Boris Johnson wants new London airport

According to the Sunday Telegraph, London Mayor Boris Johnson wants an island built at the Thames Estuary and a new airport built there, Hong Kong like, with fast rail services to London and four runways, allowing Heathrow to be closed.

Ambitious it is, but to think it would cost less than the £13 billion it will take to build a third runway at Heathrow is to dream. London is not Hong Kong, construction costs are many times higher and the cost of a new rail corridor into London would be exhorbitant.

Of course, it should be allowed to be built if investors seek it - which means allowing for landing slots to be auctioned, and for investors to convince the big Heathrow airlines - BA, Virgin Atlantic, BMI and Lufthansa, to shift. However, the taxpayer shouldn't be involved. I look forward to a feasibility study and some accurate costs, but the UK is a very expensive place to build large infrastructure projects.

Meanwhile Heathrow remains one of the most remarkable airports in the world. Terminal 5 is perfectly pleasant as far as airports go, it HAS changed flying through Heathrow, and Virgin Atlantic's improvements at Terminal 3 give BA a run for its money. Terminal 1 is substantially improved now that BA has gone, and Star Alliance carriers are dribbling in (like Air NZ and United). Terminals 2 and 4 remain dire, but the former is to be demolished and the latter will be getting a major refurbishment. Any shift from Heathrow will see all terminal improvements there being a sunk cost, and be a massive shot in the arm for many property owners on Heathrow flightpaths, and the opposite for those immediately adjacent (because of the loss of jobs). However, London does need more airport capacity - and if it can be done commercially and efficiently beyond Heathrow, it should be.

Gordon Brown's solution? More unfunded socialism

Yes, facing record budget deficits, economic recession, growing unemployment and inflation, what does Gordon Brown do for the UK? Promises MORE government spending, MORE state dependency and says nothing about what it will cost future generations.

In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Telegraph he calls for extending subsidies for nursery care to two year olds. He says it is about increasing social mobility, something he effectively subsidised by pump priming the property market for several years and which is now reaping the opposite effect. He wants nursery care for two years old to allow mothers to return to work earlier, not considering that it may be better for children to be with their mothers at that time, and more importantly ignoring that families may be better off having more time with their children if they didn't have to have both parents working with 20-40% of their income going on tax.

You see proposals like this show Brown remains wedded to old Labour solutions - more government, more dependency and while he claims it may save a family £1500 a year, it will cost more than that for taxpayers, because of the deadweight cost of bureaucracy involved. He can only afford it by borrowing more, meaning taxes for future generations will be higher.

He talks of irresponsible financial markets, but is willing to spend another £1 billion per annum of money that he has to borrow. Financial wizard? Hardly.

He's wary of more regulation for the City, because he knows that the financial sector has bankrolled the UK economy, and so much of the taxes he depends on. However he has nothing new to offer - he wont cut spending, wont cut taxes and wont admit that the property and mortgage bubble he encouraged and allowed on his watch was partly his fault.

The thing is, whilst some Labour MPs want him gone they have nothing new either. They can only swing to the left and frighten investors, donors and middle class English voters like they did in the 1980s. I am doubtful that he will be rolled yet. It is two years till the next UK elections, he is a patient man, he spent many years in the shadow of Tony Blair awaiting his turn - he's not going to give up without a fight, even if it means stealing from future generations to bribe current ones.

Ross Robertson - will win but not ambitious

Harold Valentine Ross Robertson (I kid you not) has been an MP since 1987, being for Papatoetoe initially and then from 1996 Manukau East, he is the last in my profile of Labour candidates NOT on the party list.

He won in 2005 with 59.4% of the vote, National's Ken Yee only pulling in 28.2%, so Robertson looks safe once more. His electorate support is pretty much duplicated by party support. This is largely an electorate of low income Pacific Islanders, where Labour fights hard for turnout.

His most prominent role is as Assistant Speaker. Yes 21 years and that's what he gets. Nevertheless, the locals must love him. His Labour 08 profile is rather unambitious:

"I am especially aware of the need for safe communities and quality standards in healthcare and education, so that business can create wealth, the vulnerable are encouraged, and all our citizens are invited to contribute.

I will continue to be available to listen and serve, and welcome the challenges of continuing to serve Manukau."

At least he isn't claiming credit for schools, roads and the like. At least he has a profile. National's Kanwal Singh Bakshi has little hope of defeating him.

PREDICTION: Robertson's a shoo in, but he doesn't want to be in Cabinet (or isn't up to it), though perhaps what that electorate wants is a local representative and assistant full time.

Brian McNamara - you wont hear from him again

Labour's Kaikoura candidate is Brian McNamara. Again, another without a list place. There is little information about him, other than his Labour 08 profile which says "my voice would represent the wishes and needs of ordinary Marlburians and North Cantabrians for

• full employment,
  
• higher wages,
  
• better services and quality of life for all, and
  
• the sustainable and beneficial growth of our agricultural, horticultural, high tech mechanical and tourist industries."

Full employment? Higher wages? Ah he is another one who believes in the socialist easter bunny.

It doesn't matter anyway. National's Colin King (yes I know nothing about him yet either) is the incumbent MP, who won in 2005 with a respectable 51.7% of the vote and 4675 over Labour Beehive stalwart Brendon Burns (from whence the name "Burns Unit" came for the PM's Beehive communications group). It is solidly National on the party vote as well (45% vs Labour's 36%) so McNamara will fade into political obscurity, thank goodness.

PREDICTION: Colin King will retain this seat effortlessly.

George Hawkins - a meritless likely winner

George Hawkins is the Labour candidate for Manurewa, having been the MP since 1990, and winning a rather astonishing 59.7% of the vote in 2005. Yes Hawkins is in the club of MPs who truly can say a majority wanted him to represent them. His majority is 11667 ahead of a National candidate who got only 20.4% of the vote, it will be miraculous if the Nats can turn that around with Cam Calder. The party vote also is little different between that result. This is Labour heartland through and through.

However, George doesn't have a list place and he hasn't been a Cabinet Minister (by choice, after the disgraceful 111 incidents before the last election) since the last election. You have to wonder how much of a lame duck MP he can remain being?

The Labour 08 website says it all when you see its empty profile for him. Labour doesn't even think it NEEDS to fight in Manurewa, that sort of complacency is sad for the people of Manurewa, but it is up to them. If they want to elect a failed former Cabinet Minister to represent them, then they sow what they reap.

PREDICTION: Hawkins will sleepwalk to victory, and Manurewa will be served by George until he wants a quiet retirement

Russell Fairbrother - the next big thing for me is railways??

In my ongoing series on Labour candidates...

Russell Fairbrother - Napier (no list placing): Napier was a solid Labour seat under FPP since 1954 and under MMP since 1996, until Russell Fairbrother won it in 2002. He lost in 2005 to National's Chris Tremain, with a 3591 majority, a stunning defeat in what was once Labour heartland country. National also beat Labour in the party vote with 42.2% vs 40.9%. However, like many Labour MPs who lost their electorates, he was back in on the list at number 38, but now he's not on it at all. Russell will be looking for a new job in a few weeks time and it will be about time.

Russell's own profile on the Labour 08 website is abysmal. He claims credit for "bringing the Meeanee expressway overbridge to Napier", when it was simply a very good project that was already a national priority for Land Transport NZ when it approved funding, some time ago. He did nothing. Even his own website is dormant. The rest of his profile is banal platitudes about "I experience both the good and bad of this beautiful city", such as what? Waiting lists? Parents not affording education at the schools they want to send their kids to? Crime? Finally, his biggest priorities for Napier are NOT dealing with intergenerational welfarism, crime and drug abuse among the underclass, inadequate educational achievement, the increasing cost of living, no he says...

"The next big thing for me to achieve is better public transport throughout Hawkes Bay and a strong rail link between the central North Island, Napier, Wairoa and Gisborne."

Well Russell, the railway line has existed for over 60 years, and it doesn't seem too many in Hawke's Bay want to use it often enough, and you can do a lot about improving public transport in Hawkes Bay after the election - you will be free to be a bus driver.

PREDICTION: Russell will be looking for a new job, probably defending hardened criminals because no organisation or individuals failed them "social structures did" (as his maiden speech enlightened us in 2002).

