Helen Clark had two options after the election, she has two parties to negotiate confidence and supply with, but neither party in itself could deliver the numbers. She had 51 seats including Anderton's, and had to choose between 6 seats and the Greens, or 7 seats and NZ First. Let's consider those choices. The Maori Party and United Future individually or together, do not deliver enough. She needed either NZ First or the Greens, with one of the others (or both). She chose Winston soooo what does this really mean?
1) The Greens will be fuming, Labour knows the Greens would never bring down a Labour Government if it meant National had a chance. The Greens have got some crumbs, but any deal with the Greens would have to have included the Maori Party, as it would have been nearly impossible for Winston to work with them. The Greens have been pushed to the sidelines - which means there is little hope for those on the left that a radical social agenda would be implemented - in fact it has been ruled out. The Greens would have wanted a coalition supported by the Maori party - that would have certainly fired up the left of Labour, but would almost certainly have led Labour to certain defeat in 2008. In addition, the bad blood between Labour and the Maori Party is still too fresh. Clark has moved to the centre.
2) The Maori Party is pleased enough that it did well out of the election, and can now perform as a parliamentary entity voting on a case by case basis. This will please its supporters who would have been incensed had it backed National, but also did not want to be Labour's walkovers. It has done ok - and can wait till 2008 to build a greater presence. Certainly Pita Sharples is an enormous asset compared to Tariana.
3) United Future must be relieved that it matters, a little bit, to Labour. However, it can hardly claim that it is a party of the centre now that it is keeping Labour in power for two terms in a row. Peter Dunne can only claim credit for stopping Labour doing a range of things he doesn't like, and then there is Transmission Gully - which is his own pet Wellington Think Big project which has a negative value to the nation, and worth very few votes.
4) NZ First has to be rather happy about its position. Winston has had Helen Clark surrender a big portfolio to him, albeit outside Cabinet, and some policy success. He will lose support from those who vote for him and hate Helen Clark, much like he would've had he backed Brash. His Treaty of Waitangi policy is nearly in tatters from supporting Labour, and he may well have ensured his political retirement in 2008 - not enough in Tauranga will support him for stopping tolls on the second Tauranga Harbour Bridge.
5) Labour must be relieved to be in government, but concerned about what it has got itself in for. Two parties that voted en masse against civil unions and prostitution law reform now keep Labour in power -foreign affairs is not an important enough portfolio to be in Cabinet, and Labour now looks to have been a bit too desperate to govern. Shades of 1996-1998 - except it was National then. Many Labour supporters, hopeful for a Green/Maori coalition will be disappointed and disgusted - very few people are ambivalent about Winston, and Labour will pay just like National did. The one card Labour has that is most useful is that it has four parties that it can seek support on legislation - which means it is NOT dependent entirely on NZ First and United Future, just rather hamstrung by them. However, it will be interesting to see how long that can be sustained.
6) National must be smiling, this government looks a bit of a joke and could prove to be the death knell for NZ First and strip more votes away from United Future, both of which will probably benefit National. Now National with a revitalised caucus can sit back and look like a government in waiting, and watch three or less years of Clark using Winston, Dunne and when she wants to - the Greens and Maori Party. National has been burnt by Winston's games before, and will now use every chance to show that he and Dunne are parties that support the status quo.
7) ACT? Well while still thrilled to still be around, ACT can laugh at the Winston games, while it goes through its own internal rumblings about where it is heading. It is still a party of conservatives and liberals, who differ on many issues - but once again, for the fourth MMP parliamentary term, it is not in government.
Helen Clark is a political prostitute willing to sell out to Winston Peters to remain in power, but I am sure the Nats would do the same, again - but now it is time to watch the games, and see how much NZ First brings down this government.
19 October 2005
14 October 2005
Violence against children isn't that serious
is it? Compared to sex crimes, the offences get less attention, far lower sentences and nobody wants a list of where people who beat up and torture children live. Avoid the next section if you are sensitive, none of this is pleasant.
