Yes in so many ways...
However I love Gman's comment "In what way is John Key like Barack Obama? Is it the lack of experience, the lack of policies or the lack of substance?"
03 September 2008
Why do I not want Labour to be re-elected?
Labour presents a vision of more government, more government subsidies, more middle class welfare and an uncomfortable level of statism across many aspects of everyday life and business. The failure of state health and education to deliver the expectations of the public is not something Labour has an answer to, beyond spending more money, which suits the interest groups that it gets succour from, such as the teaching and nurses unions. However, most disconcerting of all is Labour’s underlying message of class warfare.
You can be successful and quite wealthy under Labour, but you should be fitting in with its “visions” and “strategies” and you better be giving a lot back, because you owe it. Labour has an underlying suspicion of those “too” financially successful, as if they got there off the back of the workers, whereas it has a generous view of those who have failed. Labour sees those closer to the bottom as always deserving of more money, more assistance and that their circumstances are “no fault of their own”. It is the leftover legacy of socialism. The belief that, deep down, people shouldn’t be allowed to fail, and the successful shouldn’t be allowed to “get away with it”. Most of all it is the belief that the state is a force of good and it can intervene and do more good, most of the time.
I see the state as necessary to protect rights, not to grant privileges and take money from some and give to others (redistribution). I find the notion that the successful owe everyone else to be rather vile, but most of all I find the culture that says that everyone else owes you something, and you owe everyone else something to be most insidious.
Now the reasons to remove Labour from power are quite overwhelming. For me it is:
- The arrogant belief of the Labour Party that it knows best how to spend a significant proportion of people’s money, and its lack of accountability for wasting it. Taxpayers’ money is the government’s money and there is little appreciation of where it came from;
- The chilling view of Helen Clark that “the state is sovereign” showing scant regard for individual freedom;
- The culture of envy and sneering hatred for “the rich” and successful, particularly in business, that comes through in the general Labour attitude to “rich pricks” and the like;
- The almost complete lack of business experience or economic expertise in the Labour caucus, which is dominated by ex. teachers, union officials and public servants. That ISN’T representative of New Zealand (despite what Idiot Savant thinks);
- The sclerotic paucity of accountability and consumer driven reform of the education system under Labour, which is designed to serve what bureaucrats and the teaching unions think it best for education, not parents. Perhaps the greatest scope to open up innovation and cultural change in New Zealand would be in opening up education to be driven by users and providers in a virtuous circle seeking better performance from children;
- The insidious willingness of Labour to consider blunt Orwellian processes to monitor the lives of all children, regardless of their parents’ performance, as a response to the chronic child neglect and abuse by an underclass of barely functional adults;
- The lack of regard for private property rights whether it be homeowners on the one hand or large businesses on the other, or indeed the lack of willingness to use private property rights to deal with issues such as the foreshore and seabed;
- Complete emptiness of courage and ideas to manage the unmanageable burden of the public health system whereby demand, supply and incentives are highly perverse and will continue to deliver below expectations;
- Its cheerful willingness to increase the scope and size of the welfare state to incorporate middle class families, to put them in a cycle of dependency of government for a portion of their income, rather than deliver tax cuts;
- Labour’s almost religious willingness to sign up New Zealand to an Emissions Trading System and commitments to address CO2 emissions without there being any substantive evidence that the benefits will outweigh the costs;
- The ongoing willingness to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money bailing out businesses that are failing in part because of its own unwillingness to accept foreign investment (Air NZ), or because of a quasi-religious obsession with a particular industry (Kiwirail);
- A similar willingness to decimate the private property rights of a major company (Telecom) whilst complaining about that company’s level of investment in new infrastructure;
- Cheeringly developing endless visions, strategies and statements about various sectors of business and communities, as if nothing should be left to people’s own choice, spontaneous decisions and dynamism. Labour does not perceive that it doesn’t have a role in just about everything – whether it be aging, what you eat, what you watch on TV, how you travel, what entertainment you consume, how to dispose of waste.
Is that enough?
You can be successful and quite wealthy under Labour, but you should be fitting in with its “visions” and “strategies” and you better be giving a lot back, because you owe it. Labour has an underlying suspicion of those “too” financially successful, as if they got there off the back of the workers, whereas it has a generous view of those who have failed. Labour sees those closer to the bottom as always deserving of more money, more assistance and that their circumstances are “no fault of their own”. It is the leftover legacy of socialism. The belief that, deep down, people shouldn’t be allowed to fail, and the successful shouldn’t be allowed to “get away with it”. Most of all it is the belief that the state is a force of good and it can intervene and do more good, most of the time.
I see the state as necessary to protect rights, not to grant privileges and take money from some and give to others (redistribution). I find the notion that the successful owe everyone else to be rather vile, but most of all I find the culture that says that everyone else owes you something, and you owe everyone else something to be most insidious.
Now the reasons to remove Labour from power are quite overwhelming. For me it is:
- The arrogant belief of the Labour Party that it knows best how to spend a significant proportion of people’s money, and its lack of accountability for wasting it. Taxpayers’ money is the government’s money and there is little appreciation of where it came from;
- The chilling view of Helen Clark that “the state is sovereign” showing scant regard for individual freedom;
- The culture of envy and sneering hatred for “the rich” and successful, particularly in business, that comes through in the general Labour attitude to “rich pricks” and the like;
- The almost complete lack of business experience or economic expertise in the Labour caucus, which is dominated by ex. teachers, union officials and public servants. That ISN’T representative of New Zealand (despite what Idiot Savant thinks);
- The sclerotic paucity of accountability and consumer driven reform of the education system under Labour, which is designed to serve what bureaucrats and the teaching unions think it best for education, not parents. Perhaps the greatest scope to open up innovation and cultural change in New Zealand would be in opening up education to be driven by users and providers in a virtuous circle seeking better performance from children;
- The insidious willingness of Labour to consider blunt Orwellian processes to monitor the lives of all children, regardless of their parents’ performance, as a response to the chronic child neglect and abuse by an underclass of barely functional adults;
- The lack of regard for private property rights whether it be homeowners on the one hand or large businesses on the other, or indeed the lack of willingness to use private property rights to deal with issues such as the foreshore and seabed;
- Complete emptiness of courage and ideas to manage the unmanageable burden of the public health system whereby demand, supply and incentives are highly perverse and will continue to deliver below expectations;
- Its cheerful willingness to increase the scope and size of the welfare state to incorporate middle class families, to put them in a cycle of dependency of government for a portion of their income, rather than deliver tax cuts;
- Labour’s almost religious willingness to sign up New Zealand to an Emissions Trading System and commitments to address CO2 emissions without there being any substantive evidence that the benefits will outweigh the costs;
- The ongoing willingness to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money bailing out businesses that are failing in part because of its own unwillingness to accept foreign investment (Air NZ), or because of a quasi-religious obsession with a particular industry (Kiwirail);
- A similar willingness to decimate the private property rights of a major company (Telecom) whilst complaining about that company’s level of investment in new infrastructure;
- Cheeringly developing endless visions, strategies and statements about various sectors of business and communities, as if nothing should be left to people’s own choice, spontaneous decisions and dynamism. Labour does not perceive that it doesn’t have a role in just about everything – whether it be aging, what you eat, what you watch on TV, how you travel, what entertainment you consume, how to dispose of waste.
Is that enough?
02 September 2008
TelstraClear damns National's Think Big on telecoms
"political opportunism and a lot of hype",
"What we are seeing is a series of questionable studies and hype"
"At the moment we don't believe that putting fibre into every home is economic or necessary."
Word from the Telstra Clear Chief Executive Alan Freeth, according to the NZ Herald, and given Telstra Clear actually put a hybrid fibre-coax network to the kerb of nearly every home in Wellington, Christchurch, the Hutt Valley and Kapiti Coast, he might know a bit more than your average politician. You see his business is about selling broadband to customers, and he thinks National has got it badly wrong.
