New Zealand election 2011 - party vote options

Whilst I traditionally write about the political parties and their relative interest in freedom, that might read a bit like a cracked record.  It's obvious Libertarianz is the party most committed to individual liberty, private property rights and economic liberty, setting aside that the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party would leave everything the way it is, except for legalising cannabis.  If freedom matters to you, your vote will really only be a debate between whether you support Libertarianz or ACT (or ALCP if cannabis is all you care about), which is a matter of whether you support a pure vision of individual freedom or a diluted vision, which has a reasonable chance of getting MPs elected.

That decision is one for another post.  For now, I want to quickly go through the parties that are standing lists, with a summary of my view on what they all mean, and their chances, in alphabetical order:

ACT - Most have forgotten that ACT stands for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, and I suspect most forget ACT was spawned by defectors from the Labour Party.  As much as the angry left might seek to ex.communicate them all, the simple fact is that Roger Douglas convinced more than David Lange and Richard Prebble of the wisdom of free market reforms.  Stan Rodger, Koro Wetere and yes Phil Goff, along with David Caygill, Michael Bassett and Bill Jefferies all bought into it.  Helen Clark willingly entered Cabinet and supported the reforms at the time.   Since then, ACT has picked up political refugees from National and most recently has been remodelled after a coup against Rodney Hide. 

The decidedly mostly libertarian Don Brash (his remarks on cannabis are notable) faces tension from the more conservative wing of the party in a final dash to make a real difference, given that the past three years have been disappointing (indeed was the greatest achievement voluntary membership of student unions?).   A party vote for ACT is, first and foremost, a vote for Don Brash to help keep the Nats from going backwards (John Banks is not first on the list, but rather fourth), with Catherine Isaac deservedly in second place (notwithstanding the late Roger Kerr's passing), and Federated Farmers' ex.leader Don Nicolson in third.   ACT is finally with a leader who is unafraid to talk publicly about personal freedom (and with considerable personal integrity). An honourable vote for the freedom lover, if you can hold your nose regarding John Banks and the odd policy about Fiji.   My prediction is ACT will scrape through, with three seats, one being Banks.

Alliance - Oh how the mighty have long fallen, and the true believers keep the faith.  Again, I am sure few remember the Alliance was a merger between Jim Anderton's New Labour Party, the Greens, the Democrats (followers of the wacky "Social Credit" faith) and the "original Maori party" Mana Motuhake.  The so-called "Liberal Party" of the erstwhile Gilbert Myles also joined in.  Of course it was the Jim Anderton party, and in 1993 Jim won his seat, along with Maori radical Sandra Lee, and the party gained its highest ever support that year - when those who voted Alliance knew it wouldn't mean the party getting into a position of power with 18.2% of the vote in a First Past the Post election.   The Alliance dropped to 10.1% in 1996 under MMP with 13 seats (including such intellectual giants as Pam Corkery, Liz Gordon and Alamein Kopu), in 1999 it dropped to around 7.7% and 10 seats having lost the Greens in the first divorce - but gaining coalition with Labour.   However, then the solidly socialist ideals proved too much.  In 2002, there was a second divorce, with Jim Anderton setting up his own personality cult party taking his seat with him, leaving the Alliance to the power crazed Laila Harre (that's another story) who failed to get the workers excited enough to do more than steal her billboards, with only 1.3% of the vote.  2005 and 2008 have been disasters. 

The Alliance faces too much competition on the left, with the Greens and now the Mana Maori Party both likely to get elected, why vote Alliance if you're a socialist, unless you're neither a radical environmentalist nor a Maori ultra-nationalist?  Still there is buckets of force and state violence in the manifesto, with much more tax, renationalisation of Telecom, airports and power companies, bans on any serious foreign investment, compulsory wage rises to match inflation and masses of new regulation and massive expansion of welfare.  Hilarious to think people believe this.  However, with the competition it faces, I predict the Alliance will have its worst ever showing and wont manage 1,000 votes this time.  The party list and leadership says it all really.

