PC has some questions that are pretty good -
I am sick and tired of the concern about the Exclusive Brethren - weird fuckers as they are - there is nothing wrong with anti-government leaflets, just like there is nothing wrong with pro-government leaflets. It is ok for the union movement to pour vast amounts of money from its members to keeping the Labour party in power, but somehow wrong for a religious group to do the opposite. grrrr.
The Families Commission is useless - we have had families for thousands of years and they are not more functional because a bunch of bureaurats have been hired to advise on family policy. One of the reasons I would PREFER National governing with just Rodney Hide and a couple of friends for a majority, would be to get rid of this stupid entity. Peter Dunne is NOT commonsense, he is headline grabbing opportunist pablum - he merges with a new party every year on average- no times does it do his party any good - United Future will hopefully be back to a reasonable level of support - 1% - this time round.
My extra questions:
Where is Mary Varnham, and why am I so happy she is invisible?
Whatever happened to Alan Duff?
Why does Headliners still get broadcast?
Who lets their twelve year olds go out at 1am in Courtenay Place unaccompanied?
Why don't Aucklanders tell their local politicians that they wont pay for the billion dollar passenger train system they wont use?
Why doesn't Don Brash point out that Labour were quite happy to have him look after inflation and interest rates for the first two years of their government, but say he can't be trusted on the economy now?
Why does Fiona Mckenzie get excited about United Future at Wellington Central candidate's meetings, when her party doesn't care which party leads the government?
Why do the Greens enjoy oil prices being high, do they just want to feel righteous or do they really hate the private car that much?
10 September 2005
08 September 2005
Hooters
Killjoy Kedgley has slammed the plan to open an Auckland branch of the Hooters restaurant and bar chain. Al Bundy's favourite place.
Now the question is - would the Greens regulate this or allow local government to do so? Why is it wrong for adult women to wear hotpants and tanktops while in someone's private property serving drinks and food for good wages?
The neo-conservatism of the "liberal" left merges with the fundamentalist right on this - Brian Tamaki no doubt loathes such blatant displays of human beauty (as did Graham Capill - these girls are adults after all), but I am sure Rodney Hide and Don Brash wouldn't object.
Does it exploit women? Well ask those who work there, and who were not forced to sign a contract and do the job. It is their choice after all - just as it is your choice to not go, or even protest about it.
Andrea Black from Rape Crisis claims that it perpetuates the myth than women are purely there for men's sexual pleasure. Some men think like that, some women think men are like that too, and some men think men are like that - but the bottom line is that adults can choose what to do with their bodies and what to wear. Any other approach is going down the path of the Taliban or Iran.
Women's sexuality is something to be celebrated, be it straight, bi or lesbian - as much as men's is. Most people feel if they are gorgeous, they are proud of it and feel great, and are not ashamed, nor should they be - as long as everything is consensual it is part of being human.
Would the Greens and Rape Crisis regulate what women wear in the street, on a Friday night, in a bar? What would they call men who want to regulate that?
You got the picture! So does David Farrar
Now the question is - would the Greens regulate this or allow local government to do so? Why is it wrong for adult women to wear hotpants and tanktops while in someone's private property serving drinks and food for good wages?
The neo-conservatism of the "liberal" left merges with the fundamentalist right on this - Brian Tamaki no doubt loathes such blatant displays of human beauty (as did Graham Capill - these girls are adults after all), but I am sure Rodney Hide and Don Brash wouldn't object.
Does it exploit women? Well ask those who work there, and who were not forced to sign a contract and do the job. It is their choice after all - just as it is your choice to not go, or even protest about it.
Andrea Black from Rape Crisis claims that it perpetuates the myth than women are purely there for men's sexual pleasure. Some men think like that, some women think men are like that too, and some men think men are like that - but the bottom line is that adults can choose what to do with their bodies and what to wear. Any other approach is going down the path of the Taliban or Iran.
Women's sexuality is something to be celebrated, be it straight, bi or lesbian - as much as men's is. Most people feel if they are gorgeous, they are proud of it and feel great, and are not ashamed, nor should they be - as long as everything is consensual it is part of being human.
