Maori Mugabe?

If you scuttle over to Scoop you'll find something called the Maori Declaration of Independence made by a self styled "Co-founder and Maori Governor of the Maori Government Of Aotearoa". Chanel Morton-Matene - who is more insane than Catherine Delahunty.

In essence, she is calling for Maori tribes to sign a "declaration of independence" from the New Zealand government. For a split second it sounds curiously libertarian, for a moment, rejecting taxation as it does. However, it is far more sinister - it basically seeks to nationalise all land under the banner of this self styled government. Under the neo-fascist nationalism of this philosophy, you would only be allowed to be a "land holder" and could never sell your land, just have it passed in succession.

"for those of you who have more homes on land than you know what to do with - I will be looking to downsize your property holder portfolios in the interests of moral and restorative justice - and the same goes for Maori people. Just because you are Maori, does not mean that you will escape my long arm of restorative justice that will reach the furthermost parts of our globe".

Nasty stuff.

Apparently any Maori who disagrees is a "sellout", so it's deliberately totalitarian.

Then the real weirdness is that motor vehicle registration will end, but warrants of fitness remain, and manufacturers need to use biodegradeable materials. Yep, priorities right there!

"The New Zealand People As A Collective, Though Not Entirely, Are Using Oppressive Techniques Such As Negative Expressions, Indifferent Body Language, Verbal Jargon"

It gets funnier:

"I can actually see future events before they happen. And yes, I saw 9/11 when I was five years old, and was able to read out the names of the people who hijacked the planes. But who in the NZ government would have believed a five year old little Maori girl right? And yes. I can read tomorows paper today, and see lotto numbers before they are drawn. I can taste food I've never tasted before, and tell you things about yourself that you have never shared with the world. I can see bombs before they drop, and disasters before they happen. I can see business investments go up or down before they actually do. And I can even see horses that win at the races before the races have even begun. I believe that with this gift, I can help create world peace, anull poverty and avert wars which is exactly my intention. And once I prove to the world that I have this gift by winning lotto seven times in a row, all you prejudiced individuals will wish I were on your side."

Go on - win lotto you freak - what's stopping you?

Anyone not Maori is a foreigner or descendent of a foreigner. Not true Aryan Maori, but auslanders. The parallels with Hitler, Milosevic, apartheid era South Africa, or indeed the legions of ethno-nationalist mental pygmies who classify people by who their parents are, not what they do, are clear.

The websites related to it certainly are mindless racist ramblings.

However, more importantly shouldn't the Maori Party unanimously damn this bigoted nonsense, promoting violent theft of land, fascism and well lunatic racism?

Especially given this statement from the self styled "governor" "Therefore, in recognition of your most notable and worthy contributions to Maori causes, especially you Hone, and you Tariana for your letter of support recently, I cordially invite you and all interested parties, to the first signing ceremony of the Maori Declaration Of Independence 2008, at my home here at 546 Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa, Aotearoa, on September 30th 2009 - Maori Day Of Redemption - exactly one year following the establishment of MDOI 2008."

So Hone and Tariana. Do you agree with the sentiments of this insane Maori version of Robert Mugabe or not?

Catherine Delahunty is clearly quite mad

On Catherine Delahunty's Twitter account her views are simply too bizarre. Is it the appalling use of English, or the evasion of reality, or is someone doing a remarkably good job of poking fun at her?

Yet it seems serious!

Take her Twitter posts:

"greencatherine: Despite the pretty words and new clothes am hoping new puppy at white house will stop killing afghanis and funding Israel wars on Palestine"

The Obama puppy has been killing afghanis and funding Israel? What a wonderdog!

"Awesome Tairawhiti sunshine a good to start our own banks instead of trusting the white boy club"

Yep it's sunny so set up your own bank Catherine. Good luck with that. Banking with sea shells as currency are you?

"Ten thousand families per day lose their home in USA capitallists can fix this?"

No of course not Catherine, socialists can. Go on, make something out of nothing. Support people who borrowed beyond their means to speculate on property prices going up forever.

"If it wasnt for almonds and dark chocolate I would go crazy here."

Clearly not enough almonds and dark chocolate around.

"Iin a beige hotel after some good meetings trying not eat the chocolate as people lose their jobs"

Yep, those magic chocolates that fire people from each one you eat. Must have been made by magic witch doctor indigenous people who can cast spells on the chocolates to punish capitalists!

"Am experiencing a weird desire not to make a speech about nothing in the House, but met some amazing rangatahi yesterday at Challenge 2000"

Wanting to not make a speech about nothing, but doesn't matter I met some kids?

Come on, it must be someone making this stuff up. Surely.

Keep it up Catherine, you're the Green Party's greatest new electoral liability - Jeanette embraced reason by comparison.

More interesting facts from the Standard

Tane at the Standard presents a useful update on how the Labour government increased the largely unproductive sector (state sector - given you have to be forced to pay for it) from 1999 to 2008, whereas the previous National governments and the reformist Labour government cut it back tremendously (and of course unemployment also dropped from the mid 1990s).

Presumably the Standard intends to scare you into thinking that somehow you got a 50% added value from the 50% additional bureaucrats Labour hired over National.

Do you think you got your money's worth? Tane of course doesn't really consider it has been YOUR money that paid for it.

It's a pretty useful guide as to the bare minimum cuts the government should be implementing surely.

A car race not an arms race

The Guardian notes (hat top North Korea Economy Watch) that the ambassadors of North and South Korea in London both have equally flash limousines. Though I'd add that while the number plate of the South Korean ambassador's car (ROK1) makes sense, the number plate of the North Korean ambassador's car (PRK1D) is far too close to Prick 1 for he to have been given useful advice of English colloquialisms.

Remembering Nicky Hager

Given Idiot Savant has linked to far leftwing activist and "investigative journalist" Nicky Hager, I thought it was worthwhile to link to Trevor Loudon's useful bio on Mr Hager.

It is, after all, in the interests of transparency and fairness that people know Mr Hager is anything but an independently minded truth seeker, but has a long standing serious leftwing agenda that puts him to the left of the Green Party.

Rudman smarter than McClay

Yes, I'm astonished! I agree with Brian Rudman. In the NZ Herald he says "the simple solution does seem to be to remove all restrictions and be done with it."

Quite! It is symbolic of the disgusting interfering nature of New Zealand political culture that the ban on opening retail outlets on specific days, because some people hold them to have significance because of ghosts they worship, continues to exist and gets enforced by the most joyless set of government goons.

I blogged about this quite satisfactorily a year ago, saying Easter Sunday is for individuals not politicians, responding to Sue Bradford's own mindless press release.

It is simply fascist to tell business owners when they can and cannot trade - it is such a clear example of a victimless crime that it is beyond a joke that it remains. However, as Rudman says that "both major parties too chicken to stand up to the high priests of Christianity and organised labour on this". Indeed it is true.

Christians who wont mind their own business (because they want to mind everyone else's) and unions who want workers to all follow in unison (!) like a lumpen proletariat.

National's latest gutless MP - Todd McClay (yes you know his dad), has a bill that would NOT do away with this vile law, which should be seen as contrary to the philosophy of the National Party. No. McClay, who has no media releases on his page on the National Party website, is going to let councils decide.

Instead of embracing the freedom of businesses to decide for themselves, he has embraced a new power for local authorities to decide for them. He has done nothing more than proposing the devolution of an authoritarian law from the Labour Department to local authorities. He talks the collectivist claptrap of letting "communities decide", as if it is right that the majority decide whether a business opens or not.

Well Mr McClay, you've proven that you, and the National Party, remain gutless failures in defending the fundamental right of any business to decide when it should trade.

It's time for ACT to propose that the Bill simply remove all restrictions on shop trading hours. It is what Libertarianz would do.

UPDATE: Andrei at NZ Conservative suggests that the Labour Department be prosecuted for having its "workers" "working" on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Lucyna at the same blog disagrees, just to show that Christian conservatives are not all of one opinion on this.

Isn't the Standard funny?

with this. (and I don't support the cycleway at all)

So how about this?

