What astounds me is the high number of New Zealanders who are happy letting Clark, Cullen and all of the others take such a high proportion of their income to spend on what Cabinet wants.
Where does this come from? Would YOU let Helen Clark take a portion of your income to buy your clothes, buy your groceries, buy your house? If not, why are you happy for her buying you health care, your kids education, helping other people's businesses, funding TV programmes you don't watch, paying for other people to not take the jobs they don't like?
Imagine if the government supplied you with a food hamper ever week, paid for by taxation, everyone got an allowance - except some bureaucracy would make you queue up for it, and decide at will whether you should get chicken, veal, fish, bread, eggs or kumquats. One week you might find there isn't much chicken, or maybe some group is "meat disadvantaged" and they get it, but you don't. Of course you can spend extra money and get what you want when you want - but the government isn't keen on it, it's the food system for the rich - and the food suppliers union says if the government gives you taxes back to buy your own food "it will disadvantage the poor, and undermine the public food system". Food is essential, it is more essential than healthcare. A person can live many years without seeing a doctor, but only weeks without food.
Helen Clark and Michael Cullen buy your health care and your kids education, based on what bureaucrats think is best. If you're lucky it will meet your needs, and at best if you are involved in an accident, you'll probably get good quality health care - but if it isn't critical at best you'll spend years waiting for surgery, at worst you'll die while you wait. For education, your kids might get a good teacher at a well run school, or a lazy one in a badly run school - and Labour doesn't want you to choose, because it wants everyone to have the same standard - sorry parents don't know what's best for the kids say Labour. Or rather, because a minority aren't very good parents, then everyone must be brought down to that level - keeps the union from losing poor performing members, and losing the best performing ones (who wont NEED the union if they had individual contracts with performance pay).
Anyway, back to the main point.
That is one of the fundamental points of THIS election. Don Brash, to his credit, says it is YOUR money - YOU earnt it, and he is prepared to let you keep some (modestly in my view) more of it than Helen is. Rodney Hide would let you keep a lot more, and of course Libertarianz would let you keep nearly all of it (as a transitional measure till you got it ALL back).
Helen Clark and Michael Cullen don't believe it is your money. I remember in a politics lecture fifteen years ago Steve Maharey said it was the price you pay for the social contract of everyone looking after each other - ever known a contract you didn't choose to enter, that you can't leave and which one party has the right to use force to enforce and change without your consent? Yep that's a socialist contract - they tell you what they will do and demand payment for it. If you want some back, you're greedy and you wont be able to look after yourself.
The world will end if the state doesn't increase expenditure as fast as Labour says. See National will grow state spending too, at a slower rate, which as limp wristed as it is, is still too scary for the kiwis who love Nanny Helen.
So why? I figure a good portion of the adult population have either not grown up, and believe they are not competent enough (or they are too lazy) to decide what to do with more of their own money, or they believe everyone ELSE needs looking after.
The first lot fear they can't buy healthcare, education, insure themselves against losing their jobs or sickness, and think the government is some big caring loving warm mother who they can run too, and Helen wraps her arms around them and says "there there, I'll look after you" as she slips her talon into your back pocket and takes what she wants. The victim feels comforted, and almost like an abused child, doesn't care that mum beats them and steals from them, just that she cuddles you at the right moment, and gives you the gruel and bare attention you think you deserve -AND she tells you "don't let that bad rich man next door tell you go over there, he wont love you like I do! He wont cuddle you, he'll tell you to get a job and gives you some money only if you are really really good, and those who are good are spoilt anyway! He lies, and you can't believe YOU can look after yourself, what would happen if I left you to fend for yourself?".
The second lot know they can look after themselves, but all those incompetent poor, low income people - well THEY can't. They wont send their kids to the best schools, they will not bother with health care, they wont save money, they are not as smart as you or I - so these people are prepared to sacrifice their freedom and money, to ensure the poor are looked after. You see, letting Helen take your taxes means you feel better - the chardonnay socialists of Wadestown don't have to give to charity, or help out at soup kitchens, or actually DO anything for the ones they claim to care for. The state does it for them, then they can drive past them, fly over them and generally completely ignore them. Nanny State is there, job done - doesn't matter than so many of the bureaucrats in the system don't have much incentive to really make a difference. Their jobs are secure, and it doesn't matter if you perform badly - the welfare beneficiaries are hardly going elsewhere for free money are they? More nauseating are the claims they want to pay MORE tax - but you don't see them donating that money to charities in the meantime - no, they have to be forced to care, or feel better than you are forced too - you greedy rich bastard earning more than $38000 a year! (you Montgomery Burns types on more than $60000 are doubly evil!).
So it's the self proclaimed incompetents, and the do-gooders - they will vote this election for you to lose more of your money to Helen Clark and her merry band. Do they get indoctrinated in this at our Nanny State schools that teach that education and healthcare must be state funded and run? Would they think the same about food, if that was state funded and supplied? Do they really think? or are they scared of the freedom and choice getting more of their own back would mean.
and why oh why, when Brash is NOT going to cut any services back, do they feel scared with his modest tax cuts?
07 September 2005
06 September 2005
Aro Valley electoral meeting verdict
I just returned from what is always THE candidates' meeting for Wellington Central every election - the Aro Valley one. The heartland of socialist, ecologist, leftie Wellington. As usual it was a full house, and almost all of the candidates turned up, plus Morrie Love appeared for the Maori Party.
Plenty of humour in the responses from candidates.
As was to be expected, Mark Blumsky, the National candidate got a hard time from the leftie audience, but managed the heckling well. Frankly it wasn't a great performance, even with the crowd (and there would've been a good 20% or so who were sympathetic), he could've been wittier and quicker in attacking the government, and defending tax cuts - but he didn't really shine. Maybe he needs more practice and gets rattled with an audience of a lot of heckling, but this wasn't where he'll get votes in Wellington. His second choice for party vote was United Future (but then he was Party President!)
Marion Hobbs as encumbent Labour MP had a reasonably sympathetic audience. Last election she was heckled largely because of GE - and she vigorously defended her record as an electorate MP, because she was successful convincing the government to fund local schools etc. - in other words we have a system of whoever shouts the loudest gets your loot. She conceded defeat on the Inner City Bypass (a roading project close to Aro Valley that the locals oppose and is now under construction), but defended Labour's record and public servants - which a lot of people weren't keen on! Marian's second choice was the Greens and Sue Kedgeley.