Harry Duynhoven - a shoo in

Labour Party candidates that are only standing for their electorates can only mean two things:
- Very high likelihood of winning electorate (so not needing a list position); or
- Token electorate candidate that the Party doesn't really care about winning anyway.

This isn't nefarious, as the Nats do this too. So after Sam Yau and Paul Chalmers (both clearly in the latter category) who else is standing for Labour, but not on the list?

Harry Duynhoven - New Plymouth: Yes, Harry has held New Plymouth since 1987 and has a loyal following. He is trained as a teacher, electrician and has a Masters in Public Policy, he is known as a hard worker and quite dedicated to local affairs. He is Minister of Transport Safety and Associate Minister of Energy. One of his pet projects has been compulsory third party property insurance for motorists, despite much official resistance to the idea. His majority was a solid 5439 in 2005, one of the few MPs to win a majority of votes cast (53.2%) during an election when Labour lost many provincial seats to the Nats. As National won the party vote in New Plymouth (44.5% vs 37.6% for Labour) it shows he has a high personal following in the seat. National's Jonathan Young will have to work hard to unseat Harry. Harry is unlikely to be too worried, but if on the night it is looking tight it will definitely be spelling doom for Labour, certainly Harry's personal following didn't translate into anywhere near as many party votes for Labour.

PREDICTION: Harry holds on but National's party vote lead will see his majority tighten.

Qantas to fly A380 to NZ for promotion

So why on earth has Stuff included a photo of an Emirates flight attendant inside an Emirates plane in its article, with the caption "Qantas by a nose: Qantas will be the first airline to fly the new Airbus A380 to New Zealand". (photo to the right).

Mainstream media, carefully edited and double checked - not.

The report says, of course, that Qantas plans no scheduled A380 service to New Zealand. The first routes will be from Australia to the USA, then to Hong Kong/Singapore and the UK. Emirates by contrast will fly an A380 service daily to Auckland.

Meanwhile, the easiest way for NZers to fly on the A380 is Singapore Airlines, from Singapore to London after flying from Auckland or Christchurch.

Airline industry faces enormous challenges

The massive hike in jetfuel prices, although moderated in recent weeks, has taken its toll in the airline industry worldwide. The most recent casualty, XL airlines (a UK low cost airline/ charter/tour operator) fell over because it hadn't hedged against price increases adequately, and had sold its tickets many months in advance. Being an operator at the bottom of the market left little room for fat, so it has gone. Others to fold have been Trans-Atlantic low cost carrier Zoom (again the bottom of the market has little profitability in it), US carriers Aloha, Skybus, ATA, Futura of Spain, Hong Kong's low cost carrier Oasis and the three all business class Trans Atlantic airlines, Maxjet, EOS and Silverjet. The last three folded because they couldn't offer the frequencies, network connections or airport access at London that was needed to be competitive.

So what does this hold for airlines down under? Well both Qantas and Air NZ have been hit hard, primarily because of a major collapse in international tourism from Europe, the USA and Japan. Long haul flights burn a lot of fuel, but the fare per passenger km is lower than short haul (and the staff/amenities required are much more elaborate than on short flights), so routes to and from Europe have been badly hit.

Air NZ in particular is vulnerable. Although it remains profitable, it is small, it retains the same risks it had before it bought into Ansett many years ago of not having much access to its nearest large market, and it extends itself far beyond New Zealand to an extent almost unparalleled by airlines of similar sized countries.

Air NZ's share price closing Friday was NZ$1.05, that is less than it was after it was largely renationalised in 2002, at NZ$1.75. More of your money Dr Cullen has spirited away. However, none of this should be a surprise:

- The domestic market remains largely stable, as Air NZ completely dominates the high yield flexible ticket business market and most provincial routes. It is shoring up that business by having converted the front half of its 737s to a new "Space +" configuration for Koru Club members, Gold and Gold Elite Airpoints members and full fare customers. That 3-4 inches more legroom will earn loyalty.

- The Trans Tasman market is growing, as Aussies and Kiwis travel closer to home, but it remains a bloodbath on prices. Pacific Blue is increasing frequencies as is (the apparently immune to oil prices) Emirates which will fly a daily Airbus A380 across the Tasman from February. Air NZ is also putting a "Space +" section at the front of economy class on its 767s and Airbus A320s on this route, also to shore up business traffic (as it will have the most legroom in economy class on the Tasman), as well as installing personal TVs for every seat in every class on 767s and A320s. Again it is hoping that aiming for the top of the market will increase yields, but it faces one huge disadvantage - no access to the Australia domestic market. Business traffic feeding to the Tasman domestically almost entirely goes on Qantas, because it can offer that.

- The Pacific Island market is low yield mostly, comprising ex.pat Pacific Islanders "going home" from NZ, and NZers going on holidays. They are all seekers of low fares. Air NZ has chosen to almost abandon the US/Europe to Pacific Island tourist markets through LA, although these have also plummeted significantly.

- The Asian market is also low yield. Tourism originating from Japan has collapsed significantly in the last few years. Air NZ has dropped routes to Nagoya, Fukuoka in recent years and the Osaka route is down to twice weekly (and about to be operated by 767s, a drop in 79 seats from 777s as well as a major drop in Business Class seating). The routes to China (Shanghai and Peking) are also disappointing, as there is very little business and premium economy demand, and the economy passengers are again at the cheap end of the market. Hong Kong has more balanced demand, though that is in part a feed to Lufthansa and Swiss flights to Europe (as well as the route to London).

- Routes to US and Canada tend to have plenty of business and premium economy traffic, but the economy class end of the market has declined significantly due to the recession in the US.

- Lastly the London routes are currently unprofitable, which is why the route via LA is being downsized to a 777 (also reflecting the increased competition between London and LA since the Trans Atlantic Open Skies agreement came into effect). UK origin tourism has dropped significantly, and Emirates has hurt Air NZ's business on routes to Europe.

So it's tough, it is a major exposure for the government as well, and like Delta/Northwest, BA/AA, Lufthansa and Brussels Airlines, Air NZ must be looking to hook up with a major foreign airline to survive and grow. To do this the government must water down its shareholding. At the very least the incoming government should look to dilute its over 80% shareholding to 50.1% to give the airline an injection of capital and the strategic linkages it needs to grow. Not doing so will see it struggle to sustain long haul routes at times like these, which is, after all, one of the key reasons for the government wanting the airline to remain in any case.

Ian, it's polite to ask ok?

I'm very surprised to see that Ian Wishart's latest weekly newsmag (which is available for sale at NZ$3 oer month, and then distributed for free online) includes a post of mine. You see I only found out because it was mentioned to me on the NZ Conservative blog (which I enjoy visiting for some good debate, as you can imagine we often disagree). The newsmag in question is on PDF here.

Now I don't mind, as what's important to me is that people read and think about what I have to say - this isn't my job. However I DO ask one thing. I don't care if you want to link to this blog and comment on posts on your own. That's part of how the blogosphere works. I also don't mind if other publications publish my blog URL and also post excerpts from it.

However if you want to repeat a post, in full, and publish it on a subscription based magazine or newspaper, ask. I know this isn't copyrighted, but it is simply polite and if you're seeking to make money from what I write I want to know.

US taxpayers' kids will pay

First came the effective renationalisation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both Frankenstein monster creations of the US Federal Government in the first place. Then came the monster loan to AIG, effectively nationalising one of the world’s biggest insurers and now the US Federal Government is taking off the dud loans of banks.

This from the Bush Administration, long hated by the left internationally – it has now grown the size of the US Federal Government beyond recognition, in effect printing more money and engaging in what may be the largest action of intergenerational theft seen in history.

The banking sector has been bailed out, the losses have been socialised and will be born by this and succeeding generations of taxpayers. The profits remain private. If ever an event in recent history could fire up the critics of capitalism this is it – and it is because anything but capitalism has been applied to the banking sector.

The Bush Administration has decided to borrow from future generations to avoid a wholesale collapse of the mortgage market and several US banks. What that collapse would have meant has largely been glossed over as “disaster”, because it would mean banks folding, their shareholders losing out, depositors (a key political concern) also losing out, but debtors to banks having new creditors who may call in the assets to sell. That would have meant homeowners with worthless mortgages (those worth more than the property), but also airlines leasing planes from ILFC - a subsidiary of AIG - (although it is hard to believe that they would’ve been sold themselves given the same companies would be using them).