The status quo, exemplified by the case I am about to explain, implies it is far more acceptable to beat a two year old child with an iron rod, kick him, burn him with a cigarette, put his hand on the stove element, hold down in the bath or anything of the sort - than to suck his penis or have him suck yours. However, you might get five years for any of the former, but 14 for the latter. In fact, just kick him you might get two years - maximum sentence - you might rupture his spleen, but hey, at least you're not sexually perverted!
Stuff has reported on the following case - it is still at court, so the guilt of those named has yet to be established - but this case is an example of something that happens all too often.
When you next notice the tax you pay, think about how you are paying for the likes of Harley Mac Wharewera, 19, and Kane Jeremy Tawa, 23, both unemployed, who have been charged with willfully ill treating a child and assaulting a child.
They are alleged to have tortured a boy aged 2 in a bedroom dubbed “the cell”:
- “Along with regular punching and kicking, they would pick the toddler up, throw him over their shoulders, and "body slam" him on to a mattress”
- “On one occasion, Wharewera allegedly jumped off a window sill and landed with the full force of his weight on the boy while Tawa held him down.
- Is alleged that Wharewera forced the boy to eat dog faeces after locking him in a small cupboard and threatening him with assault.
There is more, and the mother is alleged to have permitted it to happen.
The boy was admitted to the intensive care unit at Whakatane Hospital on September 21 suffering serious head injuries but has since been discharged.
Anyone who treats a child like that is beyond description, Dr Josef Mengele treated children with similar respect – and I doubt if most parents or people would think that any entities performing such acts upon a child deserve to live.
I don’t care if perpetrators were beaten up as children – that’s very sad – it excuses nothing. Most rape victims don’t pursue it themselves.
What is equally vile is when the mother sits back and lets it happen – but under the NZ criminal justice system that is barely punished. James Whakaruru’s mother, who handed her boyfriend the vacuum cleaner pipe which ultimately killed the boy, got a suspended sentence and I last read she had been studying in Auckland. If a parent who can be arsed fucking to create the child, and claim cash from everyone else to pay for it fails to defend their child from assault – they are little better than the assaulter.
However, I hear the whimpering simpering leftie liberal types saying – they are victims of unemployment or women not feeling empowered. Fuck off! Let them do that in front of you to a child – tell me then who the victim is.
The criminal justice system has two significant perversities. A parent can completely abrogate their responsibilities to protect their children, and get off lightly- when it should be their top priority. Secondly, violent assaults on children are treated lightly compared to sexual assault. If the men were being charged for sexual acts upon the child, they would face sentences of up to 14 years – assault of a child is 2 years and willfully mistreating is 5 years.
This is not to minimize sexual abuse which can be highly destructive and harmful and not to be condoned – but why is violent abuse worthy of such short sentences, when it can be as damaging or more damaging. Would paralyzing a child or permanently brain damaging him be not as serious as sexual assault? I suspect almost all kinds of sexual abuse are less serious than causing such permanent physical harm. While there are calls to have a register of sexual criminals so parents know when someone dodgy moves close to their house – there are creatures who perform equally and sometimes worse crimes on children, which are not sexual, who nobody bothers thinking about.
Violence against children doesn’t upset politicians as much as sexual abuse. Who knows why? Sex makes people more upset because the offender is getting perverse gratification, but the sadist also does – although I guess culturally violence is a more acceptable pleasure than sexual arousal.
This is a part of the other world out there that I am sure almost all readers are not a part of – it is a world where lazy useless lumps of scum, not content with utterly pointless existences where they live off of the earnings of others, torture children. This is utterly nothing more despicable than any adult deliberately engaging in and savouring the infliction of pain, humiliation and harm on a child – who at once is unable to respond and is dependent on the trust, thought and compassion of an adult to nurture him.
All those who have tortured or stood by and let torture of a child be undertaken are worthy of nothing less than getting knocked down by a truck and having their entrails washed away by the rain. If the people charged are found guilty may that happen to them – may they never be allowed to be near children again, or to breed – and maybe, just maybe, this government or the next bans those found guilty of such crimes from living on welfare.
I don’t see why any of us should be forced to fund entities who have as much value as flies.
Note also that if you failed to pay your taxes, you would be guilty till proven innocent - and be treated with far less respect than those alleged to have tortured children -see where the state's priorities are?
