Labour-Greens-Maori

So the Otago Daily Times is claiming that a coalition- confidence/supply agreement looks imminent that basically involves at least a Labour-Anderton coalition (no surprise) with the Greens and the Maori Party. Nobody else is needed. Pita Sharples claims that the Maori Party will support Labour on confidence and supply, and repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act will not be a condition of that support. More specifically, the Maori Party would not bring the government down on that point.

Coalition with the Greens is more likely now, simply because United Future is irrelevant unless the numbers add up some way to make UF relevant for a particular Bill (only likely if the Greens and Maori Party oppose a Bill that UF and NZF support). The resignation of Hobbs, Hawkins and Swain for various reasons (I am guessing competence for the first two, and Swain's new child and his young wife for the third -which is a perfectly respectable reason) leaves some room, although the Clark Cabinet always seemed too big. See if Tizard retains any portfolios outside Cabinet as well - and counts down to retirement from central government.

Of course, NZ First will be key for passing any legislation that the Maori Party opposes, but it was instrumental in passing the Foreshore and Seabed Bill last term.

So if the ODT is right, NZ has a leftwing government, not centre-left as it is more leftwing than 2002-2005, the Maori Party after all is Marxist as I have pointed out, and the Greens are authoritarian in most instincts as I listed here and which PC has also identified here.

Any notion of taxcuts and repeal of race based laws? I'm afraid they are gone by kaitime.

My verdict on Election 2005

As many others have done so, I thought I would publish my verdict on the election. There are basically three conclusions:

1. This was about a challenge from Don Brash to Labour on two issues - tax cuts and race based laws, with a subtext about trusting Labour given a whole host of issues, like the speeding motorcade;

2. Voters either voted for a change in government (National), with those on the Maori roll going for the Maori party to send a different message. Or they voted AGAINST that change (Labour).

3. All other parties - that is other than Labour, National and the Maori Party - did poorly, because they either did not stand for supporting either Labour or National, risked not reaching the 5% threshold and because almost all voters wanted to choose a government - which doesn't mean a coalition partner or supporter on confidence and supply.

Unlike the last three MMP elections, this time voters stopped dabbling with minor parties. Most voters decided it was a choice between changing the government ala Don Brash and National or not, this is different from endorsing Labour - this was Labour's election to lose, and it nearly did.

Large numbers of people turned out to vote out Labour – they abandoned NZ First, United Future, ACT, Christian Heritage and others to vote National – and they sure did. Brash delivered a result that he should be proud of – because it beats anything Jim Bolger achieved after 1990. Bolger only got 35% and 33% respectively in 1993 and 1996, and the 1990 result was in no small part to him promising to abolish the then superannuation surtax and Phil Goff’s tertiary student fees, and then doing quite the opposite (which spawned NZ First).

Brash lost because he blundered in some debates, was not always speaking naturally as himself by correcting the message when his advisors saw it as being not so popular - e.g. privatisation, nuclear ships. He did not show sufficient passion and courage to defend on principle tax cuts and less bureaucracy. Next time he should sharpen the focus as a battle between nanny state Labour and "we trust you a bit more" National. However, it was hard to fight with the economy buoyant. Brash's key success was that he asked the public two questions:

1. Do you want Maori to continue to have laws and taxpayer funding that other New Zealanders cannot receive?
2. Do you want more of your money back when the government is running surpluses and expanding the bureaucracy?

39% said no, but 41% said yes.

