ACT stabs one of its own, favours a (former?) socialist

Just when I was thinking that ACT was looking like a seriously viable option it goes and puts out a list, and stabs blogger, former Hutt South candidate Lindsay Mitchell in the back by offering her a list place that effectively says "no thanks". Which was indeed her response.

Whilst the placings of Rodney Hide and Heather Roy are appropriate, and putting Roger Douglas in third place is a wise move, stabbing Mitchell in the back, when she has long been the voice of reform on welfare reform shows at best that politics is a nasty game, and at worst that loyalty and hard work aren't what ACT wants to be known by.

The rest of the top 10 I have mixed views on. John Boscawen has emerged after not being on the list for years, but is at least a core part of the campaign against the Electoral Finance Act and an accomplished businessman. Number 5 is a secret. Number 6 Hilary Calvert is an unknown, but a woman and a lawyer. Number 7 is Peter Tashkoff, standing in Te Tai Tokerau, showing where ACT stands on the Maori seats! He has a blog and I guess it is good for ACT to have a Maori candidate, and will be interesting to see what views he has. Number 8 is John Ormond who's been around for ages, long been on the ACT list somewhere. Number 9 is Colin du Plessis, another unknown, South African born scientist, ex National Party.

Now it gets interesting - Number 10 is Shawn Tan, Chinese ex. Green Party - which gives plenty of cause to wonder what sort of "Road to Damascus" experience he hopefully has had, although since he has spent the last few years working in unions and supporting "Students for Justice in Palestine" (which isn't quite as it seems).

Tan opposed the war on Iraq and put his name to a statement that was clearly bog-standard leftwing anti-Americanism. Hmmm great!

Now will ACT get more votes with a (former?) leftwing unionist than with a libertarian welfare campaigner? Well we'll see.

John Key's H2

A simple question.

Heather Simpson's role in the government is well known, she is the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, is regularly referred to by bureaucrats as the "Associate Prime Minister" and is undoubtedly the most powerful bureaucrat in the country - and more powerful than most Cabinet Ministers (perhaps only Cullen rivals her in power). She pulls Cabinet papers from the agenda, she vets Cabinet papers and amends them - that's an incredibly powerful role, albeit fully supported by Helen Clark.

However, does John Key intend to appoint a person to take this role? If he does it is a poor vote of confidence in the abilities of his colleagues and the public sector, if he doesn't it shows he can command a loyal crew, and he is willing to let himself and Cabinet manage difficulties, conflicts and handle strategic oversight.

What it would show is a very different form of government, and given nobody elected H2, given the mainstream media has been quite negligent in failing to discussing or debate her role in our Westminster style liberal democracy, as it openly challenges the autonomy of Cabinet Ministers to present papers to Cabinet, and centralising power in the hands of the PM, it would be refreshing to hear if John Key has a view on it.

If he DOES want such a person, it may be justifiable on the basis that many government departments will have spent nine years implementing Labour policies, and new naive Cabinet Ministers may not have the knowledge, confidence or awareness to know when they are being steered in directions that are not government policy.

Having said that though, given National policy announcements to date, I wonder to what extent that is a problem.

Transport Agency focused on state highways

Yes, a cursory visit to the website of the Labour led government's latest bureaucratic creation - the NZ Transport Agency, shows that the merger between Land Transport NZ and Transit New Zealand has created an agency that primarily puts out press releases about - state highways.

This is the agency that manages driver licencing, is contracted to collect Road User Charges, manage the National Land Transport Account (where all motoring taxes go), and allocate funding to itself (!) to manage state highways, and to local authorities to build and maintain local roads, and subsidise public transport.

When National was last in power it took away responsibility for looking after funding decisions on roads from Transit by creating Transfund - largely so that a bureaucracy wasn't funding itself over the roads of local authorities. The intention was also to make Transfund responsible for managing motoring taxes so that it could be "buying road services" on behalf of motorists, a precursor to allowing tolling and other direct ways for the public to buy road services from road providers.

Labour rejected all that in favour of central planning and now there is one behemoth of a bureaucracy contracted to collect much of the motoring taxes, allocate money from those motoring taxes and build things with it, oh and in the meantime do it really really efficiently, and spend money on roads its not responsible for.

Oh and Christine Caughey, who wants Wikipedia and blogs state regulated, is on its board.

Now this is surely something that the Nats can reverse and get back to moving road management towards users paying for services, rather than Ministers directing decisions?

Ian Wishart - really that popular?

Now Ian Wishart's blog "Briefing Room" claims that his online publication "TGIF edition" is a huge hit, with 20,000 downloads and counting. Who knows, maybe it is true and it hasn't got through to Alexa, because Alexa doesn't rank his site highly at all.

You see Briefing Room gets a ranking of 3,542 in New Zealand.
Investigate Magazine gets a ranking of 8,594
By contrast I get a ranking of 2,002.
Tumeke ranked his blog at 29th in June, and it will be interesting to see where it was in July.

I know I get on average 241 hits a day at present. Weekends dip below 200 and weekdays can regularly get over 300. To get 20,000 downloads would take around 10-11 weeks.

However this all pales into comparison with the likes of Kiwiblog, Public Address, Whale Oil and Not PC. Naturally I don't want to deny Wishart any genuine success he has, I may not like some of what he writes, but that isn't the point. The point is that either Alexa is badly wrong, Wishart is claiming success over a longer period than some may think or it's hyperbole.

What politician will take on the IRD?

Not PC blogs about the appalling case of the IRD turning its back on a written agreement regarding GST.

"In 2001, members of the Inbound Tour Operators Council (ITOC) signed formal, written agreements with the IRD about the GST tax treatment of the fees they charge to overseas wholesalers for arranging tours.

The IRD advised in the formal, written agreements that the fees should be zero-rated, and the industry has followed this advice.

Now, however, seven years later, the IRD has advised the industry that it has changed its mind, apparently because it believes it made an error.

In a meeting with the industry last week, top IRD officials said they would not honour the formal, written agreements signed with the industry in 2001 and would now seek back taxes."

So the word of the state means nothing.

What do I expect the politicians of the main political parties to say AND do about this?

Labour and Anderton- nothing.
Greens - nothing.
Maori Party - maybe say something, but not the philosophical conviction to care
United Future - nothing, remember Peter Dunne chaired the last enquiry into the IRD's practices. He is now Minister of Revenue, especially nothing to see here.
NZ First - nothing. Winston did nothing as Treasurer after all.
National - say lots, hold an inquiry, do nothing. Although Whaleoil seems to have confidence in Bill English, I hope it is well placed.
ACT - say lots and support a more strongly worded inquiry, do little.

I hope I am wrong, but I have heard words before about IRD - it's time for action. Retrospective changing of minds should not cost the public, but should cost the IRD - I'd suggest the officials who drafted and signed the letter be made liable, and pay up the taxes. It was their job to be fair after all.