Kiwirail

Time: 9.5 months
Jobs created: 0
Additional freight and passengers carried: 0
Cost thus far: $1.07 billion (purchase plus capital injection)
Wealth created from purchase: -$242 million (Treasury rightdown in November, to be conservative.)
Money saved on road maintenance minus road user charges revenue lost: 0
Enrichment of foreign investors from the New Zealand taxpayers' pockets: $206 million (difference in what Toll paid and what Dr Cullen paid using your money to buy the same thing).

What do you want local government to do?

Well under the Local Government Act 2002, which National and ACT are willing to continue with, for the Auckland megacity, a council can do the following:

Open restaurants
Establish independent and integrated schools.
Open hospitals
Establish welfare benefits
Set up its own bus company
Run its own taxi company
Start its own plumbing business
Open a chain of hairdressing salons
Establish massage therapy centres
Establish bookshops
Open a supermarket
Set up a telecommunications company
Set up a courier and postal operation
Open a florist
Establish an architecture firm
Promote tourism
Open its own hotel
Start a tour service
Start an airline
Open shoe shops
Establish a radio station
Establish a tv channel
Establish a newspaper
Open a bar
Publish local literature
Set up a comedy troupe
Fund any Auckland sports teams
Sell Christmas Trees
Run a harbour cruise company
Establish a bakery
Establish crèches
Set rules on what colours your property must be
Open a clock factory
Subsidise software sales
Buy out a magazine
Buy SkyCity
Establish a museum of erotica
Establish a museum of racism and homophobia
Establish a museum of religion
Establish a museum of socialism
Establish its own trucking company
Establish a water bottling company
Open a chain of stationery stores
Develop its own Wikipedia
Provide gardening advice to home owners
Organise raffles
Establish language schools
Set up a national political party
Start a fish farm
Start a dairy farm
Start a sheep farm
Buy out a deer farm
Buy out a vineyard
Subsidise motor mechanics
Subsidise braille classes
Subsidise home water collection systems
Celebrate Hannukah with a parade
Celebrate Buy Nothing Day with a parade
Celebrate Margaret Thatcher's birthday with a parade
Celebrate the Queen's Birthday with fireworks
Publish recipe books of Auckland recipes
etc etc etc.

Do you want this? or do you want your council to be able to do the bare minimum of planning under whatever happens to the RMA, look after footpaths and parks, let rubbish collection, water and sewerage become utilities, and manage the stormwater network under roads as long as it looks after local streets?

You see, it seems that the power of general competence that Labour, the Alliance (with Jim Anderton then) and the Greens passed, now has the tacit approval of Peter Dunne, the Maori Party, National and ACT - despite the latter two parties voting against it.

Is this what you voted for? Shouldn't you be letting John Key and Rodney Hide know loud and clear if you disagree?

Auckland megacity - what does it mean for transport?

According to the "Great" Auckland website, it means a council controlled organisation responsible for "all local and regional transport". However, it says little more. So let's explore that a bit further.

The key responsibilities in transport today are:
- The territorial authorities are responsible for their own local road network. They all raise rates to pay for between 40 and 60% of the cost of maintaining and improving the network, while bidding to the NZTA for the rest (which comes from fuel tax, road user charges etc). This is by far the most important function;
- ARTA, an ARC subsidiary, is responsible for contracting any subsidised public transport services, and registering commercially provided ones (which it has been discouraging through various contracting arrangements). It leads the rail project.

Note that all state highways in Auckland are the responsibility of the NZ Transport Agency, Transit's successor. Whether these will be handed over to the mega city is unclear. Hopefully not.

The megacity will no doubt take a view that the biggest problem with Auckland transport is not that it doesn't manage local roads well, doesn't build capacity when it is urgently needed and doesn't price the network to reflect costs, but rather there are too many cars.

It will want to use your money to subsidise those who don't drive, and penalise those who do. It wont be content with running the roads as a business, whereby anyone wanting property access pays an access fee, and motorists pay for what they use. It may neglect roads significantly, rather like Transport for London which has an appalling record in badly maintaining signs, and making next to no investment in improving capacity.

You see the megacity will own trains, and want those trains to grow. It wont own the private bus fleets so wont care so much about them It wont own trucks or cars, so they wont even be on the radar screen.

Most importantly, it wont own the motorways or be likely to build major new roads.

So the megacity wont do much, other than encourage more cross subsidisation of roads, and public transport dominating transport thinking across the region, even though it carries a tiny minority of trips.

A better solution would be to spin off the roads completely into arms length companies, responsible for providing access to properties and road space for motorists, and charging appropriately for both.

However, politicians wouldn't have control, and it wouldn't be democratic - which of course, is how everything should be - up to a vote.

Greens promote racist representation

Metiria Turei is upset that the government isn't going to introduce guaranteed race based Maori seats for the Auckland planners' wet dream megacouncil.

What evasion of the truth is it to say "The biggest Maori urban population shut out from their own city"? How are Maori residents shut out?

Have they lesser voting rights? No.
Have they lesser rights to make submissions on consultations? No.
Have they lesser rights to stand for office? No.
Have they lesser rights to apply for and be considered for employment? No.
Are Maori residents treated in any way differently from those of the many dozens of ethnic backgrounds in Auckland? No.

So why make it up? Why lie? Maori will NOT be shut out. Nor would they let themselves be shut out. Metiria is confusing South African apartheid with New Zealand local government. Why?

Because it suits her post-modernist identity politics based worldview of Maori as perpetual victims that can never be equal under systems that are not ethnically defined.

She links the lack of Maori city councillors to meaning Maori are not represented. This is presumably because the brain and views and experiences of a Maori individual can only be adequately represented by another Maori individual - NOTWITHSTANDING, any difference in philosophy, ideology or experience. In other words, your views are not something consciously chosen, but you inherit them from your ethnicity and identity.

This is why the left eschews the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ruth Richardson, because as women they SHOULD have certain political views - but they don't.

It classifies all Maori as shut out, because even though thousands vote for non-Maori council candidates (and Maori candidates), it can't mean anything. They must feel "disenfranchised".

This is like saying that if my local councillor happened to be a Chinese lesbian, I wouldn't feel represented. It is reality evasion, and by evading the truth (Maori vote for non-Maori candidates, and less Maori are interested in becoming control freaks on councils than non-Maori), you create a proposal that evades reality too.

Separate Maori seats are racist - they discriminate and distinguish on the basis of race. However, Metiria would say they are the opposite - evading reality.

So a non-race based system is racist, and a race based system is not - as long as the selected race is identified as "victim" not "oppressor". A glimpse into the mindset of the radical left.

UPDATE: Some are "angry" at not getting special political privileges based on who their ancestors are. Easier to moan and demand apartheid than to actually encourage Maori voter turnout and put up candidates isn't it?

Say no to big local government!

So according to the NZ Herald the government is going to support a modified mega city. A proposal born of the Labour inspired Royal Commission, has support from the National/ACT/Maori/Dunne government.

I already have blogged about what I think should be done with the proposal - it would make a good doorstop. How local government needs to be constrained. How a super mayor will end up being some less than competent personality with more control over your life. Owen McShane described it as fascist.

Without a cap on rates, Auckland property owners will be forced to pay more and more as the megacity grows its functions like a cancer on the life of Aucklanders.

So are Aucklanders going to put up with this? The "strengthening of democracy" only counts heads, not what's in them.

If ACT goes through with it, without a rates cap, without severely constraining the power of local government, it will prove ACT can't even drive policy when its leader is a Minister.

It is time to give the government a strong message if you're fed up with rates increases well above inflation year after year, fed up with central planning local government, fed up with petty fascist politicians and bureaucrats who think they know how to spend your money and regulate what you do with your property.

Say NO to big local government, it's time to put it on a diet, and repeal the power of general competence.

UPDATE: Not PC is eloquently making the same point in a different way.

In my entire life if I do something, I do it properly

so said Kaing Guek Eav, better known as Comrade Duch, administrator of the Tuol Sleng torture and murder prison in Phnom Penh when the Khmer Rouge was in power.

The Daily Telegraph reporting on his trial said: "His nom de guerre came from a textbook story about "Duch" a model pupil who always had his hand raised.

"I liked the name Duch because I wanted to be the well disciplined boy who respected teachers, who wanted to do good deeds,"

I remember reading that Khieu Samphan, the number two in the Khmer Rouge was a well disciplined boy too, who never had a girlfriend, and who was constantly teased.