Would the Greens and Rape Crisis regulate what women wear in the street, on a Friday night, in a bar? What would they call men who want to regulate that?
You got the picture! So does David Farrar
The wild polls - now some realism
TV3 poll has Labour at 45% and National at 36%. So are the voting public that volatile? or is something else going on?
To figure out where the public are likely to be heading requires a bit of sobriety and to look at past elections. Clearly the New Zealand public will flee from a major party if it particularly disenchanted with it - National at 21% last time and Labour at 28% in 1996 are two good example. However, this election the minor parties have been sidelined - there is only one contest and it is the Helen and Don show.
Labour got around 41% in the last election - which means it is highly unlikely to do BETTER than that this time round. There has clearly been some swing away from Labour- the only question is whether Labour has gained a few points from minor parties, like the Greens and even the 2% or so who will have fled the entrails of the Alliance/Progressives. I would be surprised if Labour reached 40% this time, but equally it is highly unlikely to drop below 35%. Labour won in 1999 with just under 38% of the vote- my pick is that Labour needs to get that to have a chance at government (38% + 1% for Jim + 5-6% for Greens + 3% Maori) and it will get between 36 and 40%. Less than 38% is a Labour loss. One factor not included in this is turnout - last time a Labour victory was pretty much assured, now it is not, and the party faithful (on BOTH sides) will turnout in higher numbers, the issue is whether Labour can motivate its crowd to vote, because they want to avoid a Brash government.
National at 21% last time is clearly, on worst estimates polling well above that. National has never had more than 34% in an MMP election, and even in 1993 only managed around 35%. For Brash to have rebuilt National to be polling above that consistently is in itself a victory. English, Bolger and Shipley couldn't manage that (excluding Bolger's 1990 campaign which saw pre-election and post-election policy not exactly matching!). National has clearly cannibalised the ACT, NZ First and United Future vote - there is about 15% of its increase simply in that. The rest comes down to Labour, and my bet is that National will manage to scrape into around 37-41%. I cannot see it doing much better than that. If National gets 40% and still does not form a government, Brash will still be the party hero - and will have let himself and the party down ONLY because he listened to the lilly livered quivering and flip flops that his advisors told him to do.
Brash believes in asset sales - he could credibly have said, why should the government own farms? Why not sell a strategic stake in Air NZ - Labour was willing to let QANTAS have part of it? Why not allow private capital to boost our SOEs?
Brash believes in education choice - why not advocate vouchers that allow parents to choose their school?
Brash believes in the defence alliance with the US - why not advocate improved relations and a referendum on the nuclear issue.
Anyway - both major parties will be close, unless one of them screws up badly. However, neither of them are likely to go above 41%
To figure out where the public are likely to be heading requires a bit of sobriety and to look at past elections. Clearly the New Zealand public will flee from a major party if it particularly disenchanted with it - National at 21% last time and Labour at 28% in 1996 are two good example. However, this election the minor parties have been sidelined - there is only one contest and it is the Helen and Don show.
Labour got around 41% in the last election - which means it is highly unlikely to do BETTER than that this time round. There has clearly been some swing away from Labour- the only question is whether Labour has gained a few points from minor parties, like the Greens and even the 2% or so who will have fled the entrails of the Alliance/Progressives. I would be surprised if Labour reached 40% this time, but equally it is highly unlikely to drop below 35%. Labour won in 1999 with just under 38% of the vote- my pick is that Labour needs to get that to have a chance at government (38% + 1% for Jim + 5-6% for Greens + 3% Maori) and it will get between 36 and 40%. Less than 38% is a Labour loss. One factor not included in this is turnout - last time a Labour victory was pretty much assured, now it is not, and the party faithful (on BOTH sides) will turnout in higher numbers, the issue is whether Labour can motivate its crowd to vote, because they want to avoid a Brash government.
