Man evicted from house he doesn't own

The Dominion Post reports how a man, who appealed to the District Court (after going to the Tenancy Tribunal) is to be evicted from the four bedroom house YOU own that he occupies. He claimed he should keep living there because it was in his mother's name (she died), and presumably was the family home (yes see how welfarism lifts people out of poverty and dependency?) - but, quite rightly so, the idea that you can inherit a home you don't own is absurd.

.

Jason Ellis - if you want to stay forever in a house, buy one. Yes I know it's hard, but imagine how much more you could have earned had you worked on getting a deposit together rather than appealing for taxpayers to keep you living off of them.

Thank you NZ Herald

For making me blog of the week in the Herald on Sunday. I only found out indirectly from two sources, but it is nice to know someone is reading.

.

The mention in the article about Judith Tizard amuses me though. Apparently I am a conservative man, and Judith said "They don't like me because I win. The greatest affront, particularly to conservative blokes, is successful women who they don't agree with". Well Judith I am far from conservative and while i don't agree with you, I am glad you think you are successful. I am fairly certain you are not exactly happy about being excluded from Cabinet.

.

Look, you helped stop the ALPURT B2 road project when Labour got elected so that the Grafton Gully motorway project could proceed as a priority instead (which worked), but given the PM was cheerleading roads in Auckland heavily from 2002 you really were not that influential especially after Mark Gosche was sidelined for Paul Swain in the transport portfolio (given he is a go getter and Gosche wasn't really up to it).

.

Road spending in Auckland was hardly because of you (though you supported and chipped in with those pushing for it), it was a government recognition of the problem of congestion in Auckland (which to be fair had been inadequate under the Nats) and the votes to be gained in building roads there. You were never Transport Minister, you don't decide what Transit promotes or Land Transport NZ (and Transfund before it) funded, given the Minister appointed Board Members that were keen to address Auckland. You did have a role with the Northern Busway, if only because there were umpteen government entities involved in getting it moving, but that was a governance problem that did require heads being banged together - and it remains underutilised. On the positive side, you can be a very fun person.

.
Anyway, Auckland Central voters appear to have a choice this year to replace you with a successful hard working physically agile (and attractive) young woman who is standing for the Nats. Given that the National caucus does need to be uplifted somewhat (Jacqui Dean??), I hope Nikki Kaye wins resoundingly.

Censors allow suicide but not those obscene boobs

It is positive that, according to the Dominion Post, the Chief Censor has allowed the New Zealand distribution of the book by Philip Nitschke's The Peaceful Pill Handbook - which is about voluntary euthanasia. It is rated R18. Jim Anderton, who to be fair has close personal experience of the tragedy of suicide, is concerned it will encourage young people to be suicidal. However according to Chief Censor Bill Hastings the law limits what can be done:

"when grading material that depicts or expresses suicide, or any activity which could cause harm if imitated, censors could only restrict material. They could not ban it."

The book is aimed at the elderly or those with terminal illnesses, it is only fair and right that this well intentioned publication be allowed to circulate. Let's not forget that one of the most widely circulated books in society has as its central theme human sacrifice.

Meanwhile the Dominion Post reports the Australian Classification Board is concerned about magazine Rushh Australia which apparently has topless photos of a 16yo New Zealand girl called Zippora Seven (above) (if you dare you can see one of the topless shots here and it is hardly pornographic) in the magazine.

.

Although the girl could legally go to any private premises she likes and bare her boobs for the hell of it (and can consent to letting people do as they wish with them), apparently she is a "minor" for censorship purposes as nudity of anyone under 18 is banned. The legal status of the magazine will be interesting, if it is deemed objectionable then it would be a serious criminal charge for the magazine, and everyone who sold it and everyone who bought it as producing, distributing and possessing an objectionable publication is a strict liability offence. You don't need to know whether an image is objectionable to be convicted of possessing it.

.

