Islamists threaten Dutch MP

Geert Wilders entered the UK today, finally permitted to do so thanks as described earlier by myself.

What does he encounter? The very thing he describes. Militant freedom hating Muslims.

According to The Times:

"around thirty male activists from a group called Islam for UK began chanting, "Wilders burn in hell" and "Sharia for UK""

"Brandishing banners saying, “Sharia is the solution, freedom go to hell” and “Geert Wilders deserves Islamic punishment”, the protesters were held back by about fifty policemen."

These lowlifes hate Britain, they hate the values of free speech, freedom of religion and individual rights, and they seek to destroy it. They, not Wilders, should be the focus of the government.

No. Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary is seeking to protect these flowers of hatred from being offended because Wilders "would threaten community security and therefore public security".

No. The Islamists threaten me, they threaten most residents of the UK who live here because it offers the freedoms available to practice the religion you wish (including none), free speech, and live your life by and large as you see fit (notwithstanding the Nanny State around many activities).

Make it fundamentally clear, the vision these Islamists have for the UK would make New Labour's Nanny State look like a holiday in comparison.

Wilders expressed his opinion “I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies the less freedom that we get.”. He's right of course, given the separation of religion and state is rare indeed in Muslim majority countries (only Turkey, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania have this). He justified comments that Islam is retarded by saying that in some Islamic dominated countries "homosexuals are beaten up and killed. Journalists are jailed. That action is retarded."

In response, a spokesman from "Islam for UK" said "because there is a war on Muslims he gets an easy ride". No, the war is on Islamists. Your misuse of language shows you're uninterested in confronting the Islamist threat. He continued "When Muslims defend their faith, they are seen as extremists." No, it is HOW you defend your faith. Calling for violence against those who disagree with you is the problem. Calling to overthrow the constitutional structure and fundamental values of British society, is the problem.

Mr Wilders is NOT like the BNP. However, the BNP rides on the wave of snivelling pussy footing around Islamists that is seen in the likes of the attempt to ban Mr Wilders. Wilders supports individual freedom, the BNP supports a big intrusive fascist state.

The UK government has for far too long been concerned about "offending Muslims", when in fact the freedom and right to offend whoever you wish is fundamental to British society. It is not racism, it is criticism of a philosophy, a point of view. Being Muslim is not something you have that is inate, it is, or should be, a conscious choice. If you say "freedom go to hell" then I say "to hell with you and your ideas". You are then the enemy.

If you cannot stand a society that criticises your strongly held beliefs and allows debate and derision of them, if you would rather threaten and use force to stop others offending you, then there is a better answer that should make you happier, and would make most Britons happier...

leave.

Italians bribe Taliban to not attack

.

The Times is reporting:

"A Taleban commander and two senior Afghan officials confirmed yesterday that Italian forces paid protection money to prevent attacks on their troops.

After furious denials in Rome of a Times report that the Italian authorities had paid the bribes, the Afghans gave further details of the practice. Mohammed Ishmayel, a Taleban commander, said that a deal was struck last year so that Italian forces in the Sarobi area, east of Kabul, were not attacked by local insurgents.

The payment of protection money was revealed after the death of ten French soldiers in August 2008 at the hands of large Taleban force in Sarobi. French forces had taken over the district from Italian troops, but were unaware of secret Italian payments to local commanders to stop attacks on their forces and consequently misjudged local threat levels."

Words fail me.

When the Italian government was asked, the Defence Minister explained "that a benevolent attitude toward the Italians who serve in Afghanistan had nothing to do with alleged bribes, but was due, instead, to “the behaviour of our military, which is very different compared to that of other contingents”. "

Not attacking the Taliban and giving them money is "very different".

So we will see what comes of this report. It paints a picture of the Italian forces which is far from flattering, rather like the image above from 'Allo 'Allo.

UPDATE: You can't make this up "Meanwhile, a Taliban group also sent two letters to the Lahore Press Club – one on October 12 and the other on October 14 – warning that if the media “does not stop portraying us as terrorists ... we will blow up offices of journalists and media organisations”. from the Daily Times in Pakistan.

What the Greens COULD say about Urewera 17

It has been said before the main thing the Green Party is guilty of is playing down the significance of what led to the Police raid in the Ureweras.

Here's just an idea of what could have been said.

"The Green Party openly abhors violence and promotes peace, and while we are opposed to the anti-terrorism legislation that saw the raid and arrest of suspected criminals in the Ureweras, we can understand Police concern given the evidence collected about alleged activities in the area. Given it included plans to murder others and commit other criminal acts, it is only natural to be concerned.

The Green Party vehemently opposes people training to use firearms for any form of insurrection in New Zealand, or calls for killing or vandalism or any other such attacks. If anyone in our party promotes such a view, steps will be taken to eject them.

Whilst nobody has been convicted of any offences, the Police are duty bound to act when they have due course to fear for the lives and property of peaceful New Zealanders. The Police did so. While we always have concerns about how much force is used to undertake search warrants and arrest suspects, we are not concerned that the Police acted without due cause, per se.

We look forward to the justice system handling these cases appropriately. However, notwithstanding this, it is important to clarify that our policy of peace and justice is not compatible with those who seek political change through force or to seek terrorism or civil war in New Zealand. Whether they be Tuhoe or any other iwi, Maori or non-Maori. The Green Party disassociates itself from anyone supporting such criminal behaviour. We support Tino Rangitiratanga, but we do not support the use of violence to achieve political objectives in New Zealand"

I'm not holding my breath. I asked at the time "Why don't they condemn it if it were true", but the Greens preferred to damn the publicity around the evidence.

At least Pita Sharples expressed abhorence at the evidence.

