Bailey's chance: our gamble

So if Bailey Kurariki gets set free, and offends again, should the victim be able to sue the state for getting it wrong that he "is very unlikely to reoffend on release"?

He apparently will get a job in the forestry industry. Yes I'd like a murderer to have access to chainsaws, saws, heavy equipment. Also an industry rife with a drug problem in certain parts of the country.

He's found "God", a bit later than when he forced Michael Choy to find out if "God" exists or not. So will Bailey tithe half of his incomes to Michael Choy's mother to compensate her?

Unfortunately he will be set free, and the outlook can't be that positive as the NZ Herald reports:

Canterbury University criminologist Dr Greg Newbold said Maori focus units helped to give young people focus and a sense of identity but the positive effects were not always long-lasting.

"It's generally the case that people come out of those kinds of units absolutely positive and feeling great with terrific ideas, but when they come out in the real world the influence of their experiences in the focus units easily evaporates."

Dr Newbold said in Bailey's case it was "a great big question mark, a dirty big guess" as to whether he would reoffend, and statistics were not encouraging.

He said 90 per cent of under-20-year-olds released from prison reoffended within five years

If he blows it, he should be back - for life. That means life. Bailey, you get a second chance because the justice system lets you - you should get no other.

and don't have kids. Seriously, you can't be a parent if your own life isn't in order, and you wont know that for at least ten to twenty years.

The saddest part of this is the message it sends to young criminals - kill a man and within seven years you can be out and free. Cool eh bro?

Want to make Air NZ uncompetitive?

So Air NZ pays its Shanghai based crew less than the NZ ones. I am sure the UK based ones get paid more. It's called a market, and presumably there was no shortage of good quality applicants in Shanghai. I guess those on the left will want pay parity - always to the highest level, which would mean paying them all like UK crew - which would kill off the routes to China for starters, and then probably kill off much of Air NZ's business.

You see the routes to China are not particularly profitable - largely because the planes are used mostly by Chinese tourists paying for the cheap seats - there is little business class demand between NZ and China. So to take advantage of this market Air NZ needs to keep costs low.

The alternative is to tell Air NZ to pay the same rate - make the routes uneconomic - and then a Chinese airline will fly back in to take advantage of the growing business, undoubtedly paying even less than Air NZ.

Meanwhile those in China who don't want these jobs could refuse of course, and China isn't exactly suffering from economic malaise. The idea that those living in Shanghai are being exploited when they are paid generous wages by local standards is a nonsense - though I doubt the Greens will catch trains all the time in protest!

Yes that's how those on the left would let it happen. Winners right?

IKEA not allowed because it would succeed

Blair Mulholland has this one dead right:

"New Zealand once again proves it is a retarded, inbred backwater of drooling, xenophobic hicks"
.
Yes, according to the New Zealand Herald the Environment Court has stopped IKEA locating at a complex in Auckland because...
.
It would be TOO successful. It would "generate traffic" (you know cars would appear out of the road spontaneously, it wouldn't be people wanting to buy something they like).
.
Can't have that can we? A successful business is loathesome. Better to reopen a railway line that will lose money than allow a successful business that attracts people to drive to it. Maybe if people carry their flatpack furniture on a train?
.
Of course the Environment Court couldn't think to blame the owner of the roads in this case, Auckland City Council, for failing to manage them properly either by not building enough capacity or failing to toll them at busy times to spread demand - no. IKEA is to blame when it is successful. IKEA pays, and so do Aucklanders who might work or shop there.
.
Well fine. as Blair said so eloquently:
.
"I'd love to blame this malaise on the Labour Party, but this one is National's baby. Fuck you very much, Simon Upton. Not even your current country of residence, noted for its fortress mentality and xenophobia, has laws this retarded and draconian. So lucky you for not having to live here and deal with the consequences. I bet they have Ikea in Paris, you bastard. I hope you choke on your croissants."
.
and so look at this New Zealand. Those who might have jobs at IKEA, or have family who might have had jobs there, as well as those who might have shopped there. THIS is what the RMA does, THIS is what Labour thinks of success, THIS is what National will do nothing about and THIS is what the Green Party cheers on - it's the philosophy of zero growth.

.

UPDATE: Elliot Who and Not PC have blogged similarly.

What might ACT do?

ACT's annual conference is coming up and, given the swing against the government, it will hope that it can ride a part of that trend. However, it has an uphill battle.