He suggests that many homes will just download more movies and porn, rather than become "more productive". Of course, the simple point is that subsidising very fast broadband is subsidising a lot of entertainment. Something the advocates ignore.
I asked where is the demand in April. Why can't those who want broadband pay for it? As Freeth is quoted saying, what good is fibre to every home in Hokitika? Indeed, why should a business that benefits enormously from high speed broadband be subsidised by one that isn't, or a pensioner, or anyone else?
I called it Think Big.
It is headline grabbing, it ignores the risks that government "investment" brings, it ignores the ethical and economic problems of forcing people to pay for something they otherwise wouldn't pay for, and may not even benefit from. It is taking money from people who may otherwise invest it in businesses or their families for what they see as greater benefit.
Labour isn't much better though, but isn't it about time that all of you who don't want to be forced to pay for this stood up and said no? Or are there far more of you who can't wait for everyone else to subsidise your movie, music and porn downloads? Or you are all running enterprising net based businesses that need subsidies right?
"What we are seeing is a series of questionable studies and hype"
"At the moment we don't believe that putting fibre into every home is economic or necessary."
Word from the Telstra Clear Chief Executive Alan Freeth, according to the NZ Herald, and given Telstra Clear actually put a hybrid fibre-coax network to the kerb of nearly every home in Wellington, Christchurch, the Hutt Valley and Kapiti Coast, he might know a bit more than your average politician. You see his business is about selling broadband to customers, and he thinks National has got it badly wrong.
He suggests that many homes will just download more movies and porn, rather than become "more productive". Of course, the simple point is that subsidising very fast broadband is subsidising a lot of entertainment. Something the advocates ignore.
I asked where is the demand in April. Why can't those who want broadband pay for it? As Freeth is quoted saying, what good is fibre to every home in Hokitika? Indeed, why should a business that benefits enormously from high speed broadband be subsidised by one that isn't, or a pensioner, or anyone else?
I called it Think Big.
It is headline grabbing, it ignores the risks that government "investment" brings, it ignores the ethical and economic problems of forcing people to pay for something they otherwise wouldn't pay for, and may not even benefit from. It is taking money from people who may otherwise invest it in businesses or their families for what they see as greater benefit.
Labour isn't much better though, but isn't it about time that all of you who don't want to be forced to pay for this stood up and said no? Or are there far more of you who can't wait for everyone else to subsidise your movie, music and porn downloads? Or you are all running enterprising net based businesses that need subsidies right?
01 September 2008
McCain panders to the religious right
Yes well picking Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin may be wise, on the surface, by putting a woman as the vice presidential running mate. Not the first time of course, as Geraldine Ferraro had her own shrill leftwing tilt at it in 1984, with Walter Mondale - a ticket doomed to fail against Ronald Reagan.
However she IS a Christian Conservative. A wise move again for a Republican who many on the religious right see as not being one of their own, but it isn't a wise move for freedom.
The Republican Party is a broad church of social conservatives and small government liberals. McCain has a bit of both, but he is no Bush - he isn't from the religious right. However his platform sounds an awful lot like he is. Now the Vice President isn't important, at all. Let's face it, who was voting for Bush when they voted for Reagan, who was voting for Quayle when they were voting for Bush, who was voting for Gore when they were voting for Clinton. It is really a stand in position, and little more.
However she IS a Christian Conservative. A wise move again for a Republican who many on the religious right see as not being one of their own, but it isn't a wise move for freedom.
The Republican Party is a broad church of social conservatives and small government liberals. McCain has a bit of both, but he is no Bush - he isn't from the religious right. However his platform sounds an awful lot like he is. Now the Vice President isn't important, at all. Let's face it, who was voting for Bush when they voted for Reagan, who was voting for Quayle when they were voting for Bush, who was voting for Gore when they were voting for Clinton. It is really a stand in position, and little more.
So it is time to shine a light upon John McCain's policies. Obama is an unabashed big government statist, who (until recently) would rather Iraq fall to Islamists than let the US support the democratically elected government that is now in power there. He's not fit to be President, but is McCain?
ETS benefits?
Go on, give me one.
I don't mean "makes environmentalists feel good". I want something quantified, preferably one that will offset the increased costs to consumers and producers.
Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" has as its primary thesis that even if anthropomorphic global warming is occurring, it may be more beneficial to humanity to NOT intervene to change this, but to rather target other issues, such as trade, clean water supplies, sanitation and inoculations in developing countries.
In other words, when you take a cold economic appraisal of the problem, it may not be worth addressing it. Certainly, New Zealand going alone whilst the likes of China, Russia, India and the entire Middle East do nothing is madness.
Yet it is mainstream politics to go along with it. What is the imperative for New Zealand to lead on this? What are the costs? More importantly, why do almost all political parties in Parliament sign up to it?
I don't mean "makes environmentalists feel good". I want something quantified, preferably one that will offset the increased costs to consumers and producers.
Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" has as its primary thesis that even if anthropomorphic global warming is occurring, it may be more beneficial to humanity to NOT intervene to change this, but to rather target other issues, such as trade, clean water supplies, sanitation and inoculations in developing countries.
In other words, when you take a cold economic appraisal of the problem, it may not be worth addressing it. Certainly, New Zealand going alone whilst the likes of China, Russia, India and the entire Middle East do nothing is madness.
Yet it is mainstream politics to go along with it. What is the imperative for New Zealand to lead on this? What are the costs? More importantly, why do almost all political parties in Parliament sign up to it?
Bloggers vs journalists
Not PC mentioned about David Cohen's amusing dig at bloggers in the NBR. David Cohen is one of the few NZ journalists I rate, because he can write well, and he thinks. Indeed, as I have said before there is a difference between journalists and reporters, and sadly far too many in the mainstream media (and TV is significantly worse) are reporters. Their idea of a story is:
- The government announced it would do X today. It said that doing X would solve a long standing problem of Y and Z. The cost of doing X is $A, which Minister B said would be great value. Lobby group C supported the move cautiously saying while a step forward, it wasn't enough. National spokesperson D said it was too little too late.
After all I am paid for my writing, I think my formal qualifications in law and public policy don't make me cry about having not done journalism, my writing is typically peer reviewed, I know the difference between practice and practise, I've used the OIA (and see how poorly a few journalists use it as they don't know enough to ask the right questions), I've often met deadlines, I've had my work read by Cabinet Ministers and Chief Executives of public and private sector organisations. So on and so on.
Keith Ng has a good set of questions too in response. My favourites from his are:
I have a better set of questions for journalists, to see how smart and honest they are:
Do you make your political and religious affiliations transparent to your readers? Do you declare any political parties you have been a member of or donated to?Do you questions assumptions made in government reports and press releases, as well as opposition ones?
Have you ever asked a politician whether the answer to a problem is for the government to do nothing? Have you ever written an article where you analyse what might happen if the government did less not more in a particular policy area?
- The government announced it would do X today. It said that doing X would solve a long standing problem of Y and Z. The cost of doing X is $A, which Minister B said would be great value. Lobby group C supported the move cautiously saying while a step forward, it wasn't enough. National spokesperson D said it was too little too late.
Cohen put forward a 20 point test that is meant to mean you've moved from being a "mere blogger" to being a journalist. How destroyed is my ego that I haven't passed, (well I got 10) though I'll live as I am lot happier actually doing stuff than just writing about it, and my bank balance is happier too.
After all I am paid for my writing, I think my formal qualifications in law and public policy don't make me cry about having not done journalism, my writing is typically peer reviewed, I know the difference between practice and practise, I've used the OIA (and see how poorly a few journalists use it as they don't know enough to ask the right questions), I've often met deadlines, I've had my work read by Cabinet Ministers and Chief Executives of public and private sector organisations. So on and so on.
Keith Ng has a good set of questions too in response. My favourites from his are:
Do you ever write stories where more than half the content comes from one press release?