The Greens want to rewrite history, blank out what was said, what was found and what motivated the Police to undertake the raids. Its friends are victims, they were brave and deserve our support.

Like hell.

Greens commemorate Urewera 17

Lest we forget - a phrase used often to refer to war veterans, those whose lives were sacrificed to fight tyranny.

The Greens use it to remember the Police action taken to raid the homes of radical activists. People who seemed to express a lot of interest in fighting, but it wasn't fighting tyranny.

Catherine Delahunty calls what happened "human rights outrages". What is it she is talking about?

It's well established that members of the Green Party has many links to those who were arrested and charged. That Delahunty sympathises with Tuhoe and its communist self styled leader Tame Iti is hardly surprising.

Phil Howison wrote about this in much more detail, but in summary the Police found:

- Intercepted conversations indicated interest in attacking Parliament, assassinating John Key, bombing power stations, telecommunications facilities and the Waihopai military communications facility. It talked of driving farmers from their land and recruits should prove themselves by conducting an armed robbery or killing white people for "practice";
- A cache of firearms and ammunition, 20 weapons were seized;
- Quasi military training camps existed teaching firearm use and tactics.

This was a demonstrable reason to raid the people concerned, some of which have criminal histories including for assault and trespass.

Charges were not laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act because of how badly the legislation was drafted, it being described as "complex and incoherent", and "almost impossible to apply to domestic circumstances".

Delahunty has shown her true colours, she is no friend of peace or non-violence. Nobody who has seen the Pascoe affidavit would not be concerned about what was talked about.

Indeed, evidence since supports reports of the presence of military style training camps.

I would have thought the best thing for Green MPs to do is simply shut up.

It is too much to hope for the Greens to condemn caching firearms, military style training camps, talk of killings and vandalism. Instead there is denial about all of this, a blank out similar how the Greens accuse global warming sceptics of talking.

So what COULD the Greens have said?

Fascists shouldn't be forced to be politically correct

The British National Party, a far-right nationalist racist socialist party (socialist? Just look at its economic policy, health policy and education policy), has been told by the Central London County Court that it must not prohibit membership on the grounds of race and religion. The Equality and Human Rights Commission brought the case. Why? Because it wanted to embarrass the BNP.

It is incredibly unlikely that anyone who isn't a white British chav bigot at least nominally Christian person would seek to join this gang of malcontents, so it isn't as if it was a real issue for any individual. Not as if it would be legitimate anyway.

The real issue is that it should be nobody else's business. If the BNP wants to be racist, so it should have that freedom. Stripping this right helps to make the party seem more mainstream, more acceptable. Exposing its own braindead irrationality is GOOD for those seeking to keep it far from power.

However, to say it cannot restrict by religion is more insidious. Race is not a matter of choice, religion is. Religion is, like politics, a set of deeply held views. You may as well say the BNP can't prohibit Marxist members. Are political parties going to be forced to allow anyone to be a member, including those actively opposed to what they stand for?

The BNP is a private organisation. Its membership is voluntary. If you don't like the rules, don't join. It should not be the state's business who is allowed or banned from joining political parties, regardless of the philosophy behind him.

All this does is play into the BNP's hands, helps it become more mainstream, and strips another layer of freedom away that can be used against others.

Will Mosques be required to admit Jews? Will the Conservative Party be forced to admit communists? Will the Green Party be forced to admit laissez-faire capitalists?

Fascists should be allowed to be fascists, exclude whoever they like and be the knuckle dragging vermin they are. For they are no more offensive than the finger pointing parasites who create such absurd laws because non-existent people have non-existent offence over self-defined pseudo-rights.

Now for the leftwing nutjobs

We all know the seriously unhinged right wing nutjobs in the US, the ones obsessed about Barack Obama's place of birth. How about the same, but on the left.

This article from the Daily Telegraph shows how two complete lies against US talkback radio host, Rush Limbaugh, are now openly expressed in mainstream media as true, even though they have been proven to be false.

He was said to say "I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark." except there is no recording of this, no one can testify to hearing it, it is hearsay and damning it is.

Now Limbaugh can be entertaining, but he is a Christian conservative who openly rejects the separation of church and state, so my time for him is limited. However, such a smear is atrocious and should result in an enormous lawsuit. It is tantamount to the wished for falsehood of those on the left than anyone who is a Republican must really be racist, for only those on the left have good intentions and treat everyone as equal (except foreigners, the wealthy and everyone who indirectly loses due to affirmative action).

However, it's important to remember that mainstream US politics is at this level - a level of venal hatred for the other. It is tribalist, and abandons reason. Democrats and Republicans have little between them in terms of embracing small secular government, and wanting to reduce the role of the state. Both speak with forked tongues, but for now the Democrats are embarking on a socialist big government spending spree and regulatory binge. The Republicans will criticise it, and do not much better, with their own agenda of pork and protection (although John McCain had a good record opposing this). Nothing will fundamentally change. Obama has just been a change to the left, with little sign he is much more than a co-leader of the Congressional Democrats.

There is a gap in the US electorate, for a politician who embraces small government without embracing the finger pointing of the Christian evangelical right. If only.

How do the Greens spread misinformation? Part 2 – Kedgley’s speech

In Part 1 I explained the rather complicated background to the Kapiti expressway issue. It’s one Sue Kedgley feels she can contribute to. Let’s see how she did. She made a speech to a Kapiti environmentalist group, supporting the council. So what did she say that was wrong? Note I’m only selecting the most blatantly obvious mistakes…

She said the Government was “announcing it is going to bulldoze a four lane motorway through Kapiti” including on one strip of land that was originally going to be used for a motorway in the first place, but Sue blanks that out. She uses the word “motorway” although the proposal is for an expressway, a subtle difference, but adds to the drama.

