10 more Labour candidates, 1 has any chance

10 more Labour candidates I'm profiling, and of them three have photos on the Labour website, and three don't even have candidate profiles, showing how interested they are in campaigning. Only one of the ones below has any chance at all, and he isn't Jordan Carter.

Anne Pankhurst Number 73 – Tauranga “I have an in-depth knowledge of the city and the issues facing the city along with the excellent achievements that have been made here recently, through my involvement on the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee the 50 year growth management strategy that drive’s the future development of the city. It is important to have an understanding of both the strategy and need for growth management” (sic)

What the hell is “drive’s”? Anne it is important to have an understanding of the English language. So you’re responsible for forcing construction of unwanted high density housing near public transport corridors? Control freak. It’s a two horse race between the Nats and Winston, but feel free to take pro government votes from Winston, we’ll all be grateful. However Tauranga isn’t where Labour’s party vote is strong either, 30.2% in 2005 vs National’s 45.3%. Anne wont be helping that along

Renee van der Weert Number 72 – Taranaki - King Country doesn’t even have a name on the profile page. Maryan Street got 13118 less than Shane Ardern (who got 67.6% of the vote) in 2005, and Labour got only 25% of the party vote vs National on 56.4%. No interest, no point, no chance, a Nat shoo in.

Traceey Dorreen – Number 71 – list only - no profile, no interest, no chance. Labour’s lowest ranking list only candidate. Why bother?

Jordan Carter – Number 70- Hunua. Well, we know Jordan.

“believing in the equal worth of everyone” so the murderer of James Whakaruru is worth the same as James? “I'll work hard for a fairer society with great public services, a secure retirement, a fairer share for families, and a real balance between the needs of our economy, our society and our planet”. The planet has needs!

Sorry Jordan, you wont be chosen by Hunua or voters to join the gang of thieves. Your sanctimonious tribalism is so vapid and one-eyed it isn't funny. If everyone has equal worth you’ll be happy that someone of equal worth will have beaten you. Hunua is a new seat, formerly Port Waikato. Jordan has no chance against Paul Hutchison.

Brian Kelly – Number 69 – Pakuranga – “I have been fortunate to have a successful career in health and education and am now ready to serve the wider community as the nation is looking for the next generation of leaders” Stick to your day job Brian, leaders aren’t needed, self starters are. Maurice Williamson got 54% of the vote last time, with 53.3% for National. Labour got 30.3%. Brian has no chance.

Eamon Daly – Number 68 – list only. Again, Labour’s not looking for him to be in Parliament. “I’m a youthful and energetic 39 year old who’s built a successful academic career in ICT and Philosophy.” Philosophy with a capital P? How?

“I’ve lived overseas and I’ve become extensively involved in human rights” Oh you mean political dissidents? Torture? Journalists imprisoned? “…, disability advocacy, and ethics committee work.” Ah no you don’t mean that. “Oh, and I’ve been tetraplegic and in a wheelchair since a trampoline accident in 1985”. Tragic indeed, but clearly Labour doesn’t think you’re ready to be elected yet.

Vivienne Goldsmith – Number 67 – East Coast Bays. A photo, and someone with a website, shame it's really quite banal! “I have been able to serve the many different faces of my community through the organizations I have belonged to.” American are you? The loose “z”.

“I have personally benefited from the many polices that the Labour has put in place over the last 8 years” Polices? What have the Police been doing with you personally? Or hasn’t education benefited you yet? “More people should get the opportunities that I have received.” Well give it to them, don’t make others do it. “I want to be able to get out into my community and meet and talk with people who think in terms of survival rather than in terms of possibilities.” Who is stopping you? Go to Africa, you’ll really meet those people, but you’ll meet lots who think in terms of possibilities too. Aim low and you’ll achieve. “I believe that the people of the Bays need a visual, reliable and active representation in Parliament” So someone that you can see, hmmm. Maybe that is why she is the lowest ranked candidate to actually have a photo on the site! Murray McCully’s majority was 7286 in 2005, Labour got 31.8% of the party vote, National 52.3%. Vivienne, you have no chance, and maybe your next website will have more substance than that of someone a quarter your age.

Jills Angus Burney – Number 66 – Rangitikei. No page on website. Simon Power had a 9660 majority in 2005, with 60.4% of the vote, with 46% of the party vote for National against Labour’s 36.1%. However, Jill is clearly uninterested, uninspiring and unelectable. No chance.