Do you ever write a story about a report solely from the press release accompanying the report, without having read the report itself?
Both are far too common, and infantile. Why should people pay to read such drivel when they can go to Scoop and read the press releases as they are?I have a better set of questions for journalists, to see how smart and honest they are:
Do you make your political and religious affiliations transparent to your readers? Do you declare any political parties you have been a member of or donated to?Do you questions assumptions made in government reports and press releases, as well as opposition ones?
Have you ever asked a politician whether the answer to a problem is for the government to do nothing? Have you ever written an article where you analyse what might happen if the government did less not more in a particular policy area?
Do you ever make an Official Information Act (or LGOIMA) request knowing exactly what it is you need to know to determine what has gone on?
Have you ever written about H2's control on the areas of government policy she has the greatest interest in and which the PM trusts her in? Do you even know what she does?
Could you get a similar level job writing for The Times, Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, The Guardian or The Independent (UK not NZ!)? (or even the Economist?)
Do you understand that the value of money declines over time so quoting financial statistics without adjusting for this is not comparing like with like?
Can you accurately name under which Prime Ministers and Finance Ministers the NZ government privatised NZ Rail, privatised Telecom NZ, corporatised the Railways Department and privatised NZ Post? (trick question)
Do you know what onanism is (without going and Googling it now) and have you never had anyone describe your work as such?
Oh and while I'm at it here are some examples of journalism missing a point:
1. This article doesn't mention that Telstra Clear didn't install its own network, it is using Telecom's, so it is competition on unequal terms.
2. This article, didn't include any interviews with any school principals, even though it is about schools.
3. This article, quotes Chris Turver, ignoring that he was once a Wellington Regional Councillor until last year. It also doesn't even note that funding has been approved to extend the electrification of the rail network to Waikanae, so it looks like another problem ignored.
and that's just today.
Labour's list could see some joblessness
Well one can hope, but with Judith Tizard at number 38, and Nikki Kaye fighting hard in Auckland Central, it might be the end for the Tizard dynasty - a dynasty that has long been a triumph of mediocre obscenities and grumpiness over talent, temperance and taste.
Mark Burton, Mahara Okeroa, Martin Gallagher, Dave Hereora (who?) and Louisa Wall all look like they might have to look for real jobs as well. Grant Robertson has to win Wellington Central to get in, against Stephen Franks for National - so unlike previous elections it truly is a battle between the two main parties.
Also notable is Raj Prasad, former Families Commissioner - so a man used to undertaking useless jobs (although I'm aware he is quite a thoughtful gentleman, I'd have thought he'd have better judgment than to be spoilt by Parliament).
A few others are new, who appear to be 20 something wannabe control freaks (I mean seriously, why would anyone want to be a Labour MP today unless you wanted to boss people around and use their money?).
Notable is that Jordan Carter isn't on the list (sorry 70 is like being 17th on the ACT list). He isn't that keen on being an MP, or is it that the Labour Party isn't that keen on HIM being one?
Mark Burton, Mahara Okeroa, Martin Gallagher, Dave Hereora (who?) and Louisa Wall all look like they might have to look for real jobs as well. Grant Robertson has to win Wellington Central to get in, against Stephen Franks for National - so unlike previous elections it truly is a battle between the two main parties.
Also notable is Raj Prasad, former Families Commissioner - so a man used to undertaking useless jobs (although I'm aware he is quite a thoughtful gentleman, I'd have thought he'd have better judgment than to be spoilt by Parliament).
A few others are new, who appear to be 20 something wannabe control freaks (I mean seriously, why would anyone want to be a Labour MP today unless you wanted to boss people around and use their money?).
Notable is that Jordan Carter isn't on the list (sorry 70 is like being 17th on the ACT list). He isn't that keen on being an MP, or is it that the Labour Party isn't that keen on HIM being one?
Key rules out Winston: good!
According to Stuff, John Key has emphatically ruled out any deal with NZ First after the election. That means coalition, confidence and supply and as a result any chance Winston Peters could ever be a Minister. Good.
Unsurprisingly, Deputy PM Dr. Michael Cullen has now said that this is unfair saying "John Key's stance shows that he has no respect for basic New Zealand values of fair play".
I see - so the party of multiculturalism thought it was fair to make a man who has built part of his political career opposing Asian immigration the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
At least now it is clear - if you vote NZ First, you are going to be supporting a Helen Clark led Labour government, because that is exactly what has happened since 2005, and it is the only option for NZ First in 2008.
So Mr Key, what might you compromise on if you turn to the Maori Party or the Greens then?
Unsurprisingly, Deputy PM Dr. Michael Cullen has now said that this is unfair saying "John Key's stance shows that he has no respect for basic New Zealand values of fair play".
I see - so the party of multiculturalism thought it was fair to make a man who has built part of his political career opposing Asian immigration the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
At least now it is clear - if you vote NZ First, you are going to be supporting a Helen Clark led Labour government, because that is exactly what has happened since 2005, and it is the only option for NZ First in 2008.
So Mr Key, what might you compromise on if you turn to the Maori Party or the Greens then?
31 August 2008
Bravery from gay pupils
The Dominion Post has reported how some gay high school pupils are being prohibited from attending school balls, unless they "unless they sign contracts confirming they are homosexual" according to an organisation called Rainbow Youth.
Frankly the mere fact that there are some gay high school pupils willing to be "out" in the media is itself an act of bravery, and a significant step forward from a generation ago. That should be a reason for all lovers of freedom to celebrate - young people should not be scared to be who they are.
Now the article itself is lazy journalism (and some journalists think bloggers are "light") as it interviews not one school principal about its policies, so there hasn't been a chance to determine what school policies actually are - simply what a lobby group says (it may be right or wrong, but it is wrong to not check with some schools as to what their views are). However it is wrong for the Human Rights Commission to be involved. This should be a matter between pupils, schools, parents and others who wish to make their points of view heard.
My view is schools should be open, and frankly let pupils bring whoever they wish as long as they do not pose a risk to others. The sex of a partner should be irrelevant. Independent schools have the choice to make their own decisions on this - as any private institutions should. That doesn't mean that they would be right in being bigoted on this, but it should be their choice. State schools should not have that choice at all - the state should not be bigoted.
So I offer my support to pupils who seek to end such bigotry, good for you. I'm not gay, but I remember chillingly the bigotry in the mid 1980s when the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was being put through Parliament. Those who opposed that were nasty vile filthy bigots. Teenage years are difficult ones as it is, without people threatening or judging you for what are harmless feelings.
Frankly the mere fact that there are some gay high school pupils willing to be "out" in the media is itself an act of bravery, and a significant step forward from a generation ago. That should be a reason for all lovers of freedom to celebrate - young people should not be scared to be who they are.
Now the article itself is lazy journalism (and some journalists think bloggers are "light") as it interviews not one school principal about its policies, so there hasn't been a chance to determine what school policies actually are - simply what a lobby group says (it may be right or wrong, but it is wrong to not check with some schools as to what their views are). However it is wrong for the Human Rights Commission to be involved. This should be a matter between pupils, schools, parents and others who wish to make their points of view heard.
My view is schools should be open, and frankly let pupils bring whoever they wish as long as they do not pose a risk to others. The sex of a partner should be irrelevant. Independent schools have the choice to make their own decisions on this - as any private institutions should. That doesn't mean that they would be right in being bigoted on this, but it should be their choice. State schools should not have that choice at all - the state should not be bigoted.
So I offer my support to pupils who seek to end such bigotry, good for you. I'm not gay, but I remember chillingly the bigotry in the mid 1980s when the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was being put through Parliament. Those who opposed that were nasty vile filthy bigots. Teenage years are difficult ones as it is, without people threatening or judging you for what are harmless feelings.
30 August 2008
Promiscuous Girlz lucky?