“The government's justification for the proposed motorway from Foxton to McKay's Crossing” there is no proposed motorway from Foxton to McKay’s Crossing, the NZTA website explicitly says expressway from McKay’s Crossing to Otaki.

“is to… make the journey through Kapiti a few minutes quicker for long haul travellers and provide a fast lane between Wellington and Auckland for huge, juggernaut trucks” The NZTA website says nothing of the sort. This is further emotive hyperbole. It is to relieve severe congestion for local and through traffic. She made up “a few minutes” and the point about huge juggernaut trucks, for dramatic effect.

“there is overwhelming international evidence that trying to solve congestion on one road by building yet another one simply doesn't work.” In the context of rural bypasses in New Zealand this is complete nonsense. Porirua and Tawa have been bypassed for decades successfully, so have places like Fairfield, Timaru, Richmond, Stoke, Upper Hutt, Waitara, Kaiapoi, Albany, Pokeno, Mercer and more recently Orewa and Silverdale. Quite simply bypasses DO work. “It's an almost irrefutable transport law” sorry Sue, I just refuted it.

The Government will “build a massive and expensive 4 lane motorway that will have a devastating impact on your community and your local ecology but will be of little use to local residents when petrol rises to $2 to $4 dollars a litre, as it inevitably will?” devastating impact? Not if it is built along the route reserved for it. Will it really be of little use if petrol rises so much? It will have taken through traffic out of the town centres, but then again Sue isn’t putting her own money on oil futures, so she’s not THAT convinced roads will be empty.

“Two decades ago, in 1990, the then Commissioner for the Environment, Helen Hughes, investigated what would be the most effective way of solving congestion on the so-called Western corridor.” Yes, but the study was about access between Kapiti and Wellington, not traffic through Kapiti. Everything you say about this report is irrelevant, it did not touch upon roads through Kapiti. Nevertheless, you don’t tell the full facts about this either…

“She concluded that that upgrading the rail service, not building a new motorway, was the solution” No, she concluded upgrading the rail service should be the first priority, before building a motorway along Transmission Gully. You oppose Transmission Gully Sue. Selectively quoting a report isn’t very honest is it?

So you see, Sue has now switched the issue from how to manage congestion from traffic travelling around and through Kapiti, to how people commute from Kapiti to Wellington, an quite different issue. Her entire focus is now nothing to do with what the expressway is meant to resolve or even the Council’s alternative proposal. In short, she’s subtly changed the topic to talk about what she wants to talk about – commuter rail. Remember this, nothing she says from now on is directly relevant, unless you think trains going south of Kapiti can be some sort of answer for traffic within and going north of Kapiti.

“Since then, however, nothing has been done to rescue the rundown Kapiti rail service from further decline, although 48 new 2 car units were finally ordered last year, and the rail line is finally being double tracked and extended through to Waikanae.” What an oxymoron. Nothing has been done, EXCEPT order new trains, widen the track and extend electrification to Waikanae. Let's minimise hundreds of millions of dollars of spending.

Except she is wrong again. Since 1990, the current (Ganz Mavag) rolling stock was extensively refurbished from 1995 to 2002 with new seats. The double tracking also includes a wholesale upgrade of the signaling and electrics for the entire Wellington rail system. “Nothing” is false.

“we need to transform what is at the moment a rundown suburban rail service into a fast efficient commuter rail system that commuters will want to switch to. So why isn't that our priority?” Again it’s false. It is the priority. The money the last government set aside for the Western Corridor had rail as the priority, with new trains, extending electrification to Waikanae and increasing the frequency of services. By comparison, nothing substantial has been spent on the highway except investigation and design work on Transmission Gully. Money for construction has not been approved.

“Almost nobody drives from neighbouring suburbs into London, Perth, Tokyo or New York. They all commute by rail.” This is the Kapiti Coast Sue, not London. Besides which, how can those cities remotely compare, and the roads are all heavily congested in those cities. Funny that.

“according to Kiwirail, more than 13 thousand people use the Kapiti line every day” No Sue, that’s misuse of statistics. That is the number of people along the whole length of the line, including people going between Wellington, Tawa and Porirua. 13,000 is not those going to and from Kapiti, indeed it would be maybe a third of that.

“despite the fact that the trains are run down, 50 years old, often late, overcrowded, and freezing in the winter.” They are not 50 years old, they are 28 years old, hardly overcrowded at Kapiti and the heating is quite reliable. However, Sue doesn’t catch trains unless it is for a photo op.

“An 8 train carriage takes at least 592 passengers and gets the equivalent of 440 cars or 1.2 kilometres of traffic off our roads.” No it doesn’t Sue, not everyone who travels by train would have travelled by car.

“that's all it would take to solve the congestion on the Western corridor, as Helen Hughes predicted all those years ago, and for a fraction of the price.” Helen Hughes did NOT say that it would solve the congestion, and on price, how do you know Sue? You don’t give a price, but estimates I saw were that the track improvements alone would cost around $300 million, another 48 trains would cost $210 million, and then there are ongoing subsidies. So quite simply, you’re wrong compared to the cheapest expressway option of a maximum of $500 million.

“why is the government building massive new motorways around the country spending $6 on roads for every $1 on rail” Sue, you know because the $6 comes from road users and about 40% of that is for road maintenance. The $1 on rail comes from taxpayers.

“The problem is that these juggernaut trucks will be too big to travel on most of our narrow winding roads, they will need four lane motorways to travel on.” No they wont. This is a complete fabrication. They do not need motorways. The former Transit NZ investigation into this indicated most major highways could easily handle an increase to 50 tonnes. Most 44 tonne trucks can carry 50 tonnes with no increase in dimensions.