The message resonated for many New Zealanders, as shown by the swathe cut through provincial New Zealand by National. Labour has lost much support in cities like Napier, New Plymouth and Hamilton, only the high party vote in the core support bases of south and west Auckland saved them. Labour remains dominant in the big cities – Labour won Auckland - just. It lost the North Shore, but lower income Auckland was scared they would lose benefits under National. Wellington and Christchurch were also won. Wellington wasn’t a surprise, as public servants vote for the incumbent government as a rule, and Christchurch is the people’s republic. National clearly has struck a couple of chords, and with its substantially refreshed caucus will hopefully continue running with that. The risk is that it has a bunch of MPs who will sell out for power once more, feeling they lost because they weren't centrist enough. This is nonsense - National lost because it didn't stick to the message throughout the campaign. It DID play well in one respect - it ignored Labour's pleas to change the terms of the debate, but it did falter at key moments, and these probably cost it the support it badly needed, particularly in the main centres.

Labour, as usual, mobilised those who were scared that tax cuts meant their beloved state health and education systems would fall apart – it perpetuates the myth, beloved by the vested interests who want more money and no competition or accountability, that constantly pumping money into publicly provided health and education makes a huge difference. The beneficiaries of Labour – anyone who chooses not to work, public servants and unionised quasi-monopoly industries (teachers and nurses) came out in force to continue to vote themselves other people’s money. The naïve were convinced that Helen Clark would better spend their money than they could, so they came out to vote. National played against that by listing many areas of poor spending - it could have done more of this, and been credible - but didn't have the team doing sufficient research to fight Cullen hard on this.

Others were frightened by Labour and the Maori Party, that abolishing race based law would upset too many radical Maori, and we could have civil war or something not far short of that. Then there are the legions of voters now indoctrinated by Nanny State's schools into loving the Treaty of Waitangi and the guilt industry built around it.

Labour undoubtedly lost some votes to National, and to the Maori Party (although more electorate than party votes), but it gained some from the Greens, the JAP party (Jim Anderton) and the remnants of the Alliance. While in a time of low unemployment and a reasonably buoyant economy Labour should have won, it shows how Brash’s policies of tax cuts and abolishing race based laws were resonant with much of the electorate for it to be so close.

Those who hate the Nanny State hypocrisy of the government and saw in Brash an honest man who would give people back their money, and end special government privileges for Maori, got out to vote. Labour got out its core vote, and used fear to generate votes for the status quo, and it worked. For that, Clark deserves credit for winning a third election – although that victory may not taste so good when she has to share it with so many. More New Zealanders wanted government that tells them what to do and spends their money, than not. She runs a tight ship, and is a model for future PMs in that regard. There is little tolerance of dissent or side agendas – Helen Clark has spent far too long working to get where she is to let the lesser minds of many of her caucus members derail this government. Heather Simpson and Helen Clark (H2 and H1 in common Parliamentary parlance) tolerated the 1980s Labour government, and the debacles of the 1993 and 1996 elections to go on and reshape government to be more closely involved in most aspects of the economy and society. Just think about how much untangling of funding, bureaucracy and regulation would be needed by a free market oriented National government to wind back what Labour has done. Telecommunications, energy, education, the arts, broadcasting, local government, the list goes on and on.

Beyond the two big parties, the Maori Party was the other success story. It won because it had a brand, it had an MP who stood up against Labour on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, and Pita Sharples – a man who at best, is a skilled and passionate educator and communicator. The Maori Party harnessed the vast taxpayer funded Maori broadcast media, and with very little policies, became a nationalist rallying cry. Much of the Maori Party’s policy and some of its candidates had been seen before – in the very nationalist Mana Maori Party. Now those voting in the separate Maori seats had a choice, like had happened with NZ First in 1996. This time the party simply said it would be a voice for Maori – as if Maori have one coherent view on the role of government. Nevertheless it worked, and with an overhang of one, the Maori Party has shown that many Maori voters figured out MMP – voting Labour for their party vote and Maori party for the electorate. The test will be the next three years – how critical will the Maori Party be in granting confidence and supply, or supporting key legislation. Will it press Labour towards taking more steps to please Maori voters specifically, and if so, will this backfire by returning those voters to Labour?