Has any brothel had so much publicity before its opening? Well the appropriately white trash sounding "Promiscuous Girlz" brothel in Dannevirke can hardly say it hasn't had enough publicity. According to the Dominion Post it is now open for those who care to pay for carnal stimulation.
My view on this is fairly straightforward. It isn't up to the state to judge those who choose to sell services using their bodies and those who choose to purchase such services. It is up to the state to protect those forced into providing such services - less of a problem in NZ than in Europe, where trafficking in women is serious and tragic. The film Lilya 4-ever is a tragic story of a girl trafficked from Russia to Sweden and forced to be a prostitute. This is where the criminal justice system and those concerned about prostitution should focus their top priority - underage girls being forced into this trade, which of course remains illegal.
However, one cannot help but wonder what brings women (and men) to enter into this business. For many of us it seems inconceivable to be paid to have sex with strangers that, otherwise, you wouldn't go near. For many it is undoubtedly the attraction of being relatively well paid, that becomes the focus. For some this is seen to be necessary to support a drug habit, which itself is perhaps more expensive and risky that it may otherwise be if it were not illegal, but I digress. A few may well enjoy it, Xavier Hollander has written extensively about how she enjoyed being a prostitute - she's not the only one. There are genuine concerns that it is a business that seriously affects ones own esteem and sense of life. The truth is that it varies - I can't say, nor can you, nor the Police, nor the state, nor a church. That is why this profession will always be a choice for some.
It is perhaps better instead of judging all prostitutes, to not judge, but to consider those who DO ask for help, who are in need. The best way those who despise prostitution can help is to be active in helping women (and men) who are prostitutes out of desperation and abuse. Sadly I see precious little of that from the noisy opponents who would prefer them to be incarcerated.
The flipside is the demand. Why do people (predominantly men) buy sex? Again, the reasons will vary. Many undoubtedly do so out of sheer convenience and because they value that over the two obvious options - seduction of the unpaid and masturbation. The former they may not choose because of time (it takes time to find someone willing), poor self-esteem (which may be based on imagined or a fair perception of their own attractiveness) or their own preferences (may be difficult to find someone to meet their kinks). The latter because it is typically an inferior experience to actually being with someone. It may also be simple loneliness.
Yes many who procure sex are married, or with partners. That's their lie to their partner, it's something they risk, and it is between them. The state doesn't patrol marital fidelity - well outside Saudi Arabia and Iran.
"Promiscuous Girlz" will rise or fall on its customers (yes yes I know!). Those who wish to protest it, boycott it or oppose it can do so. However, if you want to know what workers and clients are motivated by, ask them -you might be told where to stick your nose, but that's the only way you're going to ever know. As long as peaceful people choose to buy and sell sex then it will remain a curiosity, and for some involved it is sad and unfortunate, for others a delight. I haven't ever bought or sold sex, but I'm not so hasty to judge all those who have.
My view on this is fairly straightforward. It isn't up to the state to judge those who choose to sell services using their bodies and those who choose to purchase such services. It is up to the state to protect those forced into providing such services - less of a problem in NZ than in Europe, where trafficking in women is serious and tragic. The film Lilya 4-ever is a tragic story of a girl trafficked from Russia to Sweden and forced to be a prostitute. This is where the criminal justice system and those concerned about prostitution should focus their top priority - underage girls being forced into this trade, which of course remains illegal.
However, one cannot help but wonder what brings women (and men) to enter into this business. For many of us it seems inconceivable to be paid to have sex with strangers that, otherwise, you wouldn't go near. For many it is undoubtedly the attraction of being relatively well paid, that becomes the focus. For some this is seen to be necessary to support a drug habit, which itself is perhaps more expensive and risky that it may otherwise be if it were not illegal, but I digress. A few may well enjoy it, Xavier Hollander has written extensively about how she enjoyed being a prostitute - she's not the only one. There are genuine concerns that it is a business that seriously affects ones own esteem and sense of life. The truth is that it varies - I can't say, nor can you, nor the Police, nor the state, nor a church. That is why this profession will always be a choice for some.
It is perhaps better instead of judging all prostitutes, to not judge, but to consider those who DO ask for help, who are in need. The best way those who despise prostitution can help is to be active in helping women (and men) who are prostitutes out of desperation and abuse. Sadly I see precious little of that from the noisy opponents who would prefer them to be incarcerated.
The flipside is the demand. Why do people (predominantly men) buy sex? Again, the reasons will vary. Many undoubtedly do so out of sheer convenience and because they value that over the two obvious options - seduction of the unpaid and masturbation. The former they may not choose because of time (it takes time to find someone willing), poor self-esteem (which may be based on imagined or a fair perception of their own attractiveness) or their own preferences (may be difficult to find someone to meet their kinks). The latter because it is typically an inferior experience to actually being with someone. It may also be simple loneliness.
Yes many who procure sex are married, or with partners. That's their lie to their partner, it's something they risk, and it is between them. The state doesn't patrol marital fidelity - well outside Saudi Arabia and Iran.
"Promiscuous Girlz" will rise or fall on its customers (yes yes I know!). Those who wish to protest it, boycott it or oppose it can do so. However, if you want to know what workers and clients are motivated by, ask them -you might be told where to stick your nose, but that's the only way you're going to ever know. As long as peaceful people choose to buy and sell sex then it will remain a curiosity, and for some involved it is sad and unfortunate, for others a delight. I haven't ever bought or sold sex, but I'm not so hasty to judge all those who have.
29 August 2008
A historic speech
Don't let the leftwing vapid minnow standing for the US Presidency erode the tru value of this day
Tolls and PPPs
Given Maurice Williamson's minor faux pas while I was in Ireland, I thought I should put in my rather short (you'll be relieved) free and rank on what I think of what the Nats have said on this:
1. I'd welcome opening up investment in roads to the private sector, but the more the private sector can carry the risk (and any profits) the better. Think, for example, if the Auckland Harbour Bridge was privatised, even by lease to avoid Treaty of Waitangi/Public Works Act issues, including SH1 from Spaghetti Junction north and from Constellation Drive south (both being where other state highways intersect). The new owner could toll it, could investigate, design, build, finance, operate the second crossing. If very clever it could even work with the state to refund road user charges and fuel taxes paid for using the motorway (or the state could pay the equivalent to offset the tolls to the company). Let it be the example to New Zealand of how the private sector can build, operate, own and manage a highway - see how the tolls will go up at peak times which is exactly when the second crossing is needed, so exactly the users who should pay for it. See how the tolls will be marginal at off peak periods, see how private bus companies can take advantage of a less congested crossing to provide more services for those who wont pay the toll. Oh and while we're at it, see how the Victoria Park Viaduct widening/tunnelling can be financed the same way.
2. Tolling for new road capacity is good, but the scope to do this in New Zealand is limited due to the nature of its road network, the volumes of traffic involved and the ready availability of other routes. However, it could be considered as a means of moving away from fuel tax.
What I DO want to ask Maurice Williamson is:
Will National abolish the regional fuel taxes?
Will National abolish automatic inflation based indexation of fuel excise duty and road user charges?
Will National consider shifting from taxing motorists and property owners to pay for roads, to motorists paying to use the roads?
The first would be consistent with how National voted in Parliament, as would the second. The third would be consistent with National's policy when it was voted out of office. It's technically and economically feasible to go down this path, and a sensible way forward would be to commercialise road management, and then consider how to privatise it.
1. I'd welcome opening up investment in roads to the private sector, but the more the private sector can carry the risk (and any profits) the better. Think, for example, if the Auckland Harbour Bridge was privatised, even by lease to avoid Treaty of Waitangi/Public Works Act issues, including SH1 from Spaghetti Junction north and from Constellation Drive south (both being where other state highways intersect). The new owner could toll it, could investigate, design, build, finance, operate the second crossing. If very clever it could even work with the state to refund road user charges and fuel taxes paid for using the motorway (or the state could pay the equivalent to offset the tolls to the company). Let it be the example to New Zealand of how the private sector can build, operate, own and manage a highway - see how the tolls will go up at peak times which is exactly when the second crossing is needed, so exactly the users who should pay for it. See how the tolls will be marginal at off peak periods, see how private bus companies can take advantage of a less congested crossing to provide more services for those who wont pay the toll. Oh and while we're at it, see how the Victoria Park Viaduct widening/tunnelling can be financed the same way.
