British Labour increases tax free threshold out of desperation

Following on from the fiasco of abolishing the 10% income tax rate (putting thousands of people on low incomes on a higher tax rate), the absolute gutting of Labour in the local body elections, polling for the Crewe-Nantwich by-election (a safe Labour seat) that shows a 7000 vote majority being overturned with a Conservative victory, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a "compensation package". He had to, as Labour backbench MPs were threatening to vote against the Budget legislation because of the abolition of the 10% tax rate, quite simply Brown's government was risking losing supply from its own party! The days of Labour being trusted with the economy in the UK are over, but it is two years till the next general election.

.

The package is simple. The low income tax free threshold is to be raised by £600 per annum to £6035 a year. However, the so-called "rich" get none of it, because the threshold for the 40% top tax rate is being reduced by the same proportion.

.

Of course none of this comes from cutting spending. No, another £2.7 billion of borrowing to fund this tax cut. Never mind, Labour wont be in forever, they can let those nasty Tories clean up the finances and get them blamed for cutting spending.

.

Labour under Gordon Brown is running bigger and bigger deficits and an ever more complicated tax system. How long can Labour in the UK overspend and overspend? Could it ever consider that its heavy borrowing programme contributes to the credit crisis and the level of interest rates?

Meanwhile, New Zealanders might wonder why neither major party believes in income tax free thresholds, when their family and friends in the UK can earn around NZ$15,000 and pay no income tax. Libertarianz and ACT are advocating a $10,000 tax free threshold and even the Greens advocated a $5,000 threshold at the last election.

The lesbian threesome that wasn't

Got to love "Flight of the Conchords" Jemaine Clement and Bret McKenzie. According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

.

"Scruffy New Zealander Jemaine Clement from the folk-parody group Flight Of The Conchords was approached by a girl at a party in Scotland, who invited him to a spit roast. She wanted to know if Bret McKenzie, his band mate, would also attend. Thinking she was referring to a barbecue, Jemaine said yes. Hey, they both liked meat. "She said, 'I wouldn't usually ask. I'm a lesbian,' and I thought, 'Why would that stop you asking for a barbecue?"' Soon after, Clement discovered a spit-roast was British slang for a threesome and declined, mightily embarrassed."

.
What can you say to that? They probably didn't want to see each other's meat or else she really wasn't worth it, plus it might have helped had she brought along three friends - you see THAT's the threesome famous guys want.

Party pill regulation continues

Having succeeded swimmingly in not reducing harm by banning BZP, the Dominion Post reports that the Health Ministry is now proposing a different approach to other party pills. Age restrictions, labelling requirements and licences to sell them (all stuff to make a bureaucrat wet himself). Now while I'd agree with an age restriction, labelling requirements seems over the top and having licences to sell something isn't proven to do much other than put up the price and start creating a black market - BUT my big question is this. Why hasn't BZP simply been treated the same way? Why not legalise BZP, put an age restriction on it and regulate it?

.

If ACC was abolished, then those who sell such products would face the risk of damaging lawsuits for causing personal injury by accident - in other words, just like most countries in the Western world. Whilst the ACC folly continues, the arguments for some regulation of substances remain.

.

However, my question remains - if party pills are to be controlled like alcohol, why not make extend this to BZP, and remove the ban?

Is ACT prepared to support a Labour government?

From ACT's website:

"Rodney Hide: Does the Minister feel so strongly against giving parents a choice of school, including independent schools, that he would resign as Minister of Education if that were a condition of support from MMP parties for a future Government?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I think the likelihood of Labour going into coalition with ACT is nil, especially with the addition of Roger Douglas to its party list."

.

According to this, Rodney Hide is teasing Labour into considering whether it engages in, at least, a confidence and supply agreement with ACT if it needed to do so to remain in power after the 2008 election. Tactically of course, given National's unwillingness to consider Sir Roger Douglas for Cabinet, this might make a little sense for ACT, so that there is some leverage over the Nats after the election. However, if you voted National in 2005 and now are contemplating ACT, because the Nats are a shoo in, Rodney Hide seems safe in Epsom and you want a CHANGE in government to implement more free market policies, you might hesitate if Rodney Hide actually keeps Helen Clark in power.