National at 21% last time is clearly, on worst estimates polling well above that. National has never had more than 34% in an MMP election, and even in 1993 only managed around 35%. For Brash to have rebuilt National to be polling above that consistently is in itself a victory. English, Bolger and Shipley couldn't manage that (excluding Bolger's 1990 campaign which saw pre-election and post-election policy not exactly matching!). National has clearly cannibalised the ACT, NZ First and United Future vote - there is about 15% of its increase simply in that. The rest comes down to Labour, and my bet is that National will manage to scrape into around 37-41%. I cannot see it doing much better than that. If National gets 40% and still does not form a government, Brash will still be the party hero - and will have let himself and the party down ONLY because he listened to the lilly livered quivering and flip flops that his advisors told him to do.
Brash believes in asset sales - he could credibly have said, why should the government own farms? Why not sell a strategic stake in Air NZ - Labour was willing to let QANTAS have part of it? Why not allow private capital to boost our SOEs?
Brash believes in education choice - why not advocate vouchers that allow parents to choose their school?
Brash believes in the defence alliance with the US - why not advocate improved relations and a referendum on the nuclear issue.
Anyway - both major parties will be close, unless one of them screws up badly. However, neither of them are likely to go above 41%
07 September 2005
THEIR money or YOURS?
What astounds me is the high number of New Zealanders who are happy letting Clark, Cullen and all of the others take such a high proportion of their income to spend on what Cabinet wants.
Where does this come from? Would YOU let Helen Clark take a portion of your income to buy your clothes, buy your groceries, buy your house? If not, why are you happy for her buying you health care, your kids education, helping other people's businesses, funding TV programmes you don't watch, paying for other people to not take the jobs they don't like?
Imagine if the government supplied you with a food hamper ever week, paid for by taxation, everyone got an allowance - except some bureaucracy would make you queue up for it, and decide at will whether you should get chicken, veal, fish, bread, eggs or kumquats. One week you might find there isn't much chicken, or maybe some group is "meat disadvantaged" and they get it, but you don't. Of course you can spend extra money and get what you want when you want - but the government isn't keen on it, it's the food system for the rich - and the food suppliers union says if the government gives you taxes back to buy your own food "it will disadvantage the poor, and undermine the public food system". Food is essential, it is more essential than healthcare. A person can live many years without seeing a doctor, but only weeks without food.
Helen Clark and Michael Cullen buy your health care and your kids education, based on what bureaucrats think is best. If you're lucky it will meet your needs, and at best if you are involved in an accident, you'll probably get good quality health care - but if it isn't critical at best you'll spend years waiting for surgery, at worst you'll die while you wait. For education, your kids might get a good teacher at a well run school, or a lazy one in a badly run school - and Labour doesn't want you to choose, because it wants everyone to have the same standard - sorry parents don't know what's best for the kids say Labour. Or rather, because a minority aren't very good parents, then everyone must be brought down to that level - keeps the union from losing poor performing members, and losing the best performing ones (who wont NEED the union if they had individual contracts with performance pay).
Anyway, back to the main point.
That is one of the fundamental points of THIS election. Don Brash, to his credit, says it is YOUR money - YOU earnt it, and he is prepared to let you keep some (modestly in my view) more of it than Helen is. Rodney Hide would let you keep a lot more, and of course Libertarianz would let you keep nearly all of it (as a transitional measure till you got it ALL back).
Helen Clark and Michael Cullen don't believe it is your money. I remember in a politics lecture fifteen years ago Steve Maharey said it was the price you pay for the social contract of everyone looking after each other - ever known a contract you didn't choose to enter, that you can't leave and which one party has the right to use force to enforce and change without your consent? Yep that's a socialist contract - they tell you what they will do and demand payment for it. If you want some back, you're greedy and you wont be able to look after yourself.
The world will end if the state doesn't increase expenditure as fast as Labour says. See National will grow state spending too, at a slower rate, which as limp wristed as it is, is still too scary for the kiwis who love Nanny Helen.
So why? I figure a good portion of the adult population have either not grown up, and believe they are not competent enough (or they are too lazy) to decide what to do with more of their own money, or they believe everyone ELSE needs looking after.