Losses for the other parties were rather catastrophic. As Frogblog has already noted, the Greens lost the lowest proportion of votes of all those remaining in Parliament – but clearly it did face some voters reverting to Labour, to bolster its chances of beating National for number 1 spot, but also because polling for the Greens made their 5% spot not always convincing. Wasted votes are avoided by many voters, and the Greens had little new to sell to voters besides “we’ll support Labour and want to spend more of your money on new energy sources, and petrol is running out ha ha ha”. The loss of Nandor Tanczos will also reduce the appeal of the Greens to voters keen on cannabis law reform.

NZ First suffered a loss of protest votes to National. Winston rightfully should feel humiliated having lost his base in Tauranga and is now playing a careful game of not supporting or opposing Labour being in government. His elderly support base are slowly dying off missing Rob Muldoon and the dark ages, his Maori supporters are drifting away, and virtually all of his MPs are invisible and unknown (who’s going to miss Bill Gudgeon and Edwin Perry!). Unless Winston exploits a high profile issue near the next election that National drops the ball on, he is fading away.

United Future understandably is back down to more usual levels, as much of its support from 2002 went back to National. Even absorbing the Outdoor Recreation party and the irrelevant WIN party, did nothing for United Future, which at best is now a place for those who don’t care about the election outcome – but like Peter Dunne – to vote. The soft Christian family vote has probably left for National as well. Once Dunne retires, United Future will be gone, and not a moment too soon!

ACT is glad it survived – it barely did. Rodney Hide made a great effort in Epsom and I trust he will be a vibrant local MP, and deservedly so. No doubt ACT would have picked up more National votes had Epsom been a sure thing, but then that would not have assisted National in forming a government while Dunne and Peters prefer negotiating with the larger of the two main parties. It now has two socially liberal MPs, and it is about time they thought more about that, and let ACT be free of its conservative instincts. It wont of course, which is why I didn’t vote for ACT in the 2005 election. I did in 1996 and it proceeded to disappoint.

Jim Anderton is back down to his personal cult party – how quaint and irrelevant, it’s Labour in drag with a Catholic conservative bent *yawn*.

Beyond that, those who believed God was on their side were wrong – Brian Tamaki has little support outside his tithing sheeple, following him in his quest to take New Zealand to the Dark Ages. The Christian Heritage Party was damned for having tried to convince the public to vote for Graham Capill too many times in the past – Libertarianz beat them in several electorates for the party vote. Methinks Destiny and Christian Heritage would get together, if Brian's ego wasn't so enormous (oh I forgot, he doesn't lead the party - it has nothing to do with him!).

The Alliance similarly must now be down to its last rites, as Libertarianz also beat it in several electorates on the party vote.

Which comes to Libertarianz – a very poor result, less than one thousand votes, despite a tremendous effort campaigning by a range of talented people, some of whom were cutting their teeth bravely on the campaign trail for the first time. At least the party stood this time, and generally did better in electorates it had candidates than those where it did not. Two of our key messages were central to the election – abolishing race based laws, including the Maori seats, and cutting taxes. Sure we wanted to abolish taxation ultimately, but the principle remained – Brash argued it is YOUR money, Clark argued that the world would end if she didn’t have access to it.

Where to from here for Libertarianz? The message remains the same - small government is beautiful and the state should get out of the way, but the way the message is communicated will diversify. It has to – nobody else on the political spectrum is consistently fighting for private property rights and the right of you to own your body, your life and interact voluntarily with other adults. That is what Libertarianz is about – it is not what Labour, National or any other party believes in.

For New Zealand? Clark will run a status quo government, and be hard pressed to do anything beyond tax and spend more of your money - and pass some legislation that isn't too controversial.

One thing to remember though is that although NZ First and United Future are painted as being centre-right, they are both parties of bigger government. NZ First is inherently conservative, likes the government running businesses and likes banning things it doesn't like (look at how it approached civil unions, prostitution and censorship). United Future is also conservative, and if creating a new pointless bureaucracy called the Families Commission isn't about big government, what is? They will both allow Labour to increase the size of the welfare state in the next three years - no pleading from either party about stable government will deny this fact. If either wanted to legitimately claim they support tax cuts and less bureaucracy they would withhold confidence and supply, and let Labour deal with the Maori Party - and implement its agenda.