Sue Kedgeley as Green candidate always gets a rousing response here, though she confused locals by saying she opposed voluntary euthanasia. She trotted out her usual, more of other people's money for pet socialist projects. Her second choice was Marian Hobbs and Labour!
Of the others, Stephen Franks from ACT seemed more liberal than ever - advocated getting the state out of marriage altogether! He supported voluntary euthanasia, and quipped when someone said what he'd do when he was unemployed after the election "The capitalists will look after me"! His second party choice was National, but candidate was Bernard Darnton from Libertarianz! Maybe there is hope yet.
Funny money from Coralie Leyland, the elderly face of Social Credit, who got heckled with "print more money". She does need to go home and knit and stop finding foreign banking conspiracies. She wasn't the local candidate though, I guess there is only one straight-jacket in the party.
Kane O'Connell from the Alliance went on about socialism, and was cheered when he said it was good that Jim Anderton left and formed his own party. At least he was honest saying they had no help in hell of getting into Parliament, and his second choice was the Greens and the Anti-Capitalist Alliance candidate Stephen Hay.
David Somerset from the Progressives, whose best moment had to be that we should turn our back on the dinosaurs from the past, when someone heckled "like Jim!". He confused the audience when he had liberal views on social issues that bear little relationship to Anderton's.
God help us with Fiona McKenzie from United Future Outdoor Party (UFO party was a quick reference) she was passionate about a party that believes in nothing much really, and she couldn't bear to state her position on abortion - as it probably wouldn't have been in agreement with most of the audience.
Michael Appleby always amuses initially with his legalise cannabis to save everything policy, and something does appeal about a party that would do nothing once it was legalised (presumably they would sit around on Parliamentary salaries and get stoned), though you have to wonder why he bothers - ALCP didn't even get its act together to apply for broadcasting funding.
A good response was received by Bernard Darnton - Libertarianz Leader, especially when he said the Public Works Act would go, so compulsory land purchases for roads would end. He also declared Libertarianz would abolish the Marriage Act and Misuse of Drugs Act, which played well to the liberal leftie audience (though privatising everything else doesn't). He unashamedly defended capitalism, very small government and when the question was asked - What will you do for your electorate in Parliament - he honestly said that Wellington Central would do very badly under Libertarianz, as so many public servants would be out of work, but all the other electorates would thrive! Go Bernard!
Stephen Hay from the Anti-Capitalist Alliance had his own small following, though he could hardly reconcile communism - which he believed in - with letting people do what they want. I guess 100 million killed from the 20 or so communist regimes in the 20th century isn't enough. Sadly he has refused to debate Bernard Darnton one on one, in a contest I mentioned in an earlier post proposed by Gman. Damned shame really, be nice to see freedom vs. Marxism-Leninism debated.
All in all a great evening out, a wonderful chance to heckle and hear some bloody quick witted remarks from an audience that was not QUITE as leftwing as at previous elections.
Aro Valley will almost certainly vote Greens, Labour, Alliance in that order, and I'm not kidding, I'd expect National to come third at best in THAT booth, but I still think Hobbs has a tight race with Mark Blumsky.
Other write ups:
BZP with photos;
David Farrar, and links to more from those
Gman photos of it;
Luke's photos of Bernard Darnton and the crowd
and Kakariki and Keith Ng's reports of the meeting and after incident!
Plenty of humour in the responses from candidates.
As was to be expected, Mark Blumsky, the National candidate got a hard time from the leftie audience, but managed the heckling well. Frankly it wasn't a great performance, even with the crowd (and there would've been a good 20% or so who were sympathetic), he could've been wittier and quicker in attacking the government, and defending tax cuts - but he didn't really shine. Maybe he needs more practice and gets rattled with an audience of a lot of heckling, but this wasn't where he'll get votes in Wellington. His second choice for party vote was United Future (but then he was Party President!)
Marion Hobbs as encumbent Labour MP had a reasonably sympathetic audience. Last election she was heckled largely because of GE - and she vigorously defended her record as an electorate MP, because she was successful convincing the government to fund local schools etc. - in other words we have a system of whoever shouts the loudest gets your loot. She conceded defeat on the Inner City Bypass (a roading project close to Aro Valley that the locals oppose and is now under construction), but defended Labour's record and public servants - which a lot of people weren't keen on! Marian's second choice was the Greens and Sue Kedgeley.
Sue Kedgeley as Green candidate always gets a rousing response here, though she confused locals by saying she opposed voluntary euthanasia. She trotted out her usual, more of other people's money for pet socialist projects. Her second choice was Marian Hobbs and Labour!
Of the others, Stephen Franks from ACT seemed more liberal than ever - advocated getting the state out of marriage altogether! He supported voluntary euthanasia, and quipped when someone said what he'd do when he was unemployed after the election "The capitalists will look after me"! His second party choice was National, but candidate was Bernard Darnton from Libertarianz! Maybe there is hope yet.
Funny money from Coralie Leyland, the elderly face of Social Credit, who got heckled with "print more money". She does need to go home and knit and stop finding foreign banking conspiracies. She wasn't the local candidate though, I guess there is only one straight-jacket in the party.
Kane O'Connell from the Alliance went on about socialism, and was cheered when he said it was good that Jim Anderton left and formed his own party. At least he was honest saying they had no help in hell of getting into Parliament, and his second choice was the Greens and the Anti-Capitalist Alliance candidate Stephen Hay.
David Somerset from the Progressives, whose best moment had to be that we should turn our back on the dinosaurs from the past, when someone heckled "like Jim!". He confused the audience when he had liberal views on social issues that bear little relationship to Anderton's.
God help us with Fiona McKenzie from United Future Outdoor Party (UFO party was a quick reference) she was passionate about a party that believes in nothing much really, and she couldn't bear to state her position on abortion - as it probably wouldn't have been in agreement with most of the audience.
Michael Appleby always amuses initially with his legalise cannabis to save everything policy, and something does appeal about a party that would do nothing once it was legalised (presumably they would sit around on Parliamentary salaries and get stoned), though you have to wonder why he bothers - ALCP didn't even get its act together to apply for broadcasting funding.