The first lot fear they can't buy healthcare, education, insure themselves against losing their jobs or sickness, and think the government is some big caring loving warm mother who they can run too, and Helen wraps her arms around them and says "there there, I'll look after you" as she slips her talon into your back pocket and takes what she wants. The victim feels comforted, and almost like an abused child, doesn't care that mum beats them and steals from them, just that she cuddles you at the right moment, and gives you the gruel and bare attention you think you deserve -AND she tells you "don't let that bad rich man next door tell you go over there, he wont love you like I do! He wont cuddle you, he'll tell you to get a job and gives you some money only if you are really really good, and those who are good are spoilt anyway! He lies, and you can't believe YOU can look after yourself, what would happen if I left you to fend for yourself?".
The second lot know they can look after themselves, but all those incompetent poor, low income people - well THEY can't. They wont send their kids to the best schools, they will not bother with health care, they wont save money, they are not as smart as you or I - so these people are prepared to sacrifice their freedom and money, to ensure the poor are looked after. You see, letting Helen take your taxes means you feel better - the chardonnay socialists of Wadestown don't have to give to charity, or help out at soup kitchens, or actually DO anything for the ones they claim to care for. The state does it for them, then they can drive past them, fly over them and generally completely ignore them. Nanny State is there, job done - doesn't matter than so many of the bureaucrats in the system don't have much incentive to really make a difference. Their jobs are secure, and it doesn't matter if you perform badly - the welfare beneficiaries are hardly going elsewhere for free money are they? More nauseating are the claims they want to pay MORE tax - but you don't see them donating that money to charities in the meantime - no, they have to be forced to care, or feel better than you are forced too - you greedy rich bastard earning more than $38000 a year! (you Montgomery Burns types on more than $60000 are doubly evil!).
So it's the self proclaimed incompetents, and the do-gooders - they will vote this election for you to lose more of your money to Helen Clark and her merry band. Do they get indoctrinated in this at our Nanny State schools that teach that education and healthcare must be state funded and run? Would they think the same about food, if that was state funded and supplied? Do they really think? or are they scared of the freedom and choice getting more of their own back would mean.
and why oh why, when Brash is NOT going to cut any services back, do they feel scared with his modest tax cuts?
Where does this come from? Would YOU let Helen Clark take a portion of your income to buy your clothes, buy your groceries, buy your house? If not, why are you happy for her buying you health care, your kids education, helping other people's businesses, funding TV programmes you don't watch, paying for other people to not take the jobs they don't like?
Imagine if the government supplied you with a food hamper ever week, paid for by taxation, everyone got an allowance - except some bureaucracy would make you queue up for it, and decide at will whether you should get chicken, veal, fish, bread, eggs or kumquats. One week you might find there isn't much chicken, or maybe some group is "meat disadvantaged" and they get it, but you don't. Of course you can spend extra money and get what you want when you want - but the government isn't keen on it, it's the food system for the rich - and the food suppliers union says if the government gives you taxes back to buy your own food "it will disadvantage the poor, and undermine the public food system". Food is essential, it is more essential than healthcare. A person can live many years without seeing a doctor, but only weeks without food.
Helen Clark and Michael Cullen buy your health care and your kids education, based on what bureaucrats think is best. If you're lucky it will meet your needs, and at best if you are involved in an accident, you'll probably get good quality health care - but if it isn't critical at best you'll spend years waiting for surgery, at worst you'll die while you wait. For education, your kids might get a good teacher at a well run school, or a lazy one in a badly run school - and Labour doesn't want you to choose, because it wants everyone to have the same standard - sorry parents don't know what's best for the kids say Labour. Or rather, because a minority aren't very good parents, then everyone must be brought down to that level - keeps the union from losing poor performing members, and losing the best performing ones (who wont NEED the union if they had individual contracts with performance pay).
Anyway, back to the main point.
That is one of the fundamental points of THIS election. Don Brash, to his credit, says it is YOUR money - YOU earnt it, and he is prepared to let you keep some (modestly in my view) more of it than Helen is. Rodney Hide would let you keep a lot more, and of course Libertarianz would let you keep nearly all of it (as a transitional measure till you got it ALL back).