.

Now if you think this is unlikely, consider this. It has seemed both in 2002 and 2005 that Labour's natural partner would be the Greens, but it has avoided confidence and supply and coalition agreements with it after both elections. The Greens were hardly going to support National were they? By contrast, did the average Labour voter expect United Future to keep the government in power for two terms and NZ First for one? Is it inconceivable that a Phil Goff lead Labour Party (let's say Clark is rolled before the election, highly unlikely unless Labour's polling drops below 30%) would seek confidence and supply from ACT, if Labour did implement some modest tax cuts and uh.. did something else? (help me here). After all, it is far from inconceivable that National will partner up with the Maori Party, and the feelers have been out between the Nats and the Greens (although that does seem like hard work).

.

So what would be ACT's bottom line for a confidence and supply agreement with Labour OR National? Not the details, it's clear that would be worked through. However, I'd hope it included the following:

.

- A tax free income threshold, abolition of the 39% top tax rate and lowering of company tax;

- Education vouchers for primary and secondary education;

- Including private property rights in the RMA if not replacing it;

- End to the growth of the state sector and identification of opportunities to privatise by sale AND issuing shares directly to the public.

As Hillary has her last stand

It is worth reminding you all the eloquent words of Christopher Hitchens on Hillary Rodham Clinton. My favourite snippets are below:

"For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done."
.
"It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all (Bill) Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton...Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues.""

.

"During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat.... What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry."

It's time to bury the attempted Clinton dynasty once and for all.

ACT's great chance

- Low flat tax;
- Choose private, integrated or state schools and funding follows every child;
- Have a health insurance account you choose to get the care you need;
- Choose the accident and sickness cover you want based on your risk;
- Pay for your own retirement nest egg that can be inherited without the state.

No it's not a libertarian agenda, but it should be ACT's. An agenda to reflect its name, the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. An agenda that means school funding follows parents' decisions, that means what you pay for healthcare reflects your risk and waiting lists are traded for hospitals dealing with customers who expect service. Moving the no fault flat rate ACC model to one where people with low risk pay less premiums than those that are high risk, and finally making retirement a personal responsibility. Big tax cuts so people can pay for health and sickness insurance that reflects their risk, responsibility and what they want.

It would be a point of difference from National, but will it happen?

Following on from the Libertarianz annual conference in the weekend, some of the usual inter-necine mumblings between ACT and Libertarianz have reminded me of what we should all be arguing about - quite simply this election is the best opportunity in recent history to present freedom at the ballot box since the 1980s.

Why?

The 1990s National government once had a strong appetite for economic freedom, and was still privatising and deregulating even up to 1999 (ACC and Postal services being the last example), although it had virtually no appetite for personal freedom. ACT and Libertarianz both grew in 1996 and 1999 because of increased frustration at the limp wristed attitude to freedom of National After National lost in 1999, it struggled to regain power against Labour (which of course has no interest in shrinking the state). In 2002 National offered next to nothing and ACT had its best ever result.

However, the last election was difficult for both ACT and the Libertarianz. National in 2005 offered a semi-libertarian leader and a platform to cut taxes, privatise and abolish race based privilege by the state. Supporters of ACT and the Libertarianz voted National as they saw the chance, which appeared distant only a year before, that Labour could be defeated. Funnily enough having nearly won an election on principle, National has run a mile from it.

Labour is finished. National can almost sleepwalk to victory, and as it does so it has moved to the centre. National is Labour lite, and no one who wants a smaller state and more freedom can see a vote for National being good for anything other than replacing Helen Clark with John Key (maybe worthy but not much more than that).

So this is where ACT can come in.

Sir Roger Douglas in his widely reported ACT conference address advocated a positive agenda that is NOT all ACT Policy, including shifting healthcare to an insurance based model, education vouchers, make the first $20,000 tax free, drop the 39% tax rate, implicitly opening ACC fully up to private competition including personal accident and sickness insurance (replacing sickness benefit perhaps). Positive stuff. Frankly, with Sir Roger Douglas ACT has a chance to have a presence and to debate head on, ON PRINCIPLE, with Key and Clark. After all, Clark was in Cabinet with him.

