Judith Tizard's eroding career

One thing I'll give Helen Clark, despite my almost universal distaste for her politics, she is a smart woman - very calculated. She transformed herself from a universally loathed figure as Health Minister in the late 1980s (you know when most NZ political reporters were focused entirely on drinking, drugs and shagging), granting Labour's worst election result in modern history in 2006 (28% of the vote) to being a three term PM almost always leading the preferred PM polls.

^

So what of Judith Tizard? Judith comes from a rather peculiar clan of Labour politicians. All of them with firey tempers, I remember vividly Bob Tizard storming out of a TVNZ interview in the 1980s when he was Minister of Energy, and Cath Tizard's frequent (and in some ways laudable) use of expletives is legendary. However, Judith's career has been far less notable.

^

She took the usual leftwing career path of seeking election on local bodies, you know the sorts that made clever decisions on our infrastructure that sometimes bore little resemblance to economic demand and supply, before being elected as MP of Panmure in 1990. She has always been very close to Helen Clark, as they have been good friends since university days, so she was certainly a cheerleader for, if not instrumental in the Maoist coup against Mike Moore following the 1993 election defeat for Labour. In 1996 she gained kudos for taking the new MMP Auckland Central electorate from Sandra Lee (who took it for the Alliance in 1993).

^

Judith has long sought to be a Cabinet Minister, but failed time and time again to be elected to this role. This reflects two very distinct parts of her character:

- Inability to keep quiet (unless it is really really really really really matters);

- Not particularly keen on hard work.

^

The roles she has taken on have therefore largely been associate roles as Minister outside Cabinet. She simply hasn't been trusted enough by her caucus colleagues to respect the strict confidentiality of Cabinet meetings, and is also not thought to be capable of contributing sufficiently to them (she's not stupid, just moody and well, not the hardest working Labour MP by a long shot).

^

Her character is also one which can endear, as she likes a glass of wine and can be friendly, convivial and a good host - which fits in nicely with her role as Associate Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage because it gives her every excuse to be with the (albeit New Zealand) movie, TV, music and arts set. In other words a cocktail party circuit of events, speeches and mixing with people - something she's very good at. However, get Judith on a bad day and she'll let it rip, blaming whoever matters to be in the room for whatsoever and sounding off about how bad the National Party is. In that case she wont listen and actually just needs to sit down, have a drink and get over whatever got under her knickers that day.

^

So she was given the odd portfolio of the Minister Assisting the PM on Auckland issues - or as many have called it, holding the PM's handbag. ARC chairman Mike Lee claims she has done wonders for Auckland transport, and that meant I couldn't stop laughing.

^

I'll give Judith two things she has done, positively, for Auckland transport. First, in the early days of the Labour government she did advocate for work to be carried out on spaghetti junction ahead of the ALPURT B2 (Orewa bypass) motorway now underway (but which was ready to go some years ago). Yes, depending on what side you're on you can blame her for delaying a ready to be built motorway, or accelerating a major upgrade to central Auckland's most critical piece of motorway. However, advocacy was about it. It was the Labour appointed board members of Transit and (then) Transfund that made the real difference, and the fact the PM agreed with her and encouraged the very same move that was taken. However, you could argue that what Judith did was no different than any good local MP would do - seek pork from the state to fill the belly of her own electorate (although spaghetti junction has far more than local importance).

^

Secondly, she cut ribbons - which did no harm. She lobbied for all sorts of other changes to governance and funding that were largely ignored and dismissed by those more sensible and in power as being another mad idea from Judith - Pete Hodgson and Paul Swain were both adept as Transport Ministers at giving her things to do to keep her away from what really mattered.

^

So now she has fallen out of favour, despite her close friendship with the PM. One can only speculate why, but she may wish to decide whether she resigns as an MP, and seeks a local body career to enable her to keep feeding the cats. One thing is for sure, Judith wont be remembered as a mover and shaker, but as one of those odd MPs who is really there because of family heritage, and being close to someone who is very intelligent and very hard working and focused - that is why Helen Clark and her are not two of a kind.

Africa's number one problem - corruption

Listening to Bob Geldof you might be excused of thinking that the reason so many Africans are poor are because you've been too self-centred and not given money to charities, or that evil nasty Western governments haven't wiped debts of those well intended poor African governments. In fact anyone who has had much to do with African governments will know that this is far from the truth. In my dealings with representatives from Africa they were always better paid than their Western counterparts, stayed in the best hotels, had chauffeured limos to drive them around, flew first class everywhere - and then pleaded poverty and how life was for their countryfolk.

