John Key - excite me

Here you go John Key, give me a speech which includes at least some of the following themes:
^
1. National’s principles. A belief that people know best how to run their lives, their property, their families and that government should err on the side of not intervening, not regulating and not taxing.

^
2. Private property rights. That the right to own, alter, sell and give away your own property is fundamental to New Zealand society and the creation of wealth. People must be able to own the fruits of their minds and do with them as they please, as long as they do not trespass on the property of others. That the best way to protect the environment is the application of private property rights. The role of the state is to intervene when these rights are breached, and the RMA needs to be amended or replaced to recognise this.

^
3. Personal freedom. All New Zealanders have the right to live their lives in peace as they see fit, regardless of race, religion or no religion, culture, politics or sexuality. This right is only limited by respecting the right of others to do the same in peace. The state should not dictate what adults do with their bodies, regulate their personal relationships or interfere with families, until people start abusing others physically or sexually.

^
4. One law for all. How it is not racist to say that the state should be colour-blind. Why laws or government funding should say that people should not get treated differently because of racial backgrounds, or that religious groups or individuals (or non religious ones) should not be given preferences. Assert it is a thoroughly liberal notion that the state should be colourblind, and that this does not mean that some people are mainstream and others are not, this does not mean that if you are Maori you do not exist as being Maori, but that the state treats you no less than if you are Caucasian, Samoan, Indian, Chinese or Arab. How there shouldn't be separate Maori seats, but how all MPs should be listening to their Maori constituents.

^
5. Less government is better. Assert that there is too much regulation and too much bureaucracy and that New Zealanders are paying for too much government. Say that a National government will undertake a thorough review of government departments and programmes and ask them to justify what they are all spending taxpayers' money on, and why certain laws exist. Say that National will reduce the state’s ownership of businesses it owns, either by sales or distribution of shares to the public.

^
6. More choice in education. Schools should operate more independently, and funding should follow the student, with parents making the decisions about what is best for their child.

^
7. There should be less tax. Explain how taxes are not the government’s money, it is the money of the people who own it. How the government should take less, and do less and leave people to act on their own.

^
8. Dependency on the state is not a virtue. Explain how welfare needs to be reformed to remove incentives to remain on benefits, how the Working for Families package should be replaced with tax cuts and why government should not aspire to be the country’s biggest landlord.

^
9. Law and order is a vital role of government. People should expect the police and criminal justice system to respond to real crimes. This should be the number one goal of government – to get better performance out of the criminal justice system, and for government to not be above the law.
^
So there are some clues. By the way, if you say any of the following, I wont be interested anymore:
*
1. "Government needs to be smarter". Trotting out phrases about doing things in smarter ways, thinking innovatively, finding new solutions, blech. Government is dumb, which is why it doesn’t do most things very well.
2. "Government needs to listen". Forget consultation, the only people who respond to consultation are lobbyists and the lazy “got nothing better to do” left. Just damned well do it, if Lange and Douglas listened our GDP would be less today and we'd still be arguing.
3. "The environment is critical". No it is not, it is better now than it has been in recent history. People are critical.
4. "Government needs to engage with families". No it doesn’t, leave families alone. Most function well without you sticking your beak in.
5. "Government needs to help the innovators, creators and employment producers by providing funding…." No to corporate welfare! It needs to help them by lowering taxes and getting out of their way.
6. "More money for health and education". Money down a black hole John, you need to start weaning people off of the state – but you’ll just waste more no doubt.
7. "Corporate social responsibility". Say that phrase and you deserve your head smacked in. Businesses are responsible to those who own them. They have no more social responsibility that trade unions, or private individuals.
8. "Inclusiveness". Means nothing.
9. "Climate change is the biggest challenge in our time". No it is not, at worst it is a change that we will have to adapt to, at best it is a scare.
*
What’s the bet that he’ll say most of what is in the second list and little of what is in the first?

^

and make Brash Finance spokesman. He will have credibility in that role beyond what English could (yes English was once Finance Minister, but only because Bill Birch was Treasurer - in that position created so Winston could have some baubles. Birch ran the portfolio).

^

If you don't he may as well resign because you don't deserve the man, it is him alone that put one-third of the caucus there.

What Brash would have done...

I am glad that for the last 15 months I have been watching political events in NZ from afar. The 2005 election was a nail biter that still gave me a smile, because I witnessed provincial New Zealand turn its back on the moral relativists of political correct Labour – the ones who think they can make the country a better place spending your money, rather than you can, the ones who call you racist for wanting a colour blind government, the ones who think the answer to any problem is the government. It also gave me a smile because Don Brash’s vision for New Zealand was one that, at least in part, I endorsed.

So what would have happened had National beaten Labour? Well for starters it couldn’t have acted willy nilly – United Future and NZ First would have kept it restrained somewhat. As Peters and Dunne both know they can get more out of the power starved Nats than they can out of Clark, it would have been more of a coalition than the current government.

Despite the tribal propaganda spun by Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party, among others, Don Brash’s vision was neither a conservative one, nor ACT recast, but it did represent two changes in direction that I thoroughly support:

- Less government (exemplified mainly through modest tax cuts, but also a return to scepticism about government spending and intervention);
- End to race based law and funding.