It's always been a curiosity of Angl0-Saxon culture that womens' breasts are obscene. This restriction is no doubt caught up in concern about child pornography, of which the real stuff is so far removed from this case to indicate that the law has been drafted to apply the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut. Of course, anyone arguing any different would be deemed a "pervert" because "who wants to see a 16yo girl's breasts". I'd argue that those getting so worked up about the exposure of a young woman of legal age perhaps need to look in the mirror, and perhaps ought to consider that there are probably more young women doing this online by choice with webcams (and umpteen websites dedicated to this) than ever any legitimate magazines. Remember if this law is meant to protect them, then you'd wonder why it is ok to let men of any age fondle any willing 16yo girl's breasts, but not ok to buy a magazine that depicts them. Oh and if you're concerned about the sexualisation of young girls (nobody is ever too fussed about boys which is an issue in itself), then looking at 16 year olds is not the place to start, you might look at Bratz dolls instead for those half that age!

Gordon Brown fights to keep the Union

Well although he denied Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander called for an early referendum on Scottish independence (even though she did), the Daily Telegraph is reporting Gordon as saying "I want all Unionist parties and all parts of business – employers, managers and trade unions – to work together not only to push the case for the Union but to expose the dangers of ­separation"

.

Of course the primary danger for Gordon is that he can hardly be Prime Minister of the UK if he is an MP of a different country - which he would be! The second danger is that losing Scotland would make the race for the House of Commons far closer for the Conservatives. 646 seats drops to 587 once the Scottish seats are removed. Labour would then have 315 seats out of 587 (rather than 356 in 646), Conservatives 197 (rather than 198), Liberal Democrats 51 (rather than 62). A slender 22 seat majority, but still 118 over the Tories.

.

While I think it would be sad for the Union to split, if Scotland wants independence then so be it - especially since it takes more than it pays in taxes from Westminster. If Scotland wants to be a quaint small economy pursuing a vestigial socialist experiment then fine, England will be better off without it. Sadly, a smaller UK will be less effective internationally, but Scotland will have to live without being a major power, and seeking subsidies from Brussels instead of London. Perhaps it would learn like Ireland how socialism fails and lay out the low tax welcome mat - so I remain ambivalent.

.

I wrote more strongly about it before, and believe the Conservatives should deal with the West Lothian question - quite simply Scottish MPs should have no right to vote on matters at the House of Commons that do not affect Scotland (i.e. everything devolved to the Scottish Executive).

.

So what should happen? Do Scots really want to be on their own separate from Westminster, or do they appreciate the United Kingdom? Finally, the elegant Union Jack design - what the hell happens to that if the St Andrew's Cross has to go?

The Waitangi gravy train - who will end it

No, it's not the vivid imagination of conservative punters. A former member of the Waitangi Tribunal, Dr Michael Bassett, is hardly a paragon of conservatism, being a former Labour Cabinet Minister. He has written in his latest column about the taxpayer funded claims process:

.

"Both major political parties know that what is happening is wrong, and that ordinary Maori in whose name the claims are made, aren’t getting a cracker out of the money being spent on lawyers, researchers and Tribunal staff. The spinelessness that we have come to expect of politicians in an MMP environment assists the greedy, when it was the needy we set out to help in 1985."

.

Of course you've been paying for the "jobs" involved in this process, he continues:

.

"By the time I joined the Tribunal in 1994 hearings were awash with lawyers, most on Legal Aid, with the claims before us being funded by the CFRT or the Tribunal’s taxpayer funded resources. Virtually none of the costly process was paid for upfront by the claimants. They therefore had no incentive to be careful with taxpayers’ money, or even with the Maori money that many were eventually to receive from the CFRT. Rorting the Tribunal process has become the name of the game. A whole industry numbering somewhere around 1,000 people gathered around new grievances that keep being dreamt up.

.

When politicians settled on land grievances as the cause of Maori problems they made a mistake. It would have made better sense to examine welfare and the huge damage it has done to Maori society. The Waitangi Tribunal should be scaled down. The industry is of no use to 99% of the people it’s meant to serve. "

.

However, don't hold your breath. National of course nurtured this industry when it was in power, it will do nothing now as it anxiously seeks support from the flotsam and jetsam of anti-semitics and Mugabe appeasers in the Maori Party. The Waitangi Tribunal should be wound up, claims of state theft of land should be heard through the courts, for both Maori and non-Maori claimants. However, no doubt far too many who suckle from nanny state (i.e. you) will ensure the Maori Party holds us all to ransom for this industry - and of course call everyone who criticises this as racist.

Still going to vote National? I know Libertarianz would abolish the Waitangi Tribunal, but what will ACT push for? Wouldn't things be different if National had to rely on ACT and the Libertarianz to govern, rather than the racist party?