I dare them!

Why do I like Tony Blair?

I shouldn’t like Tony Blair –after all he is a Labour Prime Minister, and instinctively I prefer the party that was of Thatcher - the Conservatives, which is meant to believe in smaller less intrusive government, which stood steadfastly with the USA during the Cold War, and confronted the post-war malaise of British socialism head on.

However, I must confess, that I do like him. It is not because the Tories are a dissembled bunch of rudderless opponents of Labour – the Tories have never been socially liberal, and struggle to maintain economic liberalism consistently. It is because Blair shows two qualities that place him in the league of Thatcher, and place him light years above Clark, Brash and indeed any New Zealand Prime Minister in my lifetime.

1. Blair is principled;
2. Blair is unashamedly willing to confront those who oppose him and argue out of principle.
Yesterday I watched Blair’s speech at the British Labour Party Conference on TV (the BBC still covers political party conferences for nuts like me), and I came away inspired.

Now there is an enormous rider in all of this – I don’t approve of the social engineering, the growth in the state, the willingness to limit civil liberties and the many of facets of what are “old labour” that the Blair administration has been a part of. I would not have voted Labour in the last UK election – largely because I could not have brought myself to do so, and because the Tories need new blood to succeed Labour in due course. On top of that the emphasis on “spin” and controlling the language used by the (until recently) Blair friendly British electronic media, is at best hiding from debate and at worst deceitful.

So what did Blair say and what has he done?

I could go on about his confrontation of the barely shrouded Marxists in the British trade union movement, in pushing for private sector provision of health care, something National feels very brave to campaign on in New Zealand. He also stated that the future for energy was technology, and nuclear power – something that the luddite Green movement would be aghast at. Both are worthy of praise.

However, nothing matches his willingness to defend the UK presence in Iraq, and the war on terror. He declared, in no uncertain terms, that the so called “grievances” of the terrorists have to be exposed for what they are – the use of 21st century technology to fight the religious wars of the dark ages – their attack on 9/11 was an attack on our way of life, on the values of modernism – it is NOT about Afghanistan or Palestine.

He cited how awful Afghanistan was under the Taliban, and how the terrorists and their supporters used Afghanistan and now use Iraq as excuses for waging their war of hatred on modern civilisation. He stated how the UK presence in Iraq is welcomed by the democratically elected Iraqi government, and the UN, and the UK could NOT sit back and let other countries carry the burden. He is unashamedly proud of the British role in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and providing Iraq with a freer democratic government – and it is time to finish the job, confront those who want Iraq to become a terrorist run state and spread liberal democracy to Iraq.

This is light years ahead of the mealy mouthed pragmatism of Clark and Brash on this issue, Clark happily lets NZ free ride off of Australia and the US for defence – Brash knows better, but panders to the mindless anti-Americanism that braindead journalists and the Michael Moore sycophants adore.

You see, Blair does not give one inch of credit to Al Qaeda or any other terrorists for their behaviour. He does not surrender the fundamental morality of Western liberalism –a liberalism that protects individual rights (albeit inconsistently), that guarantees plurality of speech, guards against extreme abuses of power and welcomes reason, science and diversity as being the beauty of what humanity is. Blair is a staunch defender of those fundamental freedoms, the ones that the apologists for the West use blatantly to attack it, the ones that Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and yes the Mullahs in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and elsewhere exploit to wage war on civilians. Nothing is more unspeakably loathsome than the apologists for deliberate murder of people and of civilisation, reason and the belief that all human beings are created equal and because they are human have inalienable rights. Have no question about it, the Islamic fundamentalists would not for a moment tolerate any of the women protesting for THEIR rights, doing anything short of being virtual slaves to their husbands – and if humanity had followed their path then the dark ages would be upon us – remember these are people who ban music!! Think about it – Nazi Germany, North Korea, the Khmer Rouge – three of the most despicable regimes in human history, were not so utterly without a shred of any joy to ban music.

