Marian Hobbs's imminent retirement

David Farrar (who was campaign manager for Mark Blumsky's attempt to unseat Hobbs in 2005) reports on Wellygirl's report that Marian intends to retire from politics. This has been confirmed by Newstalk ZB so it then leaves Wellington Central wide open for Bernard Darnton :) doesn't it now?

^

I first heard of Marian when she stood for Labour in the Selwyn by-election after Bolger stabbed Ruth Richardson in the back, and Marian came third against as the Alliance's halfwit extraordinaire John Wright came second. She won a list seat in 1996 and I shuddered when she defeated Richard Prebble in Wellington Central in 1999, reflecting both a swing against the government and changed electoral boundaries losing parts of Ngaio and gaining parts of Brooklyn and Newtown.

^

As much as I despise most of her politics, I found her to be a good natured person and has a great sense of humour. While she was once a communist, she has also been pragmatic. She is prepared to listen and debate, and will actually read the entire content of a Cabinet paper. In short, after a rather difficult start (the 5th teletubby - Boo Boo nomenclature arrived quickly), she gained the respect of colleagues and bureaucrats for working hard and being willing to engage. In that sense, as a person, she will be missed.

^

I followed her on the electoral trail twice with the Libertarianz candidates in the past two elections and she was always respectful and considerate of other candidates and their rights to speak and debate. She was probably not best suited to the lies, nastiness and vapid nature of politics, but very well suited as an auntie and someone to sit and have a good natter with.

^

I never voted for Marian (I mean she is Labour, sheesh!), but she was, by and large a rare breed. A rather honest politician. She would rarely promise what couldn't be delivered and while she certainly is a socialist, she also knew some of the limits of her politics. Though I am sure I couldn't convince her that she committed many mistakes, most of them involve voting with the Labour Party since 1996 :)

^

In an age when so many politicians are either vindictive, treacherous or complete political whores - it is something worth noting. I hope she enjoys her retirement.

^

PS: It was Bernard's birthday on Monday, he is a ripe old 34, as one of the political heroes of 2006 he deserves that to be noted. Cheers Bernard!

2006 in politics

UK political winner: David Cameron. Proof that there is a year long honeymoon period in politics for the nice young man who smiles, utters vapid catchphrases and “listens” to everyone. He has made the Tories electable by making them New Labour Lite.

UK political loser: Tony Blair. With national popularity at an all time low, not loved by the party he saved or the man likely to succeed him, Blair has visibly aged as he slowly plods to his retirement. You’d think after winning a record third successive victory for Labour he’d still be their hero.

UK political nutcase: Ken Livingstone. Red Ken has always been a socialist maverick, but flying at taxpayer’s expense to Cuba and then Venezuela to try to meet Castro and Hugo Chavez, being snubbed by both and unable to pull off a deal he claimed could be done to get cheap diesel for London buses was outrageous. Now he is calling for a wealth tax on City bonuses, could there ever be a Mayor who if let off the leash would single mindedly destroy the goose that lays London’s golden egg? The Tories also deserve a brickbat for being unable to find a suitable candidate to put up against him – this is London, surely SOMEONE can be found who is talented.

Number 1 UK political theme: Environmentalism. The Stern Report predicted doom and gloom if climate change wasn’t addressed, without explaining how it could be addressed when most greenhouse gas emissions come from other countries. The media is full of obsessions about carbon footprints and Protestant guilt about flying to holiday destinations, which can be easily offset by the latest tithe – paying to offset your carbon emissions. It doesn’t of course, but hey it makes people feel better. Recycling is the national obsession, with EU targets for recycling and some councils fining people for NOT recycling. Meanwhile, rubbish collection remains free and nobody has made an evidence based evaluation of why government intervention to support recycling will deliver net benefits to the UK. It is faith not fact based. The local food/food miles lie continues to be spread by the protectionist farming industry and the BBC.

So how about NZ?