The result would have been significant deflation of many assets, in particular bank shares and properties – the housing bubbles would certainly be over, mortgages would be far harder to get, but prices would have dropped.

Of course there would have been winners from it, those banks which were far more prudent, those wanting to purchase properties, and other prudent investors. The wise would have won, the foolish would have lost – but that would have included many householders with dud mortgages, and not a few depositors. Bush politically knew that if that happened, McCain would have been finished, as would the Republican Party for at least two more elections. He renationalised for political reasons, and passed the bill onto everyone’s children.

The left will blame loose banking regulations, and “greed” – but wont say that same greed applies to those on modest incomes seeking to buy properties with 100% mortgages. The left will want to constrain the buying and selling of shares, and the availability of credit, with the sort of mindlessness of those who don’t understand economics and finance. Yet failing to note the state’s role in what is a boom/bust cycle. Both US and UK governments have long continued to borrow from their own and foreign economies, injecting inflationary spending into their economies, fuelling property inflation with central banks anxious to always avoid recession, on top of regulations requiring financial institutions to lend a proportion of mortgages to the “less well off”.

It’s notable that John McCain has been distinctively uncomfortable with the bailouts – they go against his own political instinct. Barack Obama is swimming in it though, because he mindlessly blames the Bush Administration, ignoring the Clinton Administration when so much of this started to happen. Lying being the standard stock in trade for politics. However McCain would have hardly done any different. The bigger question is how quickly McCain or Obama would privatise these new enormous liability companies – have a guess who would be slowest.

In the UK, Gordon Brown looks distinctly on the sidelines, as the banking sector itself responds to the crisis through mergers and acquisitions, but also taking the US taxpayers’ injection of their future earnings as a boost to confidence.

Sadly the worst part of all of this is not the bailing out of shareholders, not the bailing out of debtors, not the billions of US dollars worth of intergenerational debt that taxpayers will be forced to bear, but the erosion of a core capitalist principle by the US Federal Government’s actions. Those involved in investment and business take risks daily, whether it be farmers, shopkeepers, taxi drivers, publishers, radio stations, food processors, furniture manufacturers, trucking firms, hotels or charter airlines – the owners, their employees and customers rise and fall on the risks taken. Such businesses fold daily, with not a sign of taxpayer bailout – which is appropriate. Banking is different. The bigger the bank or insurance firm, the better equipped it should be to manage risk, but the bigger likelihood the state will bail them out – if only because the state fears the fallout from all those who deposit with and borrow from them.

This of course means that mortgages, finance and bank shares are clearly less risky than other investments in other sectors. It also means that if the revival of share prices flows onto property finance, the property bubble will return and shares will rise on the back of a massive injection of future taxpayers’ money.

It will happen again.

As Gareth Morgan says in the Dominion Post - the tendency for governments to "save the world" on these occasions is only increasing the frequency at which it will need to happen, and the cost to be met in later years.

Loser Labour candidate number 2 - Paul Chalmers

He is the Whangarei electorate candidate. He was the candidate last time. He got 27.9% of the electorate vote against Phil Heatley on 53.8%.

The profile on the website says:

"The National Party will simply serve the interests of the already wealthy and ignore the aspirations of those less well off. "

Such mindless rhetoric suits a man who has no chance of getting elected. Keep your day job Paul.

Poor Labour candidate of the day - Sam Yau

OK, he seems a nice enough chap. He's the electorate candidate for Ilam (not on the list) but he is so heavily deluded it isn't funny. He claims on his profile that National sold assets to fund tax cuts - absolute bollocks - it ran surpluses. The profile on the Labour website talks how the Labour government led the world on nuclear free policy -um, Sam, that was the PREVIOUS one. The one with Roger Douglas in it.

Sorry Sam, Ilam is well served with you being a JP and being self-employed. Good for you. However, the Labour Party just likes taking from the self-employed and telling people how to run their lives, and wanting to buy their education, healthcare and pensions for them.

However we needn't worry, Gerry Brownlee isn't going to be shifted by Sam. That will be good for both Sam and New Zealand.

Compulsory training or what Helen?

So Helen Clark will make 16 and 17yos be at school, in training or on apprenticeship.

So if you have a job at such ages, you'll also be forced to be in training! You could be working in a family business, but no Auntie Helen wants your life.

So what happens if they don't? Will you get arrested if you're not in training?

Now I'd simply abolish welfare benefits for those under 18 - but that's a separate issue. Since when has Clark decided she can control 16 and 17yos?

Don't let the financial crisis damage capitalism

According to the Financial Times, UK Conservative Leader David Cameron has said that it is important to not let the left use the financial crisis as a reason to undermine capitalism:

“We must not let the left use this as an excuse to wreck an important part of the British and world economy"

Indeed. He further rejects calls for tighter regulation of financial markets and higher taxes, saying centre-right leaders should unite in defence of capitalism.

Remarkable - look forward to John Key doing this then right?

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are on 52% in the polls, and Labour at 24% (Lib Dems at 12%) look convincing winners - if the election was not two years out. The Tories are getting a little bolder with policies the wider the gap grows - and it seems to be working. Education vouchers are mainstream policy in the UK - but not in NZ.

Anderton, Bradford and Sharples let off lightly

Not PC has pointed out that the mainstream media continues to be on the Winston Peters feeding frenzy:

"while Helen Clark campaigns on "trust" that she's already demonstrated she's lost ,and John Key promises to "change" New Zealand when he's already promised not to make any change that will in any way make a difference -- while all this happens, New Zealand's media is still fiddling around with Winston Peters, his dancing monkey, and the question of which dog ate whose homework, and in which motel Brian Henry might have been when it all happened".

Meanwhile, the paid "professionals" known as journalists have completely let it slip by that the leader of one party supporting Labour, a co-leader of a party that may support either Labour or National, and the MP of another party have all publicly backed a group of Cuban spies convicted of conspiracy to murder.

Yes, Jim Anderton, Pita Sharples and Sue Bradford have declared their credentials to be blood red. They repeat the nonsense that Cuban dissidents are "terrorists" and that these Cuban spies were fighting terrorism when they dobbed Cuban refugees into the Cuban police state. THAT should be a small scandal, it SHOULD be getting scrutiny that a senior Cabinet Minister has aligned himself to a police state.

However, for the cherubs who are reporters in the mainstream media, that is too complicated - you see they would have to explain how Cuba is a police state, how Cuban dissidents help Cubans flee and spread propaganda to encourage Cubans to rise up against their dictators, and then explain the judicial process faced by the Cuban Five.

Not as interesting as Winston though is it? Three MPs (and by implication three political parties) are sympathisers to those aligned with a communist dictatorship and nobody gives a damn.

Imagine voting for National

To do that I'd have to accept either this:
- Centralised bureaucratically funded and directed education, with central bargaining for teachers and no performance pay, with no funding following students, and no tax refund fior buying your kids' education is ok;
- Centralised bureaucratically funded and directed health care, with central bargaining for nurses and doctors, and no performance pay, with a virtual lottery on getting surgery and no accountability for poor performance and no refund for providing for your own healthcare, is ok;
- Property rights remain under the control of local government with the RMA, except that central government can fasttrack its projects whether they be by energy SOEs, transport agencies or local government;
- All the current bureaucracies should remain and not face any real cuts in funding or roles;
- Government spending should still grow, just less than 9% per annum;
- Local government should retain its current wide ranging powers to use ratepayers money for any purpose it deems as promoting the economic, social, environmental and cultural wellbeing of "communities";
- The government should hold onto unprofitable and poorly performing SOEs and not seek private capital;
- Some minor tightening of the welfare state is all that is needed, but state housing stock should continue to grow, and people should still be able to have state houses with income related rents AND accommodation supplements;
- The Maori seats are not to be questioned, nor are laws that grant any ethnic or racial group different rights from others;
- The ETS and the Kyoto Treaty commitments are not to be questioned, but ETS should be tweaked;
- The top tax rate should remain higher than most major trading partners (outside the EU).

OR National has a secret agenda, which ala Ruth Richardson in 1990, will bring tears to my eyes and make me smile.