ACT could advocate zero income tax like Sir Roger did in his book Unfinished Business, or flat tax like it did in the late 1990s. However, regardless of detail it can outline a vision of less government and substantial more choice for education, health (and ACC and sickness insurance which are ignored but directly related) and retirement. Kiwisaver for example could be shifted into private accounts that could replace National Superannuation in due course.

This agenda could inspire people to think "wow I could send my kids to private school without paying twice" or "i can live a healthy lifestyle and pay less for healthcare AND have my own insurance account to ensure I get cover when I need it". At one time Sir Roger Douglas believed 50% of voters would go for this, then he reduced his ambition to 30%. Surely 10% would be attracted by this prospect of serious reform of education, healthcare, ACC, the welfare state and cutting taxes. Especially with the credibility of Sir Roger Douglas on the ballot.

Whilst National limps to power, ACT could inspire those who want serious change to vote for it as a viable coalition partner, instead of the morally bankrupt Maori and NZ First Parties.

If not now, then when?

Oh and Libertarianz? Don't worry, there is still room there. I don't expect ACT to advocate privatising schools and hospitals, ending the welfare state, abolishing the RMA, reforming drug laws, abolishing laws on blasphemy and the rest. No. ACT is not the libertarian party. Libertarianz is a bigger package, a complete one to shrink the state on principle to its core functions. Personal liberty has never been much on the ACT agenda, although to be fair in the last three years ACT has been far better on this front than it ever was before.

ACT DOES have Sir Roger Douglas who has more political courage than virtually anyone in National, and it has Rodney Hide who, on a good day, can be quite inspiring. If you can't ride a wave of anti-Labour sentiment to grow, become a critical fixture for National and pull National towards some serious reform then you should give up. Don't be limp wristed, be bold, be like the Greens, be advocates for consumer choice, taxpayer rights and private enterprise. Attack the inability of state health and education monopolies to deal with people's needs, demand that government shrink and taxes shrink with it.

It is, after all, what you exist to advocate. After all, do you think a National Party Cabinet would be better or worse off with Sir Roger Douglas and Rodney Hide on it? How likely is it if nobody really knows what ACT is offering?

A lousy tax cut idea

Idiot Savant at No Right Turn talks of speculation in the Sunday Star Times that Cullen's tax cut might be a "social dividend" flat payout of $1000 per "low income earner" (otherwise known as the Labour core).

He describes this as "a good idea, and certainly far better than anything offered by the "tax cuts for the rich" brigade. It targets support at the needy rather than the greedy,"

Now I'm not one to look a tax cut in the mouth, but he's seriously wrong. He isn't advocating a tax cut after all. A tax cut, you see, means your net income increases as the government takes less of what you earn. You get a steady amount each fortnight or month, can afford to save it, spend it, or do as you wish. It is permanent, sustainable and reduces the size of the state (which I acknowledge isn't important to him, as he sees it as the best way to deliver health, education and social insurance monopolies).

What will happen if people on low incomes get $1000 one off? Well, there will be a lot more big TVs being sold, some fashion trips, a few more new car stereos, some trips to Australia and the rest. In other words, it will be used to buy consumer goods. Now that, in itself, isn't a bad thing, except that this dividend wouldn't be paid to everyone, especially the majority who pay 90% of income tax. Don't forget those on the top tax rates pay the vast majority of income tax, but to argue they don't deserve a dividend is grossly unfair.
.
No, Idiot Savant wants you to keep working 2 days a week for the beloved Nanny State and be grateful that with every extra dollar you earn, you only get to keep 61c of it, even before you give up a 12.5% surcharge of what you buy to the state, be damned grateful we let you keep that you rich thieving bastard (the undertone being "you don't fucking deserve what you earn, just wish the revolution would come one day and you'll get yours you bourgeoisie scum").
.
Far more generous is the Libertarianz policy announced in the weekend of immediately creating a tax free threshold of $10,000 for everyone, which would mean those lowest earners (and students, children and others earning a bit here and there) would be free of income tax, but would also be a boost to all other income earners.

You see cutting taxes does not "disproportionately" benefit the rich, given it was their money in the first place. That is the fundamental difference between statists and libertarians. Statists think taxes are "society's money" or "government money" and getting a tax cut is "taking it from society". Libertarians believe it is your money that the government has taken, and a tax cut is giving you back your own money. No pure tax cut can be disproportionate by definition.