Helen Clark and Michael Cullen don't believe it is your money. I remember in a politics lecture fifteen years ago Steve Maharey said it was the price you pay for the social contract of everyone looking after each other - ever known a contract you didn't choose to enter, that you can't leave and which one party has the right to use force to enforce and change without your consent? Yep that's a socialist contract - they tell you what they will do and demand payment for it. If you want some back, you're greedy and you wont be able to look after yourself.
The world will end if the state doesn't increase expenditure as fast as Labour says. See National will grow state spending too, at a slower rate, which as limp wristed as it is, is still too scary for the kiwis who love Nanny Helen.
So why? I figure a good portion of the adult population have either not grown up, and believe they are not competent enough (or they are too lazy) to decide what to do with more of their own money, or they believe everyone ELSE needs looking after.
The first lot fear they can't buy healthcare, education, insure themselves against losing their jobs or sickness, and think the government is some big caring loving warm mother who they can run too, and Helen wraps her arms around them and says "there there, I'll look after you" as she slips her talon into your back pocket and takes what she wants. The victim feels comforted, and almost like an abused child, doesn't care that mum beats them and steals from them, just that she cuddles you at the right moment, and gives you the gruel and bare attention you think you deserve -AND she tells you "don't let that bad rich man next door tell you go over there, he wont love you like I do! He wont cuddle you, he'll tell you to get a job and gives you some money only if you are really really good, and those who are good are spoilt anyway! He lies, and you can't believe YOU can look after yourself, what would happen if I left you to fend for yourself?".
The second lot know they can look after themselves, but all those incompetent poor, low income people - well THEY can't. They wont send their kids to the best schools, they will not bother with health care, they wont save money, they are not as smart as you or I - so these people are prepared to sacrifice their freedom and money, to ensure the poor are looked after. You see, letting Helen take your taxes means you feel better - the chardonnay socialists of Wadestown don't have to give to charity, or help out at soup kitchens, or actually DO anything for the ones they claim to care for. The state does it for them, then they can drive past them, fly over them and generally completely ignore them. Nanny State is there, job done - doesn't matter than so many of the bureaucrats in the system don't have much incentive to really make a difference. Their jobs are secure, and it doesn't matter if you perform badly - the welfare beneficiaries are hardly going elsewhere for free money are they? More nauseating are the claims they want to pay MORE tax - but you don't see them donating that money to charities in the meantime - no, they have to be forced to care, or feel better than you are forced too - you greedy rich bastard earning more than $38000 a year! (you Montgomery Burns types on more than $60000 are doubly evil!).
So it's the self proclaimed incompetents, and the do-gooders - they will vote this election for you to lose more of your money to Helen Clark and her merry band. Do they get indoctrinated in this at our Nanny State schools that teach that education and healthcare must be state funded and run? Would they think the same about food, if that was state funded and supplied? Do they really think? or are they scared of the freedom and choice getting more of their own back would mean.
and why oh why, when Brash is NOT going to cut any services back, do they feel scared with his modest tax cuts?
06 September 2005
Aro Valley electoral meeting verdict
I just returned from what is always THE candidates' meeting for Wellington Central every election - the Aro Valley one. The heartland of socialist, ecologist, leftie Wellington. As usual it was a full house, and almost all of the candidates turned up, plus Morrie Love appeared for the Maori Party.
Plenty of humour in the responses from candidates.
As was to be expected, Mark Blumsky, the National candidate got a hard time from the leftie audience, but managed the heckling well. Frankly it wasn't a great performance, even with the crowd (and there would've been a good 20% or so who were sympathetic), he could've been wittier and quicker in attacking the government, and defending tax cuts - but he didn't really shine. Maybe he needs more practice and gets rattled with an audience of a lot of heckling, but this wasn't where he'll get votes in Wellington. His second choice for party vote was United Future (but then he was Party President!)