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party - Michael Appleby perenially standing for legalising cannabis.  No other policies.  Yes, it is one I agree with, so yes if for you freedom just means legalising cannabis, then tick the leaf.  Honourable mention to Richard Goode, number 9 on the list, former Libertarianz candidate and a principled man.  However, the ALCP peaked in 1996 with 1.66% of the vote, since then the Greens have cannibalised the cannabis liberalisation vote, although there was a minor gain in 2008 given the departure of Nandor Tanczos.  As sympathetic as I am to the single issue, I think having MPs who will spend three years on one issue as a waste, and I'm unconvinced that there is any point voting ALCP.  I expect ALCP might pick up a few more votes this time, given Labour has little chance of being in government and the Greens are ignoring the cannabis vote, but the impact will be zero. Yet if ALCP members joined ACT or Libertarianz? (but then they would have to reject the welfare state)

Conservative Party - Effectively the successor to the Christian Heritage Party, Family Party and the Kiwi Party, without the disconcerting branding (and hypocritical leader).  Besides the second party with a Kevin Campbell as candidate (the Alliance has one), and the unremarkable ex. United Future MP Larry Baldock on the list, it has not much of note.  To be fair, I agree with some of what it says, some useful points on welfare and law and order, and there is a distinct lack of much to do with religion, abortion and sex.  However, the war on drugs is on as far as this lot is concerned.  On top of that, Colin Craig's intellectually lazy press release in response to independent candidate Stephen Berry says a lot - a new bunch of control freaks who want to criminalise alcohol consumption.  There is nothing new here.   The law and order emphasis already sits with ACT, along with being tough on welfare and repealing ETS.  What's left is smacking kids and toughening the law on alcohol.  Given the Kiwi Party gained 12,000 or so votes last time, this party may well get quite a few votes, but it wont come near getting a seat in Parliament.  Frankly, unless telling people what to do with their lives is your thing, I can't really see the point of voting Conservative.  I estimate it will pull in about 10,000 votes though as it reaches through churches and with a lot of money to spend on electioneering (and because there are easily that many frustrated busybodies around).

Democrats for Social Credit - Not to be confused with fascists for Social Credit of course.  It is an oddity that New Zealand has sustained a movement based on the bizarre ravings of the vaguely anti-semitic Major Douglas (if you haven't heard of them, don't worry, he only got a following in parts of New Zealand and Canada).  If you study the "A+B theorem" long enough you will go mad.   So are the policies of this lot.  It include some heavy handed xenophobia (foreign investors beware, except this lot have no chance), and yes it is funny money.  You'd have to believe in conspiracies to think this all makes sense and that the only reason it doesn't happen is that there are forces out there stopping it.  It's an embarrassment of New Zealand's political history that doesn't die and was only sustained because nobody else could be bothered sustaining a third party during the hey day of First Past the Post, other than these "true believers".   Ironically, the global financial crisis will have given this lot some backbone, so expect another 1,000 votes or so to be thrown at this, truly one of the religious based parties.  If you encounter one of this lot, try debating and see how far you get before he or she resorts to conspiracy based arguments.

Green Party - The most successful big government, pro-state violence party, which is getting a boost as leftwing statist voters abandon Labour and go for what they really want.  The Greens benefit from a friendly cuddly brand that suggests panda bears, trees, clean air and oceans, whereas behind that is a rampant series of policies designed to tax and regulate, including state supervision of whether newspapers are acting "in the public interest".  If that doesn't send a chill down the spine of any human rights advocate or believer in freedom, what does?  The Greens have advocated nationalisation of children as promoted by neo-Stalinist Cindy Kiro ("cradle to grave monitoring of people"), includes the obnoxious prick Russel Norman, the woolly headed lunatic Catherine Delahunty and with Marxist Keith Locke and control freak Sue Kedgley retiring, adds new lovers of big government such as Eugenie Sage (environmental radical), Sue Bradford acolyte Jan Logie, anti-American Steffan Browning, unionist Denise Roche and spin advisor Holly Walker.  Not a long list of achievers, but certainly a bunch to support the Marxist "we know best" policies the Greens promote.   I suspect the Greens might pull off around 8% of the vote this time, a record amount, but will only do better if they aren't seriously confronted and Mana doesn't siphon off votes on the left (along with ALCP now the Greens are quiet on cannabis).  It will largely depend on how much of a free ride they get from a docile sympathetic media.  There is nothing honourable about voting Green, unless you get a thrill out of pushing other people around and feeling self-satisfied.