^

Sure there are some issues the West can help with, primarily removing barriers to trade and abolishing subsidies for agriculture and other industries - something that can be aimed clearly at Brussels, Washington and Tokyo for being the biggest offenders. However, this wont achieve much unless Africa governs itself well - and it doesn't. The bigger issue is that too many fear offence by declaring the truth - many African governments are corrupt ridden, unaccountable and are simply international recognised racketeering gangs.

^

So the Channel 4 documentary this week - Dispatches - How to Get Ahead in Africa - tells all. Set in Kenya, it shows how people must bribe receptionists to get hospital appointments, bribe all sorts of strongmen to get "permits" to build a shack on public land, bribe neighbours to not appeal it to higher up corrupt officials, bribe policemen to allow taxis to travel, bribe to get a job interview. Furthermore, it showed how easy it was to bribe a licence to be a charity, that had no accountable but could claim a share of foreign aid funds. Charities with vague addresses - that don't exist - get funding through the government, from foreign aid. It's fraud on a grand scale, and it keeps Africa back. Sierra Leone was visited also, where aid to supply electricity to a town was effectively siphoned off to officials requiring bribes before allowing homes to be connected. More disturbingly, school children were required to bribe teachers for lessons - given excuses such as payment for copying papers and the like. Corruption agencies were themselves little more than show ponies, which dealt with a handful of high profile low level cases, but did nothing.

^

The solution to Africa's governance problems is complex, it is partially cultural, but clearly any aid to governments is likely to risk being siphoned off to corrupt officials. Africans are poorly served by post-colonial governments, but the best way to deal with them is for private aid to be provided to private efforts on the ground. This means that education should be provided by agencies that have the money, and take the power to avoid corruption - which means using force to defend themselves. It means being somewhat colonial, and Africans want it - they vote in governments on anti-corruption tickets, only to be bitterly disappointed.

^

As one man on the show said, the best way to "make poverty history" in Africa is not aid, indeed he dismissed Bob Geldof's efforts entirely, but to help end corruption. So I say to Oxfam, indeed all those who try to place guilt in our hands for African poverty - start spreading a new philosophy to Africa - not one of "give me money for nothing" of socialism, but earn money and be accountable if you don't perform.

^

Accountability for government, and prison for those who are corrupt - which means having rather efficient effective small governments that do the bare necessities - police, law and order and defending personal and property rights. You see, as a libertarian I DO believe government is essential. The rule of law and transparent, accountable and corruption free enforcement of law, defence of individual freedoms, property rights and enforceability of contracts - Africa's governments do all this very badly - it's about time they shed everything else they try to do, and be taught to be small good governments - not corrupt tinpot rusting hulks of post colonial Marxist fantasies.

