Two elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greens seek to nationalise children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's absurd, immoral and bankrupt.

Why 9/11 matters

It wasn't a natural disaster, it wasn't an accident.

It was an act of war by Islamists from Saudi Arabia, backed by the tyrannical regime in Afghanistan against the USA, Western civilisation and secular free liberal society.

The battle is far from over, but the success has been to prevent a repeat attack in the US - although it has happened in the UK and Spain, more by inspiration than by direct control.

Islamists are stone age thugs using 21st century tools, they are one of many direct threats to the advancement of humanity, and the lives of those who wish to live peacefully and not initiate force against others. They must be fought both philosophically through the battle of ideas, and directly where and when they threaten freedom and lives.

That is why keeping Afghanistan and Iraq out of Islamist control is so important - the best examples to the Muslim world are secular states that allow pluralism and are at least partly free. Sadly, Turkey and Bosnia are the best there is, whilst most others are either oppressive or unable/unwilling to deal with their own murderous Islamists.

9/11 was not just an attack on the USA, it was an attack on the idea of the USA - a secular liberal free society where people can live their lives as they choose, without being forced to bow to any religion or political beliefs. To appreciate that you need to accept that secular liberal society is superior to theocratic autocracies of all kinds - to do that tolerance of individuals practicing Islam peacefully has to be separated from those using Islam as the foundation to wage, threaten and plan for civil war.

I do not care if individuals are Muslims and treat religion as a basis for how they live - until that extends to taking away my individual freedoms and attacking me. I don't like Islam, but there is a clear line between:
- Hating Islam as a philosophical and belief system;
- Fighting Islamist inspired attacks and threats; and
- Defending the right of someone to worship the Muslim faith whilst not posing a threat to anyone else.

Few disagree with the second point, few argue the first and not enough who argue the first also defend the third.

Labour's latest cutting edge policy - dance!

A Dance Industry Strategy?

Yes Judith Tizard - proving her utter worthlessness as a sucker of the state tit has announced:

Associate Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Judith Tizard launched the Dance Industry Strategy, in association with DANZ (Dance Aotearoa New Zealand), in Parliament's Grand Hall tonight.... "I commend DANZ for taking on the challenge of finding out where the dance sector sees itself, where it wants to go, and how it wants to go forward.

"The Labour-led government promotes cultural expression through writing, dance, theatre, music and the visual arts."

These activities are supported through funding from Creative New Zealand, who fund many of DANZ’s activities, as well as many festivals around New Zealand, and direct funding to national institutions like the Royal New Zealand Ballet and Te Matatini.

So there you go - education, healthcare, law and order, the economy, everything is running tickety boo -so now there must be a dance strategy.

Will there be a strategy for tapestry? A strategy for photography? A strategy for campanology?

Come on National - scrap having a Dance Strategy. There need not be a government strategy for everything, there will be one for masturbation one day at this rate!

Trotter's admiration for threats of violence

Chris Trotter's blog talks of "working class justice":

"the story I was told by a rank-and-filer whose workplace was visited by two burly union organisers. He recalled especially their East-End accents, and the lengths of lead pipe they were carrying. They were there, he said, to “caution” the poor little bloke who was holding-out against joining the union on “conscientious” grounds.

And then there was the hard-bitten union secretary, who responded to one of his members’ demand for a secret strike-ballot with the immortal words : “Ya wanna secret ballot? - Shut yer bloody eyes!”"

In other words out and out thuggery and intimidation. Working class? More like the union mafia. However, Trotter doesn't really speak of how vile it was.

He approvingly talks of it in the comments, saying compulsory unionism was an achievement. Yes - because being forced to join an organisation that you don't want representing you, and doesn't represent your views is an "achievement". Only if you're a fascist.

The vileness of compulsory unionism, how the trade union movement treats people who value their jobs more than they do (the definition of a scab is someone who values the job more than those calling him that), and how willing these savages are to turn to violence.

That's the dark side of the hard left of New Zealand politics. Something Trotter appears to pine for. It's savage, and shows the mentality of those who prefer the fist to the argument to get what they want.

Reason vs the irrational

As the Hadron Collidor was switched on (and yes I know it was funded by taxpayers), few can fail to be amazed at the constant seeking of knowledge by humanity and science, to understand the fundamental nature of the universe.

Meanwhile, sadly the ignorant paid a price, as according to the Times, a teenage girl in India drank pesticide because she was convinced the world would come to an end, after talking to relatives (and reading parts of the local media which were hysterical about it.