Labour Party - The government in waiting, which will still be waiting.  A solidly centre left-wing party, believing in government providing solutions, led by a man who isn't too unsympathetic about ACT, but who has hoisted himself to a career that he probably suspects, has reached its nadir.  Andrew Little, an annoying little leftwing unionist, is the highest placed non-MP on the list.  Labour may claim to be more frugal, but is trying to sell capital gains tax, which will be one of its downfalls.  Still, it has a chance of governing, if a coalition of perhaps the Greens, Maori Party, NZ First (!), Mana and Peter Dunne might be cobbled together.  Labour is partly dependent on unionised civil servants and on welfare beneficiaries who want to keep the tap.  It does have an honourable history of reform.  Let's be honest, Labour makes more reform than National when in power.  However, only in 1984-1990 did it largely do any good on that front, and the results were mixed.   Labour has a large tribal vote, by that I mean hundreds of thousands who vote Labour because it's in the family and because they think the alternative means National - a party they instinctively think is "for the rich" and "against them".  If only many of them started to realise that the only person they can rely on is not a politician, and certainly not a political party that says it will "do things for them", but themselves.  Yet, I think Labour will be lucky to reach 30% this time round, although Helen Clark survived getting 28.2% in 1996, Phil Goff must know his role is almost certainly to be the fall guy.

Libertarianz - Still surviving, still declaring the unabashed belief in the freedom of the individual, private property rights and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and private property.  I need not say more, as I've been a member for 13 or so years.  Still the only choice for those who believe in much much smaller government, so government exists to protect people from the initiation of force, not being the chief perpetrator.  Libertarianz face the challenge of ACT led by Don Brash, but the opportunity presented by National looking like a sure thing is for freedom lovers to see they can vote for what they really want.  Indeed, ACT voters who can't stomach John Banks have a natural home in Libertarianz.   Of course I'd like Libertarianz to get 12,000 votes, a 10 fold improvement on 2008 - it would only take a small fraction of past ACT voters to give the tick to freedom.  However, I suspect the actual result will be closer to 1,200 than 12,000.   And no, it is NOT a wasted vote to vote for what you believe in.

Mana - The new far-left party, making the Greens look centrist and the Maori Party look not so racist.  This is Maori nationalist socialism, with massive state transfers from the successful to the not so successful, serious controls on tobacco and alcohol, and if you claim Maori ancestry, expect the state to smile upon you more than others.  It has Annette Sykes, who once noted a risk of terrorism in the quest for Maori sovereignty, although she reassured Maurice Williamson she didn't support such action.  The same woman who said she cheered when she saw the news about 9-11.  Hone Harawira himself once said "Our fight for a better world will only be won . . . when the white man comes home", and who cheered Osama Bin Laden as a "freedom fighter".  This is truly the vile party, the party that isn't just about state violence, but sympathises with those who have used terrorism and has candidates that no only have cheered mass murder, but also empathise with Islamist misogynistic totalitarians.   He said ACT policies are like that of Hitler.  This is the politics of the gutter.  Hone Harawira will no doubt get elected though, but will there be enough votes to get a second candidate?  I think probably not, and if the media did its job thoroughly enough, it would treat this party as what it is - the Zanu PF of New Zealand.  Mana makes the Greens look honourable, which quite frankly in comparison, they are.  A case for abolishing the Maori seats if ever there was one, but that would be painted as being like the Holocaust.

Maori Party - No party list seats going to be won here, but it wont win back Hone's seat and will probably lose another.  National's other partner in government, that wont tolerate talk of colourblind government, but which only exists because of the Maori seats.  Is a party for Maori a racist party? Well it is a nationalist party, and a party that is driven by what it sees as the interests of one race, one nationality, by definition.  Not exactly a friend of freedom.  Essentially a breakaway from Labour that is more focused on pragmatism than political tribalism, but as such will probably suffer from having supported National and the loss of its radical wing to Mana.  3 seats with less than 2% of the vote.