Therein is the mind of the psychopathic mass murderers who obey the state they helped create, and spill blood as if it were water. Typically not that different from the occasional teenager who takes a gun and shoots out his fellow students.

South Africa looking more like Zimbabwe

Two events in recent days show clearly what's wrong with the corrupt ANC dominated democracy that South Africa has become.

First, the South African government refused to grant a visa for the Dalai Lama. Presumably because the ANC had a long relationship with the Communist Party of China over many years. Nelson Mandela's grandson, Mandla Mandela is damning the move according to the Daily Telegraph he said "It's a sad day for South Africa, it's a sad day for Africa. We are a nation which is striving to be a leader the in African continent. I don't think as a sovereign independent country we need to succumb to international pressure". China appreciated it, Xinhua reported how the South African court said there was "no need" for the Dalai Lama to visit South Africa. No need for most things really is there?

Now the BBC reports South Africa prosecutors have dropped corruption charges against ANC Leader Jacob Zuma. It stinks of the judicial system no longer being independent from the government or the ANC.

The new Republic of Southern Zimbabwe?

No More Rates hits the nail on the head

No More Rates suggests that megacity could be disastrous for Auckland. Why?

"The Royal Commission report could well almost certainly lead not only to higher council rates all round, but also a massive redistribution of wealth right across the region"

Now No More Rates isn't a ginger group for user pays or for cutting councils, but its concern is valid.

Local government reform must be driven by the curtailment of the grand centralised planning ideas of politicians and bureaucrats. Those who want local government to do more don't want to pay for it themselves, they want others to be forced to pay.

It is time to fight the socialist's wet dream - the megacity with a power of general competence.

It is time for a review on the role and extent of local government - governed by basic principles of protecting property rights, individual freedoms and promoting economic efficiency.

It is time to end local government being the boot camp for future leftwing MPs.

Obama invents a new language

Drew M on Ace of Spades HQ reports that Obama said whilst in Austria “There’s a lot of -- I don’t know what the term is in Austrian -- wheeling and dealing, and people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics"

Yep, you'll be hearing how unwordly and ignorant the US President is now, just like when he said the car was invented in the USA, just like all the finger pointing at George. W. Bush for his gaffes.

Oh no - somehow it isn't cool to point out Obama's mistakes is it? However, many of his supporters didn't know better either.

(Hat Tip - Tim Blair)

Good news from the left

The Greens report that the axe is to fall on some in the Ministry for the Environment. Excellent news, as there is some dead wood in MfE that has long needed weeding out, particularly those who don't understand basic applied economics. Of course it's nowhere near enough, but a good start. All i'd keep MfE for is a transitional role while property rights are assigned to waterways and the air to protect the environment. That would be useful work for a couple of clever people for a couple of years.

Idiot Savant bemoans that the crazy national cycleway idea is not to be funded, as do the Greens. Funny how encouraging more (largely European) tourists to fly to New Zealand on large jets and then bike is good for the environment given the obsession with CO2 emissions.

Finally, Idiot Savant also is upset that Rodney Hide is looking to cap rates. He thinks that the cost of what councils do presumably must always rise faster than inflation. He ignores that on average half of local road costs come from road users through the NZ Transport Agency, so the parallels with California are not close. He also ignores that water and sewage ought to be separately charged for because not all ratepayers are connected, and they use different amounts of water. More importantly, he is under the delusion that councils already do just bare minimum activities, when there is plenty of evidence they go well beyond that. However, he has long supported more taxation, and believes that its ok for democratically elected governments to pillage the money of their subjects as long as it is for the "greater good".

If only Rodney were going much further!

North Korea's fictional satellite

CNN is reporting that the North Korean "satellite" launch was a flop with part of it landing in the Korean East Sea/Sea of Japan, and the rest over shooting Japan and landing in the Pacific.

The Korean Central News Agency is proclaiming a great success "

"The satellite is going round on its routine orbit. It is sending to the earth the melodies of the immortal revolutionary paeans "Song of General Kim Il Sung" and "Song of General Kim Jong Il" and measured information at 470 MHz.

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to put the songs on Itunes for nothing? Why "launch" a non geostationery broadcast satellite? Never mind.

Kim Jong Il was thrilled too. Imagine what sleight of hand terrified North Korean scientists are undertaking to cover up this failure. Or maybe Kim Jong Il really knew it wasn't about broadcasting songs, so he doesn't care about the failure - given it is well known he has much access to foreign broadcasts (unlike most North Koreans).

Greens support racist local government

Why be surprised? Green MP Catherine Delahunty, who treats Maori almost as if they are closer to some god than non-Maori, thinks the model for separatist Maori representation in an Auckland megacity is a possible "good model for others".

Her specious claim is "The elephant in the room is the way tangata whenua are marginalised in decision making structures."

How is this? All have a vote, all can stand for council, all can make submissions to Council. Most non-Maori New Zealanders don't do any of those. Aren't they marginalised? Aren't most ratepayers marginalised by consultation processes they can't participate in because they are too busy working to pay rates and taxes?

No - Delahunty's structuralist post-modernist mental retardation prevents her from seeing how local government marginalises everyone. Or if it doesn't, maybe the tangata whenua don't care that much about roads, libraries, rubbish collection or the like (contrary to Catherine's idealistic vision of the noble native).

Furthemore, she treats existing non-racial based government as inherently racist - a kind of Orwellian doublespeak. Take this "A couple of seats at the Päkehä table ain’t the enactment of Te Tiriti o Waitangi but it might increase the number of voices dedicated to that vision."

"Päkehä table"? Who said it was? Why is it? I am sure Ray Ahipene-Mercer (Wellington councillor who ran for Mayor in 2007) doesn't think so.

Why does Catherine Delahunty insist of pigeonholing everyone into cultural/ethnic categories like some banal Balkan nationalist politician? Do Maori need her patronising hand holding to participate how they wish in local government?

Obama's nuclear plan naive and premature

I can foresee a world without nuclear weapons. It will be a world with no terrorist organisations, and one where all countries operate as closely as those in Western Europe, when war is inconceivable. Considering recent history, it is worth remembering that Germany today is a very close ally of France, the UK and the USA - for those past a certain age, this is a difficult concept to grasp (it was for Margaret Thatcher for example).

However, Barack Obama's declaration that he will convene an international summit to look at the elimination of nuclear weapons is hopefully just posturing, because the global environment to abolish nuclear weapons is far from benign.

Start with Russia, which has a government that is anything but transparent, and which could not be trusted to verifiably eliminate nuclear weapons any better than the old Soviet Union. As long as Russia remains an aggressive mini-power that seeks to exercise power outside its borders rather like the USSR did, then it would be wholly wrong to remove the nuclear deterrence. It would be a brave politician who predicts an economically beleagured Russia could not threaten its neighbours again.

Then there is China. You think it would abolish nuclear weapons? Not with Russia having them of course, nor India. China also is far from having a government that could be trusted to verify abolishing its nuclear arsenal.

North Korea's existing nuclear capability, and Iran's planned capability both do not bode well. It would also be madness to remove the nuclear deterrent from the Korean peninsula, nor to remove the ability to deter Iran. Finally, will India or Pakistan blink first? While Pakistan remains an unstable state, that risks falling to Islamism, you must wonder why India would remove its arsenal?

I need not state why Israel would never abolish its nuclear option either, given the existential threat it faces from Iran and others.

John Key and Phil Goff have parroted support for it. Sadly neither noted that nuclear weapons kept the peace in the Cold War between those countries that held them. New Zealand included of course.

As long as there remain state enemies of open transparent liberal capitalist societies, nuclear weapons should be held by the Western allies. The alternative are those who execute political opponents, censor opposition and wish to command control over the West having a monopoly on nuclear weapons. That is utterly unthinkable.

Helen Clark felt right

The NZ Herald reports on how Peter Davis on TVNZ said Helen Clark felt "rejected" by the New Zealand public in the last election.