Of course he goes on to advocate a universal basic income, a concept some libertarians advocate as a transitional step to replacing the welfare state, using Milton Friedman's negative income tax concept with a flat tax. That idea, as a transitional measure, has some merit for debate. However he sees it as basically freeing people from work "It would substantially improve the actual, substantive freedom of people to lead their lives how they wish". Well for people who want to not work. You know those useful productive dynamic people who want to live off of the back of everyone else until they decide not to, while we all pay for them. Of course it would reduce the freedom of people for the rest of us having to pay for everyone else.

So there you have it - the left want people to get an income for doing absolutely nothing - their birthright to have everyone else pay for them to live, and not just survive but to be not uncomfortable. They want everyone else to pay for it, because - well they believe once you get above average you owe it to pay for those below - and not only that, if you ask for a tax cut when you are "rich" (above average income) you're selfish and evil.

It's quite despicable.

Cruel and deliberate?

Sue Bradford, champion of those who live off of the money of others taken by force. She thinks welfare benefits should be enough to have a satisfactory lifestyle, not a last choice to cover bare necessities whilst people seeks to become independent. According to the NZ Herald she claims beneficiaries face "deepening poverty" when in fact they just don't keep up with the incomes of those who work - funny that - shouldn't welfare be enough for subsistence?

No, Bradford and the Greens think if the economy grows then so should welfare. It shouldn't just be about keeping someone fed, clothed, housed and heated, but maintaining a certain RELATIVE standard of living compared to everyone else, even though it hasn't been earned. That's the difference. The Greens are Marxists who see the welfare state as a means of taking from the rich and middle class and giving to the poor, and so they would cheer on a doubling of benefits.

However they fail to even acknowledge the absolute destitution of ambition, effort or motivation of many on welfare. Take some examples listed by bloggers:

No Minister's tale from Murupara;
No Minister's tale from Mangere Bridge;
Oswald Bastable's example of Brits on welfare.

Sue, people who work hard and save are sick of paying for those who treat welfare as a choice, who proudly do nothing. Welfarism has failed, miserably. A radical change is needed, for starters it needs to be time limited and those on welfare should receive no more for having more children.

Ultimately the whole damned thing needs to be abolished, and by the way Sue, then you and all those who care so much can do more by yourself, put your own money where your mouth is. You could do far worse than to listen to Lindsay Mitchell who knows this area only too well.

Some more questions for Dr Cullen on rail

And by the way, John Key and Maurice Williamson will need to answer them too, after all if you're not going to sell it....


Who will be responsible for allocating subsidies to the "new" NZR, will it be the soon to be created New Zealand Transport Agency which will also be responsible for the state highway network (so has a conflict of interest), or the Ministry of Transport, which doesn't have a significant capability in making funding decisions?

Will the 60 year + old rolling stock for the TranzCoastal, Overlander and TranzAlpine be replaced? When? For how much and will it be subsidised?

What is the strategy for the following lines that are not used? (Taneatua, Whakatane, Rotorua, Rapahoe, Castlecliff)

What is the strategy for replacing the vast majority of the diesel locomotive fleet which has engines built in the 1970s?

Will you be owning the new trains being bought for Wellington that are partly local authority funded, or will GWRC still own them?

Will you operate a transparent accounting structure that separates overheads, fixed and variable costs for each line, so that it becomes clear what routes you subsidise and by how much?

Will you subsidise trains by paying for services to be operated or just for rolling stock and locomotive, regardless of how well used they are?

How will you ensure neutral treatment of the coastal shipping industry now you will be a major player (and competitor) with the ferries?

Will you let the "new" NZR get into road freight or not?

Will you let other companies buy their own locomotives and rolling stock to operate trains or have any restrictions other than safety, or any capacity limits? In other words, will you operate an open access railway?

Will you be building any new lines and if so, why, what are the net benefits?

What policy will you have about closing lines and stations, or are they all to remain perpetually open?

How much taxpayers' money are you budgeting for rail infrastructure, rail services and rail rolling stock, beyond what is funded from the National Land Transport Fund through Land Transport NZ?