“That's one of the reasons why the government wants to build a four lane motorway all the way from Wellington to Auckland, even if it means destroying hundreds of communities in its wake.” Really Sue? The government has said nothing about an expressway between Otaki and Cambridge. What community is being destroyed again?

“But instead of building motorways to cater to an endless stream of juggernaut trucks, we should be requiring heavy freight to travel by rail, which is so much safer and far more energy efficient.” Oh so you want to force freight to go by rail? Like the old days when trucks were prosecuted for hauling freight more than 150kms. The energy efficiency claim is heavily restricted to train loads of goods over long distances, not truck loads over shorter distances.

“This is code for saying that the proposed motorway which will cost a billion has a cost benefit ratio of .5% and that no matter how much they try to spin it or massage the figures, it will cost far more than any expected benefits.” No Sue, you’re wrong. You’re talking about Transmission Gully. None of the proposals has that cost, no matter how much you try to spin or massage the figures.

“Meantime public transport is so cash strapped, that we've discovered there won't be any toilets on the brand new Kapiti trains” There weren't any on the current or the previous generation of trains either. It isn’t news Sue, the trains were ordered by the Wellington Regional Council before the current government was elected, when the Greens worked in partnership with Labour on transport. Hardly National’s fault is it?

“So, on the one hand the government can suddenly pull a billion dollars out of a hat, overnight, for a motorway that no one wants. But on the other hand it can't even afford to put toilets on our new trains.” No Sue, no billion. $930 million is the most expensive option, the cheapest is $410 million tops. No Sue, this Government didn’t order the trains or fund them, it was a previous commitment.

So, exhaustively, you have it. Sue Kedgley has:
- Used heavily emotive language to describe what she hates (massive juggernauts, massive motorway, destroy communities), exaggerating for effect;
- Blanked out facts about the proposed expressway possibly being on land set aside for a motorway in the first place;
- Grossly misrepresented the Government’s proposals and justification for them, exaggerating them ridiculously;
- Claimed evidence for an effect which demonstrably isn’t true in numerous cases;
- Used a report to back her position that was not even on the topic in question, and which also supports a position she vehemently opposes;
- Talks extensively about a solution that is only slightly related to the issue at hand and talks not at all about the proposal at question (or even the counter proposal by those opposing it), maybe she doesn’t know anything about it;
- Says nothing has been done about rail, then lists several expensive projects that are being done;
- Claims rail isn’t the priority, yet the rail projects are the ones under construction, the road ones are being debated;
- Uses mega cities like London, Paris, Tokyo and New York as examples of how Paraparaumu and Waikanae can follow;
- Misuses official statistics about rail patronages;
- Is wrong about the age of the trains by over 20 years;
- Claims her preferred solution is cheaper than the ones proposed, when it isn’t;
- Misrepresents the cost of the proposed expressway and the economic appraisal;
- Makes a false claim that 51 tonne trucks need 4 lane motorways, when previous reports said the current state highway network can handle them no problem;
- Wants to ban long haul freight going by road, a new radical policy;
- Implies the current government is to blame for no toilets on new trains, when it isn’t, and none of the trains ever had toilets.

Now I can do this fisking on this issue because I know it very well. How many other times does Sue Kedgley misrepresent the truth out of ignorance or laziness, and how many other times does she exaggerate for propaganda effect?

Is she the only Green MP who does this? If so, why do the Greens tolerate such senselessness. If not, how can the Greens be taken seriously when they are so lackadaisical with the truth?

Finally, does anyone know if Sue took the train to this meeting or drove? Given I have seen her drive from a public meeting in downtown Wellington before, I’m not holding my breath that she even caught the train.

How do the Greens spread misinformation? Part 1 - Background

I could have called this “Sue Kedgley makes things up for an audience”, but I think what this post is about is wider than that. Sue is speaking on behalf of the Greens, so what she has done in this speech is presumably endorsed by the party. However, what she has done is express a litany of simple falsehoods, so false that I would question whether she really believes they are true, in which case why say it, other than to whip up hysteria for propaganda purposes.

First some brief background. The issue is whether to build a 4 lane expressway on the Kapiti Coast north of Wellington to relieve the current highway. The government has put forward three options, widening the current highway, partly widening the current highway, partly using an existing designation for a bypass of Waikanae and fully using the existing designation to bypass Paraparaumu and Waikanae. Why? Besides congestion through Kapiti becoming increasingly severe, wasting time, fuel and increasing vehicle emissions, the original plan was for a major arterial road to be built, 90% funded by central government, to allow a lot of local traffic to bypass the highway. Kapiti Coast District Council was to build the road, but since the last local body elections, it has taken a “Green” tinge, and started seeking to alter the route, narrow the road and effectively make it far less useful to relieving congestion. Some of the antics in altering the route have some rather disturbing elements of parochialism and partisanship for special interests. The government has had enough of this, it wont fund the narrow winding road with bridal path, so has decided one option is to use the land already set aside for that road for an expressway. Given that the road was originally set aside for a motorway since the 1950s, it should hardly be a surprise, and anyone who bought land adjacent to it should have known a major road would go there eventually. So property rights really are not an issue.

The Council is fighting this along with a local environmental group which is against any major highway development. It should know that it can’t get funding for the winding local road option, so given the government owns the state highway it would seek options to upgrade it. However, those opposing it are painting it as not a story about an incompetent council that has backtracked on its original plans to build a major new road, but some sort of conspiracy between the trucking industry and the government to “ruin Kapiti”. Fortunately, some local residents are fed up with this and have strong views counter to that of the council. These are people who own properties between the existing highway and the road designation, as well as others. This blog has a different view, supporting the original full local road option, and is also damning of the council.