Marion Hobbs as encumbent Labour MP had a reasonably sympathetic audience. Last election she was heckled largely because of GE - and she vigorously defended her record as an electorate MP, because she was successful convincing the government to fund local schools etc. - in other words we have a system of whoever shouts the loudest gets your loot. She conceded defeat on the Inner City Bypass (a roading project close to Aro Valley that the locals oppose and is now under construction), but defended Labour's record and public servants - which a lot of people weren't keen on! Marian's second choice was the Greens and Sue Kedgeley.
Sue Kedgeley as Green candidate always gets a rousing response here, though she confused locals by saying she opposed voluntary euthanasia. She trotted out her usual, more of other people's money for pet socialist projects. Her second choice was Marian Hobbs and Labour!
Of the others, Stephen Franks from ACT seemed more liberal than ever - advocated getting the state out of marriage altogether! He supported voluntary euthanasia, and quipped when someone said what he'd do when he was unemployed after the election "The capitalists will look after me"! His second party choice was National, but candidate was Bernard Darnton from Libertarianz! Maybe there is hope yet.
Funny money from Coralie Leyland, the elderly face of Social Credit, who got heckled with "print more money". She does need to go home and knit and stop finding foreign banking conspiracies. She wasn't the local candidate though, I guess there is only one straight-jacket in the party.
Kane O'Connell from the Alliance went on about socialism, and was cheered when he said it was good that Jim Anderton left and formed his own party. At least he was honest saying they had no help in hell of getting into Parliament, and his second choice was the Greens and the Anti-Capitalist Alliance candidate Stephen Hay.
David Somerset from the Progressives, whose best moment had to be that we should turn our back on the dinosaurs from the past, when someone heckled "like Jim!". He confused the audience when he had liberal views on social issues that bear little relationship to Anderton's.
God help us with Fiona McKenzie from United Future Outdoor Party (UFO party was a quick reference) she was passionate about a party that believes in nothing much really, and she couldn't bear to state her position on abortion - as it probably wouldn't have been in agreement with most of the audience.
Michael Appleby always amuses initially with his legalise cannabis to save everything policy, and something does appeal about a party that would do nothing once it was legalised (presumably they would sit around on Parliamentary salaries and get stoned), though you have to wonder why he bothers - ALCP didn't even get its act together to apply for broadcasting funding.
A good response was received by Bernard Darnton - Libertarianz Leader, especially when he said the Public Works Act would go, so compulsory land purchases for roads would end. He also declared Libertarianz would abolish the Marriage Act and Misuse of Drugs Act, which played well to the liberal leftie audience (though privatising everything else doesn't). He unashamedly defended capitalism, very small government and when the question was asked - What will you do for your electorate in Parliament - he honestly said that Wellington Central would do very badly under Libertarianz, as so many public servants would be out of work, but all the other electorates would thrive! Go Bernard!
Stephen Hay from the Anti-Capitalist Alliance had his own small following, though he could hardly reconcile communism - which he believed in - with letting people do what they want. I guess 100 million killed from the 20 or so communist regimes in the 20th century isn't enough. Sadly he has refused to debate Bernard Darnton one on one, in a contest I mentioned in an earlier post proposed by Gman. Damned shame really, be nice to see freedom vs. Marxism-Leninism debated.
All in all a great evening out, a wonderful chance to heckle and hear some bloody quick witted remarks from an audience that was not QUITE as leftwing as at previous elections.
Aro Valley will almost certainly vote Greens, Labour, Alliance in that order, and I'm not kidding, I'd expect National to come third at best in THAT booth, but I still think Hobbs has a tight race with Mark Blumsky.
Other write ups:
BZP with photos;
David Farrar, and links to more from those
Gman photos of it;
Luke's photos of Bernard Darnton and the crowd
and Kakariki and Keith Ng's reports of the meeting and after incident!
Plenty of humour in the responses from candidates.
As was to be expected, Mark Blumsky, the National candidate got a hard time from the leftie audience, but managed the heckling well. Frankly it wasn't a great performance, even with the crowd (and there would've been a good 20% or so who were sympathetic), he could've been wittier and quicker in attacking the government, and defending tax cuts - but he didn't really shine. Maybe he needs more practice and gets rattled with an audience of a lot of heckling, but this wasn't where he'll get votes in Wellington. His second choice for party vote was United Future (but then he was Party President!)