Koro Tawa – Number 65 – Botany. A photo!! “Botany has benefited from policies that have ensured fairness, prosperity, opportunity and sustainability.” Ensured fairness? How has fairness been ensured? Is everyone prosperous? If not, it hasn’t been ensured has it?. As a new seat, Koro has a chance, up against Pansy Wong for National. So, if Koro gets in, will he ensure fairness and prosperity for all?

Conor Roberts – Number 64 – Rodney. A photo too, but Conor Roberts is a former student union President – so expert in forcing students to pay for representation they didn’t ask for, and demanding the state make people pay more for things they wouldn’t choose to pay for. However Rodney is Lockwood Smith’s seat, he won 55.6% of the vote in 2005, against Labour’s Tony Dunlop on 24.5%, party votes went 52.3% vs 27.8%. Again, no chance, but he is one of the young hopefuls for the future, maybe he'll learn something.

Well on I go, working up the list - seeing who has a chance from Labour. I'll do the same with National, and then do electorate profiles.

Key will listen to public service?

According to the NZ Herald John Key has said that "National will expect a high degree of professionalism from the public service, part of which is telling ministers what they are not comfortable hearing...As part of this openness, policy advisers will be able to take part in Cabinet committee discussions where it is appropriate".

Now that may well help secure the Wellington Central vote, but there is something in this - and I know this only because I once worked for the public service and saw the dramatic change in attitude between National and Labour in dealing with it. Quite simple Labour didn't trust public servants, especially those from Treasury, what was then the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Transport and also Department of Internal Affairs and several others, although the more "social" the Ministry, the warmer Labour has been towards it.

I recall one Minister not wanting to see words that she considered being "New Right Business Roundtable speak" like "accountability", "transparency" and "efficiency". Others were suspicious of getting told policies were expensive or difficult to implement, advice was rejected. More importantly, political advisors became the new vetting staff between officials and the Minister. Heather Simpson being the most important, but most Ministers got political advisors quickly - to send back reports, draft Cabinet papers and the like, or request them. It reduced official contact with Ministers, it meant Ministers got what their political advisors thought they would get and what they understand. Some Labour political advisors are very intelligent, Heather Simpson being one, setting aside the politics. Others are/were not the sharpest knives in the kitchen.

The Nats may well do the reverse of Labour, believing Treasury over all others, which frankly wouldn't be a bad place to start. Most departments have evolved under Labour to reflect a more interventionist approach on many issues, some of course simply should not exist and they will justify their existence in ways that needs some tight scrutiny (Treasury has relaxed that a little over the years as Labour Government Ministers WANTED to spend more money).

Of course in the last few years the numbers working for the public sector, doing policy, have grown enormously. The quality has reduced significantly as a result - ask for objective analysis, economic appraisal, optioneering and with some you'll get a blank stare. The Nats could do worse than simply demand significant reductions in those in the state sector who prepare "advice" - the most important advice is "this is what we shouldn't be doing".

In fact the first questions that Ministers for an incoming National government should ask of departmental chief executives is this:

"Tell me all the things you currently do that have no net value for taxpayers. I expect a list within 5 working days."

"Tell me all the things you currently do that have a net value for taxpayers, that they would agree to choose to pay for from their own pocket. Give me evidence, that should come in 10 working days"

"Tell me all the programmes started by the current government, tell me your free and frank advice about them, and why I shouldn't end them immediately. You have 5 working days"

"Tell me your budget in 1999, show me how to reduce your current budget to those levels in real terms and what the consequences are if they are not reduced. If you didn't exist then, tell me why you should exist now. You have 5 working days".

Ask Treasury the same of all the budgets, and ask it to scrutinise them all.

It would be a start.

Key vs Cullen

So, John Key was at best evasive over his Tranz Rail shares, even though he had no insider knowledge, did not profit from asking questions in Parliament and indeed could NOT profit more than the average person from doing what he did.

Apparently that is a reason to call him into doubt more than otherwise. He has been foolish, because of the political uproar caused and doubts raised about him, never mind that the media will evade the true impacts and importance of the issue - it raises doubts about his willingness to be honest. Not that Labour politicians could be accused of this too!

Meanwhile, Dr Cullen has never admitted when Labour started seriously thinking about buying Toll Rail, and the advice that Treasury has been giving, over some years, as to the cost of any purchase. That involves hundreds of millions of dollars of OTHER people's money.

