Greens campaign on irrational authoritarianism

The Greens launched their campaign last weekend, and unsurprisingly I am far from impressed. The Greens you see hold at the forefront a brand of environmentalism - the notion that nothing, absolutely nothing, could be more important than clean water, air and the natural environment. It is the notion that without that as a number one priority, everything else comes second - implied with that is the "what if you didn't think like us" impression that it is bleak.

The Greens, by using images of children, are playing with heart strings, it is a clever tactic that hides what they are really about.

The website says that it "takes advice from experts", ignoring that it listens to those who tell it what they want to hear - I've read enough banality from the Greens on transport to know that they don't let contrary evidence get in the way of their quasi religious like beliefs. Better for foreign ships to be empty plying our shores than to carry goods!

The Green website is insipidly deceptive. It paints a happy picture of people co-operatively getting on with each other - the words "ban" "require" "compel" "tax" "support" "fund", which all mean the thud of nanny state pushing people about - are absent. Sadly the Green vision, which could be achieved among themselves without politics, is big government statism. It is all about using state violence. It is authoritarianism, and blindly irrational - because most of what they believe, is about faith not fact.

Take this "The Green Party is working for a society that values caring, co-operation, nurturing, and sharing relationships between its people." That's nice, except it has a funny way of showing it. What's caring about state dominated and controlled education? What's caring about compulsory almost unlimited eligibility for social welfare payments funded by the grim hand of Inland Revenue which treats you guilty until you prove innocence? What's co-operative about wanting to ban, compel and regulate?

The Green Party"accords equal opportunity (and obligations) to people of all race, ages, and abilities; it does not value one sex above another" Equal opportunity - so the 80yo quadraplegic should have the same opportunity as the 20yo champion swimmer. The genius mathematician the same obligations as the armed robber. How do you get equal opportunity, without smashing down the chances of those with successful, wealthy, loving parents and throwing buckets of their cash at those with abusive negligent ones? Vacuous nonsense. The state should not discriminate, but that should be the end.

The Green Party "guarantees the provision to all of the basic human needs of food, shelter, health care, and education". Well give up your job, the Green Party guarantees all - from the Green Party money tree. Oh no, hold on, this isn't achieved through faith, or even "caring, co-operation, nurturing, and sharing relationships" it's achieved through the state - the state takes money from everyone else, by threat of force, to give people all those things listed by the Greens. It is a basic need, guaranteed - why bother working?

Russel Norman, Green co-leader, had some curious things to add with his interview with the NZ Herald.

He said the three key policies are:
- Reducing greenhouse gas emissions (this is simply a religious view, with absolutely no inkling that if New Zealand does nothing beyond pursue policies that don't interfere with energy efficiency, it will make a shred of difference);
- Reducing dependency on oil (by spending more money on alternatives, because outcomes are not as important as being anti-oil);
- Food safety (noticed how unsafe your food is now?).

None of these would be achieved without massive regulation and taxation. He also adds "clean water" later on, although again this isn't about private property rights and the tragedy of the commons, it is about regulation. The Greens aren't big on private property, probably because they want to control and regulate so much of it.

I've written much about the Greens the last few years. I welcome the times they actually do believe in what they call "civil liberties". They represent a more consistent voice on this than does National or ACT. I also welcome their more sane view on drugs, albeit it is tempered by the instinct to regulate, the Greens at least listen to those who say that criminalising drug users doesn't work. Sadly this has sometimes been combined with the implicit "it's cool to smoke dope" message some people got from presuming (fairly) that Nandor Tanczos smokes it. Many Green Party members have good intentions, and like bird, whales and nature - which I can understand.

However the Green Party isn't a party of science and reason - it is a party that too often resorts to hysterical scaremongering. You can see it when the word "nuclear" comes out, and more recently nonsense about cellphone transmitter towers and genetic engineering. This isn't applying science to the environment, it is applying populist hype -and you can't seriously engage on it. It is the same with food safety. New Zealand made and organic good, foreign made inorganic suspicious. If the Green Party did actually listen to science and wasn't driven by the armageddon like religion of ecological extremists I might give it some credence.

Beyond the irrationality is the hypocrisy. The Greens are the party that calls for bans, compulsion, regulation, taxes and subsidies more than any others. There is barely a corner of life that they don't want the state poking its finger in, even if it to throw other people's money at it. Whether it be television programming, food labelling, transport, education, parenting, housing, clothing, healthcare, entertainment, sport, the Greens have a policy or an approach that means the state should be involved. It is a party of authoritarians dressed up as a party of loving caring hippies.