National - If you're happy and you know it, tick National.  So if you don't like change and you thoroughly approve of the confiscation of private property and the grotesque mismanagement of Christchurch since the earthquake, then tick National.  Frankly if you claim to be pro-business, pro-property rights and believe in small government and vote National you're a fucking hypocrite or a fool.  I am convinced this debacle is mostly due to Ministers taking the advice of officials and letting council and central government bureaucrats do as they see fit.   It's a disgrace and is destroying downtown Christchurch.  Don't vote National if you believe in property rights, don't vote National if you are in any city and fear what government will do in an earthquake or volcanic eruption or any other major disaster.   The proof is clear - government will run roughshod over those who fund it.

NZ First - The "Asians are coming" party (with an Asian candidate just to "prove you wrong"), which so disgraced itself in 1996-1998 with politicians who were people so inept they sought and enjoyed the baubles of office, and then again in 2005 when Winston didn't want baubles, then became Minister of Foreign Affairs.  By natural attrition, NZ First will probably grab 3% of the vote this time as the slippery short arse Winston proclaims how "unfair" the media is.  Tired populism without the real commitment or modern campaigning skill to really get there again.

United Future - Peter Dunne might scrape through again, having survived common sense, religious conservatism and supporting Labour and National in government, but it's going to be touch and go whether the party vote drops so far that he is an overhang MP.  Nothing to see here because Dunne will go whatever way the wind blows, so voting United Future means you don't care whether Labour or National is leading a government, and you don't mind either so much you want to change them, which means you don't really have strong views on anything, except maybe Transmission Gully, drugs and the creation of the "award winning" Families Commission (oh and outdoor recreation, lots of policies on that).

So that's it, the full spectrum from authoritarian racists to freedom lovers, and all sorts of blends in between.  Don't vote National, it doesn't deserve it.  Don't vote Labour, you're better than that.  Don't vote for lunatics (Social Credit), control freaks (most of the above) or those seeking to pander to the worst in you (Mana, NZ First).  A party vote should express your political philosophy, what do you want government to do.  If the status quo is National, you have a lot of choices for government to do more, and it would appear only three to do less. 

Asset sales bad, asset purchases good?

A simple, impertinent question, to ask all those on the left of the political spectrum in New Zealand.  Labour, the Greens, Mana, NZ First (socialism can be nationalist) and the Maori Party.

You are all trying to scaremonger, use barely shrouded xenophobia to frighten the average voter into being opposed to the government selling assets.  The first thing you all emphasise is that "foreigners" will take over, with the implication that foreigners will be out to rip off consumers.  Even in competitive sectors (like electricity, which has five suppliers, or aviation where Air NZ ran 100% private for 12 years, including 4 years under a Labour government).  The implication being the foreigners are devils, unlike the benign, beloved New Zealand government.

The second thing you do is contradict yourself.  Whilst you imply that the assets you want to keep provide cheaper services (and goods if you include Solid Energy) than they would if owned by foreign devils, you then say the government will be losing out on lucrative revenue.   Hold on.  This lucrative revenue comes from the consumers you don't want ripped off.   Are you implying the government could make more money from consumers that it does now from these assets (given you think the government making money from selling goods and services is a good thing), or that taxpayers (the people who effectively carry the liabilities, but don't directly carry the benefits) are getting a lower rate of return than they would have done, had you simply gone out and bought them shares on the stockmarket on their behalf (or better yet, let them invest the money themselves)?

However, your biggest contradiction is in your attitude to the two sides of the government asset ledger.  The government buying assets has considerable costs.   

Labour bought Kiwirail at a price well in excess of its market value, and subsequently Labour and National have spent over NZ$750 million - which is greater than the purchase price itself, in buying more "assets" for the business.  This is money that has come from borrowing, it is money from taxpayers pockets, and is money that is almost certainly never going to be recovered ever from them.  The main beneficiaries of this are the foreign (devils they are not now) businesses who manufacture these assets (don't even start claiming you can make tiny short runs of trains in New Zealand when mass production of cars is grotesquely inefficient on the scale of a country this side), and the small number of New Zealand businesses that benefit from rail freight being effectively subsidised (Fonterra, forestry companies, Solid Energy, freight forwarders, shipping companies).  Why is this good?  Don't use words like "strategic", "environment", "future-proofing", use financial measures, like you use for asset sales.   Why can't you?   Why don't you consider the enormous transaction costs of that purchase, and the Air New Zealand transaction? 