2. Tolling for new road capacity is good, but the scope to do this in New Zealand is limited due to the nature of its road network, the volumes of traffic involved and the ready availability of other routes. However, it could be considered as a means of moving away from fuel tax.
What I DO want to ask Maurice Williamson is:
Will National abolish the regional fuel taxes?
Will National abolish automatic inflation based indexation of fuel excise duty and road user charges?
Will National consider shifting from taxing motorists and property owners to pay for roads, to motorists paying to use the roads?
The first would be consistent with how National voted in Parliament, as would the second. The third would be consistent with National's policy when it was voted out of office. It's technically and economically feasible to go down this path, and a sensible way forward would be to commercialise road management, and then consider how to privatise it.
Social report makes assumed value judgments
The NZ Herald reports on the Ministry of Social Development's 2008 Social report which produces statistics of "social indicators" to determine if things are getting "better or worse". The headline was that the "rich poor pay gap is shrinking". This is measured by a simple ratio of the earnings of the top 20% of income earners over the bottom 20%. It doesn't measure whether the bottom 20% are in abject poverty or quite comfortably fed, clothed and housed, what it does measure is the envy ratio.
Apparently the "rich" (a word Idiot Savant and others on the left are addicted to using as a term of implied abuse) are earning 2.6 times that of those in the "poor" category, a drop from 2.7 the year before. That is apparently "good". Why? I'm not sure. After all it could mean the bottom 20% have bettered themselves, but it could also mean the top 20% have suffered a decline in living standards. Both are quite different. However you need to believe that this matters. If the top 20% earned 10 times the bottom 20% it could indicate their success, and indeed in London I am sure the ratio is bigger because of the relative success of the financial sector in attracting people who earn very high incomes. It only matters if you believe that wealth is distributed not earned. If you believe that wealth is something dished out by someone powerful, not something received for producing or trading value. However, I wouldn't expect someone in the Ministry of Social Development to understand this as none of them do this.
Let's see some other "improvements". Qualifications at bachelors degree level or above have increased. This of course could be meaningless. Germany is overflowing with graduates, but many have few business skills, and it hasn't helped Germany increase its net wealth - how useful are these degrees, how good are they? How literate and intelligent are the graduates? Who knows??
How about things that have gotten worse? "Housing affordability" has a flipside, which is capital assets of those owning their homes. However, the property market is now correcting itself somewhat, improving affordability but damaging the capital people have tied up in their homes. Winners and losers whichever way the market goes, which raises the issue as to why affordability is better than asset valuation.
Then something that hasn't changed - "potentially hazardous driving", which of course can be anytime you actually drive above 20 km/h, since driving is by its very nature "potentially hazardous". Perhaps it means speeding, but then again how does anyone really know this? There isn't real time monitoring of every driver all of the time.
Then "obesity" hasn't changed. Which of course isn't true, as it has changed for thousands, as many have seen it increase others decrease - but if you're a collectivist thinking bureaucrat you find that impossible to manage so you average it out (presuming you know the facts around people's weights).
So I ask the question, what does the report usefully do? It's useful if you're a statist and want to know how to intervene in a wide range of areas, but beyond that it is just a snapshot. Ruth Dyson will use it to show "Labour is good" by saying "it showed New Zealanders overall wellbeing was improving".
Funnily enough most people focus on improving their own wellbeing as a matter of course - and it's the government that likes to take away a third of your income while you do that. Imagine how much wellbeing would improve if the government took less.
Apparently the "rich" (a word Idiot Savant and others on the left are addicted to using as a term of implied abuse) are earning 2.6 times that of those in the "poor" category, a drop from 2.7 the year before. That is apparently "good". Why? I'm not sure. After all it could mean the bottom 20% have bettered themselves, but it could also mean the top 20% have suffered a decline in living standards. Both are quite different. However you need to believe that this matters. If the top 20% earned 10 times the bottom 20% it could indicate their success, and indeed in London I am sure the ratio is bigger because of the relative success of the financial sector in attracting people who earn very high incomes. It only matters if you believe that wealth is distributed not earned. If you believe that wealth is something dished out by someone powerful, not something received for producing or trading value. However, I wouldn't expect someone in the Ministry of Social Development to understand this as none of them do this.
Let's see some other "improvements". Qualifications at bachelors degree level or above have increased. This of course could be meaningless. Germany is overflowing with graduates, but many have few business skills, and it hasn't helped Germany increase its net wealth - how useful are these degrees, how good are they? How literate and intelligent are the graduates? Who knows??
How about things that have gotten worse? "Housing affordability" has a flipside, which is capital assets of those owning their homes. However, the property market is now correcting itself somewhat, improving affordability but damaging the capital people have tied up in their homes. Winners and losers whichever way the market goes, which raises the issue as to why affordability is better than asset valuation.
Then something that hasn't changed - "potentially hazardous driving", which of course can be anytime you actually drive above 20 km/h, since driving is by its very nature "potentially hazardous". Perhaps it means speeding, but then again how does anyone really know this? There isn't real time monitoring of every driver all of the time.
Then "obesity" hasn't changed. Which of course isn't true, as it has changed for thousands, as many have seen it increase others decrease - but if you're a collectivist thinking bureaucrat you find that impossible to manage so you average it out (presuming you know the facts around people's weights).
So I ask the question, what does the report usefully do? It's useful if you're a statist and want to know how to intervene in a wide range of areas, but beyond that it is just a snapshot. Ruth Dyson will use it to show "Labour is good" by saying "it showed New Zealanders overall wellbeing was improving".
Funnily enough most people focus on improving their own wellbeing as a matter of course - and it's the government that likes to take away a third of your income while you do that. Imagine how much wellbeing would improve if the government took less.
Farewell Winston but...
Whilst the Serious Fraud Office investigation into NZ First finances should certainly see Winston removed from his Ministerial positions (if not then Helen Clark will have made a serious misjudgment), the question becomes whether NZ First will withdraw confidence and supply. If so, it might provoke the announcement of the election date, but it would also be likely that NZ First MPs would be looking for a new job. If not, then Labour has to ask itself whether it is comfortable governing reliant on a party that has proven itself to be at best slippery with the truth around its finances.
NZ First has never been popular with the mass media of course, partly because it has always couched itself as the party of the people who don't have a voice. NZ First is the party of talkback land, of the Waynes and Sharlenes who don't like the Chans who moved in next door with their nice car and children who are far more articulate than they are, who are suspicious of big business and think that "old" New Zealand was "taken away". The barely shrouded racism expressed (but probably not believed) by Winston Peters meant NZ First did worst in the likes of Wellington - NZ First is in effect the National Party of Rob Muldoon. It may be facing its swan song. Rarely does the media give the impression that NZ First is a party like others, but then again rarely does Winston Peters want this.
So let's move on. Does the degree of scrutiny that the media place upon NZ First ever get applied to the Green Party or the Maori Party? Who delves in the control-freakery of both? The anti-American hypocrisy of both parties, the strong emphasis on increasing the size of the welfare state, the unabashed racist agenda not to oppress a race, but to advantage one, their xenophobia about foreign investment.
Labour undoubtedly would do deals with both parties to stay in power, but where is the media scrutiny? National would almost certainly do a deal with the Maori Party, and wouldn't dismiss the Greens if it needed Green support to govern.