So in wades Sue Kedgley on automatic, she makes this speech. What’s wrong with it? In summary Sue Kedgley has:
- Used heavily emotive language to describe what she hates (massive juggernauts, massive motorway, destroy communities), exaggerating for effect;
- Blanked out facts about the proposed expressway possibly being on land set aside for a motorway in the first place;
- Grossly misrepresented the Government’s proposals and justification for them, exaggerating them ridiculously;
- Claimed evidence for an effect which demonstrably isn’t true in numerous cases;
- Used a report to back her position that was not even on the topic in question, and which also supports a position she vehemently opposes;
- Talks extensively about a solution that is only slightly related to the issue at hand and talks not at all about the proposal at question (or even the counter proposal by those opposing it), maybe she doesn’t know anything about it;
- Says nothing has been done about rail, then lists several expensive projects that are being done;
- Claims rail isn’t the priority, yet the rail projects are the ones under construction, the road ones are being debated;
- Uses mega cities like London, Paris, Tokyo and New York as examples of how Paraparaumu and Waikanae can follow;
- Misuses official statistics about rail patronages;
- Is wrong about the age of the trains by over 20 years;
- Claims her preferred solution is cheaper than the ones proposed, when it isn’t;
- Misrepresents the cost of the proposed expressway and the economic appraisal;
- Makes a false claim that 51 tonne trucks need 4 lane motorways, when previous reports said the current state highway network can handle them no problem;
- Wants to ban long haul freight going by road, a new radical policy;
- Implies the current government is to blame for no toilets on new trains, when it isn’t, and none of the trains ever had toilets.

Read the (long) part two for the details.

A republic, any republic

Asking if you want a republic, particularly when dreamt up by former communist Green MP Keith Locke, is a bit like asking if you want something to eat, and not knowing if you'll get a gourmet meal, fast food, some expired food from a supermarket bin.

A republic in and of itself it not necessarily a good thing. Not PC akins it to accepting a kidney transplant from a bureaucrat, but I think it is more like a trojan horse. It looks like something good, but you don't know what's inside, or why you got it. The motivations of some advocating a republic should be cause for worry.

You see a republic can range from being a constitutionally limited one, that is meant to constrain the role of the state, like the United States, or it may be a corrupt dictatorship, like the Republic of Tajikistan. I don't expect Keith Locke wants a "People's Republic" although he has been cheerleader for this in the past, but I also don't expect he wants to emulate the United States.

So whilst a debate on this is good, indeed very good, be wary of those who push a republic for the sake of a republic. If a republic appears in the coming years, it is a once in a lifetime chance to fundamentally change the constitutional structure of New Zealand and ringfence the role of the state - and equally to constitutionally demand an expansion or entrenchment of it.

Have a guess to what extent Keith Locke wants to constrain the role of the state, and to what extent he wants to expand and entrench it.

Then ask yourself if you really think that those who will advance a republic will predominantly share that view, or will they advance a republic should tightly define the state as an entity to protect individual rights and freedoms.

I doubt it is the latter, and as a result, whilst I would advocate for the latter, I'd prefer the status quo to any vision of a republic Keith Locke has.

Idiot Savant's analysis woeful (updated)

Idiot Savant's latest post exclaims "The way the right talks, you would think that government policy was all about wealth and increasing GDP. Today, we have a stark reminder that that is not the case, in the form of the European Quality of Life Index".

Well no, some people talk about freedom as well, he chooses to select what he listens to about standard of living.

He continues "According to the index, the UK has the lowest quality of life in Western Europe...This is where NeoLiberal growth maximisation gets you: a country where no-one wants to live and everyone feels miserable. The lesson for New Zealand ought to be obvious."

So what IS the Index? Where does the data come from? How comprehensive is it? The answers are, a shonky piece of publicity, difficult to tell and not at all. Even with that, the conclusions he draws are little to do with neo-liberalism. All in all it's very woeful analysis that doesn't stack up.

The European Quality of Life Index did not come from a university, government institution, think tank or international organisation. It came from a private company that makes money running a price comparison website for consumers to choose the best value utility companies. Uswitch. Frankly, whilst it is nice for private companies to do a bit of research that they pay for, I'd like some robustness around it. So how does it fail?

1. Idiot Savant claims this is about Western Europe, yet it leaves out at least 10 other countries. Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Iceland, Cyprus, Greece and Portugal. Given it includes Poland, you might ask why not also Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic. So really who knows if the UK ranks bottom?

2. The dates for data used are often missing with the sources. In some cases there are no sources (e.g. average working hours a week), others quote a date with the source but is that publication date (as some look like) or year? If years are not common across data, then it should be justified, as you are not comparing like with like.

3. GDP per capita is used, not GDP per capita adjusted by purchasing power parity, although the report looks like creating its own PPP measure. Frankly, I'd rather trust the more widely used ones. PPP matters for the same reason anyone comparing earning £ to NZ$ without looking at purchasing power makes it look like anyone living in the UK is rich.

4. Under wealth the report talks of council tax and travel expenses in the UK, but doesn't say the same for similar taxes or charges elsewhere, or housing costs. The UK may cost more than many for both, but is the highest?

So all in all, it looks a bit shabby. More shabby are the conclusions that this is about "neo-liberal" policies. Why?

1. One of the measures is "hours of sunshine", no need to explain why the UK comes out worse than France and Spain on this measure. Not a lot to do with government.

2. Education spending for the UK is similar to the average, as is France, Spain is less. So how does spending more on this matter? Finland is the interesting case as it is seen by some as a model, but it isn't included. Note Sweden spends more and has a voucher system.

3. The UK has one of the most centralised health systems of all, and the outcomes are relatively poor. The NHS is a huge central bureaucracy, compared to insurance based models in France, Germany, the Netherlands and others. However, that's been ignored as well as something "neo-liberal" when the UK is anything but.