Marion Hobbs as encumbent Labour MP had a reasonably sympathetic audience. Last election she was heckled largely because of GE - and she vigorously defended her record as an electorate MP, because she was successful convincing the government to fund local schools etc. - in other words we have a system of whoever shouts the loudest gets your loot. She conceded defeat on the Inner City Bypass (a roading project close to Aro Valley that the locals oppose and is now under construction), but defended Labour's record and public servants - which a lot of people weren't keen on! Marian's second choice was the Greens and Sue Kedgeley.
Sue Kedgeley as Green candidate always gets a rousing response here, though she confused locals by saying she opposed voluntary euthanasia. She trotted out her usual, more of other people's money for pet socialist projects. Her second choice was Marian Hobbs and Labour!
Of the others, Stephen Franks from ACT seemed more liberal than ever - advocated getting the state out of marriage altogether! He supported voluntary euthanasia, and quipped when someone said what he'd do when he was unemployed after the election "The capitalists will look after me"! His second party choice was National, but candidate was Bernard Darnton from Libertarianz! Maybe there is hope yet.
Funny money from Coralie Leyland, the elderly face of Social Credit, who got heckled with "print more money". She does need to go home and knit and stop finding foreign banking conspiracies. She wasn't the local candidate though, I guess there is only one straight-jacket in the party.
Kane O'Connell from the Alliance went on about socialism, and was cheered when he said it was good that Jim Anderton left and formed his own party. At least he was honest saying they had no help in hell of getting into Parliament, and his second choice was the Greens and the Anti-Capitalist Alliance candidate Stephen Hay.
David Somerset from the Progressives, whose best moment had to be that we should turn our back on the dinosaurs from the past, when someone heckled "like Jim!". He confused the audience when he had liberal views on social issues that bear little relationship to Anderton's.
God help us with Fiona McKenzie from United Future Outdoor Party (UFO party was a quick reference) she was passionate about a party that believes in nothing much really, and she couldn't bear to state her position on abortion - as it probably wouldn't have been in agreement with most of the audience.
Michael Appleby always amuses initially with his legalise cannabis to save everything policy, and something does appeal about a party that would do nothing once it was legalised (presumably they would sit around on Parliamentary salaries and get stoned), though you have to wonder why he bothers - ALCP didn't even get its act together to apply for broadcasting funding.
A good response was received by Bernard Darnton - Libertarianz Leader, especially when he said the Public Works Act would go, so compulsory land purchases for roads would end. He also declared Libertarianz would abolish the Marriage Act and Misuse of Drugs Act, which played well to the liberal leftie audience (though privatising everything else doesn't). He unashamedly defended capitalism, very small government and when the question was asked - What will you do for your electorate in Parliament - he honestly said that Wellington Central would do very badly under Libertarianz, as so many public servants would be out of work, but all the other electorates would thrive! Go Bernard!
Stephen Hay from the Anti-Capitalist Alliance had his own small following, though he could hardly reconcile communism - which he believed in - with letting people do what they want. I guess 100 million killed from the 20 or so communist regimes in the 20th century isn't enough. Sadly he has refused to debate Bernard Darnton one on one, in a contest I mentioned in an earlier post proposed by Gman. Damned shame really, be nice to see freedom vs. Marxism-Leninism debated.
All in all a great evening out, a wonderful chance to heckle and hear some bloody quick witted remarks from an audience that was not QUITE as leftwing as at previous elections.
Aro Valley will almost certainly vote Greens, Labour, Alliance in that order, and I'm not kidding, I'd expect National to come third at best in THAT booth, but I still think Hobbs has a tight race with Mark Blumsky.
Other write ups:
BZP with photos;
David Farrar, and links to more from those
Gman photos of it;
Luke's photos of Bernard Darnton and the crowd
and Kakariki and Keith Ng's reports of the meeting and after incident!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)