Excellent North Korean travelogue

Ex Expat (Stef) has some excellent posts and photos from North Korea, showing you much much more about this Orwellian hell hole. It's an excellent travelogue, well written with great photos (and I've read a few in my time). So go forth and see what this totalitarian anti-capitalist part of the world is like...

The border with China...

Part 1 The trip there
Part 2 Children's Palace, Pyongyang
Part 3 Yanggakdo Hotel Pyongyang with Anchor butter
Part 4 DMZ from the northern side
Part 5 Kaesong
Part 6 May Day
Part 7 Victorious Fatherland Liberation War Museum
Part 8 Mt Myohyang and the International Friendship Exhibition
Part 9 buildings and monuments in Pyongyang

Boris Johnson wants new London airport

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

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

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

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

Gordon Brown's solution? More unfunded socialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ross Robertson - will win but not ambitious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian McNamara - you wont hear from him again

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

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

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

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

PREDICTION: Colin King will retain this seat effortlessly.

George Hawkins - a meritless likely winner

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

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

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

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

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

In my ongoing series on Labour candidates...

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

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

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

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

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

Harry Duynhoven - a shoo in

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

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

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

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

Qantas to fly A380 to NZ for promotion

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

Mainstream media, carefully edited and double checked - not.

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

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

Airline industry faces enormous challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian, it's polite to ask ok?

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

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

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

US taxpayers' kids will pay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It will happen again.

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

Loser Labour candidate number 2 - Paul Chalmers

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

The profile on the website says:

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

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

Poor Labour candidate of the day - Sam Yau

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

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

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

Compulsory training or what Helen?

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

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

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

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

Don't let the financial crisis damage capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

Anderton, Bradford and Sharples let off lightly

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imagine voting for National

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe that's it?

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

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

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

Leftwing economic illiteracy and hypocrisy

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

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

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

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

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

but apparently the Standard opposes Labour policy. How odd.

Black Power's treaty claim

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

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

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

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

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