The status quo, exemplified by the case I am about to explain, implies it is far more acceptable to beat a two year old child with an iron rod, kick him, burn him with a cigarette, put his hand on the stove element, hold down in the bath or anything of the sort - than to suck his penis or have him suck yours. However, you might get five years for any of the former, but 14 for the latter. In fact, just kick him you might get two years - maximum sentence - you might rupture his spleen, but hey, at least you're not sexually perverted!
Stuff has reported on the following case - it is still at court, so the guilt of those named has yet to be established - but this case is an example of something that happens all too often.
When you next notice the tax you pay, think about how you are paying for the likes of Harley Mac Wharewera, 19, and Kane Jeremy Tawa, 23, both unemployed, who have been charged with willfully ill treating a child and assaulting a child.
They are alleged to have tortured a boy aged 2 in a bedroom dubbed “the cell”:
- “Along with regular punching and kicking, they would pick the toddler up, throw him over their shoulders, and "body slam" him on to a mattress”
- “On one occasion, Wharewera allegedly jumped off a window sill and landed with the full force of his weight on the boy while Tawa held him down.
- Is alleged that Wharewera forced the boy to eat dog faeces after locking him in a small cupboard and threatening him with assault.
There is more, and the mother is alleged to have permitted it to happen.
The boy was admitted to the intensive care unit at Whakatane Hospital on September 21 suffering serious head injuries but has since been discharged.
Anyone who treats a child like that is beyond description, Dr Josef Mengele treated children with similar respect – and I doubt if most parents or people would think that any entities performing such acts upon a child deserve to live.
I don’t care if perpetrators were beaten up as children – that’s very sad – it excuses nothing. Most rape victims don’t pursue it themselves.
What is equally vile is when the mother sits back and lets it happen – but under the NZ criminal justice system that is barely punished. James Whakaruru’s mother, who handed her boyfriend the vacuum cleaner pipe which ultimately killed the boy, got a suspended sentence and I last read she had been studying in Auckland. If a parent who can be arsed fucking to create the child, and claim cash from everyone else to pay for it fails to defend their child from assault – they are little better than the assaulter.
However, I hear the whimpering simpering leftie liberal types saying – they are victims of unemployment or women not feeling empowered. Fuck off! Let them do that in front of you to a child – tell me then who the victim is.
The criminal justice system has two significant perversities. A parent can completely abrogate their responsibilities to protect their children, and get off lightly- when it should be their top priority. Secondly, violent assaults on children are treated lightly compared to sexual assault. If the men were being charged for sexual acts upon the child, they would face sentences of up to 14 years – assault of a child is 2 years and willfully mistreating is 5 years.
This is not to minimize sexual abuse which can be highly destructive and harmful and not to be condoned – but why is violent abuse worthy of such short sentences, when it can be as damaging or more damaging. Would paralyzing a child or permanently brain damaging him be not as serious as sexual assault? I suspect almost all kinds of sexual abuse are less serious than causing such permanent physical harm. While there are calls to have a register of sexual criminals so parents know when someone dodgy moves close to their house – there are creatures who perform equally and sometimes worse crimes on children, which are not sexual, who nobody bothers thinking about.
Violence against children doesn’t upset politicians as much as sexual abuse. Who knows why? Sex makes people more upset because the offender is getting perverse gratification, but the sadist also does – although I guess culturally violence is a more acceptable pleasure than sexual arousal.
This is a part of the other world out there that I am sure almost all readers are not a part of – it is a world where lazy useless lumps of scum, not content with utterly pointless existences where they live off of the earnings of others, torture children. This is utterly nothing more despicable than any adult deliberately engaging in and savouring the infliction of pain, humiliation and harm on a child – who at once is unable to respond and is dependent on the trust, thought and compassion of an adult to nurture him.
All those who have tortured or stood by and let torture of a child be undertaken are worthy of nothing less than getting knocked down by a truck and having their entrails washed away by the rain. If the people charged are found guilty may that happen to them – may they never be allowed to be near children again, or to breed – and maybe, just maybe, this government or the next bans those found guilty of such crimes from living on welfare.
I don’t see why any of us should be forced to fund entities who have as much value as flies.