"I think she felt rejected, because she felt she had done a good job - which I also believe - and had put her best foot forward and had been an almost incomparable Prime Minister and yet somehow the public had not seen that the same way" he said

Yes Peter, she was rejected. Almost incomparable? Well perhaps, by wasting away the fruits of a recovery on growing the bureaucracy and the state, flushing hundreds of millions of dollars away of (now this is what they don't understand) OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY in buying back a railway and an airline.

Fortunately New Zealand is a liberal democracy, and enough got tired of "the state is sovereign" Helen. She won 1999 following a growing send of tiredness of National's cobbled together and increasingly repulsive flotsam and jetsam minority government. 2002 she won because Bill English hadn't met a principle he could embrace and stand for anything at all, and the recovery was keeping enough people happy. 2005 she barely won helped ever so slightly by breaking the law by using parliamentary funds to do electoral campaigning.

Of course, the truth is she only got into power thanks to Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne and Winston Peters bringing their parties into coalition and confidence/supply agreements. All of their parties have paid a high price for such arrangements.

Let's constrain democratic local government!

The Standard warns ominously that the government might take steps to hinder the growth of local government's role saying:
- A bill is to be introduced "to ‘cap rates at the rate of inflation’ will cripple councils ability to fund essential new projects" ;
-The Auckland report INITIATED BY THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT will provoke "another round of amalgamation to create ’super-cities’". Which will, of course, "sell assets such as airports whenever they can" (yep those privately owned airports never work);
- As part of RMA reform the government will "axe Regional Councils"; and
- Water metering will be introduced.

Now apart from the second point (as I completely oppose supercities for reasons explained here), bring it on!

The Standard shows once again enthusiasm for pilfering from people's salaries, but also notably continue economic ignorance.

What are these "essential new projects" that councils can't convince people to pay for voluntarily? It doesn't matter, as long as people vote for a council, the Standard thinks it can rate the public as much as it likes, until the next election. A cap on rates being at inflation only is a bare minimum to stop councils growing in their thieving from ratepayers.

It shows continued bigotry against privatisation, because the predominantly privately owned Auckland and Wellington airports are so badly run, compared to council owned Christchurch. Seriously, get a grip.

The axing of regional councils is feasible despite the bogus claim that "most Regional Councils manage important public functions and are fat targets for selling off major parks, water and transport assets worth many tens of billions of dollars". Most regional councils are actually glorified water catchment boards, with boundaries that reflect that. Only Auckland and Wellington ones have substantially additional functions. Most have no parks or transport assets of any consequence. Creating water catchment companies with property rights would address the relevant issues, and public transport assets in Auckland and Wellington could be held by territorial authority owned companies.

Then the real ignorance is in opposing water metering. You'd think the Standard ought to support those who use the most water paying for it, paying a bigger share of the infrastructure and water purification costs (and sewage disposal), but no. You'd think ensuring that demand reflects shares of costs would help ensure that expansion of water supplies was done when it is efficient, not when politicians get their act together (or build think big options). No. Of course, it all ignores the decades of mismanagement of water infrastructure by councils that did not replace or repair the network (something Thames Water is addressing in London). The Standard presumably thinks everyone should pay the same for water - yep, good old Marxist "economics".

Of course I don't for a moment believe the government will do ANYTHING The Standard suggests - sadly, as it would mean Rodney Hide will have done some good.

Oh and democratic local government? Give me a break. Turnout for council elections is abysmal, and democracy is never accountability when councils just vote to increase charges on the public year in year out. It is the majority (non ratepayers) voting for the minority to be pillaged for their pet projects. It's time local government was shackled.

So what about supporting the child?

I am unsurprised that Maia is supporting the woman who gave birth on a plane, who clearly was so distressed she isn't fit to be a mother (you can't look after a child if you can't look after yourself), but more curious that she is supporting her in prison (as is her right)- but doing nothing about the completely helpless baby she gave birth to.

I don't doubt Karolaine Maika is a seriously disturbed woman - but mothers, unless they adopt, have responsibilities for their children. If they fail to take even basic steps to ensure that someone else can look after them, then they are beyond the pale.

For regardless of how disturbed she is, the baby is completely and utterly helpless.

Although Maia has previously said that when people are so poor, you can understand them torturing a three year old. "it's part of a bigger project to blame people in poverty for making bad choices on an individual level, rather than seeing the structural issues which leave people so broken that they torture a three year-old".

Need I say more?

NZ's best political satire is on Twitter

It sadly lacks, I'm unsure whether a small country lacks comic genius, or whether there is some cringe among those in broadcasting to give it a fair go (and to be fair I don't watch NZ TV for a fairly obvious reason), but the best political satire I am finding now is on Twitter.

If you're not following

Trevor Mallard
Parekura Horomia
David Cunliffe (no this one doesn't deserve the silent "T") and
Clayton Cosgrove

you are missing out. It's the main reason I log onto Twitter, and now I found

Shane Jones
Maryan Street

and there are more.

UPDATE: Oops Darren Hughes is real, it's not that funny. Any more MP satirical Twitters?

Wanaka's National Front school?

Seriously, is Mt. Aspiring College the least worldly most naive high school in the country? Or a secret hot bed of neo-Nazi knuckle draggers?

Wanaka is such a beautiful location, does it just mean people there don't read, watch TV or read history?

Does it mean the school curriculum is so utterly devoid of history that so many of the staff and students are just plain ignorant?

Someone better find out - I bet the semi-evolved grunts in the National Front will be getting their tiny penises (they are 90% "men") all excited about how they need to have their conference in Wanaka as a result of this story.

Life in Wanaka is clearly far too mundane because the Southland Times reports

"many students have already got their costumes organised after depleting all the stocks of white coveralls from Wanaka's Mitre 10 hardware store. Manager Mark Watson said he had no idea the $7.98 clothing item had been so popular when contacted last night, but after a quick check of his database confirmed he had only large sizes of the boilersuit-type clothing left."

Only the slim to average sized stupid and racist students are going. Although one report does suggest a bit of mischief making:

"Last year they went on sale two weeks earlier and this year it was only a few days before. They were hiding them until the last minute. "Those kids are not as dumb as the principal is making out."" says "angry mother".

Bloody hell! Parents of Wanaka. Airfares to Australia are NOT expensive, probably cheaper than to Auckland if you scoot to Queenstown. Take your kids at least to Aussie (well Sydney and/or Melbourne anyway) at least twice before they are 13.

Buy them books.

Show them where the news channels on Sky are.

and most of all, show them images of white supremacists in their natural environment (above).

(Credit to Stuff for the image)

The G20's declaration against you

The full text of the declaration is here.

Despite some nice words about markets and recovery, there isn't a lot to cheer about, unless you think it could have been worse.

A lot more money for the IMF to lend to governments which overreached themselves. Rewarding the profligate wasters and overspenders.

A commitment to sustaining the fiscal child abuse that pours a fortune of borrowed money into unproductive activity under the guise of stimulus.

Creating a Financial Stability Board to punish countries that grow "recklessly".

Punishing countries that offer taxpayers protection from the thieving claws of the likes of the US IRS and the legalised thieves of other national tax mafias. Public finances are important, your finances are not important.

A limp wristed pledge to not increase trade protectionism for the next 20 months. Given Barack Obama already had a hand in increasingly US farm subsidies, it's hardly surprising. A statement on progressing the Doha round, a bare minimum really.

So for all the cheshire cat grins of Gordon "Britain always is in deficit under me" Brown and Barack "no more pork, except my pork laden budget" Obama, this summit was a wet blanket. It has done next to nothing, done little to avoid future harm, and has shown an inadequate regard for how the global economy is dependent upon producers not governments.

Well at least protestors should remain disappointed.

Standard distorts G20 protests

It reports tens of thousands protested, yet the BBC reports there were only 5,000. (The post on the Standard links to BBC News but clearly doesn't read it).

It ignores the direct attacks on Police which I saw live on TV, refusing to take sides of course. It ignores the rampant vandalism of the RBS branch in the city for being the reason why the Police contained the protestors.

See I watched the coverage on BBC News and Sky News channels for most of the day yesterday. The Standard is getting its news secondhand. Funny how it writes about inaccuracy when it writes such shoddy nonsense as this.

What I fear about One Auckland

At Not PC Owen McShane characterises the proposal for a single megacity for Auckland as fascist.