Will the railways be transferred to NZRC and will it still be expected to make a profit (as it did when it originally ran the lot from 1982 to 1990)?

How will you ensure the subsidised railway system wont cross subsidise the rail ferries?

Will you subsidise any passenger services besides commuter services in Auckland and Wellington?

Aussies about to fritter away their surplus

It is Australia's Budget Day. The booming Australian mining sector has seen a massive tax windfall for the Australian Federal Government, with one economist suggesting A$20 billion should be put away and invested, much like Norway and other governments do, to fund future liabilities and to cover federal spending for a "rainy day". However no, the Rudd government (and it's not much worse than Howard) will spend it like the proverbial drunken sailor, although it will also give tax cuts. The result is further bloating of the Australian Federal Government, further dependency on middle class and corporate welfare, and simply sheer waste, when Australians could be enjoying low flat federal taxes and a diversifying economy, rather than one that milks commodities and keeps the rest of the economy propped up on transfers.

.

However, whilst the best time to squeeze efficiency out of the public sector would be now, the incentives to do so are the poorest. Why do politicians love spending other people's money so much, and why do people let them do it?

Boris after 1 week?

Well so far he has:

.

- Banned consumption of alcohol on the tube, DLR and franchised London bus routes (frankly I'd have left this to the operators, but it is neither here not there);

- Appointed a Forensic Audit Panel to investigate financial management at the GLA, with an interim report on how to make savings within 30 days, with a full report within 3 months of areas of spending cuts;

- Withdrawn an appeal by the Mayor to the High Court against Thames Water developing a desalinisation plant powered by renewable energy (to provide auxiliary water supply for London). Ken Livingstone opposed it because he saw the plant as a "waste of energy";

- The Mayor's newspaper/propaganda sheet "The Londoner" is to close, saving £3m p.a..

.
So within a month there may be more savings, and after 3 months hopefully a plan for more. However I'd like to see a few more zeros behind the savings than just 6.

Nepal no surprise

Idiot Savant is surprised that the Maoist Nepalese government is arresting Tibetan protestors according to the BBC.

.

Tibet, where freedom of speech has been consistently suppressed by, um, the original Maoist government and its successors (although the Nepalese Maoists condemn the current Chinese regime and vice versa). How foolish does someone on the left have to be to believe Maoists are any better defenders of freedom than Nazis? China, North Korea, Cambodia are all great examples!

..

These thugs waged a civil war in the countryside, engaged in intimidation against free speech and democracy in areas its paramilitaries controlled. Abolishing the monarchy may only be the start of a far bloodier future for Nepalis. However, they were elected so I guess it will be "ok" to the worshippers of democracy, the world seems to turn its back on people who vote for those who don't believe in democracy.

Thankless job of being a third party candidate

The Mail on Sunday describes in detail life on the hustings for Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat candidate for the London Mayoralty (who came a distant third with 9.6% of first preferences), he wont be standing again thanks to poor support from his party and the hard work (and lacklustre response, even from members). By the way, Brian is gay and an ex. police officer and while his policies were largely mad, seemed a decent enough chap.

.

Some highlights:

.

"Meet the candidate event" in a Covent Garden bar. Not many people want to meet the candidate. A strikingly handsome man engages me in conversation. Later find out he is an ex-porn star. Thank God the Press photographer had gone. "

.

"5th It's Jewish day – so to the London Jewish Forum breakfast near Oxford Circus. Go to a cafe next door where Gary Lineker walks in, sits down and orders a fry-up. He sits with his legs wide apart and picks his nose – all previous illusions shattered. "

.

and

.

"14th Launch our transport policies at Vauxhall Bus Station – no one comes."

.

Prospective politicians should take heed, particularly anyone from a party that isn't one of the top two contenders in most seats. There are far better things to do with your time in most instances than stand for public office.

.

Hat tip: Iain Dale's diary

Man evicted from house he doesn't own

The Dominion Post reports how a man, who appealed to the District Court (after going to the Tenancy Tribunal) is to be evicted from the four bedroom house YOU own that he occupies. He claimed he should keep living there because it was in his mother's name (she died), and presumably was the family home (yes see how welfarism lifts people out of poverty and dependency?) - but, quite rightly so, the idea that you can inherit a home you don't own is absurd.

