Liberal Democrats want LESS government

Yes, just as the UK Labour Party looks like it is ready to go further to the left, the third party in UK politics, the Liberal Democrats, is swinging to the right.

At the weekend conference of the Liberal Democrats, leader Nick Clegg called for substantial tax cuts, and a shrinking in the size of the state. He says there should be a £20 billion cut in annual public spending. That's much more than the Tories could dream of suggesting. It is still only 3% of spending.

Yes the same Liberal Democrats that last election called for a new top tax rate of 50% with a 1% increase in the middle tax rate. He is facing a fight, as the Lib Dems have been infected for years by socialists who liked it leftwing alternative to New Labour, and its opposition to military action abroad. He wants to dramatically cut tax credits, subsidies and programmes that are wasteful, like ID cards.

Now this isn't libertarian at all, he wants to cut the lower rates of tax not the top rate, he doesn't want to privatise or get the state out of health and education, but it IS a vision of less state and of abandoning government programmes that fail. For a party that was all about more taxes and more state spending three years ago, this is an encouraging step forward.

The Daily Telegraph is cheering him on with its Saturday editorial:

"We wish him the best of luck. Not only is there the possibility of a hung Parliament but it is also high time that Labour and the Conservatives felt the heat of a third party boldly proposing what most people in this country want: smaller, simpler, better government."

Labour doesn't believe in this, the Conservatives are too scared to believe in it again, could it be that the Liberal Democrats are, for once, the party of less government in the UK?

Maori Party allies itself with Cuban communists!

No, this isn't Trevor Loudon investigating the past of some Maori Party MPs.

It's a press release from Pita Sharples.

Dr Sharples, who I thought of as being a man of some moderation, has said this of 9/11:

"The United States is the world leader in the so-called War on Terror. But in Cuba, for example, 9/11 is the day the people remember the Cuban Five. Those five men have been imprisoned in the United States for ten years for trying to stop terrorist attacks on their homeland that are launched from the United States"

Hold on "the people"? How does HE know this? Cuba bans all independent journalism, it strictly controls all information and a monopoly on the media. So who ARE the Cuban Five, and what did they do?

Well they are Cuban government agents, who infiltrated Cuban exile groups in the USA, as well as engaged in espionage against US military facilities. One informed the Cuban government of an operation whereby Cubans fleed on small planes, that ended up being shot down by Cuban fighter jets. They were convicted of espionage, conspiracy to commit murder and using false identification papers. These convictions were overturned on appeal, resulting in a new trial, which upheld them again, and were again upheld on subsequent appeal.

The men infiltrated this group, which the Cuban communist one party state claims is a terrorist organisation, which Pita Sharples agrees with. In fact the group assists Cubans trying to leave the country, it drops propaganda leaflets and encourages dissent in Cuba.

You see Dr Sharples - Cuba is a dictatorship, a one-party state.

Dr Sharples supports the Cuban view of the world though:

"I am delighted to support the establishment of a NZ committee for the release of the five Cuban patriots announced yesterday" said Dr Sharples. "They can certainly include my name on their list"

“The alleged crime of the Cuban Five was to try to infiltrate the expatriate groups of anti-Castro Cubans in Miami, who had been organising and carrying out terrorist raids against Cuba for many years, while the US ignored the protests of the Cuban government."

Excuse me? Terrorist raids? Says who? Oh yes the Cuban communist regime, which regards any protest march, any independent newspaper, any action by its citizens to defend themselves against the police state to be a "terrorist raid".

So - the Maori Party swallows Cuban propaganda - the Cuban Five case is at best controversial, but to treat Cuba as morally equivalent to the USA, and New Zealand, is despicable.

Then Dr Sharples adds insult to the NZ military saying this:

"when our New Zealand SAS troops confronted their enemy in Afghanistan, it was not clear to me who was maintaining homeland security, and who was fighting terrorism"

So is he really saying that the Taleban were just "maintaining homeland security"?

Is the Maori Party really the Marxist Party I once suspected it to be?
Does the Maori Party really think the Taleban are just the Afghanistan Tangata-Whenua?

Kedgley repeats her bullshit scaremongering

Yes it is this story all over again. Sue "ban it, force it" Kedgley is bleating on about telecommunications equipment being unsafe without any shred of evidence, just her nasty politics of scaring the uneducated.

"Under the new standard, telecommunications companies will be able to clutter power poles in residential areas and even next to schools and childcare centres with new cellular and wireless equipment, including satellite dishes, even if these could significantly affect their health or amenity values."

Yep, spot the scaremongering words "clutter" (because untidiness is important), "even next to schools and childcare centres" (because the equipment might hurt children - in her anti-science world of fear). Then "even if these could significantly affect their health", which they wont.

This harpie of fear uses her cellphone regularly, she makes nonsensical comments like "including satellite dishes" ignorant that almost all satellite dishes radiate less energy than a car aerial.

There is a simple rule of thumb about Sue Kedgley and science - she knows nothing about it. She is one of the worst kinds of politicians there is, one that practices hyperbole of fear, that sidesteps evidence and calls for the use of force to solve almost every problem she finds.

She's enough reason to avoid the Green Party like the plague.

Possibly guilty till proven innocent

Allegations of abuse of children by adults whose job involves interactions with children are serious - few would question this. They give good reason to investigate, and if there is sufficient evidence, take disciplinary action in terms of employment at the very least, and if necessary lay a complaint with the Police.

