Sicko

I pay around NZ$10,000 a year in National Insurance contributions to the British government - so, maybe you might ask Michael Moore, why I needed to go private to get surgery to relieve a chronic condition in my right leg than has been agonising for the last year? You might ask what value I get out of that money, the two GP visits at times that aren't even close to my choosing? The inability to get a decent NHS dentist?

^

Yes - the fat American man who can afford all of the healthcare his far from optimal physique will require can sing praises about the NHS as much as he likes - he doesn't pay for it - nor does it look like he wants to move here.

^

Funny that.

^

and yes I know it would be three years before i'd get the surgery in New Zealand too.

^

and before i read the kneejerk comments about whether I want an American health system, I don't. I want a system that has been reformed by transitioning all provision to be private and gradually weaning the public off of socialist style medicine to insurance based cover for all who want it.

National could get law and order right, but doesn't

I'm sure you're all terribly surprised at how, according to Stuff, the NZ Police Association (effectively the trade union for the Police) is cheerleading National's new policy of allowing the Police to take DNA from everyone ARRESTED of a crime. The Police Association, which itself has a long standing policy of resisting any reforms to improve Police accountability for performance or budgeting, has never been a friend of freedom, and neither is the Police. Let's face it, they are probably the only organisations in the country that don't know why people worry about a "Police state", because after all "you have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong".

^

Yes, how many of YOU have used that phrase whenever there is an increase in powers of state surveillance? Now I don't expect an institution which is at the front line of enforcing state violence to give a damn about freedom, but I do expect a political party which claims to give a damn about freedom to do so.

^

Why indeed - you've done nothing wrong, but somehow you have less freedom and rights than others. Of course, the Police will treat that database as an invaluable contribution to fighting future crimes because they can match more people - you see that old argument that the ends justify the means comes out. On that basis we should do more, we should require everyone to have tracking devices carried at all times so the Police can check who was where at what times, then we could fix more crimes! You have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong have you now? Of course you leave your DNA anywhere you might shed a hair, or urinate, or bleed, or leave saliva, or shag - get the picture?

^

Now if you believe Keith Locke, you'd think John Key wants a database of DNA held by the Polic on everyone arrested.

^

So what DID John Key say in his speech announcing National's Law and Order policy?

- Allow the Police to use tasers: Well fair enough to help restrain troublesome people, as long as they don't abuse it.

- Give police the ability to issue time-bound, on-the-spot protection orders: This could be highly valuable, but then you might ask yourself whether the Police shouldn't simply be arresting the people the orders are intended for? So this is worthy of discussion.

- Reinstating the previous provisions on bail to increase the difficulty of getting bail: Fine.

- Make it illegal to be a member of a criminal gang. Of course this is perpetually the funny one, brought up on talkback radio. So what is a criminal gang? It's simple, either the government defines them explicitly, and then the name of the gang changes every day, or it becomes a catch all - so anyone could be in a criminal gang, you know like a protest group that opposes mandatory censuses, or opposes drug laws. How do you prove membership? You'll find this one quietly disappears.

- Increase ease of surveillance of gang communications. Same issue really, what's a gang? Surveillance powers are already very high, what more are they going to do?

- Allow the police to remove gang fortifications. Well you would've thought that given how fascist the RMA is that this would be relatively simple, of course what it is likely to mean is that Police powers would exist to destroy any local authority unapproved constructions. Hmmm hardly looking forward to that, especially since the Nats show little interest in private property rights, once more.

- More cops. Yes yes, always makes people cheer. Might be nice if the Police are accountable for what they do, might be nice if they didn't pursue victimless crimes and might be nice if the Police Association agreed to performance based pay - but the Nats wouldn't want their favourite union to answer that question would they? You see, what would happen if any government did that is the Police would go on strike, and claim that suddenly they couldn't do all the visible policing you all care about. It's one of the toughest nuts to crack in government - making the cops accountable.

- Require DNA samples to be taken from all those arrested for offences punishable by imprisonment, but destroyed when someone is acquitted. If you can trust the Police to do that, then all very well. However, as I've said, try making them accountable.

^

If you are guilty of a crime, then it is right that as part of your sentence your DNA can be kept on a database which may indicate next time you commit a crime. Your right to freedom from surveillance was countered by you infringing upon the freedom of others. Of course I am only talking about real crimes, not victimless "crimes".

^

So what could the Nats have said?

- Review all criminal laws to repeal victimless crimes, and revise sentencing;

- Review and revise drug laws, to change the emphasis from chasing users to chasing supply to minors, and fraudulent supply;

- Introduce three strikes laws, so those convicted of violent offences are detained permanently for a third violent crime;

- Allow sentencing to include permanent denial of custody of children to convicted serious violent and sexual offenders;

- Second time murderers get life - meaning life;

- A renewed emphasis on pursuing property offences;

- Zero-tolerance for minor offences.

^

so, i might yawn....

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.