What could more starkly show the difference between those who seek to take humanity forward, peacefully, in leaps and bounds, and the superstition bound anti-reality hysterics who spread fear, loathing and doubt.

Though it has always been like that - ancient Greece was the first great attempt to embrace reason, and it took the Enlightenment to throw off the shackles of oppressive Christianity suppressing science and reason - a process that has yet to be completed against all religions and all philosophies of subjectivist irrationality.

North Korea's Aussie mate

On the 60th anniversary of the founding of North Korea - as George Orwell's vision of 1984 in real life, one Australian clearly thinks it was a good idea. From the (north) Korean Central News Agency:

Foreigners Here

Pyongyang, September 8 (KCNA) -- A delegation of the Australia-DPRK Friendship and Cultural Society headed by Raymond Ferguson and a friendship delegation of Donggang City of Liaoning Province, China, headed by Song Shuguan, general manager of the Chaoyuan Fish Breeding Company Ltd., arrived here on Sept. 7 to participate in the celebrations of the 60th birthday of the DPRK.

Who is this prick Raymond Ferguson and why is he a mate of those who enslave children?

Meanwhile, Russia cheers North Korea on - which, given it created the state under Stalin's instructions and orders, and installed Kim Il Sung as his protege, is not surprising, except um didn't the Cold War end 18 years ago?

Kim Jong Il Receives Congratulatory Letter from Russian President

Pyongyang, September 8 (KCNA) -- Chairman of the DPRK National Defence Commission Kim Jong Il received a congratulatory letter from Russian President Dmitri Anatoliyevich Medvedev on Monday on the occasion of the 60th founding anniversary of the DPRK.
The letter said:
Please accept my heartfelt congratulations to you on the occasion of the 60th founding anniversary of the DPRK.
A new sovereign state, which had a geographically and historically close relation with our country, was founded in the land of Korea on September 9, 1948.
For the past several decades since the significant day, we have gained weighty and positive experience in the mutual cooperation and implemented a lot of common plans conducive to the welfare of the peoples of the two countries.
It is my belief that the traditional good-neighborly relations between our two countries will continue to grow stronger in the future, too, and thus make a distinguished contribution to ensuring peace, stability and security in the Korean Peninsula and the rest of Asia.
Your Excellency Kim Jong Il,
I wish you good health and greater success in your responsible state affairs and the friendly DPRK peace and prosperity.
Yours Sincerely.

Ugh. Fortunately New Zealand hasn't been mentioned.

Peter Dunne nothing

So with all the goings on about Winston and Labour's role in it, what is Peter Dunne doing? Remaining a Minister outside Cabinet, and United Future still grants confidence and supply to Labour.

Don't forget, United Future has granted Labour confidence and supply in the past TWO Parliamentary terms. It hasn't even suggested withdrawing confidence and supply so that an election can be called immediately.

Of course on current polling, United Future is at the same level as Libertarianz, which suggests that Peter Dunne will be a one man band after the election...

Unless the people of Ohariu-Belmont realise that a vote for Peter Dunne is a vote for Labour, as it has been the last two elections - and remains so.

It is about time that this former Labour MP, who has hitched his political career to the religious right once, and more recently to support Clarkistan, is consigned to political history. United Future is hardly a party of the religious right, it is hardly a party seeking a change in government. His most notable achievement has been to set up a new bureaucracy - the Families Commission.

He may be a one man band after this election, like Jim Anderton, but surely it is time that New Zealand voters gave up on parties that are focused almost entirely on ex Labour/National MPs. Winston should be a goner, Jim Anderton should retire, but Peter Dunne needs Ohariu-Belmont to say no (and please don't mention Transmission Gully).

UK liberalises planning laws - a bit

According to the Daily Telegraph, the UK is to remove rules that currently mean property owners must seek planning permission to convert lofts or to add extensions of up to two storeys as long as they fall within certain dimensional guidelines.

Good stuff, except new rules are being imposed on laying driveways.

The usually leftwing Liberal Democrats are saying the rules are still too tight. Is it too much to hope for New Zealand to consider liberalising the RMA? Clearly the National Party thinks so.

Anderton's retirement?

Jim Anderton's career as an MP spans 24 years. The first 6 under Labour, with him being very disenchanted with the necessary liberalisation reforms of the 1980s. Reforms which Helen Clark is on the record as having fully supported - in public and in Parliament, if not necessarily behind closed doors.