I want Labour out of power. I wont be voting for Labour. Voting for a party that will not grant Labour confidence and supply is not supporting Labour being in power.

However to vote National is a positive endorsement of either a wholesale capitulation to almost all Labour policies since 1999 or wishful thinking that it is a lying deceitful bunch of confidence tricksters who will play a one trick game of liberalising the New Zealand economy, education, health and welfare systems. I say a one trick game because it will revive the political fortunes of Winston Peters in one foul swoop if that IS true.

If I had voted National in 1996, I would have had to swallow the deal with NZ First, the deal with Alamein Kopu, Tuariki Delamere and the rest of them, the continued abomination of the RMA, the lack of any constructive change in education, health or welfare. However EVEN then, National still privatised, still was seeking to restrict local government's role and deregulated postal services, abolished tariffs on imported motor vehicles. National said it would do these things. Now? Nothing.

What is it I am voting FOR if I choose National? All I can see is that it gets rid of Clark, and Co. A fine goal indeed, but on day two I get to be governed pretty much to the same extent to the same degree in similar ways by people who apparently don't have the courage of their convictions in doing it. Labour believes it is good to govern the country, National believes it has to, almost grudgingly.

Maybe that's it?

Vote Labour if you want big government and to be governed by people who believe they should be governing you.

Vote National if you want big government and to be governed by people who believe they have to be governing you.

So who do you vote for when you don't want to be governed, but want government to protect you?

Leftwing economic illiteracy and hypocrisy

Well The Standard obviously thinks tolls are a bad idea, having posted on this several times, even though:

- Labour introduced and passed legislation to allow toll roads to be introduced by Order in Council under recommendation by the Minister of Transport. The ALPURT B2 Orewa motorway bypass will be the first. Tauranga Harbourlink would've been the second if Winston hadn't made removing the toll a condition of his confidence and supply agreement. Penlink in Rodney District may be the next one;

- Transit New Zealand under Labour undertook a study following the passage of that legislation to investigation what other new highways could be part funded through tolls. It concluded that several Auckland projects (Waterview connection being one), parts of the Waikato expressway, an expressway in the Bay of Plenty and a handful of other projects could be tolled.

- The Labour led government commissioned a study into introducing road pricing in Auckland to reduce congestion and raise revenue called the Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study (ARPES). It considered a daily charge which was $6 a day, so that means $30 a week for a commuter.

And the Standard got this hatred for tolls from a Green blog - when commonsense says that charging vehicles for road use is bound to be better for the environment that subsidising roads from general taxes.

but apparently the Standard opposes Labour policy. How odd.

Black Power's treaty claim

Yes, seriously according to Stuff. You see it claims that gangs exist because of colonisation. Remember when the UK invaded NZ during the lifetime of those gang members, and they had to club together to fight the oppression of the imperialist invaders who took their property, denied them education and stopped them expressing their culture?

"It's the story of our lives really and the way we're treated. From our perspective there have been multiple Treaty breaches, every article has been broken. The way we've dealt with the different breaches is to get together with other like-minded people" says spokesman Eugene Ryder.

Yes, poor you, hasn't "society" dished you a raw deal? Shouldn't everyone be forced to bail you out of your lives? Hardly surprising that Marxist Maori nationalist lawyer Moana Jackson is talking favourably about the claim.

This is the consequence of a culture, and government that supports a culture that individuals are not responsible for their lives and not responsible for improving their own lot. A culture that doesn't blame individuals, whether themselves or their families, but blames "structural" issues, blames the whole collective of society - so it can then claim that everyone be forced to pay to make their lives better.

A simple answer is to disband the Waitangi Tribunal, and redirect the sort of claims that have gone to it before to being a matter of property rights claims when the state has historically stolen from citizens (Maori and others). So which political party will advocate that then? It doesn't begin with the letter "N".

United Future's tinge of less government

Now I'm not getting excited, but check out these policies on the United Future website:

"support the continuation of the 'no-fault' regime and mandatory workplace accident insurance, but support competition in the provision of accident compensation services” This is ACT policy. Open up all of ACC to competition.

“retain the Ministry of Economic Development, but re-focus key elements of their work away from 'picking winners' and towards removing impediments to business especially exporting” Mild, but a small step forward.

“cut taxes to 10% up to $12,000, 20% between $12,001 and $38,000, 30% above $38,000” bigger tax cuts than National, including getting rid of the 39% top rate.

“UnitedFuture will promote "no regrets" policies to address climate change – i.e. measures that will provide both environmental and economic benefits.” Not too shabby, but it also supports ETS.

“Task the Local Government Commission with a review of the size and shape of all local government areas in order to reduce local government activity to a pre-1995 level” Again more adventurous than National.

“Hold an early referendum on the future of the Maori seats in Parliament, as UnitedFuture believes that no ethnicity should have special privilege above others in our proportional electoral system.” Whereas the Nats would do a deal with the Maori Party.

"Introduce tax concessions to recognise the savings created by those who choose to take out private health insurance, or pay for private treatment, prioritising those aged over 65. Investigate the feasibility of a national health insurance scheme for non-trauma based disability, in particular elective surgery for the elderly.” Steps beyond what National would suggest.

However, remember this only looks interesting because National policy is so bland, and before you think about giving Dunne a tick remember, not only has he kept Labour in power over TWO terms, set up a new bureaucracy called the Families Commission, but also has some weirder policies.

“Introduce a Multicultural Act, similar to Canada, for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in New Zealand.” Whatever that means.

Steps backward like “convert Transpower NZ Ltd to a public utility with the sole objective of transporting power through the National Grid at the lowest possible long-term cost to the consumer” instead of being able to be profit oriented and invest in the infrastructure.

More tax funding to “Establish overseas aid at 0.5% of GNI immediately and reach the accepted international millennium goal of 0.7% by 2015.”

and far too much on a wide range of policies, with endless interventions in a wide range of areas.

Peter Dunne has dabbled with ex. National MPs, with the Christian right, with hunters and fishermen, and is now dabbling with a little less government and tax. I don't doubt he actually has a more libertarian set of policies in many ways than National - but sadly that says more about National than it does about Dunne. It's a sad day when a vote for Peter Dunne looks like a more radical option for change than a vote for National, but you can't really be sure that he wont support Labour.

You see he's been supporting Labour every single day since the last two elections.

SPCA spies on child abuse?

Oswald Bastable blogs on a scheme whereby the SPCA will report on "signs of child abuse" when inspecting or taking animals from homes, and Child Youth and Family will report signs of animal abuse and neglect while working on families.

Note this isn't about calling the Police and laying a complaint, but reporting to each other - in other words the SPCA, full of well intentioned animal lovers, will be judging whether there are signs of child abuse.

Obviously child abuse is a serious issue, and there are plenty of Police and teachers who see cases whereby children are being neglected, and there needs to be a judgement about intervention. However the SPCA? It isn't a state agency.

Obviously if anyone witnesses child abuse or finds children who have clearly been subject to physical or sexual abuse (hospitals encounter this not infrequently), there is reason to call the Police if there is no reasonable answer from the parents. The biggest flaw with the family unit is when the parents abuse their position of power and act as sadists at worst, or just ignore their kids - the state must be in a position to intervene beyond a certain threshold. However getting non-state bodies to spy, when they have no professional ability to make this call is disturbing.

Australians have a new Opposition leader

Whilst the US and NZ election campaigns are under full swing, one could be excused for neglecting what has happened across the Tasman.

Brendan Nelson has been replaced as Liberal Party leader by Malcolm Turnbull - a multimillionaire former merchant banker according to the Sydney Morning Herald (so Michael Cullen will look down upon him).

The Daily Telegraph (UK) says he is a staunch republican, which obviously raises clear issues about the long term future of Australia as a Constitutional Monarchy, as Turnbull is the first Liberal leader to be so explicitly in favour of Australian becoming a republic. He chaired the Australian Republican Movement from 1993 to 2000. Turnbull is a Roman Catholic, but quite liberal on matters such as stem cell research and the abortion pill RU486.

The Liberal Party might start looking a bit more liberal, compared to how it was under John Howard.

Greens are right!

Yes, Frogblog has made a post I basically can't disagree with.

"Giving your party vote to a specific party increases that party’s proportion of seats in parliament and thereby diminishes every other party’s proportion. Vote for what you believe in. It’s that simple.