ACT has done best when it looks like National can't win. That being 1996, 1999 and 2002. In 2005 ACT's vote collapsed because most ACT voters saw more hope in National under Don Brash AND because the election was such a close call. Now it has a chance to differentiate itself and sell the message that National WILL be the next government - but it needs a coalition partner to ensure it shrinks the state. The problem is that most of ACT's supporters are so keen to ensure Labour is defeated that they will want to vote National. Unless a National victory is pretty seen to be a sure thing, ACT does not face much chance of improving its vote.

Some of us hoped ACT under Rodney Hide would be more freedom oriented than before, that it could combine it laudable enthusiasm for economic liberalism with social liberalism. Sadly it has shown only limited signs of this, although the vote against banning BZP is a positive one.

So what SHOULD ACT do? Well it is very clear that with the removal of Don Brash National has moved to the left, closer to Labour than it has been for a long time. ACT should have the field wide open, with a wide range of policy choices it can put forward.

So here is a go, and no it's not radical, it's all rather minimal actually:

1. One law for all: Abolition of the Maori seats and abolition of all race based funding and legislation. Simple, it was National policy and it should be ACT's. The state should be colourblind.

2. Low flat tax: The surpluses, although wasted by Labour, could easily sustain a combination of introducing a tax free threshold and dropping the 39% and 33% income tax rates, with company tax to match.

3. Eliminating unnecessary bureaucracies: ACT should easily argue to abolish plenty of departments and agencies, from the Families Commission, to the Commissioner for Children, Ministry of Culture and Heritage, Pacific Island Affairs, Youth Affairs and so on.

4. Protecting property rights: Ideally scrapping the RMA, but at least introducing the primacy of private property rights into it over everything else. More importantly, restoring Telecom's property rights over its own infrastructure.

5. Privatisation: Proudly stating the state should not own businesses, whether it be rail, electricity, television, coal mining or the like. Allowing the private sector to finance, build and own new roads when they see it as being economic.

6. Choice in health and education: ACC is the easy one, opening all accounts up to competition. Education could start with vouchers and setting all schools free to govern themselves and set their own curricula. Health could see a shift towards an insurance model with a dedicated portion of income tax for health - which you could opt out of in favour of private insurance. The status quo is failing and only radical change will improve that. These measures are tried and proven elsewhere in the world.

7. Repealing victimless crimes: Blasphemy, the ban on BZP, bans on cigar advertising, the list is long - but it is about working towards getting nanny state out of our lives. I don't expect ACT to advocate legalising drugs entirely, but I could expect it to advocate decriminalising private usage by adults on their own property. I expect shop trading laws to be liberalised. I also expect repeal of human rights legislation, except for state agencies.

8. Reforming welfare: Time limits for all benefits, shifting the DPB to an alimony/contract model, reviewing sickness beneficaries to consider what they COULD do, allowing state housing tenants to have first option on their homes before they are sold, making at least the first $5000 tax free, no benefits for convicted violent criminals. Eliminating "Working for Families" in favour of tax cuts. What matters is weaning people off of state welfare.

9. Fight real crime: Demand accountability from the Police, preventive detention for the dangerous, and deny custody of children from convicted child abusers, rapists and serious violent offenders.

10. Ringfence local government: Repeal the "power of general competence" and constrain all councils to specific so called "public goods". Cap rates and require councils to phase out activities such as business subsidies, housing, arts and other non core activities.

It's a start, and not libertarian, but it would be a point of difference from National and a move in a right direction.

Racism on the left

Now imagine if a Maori dominated company was overseas and seeking to buy shares in a company - imagine if a national of that country said that after lowering the value of that investment "The fact that it may annoy the Maoris is just icing on the cake"

Yet Idiot Savant is saying just that - except it is about Canadians. Yes, annoying Canadians is a GOOD thing. Evil Canadians. You see, it's ok to be racist on the left as long as you are racist when a handful of the people of that nationality want to legally buy shares in an airport in your country. The British National Party would agree wouldn't they?

No doubt he would claim this ISN'T racist. However it IS racist to want the New Zealand Parliament made up of seats that represent one people by party vote and by electorates determined by demographics and geography, not race.

Confused? Well you can't ask him directly on his blog, but it is a peculiar kind of reality evasion that the left undertakes when it refuses to be TRULY colourblind.

I am. I don't care about whether one is foreign or not, or Maori or not. It is the behaviour and what an individual advocates that concerns me.

So many on the left claim to be anti-racist, but have a deep suspicion of foreigners who do business, and positively embrace racism by those they deem "oppressed". I guess if you think of people as pigeonholed in groups, then it is hard to give up a habit.