A good response was received by Bernard Darnton - Libertarianz Leader, especially when he said the Public Works Act would go, so compulsory land purchases for roads would end. He also declared Libertarianz would abolish the Marriage Act and Misuse of Drugs Act, which played well to the liberal leftie audience (though privatising everything else doesn't). He unashamedly defended capitalism, very small government and when the question was asked - What will you do for your electorate in Parliament - he honestly said that Wellington Central would do very badly under Libertarianz, as so many public servants would be out of work, but all the other electorates would thrive! Go Bernard!
Stephen Hay from the Anti-Capitalist Alliance had his own small following, though he could hardly reconcile communism - which he believed in - with letting people do what they want. I guess 100 million killed from the 20 or so communist regimes in the 20th century isn't enough. Sadly he has refused to debate Bernard Darnton one on one, in a contest I mentioned in an earlier post proposed by Gman. Damned shame really, be nice to see freedom vs. Marxism-Leninism debated.
All in all a great evening out, a wonderful chance to heckle and hear some bloody quick witted remarks from an audience that was not QUITE as leftwing as at previous elections.
Aro Valley will almost certainly vote Greens, Labour, Alliance in that order, and I'm not kidding, I'd expect National to come third at best in THAT booth, but I still think Hobbs has a tight race with Mark Blumsky.
Other write ups:
BZP with photos;
David Farrar, and links to more from those
Gman photos of it;
Luke's photos of Bernard Darnton and the crowd
and Kakariki and Keith Ng's reports of the meeting and after incident!
05 September 2005
The Poll is a mistake
ha ahaha a hahaha aha ha
so glad the Labour Party put us right on that one.
A victim of their success as a popular and competent government.
People surely don't want their own money back do they? Their OWN money - read it, THEY made it, NOT Labour.
so glad the Labour Party put us right on that one.
A victim of their success as a popular and competent government.
People surely don't want their own money back do they? Their OWN money - read it, THEY made it, NOT Labour.
04 September 2005
Nats well ahead in TVNZ/Colmar Brunton poll
According to the latest One News/Colmar Brunton poll. National is well ahead of Labour, 46% vs 38% and could govern with United Future if:
- NZ First falls below 5% and Winston loses Tauranga.
Labour under that scenari0 needs Anderton, Greens, Maori Party, United Future to govern.
If NZ First makes it to 5%, then National needs NZ First to govern, but so does Labour, with four other parties!
Labour's bleetings about National borrowing for tax cuts are not going down well, Helen's humourless approach to the Air NZ pilot, National's call for racial equality, all of these have contributed towards a mood for change.
Given National got 21% in 2002, 31% in 1999, 34% in 1996 and 35% in 1993, if Brash can bring National above 40%, at a time of relatively healthy economic growth and low unemployment, he will have brought the party back to the political mainstream. All of the lies, unprincipled meaderings of the Bolger/Shipley era will be past once more - and if National IS elected, all of the MPs from that era should remember - Brash did it, you didn't!
Libertyscott
- NZ First falls below 5% and Winston loses Tauranga.
Labour under that scenari0 needs Anderton, Greens, Maori Party, United Future to govern.
If NZ First makes it to 5%, then National needs NZ First to govern, but so does Labour, with four other parties!
Labour's bleetings about National borrowing for tax cuts are not going down well, Helen's humourless approach to the Air NZ pilot, National's call for racial equality, all of these have contributed towards a mood for change.
Given National got 21% in 2002, 31% in 1999, 34% in 1996 and 35% in 1993, if Brash can bring National above 40%, at a time of relatively healthy economic growth and low unemployment, he will have brought the party back to the political mainstream. All of the lies, unprincipled meaderings of the Bolger/Shipley era will be past once more - and if National IS elected, all of the MPs from that era should remember - Brash did it, you didn't!
Libertyscott
March 27 1986
As I have been clearing out the junk in my house, I discovered an old box of newspapers. Here are a few of the more interesting snippits...
On March 27 1986:
- Bolger selected as new National Party Leader, Geoffrey Palmer says "We are going to have a National Party which stands for a weak, protective, subservient New Zealand looking to the Government to solve every problem and not allowing people to stand on their own feet"... voting for ACT are you now Geoffrey?
- National and the New Zealand Party to merge. Bob Jones (who left the party the previous year) said it was a "cop out", the party was finished in July 1985 and Bolger is a "reactionary King Country farming Roman Catholic - everything that is out-of-date with the modern ethos, the things that are encouraging about this country" can't argue with that!
- Wholesale taxes on cars, stereos, radio, watches and TVs to be cut to 20% as a step towards moving to GST. remember tax cuts?
- The previous night the Homosexual Law Reform Bill passed its second reading. Fran Wilde's greatest moment
- Roger Douglas introduced 12 major principles to cut government spending including:
Well the Greens, Jim Anderton, Winston Peters I bet...
As a final aside, I noticed the National Bank on 27 March 1986 offering term deposits at 21% per annum. The use of inflation as a form of state theft of the public's savings is distant history, and Don Brash has been a part of consigning it to the dustbin of the lunatic left.
On March 27 1986:
- Bolger selected as new National Party Leader, Geoffrey Palmer says "We are going to have a National Party which stands for a weak, protective, subservient New Zealand looking to the Government to solve every problem and not allowing people to stand on their own feet"... voting for ACT are you now Geoffrey?
- National and the New Zealand Party to merge. Bob Jones (who left the party the previous year) said it was a "cop out", the party was finished in July 1985 and Bolger is a "reactionary King Country farming Roman Catholic - everything that is out-of-date with the modern ethos, the things that are encouraging about this country" can't argue with that!
- Wholesale taxes on cars, stereos, radio, watches and TVs to be cut to 20% as a step towards moving to GST. remember tax cuts?
- The previous night the Homosexual Law Reform Bill passed its second reading. Fran Wilde's greatest moment
- Roger Douglas introduced 12 major principles to cut government spending including:
- "quangos would be reduced or abolished where their functions were no longer sufficiently relevant";
- "Departments would have to recover the cost of supplying goods and services from users, including government departments, instead of providing them free, or below cost, at the taxpayer's expense";
- 'Funding of departments will be reduced where the departments' functions are removed or reduced".
Well the Greens, Jim Anderton, Winston Peters I bet...
As a final aside, I noticed the National Bank on 27 March 1986 offering term deposits at 21% per annum. The use of inflation as a form of state theft of the public's savings is distant history, and Don Brash has been a part of consigning it to the dustbin of the lunatic left.