Beyond that obvious example, there is Kiwibank, Air New Zealand and indeed any capital expenditure by the state in any sector.   You don't seem to care when the state increases its pool of "assets" (regardless of whether they raise revenue, most don't), you don't care whether consumers get a good deal from those assets or their owners,  you don't care whether taxpayers make money from them.   

In other words, you don't apply the same standard to asset purchases as you seek to apply to asset sales.

Is that because you are all really full-blown socialists who believe in public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and like the growth of government ownership of the economy?  (surely you don't all think like that?)  

Or is it because you are conveniently using this rather modest policy (yes National doesn't have many that are easy to argue or communicate), one that in almost every OECD country would be considered relatively benign and inconsequential by the political mainstream (far-left and far-right excluded), to bait the rather deep seated xenophobia and "tall poppy" suspicion of quite a few New Zealanders, who are inately suspicious of foreign business people, and subscribe to the Muldoonist paternalistic feeling that you can't really trust business people to "see you right"?

You want to frighten people into thinking that foreigners will rip them off, will "asset strip" these "great assets" and the country will be "worse off" because people like you don't control them and don't spend the money raised by them.  You like them to believe you are better at spending their money than they are, and that you're a kinder gentler business person than they are.

In other words, aren't you all just playing the Winston Peters card?

New Zealand electoral system referendum 2011

I have to admit I have had some difficulties deciding what to do about this one. This will be my second electoral referendum this year, having voted for the UK electoral referendum, which was a straight choice between FPP and a form of PV (FPP won overwhelmingly).

In the 1992 referendum I voted for no change, but also voted for the Preferential Voting system for change. Why? Well having experienced eight solid years of reformist free market governments, I was pretty happy with first past the post. I also saw the minor parties that were heaving in the polls being what they were. A xenophobic personality cult called NZ First and a lying mass of Marxist reality evaders called the Alliance. I also saw the Christian Heritage Party as the only other one sitting on the sidelines and wanted to avoid Graham Capill like (well you fill the gap). FPP looked like it delivered strong stable government, and MMP was backed by everyone who opposed less government, by those who opposed reforms largely now taken for granted. Preferential Voting was the “least worse” option, and after all it could be argued that a representative electoral system ought to have every MP gaining at least 50% of the vote. 

Much has happened since then, but I am hoping that simply writing this post will clarify my own thinking, as I have not yet decided how to vote. Given I studied electoral systems as part of one of my degrees, I think I have a fair background on all of the options, so here goes. 

The first point to remember is that electoral systems are about counting heads, not what is in them. Some people, across the political spectrum, laud democracy as something rather special, when it is, as Winston Churchill once said, the worst form of government ever devised – except for all of the others ever tried over history. The reason for that should be obvious. There is nothing inherently good, right, whether pragmatically or morally, about what the “majority think”. After all, if you accept that the bulk of the population has average intelligence and abilities, then the majority involves pandering to average people. Indeed, it also means that the most successful, able and intelligent (not always the same) are valued as much as the least successful, able and most dim-witted. It doesn’t take too much to figure out that untrammelled democracy can mean the majority vote to oppress the minority and take from them. 

A simple view is it is like three wolves and a sheep voting for what they’ll have for dinner, but if you look at most politicians, most of what they promise during elections is to take from someone to give to another, although they are usually astute enough to focus on the giving, and ignore the taking. If governments can just spent and borrow and pass the bill to the next lot, then inevitably someone will have to make tough decisions. Greece and Italy are examples today of democracy failing, because people voted for politicians who gave them what was unaffordable. Now they don’t want to vote for politicians to make them face reality. Democracy isn’t good at getting politicians to make difficult decisions, or rather decisions that involve not giving people bribes. Mencken said elections are an advance auction of stolen goods. He was right. Imagine if Churchill had asked the British public if they were willing to go to war against Germany. 