Note also that if you failed to pay your taxes, you would be guilty till proven innocent - and be treated with far less respect than those alleged to have tortured children -see where the state's priorities are?
13 October 2005
Moore on Australia and political correctness
Mike Moore seems to have made some valid points in his DomPost article . I’ve tended to think of Moore as being, on the one hand a bit of a lightweight, but also someone who found his feet outside politics – a valuable Chairman who had a single minded focus, and a man who – when he was convinced of arguments- was prepared to back them up. His career hit its apex being head of the WTO, not leading Labour to two election defeats and getting stabbed in the back by the leftwing fascist Labour feminocracy shortly thereafter.
Moore talked about the divergence in relationship between Australia and NZ. Australia has little interest in the relationship with New Zealand. While it is useful to have access to another market- effectively no bigger than Melbourne – it is hardly critical and the Aussies have it already. The US and Asia are far more important, and the New Zealand relationship with the US, while being friends is no more than that. The tradeoff for some is to say Aussie is at risk of a terror attack far more than NZ – which may be true – and that pleases the Green anti-nuclear mob, for whom the US can never do any good.
The old story of the tradeoff between the nuclear ban and trade is true – it is a truth the Greens don’t care about, because they are against trade growth (see transporting things hurts the environment!) although they are never against using the money from it to pay for state of the art healthcare or trains or whatever their fetish is this week. Labour wont dare admit to the trade off because the nuclear ban is something the student peaceniks in them are not prepared to give up. They have some fatuous belief that banning nuclear weapons, particularly those held by countries that share our values, will result in more peace. National wont confront the largely brainless mass of New Zealanders raised on Greenpeace propaganda, fed through our schools that anything nuclear is bad and hurts whales – the same mass who happily use nuclear power on holidays to Europe and the US.
Moore more importantly lamblasts the political correctness of today - something he said Latham has "as a good bullshit detector" - while noting in New Zealand there are publicly funded books calling modern health methods of stopping smoking, eating healthier and exercise as “white man’s racist answers to Maori problems”. He quotes vaccinations being considered a form of "colonialism", and cervical screenings "contradict cultural norms". We still have the despicable anti-science bullshit that originally came out with Anna Penn and the late Irihapeti Ramsden and nursing cultural safety – something Ken Mair defended at the time. Something the National Party was silent about at the time, but what do you expect from Jim Bolger?
Why didn’t National find this before the election? This sort of vile nonsense is beyond words and I would love to have seen Helen Clark and Annette King defending state funding of this mumbo-jumbo. Nazi Germany produced the same level of science in its propaganda, and does the Maori Party defend it? Given Ken Mair is one of the Maori Party’s chief negotiators with Labour – I wouldn’t be surprised.
It is also interesting that Mark Latham understands something the Greens don't - why protectionism hurt the people Labour is supposed to care about is telling – the Greens are xenophobically opposed to foreign made goods unless they are really special! The Greens would rather protect local manufacturers than ensure the poor get cheaper shoes for their kids – but they see it as protecting jobs, keeping jobs from those poor Chinese people who without the (relatively) low wage job would otherwise (without a welfare state) have to live cultivating a subsistence existence on a farm, rather than earn money and be able to better themselves. It is such economic nonsense that it is barely worth arguing against - it is the economics of adolescents.
Moore talked about the divergence in relationship between Australia and NZ. Australia has little interest in the relationship with New Zealand. While it is useful to have access to another market- effectively no bigger than Melbourne – it is hardly critical and the Aussies have it already. The US and Asia are far more important, and the New Zealand relationship with the US, while being friends is no more than that. The tradeoff for some is to say Aussie is at risk of a terror attack far more than NZ – which may be true – and that pleases the Green anti-nuclear mob, for whom the US can never do any good.
The old story of the tradeoff between the nuclear ban and trade is true – it is a truth the Greens don’t care about, because they are against trade growth (see transporting things hurts the environment!) although they are never against using the money from it to pay for state of the art healthcare or trains or whatever their fetish is this week. Labour wont dare admit to the trade off because the nuclear ban is something the student peaceniks in them are not prepared to give up. They have some fatuous belief that banning nuclear weapons, particularly those held by countries that share our values, will result in more peace. National wont confront the largely brainless mass of New Zealanders raised on Greenpeace propaganda, fed through our schools that anything nuclear is bad and hurts whales – the same mass who happily use nuclear power on holidays to Europe and the US.