Now, while this risks derision by the mere use of the word fascist, it is worth noting only the differences between TRUE fascism and what is being described for Auckland.

Yes, you will be able to leave Auckland, you will be able to criticise the megacity with the same free speech rights as now, you wont face more censorship, you wont be conscripted into an army to invade Ethiopia.

However, you will face more co-ordinated attacks on your private property rights, you might face the megacity regulating your business, or even competing with you. The megacity will have a substantial budget for propaganda publicity, and with one grand plan you'll know what is expected of you, your land use decisions and your property in the future. You are likely to face ever growing demands for money from your pocket, through rates. A megacity after all can increase rates by a small amount and get so much from it. Besides, few of you objected with relatively large ARC rates increases, so that can continue right?

A megacity will dilute your influence. By this I don't mean that there should be more democracy. That will simply mean those with the greatest lobbying strength (either by numbers or money) will use a megacity to regulate, tax and subsidise as they see fit. The left fears this ends up being business, the right fears it ends up being leftwing activist groups - both are right - Auckland does not need governance by lobbyist.

However, what will happen is just that. Loud lobbyists will work full time to lobby a megacity, and a megacity will have an army of planners out to ensure land use, transport use, energy use and indeed almost all aspects of day to day life are monitored and regulated if they can be legally empowered to do so.

In fact, I expect one of the first things a megacity will ask for is a review of local authority regulatory powers and tax raising powers, which were not substantially changed in the 2002 Local Government Act. The megacity will complain it isn't sufficiently empowered (to have power over you), or can't make you pay enough for it to do what it want otherwise known as raise revenue.

Auckland is over governed as it is.

The Royal Commission on Auckland report should be treated as follows by the government:

- Thank you, very interesting;
- Raises some important issues about current problems with local government in Auckland;
- Royal Commission operated under a mandate determined by the previous government so did not address some fundamental issues about the role of local government that this government has;
- We believe there are more fundamental issues to the performance of Auckland based on local authorities going far beyond certain core principles that should limit want councils do;
- As such we will be undertaking a more fundamental review of local government across the country, and will take into account Auckland as part of that review;
- (Thanks for the doorstop, the Royal Commission on Social Policy documents were getting a bit yellow).

Time to consider what the hell local government ought to be doing.

Time for those who say "not very much" to make their voices heard loud and clear, before the Nat/Act/Maori/Dunne government takes what Labour has done on local government (give it an almost unlimited mandate), and make it much much worse.

Otherwise, Rodney Hide's position as Minister of Local Government will have been for nothing.

George Galloway refused entry into Canada

I am slightly late on this, but it is curious that George Galloway, who supported the ban of Dutch MP Geert Wilders (because free speech is not an absolute) is complaining about the Canadian government refusing him entry because of his views on Afghanistan and his support for Hamas and Hizbollah. The decision has been upheld by a court appeal.

Galloway, you see, has said explicitly that he provided financial support to Hamas - an organisation that trains and arms suicide bombers, that produces television calling for children to be martyrs against Israel. Here is a video of him supporting suicide bombing and Hamas, Hizbollah and

He also has denied the genocide in Darfur, defended the Islamist dictator of Sudan Omar al-Bashir who is subject to an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Of course who can forget him saluting Saddam Hussein for his "courage and indefatigability", his friendship with dictator Fidel Castro. He also has spoken of how lucky Syria is to have Bashar al-Assad as President - who holds onto power much like Saddam did - running a one party state.

Galloway is a vile creature, who tells one story to the mainstream British media, whilst essentially befriending the enemies of Western civilisation and liberal democracy. He is a willing whore to murdering dictators and terrorists. It is no wonder Canada excludes him, as he happily supports enemies of Canada.

If I were a resident of Bethnal Green & Bow for the 2010 General Election I'd vote Labour to remove this vermin of the political system.

Hat tip: "Tony Blair" blog (well not really him)

Are we losing Afghanistan?

No, it's not April Fool, it's not even the Taliban winning, it's the government we are supporting. The Daily Telegraph reports that Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai has signed a new law legalising marital rape. The Telegraph continues that the unpublished law...

"is believed to state women can only seek work, education or doctor's appointments with their husband's permission.

Only fathers and grandfathers are granted custody of children under the law, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women."

The Guardian reports:

"Senator Humaira Namati, a member of the upper house of the Afghan parliament, said the law was "worse than during the Taliban". "Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam," she said."

It is believed the law is part of a strategy to win votes in the upcoming election. The US government has raised it directly with Hamid Karzai.

The point should be clear. Aid is dependent entirely on Afghanistan moving towards more individual rights and freedom, and should be pulled if the opposite happens.

Idiot Savant thinks it calls into question New Zealand's military commitment to Afghanistan, (Which he opposes, preferring Afghanistan be left to the Taliban presumably). What it SHOULD do is question all aid, and New Zealand should support a united front of all countries with military presence supporting the fragile democracy in Afghanistan to demand that this means protecting individual rights.

It is important to fight the Taliban, it provides succour for Al Qaeda, part of the Iraqi insurgency and is pushing into Pakistan. It is the dead enemy of Western civilisation. Afghanistan's government should not look like a Taliban-lite.

Afghanistan should be a constitutional liberal democracy that guarantees basic individual rights and freedoms. If foreign troops are not there defending, nurturing and protecting that, they are doing less than half their job.

A hole in Lenin's arse

A hole has been blasted in Lenin's arse by vandals in St Petersburg according to the Daily Telegraph.

Quite right, the bastard was responsible for the murder of tens of thousands, and famine of millions in the 1920s. He was a deliberate mass murderer, and his name deserves to live in infamy, and he started a revolution that would bring Stalin to power bringing tens of millions to their deaths, and his satellites in eastern Europe, North Korea and Africa (be fair to say China's revolution was separate).

Something to remind the next spotty idiot wearing a Lenin tshirt.

Why cheer Clark?

David Garrett is a dickhead, as many of his comments have shown he is closer to the "mob justice" view of the world, and has a mixed view of individual rights at best. However, in refusing to participate in the nauseating standing ovation for Helen Clark he deserves credit for having some principle.

Seriously. He may not have a clue on some things, but he is a man who believes in certain things - he didn't enter politics to be cheering Helen Clark.

If you belong to ACT or National you belong to political movements that essentially are opposed to the socialist Nanny State view of the world exemplified by the Clark led Labour Party. Clark is an intelligent, cold power hungry politician, who has spent her whole life working to have the power she centralised around herself, Heather Simpson and strictly controlling government communications led by now MP Brendan Burns. She increased government regulation and theft of people's incomes and property, with only a handful of exceptions, she declared "the state is sovereign" showing her utter contempt for there being any fundamental individual rights.

Clark broke the law and had it repealed so she wouldn't face the consequences, as Labour used government administrative funding to pay for electioneering. She ran a tight ship, a Cabinet comprised of people she largely regarded as far less competent than herself (which is true), and subverted Ministerial authority by having Cabinet papers vetoed by H2 before they got presented to Cabinet. She promoted racially driven policies with "Closing the Gaps", before hypocritically turning her back on them when Don Brash got traction with "One law for all". She warmly embraced giving local government far more extensive powers to spend your money and interfere with what you do. She retained a tight grip on the anti-competitive and centrally controlled state education and health monopolies that all are forced to pay for, whether they deliver what users want or not.

She's off to lead a featherbedded lazy UN organisation, and live off the back of global taxpayers' money (mostly from wealthy Western countries) travelling to many countries, like the Queen of aid and development.

Yes it is bad politics to have sour grapes and not cheer her on. However, it is hypocrisy to pretend you thin she deserves a cheer - I'd have preferred if she spent her life as an academic, and didn't try to run other people's lives. The New Zealand economy, the health and education of New Zealanders, New Zealanders' property rights and their individual freedoms have all suffered because of this woman.

A better approach would be for those politicians who have consistently opposed her politics (and to be fair plenty of National MPs have not), to simply excuse themselves from the House. Let Labour, the Greens, Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne have their love in.

Will National support racist local government?

Now once John Key signed a confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party we all knew the Maori seats in Parliament wouldn't be going anywhere. Not a particularly big deal, after all they already exist.

However, race based seats for local government ARE new, and National opposed them vehemently whilst in Opposition.

