budget announced last week is already borrowing an EXTRA £8,000 per household this year to pay for the current bloated UK state sector. Why not borrow more? Gordon Brown will be well retired and not giving a damn when the kids have to pay off the debt he incurred.

Of course the NHS is a model the whole world envies, well rather Michael Moore does, except he doesn't envy it enough to actually LIVE in the UK. The world envies it so much that the model hasn't been adopted anywhere.

After all is it not as if old age is unpredictable and cannot be planned or saved for, especially if the state stops pilfering your income to pay for everyone else in the meantime!

More tax more state more thieving from children

Alastair Darling released the Brown government’s last ever Pre Budget Statement (let’s be honest it wont be a stunning victory for Labour at the next election) and what does it bring? The Times tells all and the ledger goes like this.

In terms of restraining state spending there is:
- A senior civil service pay cut worth a paltry £100m
- Treasury approval needed for government appointments earning more than £150k;
- 1% cap for public sector pay settlements other than the Armed Forces;
- State contributions to public sector pensions to be capped by 2012;
- Bingo Duty (yes really) cut from 22% to 20% in 2010;
- Deferral of corporation tax increase for smaller companies;
- Electric cars exempt from company car tax (!) for five years.

Pathetic really. Political pablum, leaving the hard decisions to the Tories.

How about new or higher taxes?
- VAT to return to 17.5% on 1 January (buy before then);
- Threshold for top tax rate not to rise for one year after 2012;
- National insurance increased by 0.5% of income in 2011;
- Inheritance tax allowance frozen for one year (not increased);
- 50% one off tax on banking sector bonuses over £25k;
- 10% Corporation tax on patent income in the UK;
- 50p a month tax on phone lines to subsidise rural broadband.

Again, more tax, taking more from the economy because Labour is limp wristed on cutting spending, when it should be ruthless. These bastards can’t keep their hands out of people’s pockets. What’s truly disgusting is how they are going to spend MORE, so basically stealing from people’s children in debt to buy some votes as follows:
- 2.5% increase in state pensions in 2010 (go on old folk embrace Labour stealing from your grandchildren and great grandchildren);
- Guarantee scheme for bank loans to small businesses to be extended;
- £200m more money for a “Strategic Investment Fund” stealing from productive businesses to bribe new ones;
- 6 month extension of welfare to help the unemployed with mortgage payments, effectively propping up housing prices and rewarding those who don’t buy mortgage repayment insurance;
- 10,000 undergraduates from poor (Labour) backgrounds to be subsidised into jobs;
- Guaranteed training or education for all 16 and 17yos, and all under 24 who are out of work for more than 6 months are guaranteed work or training;
- Child benefit increase of 1.5% in 2010. This isn’t means tested so children of the wealthy mean a £20 benefit a week for the eldest and £13.20 for each other child. Welfare for every family;
- Four carbon capture and storage demonstrations to be paid for;
- £200m more to subsidise home energy efficiency (rather than letting energy companies raise prices);
- 125,000 homes subsidised to get more efficient heating boilers;
- Extend free school meals to half a million primary school children of poor parents;
- Rail electrification between Manchester, Liverpool and Preston (can't have fare payers paying);
- Minimal increases in education, health and police spending;
- £2.5 billion for Afghanistan;
- £5m to help ex. Service personnel set up own businesses.

Other than the last two items, this is just more bribes using stolen loot. Not surprising, but certainly disgusting. Profligacy and waste in health and education remain rewarded, picking winners through subsidies is the order of the day, and next to nothing done to confront net debt reaching 78% of GDP by 2014/2015.

A chance that Darling had to acknowledge he wont be doing this a year from now, and he could make the hard decisions to cut spending, was wasted. Why? Because the Labour Party just wants to keep their people in Parliament by bribing voters with their children's money.

So voters will face an election which will probably see the Tories win, hopefully see the Tories engage in serious cuts in spending to take Britain away from risking debt default, and saddling generations with debt.

Then Labour will say how mean and cruel and heartless they are for cutting spending on “vital services”. Yes ladies and gentlemen, if this isn’t an example of the lead up to an advance auction of goods, stolen from children, I don’t know what is.

For shame. How soon can the UK be rid of this tired vile socialist oriented big government regime?

Oh and for now, just don't remind me of what the other lot are like. Can they seriously make it any worse?

Berlin Wall Series: Hungary

Of the countries in the former Eastern bloc, Hungary was the first which unshackled itself progressively from Stalinist dictatorship, but was also one of the first to rise up against it in the 1950s. Hungarians didn’t want the imperialist dictatorship foisted upon them by Moscow, so it took little sign from Moscow that it would not intervene for Hungarians to organise, to challenge the Party, and for the Party to know that, in the hearts and minds of so many, it had already lost.