Advice for Rodney Hide - Legalise Cannabis
Dear Rodney
You are the best leader ACT has had or could ever have of your current crop of MPs. You actually do believe in ACT being the "liberal party", you believe in less government, less regulation and you believe not only in economic freedom, but personal freedom.
It is a shame that those who pull the strings behind ACT don't.
Rodney, even if you pull off winning Epsom - which I think you will - ACT will probably be left with just you and maybe Heather Roy. It is a mere shadow of what it once aspired to be.
So I propose you drop a bombshell, something that will change the base of ACT's support once and for all, it might frighten your Board, your funders and the party, but frankly what have you got to lose? ACT needs to be more than the party of Business Roundtable economics - sound though that is.
It needs to sell freedom.
You should state openly that you support the decriminalisation of cannabis for personal use by adults on their own property. It may not even be able to be ACT policy, but you should state this. Hand in hand with this is supporting the prescribing of cannabis based products for medical purposes.
Why?
Because there is nothing more fundamentally liberal, than asserting that adults own their own bodies, and have the right to ingest a substance on their own private property without the state criminalising them for it.
It would be a declaration of an end to the war on cannabis for adults. Supply to children would still be a crime, and rightfully so.
The Economist called for this two years ago - hardly a newspaper of the lunatic fringe.
You would be yanking from the Green Party one of its key platforms that attract new voters, dealing to the war on drugs. You would certainly frighten some of your supporters to National, but how many are left? It would differentiate National from ACT - Brash will deny that a National government would legalise cannabis.
More importantly, ACT could actually start to claim to be consistently a party of freedom and less government.
The war on drugs is failing, and you can challenge National, Labour and all of the other authoritarian parties on this issue - if they TRULY believe in the war on drugs, will they accept all of their family members who have tried pot being arrested and put in prison for smoking one joint at a party some time?
Most cannabis users use it occasionally, for a short time in their lives, and move on. Just like most alcohol users don't abuse it regularly.
Tell those who think it will see a jump in stoned driving or people being stoned at work, that such behaviour will still not be tolerated - people have freedom AND responsibility.
Just like drinking alcohol or any other activity.
Tell those who think it makes smoking dope cool for kids how it could possible get MOREso?
but most of all - ask every single candidate why an adult should go to prison for peacefully smoking this substance on their own property when no other person has been harmed?
This isn't about whether smoking dope is good for you or not - eating loads of butter isn't good for you either, neither is getting drunk every day - but the state doesn't put you in prison for doing it. It is about freedom.
Then, if you are brave. Support voluntary euthanasia, retention of the drinking age at 18 and maybe even say you support allowing gay couples to marry - even Labour wont do that.
Political correctness? Hardly.
I know you understand why this is philosophically and morally correct, and I know how hard it is for a good portion of ACT members to swallow.
Give it a try. What have you got to lose?
Sincerely
Libertyscott
You are the best leader ACT has had or could ever have of your current crop of MPs. You actually do believe in ACT being the "liberal party", you believe in less government, less regulation and you believe not only in economic freedom, but personal freedom.
It is a shame that those who pull the strings behind ACT don't.
Rodney, even if you pull off winning Epsom - which I think you will - ACT will probably be left with just you and maybe Heather Roy. It is a mere shadow of what it once aspired to be.
So I propose you drop a bombshell, something that will change the base of ACT's support once and for all, it might frighten your Board, your funders and the party, but frankly what have you got to lose? ACT needs to be more than the party of Business Roundtable economics - sound though that is.
It needs to sell freedom.
You should state openly that you support the decriminalisation of cannabis for personal use by adults on their own property. It may not even be able to be ACT policy, but you should state this. Hand in hand with this is supporting the prescribing of cannabis based products for medical purposes.
Why?
Because there is nothing more fundamentally liberal, than asserting that adults own their own bodies, and have the right to ingest a substance on their own private property without the state criminalising them for it.
It would be a declaration of an end to the war on cannabis for adults. Supply to children would still be a crime, and rightfully so.
The Economist called for this two years ago - hardly a newspaper of the lunatic fringe.
You would be yanking from the Green Party one of its key platforms that attract new voters, dealing to the war on drugs. You would certainly frighten some of your supporters to National, but how many are left? It would differentiate National from ACT - Brash will deny that a National government would legalise cannabis.
More importantly, ACT could actually start to claim to be consistently a party of freedom and less government.
The war on drugs is failing, and you can challenge National, Labour and all of the other authoritarian parties on this issue - if they TRULY believe in the war on drugs, will they accept all of their family members who have tried pot being arrested and put in prison for smoking one joint at a party some time?
Most cannabis users use it occasionally, for a short time in their lives, and move on. Just like most alcohol users don't abuse it regularly.
Tell those who think it will see a jump in stoned driving or people being stoned at work, that such behaviour will still not be tolerated - people have freedom AND responsibility.
Just like drinking alcohol or any other activity.
Tell those who think it makes smoking dope cool for kids how it could possible get MOREso?
but most of all - ask every single candidate why an adult should go to prison for peacefully smoking this substance on their own property when no other person has been harmed?
This isn't about whether smoking dope is good for you or not - eating loads of butter isn't good for you either, neither is getting drunk every day - but the state doesn't put you in prison for doing it. It is about freedom.
Then, if you are brave. Support voluntary euthanasia, retention of the drinking age at 18 and maybe even say you support allowing gay couples to marry - even Labour wont do that.
Political correctness? Hardly.
I know you understand why this is philosophically and morally correct, and I know how hard it is for a good portion of ACT members to swallow.
Give it a try. What have you got to lose?
Sincerely
Libertyscott
Electorates ARE interesting - well a few are
All of the parties are campaigning almost everywhere for the party vote - after the disastrous National campaign of 2002 that saw it get just over 30% of the electorate vote but only around 21% of the party vote. Only the Alliance and Christian Heritage managed such a bizarre result, but then how many people hold their heads high now having voted for Graham Capill!?
However there are electorate races worth being interested in.
Epsom is clearly one, with ACT calling on National supporters to tick Hide for local MP (which makes sense), and Labour starting to call on both of its voters in Epsom to tick Worth. Enough has been said about that race!