Immigration to Britain

So David Cameron is hot on immigration – again, and so is Labour. Apparently there is “too much” as David Cameron says, with no substance behind it other than it imposes "pressure on services and society". Bullshit. It increases property prices and migrants pay their own way, or if they don't it's because of government policies.
^
The government says immigration imposes pressure on crime (so let's deport criminal migrants), housing, health and education (well who should pay for that?), but has no answers.
^
Clearly people like me who are skilled and earning well above the average wage are a problem for Britain – but no, that can’t be true can it? Is it the huge number of Poles who have filled the service sector? Well, no and besides the EU means you can’t debate such things. The truth is that the problem is caused by poorly educated, poorly skilled people from different cultures who seek to claim taxpayer funded services - but nobody will admit that.
^
The reasons given why immigration is an issue comes down to:
- Risk of overpopulation; and
- Unsustainability of taxpayer funded social services.
^
Both arguments are complete nonsense, and moreover any politician honestly talking about immigration in Britain knows that the primary reason Britons are concerned about it is race and religion. Is it racism? Well to a point yes. Moreso seen in working class communities, and reflected in the occasional boost the BNP gets in local elections as the proletariat claim the “Pakis” or “blacks” are taking our jobs, and other nonsense. The deep suspicion and fear of those who “look different” has been exploited by politicians worldwide.
^
However, there is a more substantive concern about immigration of those who don’t adopt the values of British liberal democratic society. Most obviously is the migration of Muslims who seek sharia law, although as many of those are born in the UK as immigrants. It is a genuine concern that people come to live in Britain, ignoring that “honour killings” are unacceptable, or female circumcision are unacceptable.
^
Significant migration to Britain from outside the EU actually comes from the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, and let’s face it, most Britons aren’t the slightest bit concerned about that at all. Though I remember before I got permanent residency, how appallingly I was treated at Heathrow every time I visited – quizzed by a petty fascist about whether I would be looking for work here, and when I was living and who I was staying with.
^
Unfortunately, intelligent discussion about this is virtually impossible in Britain. This is why Malthusian nonsense is brought out as the reason, when what it boils down to is concern about race and culture.
^
Britain faces no risk of “overpopulation”, it has extensive rural land, London is far from built out to the M25, even allowing for much open space. The population density of the Netherlands is substantially higher, and there are vast tracts of towns and cities across the UK with housing and room for more housing. So let’s dismiss such rubbish for what it is.
^
The bigger concern is “funding social services”, but this also does not bear close scrutiny. Housing, for example, should be a private sector activity. Indeed, the notion that the taxpayer should be paying to house new migrants is a complete nonsense. The more rational approach should be to remove restrictions on land use that prevent private investment in housing, but more importantly prohibit new migrants from having access to taxpayer subsidised housing for at least five years.
^
Health care similarly is constrained not by migrants, but the sclerotic bureaucracy of the NHS which is virtually without any price signals to ration demand or allocate resources where demand is greatest. New migrants should simply be required to pay the full cost of their health care requirements, or buy insurance to cover it. In exchange they should not have to pay social security tax. The same restrictions should apply to welfare and education, prohibiting new migrants from claiming taxpayer funding for either for a minimum of five years.
^
Of course I’d argue that all new migrants should be able to opt out of all such services in exchange for paying less tax, and then be able to choose to opt in after five years. Then nobody can accuse migrants of not paying their way or public services being “unable to cope”. The flipside is that existing British residents might also want to opt out – then we will see how much true support there is for the “beloved public services”.
^
The Tories wont advocate this, as it is far too Thatcherite and radical, but it would be hard to argue against. Why oppose non-EU migration if the migrants have to pay their way?
^
Labour of course couldn’t stomach the welfare state not being offered to so many potential voters, given Labour’s great love for using the state to take from the successful and give to others.
^
So the immigration itch is being scratched by the Conservatives and Labour not for reasons that are rational, but to scratch an itch that nobody admits is partly racist, but which is also discomfort about high numbers of people from African, Caribbean, Middle and South Asian origin with limited skills and funds. The concern is cultural and concern about funding welfare.
^
The answer to that problem is not to put a cap on immigration from outside the EU, but to cease claims by new immigrants on the state. When being an economic migrant to Britain means get a job, set up a business, look after yourself or get out – then the problem will reduce. When one of the key requirements to migrate to Britain is proving you have the means to return to your home country, when you sign away any right to claim the welfare state for five years, and demonstrate a clean criminal record (and deportation when you commit a violent offence), then maybe the problems attributed to immigration may be addressed.
^
Meanwhile, politicians will dance around this inconvenient truth – the immigration problem is a problem of the welfare state and allowing migration from those who want others to pay for them.

Racism means what then... the only argument the Maori Party has

Yes you know what it means - it means bigotry against someone because of their race, including in favour of someone because of race. In the context of politics it should not exist, because it is banal. Only knuckle dragging losers advance racism.

^

Racism is sometimes used as an accusation simply to provoke. The left threw it about flagrantly in the 2005 election against Don Brash, who was purely advancing the view that the state should be colourblind. The idea that somehow, given the existence of MMP, that the Maori seats could be abolished and that the state should fund according to need not race, was racism - because the racists who supported the opposing view find the use of language powerful. Marxist writer Antonio Gramsci was a strong advocate of using language as a weapon - and the left is good at it. It is called propaganda pure and simple.

^

There is little doubt that the charges against militants of Tuhoe and other descent is not about racism - but the Maori Party will use this term because frankly it has nothing else left.

^

You will lose count the number of times the Maori Party will call any government or political party policy racist in the next year - it's an easy catchphrase designed to inflame Maori voters to thinking "oh these bastards are doing something aimed AGAINST us, fuck em, let's vote Maori Party", rather than something slightly more intelligent. You know, like arguing philosophy or policy - because the Maori Party is a lot like the Green party in being clearly on the left, but is more a party of protest and identity.

^

All that ties the Maori Party together is a desire to oppose Labour and to be identified by the collective term Maori - which is not something inherent to an individual, but group identity - tribalism. It could be socialist, but that would alienate some of the more conservative elements, in reality the Maori Party is a "dog's breakfast" of pragmatists (Sharples), socialists (Harawira and Turia) and conservatives, united by a desire to keep Labour out of the Maori seats.

^

The appropriate response is to take Don Brash's idea - let the Maori Party fight on the same basis as every other party in Parliament - win a non-racist constituency seat or 5% of the vote.