This is not a war against Islam – individuals in a free society have a right to peacefully practice their own religion, and market it – Islam does need to go through its own enlightenment, and perhaps Turkey shows one path for it to go down. It is a war against those who seek to turn government and society back to premodernity, to the caves, to the savages of mysticism.

Back to Blair – his other statement was shorter and more pithy. He talked of those wanting to oppose globalisation as being as pointless as wanting to oppose autumn following summer. He talked of Britain embracing globalisation, and competing using knowledge, skills and being better and smarter at producing goods and services. He reflected on how India and China were embracing globalisation, and it was lifting many in those countries out of poverty, and how Asia and Latin America were better off with trade. Africa would have to be next. While talking about debt relief and fighting poverty in developing countries, he did point out clearly that one of the most important steps was for Europe and the USA to reform trade in agriculture. This meant explicitly abolishing export subsidies and curtailing the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU. Such steps, which the leftie Green socialist luddites will probably resist, will make it easier for poorer countries to compete fairly in world markets, and reduce the price of food in the richest countries. He pointed directly at the economic failures of France and Germany, for having too much angst to undertake serious reforms – and rightfully so.

Blair sees clearly the future agenda in foreign affairs on two fronts: the war on terror and trade. The war on terror is just, and remaining in Iraq is just. Yes foreign affairs is about realpolitik. The opportunity to overthrow Saddam Hussein was taken, when he was flagrantly ignoring UN Security Council resolutions time and time again, he was militarily weak, and there was every good reason to believe he had weapons of mass destruction (as he clearly had before and was prepared to use them on civilians to suppress dissent). He ran a brutal illegitimate regime than nobody in their right mind could possibly excuse – except his mate George Galloway of course – and the chance was there to remove a defence risk, a brutal regime and to institute a peaceful liberal democratic government – you know the sort that allows protest marches, a free press and women to have the same rights as men.

His advocacy of eliminating agricultural export subsidies and cutting back the Common Agricultural Policy is also moral – the average cow in the EU gets more in subsidies than the average person earns in developing countries for income per annum.

Most importantly, he does not shirk from his principles, and he knows what matters first and foremost – survival and freedom. He will not sell out the defence of the UK because of self imposed guilt about what others think about western civilisation, and he believes that markets work (most of the time he does anyway). Don Brash could learn a lot from Tony Blair, and the idea that Helen Clark shares with Blair anything besides his obsession with spin - is ludicrous!

Sobriety and a chance for reflection

Hello all

I have not been blogging because I have shifted lock stock and barrel to London the day after the election - I had to leave - Clark and her minions seduced the sheeple to believe they needed her and couldn't handle having some of their own money back - Brash nearly did show that a plurality wanted change. However, combined with the luddites, the racists, the middle mediocrity muddlers and Winston First, Clark will no doubt form another administration to run your lives for you.

Until special votes are counted, I wont be commenting further - as that WILL make a big difference, but I do want to reflect on what did happen last Saturday night.

The statist, socialist bullies got scared for several hours that they could not bully you, scare you into giving up more of YOUR money, for three more years - until the sheeple gave them the chance. This election was almost entirely about National rebuilding itself - and decimating the third parties on the right that had been the repositary for protest votes. Labour lost very little, its main loss went to the Maori Party - but that is another story.

For Libertarianz? a poor result, partly due to non appearance in 2002 on the list, but also due to the resurgence of National - ACT suffered just as humiliating a cut in the vote.

Anyway, I have far more interesting things to talk about than NZ politics in the coming months, but as I said - until the votes are counted, the true situation is not entirely clear. If National and Labour have the same number of seats - who will Winston choose?