He then founded the New Labour Party, a rather batty socialist breakaway, and got elected in 1990 as its sole MP, whilst attracting a cabal of misfits and others like Chris Trotter, keen to implement their alternative vision of high taxes, strong state ownership of business and ever increasing spending on welfare, housing, education and health, whilst screwing consumers over and suppressing new enterprise by protecting encumbent industries.

Following the 1990 election, he managed to convince the lunatic fringe Green Party (which did well under first past the post as a nicely branded protest), the insane Democrats (now Democrats for Social Credit so you know their into "funny money"), the Maori nationalist Mana Motuhake Party and the breakaway anything but Liberal Party to band together under the Alliance label. A new future for the New Zealand hard left was born.

The story of how the left used the two electoral referenda in 1992 and 1993 to change the electoral system to meet its agenda has been told elsewhere. The Alliance led this charge, with next to no media scrutiny of the obvious question "so isn't the Alliance supporting MMP because it believes it is the only way it can gain substantive political power?". It succeeded in 1993, with MMP being passed and winning a second seat - Auckland Central - with Maori nationalist socialist Sandra Lee. 18.2% of the vote in 1993 heralded the Alliance as the third party in NZ politics. Jim Anderton looked like potential kingmaker in a future MMP election.

However it wasn't to be. Winston Peters rose in the meantime, taking the whinging moaning xenophobic retard vote in droves. Jim Anderton made a peace offering with Labour shortly before the 1996 election, that promised Helen Clark that the Alliance would support a Labour led government if the numbers allowed after the election. However, the Alliance lost 40% of its support in 1996, despite MMP offering its supporters a real chance at substantial Parliamentary representation. NZ First became the 3rd party in Parliament with just over 13% compared to the 10% of the Alliance. NZ First became the kingmaker, as National needed it to govern, and even Labour and the Alliance together had insufficient seats to govern without NZ First. In the end Winston chose National, and Jim Anderton spent another 3 years in Opposition - but this time with 13 MPs.

Anderton gained the likes of Jeanette Fitzsimons, Matt Robson, Pam Corkery and Liz Gordon, adding to his own sagacious brilliance, and the leftwing machine steamed onwards to 1999. Here at last was his chance - National in disarray, Labour ahead in the polls. However, the Greens decided to go their own way, and in the 1999 election it proved the right thing for them. The Greens picked up just over 5% of the vote, the Alliance had dropped to about 7.7%, showing it had bled support to Greens (but also held its own, probably as NZ First voters deserted the party as it had been in government). Labour governed with a formal coalition with the Alliance, but needing the Greens to get a Parliamentary majority on confidence and supply. Jim Anderton would be Deputy Prime Minister.

Anderton got given a few policies to keep him happy. One was Kiwibank, essentially an exercise in subsidising (injecting capital) and convincing the NZ Post board to enter into the banking sector, one that hasn't been unprofitable, but has certainly made less than credible returns on capital. Another was to convert the largely policy oriented Ministry of Commerce into a pro-active Ministry of Economic Development. MED would be more pro-active about government support for business, and would guide Trade New Zealand, which would dish out subsidies, picking winners to produce jobs. Jim also got money for his forestry strategy, his own commodity winner picking, pouring money into training and infrastructure for the Northland and East Coast forestry sectors - support that was never reciprocated at the ballot box.

Jim was happy, he looked like he had made a difference, he was a Cabinet Minister, and became increasingly comfortable with the direction of the Clark administration. However this disenchanted the hard left of the Alliance, like Laila Harre. Increasingly Anderton seemed to make the Alliance an adjunct of the Labour Party, but some in the Alliance wanted greater differentiation and more efforts to swing economic and social policy to the left - something Anderton was loathe to do, partly due to his own conservatism, but also as the Alliance had less than 8% of the vote compared to Labour's near 39%, he wished to avoid wagging the dog so to speak.

So the Alliance and Jim Anderton parted their ways, with the Progressive Party (later Jim Anderton's Progressive Coalition, since nobody knew what the Progressive Party was) contesting the 2002 election distinct from the Alliance. Anderton had his own solid constituency granting him enough support to remain in Parliament, but the party vote for the Progressives was low at 1.7% of the vote, just enough to win a second seat in Parliament. Meanwhile, the Alliance won no constituencies and only under 1.3% of the vote. Anderton could not remain as Deputy Prime Minister, leading a party with such a low percentage of the vote, but his small party could become more closely integrated with Labour.

