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?

Labour, National and Jim Anderton - well done

Three words - TOLD YOU SO.

.

The Dominion Post reports:

.

"A dramatic increase in people being admitted to hospital with severe reactions to party pills has experts calling for urgent action... Dozens of new pills flooded the market last month, replacing BZP varieties whose sale was banned from April 1. "BZP really didn't make much of an impact in Wellington, but certainly over the past few weekends we've noticed a change," Dr Quigley said."

.

(Dr Quigley is a Wellington Hospital emergency doctor)

.

Banning BZP worked didn't it? You're all so clever aren't you? However with all three Labour parties (Anderton and Key lead the others) cheerleading prohibition, don't expect a backdown. No. Anderton is already calling for the burden of proof of safety to shift to manufacturers. Of course if it weren't for ACC, they could be sued for negligence, but none of the major parties are going to confront that little reason why New Zealand is a haven for trying out products are they?

You see unlike virtually every other country in the world, with the abolition of the right to sue for personal injury by accident, it makes New Zealand a soft touch for manufacturers. ACC socialises the negligence of others, and undermines an insurance market whereby manufacturers (and the public) would pay according to risk.

.

So banning something creates market demand for something else, which happens to be less safe, no doubt all those pills will be banned now, though it will take another couple of years. Meanwhile shifting the burden of proof to manufacturers will have implications for the vitamin and alternative remedies sector as well.

.

Clint Heine reminds us that Damien O'Connor predicted party pills would disappear, and most of you still trust 30-40% of your income with these people to buy you healthcare, pensions and your kids education?

What will get YOU angry about governments?

What is enough to piss you off at the utter ineptness of government? Look at Burma now and you can see hundreds of thousands facing death because of it.

.

Let's summarise what has happened. A devastating cyclone has already killed some 23,000 and rendered over a million homeless, what has been the primary reaction of governments?

.

- Burmese military dictatorship underplays the event, refuses to grant visas for international aid workers to enter en masse, asks for aid to be given to it to distribute;

- Burmese state monopoly TV portrays the army as the great giver of help and assistance to the people;

- Hundreds of thousands remain without aid, whilst aircraft from countries as diverse as the US and Qatar are refused entry, and Burmese embassies go on two public holidays so no visas get granted;

- The French Foreign Minister suggests a UN Security Council resolution forcing aid entry into Burma, the authoritarian kleptocracy of Russia and the authoritarian one party People's Republic of China reject it as an infringement on sovereignty;

- The Guardian reports the main news on Myanmar TV is promoting the referendum for a new constitution "State TV broadcast a video showing two women singing a pop-style song with the lyrics: "Let's go vote … with sincere thoughts for happy days"." Sickening.

.

That's right, governments are more precious about sovereignty than people dying. Of course you already knew that, history is filled with countless examples of governments murdering or engaging in culpable manslaughter of their citizens, but still many "respect" them.

.

Now, of course, the UK is being totally limpwristed about it, with the BBC reporting that UK International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander (another one of Gordon Brown's Scottish Labour mafia) saying flying aid into Burma without permission would be "incendiary".

.

Oh I am sorry, I didn't realise that the British government was so concerned about hurting the feelings of a barbaric military dictatorship rather than saving people who are being ignored by the regime.

.

So here is an idea. NATO convene and announces that it is sending in a mission to deliver aid to the ignored parts of Burma, it will provide armed cover and any Burmese military that threaten or get in their way will be dealth with. The USA is already there, France is keen, this was a former British colony, get some fucking balls and do something. People are dying and you're letting a pitiful little tinpot dictatorship decide the shots. Quite simply, ignore China and Russia, the former is trying to be helpful, but fundamentally is letting aid flow to the regime to distribute and the latter is just a criminal state run by bullies.

.

Meanwhile, if you need a reminder of what evil looks like, BBC TV has shown scenes of Burmese citizens being marched by soldiers to vote in the constitutional referendum which will secure the rule of these thugs. Yes, the army is bullying people suffering under the cyclone to vote.

Below is Aj Jazeera's coverage of what Myanmar TV is telling its population. Liars through and through. The West is somehow scared of pushing these bastards around. Still think governments are competent?

UPDATE: Oh and CNN now reports that the junta is using aid as an enticement to vote in its filthy referendum.

Labour erodes mobile phone operators' property rights

David Cunliffe has nationalised something else by stealth. It was coming, and has less publicity than local loop unbundling, but the government has announced the terms and conditions by which Vodafone and Telecom will be forced to onsell their network capacity to competitors. That means being required to offer the cellsites they developed themselves, and all of the equipment including the newer 3G networks.

.Let's remember how cellular networks developed. The first was Telecom's from 1987 which was a monopoly until the government sold off other spectrum, and BellSouth started replicating Telecom's network in 1993. Vodafone bought BellSouth and greatly expanded its coverage, built it all from scratch. Its coverage largely overlaps Telecom's. Meanwhile Telecom installed two digital networks and Vodafone retrofitted its current one.

.However Labour doesn't want a third company doing the same thing, it has decided to penalise those that HAVE built networks by making them resell them to those who wont. So there wont be any new networks (the new providers have to reach 5% of the population, which can be easily done with a handful of sites in Auckland) unless you are willing to share your investment with competitors.

.Nice one that, and will National reverse this?