Tauranga is the next one worth watching, as everyone who doesn't love Winston, loathes him and both National and Labour would love Bob Clarkson to defeat him. The fact that NZ First looked increasingly like National's most likely coalition/support partner further mobilises Labour supporters, who would love to see National cast adrift with insufficient friends in the house to form a government. Now if NZ First manages 5% party vote (which I suspect is likely) then him losing Tauranga will be a boon for the Nats - as he will feel psychologically damaged in his heartland - will not be able to demand as much from the Nats as he did in 1996 (where it was 34% Nats vs. 13% NZ First, rather than 40 odd for the Nats and 5%!). Brash may fear Winston not winning Tauranga and not getting 5%, but even under that scenario as long as the Nats get well over 40% AND beat Labour, the NZ First vote will be redistributed proportionately, meaning National would probably get about 3 more seats. Of course I'm expecting Russell Watkins to stir Winnie up a bit too!
However, there are a few other electorate races worth watching.:
Tamaki-Makaurauwhere John Tamihere, besides being a prick with his cats will give Pita Sharples a good run for his money. The only reason I want Tamihere to win is because he pisses off the politically correct anally retentives in the Labour caucus, and he can go "told you so" when Labour loses.
Wellington Central, where Bernard Darnton - Libertarianz Leader, will give the Anti-Capitalist Alliance candidate, Stephen Hay a run for his money. Gman reckons this is the REAL contest, and given I know Bernard very very well, I'm encouraging him with this.
http://gmaninc.blogspot.com/2005/09/real-wellington-central-contest.html
Who frankly cares if Boo Boo Hobbs, and "let them rates rise" Blumsky win the seat - they are both in on the list, and if any constituency least needs representation in Parliament it is Wellington Central. The electorate is loaded with policy wonks, public sector managers and co. who have more influence on government than half of Parliament does. I know plenty of people in core departments who have more influence than most MPs, I was one of them!
I'd like to think Wigram and Ohariu-Belmont would be races, it would be very satisfying for Anderton and Dunne to be removed by their electorates - but it wont happen.
Auckland Central, where the ACT candidate - Helen Simpson is the only intelligent attractive woman standing, vs Tizard, Wong and Nandor. Parliament needs more attractive women, they are grossly under-represented.
Napier I just want to see that defender of the vile -Russell Fairbrother - lose to local businessman Chris Tremain. I know criminal lawyers are needed, but it is one thing to do your job, another to think that the scum of the earth are victims.
any more?
However there are electorate races worth being interested in.
Epsom is clearly one, with ACT calling on National supporters to tick Hide for local MP (which makes sense), and Labour starting to call on both of its voters in Epsom to tick Worth. Enough has been said about that race!
Tauranga is the next one worth watching, as everyone who doesn't love Winston, loathes him and both National and Labour would love Bob Clarkson to defeat him. The fact that NZ First looked increasingly like National's most likely coalition/support partner further mobilises Labour supporters, who would love to see National cast adrift with insufficient friends in the house to form a government. Now if NZ First manages 5% party vote (which I suspect is likely) then him losing Tauranga will be a boon for the Nats - as he will feel psychologically damaged in his heartland - will not be able to demand as much from the Nats as he did in 1996 (where it was 34% Nats vs. 13% NZ First, rather than 40 odd for the Nats and 5%!). Brash may fear Winston not winning Tauranga and not getting 5%, but even under that scenario as long as the Nats get well over 40% AND beat Labour, the NZ First vote will be redistributed proportionately, meaning National would probably get about 3 more seats. Of course I'm expecting Russell Watkins to stir Winnie up a bit too!
However, there are a few other electorate races worth watching.:
Tamaki-Makaurauwhere John Tamihere, besides being a prick with his cats will give Pita Sharples a good run for his money. The only reason I want Tamihere to win is because he pisses off the politically correct anally retentives in the Labour caucus, and he can go "told you so" when Labour loses.
Wellington Central, where Bernard Darnton - Libertarianz Leader, will give the Anti-Capitalist Alliance candidate, Stephen Hay a run for his money. Gman reckons this is the REAL contest, and given I know Bernard very very well, I'm encouraging him with this.
http://gmaninc.blogspot.com/2005/09/real-wellington-central-contest.html
Who frankly cares if Boo Boo Hobbs, and "let them rates rise" Blumsky win the seat - they are both in on the list, and if any constituency least needs representation in Parliament it is Wellington Central. The electorate is loaded with policy wonks, public sector managers and co. who have more influence on government than half of Parliament does. I know plenty of people in core departments who have more influence than most MPs, I was one of them!
I'd like to think Wigram and Ohariu-Belmont would be races, it would be very satisfying for Anderton and Dunne to be removed by their electorates - but it wont happen.
Auckland Central, where the ACT candidate - Helen Simpson is the only intelligent attractive woman standing, vs Tizard, Wong and Nandor. Parliament needs more attractive women, they are grossly under-represented.
Napier I just want to see that defender of the vile -Russell Fairbrother - lose to local businessman Chris Tremain. I know criminal lawyers are needed, but it is one thing to do your job, another to think that the scum of the earth are victims.
any more?
02 September 2005
More Compulsory Pay TV
Nearly $9 million on NZ comedy and drama funded by NZ on Air - oft referred to as NaZis on Air by Deborah Coddington when she once presented a radio show on the now defunct Radio Liberty.
Compulsory pay tv from your taxes, whether you want to watch the TV shows or not. It doesn't matter that no TV channel would buy the programmes themselves because not enough people want to watch them, it doesn't matter that not enough people will use pay per view to watch them - it is just about TV producers and all the others in that industry sucking off the state tit to support their chosen career and lifestyle.
Around a third of New Zealanders choose to pay every month to Sky TV and Telstra Clear for a wide range of channels that they want! People WILL pay for TV they want, but they don't want what the bureaucrats are using other people's money for.
One of the beneficiary produced projects is an "edgy, urban drama series called Ducks and Geese. It features an unlikely group of twenty-somethings sharing an old villa. And they’re all involved with the law in one way or another. You’ll have to wait and see how, though. " oh PLEASE! Why don't you give me my money back, and I'll take a digital camera and find a flat somewhere and Dunedin and film what they get up to. I'll do it for nothing if they are interesting!
What nauseates me the most is how the bleeting bludgers in this industry paint a picture of cultural doom and gloom if we strangle their supply of other people's money. There are two answers to that:
1. Go out and ask people if they will pay for your wonderful "cool" productions, like Melody Rules. A lot of people like Eating Media Lunch, so maybe they will pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it, then tough - it's called life, don't make them pay; and
2. Cut the price. If you are the bastion of Kiwi Kulture and identity then do it out of love, do it for New Zealand, do it for free or at least minimum cost. Don't pretend you work for Warner Bros. or Grundy. Rent cheaper rental car, buy prepacked meals from New World, so like every other business person and economise. People may be prepared to pay for your product then.