Several family tragedies saw Anderton show special interest in drugs policy and so the Progressive Party became a vehicle for a rather conservative leftwing approach to some issues, like drugs, but generally there was little to distinguish it from the Labour party. This was seen in the 2005 election when the party dropped to only 1.2% of the party vote, putting Anderton in Parliament alone.

Anderton has been a Cabinet Minister now since 1999, he is now 70 years old and has dedicated a good part of his life to politics. As Labour looks like facing almost certain defeat in the upcoming election, Jim Anderton may consider the past 9 years to have been a success. He has seen the implementation of a couple of hallmark policies of his, and more importantly perhaps he was an importance influence on the campaign for electoral reform. His support for MMP and the credibility he brought to the socialist melting pot of lunatics called the Alliance was critical for both - and to his credit, jettisoning the Alliance in 2002 was the right thing to do, letting the old Marxist unionist rump fade away to obscurity.

I've obviously never liked Anderton's politics. I thought Michael Cullen's mid 1990s jibe of "Jim Ol' Son" quite apt. However, Anderton has moderated himself in recent years. I've seen him in meetings with Ministers, and he works hard, asks pertinent questions and is indistinguishable from Labour Party Ministers, except that he works harder than many of them. In short, he could be back in the Labour Party today quite happily. He is a better Minister than many would have thought.

He must know his party is finished without him, that's a simple fact - but not because it's a personality cult like NZ First, but because it really doesn't have a niche that is clearly identifiable.

So at 70 it would be apt for Jim Anderton to announce his retirement - he can look back on his career and can see his role in winding back the reforms he hated - increasing bureaucracy and increasing state involvement in business. He can be proud from his political perspective about what he has achieved, but does he really need three years in Opposition as a single MP party?

Oil below US$100 a barrel

So reports the Times.

Environmentalists will be bemoaning this and repeating their comments that it is still the age of "peak oil". Of course what has happened is demand has eased up, supply has changed little, so the price has dropped.

It's called the market.

So while the market respond, as the economics of oil exploration remain high, and demand eases off - you might ask yourself:

1. Why so many still don't understand how markets work?
2. Why environmentalists get so excited with the prospect of oil "running out" or becoming unaffordable? Why are they more excited about that, than by their being substitute fuels found?

Have Clark or Key expressed a view?

On the US Presidential elections?

It appears Gordon Brown has implicitly endorsed Barack Obama, according to the Daily Telegraph.

He has been quoted saying that the Democrats are "generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times". Doesn't bode the greatest if McCain wins now does it?

Remember Ralph Nader?

Once the left's pinup at every US Presidential election.

Aussie blogger Tim Blair reports on how bad it is going for him. The left seems more than happy to embrace the messiah Barack Obama.

Shame really. The Democrats once blamed Nader for why Al Gore lost in 2000. He wont be a reason for them to get angry this year if Obama can't do it for them. Nader is a serious nutcase, but at least he is principled - what I would like to know is by how much does Obama REALLY disagree with him?

Jeremy Paxman - world class interviewer

He is the one reason to watch Newsnight on BBC2 when he is the presenter.

Can I only wish that TVNZ or TV3 could have someone who could interview politicians like he can:

Try this (BBC not allowing embedding of this) of Michael Howard. Go for 2.40 onwards. The evasion is blatant, and Paxman does not relent.

Or Paxman confronting Sinn Fein MP Martin McGuinness over his denial of involvement in the IRA


Resisting the dumbing down of news here:





Confronting the vile fan of brutal dictators George Galloway:



A collection of him not getting straight answers from politicians and persisting:



And finally a portion from "Have I Got News for you" showing Paxman presenting the weather grudgingly and brilliantly:



Imagine anyone on NZ TV today who would dare be half this adventurous and confrontational.

National to axe Families Commission?

Yes yes, I'm in raptures, one bureaucracy to go. Yes one, at least something to grapple onto that is a positive change of National compared to Labour. Lindsay Mitchell was getting excited too, until...

Key decided to rebalance it.

Peter Dunne, who should hopefully be back to being the sole MP for his party once more after the election (after all voting United Future has twice meant supporting Labour in power), said it only cost $9 million (of other people's money) over four years. He says its work would "still need to be done by other agencies" if it was abolished.

Bullshit.

Peter, YOU damned well pay for it.

Again National disappoints. Is it just Labour's so bad we are all to put up with more Labour policy tweaking than any real steps forward? Why can't the newest most asinine bureaucracies be wound up?