It is an absolute travesty that the mainstream media in New Zealand has failed to point out the two biggest weaknesses of the Greens - their irrational rejection of evidence when it contradicts their quasi-religious view, and their authoritarianism. Jeanette Fitzsimons has gone through election after election without being asked "why do the Greens have the word "ban" more on their website than any other party?".

The prospect of a Labour-Green coalition government after the election should send cold shivers down the spines of all those who fear more tax and more regulation. Helen Clark wanted a coalition with the Greens in 2005, but the numbers wouldn't add up as the Maori Party wouldn't support Labour, and NZ First and United Future refused to deal with the Greens.

Funnily enough the Greens share one point with Libertarianz "we know we have succeeded when people no longer need us". Well go on New Zealand, show them you don't need them!

In that vein I am adding to my blog the "Don't Vote Greens" banner, it goes nicely with "Don't Vote Labour".

Labour candidates 35-30 there is power in the unions

Yes, apologies for the delay in this ongoing series of profiles. Now with polls showing the election a bit closer, the people listed below are pretty much guaranteed to get into Parliament. As you'll see, almost all of them have one thing in common - it's called unions!

Carmel Sepuloni – list 35: profile, no photo or website, but she does have facebook. She stood for the leftwing City Vision ticket at the local body elections for the Mt Roskill Community Board. She is of "Samoan, Tongan and Palagi descent".

“I believe I can offer the Labour Parliamentary team a valuable perspective on issues that affect New Zealanders. My personal commitment has always been to strive and advocate for equity, social justice and fairness.” Sounds like a standard Labour soundbite,”fairness”, as if government can make life fair, rather than the opposite. Such naivety.

“Life and work experience have taught me that in order to do this successfully, it is necessary to participate in all levels of decision making.” Carmel why do you need to make decisions for other people? Why?

“I am confident that my skills, values, vision and life experience will enable me to effectively serve the Labour Party and our diverse New Zealand communities.” That’s great, why don’t you tell us what they are? Oh you don’t great.

So ladies and gentlemen, vote Labour for the party vote and you get list MPs who tell you next to nothing about themselves. Great that. Prediction: Carmel has a chance of being elected if Labour gets around the vote it did when it first won in 1999.

Rick Barker – Tukituki - number 34: Profile, photo but no website. Rick Barker has been an MP since 1993 representing Hastings then Tukituki, but in 2005 lost the seat, but gained a list position. Rick’s past was as (guess) a union National Secretary, having been a blue collar worker. He is now Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister for Courts, Minister of Civil Defence and Minister of Veterans' Affairs.

“Having come from a family who valued hard work, I recognise that it is hard work which leads to strong families, strong communities and a strong society” Good stuff Rick, now let us get on with that without you spending our money.

“I have seen the changes that such policies as Working for Families and Modern Apprenticeships and the increase in the minimum wage have made in our community. I know that secure jobs and superannuation, fair wages and affordable health care are important to you.” Yes made more people dependent on the state Rick. Well done.

Craig Foss of National took Tukituki from Rick Barker in 2005 with 49.3% of the vote against 42.4%, a rather decent majority. National was ahead on the party vote too with 46.5% against Labour’s 37.7%. Prediction: Rick wont turn that around, but he has a good chance of staying in Parliament on the list.

Darien Fenton – Helensville – number 33: Profile, photo and no website. Darien is a list MP and yet another union lackey. Seriously, how many unionists need to be in Parliament?

“I believe in fairness – for workers, for families and for communities.” I believe in meanness. I mean how banal is that? Well everyone it is code for “I believe in taking money off of people who I don't think are fair" (insert 6 year old girl like scowl)

“I raised my family through the bad times of the 1990’s, when our country was almost wrecked by a government that had no concern for ordinary people. Jobs disappeared, wages declined and poverty increased.” I am a silly bint who believes governments make jobs, increase wealth and want to forget Labour was in power before that implementing similar policies because the economy had been wrecked by socialism.

The lying bint ignores how unemployment dropped and incomes rose in the late 1990s, but then that’s her job – she’s a politician - lying comes naturally.

“Labour has the best leader, the strongest track record for delivering for all New Zealanders and the best ideas for meeting the challenges ahead.” Yes the government as an all encompassing Nanny delivers for you all.

She has no chance against John Key, who won with 64.1% against Labour’s Judy Lawley on 26.9%, party vote was won by National on 55.1% against Labour’s 28%. However as we creep up the list the chances get better. Prediction: No chance in Helensville, but she’ll slip in on the list – sadly, because she’s rather stupid.