Unfortunately the Nats are unlikely to cut this piece of corporate welfare, but if they cut Te Mangai Paho, they should cut NZ On Air. We'll get over it, there isn't a NZ in Print, or NZ Online.
Compulsory pay tv from your taxes, whether you want to watch the TV shows or not. It doesn't matter that no TV channel would buy the programmes themselves because not enough people want to watch them, it doesn't matter that not enough people will use pay per view to watch them - it is just about TV producers and all the others in that industry sucking off the state tit to support their chosen career and lifestyle.
Around a third of New Zealanders choose to pay every month to Sky TV and Telstra Clear for a wide range of channels that they want! People WILL pay for TV they want, but they don't want what the bureaucrats are using other people's money for.
One of the beneficiary produced projects is an "edgy, urban drama series called Ducks and Geese. It features an unlikely group of twenty-somethings sharing an old villa. And they’re all involved with the law in one way or another. You’ll have to wait and see how, though. " oh PLEASE! Why don't you give me my money back, and I'll take a digital camera and find a flat somewhere and Dunedin and film what they get up to. I'll do it for nothing if they are interesting!
What nauseates me the most is how the bleeting bludgers in this industry paint a picture of cultural doom and gloom if we strangle their supply of other people's money. There are two answers to that:
1. Go out and ask people if they will pay for your wonderful "cool" productions, like Melody Rules. A lot of people like Eating Media Lunch, so maybe they will pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it, then tough - it's called life, don't make them pay; and
2. Cut the price. If you are the bastion of Kiwi Kulture and identity then do it out of love, do it for New Zealand, do it for free or at least minimum cost. Don't pretend you work for Warner Bros. or Grundy. Rent cheaper rental car, buy prepacked meals from New World, so like every other business person and economise. People may be prepared to pay for your product then.
Unfortunately the Nats are unlikely to cut this piece of corporate welfare, but if they cut Te Mangai Paho, they should cut NZ On Air. We'll get over it, there isn't a NZ in Print, or NZ Online.
01 September 2005
The Money Men
Michael Cullen, Jim Anderton, Gordon (ta Insolent Prick!) Copeland, Rod Donald, Rodney Hide, Winston Peters and John Key.
All men wanting to use more or less of your money for their own purposes.
The surprises?
- Rod Donald willing to be in Cabinet with Labour promoting free trade. Seems the LTD and the power are enough to sell out to the anti-globalisation slobberers.
Beyond that, Cullen couldn't really answer the challenge that one day there isn't enough money for tax cuts, then there are buckets for special government middle class family welfare schemes. He can't answer it because the REAL answer is that Labour believes in socialism, the state taking money from the successful and giving it to the less successful, and making more and more people dependent on the state for their incomes. That is it, nothing to be ashamed of is it???
Nothing else new at all really. The old left-right divide was clear, with the Maori party (oh yes there was some guy from that) Donald, Anderton and Cullen wanting to run your life more, Winston predicting doom and gloom, Cullen claiming that the era of tax cuts in the 80 and 90s (he was a Cabinet Minister who supported the Douglas flat tax in 1988!) saw Australia outgrowing New Zealand - that is about as relevant as claiming that bread causes people to commit crime because most criminals have had bread at least 24 hours before they commit their crime! John Key seemed comfortable, and would no doubt have loved to rip into Cullen more, as did Hide. Two of the brightest cookies in Parliament, frankly I'd be happy if the new government had a Cabinet of those two plus Brash, most of the rest are less than star performers.
All men wanting to use more or less of your money for their own purposes.
The surprises?
- Rod Donald willing to be in Cabinet with Labour promoting free trade. Seems the LTD and the power are enough to sell out to the anti-globalisation slobberers.
Beyond that, Cullen couldn't really answer the challenge that one day there isn't enough money for tax cuts, then there are buckets for special government middle class family welfare schemes. He can't answer it because the REAL answer is that Labour believes in socialism, the state taking money from the successful and giving it to the less successful, and making more and more people dependent on the state for their incomes. That is it, nothing to be ashamed of is it???
Nothing else new at all really. The old left-right divide was clear, with the Maori party (oh yes there was some guy from that) Donald, Anderton and Cullen wanting to run your life more, Winston predicting doom and gloom, Cullen claiming that the era of tax cuts in the 80 and 90s (he was a Cabinet Minister who supported the Douglas flat tax in 1988!) saw Australia outgrowing New Zealand - that is about as relevant as claiming that bread causes people to commit crime because most criminals have had bread at least 24 hours before they commit their crime! John Key seemed comfortable, and would no doubt have loved to rip into Cullen more, as did Hide. Two of the brightest cookies in Parliament, frankly I'd be happy if the new government had a Cabinet of those two plus Brash, most of the rest are less than star performers.
Anderton is a funny little Clown
He thinks stealing money from the productive to give to the less productive generates growth.
How quaint... his Ministry of Economic Development, full of bureaucrats half of whom exist to hand out money to people who ask for it... produces nothing.
How delusional is the left that it thinks government produces anything? Just because the government happens to own some trading activities, doesn't mean these wouldn't exist if the government didn't do them.
His tiny party was beaten in 2 out of 5 electorates Libertarianz contested in 2002, outside Wigram, that is where his party is - Progressive? Irrelevant thank you, and please will the people of Wigram give him and New Zealand a boost by forcing him into retirement?
How quaint... his Ministry of Economic Development, full of bureaucrats half of whom exist to hand out money to people who ask for it... produces nothing.
How delusional is the left that it thinks government produces anything? Just because the government happens to own some trading activities, doesn't mean these wouldn't exist if the government didn't do them.
His tiny party was beaten in 2 out of 5 electorates Libertarianz contested in 2002, outside Wigram, that is where his party is - Progressive? Irrelevant thank you, and please will the people of Wigram give him and New Zealand a boost by forcing him into retirement?