^

Not PC is dead right that Winston is right about this. Winston said "New Zealanders are sick and tired of being called racists by those who are clearly the most militant racists in the country. New Zealanders wonder why a political party based solely on race is held up as the moral compass for the country. In South Africa, we called that apartheid."

^

As true as it is that Winston is seeking new support from ex.National voters alienated by the Labour Lite of John Key - he is correct- which may be why he still will have a political future after the next election!

90 years on - repent, apologise and be wary

25 October 1917 and the left worldwide got perhaps one of its biggest boosts with Lenin's revolution, overthrowing the embryonic liberal democracy in Russia to create one of the most bloodthirsty and imperialist governments in history. The Soviet Union murdered and starved over 30 million of its own, and spawned the murder and starvation of 10s of millions more - but it was cheered by Western advocates of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

^

Invariably working either as academics or trade unionists they enjoyed the personal freedom of the West to campaign for its overthrow, treating the stories that came from dissidents of the horrors of Lenin's murderous adventures as being "propaganda". Others denied the stories of horror from Maoist China, or simply ignored them, like Green MPs Keith Locke and Sue Bradford, both of whom have pasts of ignorantly sympathising with brutal dictatorships.

^

Some signs came in the 1930s when tales of the horrors under Stalin were floating out, but, like Hitler, Stalin was seen by far too many in academia as showing a new way - a strong creative state marshalling the energy of the population for the greater good. Sympathisers for Hitler quickly shut up following the war, albeit ignoring that National Socialism and Marxism-Leninism had far too much in common - both being socialist, both demanding total state control and complete intolerance for any hint of dissent. However, Stalin still had a following.

^

Some of that following was eroded following the suppression of the popular revolts in Budapest and Prague in 1956 and 1968 respectively, but around the same time there was also the swallowing of Maoist propaganda, seeing Red China as a great model for a new society - again treating the tales of misery as Western propaganda, and even the likes of Noam Chomsky, being a sceptic of the murders of the Khmer Rouge.

^

However, right through till the end of the Cold War, the West remained filled with those who looked east, so to speak, and smiled - who at best ignored the blood of those tortured, murdered, starved by the Marxist-Leninist experiment in Orwellian social reconstruction, or at worst cheered it on. Some of those the Maori Party now defends are part of this ilk.

^

Trevor Loudon, much criticised by those on the left, has so much on his blog about today's defenders of the murderers of communism that I cannot hope to rival it.

^
Those who have glorified, sympathised with or cheered on the USSR, Red China, the former Eastern Bloc, Democratic Kampuchea, North Korea, Cuba (I'm looking at you Matt Robson) can only today claim one of three reasons for their support for such vileness:
- Stupidity ("I was wrong");
- Shame ("I was immoral"); or
- Pride ("I believe in the violent overthrow of free liberal democracies and suppression of dissent").
^
The cheerleaders for bullying Marxism live on today and are seen in power in Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Bolivia, as well as the tired old regimes of Cuba and North Korea (whilst China and Vietnam transform into one-party corporatist capitalist states).
^

Neil Lyndon in the Sunday Times has said "We were all deluded. We were all mistaken. We were all - to varying degrees - off or out of our heads. We owe the world an apology and some acts of contrition. " He comments how when visiting Prague in the 1960s he "had sensed the presence of the secret police in shadows and of informers among the neighbours."

^

"Leninism has been defeated almost everywhere in the world, but the postwar generation of baby boomers who went so far left in the 1960s now control this country’s leading institutions. Their taste for totalitarian simplicities and weakness for millenarian terrors has been digested into modern feminism, environmentalism and global warming. Many remain absolutely unrepentant about their past because they have been so successful in the present (one of the sweeter fruits of victory is never having to apologise).

^

Indeed it says it all that "While the Daily Mail is routinely vilified for its prewar support for the Nazis, The Guardian’s role in cheer-leading for a succession of Marxist tyrants from Mao and Pol Pot to Cas-tro and Mugabe is rarely questioned"

^

Almost teasingly, the Guardian on Saturday had an interview with Castro, where he denies the torture or imprisonment of political dissidents - just those under the command of a "foreign power". Teach me for buying the Guardian doesn't it?

^

So, as Neil Lyndon has suggested, on the 90th anniversary of Lenin's revolution, is it not time to those who cuddled up to murderous brutality to repent and apologise for what is at best a mistake, a worst colluding with oppressors who rivalled and surpassed the Nazis in their violence and totalitarianism.

^

oh and while your at it, point a finger at those who aren't ashamed, and as what they would do with our freedoms given half a chance?