4. One of the measures is cost of fuel, alcohol and cigarettes, all very high in the UK because of? Tax. Yes, nothing "neo-liberal here". The Netherlands and the UK have the higher fuel tax in Europe, so surprise surprise, they have they highest prices of fuel.

So what does this piece of work prove? Precious little. The data is hard to compare, but what can be compared shows that the countries with the best standard of living, have the most sunshine, spend the same or less on education, have insurance based health systems and lower taxes on commodities.

Hardly neo-liberalism vs socialism is it now, even if you do think a price-comparison website operator is a sound source for analysis.

UPDATE: Seems he has removed the link to this post from his website, doesn't like criticism does he? You'd think something ostensibly interested in free speech would allow his reliance on a pathetic piece of publicity driven research to be critiqued?

Hottest political leader?

According to this blog John Key ranks 72, ahead of Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd (84 and 93), but beneath such gods as Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov of Turkmenistan and Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus.

Does Kim Jong Il really deserve last?

Besides of course, it strictly speaking isn't heads of state. Queen Elizabeth the 2nd is the Head of State for more than couple of countries.

Of course you can all guess the obvious question, what would the country rankings have been a year ago when some of those were different?

Geert Wilders allowed into the UK

Geert Wilders says he is a libertarian. He is a Dutch MP. He hates Islam with a passion and was banned from entering the UK earlier this year. He was banned because Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said ... wait for it... "his opinions threatened community security and therefore public security".

Land of the free? No. Except the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal have overturned the ban. It has disappointed the neo-fascists at the Home Office who "oppose extremism in all of its forms", and have done such a stunning job at stopping it.

Even the Quilliam Foundation, which finds his views offensive, did not want him banned, but wanted his views on Islam debated. The British Government couldn't allow that. You can publicly criticise Christianity, you can be a Muslim preaching anti-Western sentiments, but you can't be a European citizen hating Islam (not Muslims he explicitly says).

You can hate Christianity, capitalism, fascism, environmentalism and communism in the UK, but not Islam.

So that is why Geert Wilders has been branded "far right" although many of his policies are quite libertarian, with much lower tax, smaller government, much smaller role for the EU, although he also seeks to ban non-European immigration, founding new mosques and Islamic schools and some populist statements about public services.

The point is that he expresses an opinion about a religion, which should be protected free speech in the UK. I hate Islam, I have no time for religion preaching submission, and I have yet to see anything in it to like. I also have no time for any other religion, but should I be banned from expressing that view?

What's most galling is the House of Lords got to see Wilders's controversial film criticising Islam which is here. His visit to the UK might inflame and upset some people, but so what? As long as he does not do violence and does not incite violence, then he is not to blame. If others seek to do violence to him or his supporters, the law should punish them.

The UK should be a country where people accept the right of free people to have freedom of speech, religion (or no religion) and political belief. That means tolerating the spectrum of opinion and philosophies. Those who don't like it may also express that view, but if they wish to impose their views on others, they should simply leave.

There are plenty of countries in the world that tolerate only an official line on religion and politics. Europe was once overrun with such governments. Today it should proudly assert that it rejects this, and anyone who lives in Europe or enters Europe who seeks to use force or democracy to destroy free, secular, liberal democratic government, should simply be asked to go.

British politicians misuse taxpayers' money

SO Gordon Brown finally catches up threatening MPs to pay back money or else he will consider withdrawing the whip from them, after David Cameron said he would ban Tory MPs from standing in the next election unless they paid back the money.

Yawn.

So they mismanage money that isn't theirs. This is a pittance, because every day the British government borrows £500 million. Yes, it is equal to £8.33 per man, woman and child every day in extra debt. About the only significance of this scandal is it has brought politicians into disrepute for how they spend other people's money.

Yet it hasn't changed fundamental opinions on whether such people can be trusted to make decisions on buying healthcare, education, pensions or infrastructure.

Of course it happens in New Zealand too, yet most people still trust them.

Why? Why would you trust a significant number of not particularly clever people to spend between a third and a half of your money buying services from providers you might not choose otherwise? Do you really think you can't do better? Do you really think the private sector would provide something worse?

Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

The Greens think so. That's why MP Kennedy Graham has written to Barack Obama calling for, among other things, the end to nuclear deterrence:

"To reduce the numerical surplus of nuclear weapons, from some 20,000 in the national arsenal to some 5,000 is laudable, but it does not confront the central challenge – which is to cross the threshold of minimal deterrence. Russia and the others will follow, but the lead can only come from the US."

So the Greens WANT the US to make the first move, and somehow trust Russia and China, let alone India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel to follow. Really?

Let's be clear what he is advocating is for global security to be ensured through conventional weapons, under UN auspices:

"So the twin challenge is to wean the US, and the world, off nuclear deterrence and replace it with a credible alternative means of securing global governance through conventional weaponry."

Now who would doubt the usage of nuclear weapons is truly horrible to imagine. It is why it is an effective deterrence.

While some may doubt it, nuclear weapons kept the peace in Europe from 1948 to 1989. The USSR knew if it rolled east it would face tactical nuclear weapons in response, and strategic weapons on its capitals. A horrible proposition, but the credibility had to be there for the deterrence. Better to threaten annihilation than to face war and totalitarian tyranny.

Similarly, Japan and South Korea were protected by nuclear weapons. North Korea has always wanted to take over South Korea by force, but the US nuclear umbrella has made it clear that Pyongyang would be flattened if it tried. The credibility of that threat has been critical to protecting South Korea.

Today the Korean situation is little better, with the USSR no longer shielding North Korea. However, elsewhere there remains instability and risk of conflict. One need only look at some of the other nuclear powers.

Russia is effectively a one party state with a strong military and substantial interest in expanding its sphere of influence back to some of what it once had. Who could seriously trust Putin and Medvedev to undertake arms control given how Russia has acted towards Ukraine?