In the end we should stop trying to play the FPP game where the big parties pretend each of the small parties is actually just a faction of them. Assess each party on its policies and past history and vote accordingly. If you’re looking for a moderate centre-left party with a dash of ‘cling to power at all costs’ realism, vote Labour. If you’re looking for a ‘don’t worry there’s no secret agenda, we’ll keep things the same but say we’re offering fresh change’ party vote National. Otherwise look around. If you get Act or New Zealand First in government and didn’t want them, blame the people who voted for them, not the people who voted for something different."

Now it IS likely that if Labour got into power it would be because some people voted NZ First and Labour did a deal with NZ First. That's a reason to blame Labour for wanting to do such a deal, and of course the retards who vote NZ First for creating the opportunity.

I'd extend it further. Voting for any party does not put another party in power. No party "owns" your vote or is entitled to it. It is as that old leftie Ralph Nader said in response to Democrats who thought he "stole" the 2000 Presidential election from Al Gore and gave it to George W Bush - He essentially said 'you don't own my vote, you're not entitled to it. I choose who I vote for, it doesn't mean I endorse any other and doesn't mean I "took" it from you. It wasn't yours".

Just because I am highly likely to vote Libertarianz doesn't mean I've stolen my vote from ACT, let alone National. It's my vote, and if other parties haven't attracted it, then that it their problem.

Buyer's market

Go on, when stocks plummet along with property prices, there is opportunity. Want to buy a home? Want to buy some shares in major utilities? There are winners and losers when there is a major economic upheaval, don't ignore the opportunities to be a winner. The simple reason is that it may as well be you - because there are plenty just waiting to bargain hunt.

Oral sex speculation

What do you do when you want to make up a story - find a paper at a Sexual Health Congress (obvious joke for the more well read in that phrase) about oral sex.

However, it has never been "the exclusive domain of sex workers".

Most survey results are rather what people are willing to say rather than what happens, and moreso who knows what happened in the past?

It has never been illegal in New Zealand between women and between women and men. It is naturally a matter of personal choice and taste, very intimate, with one less obvious danger for women.

Thankfully politics can stay well out of it, but it is remarkable how it has become de riguer culturally. I can only hope that it is indulged in out of desire and passion rather than a sense of "I'm expected to do this".

Cullen plays hypocrite

Now I'm not warm towards John Key politically, but he is a smart guy, and he has had a real job. One thing that can't be said of him is that he is a failure - he doesn't need to be in politics, which naturally makes one wonder why he is, but that is besides the point.

According to the NZ Herald, Dr Cullen has claimed that Key is a "gambling currency trader" and that's the last sort of person that New Zealanders should want running the economy. Hilarious really, when Dr Cullen gambled taxpayers' money (money they didn't choose for him to gamble with) in many ways, such as:
- Buying the Auckland rail network for $81 million when Treasury valued it at $20 million tops, and before the whole network was bought back for $1;
- Buying the whole rail network for $1 after promising an Australian owned company monopoly rights to run across it, and to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade it, and then not enforcing the price it agreed with the company for it to pay to use the network;
- Buying Toll Rail well above the price that any commercial operator would have paid to buy it;
- Buying Air NZ after letting it nearly go into liquidation, instead of allowing Singapore Airlines to provide a 25% capital injection.

John Key in his previous career made business decisions for people who chose him to make judgements about their money. I'd trust John Key on macro-economic decisions anyday beyond the history lecturer, who has NEVER been trusted to manage the money of thousands of people before, and certainly never been accountable for failing to do so wisely.

Who would you rather have as your banker? John Key or Michael Cullen? To conclude, if currency trading is seen as "gambling" (which is an exercise that by and large is about taking a chance on blind odds in most cases), then what is using money taken from other people to buy businesses and assets at many times the price they were valued add commercially?

Cullen struggles to justify rail purchase

Dr Cullen, according to a government press release (not election campaigning of course!), says that the purchase of Toll Rail was essential because "With rising fuel prices and growing awareness of the threat of climate change, the restoration of New Zealand’s rail system is now an economic necessity".

Yet rail customers weren't willing to buy it, which makes it rather a curious claim. Economic necessity? Hardly.

Furthermore, he bizarrely thinks that because Toll said the railway business was worth a lot of money, it must have been!:

“Toll believed, however, it was worth over $1 billion. As the government had to take national interest factors into account and as the existing owners of the track itself, we were always going to have to pay more than commercial rail operators who did not have an interest in keeping services open. In the end roughly half of the price the Crown paid was to buy Toll out of its long term monopoly right."

Well I can say my car is worth $100,000, but it doesn't mean it is - it means if you believe it, I'm ripping you off. If Toll believed that, why didn't it sell Toll Rail to someone who would pay it? Why sell to the government? It was a bluff, a standard commercial negotiating technique, which Dr Cullen is either too stupid to see, or was being willfully blind because he wanted to buy it, at any price (and could threaten to force a sale).

He admits he was willing to pay more than a commercial operator because he wants to keep services open that effectively can only be kept open at a loss.

The waffle ends with:

"Having KiwiRail in Kiwi hands will allow us to protect rail services for provincial economies, move more freight off roads and onto tracks, and help make our economy a truly sustainable one"

Protect them? So provincial economics need rail to move logs, milk, coal and containers, at a loss? So the loss of revenue from less road user charges will be saved in maintenance costs? Was the economy truly sustainable when it was illegal to ship freight more than 150km by road?

KiwiRail is going to be a huge success for our economy. Really? So after paying over a billion dollars to buy it back and upgrade the lines and trains, will it return dividends that will pay that back and some? No, of course not. It's smoke and mirrors, it is faith not facts, it is worshipping the same altar of religion of rail that the Greens bow down at.

It's bad economics and complete nonsense. Toll took Dr Cullen, the Labour/NZ First/United Future/Jim Anderton government to the cleaners, and flogged off an unprofitable business for a fortune. Now Dr Cullen is spouting out rubbish about the gains this "investment" will bring.

My challenge is simple to the government- produce an independent economic appraisal of the net economic return from the renationalisation of Toll Rail. I dare you.

Malaysia on the brink of a quiet revolution

Malaysia has been dominated by one party for all of its years since independence. UMNO has led a coalition of Malays, Chinese and Indians to govern Malaysia somewhat autocratically since 1958. Now, Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, formerly Deputy Prime Minister, who had been convicted on trumped up charges of sodomy 10 years ago (and facing new charges), believes he has the numbers in parliament to bring down the government according to the Daily Telegraph.

Mr Anwar claims 30 government MPs are ready to cross the floor, but fears that the government will crack down on opposition. It already sent 50 MPs on a trip to Taiwan to reduce the risk of MPs defecting!

If it happens, it will challenge the explicitly racist nature of the Malay led government. Malays have long dominated the government, instituting quotas for jobs and higher education to try to advance their position economically, compared to the far more successful Chinese. Malaysia's ethnic tensions may re-emerge, but what is most important is to have a peaceful handover of power in Malaysia from UNMO. Malaysia needs this to be a modern liberal democracy and so the state can be accountable, and be purged of corruption. It has had many years of successful economic growth, and I wish Malaysia well (having visited twice). Its people will be best served if they are to be free.

Clintonistas not flocking to join Obamaniacs

According to the Daily Telegraph, Hilary Clinton's pleadings for her supporters to back Obama isn't getting the reaction that was hoped for. Given the bitter campaign between the two Democrat candidates, distrust is high towards Obam. 28% of Clinton supporters in Ohio have said they will vote for McCain. Michigan and Pennsylvania, where Clinton did particularly well, could well go to McCain as a result.

I can't but help think that Clinton wouldn't mind Obama losing - as she could quietly say "told you so" and have a shot in 2012.

The latest poll of polls on CNN puts both Obama and McCain on 45% - it is a brave person who would call this election by any means.

Mickey Mouse - Satan's soldier

So says Sheikh Muhammad Munajid, a Muslim cleric, former Saudi Arabian diplomat, who according to the Daily Telegraph says under Sharia both household mice and cartoon mice should be killed. The cartoon ones, you see, teach children than mice are lovable. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, tsk tsk.