However, the flipside of child abuse is the damage caused to those accused of child abuse. Accusations are often difficult to conclusively disprove and paint a dark aura around a person, "perhaps he did it", "wonder if there are others", people don't trust their children around the accused. The abuse of an adult of the physical, emotional and intellectual power over a child makes most people shiver.

So the basic maxim of the English Common Law criminal burden of proof is that you are innocent till proven guilty. It being better that 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent be condemned. Sadly this fundamental principle is now being somewhat eroded in the UK.

You see, Ian Huntley, the murderer of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, had been a suspect in several sex offences. In one case he had been charged, but there had been insufficient evidence for a conviction. So he retained his job as a school caretaker. He had been, until his conviction of the killing of those two girls, innocent till proven guilty. Information about these allegations had not been retained.

So now according to the Daily Telegraph (no link), local authorities need to set up databases to contain ALL allegations of child abuse of those working with children, until either the person retires or the individual proves innocence. Suspicious till proven innocent.

The claims can be made anonymously, but there need not be a charge, let alone conviction.

Furthermore, the cases will all have to be investigated by local authority officers - yes that bastion of competence, and must find a claim is either "substantiated", "unsubstantiated", "unfounded" or "malicious". The latter two can only be found if there is evidence disproving the allegation. So the odds are that many cases will reside in the "unsubstantiated" category - neither guilty, nor innocent.

Of course this hardly helps the innocent. The innocent have a file suggesting there is an unsubstantiated claim, which naturally puts that innocent person at a disadvantage compared to one without a claim. Nice that. So you are definitely not presumed innocent.

So who wants to make a false allegation? Think of the incentives. That estranged wife or girlfriend, or the disgruntled student, can make an allegation knowing it will make the accused's life hell, and never be accountable for it - never having to appear in court to be cross examined.

Instead local government investigates allegations and unless you can prove your innocence, they remain on a file, able to be searched by employers, for the rest of your life. It appears that the UK public policy response to a horrendous crime is to erode the rights of the innocent - because after all, the safest country is the one under constant surveillance.

So it continues, until the next person not on any database murders some kids, and another way of monitoring the innocent will be found - and none of the political parties gives a damn.

Branson runs to the government again

Self styled entrepreneurial gadabout, Sir Richard Branson, is running to nanny state wanting to seek protection for part of his multi million pound business empire. This time it is Virgin Atlantic Airways he wants to protect.

You see, British Airways, American Airlines and Spanish carrier Iberia are seeking anti-trust immunity in order to co-ordinate and operate as one across the Atlantic and within Europe and the USA. This would enable them to co-ordinate, schedules, fares and routes. The absurdity that frequent flyers belonging to BA and American (both members of the OneWorld alliance) can't earn frequent flyer points on the other airlines services across the Atlantic would be removed.

The three carriers (along with Finnair and a couple of other small OneWorld alliance carriers in the northern) want to integrate so that BA can sell a ticket including a domestic connection using AA in the US, and AA can do the same with a BA connection.

The Atlantic is one of the most competitive air corridors in the world, with 42 airlines flying between the EU and the USA, and it being an open market on international routes for airlines from either market. AA/BA and Iberia have 21% of the market share at the moment, although between the UK and the US it is around 44%, and London-New York 52%.

Other airline alliances already have this anti-trust immunity. Star Alliance, which Trans Atlantic means United, Lufthansa, US Airways, BMI, SAS, TAP, Austrian and Swiss, has 35% of the traffic Trans Atlantic. Skyteam, comprising Air France/KLM and Delta/Northwest, has 28% of the market.

However, Branson cries foul. He claims it will create a "monopoly" which of course it wont. He's making it up, playing his favourite role of the hard done by little guy, who only wants what's best for himself consumers. You see Virgin Atlantic isn't in any of the alliances. It does do codesharing and co-ordinates closely with BMI and Continental Airlines. However, out of the nine airlines flying between Heathrow and the US, Virgin Atlantic has the second largest operation.

He complains that it would put 51% of landing slots at Heathrow in the hands of one conglomeration. Hardly a monopoly, especially since Skyteam holds 73% of the slots at Paris Charles de Gaulle and 85% at Amsterdam Schiphol, while Star Alliance carriers hold 80% of Frankfurt. All BA, AA and Iberia want is the same as its competitors - Branson is moaning because his airline is independent and he doesn't like competing. You see, unlike BA, Virgin has no flights within Europe - so no wonder BA is bigger, Virgin doesn't even operate in competition with it on many of its routes.

However, the best response to Branson is the one I saw from Willie Walsh -BA's CEO - in the Daily Telegraph on Friday.

"He knows a good deal about monopolies. With help from taxpayers, he has run a real one on fast trains between London and Manchester since 1997. And now he is talking about establishing another one by taking over Gatwick airport."

Yes, Virgin Trains has a monopoly on passenger rail services between London and Manchester, it has done this with millions of pounds of subsidies - that's real entrepreneurship isn't it? Branson says he wants to buy Gatwick airport, from which BA and AA both operate very few Trans Atlantic services.

So go on "beardie", compete. You did well earlier this year when BA's troubles at Terminal 5 coincided with the opening of a major upgrade to your part of Terminal 3 at Heathrow. You could tie up closer with BMI. In other words, you could compete your way to success, not moan to the government.

For all that, I'm giving your airline another shot in a couple of months time - Heathrow to New York. I hope it's better than last time!