Labour is SOO evil
People that produce wealth, who apply their minds through their bodies to the world around them, are the heroes of the world and humanity. Labour is now pandering to the lowest instincts of the losers of society. It is doing this by pretending that "workers" -in other words anyone who belongs to the Marxist trade union movement that tithes union fees to Labour - NOT people who necessarily work (the self-employed are not workers, nor are businesspeople to Labour, they just create jobs)- lose out under National. The old nonsense that the bosses sit doing nothing, while the "workers" make the wealth. Forgetting that almost all of the "workers" would render the business bankrupt in months if they ran it.
National is evil if it talks to the Business Roundtable - an organisation that the outgoing CEO of Air New Zealand used to lead - after it became majority state owned again. Labour was happy with what Ralph Norris did with their investment of YOUR money. The Business Roundtable represents successful people and companies, people who create wealth, people who are on the right side of history, who didn't fight for an authoritarian bland grey society of lies, unlike the Council of Trade Unions which has spent much of its history being led or driven by Marxists who warmed to the Soviet Union - the greatest evil empire in modern history.
The Business Roundtable represents much that New Zealand should aspire to -wealth creation, creativity, productiveness, innovation and NOT stealing other people's money. Selling goods and services to people who choose to buy them. It has put out many serious, credible policy proposals for government in recent years. It has never asked for privilege, subsidies, regulatory protection or YOUR money - so it doesn't fit with the Nanny State that Labour is selling to voters.
Even more evil is Labour pandering to the brainless proletarian slopeheads who think that private enterprise is somehow a great international conspiracy of moustached cigar smoking bankers out to oil the wheels of their business with the blood of workers. So National might privatise ACC (I thought it would only open it to competition - more outrage!), whoop de fucking do.
ACC is a state monopoly. It can be as inefficient as it wishes, provide shockingly poor service and you must pay it. You can't buy other insurance instead, you can't sue whatever retard's negligence caused you to be injured. ACC is fundamentally flawed and no other country has adopted this insane socialised insurance system as we have. It's main problems are:
1. It is a monopoly, so efficiency and service incentives are low. There is no way anyone else can compete with it, so if you are a low risk employer, motorist or individual, you don't pay less than a high risk one. Oh ACC classifies you into employment categories, but if you drive the recidivist drunk driving daily accident pays the same as the accident-free motorist. That is socialism, ironing out differences so everyone faces the same incentive - don't change your behaviour.
2. It only pays out well if you are employed in the best job in your life. The dentist injured who cannot be a dentist anymore gets 80% of a dentist's salary, the dental student gets 80% of the job at Burger King they have to pay their way through university - thanks Labour!
3. It pays out to everyone, including people who cause accidents. So that stupid fucker who crossed the middle of the road and paralysed you, also gets money for breaking his arm - thanks Labour!
4. It doesn't cost the people who cause accidents any extra, because ACC doesn't penalise bad risk takers. The bar which neglects to maintain a balcony and it falls down, faces none of the cost of compensating those hurt. The driving idiot doesn't pay the lifelong cost of paralysing the innocent victim. This is an excuse to have OSH, draconian regulations on safety for just about everything, as Nanny State bans people from being stupid or choosing to take risks. The insane laws on fencing swimming pools being a classic example.
5. You can't sue wrongdoers. Not only do ACC levies not increase for the negligent and reckless, but you can't get compensation from the fools who hurt you. The threat of being sued is a great incentive to behave well, but it doesn't exist in socialist NZ.
National will probably open ACC up to compensation, which might fix problems 1,2 and 4. If it was privatised then ACC might have to operate efficiently, and can't be bailed out by everyone else. It is a first step, but the right to sue should be reinstated. No fault compensation is socialist nonsense, and should be ended.
Wait for the next Labour evil... it is racist to treat everyone the same way under the law.
They are trotting out that tax cuts will require borrowing - no, they require you to spend less of the money of the people you have taken it from!
It is time to tell Nanny State to fuck off - and Labour, Anderton, Greens, United and NZ First are all flagrantly pushing for more of Nanny!
Libertyscott
National is evil if it talks to the Business Roundtable - an organisation that the outgoing CEO of Air New Zealand used to lead - after it became majority state owned again. Labour was happy with what Ralph Norris did with their investment of YOUR money. The Business Roundtable represents successful people and companies, people who create wealth, people who are on the right side of history, who didn't fight for an authoritarian bland grey society of lies, unlike the Council of Trade Unions which has spent much of its history being led or driven by Marxists who warmed to the Soviet Union - the greatest evil empire in modern history.
The Business Roundtable represents much that New Zealand should aspire to -wealth creation, creativity, productiveness, innovation and NOT stealing other people's money. Selling goods and services to people who choose to buy them. It has put out many serious, credible policy proposals for government in recent years. It has never asked for privilege, subsidies, regulatory protection or YOUR money - so it doesn't fit with the Nanny State that Labour is selling to voters.
Even more evil is Labour pandering to the brainless proletarian slopeheads who think that private enterprise is somehow a great international conspiracy of moustached cigar smoking bankers out to oil the wheels of their business with the blood of workers. So National might privatise ACC (I thought it would only open it to competition - more outrage!), whoop de fucking do.
ACC is a state monopoly. It can be as inefficient as it wishes, provide shockingly poor service and you must pay it. You can't buy other insurance instead, you can't sue whatever retard's negligence caused you to be injured. ACC is fundamentally flawed and no other country has adopted this insane socialised insurance system as we have. It's main problems are:
1. It is a monopoly, so efficiency and service incentives are low. There is no way anyone else can compete with it, so if you are a low risk employer, motorist or individual, you don't pay less than a high risk one. Oh ACC classifies you into employment categories, but if you drive the recidivist drunk driving daily accident pays the same as the accident-free motorist. That is socialism, ironing out differences so everyone faces the same incentive - don't change your behaviour.
2. It only pays out well if you are employed in the best job in your life. The dentist injured who cannot be a dentist anymore gets 80% of a dentist's salary, the dental student gets 80% of the job at Burger King they have to pay their way through university - thanks Labour!
3. It pays out to everyone, including people who cause accidents. So that stupid fucker who crossed the middle of the road and paralysed you, also gets money for breaking his arm - thanks Labour!
4. It doesn't cost the people who cause accidents any extra, because ACC doesn't penalise bad risk takers. The bar which neglects to maintain a balcony and it falls down, faces none of the cost of compensating those hurt. The driving idiot doesn't pay the lifelong cost of paralysing the innocent victim. This is an excuse to have OSH, draconian regulations on safety for just about everything, as Nanny State bans people from being stupid or choosing to take risks. The insane laws on fencing swimming pools being a classic example.
