National Socialists

So the Nats support electoral law changes to prohibit third parties from criticising political parties.

^

Seriously, the phrase National Socialists used in jest to criticise the Nats when they have socialist leanings now has another meaning. This is such a fundamental attack on freedom of speech the Nats deserve to be hoisted on their own petard. Labour's craven attempt to spin its way out of its own overspending is one thing, and who turns to Labour for freedom anyway, but when the main party in (is it opposition? I haven't noticed) supports it, you're fucked.
^
This is about stopping the right of any private organisation criticising political parties during elections. How can any individual with a modicum of belief in a free and open democracy support this? This is not about business backed trusts, the Exclusive Brethren or unions, although the debate will be about this because they are particular examples that upset some people. This is about freedom.
^
I know most people are not libertarians and many disagree with many libertarian policies, but this is fundamental. It is the right for you as an individual, or your club, association, political organisation or lobby group to criticise a political party. Greenpeace could not lay into the National Party. Anti-GE groups could not criticise Labour. Rationalists could not criticise Destiny NZ. Think of every single major political issue in recent history, and this would effectively ban any group from lobbying against a party. Environmental groups could not rank the political parties, neither could business groups.
^
David Farrar is obviously concerned and rightly so.
^
If the Nats go through with this then fuck them, Neville Chamberlain hasn’t got a thing on English and Key. I wont say any more because I’m so utterly enraged with how the National Party has got out its constitution and micturated on it en masse, clapping all the way.

^

Bernard Darnton has also written lucidly about this on his free speech blog, including how Bill English has backtracked on what he thought about this before.

^

PLEASE prove me wrong Key and English. Please. If you don't, you deserve to spend the rest of your lives in Opposition, because New Zealand may as well be governed by Labour than by a socialist National Party that will sell out its principles for the baubles of power. I don't expect you to be objectivists, libertarians or even consistently frigging classically liberal - I do expect you to believe in free speech at election time. If you don't, you're a threat to us all.

The further back on the plane - the stupider you are?

Air Tahiti Nui has an interactive inflight game system, enabling you to play games with your fellow passengers. The guy who took this photo was in first class (seat 1A it says) winning "inflight trivia challenge" against someone in 19G who isn't far behind, and some thicko in 40D.

^

Clearly the guy in first class is smartest, following by the guy near the front of economy (possible frequent flyer, so aspiring to be nearer the front) and then the no hoper in the back. Of course the flipside is that if no hoper gets pissed off, he will storm his way to the front (and be annoyed that no only are you winning, but having good food and a nice seat).

Overlander goes 7 days a week, but have the Greens used it?

Remember all of this? Remember when Toll Rail was trying to convince the government to make you pay for this train? The rail union, the Greens, the Mayor of Ruapehu and a National MP all wanted to make you pay as well.

^

Well the government called Toll Rail's bluff, the ensuing publicity saw Toll give the train some respite, and it has even been refurbished with an upgraded interior.

^

Now it is going to operate 7 days a week, instead of just 3. So it shows one thing, if people want it to stay and are prepared to pay to use it, it is the best chance of keeping it.

^

What I want to know is given all of the wailing, have any Green MPs used the Overlander since Toll Rail decided to keep the service? If so, I'll be thrilled and complimentary. If not, well... the word begins with H.

^

So go on all you Green supporters, spend some of your OWN money and book a return trip on the Overlander, even if it is just Wellington to Palmerston North or the like, to show you want the train. It is working so far, it's called the market.

National's new policy free zone

John Key has slammed Labour for not doing enough on climate change. He has criticised the new thermal power generation installed since 1999, he said more trees are being cut down than being planted and that New Zealand greenhouse gas emissions are growing faster than Australia and the US. He says something needs to be done, but damns Labour’s goal of carbon neutrality.

^
What John? If you say you’ll repeal the RMA so that power companies can more easily build hydro plants or wind farms, ok. If you say you'll commercialise the road network like the Nats were going to do, so that roads are tolled and priced efficiently, instead of taxed, then ok. You see these things would be more efficient and have environmental benefits too.

^

However you say nothing. Climate Change Minister David Parker says Key has slogans and no policy. He's right. The shame is that it ought to be no policy for a good reason - there is no reason to do anything about climate change, except reforms that are good regardless, that improve economic efficiency and freedom.

^

Then National's Associate Spokesman for Small Business Chris Tremain is complaining about energy price increases, but not offering a solution. I can think of several, largely related to the state getting out of retail power, allowing lines companies to be generating companies and abolishing the RMA, but no, nothing.

^

Inspiring stuff isn't it? Nothing like an Opposition that just opposes.

Nats give Telecom zero

Maurice Williamson when he was Minister of Communications presided over the liberalisation of the international telecommunications market, refused to establish a telecommunications regulator (because the evidence was that it would see a shift from operators negotiating with each other to operators lobbying the regulator, which is exactly what has happened), supported infrastructure based competition in telecommunications (and the then Telstra Saturn was rolling out networks in Wellington and Christchurch, Vodafone bought BellSouth and expanded its network nationwide). He was a pretty good Minister, not from the point of view of the then Clear and Bellsouth. For the latter he delivered a pretty clear message to its US CEO that he couldn’t approach politicians and get his own way like he did in the US. The message was simple. Telecom was subject to general competition law and yes the Nats threatened to regulate if Telecom did not abide by its commitments at privatisation. However he did not swallow the complaints of competitors wholesale, because officials saw right through them.
^
How things have changed. National now supports legislation to require Telecom to split into three businesses. Maurice Williamson now is quoted by Stuff as saying “he believed the bill's cross-party support afforded Telecom certainty that policies would not change if different parties came to power.”
^
Well if I had been robbed by the government, I’d be so thrilled to know it can’t be reversed by a change in government. No wonder Telecom has stopped funding political parties, almost all of them are full of thieves.

^

Maurice, you’ve disappointed me. You could, at least, have said that National will repeal all legislation requiring Telecom to have a particular structure. You wont - why should Telecom shareholders vote National?