I acknowledge that NZ First's behaviour in recent months has raised serious issues, but fundamentally it is MORE important to consider what policies and who will be seeking to govern NZ in the next three years. The mainstream media loves a scandal, and is appropriately sinking its teeth into Winston Peters - but the same teeth could be sunk into all of the parties in Parliament - and with vigorous serious journalism, it would happen. Will it?
NZ First has never been popular with the mass media of course, partly because it has always couched itself as the party of the people who don't have a voice. NZ First is the party of talkback land, of the Waynes and Sharlenes who don't like the Chans who moved in next door with their nice car and children who are far more articulate than they are, who are suspicious of big business and think that "old" New Zealand was "taken away". The barely shrouded racism expressed (but probably not believed) by Winston Peters meant NZ First did worst in the likes of Wellington - NZ First is in effect the National Party of Rob Muldoon. It may be facing its swan song. Rarely does the media give the impression that NZ First is a party like others, but then again rarely does Winston Peters want this.
So let's move on. Does the degree of scrutiny that the media place upon NZ First ever get applied to the Green Party or the Maori Party? Who delves in the control-freakery of both? The anti-American hypocrisy of both parties, the strong emphasis on increasing the size of the welfare state, the unabashed racist agenda not to oppress a race, but to advantage one, their xenophobia about foreign investment.
Labour undoubtedly would do deals with both parties to stay in power, but where is the media scrutiny? National would almost certainly do a deal with the Maori Party, and wouldn't dismiss the Greens if it needed Green support to govern.
I acknowledge that NZ First's behaviour in recent months has raised serious issues, but fundamentally it is MORE important to consider what policies and who will be seeking to govern NZ in the next three years. The mainstream media loves a scandal, and is appropriately sinking its teeth into Winston Peters - but the same teeth could be sunk into all of the parties in Parliament - and with vigorous serious journalism, it would happen. Will it?
28 August 2008
Why would the Democrats excite anyone?
I've long been perplexed as to what drives those who get excited and engaged with the two major US political parties. The Demopublicans and the Republicrats are different only in the areas they don't overlap. However both are predominantly concerned with power, power over businesses, individuals, to spend other people's money and take that money, to give other people's money to businesses they prefer, taking more from those they don't. It's an absolute abomination against reason, and is little short of braindead.
Barack Obama is a lightweight style focused rather leftwing vaccilating Presidential candidate who is riding substantially on his race and youth to differentiate himself, and present himself as an agent of "change". Yet his "change" is little more than more taxes, more spending couched in words of "support" and an ever changing approach to foreign policy. He has proven he is no friend of free trade, having voted to substantially increase agricultural subsidies, including subsidies to produce nothing at a time of high food prices. He has had substantial links with rather nasty men.
However the difference between Obama and John McCain is not huge. Hillary Clinton's bizarre statement that "Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hang in the balance," is enormous hyperbole. I prefer McCain for reasons outlined before and I don't doubt McCain is better for New Zealand and indeed the world.
Yet stand back from it all and ask what is it really about? A man who talks of change, but with little substance riding on the back of image and his historic nomination from a racial point of view. A party painting the USA as being in despair, ignoring that it controls Congress and controlled both Houses far more often in post war history than the Republicans. It is truly the triumph of hyperbolic disinformation distributed with vapid alacrity.
Oh and don't believe I'll think the Republicans will be much better. However look for the hook, look for what the Democrats think they'll seriously change, and ask yourself why anyone would want to spend any time campaigning for this pablum - unless, of course, you expected to get some substantial benefit from more statism, which isn't what the USA was meant to be about.
Barack Obama is a lightweight style focused rather leftwing vaccilating Presidential candidate who is riding substantially on his race and youth to differentiate himself, and present himself as an agent of "change". Yet his "change" is little more than more taxes, more spending couched in words of "support" and an ever changing approach to foreign policy. He has proven he is no friend of free trade, having voted to substantially increase agricultural subsidies, including subsidies to produce nothing at a time of high food prices. He has had substantial links with rather nasty men.
However the difference between Obama and John McCain is not huge. Hillary Clinton's bizarre statement that "Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hang in the balance," is enormous hyperbole. I prefer McCain for reasons outlined before and I don't doubt McCain is better for New Zealand and indeed the world.
Yet stand back from it all and ask what is it really about? A man who talks of change, but with little substance riding on the back of image and his historic nomination from a racial point of view. A party painting the USA as being in despair, ignoring that it controls Congress and controlled both Houses far more often in post war history than the Republicans. It is truly the triumph of hyperbolic disinformation distributed with vapid alacrity.
Oh and don't believe I'll think the Republicans will be much better. However look for the hook, look for what the Democrats think they'll seriously change, and ask yourself why anyone would want to spend any time campaigning for this pablum - unless, of course, you expected to get some substantial benefit from more statism, which isn't what the USA was meant to be about.
A dream to follow
Today is a day to remember one of the great men of history and his dream, a dream that is a great one of liberty, a message of hope and aspiration that, unalloyed by the statist motivations of many who quote it - should be the universal declaration of hope of individualism. I need not say anymore than this, and urge that THIS be remembered today, despite the ambition of a gang of control freaks, liars and corrupt mediocrities currently having a conference in Denver to take control of the United States and further erode what this dream really means.
You can read the speech to remember in full here, but for me the highlights are below. I am aware of the politics of many surrounding Martin Luther King, Jr, but neither they nor his religious beliefs take away for a moment about what this speech does. I defy those who passionately love freedom and despise the mindlessness of collectivism to not be moved.
You can read the speech to remember in full here, but for me the highlights are below. I am aware of the politics of many surrounding Martin Luther King, Jr, but neither they nor his religious beliefs take away for a moment about what this speech does. I defy those who passionately love freedom and despise the mindlessness of collectivism to not be moved.
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification - one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers."
The day before he was assassinated he talked of being at the mountaintop:
"All we say to America is, "Be true to what you said on paper." If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions. Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn't committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so just as I say, we aren't going to let dogs or water hoses turn us around, we aren't going to let any injunction turn us around. We are going on.
Never stop and forget that collectively -- that means all of us together -- collectively we are richer than all the nations in the world, with the exception of nine. Did you ever think about that? After you leave the United States, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and I could name the others, the American Negro collectively is richer than most nations of the world. We have an annual income of more than thirty billion dollars a year, which is more than all of the exports of the United States, and more than the national budget of Canada. Did you know that? That's power right there, if we know how to pool it."May we all for a moment consider his ambition for a world free of racist bigotry - consider also his call for the use of voluntary protest and economic choice by those supporting him to influence change in behaviour. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not perfect, but he was a truly great man who changed the course of history and advanced freedom - oh to have a politician today who is 1% of what he was.
27 August 2008
John Key shows principle
Yes!! Remarkable really. Good for him though. It looks like a coalition or confidence and supply agreement between National and NZ First is ruled out. The NZ Herald quotes him saying;
"I am ruling out Mr Peters. He simply doesn't have the integrity in my view unless he can somehow change that".
It is more than what Jim Bolger said or did, but then the same Jim Bolger who voted to privatise NZ Rail Ltd is now on the board of the renationalised railway. The same Jim Bolger who sits on the board of Kiwibank. However I digress.
I do wonder though, that if National did need NZ First, whether it would surrender power to a Labour mongrel coalition. However, it is worth noting a rare appearance of backbone.
NZ First has always been a party of blatant brainless populist opportunism, it seeks to tap the mindlessness of talkback radio, the very worst of much of New Zealand culture. The envy dripping suspicion of foreigners, the envy dripping suspicion of successful businesses, the belief that state owned enterprises are good when they are state owned, regardless of how poorly they perform and the resentment and anger of their privatised equivalents. The kneejerk belief that the "guvmint should do something".
However it has not done this in a vacuum. It has tapped a series of trends that have a grain of truth in the concern that NZ First voters carry.