5. You can't sue wrongdoers. Not only do ACC levies not increase for the negligent and reckless, but you can't get compensation from the fools who hurt you. The threat of being sued is a great incentive to behave well, but it doesn't exist in socialist NZ.
National will probably open ACC up to compensation, which might fix problems 1,2 and 4. If it was privatised then ACC might have to operate efficiently, and can't be bailed out by everyone else. It is a first step, but the right to sue should be reinstated. No fault compensation is socialist nonsense, and should be ended.
Wait for the next Labour evil... it is racist to treat everyone the same way under the law.
They are trotting out that tax cuts will require borrowing - no, they require you to spend less of the money of the people you have taken it from!
It is time to tell Nanny State to fuck off - and Labour, Anderton, Greens, United and NZ First are all flagrantly pushing for more of Nanny!
Libertyscott
28 August 2005
Tiresome bleeting from Maori Party
Donna Awatere-Huata is the victim of a racist justice system - so says Pita Sharples. This is because the sentence she faces for fraud is higher than that which Auckland millionaire David Henderson faced for buying cocaine. This blanket blame of "racism" is seen to be true, because although the prison population is disproportionately (compared to population) Maori, it simply is unfathomable to the Maori Party that all Maori in prison are guilty.
It is almost certainly true that there are a handful of people in prison who are not guilty of the crimes they are convicted of, and that will include some Maori - but it wont be in the order of 75% - the system we have tends, because of the standard of proof of criminal guilt - Beyond Reasonable Doubt - to let far more guilty people go free, than innocent people get convicted. This is how it should be! This is the common law based criminal justice system we inherited from the UK, far better than the systems of many other countries which take a harsher view of guilt, or even demand that the innocent PROVE their innocence. Needless to say, whatever criminal justice system existed in New Zealand before European settlement was unlikely to be consistent, objective or protective of individual civil liberties - but we will never know as no written language existed to provide records to help facilitate that. The criminal justice system is stacked in favour of finding the charged innocent - guilt needs to be proven.
More fundamentally, Awatere-Huata defrauded a charitable foundation of money for her own ends. The Pipi Foundation, which existed to undertake the wholly admirable activity of raising funds to help kids learn to read, lost out. It was not her money to use for that purpose. It is theft by another name. David Henderson was trying to buy cocaine - an adult trying to use his money to buy a substance from another adult - no victim.
She did the crime, now should do the time. Most New Zealanders would be outraged if Maori got more serious sentences for similar crimes than non-Maori. There is no controversy about that, similarly most New Zealanders would be outraged if the Police or Courts targeted Maori because of race. However, if someone Maori commits a crime (not a victimless one), let them be found guilty, prosecuted and sentenced. If more Maori commit crime than non-Maori, they need to look to themselves - nobody made Donna Awatere-Huata and Wi Huata commit fraud - let Sharples and Harawira blame the guilty for their crimes, not shift blame to a system that is biased in favour of the charged!
It is almost certainly true that there are a handful of people in prison who are not guilty of the crimes they are convicted of, and that will include some Maori - but it wont be in the order of 75% - the system we have tends, because of the standard of proof of criminal guilt - Beyond Reasonable Doubt - to let far more guilty people go free, than innocent people get convicted. This is how it should be! This is the common law based criminal justice system we inherited from the UK, far better than the systems of many other countries which take a harsher view of guilt, or even demand that the innocent PROVE their innocence. Needless to say, whatever criminal justice system existed in New Zealand before European settlement was unlikely to be consistent, objective or protective of individual civil liberties - but we will never know as no written language existed to provide records to help facilitate that. The criminal justice system is stacked in favour of finding the charged innocent - guilt needs to be proven.
More fundamentally, Awatere-Huata defrauded a charitable foundation of money for her own ends. The Pipi Foundation, which existed to undertake the wholly admirable activity of raising funds to help kids learn to read, lost out. It was not her money to use for that purpose. It is theft by another name. David Henderson was trying to buy cocaine - an adult trying to use his money to buy a substance from another adult - no victim.
She did the crime, now should do the time. Most New Zealanders would be outraged if Maori got more serious sentences for similar crimes than non-Maori. There is no controversy about that, similarly most New Zealanders would be outraged if the Police or Courts targeted Maori because of race. However, if someone Maori commits a crime (not a victimless one), let them be found guilty, prosecuted and sentenced. If more Maori commit crime than non-Maori, they need to look to themselves - nobody made Donna Awatere-Huata and Wi Huata commit fraud - let Sharples and Harawira blame the guilty for their crimes, not shift blame to a system that is biased in favour of the charged!
25 August 2005
2005 Election
Welcome all
I have created this blog to share my utterances on New Zealand politics, international affairs, social issues and anything that I get particularly passionate about. I am about to emigrate to the United Kingdom, part of the kiwi brain drain, but it is not - primarily - about the Clark Government. The opportunities available to me are bigger, wider, richer and the experience will be a delight.
However, like other bloggers, I have a need to share what i find outrageous, wonderful, amusing and challenging about the affairs of New Zealand and the world.
I am a libertarian, with a capital L - member of the Libertarianz Party, that is because I unashamedly believe in the freedom of adults to interact voluntarily, without force.
I find most of the political competition to be either evil, lost, funny or worthy of respect.
So many people spending so much time when most will not come close to having power, and then why do most of them want power, over you and me? Who would want to lead others?
I will say more about myself soon, as I get the hang of this thing.
Libertyscott
I have created this blog to share my utterances on New Zealand politics, international affairs, social issues and anything that I get particularly passionate about. I am about to emigrate to the United Kingdom, part of the kiwi brain drain, but it is not - primarily - about the Clark Government. The opportunities available to me are bigger, wider, richer and the experience will be a delight.
However, like other bloggers, I have a need to share what i find outrageous, wonderful, amusing and challenging about the affairs of New Zealand and the world.
I am a libertarian, with a capital L - member of the Libertarianz Party, that is because I unashamedly believe in the freedom of adults to interact voluntarily, without force.
I find most of the political competition to be either evil, lost, funny or worthy of respect.
So many people spending so much time when most will not come close to having power, and then why do most of them want power, over you and me? Who would want to lead others?
I will say more about myself soon, as I get the hang of this thing.
Libertyscott
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)