Why is my tag "National party disappoints", growing weekly?

Honour among thieves?

Thieves being Labour and NZ First politicians of course (not that they have a monopoly on this).

Owen Glenn's evidence is damning.

How utterly determined are these suckers from people's bank accounts to remain in power? How little self esteem do they have when they don't have power? What better reason is there to throw them in the dustbin of history?

Why do the good people of Mt Albert think that woman is worthy of representing them?

NZ First and Labour have acted inappropriately, in ways that would have outraged either party had National done the same.

Not PC has it part right. Clark will need to call an election anyway. However, serious questions need to be answered. Winston's credibility now resides only in his geriatric personality cult, and this should ensure his political oblivion. Mike Williams must go to save what's left of the Labour Party's honour, he is the sacrificial lamb Clark must demand. She must apologise, call the election and answer the questions as to why the Labour Party has retained power through sheer hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, maybe Nicky Hagar will write a book about it? Oh no, wouldn't be convenient now would it?

Environmentalists impoverishing Africa

Mark Henderson in The Times writes about how Africa is being kept poor by environmental activists from wealthy countries promoting traditional agriculture rather than the latest technology in agriculture. Sir David King, the former scientific advisor to the UK government, says of Africa:

Why has that continent not joined Asia in the big green revolutions that have taken place over the past few decades? The suffering within that continent, I believe, is largely driven by attitudes developed in the West which are somewhat anti-science, anti-technology - attitudes that lead towards organic farming, for example, attitudes that lead against the use of genetic technology for crops that could deal with increased salinity in the water, that can deal with flooding for rice crops, that can deal with drought resistance.

Of course anti-reason is the hallmark of the Greens - a philosophy of hysteria scaremongering, that is a quasi-religious worshipping of the "natural and traditional" against the scientific and technologically advanced.

He calls organic food "a lifestyle choice for a community with surplus food", not to say it is wrong for people to choose it, but that it has driven messages to those communities without surplus food, who simply can't afford to ignore the latest that agricultural science has to offer.

He talks of how hundreds of individual farmers taking produce to market is an inefficient activity from the past, because after all most food in developed countries is not sold by those producing it, because if they spent their effort doing that they would sell a fraction of what they do otherwise.

It's time to engage in the philosophical debate at question here. Should public policy be driven by well intentioned zealots who don't let evidence, science and results get in the way of their ideology, or should it be based on rational analysis of options? Should we continue to listen to the GE scaremongerers, the organic food advocates and those who spread scepticism about science, when they offer no solid evidence for their faith like beliefs?

When Professor King cites the example that "Friends of the Earth in 1999 worried that drought-tolerant crops may have the potential to grow in habitats unavailable' to conventional crops" then you know Friends of the Earth have become enemies of humanity.

It's about time the benign contradiction infested, irrational, quasi religious and pro-state violence philosophy of the Greens was challenged openly - it disgustingly taints the policies of most other political parties, and the mainstream media has neglected to confront what it is really about.

ACT voted with Labour?

Well so says Brian Rudman. Apparently ACT voted for the Public Transport Management Bill, which Rudman thoroughly approves - instantly sending alarm bells off in my head. ACT with Labour and the Greens?

What IS that Bill about? Well it is quite simple. The Auckland Regional Council has long been upset that so many of Auckland's bus services were commercially provided by the private sector. In others words, people paid fares, companies ran buses and they were all happy - except the ARC of course, which has long wanted to regulate fares, frequencies and plan Auckland public transport endlessly (and shut down commercial bus services competing with its own highly loss making rail services).

The ARC has long missed owning and operating Auckland's buses, ignoring that it did such an abysmal job at it. When the ARC and its ARA predecessor ran most of the buses in Auckland, patronage had its longest continuous decline in patronage from the late 1960s through to the late 1990s. At the same time, the bus fleet progressively aged, services were planned endlessly and Aucklanders continued to drive, and subsidies increased. After forced privatisation (which by the way helped create the assets of what is now Auckland Regional Holdings (formerly Infrastructure Auckland)), Stagecoach Auckland invested heavily in new buses and commercial services thrived, and patronage grew.

However it wasn't trains.

You see the bus companies would sometimes drop routes and frequencies of services operating commercially, upsetting the ARC which believed it needed to subsidise services to plug such gaps. This happened more frequently after millions of dollars were poured into rail services, as subsidised trains undermined unsubsidised bus services.