Stalin punished Hungary for being on the side of the Axis in World War 2. Hungary had been granted territory under the Munich Agreement and supported Nazi Germany, until serious setbacks in 1943 caused the Hungarian government to seek peace with the Allies. As a result, Germany staged a coup planting the particularly nasty fascist nationalist Ferenc Szalasi in power, who with great aplomb shipped hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews to extermination camps, whilst ruthlessly persecuting opposition. However, the Red Army swept into the east of Hungary in the following year, equally ruthlessly taking land, murdering and raping civilians in their way. By this time Hungary was effectively a satellite of Berlin, so surrender by Germany was surrender by Hungary. Hungary lost all territory acquired under the Munich agreement, and some more to the USSR (now Ukraine), and half of the German minority living in Hungary were deported to Germany.

Initially Hungary was left to hold free elections, as Stalin believed Hungarian peasants would embrace communism. However, with only 17% of the vote, it became clear that “people power” would need to be imposed, so by 1948 the Red Army had coerced the government to accept more communist influence, set up the ruthless AVH (secret police) to occupy the former headquarters of Szalasi’s fascist Arrow Cross Party, with no hint of irony.

Stalin’s strongman was Matyas Rakosi, who terrorised the Social Democratic Party into merging with the Communist Party, to create a façade of “national unity” government with the so called Hungarian Workers’ Party. However, Rakosi was a loyal follower of Stalin, equally as ruthless and lives on as the man who invented the term “salami tactics” to describe how to deal with the opposition.

Rakosi executed 2000 and imprisoned over 100,000 over his time of rule, establishing primitive concentration camps and a cult of personality. The economy was bankrupted in part due to Soviet enforced reparation payments and also the forced collectivisation of the economy, with reports that by 1952 the average disposable income had dropped by one-third in three years.


However, the death of Stalin saw a power struggle between Rakosi and the reformist Prime Minister Imre Nagy, who sought more openness and less state control of the media and the economy. He advocated freedom of speech, more private sector involvement in the economy, and after the Treaty of Austria advocated a similar position for Hungary. Austria had been granted neutrality, and he sought the same for Hungary, meaning withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. Moscow promptly arranged for his comrades to put him out of his job.

Yet sparks had lit flames in the minds of some Hungarians, prompting the 1956 Revolution. For a brief period, Nagy led a reformist government, introducing a multi-party system, with freedom of speech, assembly and association, and declared withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. That was, until the USSR crushed it with tanks and guns. Thousands were killed and afterwards tens of thousands imprisoned for “crimes” of counter revolutionary behaviour. Imre Nagy was secretly tried and executed.

However, Hungarians would not forget. For over many years they could tune secretly to Radio Free Europe, BBC World Service and Voice of America. The new leader, Janos Kadar would reimpose authoritarian order, but not on the scale of Rakosi. Indeed, Hungarian communism would long be seen as more moderate than that of others with the view of Kadar that “those who are not against us are for us”, so the assumption was being that citizens were supportive of the government, unless the demonstrated otherwise. There was no longer Stalinist control of the arts and culture, and no personality cult surrounded Kadar. Collective economic units had more freedom to operate in different fields, and collective farms were permitted to have substantial privately owned plots. As a result, Hungary was better off economically than most other eastern bloc states. There is little doubt that this (relative) moderation, helped stem tension, but similarly when Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms in the USSR went further, moderates in the Hungarian Workers’ Party saw their chance at reform.

By 1988, Kadar had aged, and was succeeded by Karoly Grosz who sought to undertake moderate reforms, but he himself was overshadowed as protests emerged, foreign travel restrictions lifted and the iron curtain was first removed, as barbed wire was taken down between Austria and Hungary. There were open calls for multi party elections, withdrawal of Soviet troops and in October 1989 the Hungarian Workers’ Party finally agreed to abolish its monopoly on political power. Most notably in June 1989, Imre Nagy was reburied and the 1956 Revolution was finally seen for what it was – Hungarians standing up against tyranny, and then murdered by the USSR with the complicity of their own.

Since then, Hungary has joined NATO and the European Union, and has not looked back. Today in Budapest you can visit the former headquarters of the AVH and Arrow Cross Party. It is the House of Terror, where the story of Hungary under both fascist and communist tyranny is told. At the outskirts in the hills, is Memento Park, where you can see the grotesque statues that used to populate parks and corners in Budapest, extolling communism.

Hungary has clearly not looked back from being one of the laboratories of socialism.

Have we not learnt from 1989?

Janet Daley in the Daily Telegraph asks:

"Why do the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the anniversary of which we have been commemorating in a low-key way, and the collapse of communism which followed feature so little in the education curriculum and in the popular renditions of modern history?"