China always claims peaceful intent, but whilst relations with Taiwan have warmed, China has never withdrawn the military option for "reunification". China also has border disputes with India, and in the South China Sea.

India and Pakistan will say "you first" to each other, and frankly until Kashmir can be solved and Pakistan is no longer a breeding ground for Islamist terror, neither will abandon nukes.

North Korea will abandon nukes when there is Korean reunification, on the South's terms.

Israel will abandon nukes when Arabs and Iran stop calling for its destruction and treat it as a trading partner and friend.

In this environment, why abandon nuclear deterrence? For Israel it has kept the peace on a large scale since the Yom Kippur War. For the Korean peninsula it has prevented a second Korean War, and elsewhere it makes Russia think how far it can push the West.

In such a world, it is immoral for the US, UK and France to abandon nuclear weapons, for they are the only relatively moral states to hold them, the only ones that can keep the dictatorial other two members of the UN Security Council honest (and any other states that acquire them).

For until aggressive dictatorships are wiped from the face of the earth, there will be governments that seek to be aggressive against their citizens and citizens of other nations. They will seek war, and some will seek weapons of mass destruction (treaties on chemical and biological weapons have not stopped the most egregiously aggressive states from having both - like North Korea, Syria, Russia and Libya). Sadly, only by holding similar firepower, and a clear willingness to use it if provoked, can we talk a language they not only understand, but have used their whole political career.

Any other belief is naive - as naive as anyone who trusts Putin, Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Or as evil as one who sees any of them as morally equivalent to any US President.

Treasury still has some thinkers

Flat tax was put forward to Bill English as an option according to the NBR.

Pearls before swine some may think, as Bill English could never have the gumption to argue for a flat tax. He has none of the backbone needed to argue that just because people earn more, does not mean they should pay an ever higher proportion of their income to the state. You do not consume more of what the state spends its money on just because you earn more. Too many of the envy brigade on the left would say it is "giving money to the rich" when in fact it is letting people keep more of THEIR money.

Flat taxes are common in former communist countries like Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Russia and Slovakia. Indeed even former Yugoslav republics of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Bosnia Hercegovina have adopted it. Hong Kong has close to a flat tax system.

So moving towards a flat tax IS good policy, it isn't extreme, it isn't uncommon, it is a sensible way to show New Zealand as a low tax small government economy, and it would help attract people. It does mean getting rid of the two top income tax rates, and that means some proper culling of the state. Not the limp wristed "efficiency gains" that haven't delivered.

It means abolishing agencies and functions.

It means saying the government needs to do less.

You'd think a government with ACT in it, might start to do something about it. Wouldn't you?

Kim Jong Il to Barack Obama

Dear Great Leader President Barack Obama of the United States of America (hope I have all your titles right).

Well done on winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

I wanted it, but the Nobel Committee keeps ignoring the nomination every year. I mean I've never attacked any countries, not since my dad died, and besides he IS still the President, so any rescuing I undertake of civilians oppressed in other countries is not entirely up to me.

You'll find the international peace movement recognises that your country not mine has been a grave threat to international peace and security for years. I come from a land of peace, nobody fears crime or war walking our streets, except for the nuclear threat from your country.

Still, I am grateful you haven't threatened the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, haven't interfered with our peaceful possession of nuclear weapons and desire to reunify the country by expelling the South Korean puppet clique, destroying the abomination of Seoul and peacefully negotiating a surrender peace treaty with the United States. All of the people in Korea excluding the traitors and their children and grandchildren in the gulags and the expendable south Korean lackeys of imperialism seek swift reunification and friendship with peace loving peoples of the world.

So in that spirit of peace, I hope you will immediately withdraw US troops from South Korea, just as previous President Jimmy Carter once indicated, but then abdicated on.

To show our glee at your win, my country has celebrated in the traditional way.

In solidarity, Kim Jong Il, Chairman of the National Defense Commission, Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army, and General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea.

Gordon can do it, but John?

Pause for a moment, I am going to praise Gordon Brown.

You see he's about to announce a privatisation programme. Yes you read right. Privatisation, eight months out from an election. It is worth around £3 billion of assets in the first phase, but up to £16 billion overall.

What sort of assets? Well it isn't just surplus pockets of land. It include the sort of assets juveniles would call "strategic":
- Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Folkestone to St Pancras);
- Dartford Crossing (the eight lanes of highway crossing the Thames that completes the M25 ring);
- its stake in Urenco (nuclear fuel enrichment company);
- a third of the debt in student loans;
- The Tote (government owned bookmaker).

So yes, you can privatise a road, a major one at that, which has no serious alternative routes for many miles.

The reaction of the other parties? Would that play this against Brown? Well no:
- The Guardian reported a Conservative Party spokesman saying "Given the state the country is in is probably necessary but it is no substitute for a long-term plan to get the country to live within its means";
- Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman Vince Cable said "Given the state of the public finances, asset sales, at least in principle, make sense" but he expressed concern about selling land in a depressed market and how badly the government was in getting value from its privatisations.

So in other words all three main political parties support privatisation.

However in New Zealand it can't be so. National ruled it out to get elected, Labour was the nationaliser extraordinaire, and only ACT of the parties in Parliament warms to privatisation (and even then not too loudly).

Now the UK government could sell much more than that list, but the nature of what is on the list is what is positive. Particularly, given my interests, the Dartford Crossing. It's a tolled crossing comprising two 2-lane tunnels for northbound traffic, and a 4-lane bridge southbound, and it is heavily congested (with plans proposed for an additional crossing). Selling it and letting the private sector choose the best way to expand it will demonstrate to the naysayers who think roads can't be privatised.