Lynne Pillay – Waitakere – number 32: Photo, profile and no website. Lynne was a nurse, who then went on to the Nurses’ Union and from there the Engineers’ Union. She has a long history in leftwing causes such as “ Equity, Paid Parental Leave, Health and Safety, Save our Holidays, Fairness at Work” so she adds a much needed union voice to a Labour caucus that has a handful who have no experience with unions.

She is the MP for Waitakere and her profile states:

“I have concentrated my energy into promoting Labour’s policies such as paid parental leave, 20 hours a week free early childhood education, interest-free student loans and apprenticeships. Families want the best for their children and that is why tax relief through Working for Families, four weeks’ annual holiday, cheaper doctors’ visits and prescriptions are important. Combined with the subsidies and assistance with home ownership through KiwiSaver, all New Zealanders have the opportunity to reach their full potential.”

So she is into taking your taxes and spending them – so another vote for socialism, middle class welfare and she knows best how to spend your money.

She won with 48.9% of the vote against National’s Paula Bennett on 33.1% in 2005, Paula was elected on the list. Party vote was 46.7% Labour and 34.2% National. The question will be whether Lynne’s socialism and her claim that she brought Waitakere a hospital and the ARC funded double tracking of the Western rail line will help maintain her lead. Odds are that in this seat, where Laila Harre came second in 2002, Labour will scrape through against Paula Bennett who will put up a reasonable fight. Prediction: Lynne Pillay will keep the seat of the Westies, though not by much.

Ashraf Choudhary – number 31 list only: Photo, profile, no website, but there is a blog in name here which almost certainly is not his! Choudhary upset some Muslims because he abstained on prostitution law reform, and then he refused to condemn stoning of homosexuals in other countries just saying it was wrong in New Zealand. He says “The Labour-led government has brought about an unflinching belief in the positive attributes that accompany a diverse nation.” Um it existed before Labour. Choudhary will get in, because he is ranked low enough, but he really is virtually useless as an MP. He clearly has some beliefs that embarrass Labour, but his presence on the list somehow attracts those of Muslim beliefs.

Here is what the NZ Herald reported him saying three years ago:
"Mr Choudhary was asked: "Are you saying the Koran is wrong to recommend that gays in certain circumstances be stoned to death?" He replied: " No, no. Certainly what the Koran says is correct. "In those societies, not here in New Zealand," he added. "

Prediction: This rather embarrassing man will be elected by those who tick Labour on the party list.

Steve Chadwick – Rotorua – number 30: Photo, profile, no website. Chadwick was a midwife, a union rep in the Nurses’ Organisation and a district councillor, so again more diverse qualifications in the Labour party.

“It has taken hard work and tenacity, but Rotorua can now boast a secure hospital, more pre-schools and education facilities, lower teacher-pupil ratios, improved community safety, long-term funding to clean up our lakes, low unemployment, improved services for young people, Treaty settlements, arts, tourism, environment – all flourishing, all thriving.”

So she is campaigning on a local record of how much pork she has brought to Rotorua. You’d think Rotovegas is booming town of success and safety, when it has a dire suburban underclass of drug use, welfarism and crime. Chadwick scraped in at the 2005 election with 40.8% of the vote, National’s Gil Stebhens managed 38.6%, so it must surely be a risk for her against National’s Todd McLay this time. National won the party vote in 2005, with 41.9% against Labour’s 36.7%. Prediction: Todd McLay will be MP for Rotorua, Chadwick will slip back in on the list of course.

So there you go, only 29 to go, I am going to work hard to get through the rest by the end of the week. See what you can look forward to with another term of Labour? See also how very little the mainstream media scrutinises who will get in with a Labour list vote?

Don't worry Auntie Helen makes you feel safe

Yes, what an image. Helen Clark, in an attack of "me-tooism" has guaranteed all deposits in NZ banks with - your money. Yes, makes you feel so much better doesn't it?

You see, Auntie Helen and Uncle Michael don't have hoards of money stashed away that they earnt from some great endeavour. No, they have your money and your children's money they can take - unless they change the Reserve Bank Act and start increasing the money supply (ohh how tempting that may be for them) and inflation.

Pity at least a quarter of the public is too dumb to know better.

Now to be fair, NZ banks are sound enough for this to be only a little more than a stunt - well, unless you think attracting foreign deposits to NZ (like what has happened in Ireland) isn't a risk for NZ taxpayers - but what is most grating is how Clark is characterising the global financial crisis.