He said in an Arab language TV broadcast:

"Even creatures that are repulsive by nature, by logic, and according to Islamic law have become wonderful and are loved by children. Even mice.

"Mickey Mouse has become an awesome character, even though according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases."

Ahhh Islam can be such fun. Though I love the quote about what he said about the Beijing Olympics:

"Last month Mr Munajid condemned the Beijing Olympics as the "bikini Olympics", claiming that nothing made Satan happier than seeing females athletes dressed in skimpy outfits."

Well, given that Mr Munajid is such a fun fellow, you can be sure that anything that most in the world considers fun is immoral to him - but when did he last rally against female circumcision?

Zimbabwe deal deja vu?

There is considerable hope that the deal between Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangarai's MDC will result in real change in Zimbabwe, although to be honest that hope is only because the alternative is so bleak.

The power sharing deal means day to day power is meant to be transferred to Tsvangarai as Prime Minister leading a council of Ministers, whilst Mugabe remains President and chairs another Cabinet. In short, Mugabe loses little, and gains some scapegoats and the chance that aid may once again flow to his beleagured land of subjects. Zimbabwe, with a life expectancy of 32 years, and inflation that averages at over 4% every single day, meaning prices double every 2.5 weeks, is on its knees - and the man that did it, and the men and women who stole from Zimbabwe will remain immune.

As Ayn Rand once said the only winner when good and evil compromise, is evil. It is clear that the murdering, thieving, destroying thugs of Zanu-PF will get away with their kleptocratic homicidal deeds. It is clear that Robert Gabriel Mugabe will continue to be President, continue to fly in a private jet and be feted by lesser (and occasionally greater) thugs and murderers around the world. In short, there will be no justice for the people of Zimbabwe, when the appropriate response would be to put him and his cronies on trial, Ceausescu style and put them in front of a firing squad.

However, Morgan Tsvangarai is tired of hoping for that outcome. Thabo Mbeki, another accessory to murder and theft, has long insisted on a compromise that would suit his fellow gangster mate Mugabe. Only a handful of African leaders spoke up against the festering sore of that regime, and so Tsvangarai felt stuck, without arms, without a means of overthrowing the kleptocracy that murdered and tortured his supporters, he sought peace.

Peace has a price.

Joshua Nkomo of ZAPU, a tribal based party aligned with the Ndebele minority saw how Mugabe could operate. As recalled by the Times, Nkomo was an opposition leader who also fought for Zimbabwe's independence. After some violence and rivalry, Mugabe gave Nkomo a cabinet seat before accusing him of plotting to overthrow the government. Following that accusation, Mugabe ordered his murderous Fifth Brigade (trained by North Koreans) to unleash a genocidal campaign on Matabeleland that saw 20,000 Ndebele murdered. Nkomo relented and announced the merger of ZAPU and ZANU, creating ZANU-PF - destroying Zimbabwe's opposition. He did it for peace, and died a broken man:

"The parallels with today are uncanny,” Heidi Holland, author of a recent book, Dinner with Mugabe, about the tyrant’s political rise to power, told The Times. "

Peace, you see, isn't a virtue when it is under slavery. One would hope Tsvangarai knows this lesson from history and is seeking to not repeat it, but one also knows Mugabe is cunning and slippery.

I notice the NZ government is welcoming the deal with caution, but saying many issues need to be addressed. I'd prefer to say that the sooner Mugabe and his cohorts were deposed from power and subject to trial for their crimes against Zimbabweans the better.

The heartbreak that is Zimbabwe is far from over, there is no reason to cheer just yet.

UPDATE: The Times writes about what is needed to make a real change in Zimbabwe. Repeal of the draconian security laws. End of the blockade on humanitarian aid being delivered directly to those in need. End of the intimidation of opposition supporters. Drastic action on inflation. Restoring to productivity the formerly white-Zimbabwean owned farms that have been pillaged and ruined. Constitutional reform to hold truly free and fair elections. Without that, this deal is window dressing.

Anderton and the Greens support Cuba too

Yes, hot on the heels of Dr. Pita Sharples supporting the Cuba Five - a set of spies convicted of conspiracy to murder, who infiltrated an anti-Castro organisation and told the Cuban government of plans of Cuban to flee the prison state of their country. This resulted in the Cuban government shooting down light planes containing Cubans fleeing to the USA.

Jim Anderton and Sue Bradford support these men. They put their names to a press release claiming "The Cuban Five were engaged in a peaceful mission to stop Miami-based organisations from continuing to carry out terrorist attacks against Cuba".

Terrorist attacks against a one-party state that imprisons political opponents, suppresses independent media and which at one time sought to become a nuclear weapons base to threaten the USA?

So the Progressive Party (which is Jim anyway), and the Greens appear to prefer the Cuban dictatorship's view of the Cuban Five over the US government. At best they could be ambivalent and not know who to believe, but this attitude shows a conviction that the Cuban government is morally equivalent to the USA, and even New Zealand.

That is fundamentally naive and quite evil.

What's choice?

Maori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato Angeline Greensill (and former Mana Maori Party candidate) says "It’s choice to be young and Maori".

Actually Angeline, you can't choose your age, or your genetic history.

Choice is about freedom, it's about being able to choose your own destiny for your body and your property. It's not about initiating force, and it's not about preferring one race over another.

Engaging young Maori people in politics is fine, until you are advocating more government and initiating more force against others - and the Maori Party is.

Showing off in Kapiti

Yep Kapiti Coast District Council looks set to allow nudity on the beach from Paekakariki to Otaki.

Of course it will stir up hysteria from the "liberal" left, thinking kiddies will all be flashed at, and saying it is offensive to the one-brained collective called "women", and the religious will also be upset, as individuals who find the human body an object of shame.

It will be an interesting experiment. Maybe it will all mean little difference at all, maybe those who do act in a threatening manner will be dealt with by the Police. Maybe it will be a little like parts of continental Europe where bare breasts bums and other bits are unimportant.

or maybe the bogun trash in Kapiti will ruin it, along with the handful of pervs who live there.

As the Hive says, should make for interesting times.

UPDATE: Family First NZ is slamming the move, wanting to criminalise nudity on the beaches. Now it is fair enough to want to not look at naked bodies, but I don't want to see men's fat bellies, I don't want to see combovers, I don't want to smell people with BO. I find that all offensive, I find men's penises just funny looking, and women naked are either not worth looking at or rather nice. Again, interesting to notice its priority with the naked body rather than violence.

Liberal Democrats want LESS government

Yes, just as the UK Labour Party looks like it is ready to go further to the left, the third party in UK politics, the Liberal Democrats, is swinging to the right.

At the weekend conference of the Liberal Democrats, leader Nick Clegg called for substantial tax cuts, and a shrinking in the size of the state. He says there should be a £20 billion cut in annual public spending. That's much more than the Tories could dream of suggesting. It is still only 3% of spending.

Yes the same Liberal Democrats that last election called for a new top tax rate of 50% with a 1% increase in the middle tax rate. He is facing a fight, as the Lib Dems have been infected for years by socialists who liked it leftwing alternative to New Labour, and its opposition to military action abroad. He wants to dramatically cut tax credits, subsidies and programmes that are wasteful, like ID cards.

Now this isn't libertarian at all, he wants to cut the lower rates of tax not the top rate, he doesn't want to privatise or get the state out of health and education, but it IS a vision of less state and of abandoning government programmes that fail. For a party that was all about more taxes and more state spending three years ago, this is an encouraging step forward.

The Daily Telegraph is cheering him on with its Saturday editorial:

"We wish him the best of luck. Not only is there the possibility of a hung Parliament but it is also high time that Labour and the Conservatives felt the heat of a third party boldly proposing what most people in this country want: smaller, simpler, better government."

Labour doesn't believe in this, the Conservatives are too scared to believe in it again, could it be that the Liberal Democrats are, for once, the party of less government in the UK?

Maori Party allies itself with Cuban communists!

No, this isn't Trevor Loudon investigating the past of some Maori Party MPs.

It's a press release from Pita Sharples.

Dr Sharples, who I thought of as being a man of some moderation, has said this of 9/11:

"The United States is the world leader in the so-called War on Terror. But in Cuba, for example, 9/11 is the day the people remember the Cuban Five. Those five men have been imprisoned in the United States for ten years for trying to stop terrorist attacks on their homeland that are launched from the United States"

Hold on "the people"? How does HE know this? Cuba bans all independent journalism, it strictly controls all information and a monopoly on the media. So who ARE the Cuban Five, and what did they do?