Why the Greens are evil

The Green Party philosophy and policies are fundamentally evil - they are authoritarian statists, whose key interest is in using the monopoly of legitimised violence (the state) to force people to do what they want, ban people from doing what they don't want. to confiscate more money from people who earn it, and to give other people's money to things they like.

The Greens are bullies, and their facade of peaceful friendly animal and tree loving hippies simply does not wash. There is NOTHING peaceful about using state threatened or actual violence to get what you want, and that is everything the Green Party stands for. If it thought otherwise it would use persuasion, not politics, to change people's behaviour - it uses force.

The Greens use language like "fund", "mandate", "provide" and "ensure" - all euphemisms for force. All the want to do does NOT grow on trees - it is taken from YOU.

The Greens fund through taxation - legalised theft - and will tax you more, will take more of YOUR money to do what they cannot convince you to do yourself - because they believe in Nanny State. The Greens know best what you should buy and sell - don't even think about disagreeing because if they get their way you get arrested, fined or imprisoned for not obeying what they want - and don't even start to expect you to have rights to your body, property or ability to freely interact with other adults.

Lets take some examples:

• Legislate for pay equity and establish a Commission to reduce the gender pay gap by 50% within five years. So you'll make employers pay women more - you interfere with a contract between a supplier of employment and a supplier of labour, and make them be paid more, regardless of whether the employer sees value in doing so.
• introduce stronger foreign investment and ownership laws and regulations. Dont' even think about selling your business or property to whoever is willing to pay the best price, it isn't yours it is the Greens who hate foreigners owning anything you own.
• Create a legal obligation on the government to ensure housing needs are met. Ok cool, why don't we all give up our houses and rentals and tell the government to do it - make other people pay for it.
  
• Provide sabbatical leave for teachers after 6 years of service at 80% of salary. Why? Do they all deserve it? Why can't every business person get this paid for by other people?
• Restrict land ownership to citizens and permanent residents living in NZ for at least half of each year Damned foreigners, can't let them buy from a willing seller can we now?
• Establish an Access Commissioner to negotiate rules and routes for public access. It isn't your land you selfish farmer, any fuckwit can cross you land with the Greens using their brute statism to back it up - hopefully you can get access through Jeanette's house on demand as well!
• Require land use to better match land type. Oh thank you, I can't decide what to do with my land, I need nanny to tell me - why don't you just own it all to make it easier?
• imposing requirements on imported goods to meet standards for durability and repairability Oh I'm so stupid, I want to buy crappy goods that don't last and can't be repaired? Can't wait till the computer I buy that is obsolete and useless within five years can't be imported anymore - or do I then buy an ultra expensive crappy locally made one that lasts for decades, sort of like how the Cubans patch up their 1950s vintage US made cars.
• restrictions on what can be put into landfills so valuable materials aren't wasted like what? where do i put what you deem to be valuable? What will you do to me if I don't obey?
• Ensure the voices of children are heard when laws are made. going to have them witter on in Parliament are we?
• Reduce violence on children’s TV and introduce ad-free children’s television. Can't show the violence of the state arresting people for disobeying all your foreign ownership/ import restrictions can we? More taking other people's money to pay for something people are not willing to pay more.
• Support the right to strike for political, economic and environmental reasons - not just on employment issues. Oh so an employee can cease working because they feel like it, but the employer can't shut up shop if he hates the government and wants to tell it to fuck off. I guess Telecom, Microsoft, Mobil and others could just close for a day, switch off their services and say they are on strike.
  
• End the discharge of sewerage and toxic waste into our waterways, lakes and sea. OK so where does sewerage go then? Wellington's treated sewerage is cleaner than the sea, shall we just dump it on you?
• Introduce Universal Student Allowance for all full-time students at the rate of the unemployment benefit.Brilliant! So more money taken from other people to give students some help before you fleece them with exorbitant taxes, except the lazy unproductive ones who get a loan, stay in NZ, do "unpaid work" get it written off, and basically got a degree for the hell of it, without paying for it.
  