NZ political winner: John Key. Having inherited a revitalised National Party from Don Brash, a general public mood of tiredness with Labour, John Key has been quick to put his stamp on the National Party and flung it towards the left. He too is having a honeymoon period, he too is following the lead of David Cameron in ditching previous policies and philosophy and generally being “nice”. He too is leading Labour Lite.

NZ political loser: Don Brash. Having revitalised the National Party from its worst ever electoral result and bringing it within one seat of victory, Brash was hung out to dry by his own party. The public never did this, National’s public support remained generally above Labour’s, but the wets in National discarded Brash with the support of a media generally lacking in intellectual rigour. Brash lost because he failed to be himself, and be upfront and honest - the characteristics that saw him do so well, the characteristics that are an anathema to most politicians.

NZ political nutcase: Dick Hubbard. One of the most ineffective Mayors Auckland has had in recent history. He has surrendered control over to his leftwing council which is now embarking on its grand Auckland takeover strategy with the ear of Helengrad. Labour supports Hubbard despite his strong esoteric religious beliefs – you know, the ones that put him closer to the Exclusive Brethren than atheism – but it’s ok because he supports Labour

Number 1 NZ political theme: Corruption and lies. Corruption ranging from almost all Parliamentary parties using taxpayers’ money to fund their propaganda campaigns, but Labour the most. Labour’s litany of lies and unwillingness to face the facts of its own fundamental misjudgement. Labour with its United Future and NZ First lickspittles voting to retrospectively legalise this theft. Labour now promoting that this theft be made compulsory every year with a ban on private donations to parties. National for overspending its broadcast spending money by failing to consider GST. Taito Philip Field for giving favours for getting favours. Nicky Hager for writing a left wing attack on Brash without revealing his own personal political agenda and most of the media for not questioning that he had one. Labour for accusing Brash of National leading an orchestrated campaign of attacks against Helen Clark and Peter Davis regarding their marriage, and then leading a campaign against Brash about his own. Labour for endlessly spinning the non story that the Exclusive Brethren led a campaign against Labour and the Greens, with moral support from National – as if this is wrong in a liberal democracy.

Most enlightened political moment: Bernard Darnton, Libertarianz Leader commencing legal proceedings against the Labour Party and Helen Clark over breaches of the Electoral Act and Public Finance Act.

Internationally?

Global political winner: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While continuing to pursue “peaceful” nuclear energy in the guise of a weapons programme, he has avoided further economic sanctions. He continually leads much of the political debate in the Islamic world, wears his anti-semitism on his sleeve and still the West tries to placate him. Ahmadinejad has shown that the Islamic Republic is still solid, that the West gives few articulate and reasoned responses to Islamism, and he can grab the attention and sympathy of much of the Islamic world. He is liked more in the West than George Bush and Tony Blair

Global political loser: George Bush. Having lost the congressional mid-terms, the ongoing difficulties in Iraq, he has lost much momentum for the last two years of his Presidency. Possibly the most hated political figure alive today, he has often failed to communicate clearly what his objectives are, and could hardly have less sympathetic media. With his foreign policy goal in Iraq well out of reach, and domestic policy about to be stymied by a revitalised centre-left Democrat majority in Congress, Bush faces a difficult repositioning as Republican nominees for the 2008 presidential election will want to stand apart from him.

Global political nutcase: Hugo Chavez. After talking of Bush as being the devil from hell, and bribing voters with the vast oil money that Venezuela is bringing in for now, Chavez continues to be the Western socialists’ favourite rebel. His own penchance for roughing up political opponents, corruption and crazy rhetoric are ignored.
^
Global environmental scare in decline: Genetic engineering. Fewer are scared of it now than ever before. The doom merchants have quietly shifted towards climate change.

Why are they low income jobs?

For the same reason that houses in Murupara are cheap. There are more people providing them than people wanting them. The price of unskilled labour is based on how much there is, vs how much skilled people are prepared to pay to not do jobs that literally anyone could do.
^
In short, there are too many people out there prepared to undertake low to no skilled jobs because they do not have the skills or experience to do anything else.
^
It is a matter of supply and demand.
^
So what is the solution? Adjust the supply and the demand.