Moore more importantly lamblasts the political correctness of today - something he said Latham has "as a good bullshit detector" - while noting in New Zealand there are publicly funded books calling modern health methods of stopping smoking, eating healthier and exercise as “white man’s racist answers to Maori problems”. He quotes vaccinations being considered a form of "colonialism", and cervical screenings "contradict cultural norms". We still have the despicable anti-science bullshit that originally came out with Anna Penn and the late Irihapeti Ramsden and nursing cultural safety – something Ken Mair defended at the time. Something the National Party was silent about at the time, but what do you expect from Jim Bolger?
Why didn’t National find this before the election? This sort of vile nonsense is beyond words and I would love to have seen Helen Clark and Annette King defending state funding of this mumbo-jumbo. Nazi Germany produced the same level of science in its propaganda, and does the Maori Party defend it? Given Ken Mair is one of the Maori Party’s chief negotiators with Labour – I wouldn’t be surprised.
It is also interesting that Mark Latham understands something the Greens don't - why protectionism hurt the people Labour is supposed to care about is telling – the Greens are xenophobically opposed to foreign made goods unless they are really special! The Greens would rather protect local manufacturers than ensure the poor get cheaper shoes for their kids – but they see it as protecting jobs, keeping jobs from those poor Chinese people who without the (relatively) low wage job would otherwise (without a welfare state) have to live cultivating a subsistence existence on a farm, rather than earn money and be able to better themselves. It is such economic nonsense that it is barely worth arguing against - it is the economics of adolescents.
08 October 2005
UK Conservative Party leadership
David Farrar has been actually AT the conference and watched it all – and it is an exciting race to see who becomes the new leader – out of David Davis, David Cameron, Ken Clarke, Liam Fox and Malcolm Rifkind – all striving to rescue the party from its three in a row defeat, which in British terms (with 4-5 year electoral terms) is enormous. Michael Howard has stepped down with dignity, and can, at least, claim to have started moving the party from the old fashioned grey haired “born to rule” reputation it has had, and won some seats at the last election. However the party needs more, and this is why…
Labour has not only stolen the middle ground, it has moved over to the right on much economic and some social policy. Allowing private hospitals to provide NHS services, introducing tertiary education fees, bravely entering the war against Iraq, maintaining an agenda of more open markets and some reform of the EU – those are centre-right policies. The policies that half of the Tories would endorse, and their voters certainly have. All the Conservative Party has been playing with is scaremongering over immigration (pandering somewhat to latent racism), Euroskepticism, being tougher on crime and more choice in public services – in other words a bit more to the right than Labour. In an environment where the British economy is ticking over ok, particularly compared to sick western Europe, most Brits are reasonably content. There is no great mood for change – and Blair has won as a result.
The Conservative Party looks geriatric. It has been trying to move from that, but it is still largely seen as a party for high income, old, heterosexual white men and their wives – and I use those terms deliberately. Even the name – Conservative Party – implies that radical change are coming and they don’t want them, they want to keep things the way they have always been. It is difficult to see how the Party relates to young people other than those who are posh and driven to lead others. Equally, as much as it tries, ethnic minorities and gay people always seem like they are wanted for image – but not really wanted in the Party. Note this is public impressions – it is a party for well off powerful people who want to govern, not for all businesspeople, or people who want less government or people who are diverse.
It is like Don Brash’s ill calculated use of the term “mainstream New Zealand” – which was meant to appeal to the Christian right of which he is not a part, and meant to appeal to the bigotry of many – the problem is Brash doesn’t really believe in it, and it shows. He would hardly say that ethnic minorities (e.g. his wife!), gay and lesbian, Maori or others are not mainstream. Unfortunately the Tories have not got a good record on looking liberal on personal liberty matters – which is one reason the Liberal Party, forerunner of part of the Liberal Democrats, existed.