Indeed. She thinks those who had responsibility for curriculums and many commentators were shocked by the sudden implosion of the political system that had kept half of Europe under its jackboot for nearly half a century.

She notes that while Marxism expected capitalism to collapse, it collapsed instead, at least in its most hardened forcefully imposed form, but capitalism simply cannot:

This brings us to the delusion permitted by historical ignorance about the present economic crisis: capitalism, whatever the BBC says, has not collapsed. The banking system very nearly did, but that is a different thing: the banks are simply businesses through which capital flows. They were badly run and they failed due to mismanagement. Capitalism was badly served. But it has not – and cannot – collapse for the same reason that it cannot be overthrown: because it is not a structure that is imposed from above whose perpetrators can be forcibly dislodged.

Yes, you see capitalism is about individuals, about them applying their minds to the world around them and seeing how they can offer people goods or services in exchange for money (or goods and services), and then paying others to provide them services (with minds and hands) to assist in that production. Capitalism is simply human.

She says that if there was a greater observation of what 1989 was about (perhaps especially in Europe where far too many were enthralled by the eastern bloc as offering an "alternative way") it would teach us far more of the risks of rejecting capitalism and the human condition:

"If we had dared to look long enough at the events that followed 1989, as have many of those Eastern European countries which lived through them – if we had produced the plays and films and television documentaries and school texts that they had actually deserved – we might now have a fuller appreciation of the terror that follows from the need to extirpate individualistic impulses. An ideology that attempts to re-engineer human nature in the name of the collective good did not, as its founders had believed, require just a "temporary dictatorship" but a permanent one that bred corruption, victimisation and – most paradoxically of all – a bleak, inexorable poverty both of material goods and of aspiration which eventually became intolerable."

Indeed, nothing must frustrate the left more than the current recession NOT being a collapse of capitalism and not causing people to embrace the reality evasion of Marxism. However, it is timely at the end of this year to remind us all, and the young who knew not of what things were like in eastern Europe, of what the brave people of those lands were seeking to escape in that year.

The cold bleak crushing brutality of the steamroller of socialism.

Child abusers need to be bribed

So is the philosophy of leftwing columnist John Minto. After bemoaning child abuse figures in his Stuff blog, he has found a magic solution for it - give them more unearned money. Yes that's right, people rape, batter, torture, abuse, belittle and ignore their kids because the state hasn't handed them more money taken from everyone else. Like some sort of sick mafia racket, that means "give us more money or we'll hurt our kids".

Of course it's nonsense. Plenty of poorer families don't abuse their kids, and there is a share of middle income families who do. However, what really is abusive is Minto's malignant view of society and capitalism.

He doesn't conceal his hardened Marxism by saying: "we need economic policies which redistribute wealth from those who haven't earned it to those who do the work"

Those who "haven't earned it". Who are they John? Farmers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, entrepreneurs and others who have spent time either managing something productive or applying their specialist skills to people willing to pay for it? (unlike Minto who has precious little to offer other than getting people like himself to chant in unison and moan how the world is unfair). Apparently if you pillage the people with ideas, who take risks and own property, all will be well - they wont flee with their money and skills and say "bye bye" will they? Or maybe John Minto wants a Berlin Wall type arrangement, to keep these people in NZ so they don't leave?

How about "those who do the work"? They don't get paid enough of course, John failing to note there always seems to be a lot of people willing to do the work for what they are paid, which suggests there is no need to pay them more. Labour shortages mean pay increases, but there is never a shortage at the bottom for people with next to no skills and experience.

Minto is in his heart of hearts a Marxist thief - he wants to steal from the rich to give to the poor, he wants the state to shove its jackboot in the face of those who get in his way.

He says "Taxes on capital gains (on all but the family home) and heavy death duties are the logical place to start. A financial transaction tax should follow and GST should be abolished"

"Tax and income policy should be based around what is needed for a breadwinner to maintain his or her family at a decent standard of living after a 40-hour working week based on sociable hours."

oh and if you actually earn less than that, don't bother trying, John Minto will make sure the state steals from the more productive so you can get a "decent" standards of living, with sociable hours. Delightful that. You wont bash up your son or rape your daughter now you don't have to work so hard for a living someone else has earnt.

THAT is how you reduce child abuse if you're a Marxist, you steal money from those who don't abuse their kids and give it to those who do - because when you're poor, you beat up and rape your kids (after all the anger's got to go somewhere doesn't it?).

Good job John Minto is far from poor then, or else his kids would be in for a hiding wouldn't they?

UPDATED: Opinionated Mummy agrees saying what Minto is promoting is damaging "The lessons you are teaching the young and impressionable people who may have (unfortunately) read your column are damaging, disrespectful, and (you won't care about this) economically unsustainable."