The NZ Herald is reporting that the government is considering Maori based seats as part of a mega Auckland council. John Key was non-committal about it, but Pita Sharples expressed support for the concept in principle, although he had issue with the detail.

Do you want local government representation to be based on your race, or just your political views? Is it appropriate in the 21st century for psychologically based identities (for ethnicity is in the mind, not a matter of fact) to be legally entrenched in political representation, or for it to be based on one person one vote, and for representatives to be based on political views not the legend of ethnicity?

It would be nice if the Minister of Local Government - Rodney Hide - made it abundantly clear that race based local government representation will not be allowed under this government.

Paul Goldsmith, Auckland City Councillor, agrees.

Electricity review might deliver useful answers

I tend to be sceptical of reviews, but the report in the NZ Herald of the government's announcement of a Ministerial review into the electricity sector is likely to look at how this state dominated generation and retail sector needs to be unshackled to allow competition to operate more freely.

Gerry Brownlee has indicated one issue is duplication of sector governance, which basically means too much bureaucracy. Energy security is important as Labour interfered considerably to try to guarantee supply (at high cost), and pricing given the government is the key market player is worth observing. The question being whether Labour milked the SOEs for dividends compared to investment in capacity.

The panel appointed includes some useful heavyweights. Brent Layton and Lewis Evans are excellent infrastructure sector economists who understand markets, Stephen Franks should add a reasonably sound legal perspective, and David Russell while on the left, becomes the consumer representative. Toby Stevenson knows the electricity sector intimately, and Miriam Dean is a competition lawyer.

Not a unionist, token ethnic representative or gender balance in sight, a review made up of intelligent, talented people.

However, will it be allowed to recommend privatisation of the sector? There is little sign that it will support the crazy Green agenda of recreating a single state owned monolith electricity generator.

So I am cautiously optimistic that it will unshackle the sector, and support more private sector investment (after all minority private investment wouldn't be full privatisation would it?).

More importantly, will a similar heavyweight team review the telecommunications sector?

Police let protestors smash RBS branch

Nice, so the Police forces in London have done relatively nothing to stop the graffiti, window smashing, raiding and robbery of a Royal Bank of Scotland Branch in the City of London.

The BBC is reporting that people are moving freely in and out of the Branch, and riot Police are not moving in yet - presumably because they don't have the number ready yet. I am seeing windows being smashed live on camera still, some 15 minutes after it started.

RBS is 70% state owned, but it is slightly chilling that the Police are unable to respond directly to such wanton vandalism and theft.

One of the protestors said it is because "our money goes into their pockets", which of course is the fault of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party who took it out of "their pockets" in the first place!

G20 - what good it could do

While the UK media fawns over the arrival of Barack Obama, and several thousand solutionless people who are statists or anarchists, the G20 summit COULD achieve good if only two things happened.

1. The G20 came out, unanimously, against trade protectionism, in favour of renewing the Doha round, and a new emphasis on lowering barriers to trade in primary products, manufactured goods and services. THIS could do more to encourage global recovery than any other government measure because, it basically, is about removing government measures.

2. The less free G20 members (China, Russia in particular) might notice that an economy in trouble can have public political protests largely kept under control.

However, this is unlikely. Far more likely are platitudes, a few moans from poorer countries that it isn't their fault (but showing how dependent they are on wealthy country demand), and a demonstration that everyone is in agreement that the recession should end.

On the other side, I've noticed in the protests some Soviet flags (because the USSR was known to accept public protests as a matter of course), and the hard left "Stop the War Coalition" is calling for US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, an end to aid for Israel and unilateral nuclear disarmament. In other words, surrender to Islamists and leave nuclear weapons in the hands of dictatorial governments. Charming lot.

Rob Muldoon's back

The NZ Herald says NZ$1.5 billion of your money - an "investment" - which will "bring New Zealand into the 21st century" - "enable it to compete with countries such as Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong". (Ah yes the 20th century is alive in well in NZ, and which Korea are we competing with again?)

Yes, National is going to grow the state by setting up a "Crown investment company" called "Crown Fibre Investment Co" (not that it is picking technology winners of course!) to build a network, and the users will come. I said before the election that this was shades of Muldoon's Think Big.

Look at the promises behind it:
- John Key says "They will be able to watch TV comfortably and easily over their computer screens, ". OHH TV over the computer screen, now THAT will create jobs right? I mean it's not as if there isn't digital Freeview subsidised by the state, and Sky's own commercially provided satellite platform right? You need TV via broadband to.... let you watch foreign TV subsidised??
- and "they will be able to run businesses from home". Amazing. Don't believe anyone running a business from home at the moment, they LIE, you can't do it without fibre to your home!

This is despite Telecom, Vodafone and Telstra Clear, the only real network providers in the country saying that their own plans will be adequate to meet demand - no doubt noting that when the government starts setting up a rival network, it devalues their own. In other words, the government is effectively shutting out significant new PRIVATELY funded network investment.

Ask yourself how you'd feel now as Telstra Clear, having spent hundreds of millions of dollars ten or so years ago rolling out hybrid fibre-coax cable to the kerb in Wellington and Christchurch, for the state to be now using taxpayers' money to roll out a superior network? (Well frankly Telstra Clear, having called for state expropriation of Telecom's property rights SHOULD now feel some chagrine).

Ernie Newman of the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand (not producers mind you, and not taxpayers either) is happy as can be, having long demanded the state subsidise and regulate for the benefit of his members. He was long a chief advocate of confiscating Telecom's property rights.

So why is this happening? Does the government truly believe that subsidising a particular technology so that consumers (far more than producers) can download Youtube, music, listen to internet radio and play high definition interactive games is good for the economy, or even moral?

After all, Stuff says "Ultra-fast broadband will let people watch high-definition or three-dimensional TV online, while talking on the phone via broadband or making video phone calls. Downloading movies will become much faster."

Is that worth subsidising? Faster movie downloads??

Anyway, why wont the private sector provide if people want it (and crucially are willing to pay)?

Well when you add up:
- Government denying Telecom and Vodafone private property rights over their telecommunications networks by forcing both to sell capacity on their networks to competitors at a price set by government;
- Government likely to regard any collusion between telcos for a new fibre network to be "anti-competitive";
- The RMA allowing local authorities to prohibit new overhead wire telecommunications networks in their districts, even if there are already such networks at present.

Then you might figure out that this Muldoonist approach to telecommunications is the wrong approach, and that subsidising the entertainment of New Zealanders who want cheap fast broadband is quite simply wrong.

David Farrar is typically abandoning his usual rather liberal smaller state approach to affairs and swinging in behind Muldoonist central planning of internet infrastructure. He will enjoy fibre to the kerb, and thinks my parents and their elderly friends should be forced to pay for it.

It is Think Big for the 21st century, it is cheaper, and less ambitious, but is driven by the same cargo cult belief that it will be some sort of economic saviour.

At best, it might prove to be financially self sustaining at some point, and get enough use to not be a total disaster, but at worst it will prove to be far more expensive than predicted, will not be completed according to plan, supplant other technologies, and wont deliver cheap broadband because... quite simply, it can't make international internet backbone capacity cheaper.

UPDATE: Paul Walker at Antidismal quotes an interesting example of how private sector underinvestment occurs when it fears the risk of nationalisation.

Strange radio signals from space

While most were sceptical this morning of the reports from Mongolia of irregular radio signals from space, the confirmation of these reports from independent sources in Europe, Africa, the United States and Australia is exciting scientists at several universities.

Professor Ahmed Tanfik Rachdi of the University of Algiers was reported as reading the signal from the University's own listening station that signals on frequencies of 6576-6602 kHz and 9325-9345 kHz seemed to not follow any regular pattern, but that the wide bandwidth included an amplitude modulated sound that, if verified, would be the very first sound transmission received from space not attributable to a natural phenomenon. However he was not the first to note it. The signal detection was shared by several others, first noted in Mongolia.

"Doctor Choi Khan San of Ulaan Baatar University may well have been telling the truth when he noted the disruption to regular radio broadcasts for 67 minutes between 10.34 and 11.41GMT did not come from any typical radio bandwidth transmission" said Professor Rachdi.