So can the Tories find a leader from the existing stable of contenders to modernise the party, through off this stuffy image AND establish a clear place on the political spectrum to appeal to British voters sufficiently to win the next election.
The problem is, I don’t think it can.
Liam Fox and Malcolm Rifkind are too far from the past and wont get very far
Ken Clarke can put on a performance, but is far too cozy with Europe to succeed. He is clearly the leftwing contender, and sees the main reason the Tories are losing are because they are not occupying the middle. I suspect Ken Clarke would be seen as a tired old has-been who could hold a Cabinet posting with some dignity, but that is that. Clarke did talk about individual choice and lower tax – though we are really only talking increments here.
The most publicity has been about the two Davids, with much been about comparing their ages and backgrounds. Davis is older, and has not gone to private school, and has shown himself to be slightly more socially conservative. Cameron has much more youth and vitality, and a survey of undecided voters undertaken by the BBC indicated that he had the edge, by looking vibrant, “not like a politician” and intelligent. His wealthy background did not influence most of them negatively.
I think David Cameron would be the most popular leader, with the electorate, of any of the contenders. His talk of a modern Conservative Party (compared with New Labour) which is younger looking and appears to be more socially liberal – would help win some people over - although it will look curiously like a new version of New Labour.
However, he will be hamstrung by not being able to offer British voters a compelling reason to vote Conservative. He wont offer serious tax cuts – so they wont be voting for their own money back. He wont offer substantially greater choice in health and education, he actually campaigns against allowing people to opt out of the NHS with their money to go private. He doesn’t want to attack Labour’s nanny state approach to everything from school lunches to health and safety, to its willingness to let local government do anything nutty it wants. In other words, he is going to campaign to win largely on the basis that Gordon Brown is tired old Labour with a new brand on it – and he can offer someone if not something fresh.
If it wins the election for the Conservative Party that is all they will care about – which is sad. This is a proud party which has done much for Britain, most recently the reforms of Thatcher that Blair implicitly endorses. If all it stands for it getting into government and not doing as much as Labour is doing - it will be repeating the events of every Tory government from the 1950s through to 1979- conserving! Doing very little. A party that believes in being in power and nothing much else.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats both believe in philosophies, although the Lib Dems are split on theirs! The Conservative Party should believe in individual freedom, and government getting out of the way of businesses and people’s private lives, unless it is necessary to defend their rights.
I’d join it if it did!
Nobel Peace Prize
Mohamed Elbaradei has won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with the International Atomic Energy Agency which he heads – that isn’t a bad result at all, far better than the nomination of Bob Geldof and Bono. Greenpeace expressed reservations, because the IAEA is committed to the continual peaceful use of nuclear power – good!
Greenpeace more than any other international organisation has been responsible for scaremongering a generation about nuclear power – when it is safely used in many countries around the world (outside the former Soviet bloc where it was used with little regard for safety).
Elbaradei has focused efforts on Iran and previously Iraq (and before it withdrew from the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, North Korea) not acquiring nuclear weapons – and has performed his job with some dignity. There is little doubt that preventing other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons contributes to peace between countries. There are reports the IAEA wants to pursue Israel – which it can’t as it is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty – nor should it be! He also deserves it far more than past winners Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan – it is hard to forgive Carter for taking the eye off the ball in the Cold War, and Kofi Annan has not been extraordinary as Security General of the UN.
06 October 2005
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.
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.
05 October 2005
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!
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!
29 September 2005
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!
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!
24 September 2005
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?
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?
15 September 2005
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:
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?
14 September 2005
Maori Party = Marxism
The Maori Party, despite the cuddly warm and even sensible comments by Dr. Pita Sharples (and frankly, we could do worse than have him replace any Labour MP, though John Tamihere adds colour that I would miss), is a party of Marxists.
It talks like a party of the centre left, but its philosophy is very clear - besides the fact that the obvious URL for the maori party aint bad, it is the policies and philosophy on its real website that are of concern.
Besides the usual leftie promises of free health care and education for all, there are some interesting little twists. The following are quotes from the website:
The Māori Party will speak with a strong, independent and united voice on all aspects of the social cultural, economic and political life of Aotearoa to move our Nation forward. So I guess government is all encompassing then, not much room for life outside politics.