Well they are Cuban government agents, who infiltrated Cuban exile groups in the USA, as well as engaged in espionage against US military facilities. One informed the Cuban government of an operation whereby Cubans fleed on small planes, that ended up being shot down by Cuban fighter jets. They were convicted of espionage, conspiracy to commit murder and using false identification papers. These convictions were overturned on appeal, resulting in a new trial, which upheld them again, and were again upheld on subsequent appeal.

The men infiltrated this group, which the Cuban communist one party state claims is a terrorist organisation, which Pita Sharples agrees with. In fact the group assists Cubans trying to leave the country, it drops propaganda leaflets and encourages dissent in Cuba.

You see Dr Sharples - Cuba is a dictatorship, a one-party state.

Dr Sharples supports the Cuban view of the world though:

"I am delighted to support the establishment of a NZ committee for the release of the five Cuban patriots announced yesterday" said Dr Sharples. "They can certainly include my name on their list"

“The alleged crime of the Cuban Five was to try to infiltrate the expatriate groups of anti-Castro Cubans in Miami, who had been organising and carrying out terrorist raids against Cuba for many years, while the US ignored the protests of the Cuban government."

Excuse me? Terrorist raids? Says who? Oh yes the Cuban communist regime, which regards any protest march, any independent newspaper, any action by its citizens to defend themselves against the police state to be a "terrorist raid".

So - the Maori Party swallows Cuban propaganda - the Cuban Five case is at best controversial, but to treat Cuba as morally equivalent to the USA, and New Zealand, is despicable.

Then Dr Sharples adds insult to the NZ military saying this:

"when our New Zealand SAS troops confronted their enemy in Afghanistan, it was not clear to me who was maintaining homeland security, and who was fighting terrorism"

So is he really saying that the Taleban were just "maintaining homeland security"?

Is the Maori Party really the Marxist Party I once suspected it to be?
Does the Maori Party really think the Taleban are just the Afghanistan Tangata-Whenua?

Kedgley repeats her bullshit scaremongering

Yes it is this story all over again. Sue "ban it, force it" Kedgley is bleating on about telecommunications equipment being unsafe without any shred of evidence, just her nasty politics of scaring the uneducated.

"Under the new standard, telecommunications companies will be able to clutter power poles in residential areas and even next to schools and childcare centres with new cellular and wireless equipment, including satellite dishes, even if these could significantly affect their health or amenity values."

Yep, spot the scaremongering words "clutter" (because untidiness is important), "even next to schools and childcare centres" (because the equipment might hurt children - in her anti-science world of fear). Then "even if these could significantly affect their health", which they wont.

This harpie of fear uses her cellphone regularly, she makes nonsensical comments like "including satellite dishes" ignorant that almost all satellite dishes radiate less energy than a car aerial.

There is a simple rule of thumb about Sue Kedgley and science - she knows nothing about it. She is one of the worst kinds of politicians there is, one that practices hyperbole of fear, that sidesteps evidence and calls for the use of force to solve almost every problem she finds.

She's enough reason to avoid the Green Party like the plague.

Possibly guilty till proven innocent

Allegations of abuse of children by adults whose job involves interactions with children are serious - few would question this. They give good reason to investigate, and if there is sufficient evidence, take disciplinary action in terms of employment at the very least, and if necessary lay a complaint with the Police.

However, the flipside of child abuse is the damage caused to those accused of child abuse. Accusations are often difficult to conclusively disprove and paint a dark aura around a person, "perhaps he did it", "wonder if there are others", people don't trust their children around the accused. The abuse of an adult of the physical, emotional and intellectual power over a child makes most people shiver.

So the basic maxim of the English Common Law criminal burden of proof is that you are innocent till proven guilty. It being better that 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent be condemned. Sadly this fundamental principle is now being somewhat eroded in the UK.

You see, Ian Huntley, the murderer of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, had been a suspect in several sex offences. In one case he had been charged, but there had been insufficient evidence for a conviction. So he retained his job as a school caretaker. He had been, until his conviction of the killing of those two girls, innocent till proven guilty. Information about these allegations had not been retained.

So now according to the Daily Telegraph (no link), local authorities need to set up databases to contain ALL allegations of child abuse of those working with children, until either the person retires or the individual proves innocence. Suspicious till proven innocent.

The claims can be made anonymously, but there need not be a charge, let alone conviction.

Furthermore, the cases will all have to be investigated by local authority officers - yes that bastion of competence, and must find a claim is either "substantiated", "unsubstantiated", "unfounded" or "malicious". The latter two can only be found if there is evidence disproving the allegation. So the odds are that many cases will reside in the "unsubstantiated" category - neither guilty, nor innocent.

Of course this hardly helps the innocent. The innocent have a file suggesting there is an unsubstantiated claim, which naturally puts that innocent person at a disadvantage compared to one without a claim. Nice that. So you are definitely not presumed innocent.

So who wants to make a false allegation? Think of the incentives. That estranged wife or girlfriend, or the disgruntled student, can make an allegation knowing it will make the accused's life hell, and never be accountable for it - never having to appear in court to be cross examined.

Instead local government investigates allegations and unless you can prove your innocence, they remain on a file, able to be searched by employers, for the rest of your life. It appears that the UK public policy response to a horrendous crime is to erode the rights of the innocent - because after all, the safest country is the one under constant surveillance.

So it continues, until the next person not on any database murders some kids, and another way of monitoring the innocent will be found - and none of the political parties gives a damn.

Branson runs to the government again

Self styled entrepreneurial gadabout, Sir Richard Branson, is running to nanny state wanting to seek protection for part of his multi million pound business empire. This time it is Virgin Atlantic Airways he wants to protect.

You see, British Airways, American Airlines and Spanish carrier Iberia are seeking anti-trust immunity in order to co-ordinate and operate as one across the Atlantic and within Europe and the USA. This would enable them to co-ordinate, schedules, fares and routes. The absurdity that frequent flyers belonging to BA and American (both members of the OneWorld alliance) can't earn frequent flyer points on the other airlines services across the Atlantic would be removed.

The three carriers (along with Finnair and a couple of other small OneWorld alliance carriers in the northern) want to integrate so that BA can sell a ticket including a domestic connection using AA in the US, and AA can do the same with a BA connection.

The Atlantic is one of the most competitive air corridors in the world, with 42 airlines flying between the EU and the USA, and it being an open market on international routes for airlines from either market. AA/BA and Iberia have 21% of the market share at the moment, although between the UK and the US it is around 44%, and London-New York 52%.

Other airline alliances already have this anti-trust immunity. Star Alliance, which Trans Atlantic means United, Lufthansa, US Airways, BMI, SAS, TAP, Austrian and Swiss, has 35% of the traffic Trans Atlantic. Skyteam, comprising Air France/KLM and Delta/Northwest, has 28% of the market.

However, Branson cries foul. He claims it will create a "monopoly" which of course it wont. He's making it up, playing his favourite role of the hard done by little guy, who only wants what's best for himself consumers. You see Virgin Atlantic isn't in any of the alliances. It does do codesharing and co-ordinates closely with BMI and Continental Airlines. However, out of the nine airlines flying between Heathrow and the US, Virgin Atlantic has the second largest operation.

He complains that it would put 51% of landing slots at Heathrow in the hands of one conglomeration. Hardly a monopoly, especially since Skyteam holds 73% of the slots at Paris Charles de Gaulle and 85% at Amsterdam Schiphol, while Star Alliance carriers hold 80% of Frankfurt. All BA, AA and Iberia want is the same as its competitors - Branson is moaning because his airline is independent and he doesn't like competing. You see, unlike BA, Virgin has no flights within Europe - so no wonder BA is bigger, Virgin doesn't even operate in competition with it on many of its routes.

However, the best response to Branson is the one I saw from Willie Walsh -BA's CEO - in the Daily Telegraph on Friday.

"He knows a good deal about monopolies. With help from taxpayers, he has run a real one on fast trains between London and Manchester since 1997. And now he is talking about establishing another one by taking over Gatwick airport."