NZ First would not have succeeded had National not lied to the electorate in 1990. Some of National's supporters today try to reassure the likes of me, and other libertarians that "wait till the Nats get in office then they can do some of the things you like", even though the Nats are saying little different from Labour. It is THAT kind of politics that NZ First rejected. One thing you can't say about Winston Peters is that he isn't clear about his policies. Jim Bolger promised to remove the hated superannuation surtax, but continued it after 1990. That single move decimated National's support among senior citizens. National created Winston Peters, he was one of them and it delivered an enormous deception to voters - greater than anyone could claim Labour generated in 1984 and certainly in 1987.
NZ First was also an early carrier of disenchantment at the Treaty claims process. A resentment from some taxpayers that some Maori were benefiting enormously from their taxes, and that the benefits were enriching a small number very well, was a genuine concern Winston tapped. However, he then went on to focus on the Maori seats and taking them all in 1996. Having moved across the spectrum on this issue, NZ First retains a not insubstantial level of support among Maori voters.
NZ First's big issue has been immigration, but sadly although there are serious issues about whether new migrants should be able to claim anything from the welfare state including health and education, Winston focused on race and bigotry. He played the race card, and stirred up a vile level of anti-Asian sentiment that appeared focused on successful East Asian migrants - you know the ones not filling the jails, welfare lines and talkback call lines. It was possibly the most poisonous recent part of modern politics, one that didn't stop National signing up to govern with NZ First, and didn't stop Labour.
NZ First also tapped the ongoing popular outrage at crime and the poor performance of the criminal justice system in addressing this, although it was little more than a repositary for rage. It still showed that Labour and National had not got to grips with a core concern of the general public.
However it is telling that while the superannuation surtax issue provided a huge catalyst to Winston's political career, his supporters did not reward him for removing it. Policies don't matter to voters as much as impressions and feelings, and NZ First was decimated at the 1999 election for its appalling performance as a team - even though it delivered on several promised policies, including abolishing the super surtax.
NZ First attracts protest votes, votes from people who don't like the status quo. It is hurting because Winston keeps Helen Clark and Michael Cullen in power - he can't evade or dodge that, as he is desperately trying to evade the allegations around donations. His politics were built on National lying, and tapping populist resentment that National has since partly tapped (although has also since backtracked on). Winston has built a career on being upfront and honest, and not having a secret agenda - his political career may be finished if National keeps its word and offers a government of bland "me too" policies that the public appears to be endorsing.
The problem is National looks like it has a secret agenda - given that it has virtually no policy differences from Labour, it is the only hook others have to attack National. It is the hook Winston has, and if it proves to be true even though I may agree with some of the policies it is still deceit and contemptible. Winston's political career will be reinvigorated if National has a secret agenda.
However, if National does not seek to govern with Winston's support, and enters government doing what it has said, then Winston's poison will have expired. It is clear that Labour is happy to govern with his support, and it is that which should be the focus. Labour is no more principled than National, it's just more deft at hiding how it sells out.
"I am ruling out Mr Peters. He simply doesn't have the integrity in my view unless he can somehow change that".
It is more than what Jim Bolger said or did, but then the same Jim Bolger who voted to privatise NZ Rail Ltd is now on the board of the renationalised railway. The same Jim Bolger who sits on the board of Kiwibank. However I digress.
I do wonder though, that if National did need NZ First, whether it would surrender power to a Labour mongrel coalition. However, it is worth noting a rare appearance of backbone.
NZ First has always been a party of blatant brainless populist opportunism, it seeks to tap the mindlessness of talkback radio, the very worst of much of New Zealand culture. The envy dripping suspicion of foreigners, the envy dripping suspicion of successful businesses, the belief that state owned enterprises are good when they are state owned, regardless of how poorly they perform and the resentment and anger of their privatised equivalents. The kneejerk belief that the "guvmint should do something".
However it has not done this in a vacuum. It has tapped a series of trends that have a grain of truth in the concern that NZ First voters carry.
NZ First would not have succeeded had National not lied to the electorate in 1990. Some of National's supporters today try to reassure the likes of me, and other libertarians that "wait till the Nats get in office then they can do some of the things you like", even though the Nats are saying little different from Labour. It is THAT kind of politics that NZ First rejected. One thing you can't say about Winston Peters is that he isn't clear about his policies. Jim Bolger promised to remove the hated superannuation surtax, but continued it after 1990. That single move decimated National's support among senior citizens. National created Winston Peters, he was one of them and it delivered an enormous deception to voters - greater than anyone could claim Labour generated in 1984 and certainly in 1987.
NZ First was also an early carrier of disenchantment at the Treaty claims process. A resentment from some taxpayers that some Maori were benefiting enormously from their taxes, and that the benefits were enriching a small number very well, was a genuine concern Winston tapped. However, he then went on to focus on the Maori seats and taking them all in 1996. Having moved across the spectrum on this issue, NZ First retains a not insubstantial level of support among Maori voters.
NZ First's big issue has been immigration, but sadly although there are serious issues about whether new migrants should be able to claim anything from the welfare state including health and education, Winston focused on race and bigotry. He played the race card, and stirred up a vile level of anti-Asian sentiment that appeared focused on successful East Asian migrants - you know the ones not filling the jails, welfare lines and talkback call lines. It was possibly the most poisonous recent part of modern politics, one that didn't stop National signing up to govern with NZ First, and didn't stop Labour.
NZ First also tapped the ongoing popular outrage at crime and the poor performance of the criminal justice system in addressing this, although it was little more than a repositary for rage. It still showed that Labour and National had not got to grips with a core concern of the general public.
However it is telling that while the superannuation surtax issue provided a huge catalyst to Winston's political career, his supporters did not reward him for removing it. Policies don't matter to voters as much as impressions and feelings, and NZ First was decimated at the 1999 election for its appalling performance as a team - even though it delivered on several promised policies, including abolishing the super surtax.
NZ First attracts protest votes, votes from people who don't like the status quo. It is hurting because Winston keeps Helen Clark and Michael Cullen in power - he can't evade or dodge that, as he is desperately trying to evade the allegations around donations. His politics were built on National lying, and tapping populist resentment that National has since partly tapped (although has also since backtracked on). Winston has built a career on being upfront and honest, and not having a secret agenda - his political career may be finished if National keeps its word and offers a government of bland "me too" policies that the public appears to be endorsing.
The problem is National looks like it has a secret agenda - given that it has virtually no policy differences from Labour, it is the only hook others have to attack National. It is the hook Winston has, and if it proves to be true even though I may agree with some of the policies it is still deceit and contemptible. Winston's political career will be reinvigorated if National has a secret agenda.
However, if National does not seek to govern with Winston's support, and enters government doing what it has said, then Winston's poison will have expired. It is clear that Labour is happy to govern with his support, and it is that which should be the focus. Labour is no more principled than National, it's just more deft at hiding how it sells out.
21 August 2008
Light blogging till Tuesday but
Since I've been working my arse off for the last couple of months I am fleeing for a break as it is Bank Holiday weekend in the UK - so you'll hear little to nothing from me until Tuesday 26 August.
Rural Ireland should be a good break from looking at this screen, meetings and answering phone calls.
Meanwhile may I recommend to some of you who are regular to use a blog reading aggregator. Bloglines is the one I use, it tells me if any of the 20 or so blogs I regularly read have anything new and allows me to skim the articles and figure if I want to read more or not.
While I'm at it, let me note two of the books I have recently read:
"No One Left to Lie To" by Christopher Hitchens. The Clinton family and how awfully evil they are. Now Hitchens was certainly more leftwing then than now, and some of his criticisms are for Clinton supporting welfare reform, but it is the personal behaviour that is most telling. The fact Hitchens effectively calls Bill Clinton a rapist and hasn't been sued for it speaks volumes, and it is also damning how the Clintons got away with their lies and behaviour by a complicit mainstream media uninterested in giving ammunition to the Republicans. The critics of G.W. Bush would do well to read this to see how Clinton's foreign policy was, in some cases, an absolute disaster and i one case particularly cynical and evil.