So I take a dim view of democracy anyway, in part because I know my opinion has a higher value than anyone else’s. If you don’t think the same way about yours, then you’re probably right as well. I simply don’t accept that my opinion can be reduced to it being counted the same as some half-brain dead nitwit who votes for John Key because “he’s pretty cool”, or who votes for Winston Peters because “she doesn’t like the Asianisation of the country”.

However, democracy DOES have a useful role – which is to remove governments. It is a limit on government because ultimately it offers one control on what governments do, by giving voters the chance to boot them out. In fact, if you look at recent elections, it is clear that 1999, 1990 and 1984 elections were exactly about that. Politicians and activists about electoral systems are almost always driven by their partisan views. The left love MMP because of the success of the Greens and the various Maori parties, the right don’t because it has seen the likes of NZ First emerge, and because ACT has done badly (and the conservative right has failed miserably too). So ignore them all, they are self interested wanting whatever system helps them gain power or blackmail power or whatever.

I have a different approach. To be honest, it is not something I get enthused about, beyond the basics of how the systems deliver different outcomes for the same votes, but also encourage different behaviour. Yet it is a chance to shake things up a little, so what is it I want from an electoral system?

I’d like an electoral system to enable individuals to be removed from Parliament, and MMP isn’t very good at that, because of party lists. Look also at what MMP does to electorate votes. In most seats, they are now considered irrelevant. However, in Epsom, Ohariu and the Maori seats, they are critical. Indeed they allow for an overhang for the Maori Party that over represents its support. Now supporters of MMP will say that these can be dealt with by tweaking it - such as removing the electorate threshold to let party votes count, or abolishing the Maori seats, but these aren't on offer. 

So I will vote to change the system, but what to?

First Past the Post is easy, but it does create constituencies where MPs win with a minority of the vote, and others where they are so dominant that it renders the voting by others to be irrelevant. Electorate boundaries are artificial constructs anyway, so FPP is far from satisfactory. Why should your vote be less valued because you are on one side of the road and not the other? It would make the National Party comfortable, but why is that a good thing?  FPP did bring Muldoon and brought decades of stagnant do nothing government.  It also brought Social Credit as the stubborn third party of weirdness.  However, FPP most of all means that a lot of people who got a minority of votes get power.  No, I'd rather not support that.

Preferential voting does away with the minority voting for a representative, and it also means every vote counts. You can choose someone who doesn’t win, but then rank your options. This has some appeal, but even at best I can’t see me ranking more than 3. Again though, it becomes a matter of electorate boundaries as to whether this works. Yet it would deal to the Epsom, Ohariu, etc problem. In Epsom, those who don’t support John Banks wouldn’t have to vote for the National candidate, but could vote for the candidate they prefer. Similarly those who would prefer the National candidate but would rank Banks second, could do so as well. Ohariu has a similar scenario. Maybe National voters would rank Peter Dunne second and keep him elected, or maybe most Ohariu voters don’t want him and would rank 1st and 2nd those who oppose him. Tauranga could have got rid of Winston Peters quicker as well. So you see, there is some appeal in this option. 

Supplementary Member is a watered down version of MMP, so on the face of it less list seats, but all this does is reduce the effect of the smaller parties. The main advantage I see is that the list seats will reflect party votes, but this wont be affected by the electorate seat wins. Electorates suddenly become important again, and it gets rid of the “win an electorate, get some party seats as well” distortion that exists now. ACT, NZ First and others would apparently need to get 3% of the party vote to get a seat, but as Parliament would be dominated by FPP seats, it would make only a small difference. 

STV gives you multiple member constituencies, but rather big ones. Some will baulk at huge constituencies, but frankly I couldn’t care less. It will make constituencies a little less partisan and parochial, but also means people can call upon multiple MPs to “help them out” (something I haven’t really understood, because I largely wouldn’t trust an MP to fix anything for anyone in a way that would appear to be neutral). It will mean that all MPs are actually accountable to voters directly. Party lists will not predetermine who gets elected, but voters will. What that really means is voters can remove them as well. STV means voters can rank candidates in preference, just like PV, or can just vote for the party’s list of candidates for a constituency. Candidates who get a majority of votes get elected, just like PV, whereas the remainder get elected based on preferences. In conclusion, I believe STV would be worth voting for. It makes all MPs people elected directly, even if from preferences, rather than MPs selected from lists developed by parties. In other words, voters can remove those they don’t like. It makes electorates important again, but greatly increases their size so that parochialism becomes less important. 