.

Jason Ellis - if you want to stay forever in a house, buy one. Yes I know it's hard, but imagine how much more you could have earned had you worked on getting a deposit together rather than appealing for taxpayers to keep you living off of them.

Thank you NZ Herald

For making me blog of the week in the Herald on Sunday. I only found out indirectly from two sources, but it is nice to know someone is reading.

.

The mention in the article about Judith Tizard amuses me though. Apparently I am a conservative man, and Judith said "They don't like me because I win. The greatest affront, particularly to conservative blokes, is successful women who they don't agree with". Well Judith I am far from conservative and while i don't agree with you, I am glad you think you are successful. I am fairly certain you are not exactly happy about being excluded from Cabinet.

.

Look, you helped stop the ALPURT B2 road project when Labour got elected so that the Grafton Gully motorway project could proceed as a priority instead (which worked), but given the PM was cheerleading roads in Auckland heavily from 2002 you really were not that influential especially after Mark Gosche was sidelined for Paul Swain in the transport portfolio (given he is a go getter and Gosche wasn't really up to it).

.

Road spending in Auckland was hardly because of you (though you supported and chipped in with those pushing for it), it was a government recognition of the problem of congestion in Auckland (which to be fair had been inadequate under the Nats) and the votes to be gained in building roads there. You were never Transport Minister, you don't decide what Transit promotes or Land Transport NZ (and Transfund before it) funded, given the Minister appointed Board Members that were keen to address Auckland. You did have a role with the Northern Busway, if only because there were umpteen government entities involved in getting it moving, but that was a governance problem that did require heads being banged together - and it remains underutilised. On the positive side, you can be a very fun person.

.
Anyway, Auckland Central voters appear to have a choice this year to replace you with a successful hard working physically agile (and attractive) young woman who is standing for the Nats. Given that the National caucus does need to be uplifted somewhat (Jacqui Dean??), I hope Nikki Kaye wins resoundingly.

Censors allow suicide but not those obscene boobs

It is positive that, according to the Dominion Post, the Chief Censor has allowed the New Zealand distribution of the book by Philip Nitschke's The Peaceful Pill Handbook - which is about voluntary euthanasia. It is rated R18. Jim Anderton, who to be fair has close personal experience of the tragedy of suicide, is concerned it will encourage young people to be suicidal. However according to Chief Censor Bill Hastings the law limits what can be done:

"when grading material that depicts or expresses suicide, or any activity which could cause harm if imitated, censors could only restrict material. They could not ban it."

The book is aimed at the elderly or those with terminal illnesses, it is only fair and right that this well intentioned publication be allowed to circulate. Let's not forget that one of the most widely circulated books in society has as its central theme human sacrifice.

Meanwhile the Dominion Post reports the Australian Classification Board is concerned about magazine Rushh Australia which apparently has topless photos of a 16yo New Zealand girl called Zippora Seven (above) (if you dare you can see one of the topless shots here and it is hardly pornographic) in the magazine.

.

Although the girl could legally go to any private premises she likes and bare her boobs for the hell of it (and can consent to letting people do as they wish with them), apparently she is a "minor" for censorship purposes as nudity of anyone under 18 is banned. The legal status of the magazine will be interesting, if it is deemed objectionable then it would be a serious criminal charge for the magazine, and everyone who sold it and everyone who bought it as producing, distributing and possessing an objectionable publication is a strict liability offence. You don't need to know whether an image is objectionable to be convicted of possessing it.

.

It's always been a curiosity of Angl0-Saxon culture that womens' breasts are obscene. This restriction is no doubt caught up in concern about child pornography, of which the real stuff is so far removed from this case to indicate that the law has been drafted to apply the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut. Of course, anyone arguing any different would be deemed a "pervert" because "who wants to see a 16yo girl's breasts". I'd argue that those getting so worked up about the exposure of a young woman of legal age perhaps need to look in the mirror, and perhaps ought to consider that there are probably more young women doing this online by choice with webcams (and umpteen websites dedicated to this) than ever any legitimate magazines. Remember if this law is meant to protect them, then you'd wonder why it is ok to let men of any age fondle any willing 16yo girl's breasts, but not ok to buy a magazine that depicts them. Oh and if you're concerned about the sexualisation of young girls (nobody is ever too fussed about boys which is an issue in itself), then looking at 16 year olds is not the place to start, you might look at Bratz dolls instead for those half that age!