"The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" by Christopher Hitchens. Mother Teresa, friend of dictators, no friend of the poor, running her home for the dying whilst celebrating in the suffering of the poor as it brought them and her "closer to Jesus". Read how this angel of death raised millions of dollars, yet her homes for the dying were spartan affairs without medical staff, which in one case refused to send a 15yo boy to hospital because "if we sent him, they'd all want to go". Determine for yourself whether this celebrity raised vast sums of money for the Vatican's aggrandisement and global crusade, and if not where did the money go?
Have a good weekend.
Rural Ireland should be a good break from looking at this screen, meetings and answering phone calls.
Meanwhile may I recommend to some of you who are regular to use a blog reading aggregator. Bloglines is the one I use, it tells me if any of the 20 or so blogs I regularly read have anything new and allows me to skim the articles and figure if I want to read more or not.
While I'm at it, let me note two of the books I have recently read:
"No One Left to Lie To" by Christopher Hitchens. The Clinton family and how awfully evil they are. Now Hitchens was certainly more leftwing then than now, and some of his criticisms are for Clinton supporting welfare reform, but it is the personal behaviour that is most telling. The fact Hitchens effectively calls Bill Clinton a rapist and hasn't been sued for it speaks volumes, and it is also damning how the Clintons got away with their lies and behaviour by a complicit mainstream media uninterested in giving ammunition to the Republicans. The critics of G.W. Bush would do well to read this to see how Clinton's foreign policy was, in some cases, an absolute disaster and i one case particularly cynical and evil.
"The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" by Christopher Hitchens. Mother Teresa, friend of dictators, no friend of the poor, running her home for the dying whilst celebrating in the suffering of the poor as it brought them and her "closer to Jesus". Read how this angel of death raised millions of dollars, yet her homes for the dying were spartan affairs without medical staff, which in one case refused to send a 15yo boy to hospital because "if we sent him, they'd all want to go". Determine for yourself whether this celebrity raised vast sums of money for the Vatican's aggrandisement and global crusade, and if not where did the money go?
Have a good weekend.
ACT stabs one of its own, favours a (former?) socialist
Just when I was thinking that ACT was looking like a seriously viable option it goes and puts out a list, and stabs blogger, former Hutt South candidate Lindsay Mitchell in the back by offering her a list place that effectively says "no thanks". Which was indeed her response.
Whilst the placings of Rodney Hide and Heather Roy are appropriate, and putting Roger Douglas in third place is a wise move, stabbing Mitchell in the back, when she has long been the voice of reform on welfare reform shows at best that politics is a nasty game, and at worst that loyalty and hard work aren't what ACT wants to be known by.
The rest of the top 10 I have mixed views on. John Boscawen has emerged after not being on the list for years, but is at least a core part of the campaign against the Electoral Finance Act and an accomplished businessman. Number 5 is a secret. Number 6 Hilary Calvert is an unknown, but a woman and a lawyer. Number 7 is Peter Tashkoff, standing in Te Tai Tokerau, showing where ACT stands on the Maori seats! He has a blog and I guess it is good for ACT to have a Maori candidate, and will be interesting to see what views he has. Number 8 is John Ormond who's been around for ages, long been on the ACT list somewhere. Number 9 is Colin du Plessis, another unknown, South African born scientist, ex National Party.
Now it gets interesting - Number 10 is Shawn Tan, Chinese ex. Green Party - which gives plenty of cause to wonder what sort of "Road to Damascus" experience he hopefully has had, although since he has spent the last few years working in unions and supporting "Students for Justice in Palestine" (which isn't quite as it seems).
Tan opposed the war on Iraq and put his name to a statement that was clearly bog-standard leftwing anti-Americanism. Hmmm great!
Whilst the placings of Rodney Hide and Heather Roy are appropriate, and putting Roger Douglas in third place is a wise move, stabbing Mitchell in the back, when she has long been the voice of reform on welfare reform shows at best that politics is a nasty game, and at worst that loyalty and hard work aren't what ACT wants to be known by.
The rest of the top 10 I have mixed views on. John Boscawen has emerged after not being on the list for years, but is at least a core part of the campaign against the Electoral Finance Act and an accomplished businessman. Number 5 is a secret. Number 6 Hilary Calvert is an unknown, but a woman and a lawyer. Number 7 is Peter Tashkoff, standing in Te Tai Tokerau, showing where ACT stands on the Maori seats! He has a blog and I guess it is good for ACT to have a Maori candidate, and will be interesting to see what views he has. Number 8 is John Ormond who's been around for ages, long been on the ACT list somewhere. Number 9 is Colin du Plessis, another unknown, South African born scientist, ex National Party.
Now it gets interesting - Number 10 is Shawn Tan, Chinese ex. Green Party - which gives plenty of cause to wonder what sort of "Road to Damascus" experience he hopefully has had, although since he has spent the last few years working in unions and supporting "Students for Justice in Palestine" (which isn't quite as it seems).
Tan opposed the war on Iraq and put his name to a statement that was clearly bog-standard leftwing anti-Americanism. Hmmm great!
Now will ACT get more votes with a (former?) leftwing unionist than with a libertarian welfare campaigner? Well we'll see.
20 August 2008
John Key's H2
A simple question.
Heather Simpson's role in the government is well known, she is the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, is regularly referred to by bureaucrats as the "Associate Prime Minister" and is undoubtedly the most powerful bureaucrat in the country - and more powerful than most Cabinet Ministers (perhaps only Cullen rivals her in power). She pulls Cabinet papers from the agenda, she vets Cabinet papers and amends them - that's an incredibly powerful role, albeit fully supported by Helen Clark.
However, does John Key intend to appoint a person to take this role? If he does it is a poor vote of confidence in the abilities of his colleagues and the public sector, if he doesn't it shows he can command a loyal crew, and he is willing to let himself and Cabinet manage difficulties, conflicts and handle strategic oversight.
What it would show is a very different form of government, and given nobody elected H2, given the mainstream media has been quite negligent in failing to discussing or debate her role in our Westminster style liberal democracy, as it openly challenges the autonomy of Cabinet Ministers to present papers to Cabinet, and centralising power in the hands of the PM, it would be refreshing to hear if John Key has a view on it.
If he DOES want such a person, it may be justifiable on the basis that many government departments will have spent nine years implementing Labour policies, and new naive Cabinet Ministers may not have the knowledge, confidence or awareness to know when they are being steered in directions that are not government policy.
Having said that though, given National policy announcements to date, I wonder to what extent that is a problem.
Heather Simpson's role in the government is well known, she is the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, is regularly referred to by bureaucrats as the "Associate Prime Minister" and is undoubtedly the most powerful bureaucrat in the country - and more powerful than most Cabinet Ministers (perhaps only Cullen rivals her in power). She pulls Cabinet papers from the agenda, she vets Cabinet papers and amends them - that's an incredibly powerful role, albeit fully supported by Helen Clark.
However, does John Key intend to appoint a person to take this role? If he does it is a poor vote of confidence in the abilities of his colleagues and the public sector, if he doesn't it shows he can command a loyal crew, and he is willing to let himself and Cabinet manage difficulties, conflicts and handle strategic oversight.
What it would show is a very different form of government, and given nobody elected H2, given the mainstream media has been quite negligent in failing to discussing or debate her role in our Westminster style liberal democracy, as it openly challenges the autonomy of Cabinet Ministers to present papers to Cabinet, and centralising power in the hands of the PM, it would be refreshing to hear if John Key has a view on it.
If he DOES want such a person, it may be justifiable on the basis that many government departments will have spent nine years implementing Labour policies, and new naive Cabinet Ministers may not have the knowledge, confidence or awareness to know when they are being steered in directions that are not government policy.
Having said that though, given National policy announcements to date, I wonder to what extent that is a problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)