The 1999 Labour Manifesto did not say it would buy back the Auckland rail network.
The 2002 Labour Manifesto did not say it would buy back the national rail network.
The 2005 Labour Manifesto did not say it would buy Toll Rail. It implied that money recovered from operators would be "used to further develop and maintain the network" when it didn't even enforce such charges against Toll Rail when it was in private ownership;

Now according to the NZ Herald, an additional $380 million of taxpayers' money is being put into this "business", Labour didn't say it would do that either.

So John Key has lied and cost the taxpayer nothing - Michael Cullen and Helen Clark hasve avoided telling the public their intentions before elections, and cost the taxpayer not far short of a billion dollars. The latter isn't new of course, but if fingers are going to be pointed for evasion most politicians ought to be hiding.

Catholic school apparently bans cervical cancer vaccine

A Roman Catholic high school in Bury, Greater Manchester, has decided to not permit its students to be vaccinated against the papilloma virus on its premises. Now the report (from the Manchester Evening News) is purely about a letter, not yet sent to parents, about the decision, and nobody from the school has commented directly on the report, so it is only preliminary.

Now I would defend, vehemently, the right of the school to make this decision. It is the school's property, and parents have the choice whether or not to send their daughters to the school. Furthermore, as the vaccine is taxpayer funded, there should be other options to obtain the vaccination if parents so choose. I do not object to the right to withhold it. This is a libertarian stance - asserting private property rights.

However, as an objectivist, I find the stance itself based on irrational and immoral grounds. It has been reported that the letter announcing the reasons for withholding permission
"points out that the vaccine protects against only 70 per cent of cervical cancers, and gives details of possible side-effects to the jab".

Only 70%!! As opposed to all those vaccinations derived from the Vatican, which has done wonders in fighting cancer over the years. Now the side effects are logical to advise about, but that should then be a question of rational trade off.

The real problem the school has is with sex. "Morally it seems to be a sticking plaster response. Parents must consider the knock-on effect of encouraging sexual promiscuity. Instead of taking it for granted that teenagers will engage in sexual activity, we can offer a vision of a full life keeping yourself for a lifelong partnership in marriage".

So dramatically reducing the risk of a cancer that at best could mean a lengthy period of medical treatment, at worse death, is "encouraging sexual promiscuity". Well then by extension there should be NO vaccinations, indeed there shouldn't even be any drugs or treatment for people with STDs or HIV should there? The threat of cancer discourages sexual promiscuity.

So presumably the school and the church regards those girls who get cervical cancer as sinful, and deserving of their fate - because after all, they should have not sinned because, somehow, that protects you completely from the papilloma virus and cervical cancer. As usual, the wisdom of celibate men on these matters

Is anyone delivering the message that "get this vaccine and you can shag without protection happily"? Of course not. The message is more a case of, here is a vaccine that could possibly save your life. Nobody is saying that the risk of pregnancy has gone or the risk of HIV or other STDs. Who thinks that girls go "hold it, I might get the papilloma virus, I will wait till I'm married". Most who do wait do so for a host of reasons which are emotional and rational, none of which celibate men are really in a place to understand well. Much as they understand a "full life keeping yourself for a lifelong partnership in marriage" - an ideal I think is rather lovely, if it is sustained genuinely rather than by altruistic sacrifice.

However it is more serious than that. Women can get cervical cancer from the papilloma virus without having been sexually promiscuous. Indeed people can get HIV without having been sexually promiscious as well. Yet the school, and by implication the Roman Catholic Church cares not about that. Death apparently isn't so important that the achievements of medical science should be as widely available as possible to delay it.

Moral? Hardly. It is one thing to frighten young girls into fearing an eternity of agony and damnation if they dare wander off a certain path, it is another to deliberately deny them a means to prevent the onset of a fatal disease, so that the threat of that disease can be hanging over them if they wander off that path. So not only do they risk being punished in this life, but having that life shortened as well.

The school has every right to do this, but that does not make it immune from criticism for its apparent motives.

Number 21...

Bugger. down from a hat trick of 18, but the competition is heating up. Going to Ireland for five days completely away from net access had an effect on post, but even with my traffic going up, it is clear many leftwing blogs are coming to life. Of course I'm hardly objecting to healthy competition!

However, many have said it before and I can only reiterate a very warm thank you to Tim Selwyn for the excellent work, I am sure it spurs some of us to work harder at attracting audiences - rather like having radio ratings - except none of us has inane competitions to attract punters!