Gordon Brown fights to keep the Union

Well although he denied Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander called for an early referendum on Scottish independence (even though she did), the Daily Telegraph is reporting Gordon as saying "I want all Unionist parties and all parts of business – employers, managers and trade unions – to work together not only to push the case for the Union but to expose the dangers of ­separation"

.

Of course the primary danger for Gordon is that he can hardly be Prime Minister of the UK if he is an MP of a different country - which he would be! The second danger is that losing Scotland would make the race for the House of Commons far closer for the Conservatives. 646 seats drops to 587 once the Scottish seats are removed. Labour would then have 315 seats out of 587 (rather than 356 in 646), Conservatives 197 (rather than 198), Liberal Democrats 51 (rather than 62). A slender 22 seat majority, but still 118 over the Tories.

.

While I think it would be sad for the Union to split, if Scotland wants independence then so be it - especially since it takes more than it pays in taxes from Westminster. If Scotland wants to be a quaint small economy pursuing a vestigial socialist experiment then fine, England will be better off without it. Sadly, a smaller UK will be less effective internationally, but Scotland will have to live without being a major power, and seeking subsidies from Brussels instead of London. Perhaps it would learn like Ireland how socialism fails and lay out the low tax welcome mat - so I remain ambivalent.

.

I wrote more strongly about it before, and believe the Conservatives should deal with the West Lothian question - quite simply Scottish MPs should have no right to vote on matters at the House of Commons that do not affect Scotland (i.e. everything devolved to the Scottish Executive).

.

So what should happen? Do Scots really want to be on their own separate from Westminster, or do they appreciate the United Kingdom? Finally, the elegant Union Jack design - what the hell happens to that if the St Andrew's Cross has to go?

The Waitangi gravy train - who will end it

No, it's not the vivid imagination of conservative punters. A former member of the Waitangi Tribunal, Dr Michael Bassett, is hardly a paragon of conservatism, being a former Labour Cabinet Minister. He has written in his latest column about the taxpayer funded claims process:

.

"Both major political parties know that what is happening is wrong, and that ordinary Maori in whose name the claims are made, aren’t getting a cracker out of the money being spent on lawyers, researchers and Tribunal staff. The spinelessness that we have come to expect of politicians in an MMP environment assists the greedy, when it was the needy we set out to help in 1985."

.

Of course you've been paying for the "jobs" involved in this process, he continues:

.

"By the time I joined the Tribunal in 1994 hearings were awash with lawyers, most on Legal Aid, with the claims before us being funded by the CFRT or the Tribunal’s taxpayer funded resources. Virtually none of the costly process was paid for upfront by the claimants. They therefore had no incentive to be careful with taxpayers’ money, or even with the Maori money that many were eventually to receive from the CFRT. Rorting the Tribunal process has become the name of the game. A whole industry numbering somewhere around 1,000 people gathered around new grievances that keep being dreamt up.

.

When politicians settled on land grievances as the cause of Maori problems they made a mistake. It would have made better sense to examine welfare and the huge damage it has done to Maori society. The Waitangi Tribunal should be scaled down. The industry is of no use to 99% of the people it’s meant to serve. "

.

However, don't hold your breath. National of course nurtured this industry when it was in power, it will do nothing now as it anxiously seeks support from the flotsam and jetsam of anti-semitics and Mugabe appeasers in the Maori Party. The Waitangi Tribunal should be wound up, claims of state theft of land should be heard through the courts, for both Maori and non-Maori claimants. However, no doubt far too many who suckle from nanny state (i.e. you) will ensure the Maori Party holds us all to ransom for this industry - and of course call everyone who criticises this as racist.

Still going to vote National? I know Libertarianz would abolish the Waitangi Tribunal, but what will ACT push for? Wouldn't things be different if National had to rely on ACT and the Libertarianz to govern, rather than the racist party?

Labour, National and Jim Anderton - well done

Three words - TOLD YOU SO.