^

The supply will only go up if you pay them more, because it becomes more attractive relative to semi-skilled jobs. The more you pay people to do something the more they will do it.

^

The demand will only go up if people have more money to spend on their services, like cleaning. So tax cuts may increase incomes for the poor. The demand wont go up if the price for their services goes up.

^

A socialist would say “because they are undervalued”. Who by? If you value these low income workers then go on, set up a competing business and hire them what YOU think they are valued at. You’ll have to charge people for that, which probably means some sort of “fairtrade” business whereby you say your business costs more, but pays better wages so there is a “feel good” factor. Go on, do it – stop moaning about how others treat those on low incomes and you pay them. Bet you don’t, far better to force others that act yourself. However I guess anyone who hasn't sacrificed their time, money and reputation to create employment wouldn't know better - far easier to just apply for jobs expecting others to create wealth opportunities you can share in, rather than do that yourself.

"It might sound funny to others, but suddenly thinking you are French is terrifying"

Louise Clarke of Bristol did it, but she had a good excuse. She was diagnosed with Susac's syndrome, which is thought to be caused by an autoimmune condition whereby healthy brain tissue is attacked by the immune system.

^

The result is hilarious. Though I am sure the journalist was laughing with these quotes..

^

This is London reports "She started speaking French all the time, rang her friends to invite them to stay in the French capital - and asked to eat croissants."

^

"At one point, my sister discovered I had phoned all my friends and told them to come and visit me in Paris. She had to ring them all back to explain what had happened."

^

don't laugh too much because "Miss Clarke, who still has the syndrome, is able to control it with steroids and other medication but has been told it can last up to five years. ". So it is far from a funny illness for those who have them.

^

Of course Boris Johnson on "Have I Got News for You" (one of the best UK comedy game shows) did say that 60 million French people wake up with this everyday.

Is Key seducing you?

Really? Are you more likely or less likely to vote National because of him?

^

Let's take his most recent remarks:

^

"I believe in a tolerant and inclusive New Zealand." (If this means the state being uninterested in people's race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or lack of, then fine, but hell it sounds like platitudes if he isn't making it clear).

^

"I believe in a society therefore for the benefit of all New Zealanders" (Which means what exactly? You live for the benefit of everyone else? From each according to her ability to each according to his needs? You DO know where that comes from don't you?

^

"I think that the future New Zealand must be a New Zealand that everyone has a stake in" (Own shares? Own land? or what John? a wooden stake?)

^

"One of the huge advantages of having Bill English as my wing man. . . is he has huge experience" (Doing what? Seriously, name his most significant political achievement and most significant policy advance while in government?)

^

"The fact I was given an education by the state and lucky enough – and I think hopefully motivated enough –to go on and have a successful career" (Yes John, it's all down to luck isn't it? Perpetuate the myth held by the lumpen proletariat and perpetuated by the left that a successful career isn't about brains, hard work and sacrificing time and effort for the reward, it's luck - like winning lotto eh bro? It's not fair that some fellas got all that luck and we aint eh? You gotta redistribute the proceeds of your luck. Using the word motivated as secondary and conditional did little to help that)

^

"If I could make a difference for anybody in New Zealand it would be to give that opportunity to other young New Zealanders who find themselves in a disadvantaged position." (Go on John, it's called education and culture change. You could always spend money on an education foundation, but for now it would help if you tackled the mediocrity that passes for education in so many parts of the country. This means tackling nihilistic envy-ridden culture, bureaucracy and unions. Lockwood Smith wouldn't, Ruth Richardson proposed doing so in 1987, but will you?

^

Key represents the National Party's fundamental problem. It does not at all have at its base a philosophical foundation for viewing New Zealand and what it values. The Labour Party does, because deep deep down if you scratch enough, you'll find it - it's called Marxism - the inherent belief that the poor have been robbed by the middle and upper income earners, and that most people are unable to make the best choices for themselves in many areas, and need to be looked after. I think the National Party isn't that different.