Professor Bart Kennedy of the Berkeley Institute of Astronomical Science is unconvinced, and says it might be a reflection of a signal from outside the solar system that has taken some time to return to earth, although he says scientists should have a better idea after further research.

Is it just a bizarre reflection (and amplification) of past radio signals from earth from some other source, or is it intelligence from outer space?

Greenpeace spokesperson Elkin Colinsonya of Finland said that if there is evidence of life outside earth, we should "ignore it, as we shouldn't corrupt its ways". Colinsonya said research into signals from outer space simply encouraged the use of electricity for purposes inconsistent with the sustainability of the planet. "What if humans become friends with inhabitants from another planet? We'll want to use it and abuse it like our own".

Rob Muldoon's back AGAIN

Want a new home? Why don't you turn to the government, given the latest Stuff report?

The Building and Housing Department (yes I didn't know it existed either) held a contest using your money for a design for an affordable "starter home". The winning design would apparently cost a state defined NZ$168,000 to build (excluding land) half the "usual cost" (forget the market, the recent drop in prices confuses bureaucracies as it makes planning difficult).

"Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson said the competition showed starter homes could offer superb design and be affordable."

The state is needed to provide such valuable information.

Will it be building any though? (to be fair, this was a Labour Government initiative).

Kiwis get a tax cut - what to do with it?

Be grateful for it, although the Standard doesn't get it - a tax cut means you getting more of YOUR money back. It was never the government's in the first place. It hasn't been taken from anyone, it just isn't being taken from YOU anymore.

The left will bleat on about those who effectively pay next to no tax anyway getting no cut, not that the left promised any cuts for them anyway. Instead the left will evade the point that a tax cut is leaving people to have more of their own money, it doesn't "plunder the state" anymore than not being robbed isn't plundering from thieves.

So here is a simple guide for those who oppose the tax cuts. You have only two moral options for the money.

1. Gift all of the tax cut money to the state. You would have preferred it had gone there in the first instance. Don't pretend you're so retarded you need to be forced to pay money to an institution you wish did more, do it by choice; or

2. Gift all of the tax cut money to charities that support the social activities you say you are passionately concerned about. This may be education, health, social care, poverty, international aid, whatever. Then you might see results, the money will be going somewhere YOU care about, and you wont regret the tax cut.

Because, you see, if you oppose tax cuts, you oppose that money of yours being spent on you and your loved ones. You'd be a hypocrite if you didn't donate the lot.

So go on, what are you going to do besides get angry and jealous that richer people earn more than you (pay more tax anyway) and get more of their own money back when any tax is cut?

John Key starts to figure out Nick Smith

John, sorry to say it but told you so.

How many more swings at the ball is Nick Smith going to be allowed before you realise what a liability he is?

Now on my other points:
1. Peter Dunne needs to be pushed to one side eventually, you'll be rewarded for abolishing the Families Commission.
2. I said ACT should deal with the RMA, give Environment to Roger Douglas.
3. The Maori Party is harmless so far.
4. ii - Education Minister is who? Anne Tolley. Well we'll see.
iii - Steven Joyce was the right choice for Transport, well done.
5. You are warming to this, which is good.
6. Oh the RMA review is a Nick Smith special, like I said, hand this to Roger Douglas.
7. I doubt you've done this, but I'll wait and see.
8. Go to Sweden and the Netherlands next time you're in Europe. Take Anne Tolley. Learn how education deregulation works, and make sure enough braindead TV journalists follow.
9. Is Tim Groser's ticket to Washington booked yet? Why not?
10. Read Reisman yet? You just might have.

Helen Clark too hard working for UNDP

Well, I'd abolish the UNDP of course. Like all UN organisations it is a bloated bureaucracy which employs many people for whom hard work is something they'll never be accused of experiencing. I've spent plenty of time dealing with UN organisations, some of the curiosities were the compulsory morning and afternoon tea breaks, half an hour each, and the two hour lunch break, with 5.30pm being the absolute latest working period. 9.30am-5.30pm minus three hours! Criticise Clark for many things, but she was a hard worker - she worked long hours ensuring that her largely mediocre ministers didn't screw up completely.

Tax free pay, accommodation and medical allowances, flying business class everywhere. It is a racket that many on the left are only too happy to suckle from. A racket that treats all countries as being equal, whether it be Sweden or Belarus.

The UNDP has been subject to allegations of financial impropriety in North Korea, a place where Medicins sans Frontieres chose to leave because it couldn't guarantee that its aid would get to the needy instead of the military and the party.

Clark will continue to live off the back of taxpayers, people forced to pay for her. However, she is likely to be heading this rather awful organisation which may get the better of her.

What SHOULD happen is the UNDP should be privatised, and be an agency run and led by people who want to help international development, by voluntary donation of their time and money - not lazy barely employable bureaucrats who are more interested in protecting their vested interests.

Yet another reason for Auckland not to be a supercity

Gary Taylor likes the idea.

He likes it because it can strengthen planning of where and how development can take place. He likes it because it can push his vision of "sustainable urban form" retaining urban growth limits. Given he says it is good for the environment, you can see where this is heading. Greater Auckland City will be a behemoth of a planning monster.

The debate, of course, should be what is the role of local government?

Until you answer that question, the form it would take is pointless to discuss.

Sunday Star Times asks idiot about transport

Well if you read this article by Esther Howard in New Zealand's leading leftwing rag - the Sunday Star Times, you wouldn't be that enlightened about Auckland transport. She talked to three leading international gurus and an Auckland expert, none of whom actually presented differing views from each other.

Paul Mees is a radical advocate of endless subsidies to public transport, and is rabidly against private transport. He does not present evidence for his claims, and is not widely acknowledged as being of great standing in urban transport circles in Australia and New Zealand. He wants an end to road building, and to pour money into public transport, putting high density Zurich on a par with Auckland. He gives no evidence whatsoever for his claim that this would reduce congestion.

Paul Bedford is another public transport enthusiast, wanting trams galore and also anti-roads. Again, someone who gives no evidence that spending a fortune on public transport will ease congestion.

Professor George Hazel is a bit more sensible. Another supporter of public transport, but more intelligently also promotes integrated ticketing and payment systems. He suggests people get credits for using public transport off peak.

Stuart Donovan from Auckland is even more sensible, as he promotes ending requirements for developers to provide parking (but then advocates taxes on parking). He supports replacing fuel taxes with tolls, at least this would ease congestion.

So you see, high standards of journalism again in New Zealand newspapers. No one who believes in efficient management of roads and free market transport was asked. The answer, you see, is to run all transport commercially - roads and public transport.

Nick Smith the Green Party's Cabinet Minister in drag

What a f'ing surprise! Nick Smith - the man John Key should have relegated to the back benches, and who I called on Nelson voters to reject in favour of Maryan Street, is calling for a new bizarre tax - this time on plastic bags according to the Dominion Post.

Hello??!! Nick, if you want to be in the Green Party, join it.

A 5c tax on every plastic bag is allegedly based on the "polluter pays" principle. Paying for what though? This is when the advocates shut up.

Smith says "We are a country of just four-million people, we use over a billion bags a year, and to me that's excessive". Oh sorry Dear Leader Nick, we are using them too much, like bad little children wanting to carry our shopping in multiple bags, then using them for rubbish disposal. We ARE naughty, go on tell us off.

The proposed tax would raise revenue to go back to supermarkets. Odd indeed. Especially since some shops already charge for bags, like Pak n Save in the North Island. So there IS choice. Nick doesn't like that though, as any good Green MP he believes in using force - force is good.

The supermarket sector prefers a voluntary approach, but is gutlessly supporting the proposal if the government mandates it (presuming glad the government wants to impose a tax to give money to supermarkets).

The same report says they comprise only 0.2% of waste but don't biodegrade. The appropriate response is "so what", largely because as long as people pay for landfill use (which many do not because councils subsidise them), then it is irrelevant. You see, that is the only issue.

So my solution is far more direct. Landfills should be privatised. All councils should be required to put landfills into profit-oriented Council Controlled Organisations, and to privatise them. That would mean everyone has to pay for rubbish collection and disposal, at market prices. Then, polluters would be paying, because as long as you pay for what you throw away, and it goes somewhere that does not leach onto neighbouring land, then who cares?