Have no doubt about it, Brash was not going to implement ACT or Libertarianz style policies writ large. Yes you’d get the tax cuts, but the left’s fears of massive cuts to social spending would not have been realised. Yes, the unions in the education and health sectors couldn’t snap their fingers and get the pay rises they would like, but there would still be public health and education, and social welfare. None of that would be cut, you just would see less growth in it. You’d see less subsidies to businesses. In short, the willingness of government to spend more and more of your money would be lessened. You would see privatisation on the agenda again, but probably no more than it is with every other liberal democratic government today – only Labour under Clark is into renationalisation when “necessary”. Some bureaucracies might have been closed, like the far from neutral Ministry of Women’s Affairs.

Regulation would be reformed, I am sure local government would get some shackles put around it so it doesn’t pursue mad expensive schemes like an underground Auckland rail station. The RMA would be reformed, probably giving property rights some status to reduce the ability of the RMA to hinder what people do with their own property.

Maori specific funding would have been phased out in favour of funding by purpose rather than recipient, and there would be a start to removing Treaty of Waitangi clauses from some legislation. You could expect to see greater scrutiny over projects like Maori Television.


The left like to paint it as another era of Rogernomics or Ruth Richardson, but this is far from the case. If it were about some radical revolution you’d see:

- Flat tax (no, just some lifting of thresholds);
- Selling off all SOEs (no just some consideration of it for some, like selling down stake in Air NZ, which Labour wanted to do with Qantas);
- Commercialising health and education or privatising (no sign, some private provision is hardly a radical step forward);
- User pays in health and education (it wont be less, but unlikely to see much more);
- Radical cuts in welfare (probably be tightening of welfare eligibility and toughening of enforcement, but no end to the safety net);
- Big increases in defence spending (strike wing and blue water navies both too expensive, but likely to be some increase);
- Repeal of anti-nuclear legislation (might be some improvement in relations with the US militarily, but that would be too much to hope for)

There is no conservative religious agenda. Civil unions and prostitution law reform would be safe. There wouldn’t be religious teaching in schools, or any other fantasyland policies for evangelicals to get excited about. At best they might hope for education vouchers so private schools are funded similar to state schools – hardly an enormous step forward for a conservative agenda. Nevertheless, it is part of the currency of the left to paint the right as racist, sexist, homophobic and generally gleefully enjoying people becoming poor.

Brash was anything but that, a Brash led government would not have been libertarian or ACT oriented, but it would have applied economic rationalism, it would have demanded accountability and performance from the public sector, it would have closed down some bureaucracies and erred on the side of non-intervention.

That in itself would be a small step forward. It might also have helped inculcate a party with principle, discipline and understanding that being pro-business and less government means NOT outdoing Labour by saying you’ll spend more or subsidise more or regulate more.

Sadly I’m not convinced John Key knows better and I know Bill English doesn’t. With the odd exception, the National Party has been conservative - meaning it has done nothing. Labour establishes the welfare state, National expands it. Labour establishes universal pensions, National expands it. Labour subsidises businesses, National subsidises them more. Except for 1990-1993 (and to a limited extent 1993-1999), the Nats have been arguing on Labour's terms. Brash offered political debate on wider terms than that - the left hated him and have brought him down, with the help of the "born to rule" portion of the National Party. The ones who love the idea that government can get involved in "anything". They'd be in Labour if it was closer to the centre.

So that's it - the last National chance to have a government of some principle. Look for the following in National in coming months:

1. Fudging about tax cuts.
2. End of talk of abolishing the Maori seats and removing Treaty references from law.
3. Commitment to act on climate change.

This is because the Nats will want to be seen as kind, and they want to seduce the Maori Party and the Greens.

I hope I am wrong.