The ARC is not forced to subsidise any bus services. When it chooses to do so it is required to competitively tender them, so like any business seeking a contractor, it faces choices. It can also set terms and conditions for those tendering. Rudman's claim that "As the law stands, despite these huge subsidies, ARTA cannot inspect operators' books to check whether they are gouging the system" is only true if you think ARTA's contracting processes are robust and it seeks the best value for money.

ARTA could deny increases in subsidies, but it wants to deny increases in fares and to increase services beyond those commercially sustainable. Reality is that fuel prices put up the price of providing services, subsidising rail services undermines the fare revenue of certain bus services, so subsidies rise if fares don't rise.

This bill aims to dodge reality. It means that commercially provided services can now be more heavily regulated - services that get no subsidies may be forced to integrate with a ticketing system specified by ARTA, and which may not deliver any benefits to the companies, because it wont attract enough passengers to pay for the cost of the system. It means that regional councils can contract over commercial services, so that instead of a mix of subsidised and unsubsidised services by different companies, you get subsidised services by a single one.

Rodney Hide has made a mistake. He has voted for local government control over private enterprise and central planning of public transport over entrepreneurship, and incentives to minimise subsidies. National voted against it, it would be nice if it promised to repeal this legislation which would only increase what ratepayers pay to subsidise public transport.

Don't like Auckland's trains? Pay more!

Well it's hardly surprising. You get what you pay for.

You see the fares only recover around a third of the operating costs, and not a dollar of fare revenue has been used to pay for the trains themselves, the track upgrades or the station upgrades. They have been paid for by ratepayers, motorists (through petrol tax) and the proceeds of the privatisation of the Yellow Bus Company.

So when Peter Lyons in the NZ Herald moans about services being late, moans about standing room only, moans about the services being inferior to his expectations he shouldn't be surprised. Taxpayers have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the system. He starves the system by paying fares that are a fraction of the operating costs, it's a con that deludes Aucklanders into thinking that you can have a first class urban passenger railway without either paying fares to sustain it (as in Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan) or paying a fortune in rates or taxes (as in Paris, Vienna, Montreal).

So the debate is really this. Are those who want Auckland to have a passenger railway willing to use it and pay the fares necessary to sustain it? If not, why should Aucklanders who don't want to use it be forced to pay taxes for those who do?

Meanwhile, if you think it is the solution to congestion in Auckland, consider that 88% of commuters in Auckland do NOT work in downtown Auckland, where the railway goes. Consider that the railway itself only serves three out of the five main corridors in Auckland radiating from the central city, then you can see that at best 7% of Auckland commuters might use it.

It would be nice if a journalist would put in a LGOIMA (official information) request to the ARC to ask the difference its rail plan would make to traffic speeds in Auckland if fully implemented (according to peer reviewed consultants' reports).

World's biggest nationalisation?

According to the Times, The Bush Administration has injected US$200 Billion of US taxpayers' money into the Federal National Mortgage Administration (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), at the same time as it has taken over the companies, replaced the chief executives and suspended dividends to the private shareholders.

Both companies finance more than 80% of the US housing market, what this means is a massive subsidy for US homeowners. Future taxpayers (as the US is in budget deficit) will pay to prop up the property market now.

Reuters reports Barack Obama supports it as being necessary, but welcomingly said "In our market system, investors must not be allowed to believe that they can invest in a "heads they win, tails they don't lose" situation." Which of course, is what has happened.

It also reports John McCain also supports it, but also this:

""The long-term reforms are to scale down Fannie and Freddie so their size is no longer a threat. And then privatize them. Get them off the taxpayer's books entirely," said McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.".

Meanwhile, according to Bloomberg former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan criticises the bailout saying the companies should have been nationalised, given the shareholders nothing and privatised the two companies into many smaller firms.

These two firms were government creations, as part of the New Deal. It's about time the US economy was no longer dependent on them both. As Not PC said, they should have been allowed to fail. Bailing them out is taking money from those who didn't take those risks, it delays and reduces future tax cuts. The money for the bailout does not come from trees, it comes from people.

As Paul Gigot in the Wall Street Journal writes:

"Even now, after all of their dishonesty and failure, Fannie and Freddie could emerge from this taxpayer rescue more powerful than ever. Campaigning to spare taxpayers from that result would represent genuine "change," not that either presidential candidate seems interested."

As it is a fait accompli, the best that can hoped for is to take Greenspan's solution, fully nationalise the institutions, split them and sell them. Ensure these creations of government are returned to the dustbin of history.