Unless, of course, you worship the ideology that throwing away anything is bad.

Support government programmes by choice

The Standard is bleeting on that you wont be forced to pay for so many state programmes it thinks are just dandy.

So my question is this - what is stopping those who agree with them paying for them by choice? Yes there is this incredible concept, astonishing in its equity and fairness, called choice.

If you want to support advertising that encourages kids to eat healthy, YOU pay for it. Why not? You go try to convince others to donate too. It's what charities and businesses do all the time.

If you want to subsidise the coastal shipping industry, then YOU pay for it. After all, if you think it's so good for others, why be a selfish prick and not try to keep it going?

If you want to subsidise the provision of water supplies to rural districts, then YOU pay for it. After all, just because banal councils couldn't run infrastructure efficiently, nor are ratepayers willing to pay for clean water, why should taxpayers do so?

Not the lazy "get the state to make everyone pay" violent collectivist nonsense that the left gleefully portrays as "caring" when it is nothing of the sort.

So go on - those on the left, spend your taxcuts on the things the government isn't spending money on that you want. If you spend them on anything else, you're a hypocrite. If you wont spend money on the government, why the hell should everyone else be forced to?

Why is Slovakia not financially bereft?

Simple.

Slovak's borrowed more prudently. Slovak banks lended more prudently.

Was it due to regulation?

No. Slovakia has a fairly deregulated economy, with flat income and company tax.

So says Slovak university students in Bratislava, who largely support the free market and are worried that the rural majority will want to go back to centrally planned socialism. This is from the BBC!

Its main challenge is the collapse in car exports, since it had a booming car assembly industry thanks to lower wages and hard working employees. So it is far from immune, and has seen economic growth plummet - but its financial sector is sound. No talk of bank bailouts at all.

The BBC on Ayn Rand

This time it was Newsnight on Friday night, the culture segment chose to review Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. The episode is here, which probably cannot be watched outside the UK, but give it a go (get past the Vince Cable nonsense first and the Rand bit finishes at about 12 minutes). Why is it mentioned? Because sales have taken off.

Now I criticise the book in only two points. Firstly, it IS too long. It makes the same point repeatedly, which to me (given I already was an objectivist when I read it) was unnecessary. Secondly, it became increasingly predictable what would happen . As such I much prefer The Fountainhead, although Atlas Shrugged is a great tale, it was one which had an outcome I expected. Many better written books exist, but still it makes an important point.

What would happen if the inventors and producers DID go on strike?

It starts with Yaron Brook from the Ayn Rand Institute explaining the point of Atlas Shrugged and does so well. However, then Kirsty Wark is generally annoying, but to get Ayn Rand mentioned on the BBC is an achievement in itself. However, it was Rosie Boycott, who was once editor of the Express (barely a step beyond a tabloid rag) who missed the point of the book, and so described it as "full of Aryan heroes" which was disturbing.

The BBC showed it was completely incapable of getting a panel on its show of people with differing points of view - NOBODY who supported Rand was presented.

More disturbing is Boycott didn't bother to investigate Rand's own history as a refugee from totalitarianism, a Jew and a despiser of all forms of fascism. Boycott, who has edited the Independent and the Express (neither known for either being that independent or clever), is a Liberal Democrat, and, and it was "dehuman". "Nobody in the book is vulnerable and human. Every transaction is financial", which of course is total nonsense as well.

The swarmy Andrew Roberts, a historian, said "you simply can't abolish income tax and sack government employees" which is nonsense. The narrowness of this view is astonishing. He calls her a strange if not mad woman, who was chucked out of every political organisation she tried to join.

Sarfraz Manzoor (A Guardian writer) criticises it as lacking humanity and any doubt. all heroes are individuals, but in the real world most things are done as teams. He sees it is too easy to blame government intervention, when it should be the lack of intervention that is the issue.

So there you have it - the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation bringing on three people who largely agree with each other who think radical free market capitalism can't be defended, and that Rand was mad and dehumanising.

Looking forward to the debate the BBC has on whether people who disagree with it should be forced to pay for it - nope, wont be hearing that one soon.

Green emotional twaddle about public transport

Now I know the Greens worship public transport as a religion, associated with the railway obsession. It is based on the notion that it is better to force people to pay for others moving than to let people face the real costs of the transport choices they make. Forget the environment or the economy, because the truth of the environmental impacts of subsidising more public transport doesn't bear close scrutiny - after all, those buses and trains spent a lot of time sitting idle or running nearly empty in the counterpeak direction.

I'm more concerned about this nonsense from Frog Blog:

"I used to drive to work along a route that encompassed urban streets, motorway and rural roads.

It was a journey of fear.

Almost every day there was a dangerous road-rage type event. Other drivers tailgating so close you couldn’t even see their headlights, people coming straight from the motorway on ramp on to the fast lane, so I had to brake heavily to avoid a collision. Other drivers changing lanes without indicating."

Car commuting in New Zealand a journey of fear? Oh please! Try driving in Cairo or Beijing! One wonders if frog was such a bad driver that the tailgating was from people sick of the driver sitting in the fast lane and not moving over. Changing lanes without indicating? Yes, it's rude but that's it.

Then this "Life is all about making connections. It’s vital we increase our capability to make those connections." Well yes, but why the hell should I have to pay for your "connections"? If you live, work and play in different places, why don't YOU pay for how you get there? Isn't the most green option NOT using transport at all?

"It’s a strange world indeed when your plane ticket is cheaper than the taxi ride to the airport" No, it is what happens on a long taxi ride for a short flight on a competitive route. Planes are public transport after all. Presumably when you next fly First Class to London, you wont find the taxi ride price an issue.

Then the Greens get into how wonderful public transport is: "Smart people already know the economic and environmental benefits of public transport, but there’s also an emotional pay-off. Instead of driving to work seething with righteous anger at the stupidity of one’s fellow motorists, one can let someone else do the driving, relax with a book or newspaper and feel part of the community, rather than shut off from others."

Yes, that's right. Someone else driving (though virtually never from your origin to destination), relax with a book, if you're not standing and feel part of the community, sitting beside strangers, people who don't bathe, people sneezing. Riding public transport is "being part of the community" now. Virtually everyone on public transport would rather get a taxi ride, than undertake this experience. It's the same on planes. I'd rather be in a Singapore Airlines Suite cabin than sit in cattle class with "the community".

Most people treat public transport as a necessary evil, when driving isn't available, cheaper or faster. It is tolerated as the best choice given alternatives. However, if driving is cheaper and faster, most prefer its flexibility, door to door service and comfort, and get to know the community by their own means.

TVNZ's trivia

The whole Stephanie Mills moustache incident raises two simple points:

1. How the media, including Paul Henry, is willing to talk about a Houstache (well Cactus Kate coined it so why not use the term), but not the drivel being spouted from the mouth directly below it. THAT is what is truly disturbing

2. The anger surrounding what is a rather childish pointing out of what is true.

Paul Henry seemed very agitated about it. He doesn't go to Wellington enough, Wellington has many women with facial hair. Each to their own of course. It's like men with facial hair, it's absolutely vile to me (I presume most men with it couldn't give a damn about what i think anyway) and I am slightly less trusting of ANYONE with facial hair. It's rarer for women to have facial hair, so I assume (since I've spent most of my life shaving facial hair daily) it is a choice, and the person with it likes it that way.

Whether to comment on it or not is another point. However, in a free liberal society the choice to do so should not be restricted, neither should be the choice to respond.

The Hand Mirror is understandably upset, because a woman is being judged on her appearance, not what she said. Catherine Delahunty equally so spouting nonsense that "She must never think that her work, her achievements, her wisdom and her analysis will be enough to be respected. Not unless she looks like Barbie" forgetting Margaret Thatcher went through much much worse, was treated appallingly by the Conservative Party, and changed so much. Of course, she doesn't count, I've yet to see too many "Barbie like" successful women in politics or business.

So how about this, wouldn't it be nice if Paul Henry ripped into Stephanie Mills for talking sheer nonsense next time? Oh and it's funny how Alison Mau is being seen as a kind of hero for finding Henry's behaviour vile, when she is hardly a journalist of any calibre.