Attaching tangata whenua and others to their ūkaipō, tūrangawaewae, takiwā and rohe; and expressing the authority that whānau, hapū and iwi have over their ancestral land, resources and wellbeing. Hmmm so where are private property rights or have they been abolished?
Defining Māori and others through links to their ancestors and heritage. So we are defined not by what we do, or our accomplishments, but the accomplishments (and presumingly) the crimes of our ancestors. So I am guilty for what my ancestors did and proud of it. In fact I am neither - I am not responsible for the actions of others, especially the dead!
Growing and sustainable prosperity, measured by a genuine progress index, will be maximized and shared through employment, entrepreneurship, support for voluntary activity and social services. All whānau will have the opportunity to participate fully in society and in decisions that directly affect them. Whanau run society? So I run a business but the families "directly affected" can participate fully in my decision to expand, change what I sell, close, hire or fire people?
To ensure that all peoples enjoy a fundamental right to clean air, land, water and food Really? Air is nice, water and food aren't free, but land? How is my right to land to be fundamental? I just sold my house, can I come back because I have a fundamental right to land??
To empower Māori to make decisions on the application of genetic engineering, modification and emerging technologies Nobody else, just Maori - anything else would be racist eh? Emerging technologies, sooo those 4th generation mobile phones, solid state ipods, fuel cell powered cars - can't let us choose them can we? The dictatorship of the Maori must make decisions.
To establish trade relationships with other first nation peoples What is stopping you?
To provide support for community activities, so that gambling machines can be removed or reduced more money taken from the unwilling.
To respond to the global call to action against poverty, with particular focus on eradication of child poverty So we extend the welfare state to other countries then? Or advocated unfettered free trade? or is it more marxist nonsense?
To promote land diversification based on kaupapa Māori principles where land is both a commercial and a spiritual and cultural asset wtf? So it's not my land anymore. Diversification of what? oh i get it, this is when your mates get to assert their fundamental right to land. great!
To promote the collection of statistics that allow for the identification of Māori ethnicity in economic activity Why not blondes? I bet they are under represented in high income brackets.
We will see
Enough of all that. The Maori party seems to have two overwhelming goals -
1. growth of government to fix everything, fund everything and give "whanau" the power to veto anything in their communities - a sort of Maoist party cell model, where you can't do a damned thing unless your community says so. They see it as harking back to a golden age of Maori participatory government - if it ever existed.
It talks like a party of the centre left, but its philosophy is very clear - besides the fact that the obvious URL for the maori party aint bad, it is the policies and philosophy on its real website that are of concern.
Besides the usual leftie promises of free health care and education for all, there are some interesting little twists. The following are quotes from the website:
The Māori Party will speak with a strong, independent and united voice on all aspects of the social cultural, economic and political life of Aotearoa to move our Nation forward. So I guess government is all encompassing then, not much room for life outside politics.
Attaching tangata whenua and others to their ūkaipō, tūrangawaewae, takiwā and rohe; and expressing the authority that whānau, hapū and iwi have over their ancestral land, resources and wellbeing. Hmmm so where are private property rights or have they been abolished?
Defining Māori and others through links to their ancestors and heritage. So we are defined not by what we do, or our accomplishments, but the accomplishments (and presumingly) the crimes of our ancestors. So I am guilty for what my ancestors did and proud of it. In fact I am neither - I am not responsible for the actions of others, especially the dead!
Rising educational and health levels and diminishing poverty will be achieved because, regardless of the ability to pay there will be
-
opportunities for everyone to be successful to the highest levels of their potential; and
-
timely access to high quality and appropriate health care. Brave indeed, so from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. How will everyone have these opportunities?
Growing and sustainable prosperity, measured by a genuine progress index, will be maximized and shared through employment, entrepreneurship, support for voluntary activity and social services. All whānau will have the opportunity to participate fully in society and in decisions that directly affect them. Whanau run society? So I run a business but the families "directly affected" can participate fully in my decision to expand, change what I sell, close, hire or fire people?