Imagine, for example, Auckland's Harbour Bridge and approaches privatised (and tolled) so that another crossing could be financed and built.

However we know it wont happen, for now, but it would be nice if the debate could be had without ghosts of Winston Peters and Jim Anderton taking things to the level of the banal ("but it's strategic, what happens if they want to sell it for scrap").

The New Zealand Government has a whole portfolio of SOEs that could and should be sold, easily, without even going near roads, schools, hospitals or dare I say Kiwirail. There is no good reason why Genesis, Meridian and Mighty River Power are in state hands, when Contact and Trustpower are private sector competitors, and most people don't know whether their power company is private or state owned.

It's time to talk about privatisation - if it isn't controversial in the UK, with its plethora of nanny state quangoes and laws, why so in New Zealand?

ACC deficit shows monopoly failings

ACC has a statutory monopoly. Labour claimed this is the most "efficient" way of insuring personal injury by accident, yet it has proven incapable of managing its own finances in a way that doesn't mean taxpayers and levy payers have to bail it out.

No other country has the socialist style no-fault statutory monopoly state insurance scheme New Zealand has. The claims by its advocates that it is "lauded" the world over seem very empty when no others follow, and this sort of news comes to light.

I've written before on how to change this, individualise the whole system so everyone buys ACC cover for non-work accidents, open it up to competition, so the risk is spread among multiple insurers (coverage for past accidents would either remain with a legacy ACC or tendered among competitors), and then return the right to sue between insurers and let people choose not to be insured. Care would need to be taken to ensure tort law was based on objectively reasonable criteria, but if it came about after a culture of personal insurance, the risks of aggressive tort claims could be minimised. Besides, if you insure yourself against what others do to you, then you have little to complain about.

Of course at the same time, road owners could demand drivers be insured before using their roads, as could others when you use their property, but overall the risk would be spread and shared. Those who undertake risky behaviour would pay, those who don't, wouldn't.

The monopoly has failed, miserably, once again. The measures National are announcing are trying to patch up a system that is breaking. It's time to move fast to open the employment and motor vehicle accounts to competition as a first stage, then individualise the whole system. Then those paying to cover the liabilities of past poor decisions end up being those the system carries the most risk for.

Obama gets unwelcome supporter

Fidel Castro said of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize "I must admit that in this case, in my opinion, it was a positive step" according to the Daily Telegraph.

The best sentiments I've noticed on this, is that Morgan Tsvangirai, who had been mooted for the prize, has been imprisoned, tortured, beaten up repeatedly, lost his wife in an accident, and STILL decided for peace in Zimbabwe, to form a joint government with the murdering gangsters of Zanu-PF.

Apparently that wasn't good enough. Not good enough for an African man in Africa at the front line of essentially civil war and insurrection, in a truly bankrupt economy, to risk himself so much to bring peace and justice to Zimbabwe. He may have been able to do much for Zimbabwe with the US$1 million prize.

Instead, a group of Norwegians worshipped words not deeds. Obama did not need encouragement to pursue he soft approach to international relations, and did not need the money to give to charity.

It is enough now that the Nobel Peace Prize has been discredited umpteen times in the past, next year I can't wait for the latest joke to come from the Nobel committee. Maybe Oscar Wrigley can win the prize for science, because no doubt he has great potential.

Prince Charles frustrated using Youtube

Well I'm guessing that's whats going on.

Imagine being Prince Charles. Never a worry about where to live or how to afford to do anything really, never a concern about being unable to generate publicity, and then not actually having a coherent philosophy about anything at all. More recently, this man with many a car to his name, called on Britons to drive less and walk more - the height of elitist hypocrisy if ever it could be.

Now he wants to make Britons pay so that rural folk can have broadband, presumably because he sits on one of his estates unable to watch funny videos on Youtube because of a lack of broadband access at prices he is willing to pay.

He is fighting for rural Britain, which he could well do with his own ample resources and fundraising. Good luck to him doing that. However he's more concerned about farms going to the wall when subsidies drop in 2012:

"Quite frankly, the fear that many of us hold is that after 2012, when support from the E.U. will alter so dramatically, it may be simply impossible for our family farmers to continue – particularly in the remote uplands, where farming is at its toughest. If they are to stay on the land they will need all the help they can get, and denying them broadband, and effectively cutting them off from the Internet, will only be more likely to drive them off the hills and into the towns and cities taking with them generations of inherited knowledge. "

Yes Charles, where farming is uneconomic, where the environment should be left to be as it was. Nobody denies them broadband, they just aren't willing to pay for it. It could be available via satellite and other means, but people in cities, who pay much much more for living space, face chronic congestion and overcrowding on roads and public transport, don't expect a subsidy for their high costs.

A better approach would be to encourage farms to consolidate, become more efficient and to attack the one tax that hits rural areas unfairly - fuel tax. Fuel tax recovers four times what is spent on roads in the UK, and given rural areas disproportionately face relatively low road costs (getting little capital investment), it should drop or be replaced with road pricing.

Charles, farmers are struggling in many countries. Farmers in Europe are among the most feather bedded in the world, and if they were so efficient they'd have nothing to fear from reduced subsidies, as their European compatriots would face even tougher conditions.

Of course, given you're own status as one of the bigger receivers of EU subsidies for your own properties, you can excuse someone for claiming that this is a hint of vested interest in this.

To say "the stakes could not be higher" shows how incredibly out of touch he is, peculiarly so. Farmers in Australia and New Zealand were weaned off of many and all subsidies respectively a couple of decades ago. It's time to grow up, and to find stakes that are higher. I'd have thought the living conditions of children growing up in homes of violence, neglect and poverty would be more important a charitable cause than subsidised farmers who find it hard to use the BBC iPlayer or video porn.