.

The Dominion Post reports:

.

"A dramatic increase in people being admitted to hospital with severe reactions to party pills has experts calling for urgent action... Dozens of new pills flooded the market last month, replacing BZP varieties whose sale was banned from April 1. "BZP really didn't make much of an impact in Wellington, but certainly over the past few weekends we've noticed a change," Dr Quigley said."

.

(Dr Quigley is a Wellington Hospital emergency doctor)

.

Banning BZP worked didn't it? You're all so clever aren't you? However with all three Labour parties (Anderton and Key lead the others) cheerleading prohibition, don't expect a backdown. No. Anderton is already calling for the burden of proof of safety to shift to manufacturers. Of course if it weren't for ACC, they could be sued for negligence, but none of the major parties are going to confront that little reason why New Zealand is a haven for trying out products are they?

You see unlike virtually every other country in the world, with the abolition of the right to sue for personal injury by accident, it makes New Zealand a soft touch for manufacturers. ACC socialises the negligence of others, and undermines an insurance market whereby manufacturers (and the public) would pay according to risk.

.

So banning something creates market demand for something else, which happens to be less safe, no doubt all those pills will be banned now, though it will take another couple of years. Meanwhile shifting the burden of proof to manufacturers will have implications for the vitamin and alternative remedies sector as well.

.

Clint Heine reminds us that Damien O'Connor predicted party pills would disappear, and most of you still trust 30-40% of your income with these people to buy you healthcare, pensions and your kids education?

What will get YOU angry about governments?

What is enough to piss you off at the utter ineptness of government? Look at Burma now and you can see hundreds of thousands facing death because of it.

.

Let's summarise what has happened. A devastating cyclone has already killed some 23,000 and rendered over a million homeless, what has been the primary reaction of governments?

.

- Burmese military dictatorship underplays the event, refuses to grant visas for international aid workers to enter en masse, asks for aid to be given to it to distribute;

- Burmese state monopoly TV portrays the army as the great giver of help and assistance to the people;

- Hundreds of thousands remain without aid, whilst aircraft from countries as diverse as the US and Qatar are refused entry, and Burmese embassies go on two public holidays so no visas get granted;

- The French Foreign Minister suggests a UN Security Council resolution forcing aid entry into Burma, the authoritarian kleptocracy of Russia and the authoritarian one party People's Republic of China reject it as an infringement on sovereignty;

- The Guardian reports the main news on Myanmar TV is promoting the referendum for a new constitution "State TV broadcast a video showing two women singing a pop-style song with the lyrics: "Let's go vote … with sincere thoughts for happy days"." Sickening.

.

That's right, governments are more precious about sovereignty than people dying. Of course you already knew that, history is filled with countless examples of governments murdering or engaging in culpable manslaughter of their citizens, but still many "respect" them.

.

Now, of course, the UK is being totally limpwristed about it, with the BBC reporting that UK International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander (another one of Gordon Brown's Scottish Labour mafia) saying flying aid into Burma without permission would be "incendiary".

.

Oh I am sorry, I didn't realise that the British government was so concerned about hurting the feelings of a barbaric military dictatorship rather than saving people who are being ignored by the regime.

.

So here is an idea. NATO convene and announces that it is sending in a mission to deliver aid to the ignored parts of Burma, it will provide armed cover and any Burmese military that threaten or get in their way will be dealth with. The USA is already there, France is keen, this was a former British colony, get some fucking balls and do something. People are dying and you're letting a pitiful little tinpot dictatorship decide the shots. Quite simply, ignore China and Russia, the former is trying to be helpful, but fundamentally is letting aid flow to the regime to distribute and the latter is just a criminal state run by bullies.

.

Meanwhile, if you need a reminder of what evil looks like, BBC TV has shown scenes of Burmese citizens being marched by soldiers to vote in the constitutional referendum which will secure the rule of these thugs. Yes, the army is bullying people suffering under the cyclone to vote.

Below is Aj Jazeera's coverage of what Myanmar TV is telling its population. Liars through and through. The West is somehow scared of pushing these bastards around. Still think governments are competent?

UPDATE: Oh and CNN now reports that the junta is using aid as an enticement to vote in its filthy referendum.