There is one test I haven’t applied. Would it get more Libertarianz candidates elected? Well actually no. I am certain FPP and PV would not help that. SM might, because the threshold for a seat would be only around 3% compared to 5% today. STV I don’t believe would make any real difference to MMP on that front. However, I believe the advantages of STV, more generically, outweigh MMP enough to make it worthwhile of some attention.

Finally, what about the concern of coalitions vs one party government? Frankly I don't care that much. One party government can achieve good or bad, coalitions can as well. What matters is who gets elected. Yes MMP and STV both give the Greens a better chance than SM, PV and FPP, but they do the same to ACT and Libertarianz. I'm not sufficiently enamoured by the two big parties to want to trust them with one party government, besides would Helen Clark have acted any differently had she not been in coalition? I doubt it. So I'm going to say vote for change and vote for STV. If you want preferences, then an honourable second choice would be PV, as it would give constituents a bigger chance to remove MPs they don't like than either MMP or FPP. I'd rank SM in third place, as a way of reducing the threshold for small parties, though it also reduces their influence. Finally, I rank FPP last. I simply don't believe returning to two party politics would help advance freedom any more.

Refurbishment

It's been six years since I started blogging, and since I've been getting older, wiser and less angry, I decided it was time for a refresh.  So I've brightened it up and gone through my links and deleted the ones that don't work and relegated those that haven't been updated for ages.  I'm going to add some new ones and new categories, since I am now almost as much British as I am Kiwi. 

oh and in the meantime, it's time to get serious about the New Zealand election, because far too many don't realise that their little chance to have their say, can be an expression of what they really think, not just a choice between two devils.

ACT should push Brash for North Shore

I've said before that ACT under Don Brash could be very promising, but policies to date have been disappointing.

However, let's look at the bizarre spectacle the whole National-ACT scene is as of late.

ACT came from the Backbone Club, a branch of the Labour Party upset that Roger Douglas had been hounded to the boondocks, and had Douglas's book "Unfinished Business" as its bible.  Douglas proposed abolishing income tax, replacing it with GST and a host of compulsory insurance policies for pensions, health care and education.

ACT didn't have a natural leader, until Richard Prebble lost his seat in 1993 to radical Alliance MP Sandra Lee.  ACT by then had started attracting National Party interest after Jim Bolger unceremoniously knifed Ruth Richardson in the back (Bolger after all, having once been an acolyte of Muldoon).  As we fast forward to 2002, John Key entered Parliament at a time when National, under Bill English, had its worse ever election result.  Less than 21% of the vote, and only 27 seats.   Don Brash also entered Parliament at that election, as a list candidate and became Opposition Finance Spokesman.   Of course, just over a year after the appalling result in 2002, Brash went on to lead the National Party, remember that?  Suddenly, National had policies to cut taxes, to remove race as a factor in government and to reduce welfare dependency.   These policies helped rescue National by boosting the vote to 39%, yet most of that swing was from minor parties - by taking some policies from ACT and NZ First (and making the Nats electable so eviscerating United Future), Brash had moved National to have some policies of principle.

Yet a series of gaffes and the media obsession with Nicky Hager's belief that Brash should have told the Exclusive Brethren not to embark on a campaign that was anti-Green Party, saw him ultimately fall on his sword.  National then backtracked on abolishing the Maori seats, and started moving to the centre, whilst ACT had been reduced to a rump under Rodney Hide.

The 2008 election saw the Nats finally get the swing needed to be the largest party, and with confidence and supply agreements with the Maori Party and ACT - created a moderate centre-right government, by and large not touching most policies Labour had implemented.   ACT had done better than expected, but being in government would take its toll.

ACT started to implode for a number of reasons.  Rodney Hide no longer seemed to be the man fighting for less government and lower taxes, but the face of mega-local government in Auckland.  David Garrett proved to be a walking embarrassment and so Hide was rolled, for Brash.

So John Key and Don Brash, once Parliamentary colleagues, both leaders of the same party, now face an election fighting for the same votes.   However, why is John Banks there?   Who knows - especially with the possibility it will be only him or him and Don Brash forming the ACT caucus after the election...