Nicky Hager - the poor leftwing rich boy

You wont hear the NZ media say much about Nicky Hager being a wealthy socialist. Pointing out the wealth of political activists tends to be more fingerpointing towards those on the right than the left, and the hardcore leftwing credentials of so called “journalists” like Hager are neglected to maintain an air of impartiality. There is none – Nicky Hager is no more impartial on the New Zealand political scene than Brian Tamaki or Roger Kerr, but the media would always remind you of their backgrounds. Hager, living a life of leisure from inherited wealth has an explicit agenda, and it is a deception in itself for him not to be upfront about it. The agenda was clear with Corngate, he wanted the Greens to capture a far higher proportion of the leftwing vote from Labour, so that a Green-Labour coalition would see the Green’s socialist agenda commanding far greater influence than it does. Now his agenda, with Brash having nearly led National to victory, is to discredit Brash and the National Party – he wants Labour to be re-elected in 2008.
*
Hager’s book has a foreword by Marilyn Waring, a woman more than happy with National under Muldoon, except for Muldoon and the conservative social/foreign policy agenda. Quite frankly it is clear that Marilyn Waring is a complete oddity, being a socially liberal socialist who was a National MP – a bit like Trevor de Cleene the socially conservative economic liberal who was a Labour MP.
*
Hager’s book is timed brilliantly following a difficult time for Labour. A time when in order to save its reputation it passed legislation to retrospectively legalise its own illegal actions – which Hager totally ignores – a time when Labour committed to paying back to the state the money it took for its campaign against the law and against advice from the Electoral Commission. Hager cares little for this, for it is clear which side he is on, and is the side of Labour closer to the Greens, certainly no side of National.
*
His disingenuous statement in the preface that “a millionaire belonging to the social group that enjoys most privilege, in his first major speech as leader, subtly attacking many of the poorest people in New Zealand” ignoring that Brash was identifying a major issue for much of the New Zealand public. This was tiredness at funding based on who your ancestors were, and a state funding system that often saw a small number of Maori obtain substantial wealth through state patronage.
*
Hager says it is easy to spin and manipulate, and how the media and electoral law are weak in responding to this. He admits he could have also written a book about Labour, funny how he hasn’t - he could have written two in parallel or one that covers both, but then his bias would be difficult to hide and the effect of the book would be neutral, and Hager is anything but neutral.
*
The truth about Hager does come out in his book though. His concern about individuals and companies making donations to political parties and influencing their policies doesn’t seem to matter when it comes to unions or iwi. He seems to think that laissez-faire economic policies are not about principle or what is effective, but about granting privilege – whereas ignoring that free-market policies are about abolishing privilege – the privileges granted incumbents, monopolies or subsidised industries against consumers, competitors and taxpayers. Hager doesn’t understand economics.

Furthermore, Hager’s interpretation of the 1980s/1990s reforms speaks volumes about his agenda. Apparently foreign companies bought up most major New Zealand businesses. Apparently that is a bad thing because somehow Hager himself could influence a New Zealand privately owned business better than one with those horn in the head and snake tongued foreigners – the xenophobia against foreign businesses is a common leftwing bogey, shared in fact by the fascist far right. He doesn’t like university fees, presumably he likes middle class students and the sons and daughters of lawyers, accountants and doctors to get educations paid for by everyone else compulsorily.

He makes various claims about the public health system and poverty, presumably Hager’s concern about poverty is because he’s never had any. His nonsense about scuttling hopes for an egalitarian society is curious, since there is little evidence he does much materially for this.

In short, he is a vapid little socialist muck raker. His allegations about the SIS involvement in the Maori Party have been dismissed. The Corngate scandal was about nothing whatsoever – at worst it was the application of science to a principle that was impractical to follow, and one that did not risk life or property. It was Hager caught up in the genetic engineering scare – remember that? Notice how genetic engineering scares a lot less people now?

Without reading Hager’s book I believe his allegations will run to:

- National Party MPs/officials having communications with the US Republican Party and getting tips on campaigning, with moral support (remarkable! So people with common philosophical positions in politics discuss tactics – wow!);
- National Party MPs/officials having communications with religious/conservative groups that would either provide funding or support campaigning to get National elected (the Brethren link). Again what a scandal that voluntary civil organisations in a free society would choose to work with a political party that they believe would advance their goals;
- National Party MPs/officials discussing policies such as tax cuts, closing some government departments, education and welfare reforms that would see more choice and a reduction in the size of government. Outrageous that National would want to promote policies consistent with its constitution;
- Generous donations to the National party directly and through third party organisations by wealthy people. Hager clearly doesn’t like his own kind not supporting the socialist parties he warms to.
- National Party’s affiliations and supporters wanting to promote policies to make the rich richer and poor poorer and oil the wheels of capitalism with the blood of welfare recipients. You see Hager, like some on the left, see and portray their opponents as selfish and evil, who enjoy seeing poverty, who enjoy seeing people failing in their lives – you know, like those on the left who cheer whenever anyone wealthy faces significant loss of some kind.

Nothing in Hager’s book will excite anyone who isn’t already on the far left of politics, the types who think wealthy people, religious people and foreign companies are all evil and selfish when they support free market policies – but who would embrace them if they helped fund the Labour Party to implement statist socialist policies. National under Brash has promoted a clear agenda of modestly less government, of a classical liberal approach towards race relations (treating everyone the same), of less government intervention in the economy, being tougher on welfare and more choice in health and education. Or you could believe Nicky Hager and it is about leaving the poor to starve, making workplaces less safe to save money, letting health and education collapse and institute some sort of Christian neo-conservative social agenda.

So Brash has resigned?

I got an email from a friend while working late.

If it is true, then Labour will be thrilled.

There may be hope in John Key, but Brash's resignation is due to a man who is not naturally a politician (convincing liar) making blunders that the sharks on the left don't tolerate.

Now we will see if the Nats slip into Tory Cameron mode, and become the pablum of politics.

If true, Labour will deserve to keep winning elections because the National Party finds it so hard to win elections - it has always waited on Labour losing them.

A simple question

If leftwing moral relativists “understand” Islamist terrorists in Iraq, Israel, Madrid, London, New York and Istanbul, killing civilians of all backgrounds, because of anger at Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians, are not far-right xenophobes similarly to be “understood” if they vandalise and beat up Muslims, because of anger at Islamist terror?

When is violence in expressing a political opinion ever justified (I do NOT mean self defence)

and no, I do not have any time for far-right xenophobes.