Time to cut the VUWSA off at the knees

Yes I believe in Voltaire's maxim - if Jasmine Fremantle wants to burn a flag at Anzac Day, then she should have the legal right to do so. If she wants to damn those who saved New Zealand from Japanese imperialist occupation, who helped save Western Europe from Nazism and Fascism, who helped deter the Red Army from rolling across the Iron Curtain, who helped roll back the Korean People's Army and "Chinese People's Volunteers" from making all of Korea Kim Il Sung's slave state, who helped prevent Malaysia from being an outpost of Communist slavery, who helped push back Saddam Hussein from occupying Kuwait - she can.

It is one of the freedoms defended and fought for by those who died in wars that they would rather not have had to fight.

However, if those forced by law to belong to an organisation that expresses these views opposes her, they should say so to.

Wherever the VUWSA Executive is on ANZAC Day should be confronted head on by those, who silently, tell them to go fuck themselves. Go contemplate how New Zealand would be had the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere been running for a few years - go contemplate how an OE in the UK would have been under the jackboot of the Third Reich. In fact go to fucking North Korea and enjoy the free speech there.

Meanwhile, if the government ever needed a stronger reason to abolish compulsory student union membership, it has it now.

The VUWSA can be a tinpot club for Marxist apologists for appeasement and letting fascist and communist imperialist forces impose tyranny on the world.

However, why the hell should anyone be forced to join it?

So go on - burn your flag - but enjoy the free speech of the others watching you, taunting you and telling you what childish ungrateful fools you are. I have yet to see anyone commemorating ANZAC Day glorifying war - but I've seen enough immature little "heroes" taking for granted the freedom that men and women fought for, which make any privileged little leftwing student look like a cowardly little nobody.

Oh and students? Time to demand your student fees back, to protest the university and really tell the VUWSA what you think, while it's time for a Bill to roll through Parliament.

High taxes don't win votes or attract winners

Not when you've run deficits and borrowed the country into the ground.

The Daily Telegraph reports a massive swing to the Conservatives in the latest Yougov poll.

45% Conservative
27% Labour
18% Liberal Democrats

David Cameron has a 56% approval rating, vs Gordon Brown with a 69% disapproval rating. Not that the Tories have earnt it, they are just very lucky they didn't win the 2005 election.

Expect Labour to get a pounding in the forthcoming MEP elections for the European Parliament and the selection of local body elections that are run at the same time.

Meanwhile, the FT reports the new 50% tax rate will drive talent from the City of London.

The head of one City institution with a strong private client business fumed, “What are they trying to do, drive all the high-earners out of London?”

New York must be rubbing its hands with glee, and ready to welcome an influx of talent in a year's time.

Of course the knuckle dragging tracksuit wearing "werking peeepill" will think it's fair - and as a result the Tories are not promising to remove the new tax. Oh well, let the UK get what it votes for - and watch the talent leave.

Be nice if the left were honest

Idiot Savant's two clangers this week:

1). How fair is it to increase taxes on those who don't actually cost the state money? The UK is introducing a new 50% tax rate on earnings over £150,000, he says New Zealand could "do the same" by introducing a 45% rate on earnings over NZ$100,000. Wait a second, did you see that? NZ$100,000 is only £38,000. The new tax rate in the UK is cutting in at NZ$393,000, which in NZ would mean very few taxpayers indeed, because NZ is a low wage (and largely low cost of living) country.

He says "This move would not be contractionary, because the rich tend to stick their money in the bank (or in a housing bubble) rather than spending it." Really? Not term deposits or buying shares or investing in businesses or buying high end consumer goods or travel? What nonsense, where does he get this?

"it will help balance the books while helping to reduce the inequality which is fundamentally harmful to everyone in our society" he says. Why does that inequality exist? Oh yes is it because some people are more successful and entrepreneurial than others, or maybe because a lot of people come out of state schools barely literate, get paid to breed or be lazy, and get sold a philosophy that people get rich unfairly, or that someone owes them a living?

Higher tax rates and this attitude about "equality" sells the philosophy that people who are richer owe everyone else, through the state, more of their income than those who are fiscal failures in life. The real unfairness is the vast underclass of people who spend their lives from unearnt income off the hard work and risks taken by others, ungrateful, expecting more every year, and voting to thieve more from those who pay to keep them alive.

2.) Seeing Sweden as a great example to New Zealand, forgetting of course that its education system is based on vouchers, based on ANYONE being able to set up a school, including private businesses to run them for PROFIT, and parents being able to send their children to any of them, with their tax money flowing to their chosen school.

In other words ACT policy, and far more liberal and competitive than the centrally planned, bureaucratic system he often clamours for.

He ignores criticism of the Swedish health system for chronic waiting lists. A Swedish study in 2004 reports that 77 out of 5,800 heart surgery patients died on the waiting list.

For a bouquet though, he was dead right regarding Damian Green, the Conservative MP who had his office raided and was arrested because he received leaked information that embarrassed the Labour government. The UK Labour government is beyond a joke, is tired, stinking and should go as soon as possible. My only question is whether I'll go before I get a chance to vote the bastards out.

More air security for what?

Airlines and airports think it's unnecessary, but it doesn't matter. Government security goons are keen on it, because it will mean they get more money and more power, growing in influence.

According to the NZ Herald up to 14 extra airports could get security screening, but it isn't for terrorists. No. It is to cover drunk people (who surely can be dealt with without everyone being screened), the mentally ill (who airlines should be able to discriminate against, if it weren't for the Human Rights Act) and the disaffected.

I called for a serious cost/benefit analysis of the measure, if only because I believe the delays, and inconvenience to travellers (simple things like stopping people taking water on flights) will outweigh the risk, particularly if other options are selected.

Take this comment from Ray Dumble, chief executive of Tauranga Airport Authority, who said the government is "using a boulder to crush an ant".

"To me the action is potentially disproportionate to the actual problem. But, like anything, it's a business cost which will be passed on ... in the end it will be the poor old passenger who pays."

It's simple. In the UK thousands of trains travel every day without ANY security screening, some go up to 125 mph carrying over 250 passengers at a time - and passengers are screened for nothing. If this can be sustained every day in a country with far more serious terrorism (and domestic anti-social behaviour) problems than NZ, then we can let people fly from Napier, New Plymouth, Tauranga and Nelson without being harassed because 1 in 10,000 people who fly are mad or drunk.

What business should run for free?

The news from the NZ Herald that TV3 faces fines of up to NZ$300,000 because it broadcast advertising - its primary source of revenue on a Sunday morning should raise a more serious question.

Why should any privately owned broadcasters broadcast for free?

The laws restricting when TV broadcasters can broadcast advertising are a little recognised but very real limit on free speech. Why should the government dictate when a broadcaster can sell the only thing that broadcaster has to make money? Advertising.

Imagine a cinema that had to offer free tickets on a Sunday morning, or any other business that was told if it opened on a Sunday morning, everything would be free. Indeed, imagine the internet without ads on Sunday morning - um yes, got the point?

Of course look at who brought the case - the cheerless Ministry of Culture and the Arts. People who produce nothing, who risk nothing, but use your money to promote their view of what culture and arts should be subsidised. Not the culture and arts you consume and want, no. You're forced to pay for a statist view of the world. It's wrong, and the Ministry of Culture and the Arts should be disbanded.

Meanwhile, a small step forward would be to end restrictions on advertising on Sunday mornings, as well as Good Friday and Christmas Day (the only days radio stations cannot broadcast advertisements, but I doubt most of you even notice).

If you don't like advertising on TV on certain days then you can avoid it - do something else, turn it off.