Don Brash on the campaign launch said there were nine policy areas ACT is looking to work on, but does this look any better?

- Pass Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill and Regulatory Standards Bill - This would ensure government spending doesn't rise faster than GDP (and indeed would be slower) and help stymy growth in regulation.  Far better than nothing.
- Reduce government spending relative to the size of the economy to enable radical tax reduction, and a lower exchange rate - The simple point that National is spending more than Labour as a proportion of GDP should cause many National voters to think twice about ticking National for the Party vote.   Brash is suggesting company tax reduced to 12.5% and the top income tax rate to 25%.   Both would make a worthwhile difference to the economy.
- Radically reduce bureaucracy - Brash suggests radical reform to the RMA and Local Government Act, whereas National tinkered with the RMA and the Local Government Act wasn't touched.  He also mentioned amending the Bill of Rights Act to include private property rights "possibly".  Not really enough of a commitment for the Nats to care.
- End ETS - New Zealand rightfully shouldn't cripple itself to save the world, when so many others refuse to do so.   
- Give parents effective control over their children’s education - Bulk funding in effect, with more autonomy for state schools.   Still ridiculously limp wristed compared to Ruth Richardson's 1987 National election policy for education, which was essentially replicating Sweden's successful experiment in vouchers.   Let anyone set up a school and let parents take their taxes back and pay for that school.
-  Promote a multi-party consensus on changes to New Zealand Superannuation - The worst thing about a consensus is that the strongest thing that can usually be agreed is fairly weak.   This is virtually worthless, whereas while I did not agree with compulsory superannuation, it had the merit of granting property rights in a retirement income - something that doesn't exist now, and particularly disadvantages the heirs of those who die before retirement.
- Promote a safer, more secure, society - Supporting the right to self defence is important, and so should be seen as a positive move.
- Push for equal legal status for all New Zealanders, irrespective of race  - Enough said, it should be obvious, except of course to the Greens and Maori Party, who think this is racist.
- Re-establish a constructive relationship with Fiji - Sorry?  No.  This obvious pander to the local Fijian vote is absurd.

Yet while that looks mixed, Brash comes out with gems like this rural policy announcement saying "ACT will overhaul the RMA and reinstate the right for property owners to use their land as they see fit, subject to respecting the rights of others. "  Beautiful stuff for those of us who believe in property rights, but is it a case of the policy being right when Lindsay Perigo is drafting the press releases?

For me ACT should keep things simple. 

It should be about property rights - which means not only the RMA, but about businesses doing as they see fit, about lower taxes and about the right to self defence.

It should be about moving public services into the hands of consumers and suppliers.  So that people can take their taxpayer funding of education to new schools and educational institutions set up freely.  The same with healthcare and pensions.

It should be about personal rights.  That means property rights, but also recognising that people should feel free to live their lives as they see fit,  and that less government promotes more personal responsibility.  It also means treating laws on personal matters, like drug use, tobacco and alcohol, as being up to adults.   ACT should, at least, support medicinal use of cannabis, and taking a radical look at drug laws and whether they are working.

Finally it should be one law for all.  That does not mean denying people national identity, or acknowledging Maori as indigenous people, but it does mean the state is colourblind. 

ACT is relying on John Banks, a man who I don't believe has any real belief in any of those concepts.   It should rely on Don Brash.

Don Brash is standing in North Shore, against no other than Maggie Barry.   It doesn't take two seconds to figure out which of those two is the one with intellect and the one to be more effective for North Shore. 

ACT should be pushing Brash for North Shore.  With Wayne Mapp's retirement, North Shore would be far better represented by a man who would be Party Leader and also be elected in his own right as an MP - by Don Brash.

Then ACT wouldn't be relying on John Banks.

Forget nine points, stick to four:
- It's your life
- It's your property
- One law for all
- Services for the public, not the public service.

and Brash for North Shore. 

It's too late to remove Banks and it would look awful to do so at this stage, but the show should be the Don Brash show.   Besides, does New Zealand need someone in Parliament whose main contribution in recent years has been to warm the hearts of pensioners who like gardening?