Yes, Virgin Trains has a monopoly on passenger rail services between London and Manchester, it has done this with millions of pounds of subsidies - that's real entrepreneurship isn't it? Branson says he wants to buy Gatwick airport, from which BA and AA both operate very few Trans Atlantic services.

So go on "beardie", compete. You did well earlier this year when BA's troubles at Terminal 5 coincided with the opening of a major upgrade to your part of Terminal 3 at Heathrow. You could tie up closer with BMI. In other words, you could compete your way to success, not moan to the government.

For all that, I'm giving your airline another shot in a couple of months time - Heathrow to New York. I hope it's better than last time!

Two elections

So 8 November is the day, 4 days after the US Presidential election. If it weren't for work I'd contemplate flying over and absorbing the debates for both elections. As it stands I'll be sticking it out in the UK, where I can access plenty of US coverage, but NZ will all be online.

As a result, I'll be blogging more heavily. This will be the first NZ election I'll be blogging and it will be remote, so pardon me for what I miss. To do this, I'll be listening to Mourning Report via the net in the evenings (the Revo Blik is the coolest radio, combining DAB and internet radio).

8 November will be a chance to look at the record of the current government, noting that it exists because of four parties, not just Labour, and decide what direction you want it to go. If you're pretty happy with the role of the government growing, happy with how the state spends your money (or happy with how much of other people's money you get), you'll probably vote Labour. If you are reasonably happy but have a particular thing for Transmission Gully or a bureaucracy for families, you might tick United Future. Those of you who are fans of Jim Anderton or Winston Peters, for unfathomable reasons, might tick their parties.

Have no bones about it - a vote for Labour, NZ First, United Future or the Jim Anderton/Progressive Party is a vote for no change.

If you think there should be more tax, more government, more regulation, more money taken from taxpayers and given to others, if you are suspicious of science, economics and those who advance reason, but think those on welfare will improve their lot if only they got more money for doing nothing (and you can't be arsed giving more of your own). If you think that trees, birds and fish are more important, inherently, than human lives, and if you believe that government can only be a force for good if it gets bigger, stronger and more intrusive, you'll vote Green. You'd be better voting Alliance though :)

If you think that Western civilisation and British colonialism has been bad for New Zealand, and the future lies in a Maori dominated government, that splits the country into two groups - Maori and everyone else, and dishes out rights and taxes on that basis, you'll vote for the Maori Party.

If you don't particularly like Helen Clark, Michael Cullen or the rest of the Labour Cabinet, and want to see some new faces, but pretty much the same policies - you'll vote National.

If you think the reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s were the best thing that happened to NZ since the UK promised to buy all NZ's exports, and that the country badly needs more, you'll vote ACT.

If you think that Christianity should drive government, and those who don't believe should just follow the rules and get out of the way, you'll vote for the Family Party or the Kiwi Party.

If you believe that there should unabashedly be less government, lower taxes and that adults should always interact on a voluntary basis, you'll vote Libertarianz.

Meanwhile, the US Presidential election will be profoundly important. Both men are not strikingly compelling, one is to the left of the Democratic Party (and hiding that oh so well), another is to the liberal end of the Republican Party (and indeed doing the same). Both have fired up their base in different ways. Obama is the dream of the Democrats, McCain had to bring Sarah Palin in to fire up his base.

Now both face the challenge of the fight for the remaining 20%. Those voters who are convinced by neither, who are suspicious of more government, but also are not religious conservatives. They are the swing voters - the ones that need to be convinced as to who they are more confident about being elected to the White House. I remain moderately convinced that McCain is best for the world, New Zealand and the USA, but it is more because he offers a chance for some positive change on the domestic front - and Obama's change is about more government.

Greens seek to nationalise children

Sue Bradford launched the Green Party policy on children - because you need a policy on everything (where is the dance policy?).

It represents the explicit desire to collectivise responsibility (if not rewards) for the raising, care, protection and development of children by everyone of everyone else's kids. This isn't the village to raise a child, it is the nation state.

This policy statement says so much that, on the face of it seems innocuous, but the use of the word "we" means "you should be forced to pay for this and feel guilty if you don't agree":

They are our future, so we must give them the best possible start to life.

Each child should have the opportunity to grow with joy, be fully supported by their family and be an integral part of our society. Each child deserves a secure base from which they can express their creativity and discover life as an adventure.

Who is this we? Why must you give other people's children the best possible start in life? Who is responsible? Not the parents no - this is Sue Bradford nationalising the responsibility of children to everyone, through the warm embrace of the state.

Why should every child be "an integral part of our society"? What the hell does that mean? When are you NOT? What is "our society"? I don't want any kids I have to have anything to do with this work shy, union worshipping, state welfare supporting socialist!

Now the policy has 130 points! Yes 130 - this is nanny state par excellence. So what do these measures really mean? Well...

- dozens are about essentially removing barriers to get compulsorily funded state welfare, as the Greens embrace welfare benefits as a way of helping kids.
- Some are about making people work less, a 35 hour week and more leave, essentially saying that the magic Green money tree will find a way to produce more by doing less. It doesn't occur to this control freaks that cutting the size of the state would enable more people to CHOOSE to spend more time with their children. No. Nanny State must tell you to work less.
- there is talk about promoting a non-violent culture, whilst at the same time embracing the violent nanny state that takes money from its citizens, prosecutes fines and imprisons those who break its laws. The Greens positively love violence, as long as it is velvet fist of the Nanny state they embrace.
- It wants kids to watch more TV! The Greens want to make you pay to produce TV programmes for children to watch, locally made of course (can't have those culturally inappropriate foreign shows can we now? Not with "our" children). Why have any subsidies for kids TV? Encourage them to go outside!!
- It wants to make you pay for "culturally appropriate care and treatment" for Maori, Pacific Island and other ethnic children, which isn't as important as making sure they are healthy. Looking forward to witch doctors being funded then, though one may wonder if it could ever be culturally appropriate for children of parents who want world class cutting edge science applied to healthcare.
- The obsession with GE continues, banning NZ production of GE food, on the implicit assumption it is unsafe for children - which is hysterical nonsense.
- Regulations on labelling of takeaway food, because its voters are too damned stupid to know that deep fried chicken is high in fat!
- Support diversity and choices in education, EXCEPT when it means funding following students. No mention of religious schools of course, just Steiner, correspondence, home schooling and Kura - the ones the Greens like.
- "Incorporate environmental education into the core curriculum at all levels from pre-school to secondary school" code for brainwashing Green ideology. I'd argue education in economics, education in freedom and individual rights, but if that happened kids wouldn't grow up appreciating the multi-leader Green party Nanny State.
- "increasing access for all children, including children in rural areas, to art, music and drama" Yes the state subsidised and nationalised childrens' plays, bands and art exhibitions. Yes lovely, Nanny helps you play.

It goes on and on. It is a disturbing vision of state subsidies, bureaucracies and rules, but most disconcertingly a philosophy that parents are not primarily responsible for their children, and that parents don't get punished for failing to be responsible. Nobody is to blame! Negligent, lazy, alcoholic, criminal parents all need "help and assistance" - forcibly funded by you, whilst you try to pay to responsibly raise your kids.

There are odd statements like "Recognise that in the context of Pacific families, definitions of children and youth are made by parents and families as opposed to an age specific status" oh so does that mean that when a girl is 13 she's an adult and can have children then by some distant relative twice her age?

Naturally the Greens use the phrase "adequately resource" often, which means give the bureaucracy a blank cheque to make it happy - they love the Office of the Childrens' Commissioner, which has done virtually nothing to improve the lives of any children- except those of the people working there.

Children do not belong to the state, nation, society or everyone. Children are nobody's property, but they are the responsibility of their parents and guardians first and foremost. The role of the state regarding children should be as a last resort to intervene in cases of abuse and profound neglect - not to mollycoddle and provide for everything that might be nice for kids to have, funded by force through taxes.

The Green vision of a childrens' policy is the Greens wanting to expand the state to do virtually everything other than physically feed, clothe and bathe the kids (even then they want to control food). It is statist, childish and downright terrifying. It offers no vision to save those kids from the subculture of violent, abusive, negligent lowlife who brutalise them - it wants to pay them more.

It's absurd, immoral and bankrupt.