• We don’t need to import:food we can grow and process ourselves, manufactured goods we can make for ourselves. No we don't need to, but why don't you just fuck off? I WANT to. I LIKE foreign chocolate, I LIKE foreign stereo speakers, I LIKE foreign shoes - You don't need to be in politics, you don't need to breed, you don't need to listen to music - this is so fascist it is beyond description.
  

• Give parents the legal right to have more flexible working hours and encourage child friendly workplaces. AH again forcing one party in a contract to have what the other party demands, and I can see Air New Zealand making the cockpits of their planes "child friendly" so the pilots can take Bubba to LA. Why not give employers the legal right to terminate employment which is not contributing to the viability of the business? Why dont people have the right to negotiate now, or do they need nanny state to bully employers?
  
• Ensure workplaces provide work breaks and areas where mothers can breastfeed. Going to do this for the self-employed? or entrepreneurs or others who work their arses off to make businesses, create wealth and jobs? More forcing people.
  
• Introduce a student debt write-off scheme - one year's debt for one year's paid or unpaid work in New Zealand OK so you can go to uni, borrow to the hilt with other people's money and you'll USE other people's money to wipe it while they deliver Green Party leaflets, work for Greenpeace, or do just about anything nobody else is prepared to pay them to do.
  
• Set a national target of 10% of farmland in conversion to organics by 2010 oh really? So how will this happen? You will make it happen?
• Clean up the air, water and soil we depend on to grow food Is it dirty? How will you make this happen? Whose private property will you interfere with?
• Create a National Nutrition Fund to encourage healthy eating Oh more fingers in my wallet. Why not create one now with your OWN money, do it without the state
• Require food labels to list any GE ingredients, country of origin and the means of production, e.g. eggs from caged hens. Why not let consumers decide and choose what they want, are they too stupid?
• Insulate and damp-proof more homes around New Zealand, reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to hazardous chemicals, improve children's health by encouraging them to eat healthily How? You going to make it happen, going to use other people's money to pay for those who didn't use their own money to insulate their homes? How are emissions going to be reduced - by force again?
• Work towards a ban on GE food imports and, in the interim, improve the labelling requirements Oh thanks, I can't choose GE food - I'm too dumb to know what I want, thanks!
• matching land use to land use capability such as reafforesting highly erodible hill country Whose farms are these? Why is it your business?
• addressing the impacts of rural land use on climate change Address? How? What are you going to ban, or compel, or tax or use other people's money for?
• Introduce vehicle fuel efficiency standards and a carbon tax, and end the tax exemption for diesel Oh so I can't buy a Ferrari any more, even though I am prepared to pay for the petrol? What tax exemption on diesel - diesel vehicles pay for road use through road user charges, that is what petrol tax is meant to be for too - but hey thanks for pilfering more from my wallet for what YOU want.
• Get trucks off roads by shifting freight to rail How? Going to make it illegal like it was ages ago? Going to tax trucks to pay for what you want, or take money from other people to make rail compete below cost?
  
• Invest in locally made biofuels, and electrification for rail, to help keep costs down Go ahead, invest with YOUR money, not mine. Since when did electrification keep costs down, since it costs MORE? Oops its not your money so you can just take more from us and we lie down and accept it.
• work internationally to share the remaining oil without going to war. besides being really funny, whose oil is it? Why can't people buy and sell it by choice? Why do you oppose war, when you support the state fining and punishing people for opposing what happens under the RMA, or breaching your bans on GE.
• Get half a million solar hot water panels onto homes over 5 years OK so you take my money to make someone rich from supplying their product to the state - great, any more businesses you can prop up from legally stolen money because you really love their products? Or are people too stupid to buy what you want?

They appear warm and fuzzy but want to force you at every turn!