Clark has used what has essentially been a collapse of speculation on property markets fueled by loose monetary policy as a chance to throw some supercilious bile against free markets - of course she would - she's never been a friend of the market economy, whether it be her past in picking coffee beans for communists, her declaration that "the state is sovereign" and her long standing willingness to nationalise (rail and Air NZ) and monopolise (ACC) regardless of what consumers or producers want, demonstrates how much she sees this as a chance to rub her hands and tell the gullible how much they have to feel secure - she's in charge.

It is, of course, banal nonsense. This government has wasted much money, has raised taxes (and only just lowered them), and increased spending of your money year on year well beyond inflation. To say your money is secure because of the government is like saying that the mafia keeps it secure, in exchange for that hefty payout Leftie strongarms from your pay packet every fortnight.

Look at what she wants to borrow from your children to pay for:
- A railway line from Marsden Point to Whangarei. A project so lousy that the local authorities wont risk ratepayers money on it, the profitable port company wont waste its shareholders' funds on it and no other investor thinks it's a good idea (and it has an economic benefit/cost ratio of less than 1, meaning it's as crazy as any Muldoonist scheme);
- Upgrading schools - regardless of whether it will generate better educational outcomes, but it employs the building industry (which had such a hard time didn't it?);
- Back country refforestation- probably on land you own through the state and regardless of whether it's a good idea. More blue collar jobs to vote Labour though, right?

However the look at what the PM thieving bitch had to say about those who responded to the monetary supply provided by governments and to those members of the public who sought to maximise their own welfare from the property bubbles:

"A curtain is being drawn on the era of the free-wheeling unregulated money traders and financiers whose greed has shaken the international financial system to its core. Co-ordinated international action will be needed to ensure that the greed merchants don't ever again get the chance to destroy the lives of ordinary people in real jobs trying to put food on the table for their families"

What are you Helen? An ordinary person in a real job? Since when was it unregulated? Who is responsible for the money supply? Who borrowed self-certified mortgages of up to 120% of property value Helen?

Go wage your class war somewhere else - you don't produce anything Helen Clark - everything you give has been taken by force from someone else.

Anglican church offers socialists an answer

Surrender your tax cut - voluntarily, according to the NZ Herald.

Yes, you don't HAVE to take a tax cut and save it or spend it on what you want, whilst simultaneously whining about how taxes should be higher - you can actually DO something about it.

Complaining about poverty and how the government isn't doing enough is part and parcel of so many on the left - but when they get a tax cut few ever state that they welcome the chance to spend more of their own money on helping the poor, helping their local school or hospital. I'm unsure why, because surely the most effective way of helping people is to.. actually help them, rather than participate in politics and convince people to vote for politicians to force them to pay more to.. politicians, for bureaucrats to manage to dish out to help people.

In fact, I'd suggest that all those planning to vote for the Greens, for example, who want to increase the size of the state, should declare openly what charities they will support or what individuals they will use their tax cut for.

After all, if you can't convince people to be compassionate, why should you threaten force to do so?

Which is, by the way, another measure by which I determine charities I support. If a charity ever demands more from the state, it is off the list. Ask me for money, convince me I should pay, but don't you dare go trying to get state violence to force me to pay.

Understanding Nat's tax policy

So what are the Nats going to do? It's not so simple, but it is a step forward.

The Independent Earner Rebate is a fudge for extending Working for Families to single people, which is ok in itself, but complicates the tax system. Simpler, but more controversial to do away with Working for Families altogether.

The top tax rate inches down to 37% over 2 years, and the bottom rate from 21% to.... 20%! The threshold for reaching the 33% rate moves up to NZ$50,000, which is a step forward. Be grateful for small mercies, for that is what they are. If you want more, it's clear you'll have to vote for ACT, Libertarianz or United Future even (eeeks).

On top of that the Nats are maintaining a growth in real terms in state dependency on the grand fraud scheme known as national superannuation. You will continue to pay taxes for your parent's retirement in the hope that your children and other people's children will do the same. You will continue to pay taxes "towards retirement" and your estate will get absolutely nothing whatsoever if you die the day before 64, you'll get what the state says you get regardless of whether it invested the money wisely or not.

Yes I know most New Zealanders don't understand that it is fraud, yes I know that engaging in a rational debate about this sort of policy is beyond the feeble minds in much of the media, especially television, but why increase the dependency?

Roger Douglas understood the fraud of national superannuation only too well, although his solution was not one I agreed with. For National to abandon even discussing people saving for their own retirement, shows its great fear of the Muldoonist Grey Power lobby, and intellectual and communications vacuousness.