To resource whānau to develop strategies that promote wellbeing of whānau members as a reflection of good education and health health Resource whanau? So families get funded to do what?? with whose money?
To encourage early childhood and compulsory education on the economic, social, cultural and environmental history and evolution of Aotearoa as a nation guess what view that will be!
To audit all agencies who provide services against kaupapa Māori So next time you get your water supply connected, ensure they respect kaupapa Maori or else!
To ensure that all peoples enjoy a fundamental right to clean air, land, water and food Really? Air is nice, water and food aren't free, but land? How is my right to land to be fundamental? I just sold my house, can I come back because I have a fundamental right to land??
To empower Māori to make decisions on the application of genetic engineering, modification and emerging technologies Nobody else, just Maori - anything else would be racist eh? Emerging technologies, sooo those 4th generation mobile phones, solid state ipods, fuel cell powered cars - can't let us choose them can we? The dictatorship of the Maori must make decisions.
To establish trade relationships with other first nation peoples What is stopping you?
To provide support for community activities, so that gambling machines can be removed or reduced more money taken from the unwilling.
To respond to the global call to action against poverty, with particular focus on eradication of child poverty So we extend the welfare state to other countries then? Or advocated unfettered free trade? or is it more marxist nonsense?
To promote land diversification based on kaupapa Māori principles where land is both a commercial and a spiritual and cultural asset wtf? So it's not my land anymore. Diversification of what? oh i get it, this is when your mates get to assert their fundamental right to land. great!
To promote the collection of statistics that allow for the identification of Māori ethnicity in economic activity Why not blondes? I bet they are under represented in high income brackets.
We will see
-
the presence of the Māori Party in Parliament enhance decision making for the Nation;
-
kawanatanga finding ways to fulfil the guarantees of rangatiratanga through participation in the annual budget process and the unbundling of departmental budgets;
-
the equality of rights and privileges for everyone in this Nation. Ok so they want special treatment and equal privileges - though a privilege could be the use of my land, or my money, or my body.
Enough of all that. The Maori party seems to have two overwhelming goals -
1. growth of government to fix everything, fund everything and give "whanau" the power to veto anything in their communities - a sort of Maoist party cell model, where you can't do a damned thing unless your community says so. They see it as harking back to a golden age of Maori participatory government - if it ever existed.
2. Maori deciding all sorts of things for us. Basically an advocate for some theoretically "Maori world view" which supposedly is genuine. Remember how the Marxists believe in the "general will", in other words what the working classes would have wanted, had you asked them and they really known what waas best for them - of course asking them was too hard, so you set up a party to communicate the "general will"- anyone against it was against the will of the workers, and that had to be bad, they were the enemy. Anyone working against Maori values, is anti-Maori and racist - easy isn't it? Even if the person is Maori.
In short, collectivism through and through. Subscribe to the pre-modern values of "Maori" (or rather those who purport to be the custodians of this philosophy) and it is ok. Reject them and you are racist, not genuinely Maori, and get compared to Hitler.
Nice really.... but you wont hear anything or anyone debating that seriously on Maori TV or radio will you now?
Why I wont be voting for National
I like Don Brash - a lot. I sat with him a couple of years ago in Auckland having a drink, following his speech at the SOLO conference, and he is an honest man. He is intelligent, passionate (it doesn't show on TV, but he is warm and engaging) and quite principled. As I have said before here, he is the best leader National has had. The unprincipled political prostitutes who were prepared to sell out to Winston in 1996 can learn from Brash- he will be delivering National the best result it has had under MMP - EVEN if National does not win.
He has done it by being upfront, largely not obfuscating issues and being prepared to confront the wholesale evil snake oil which is sold by Labour, the Greens, Maori Party, most academics and the trade union movement. That snake oil is that it is necessary to grant special legal or financial status to Maori in specific circumstances that - if the people concerned were NOT Maori - they would not have the same rights. It is the snake oil that it is "the system" that is to blame for Maori failure when it happens, that the state fixes things rather than fucks them up - the idea that Clark, Cullen, Hodgson, Swain, King, Goff, Anderton and co somehow know best how to spend YOUR money.
I remember the howls of indignation when I confronted quotas for Maori and Pacific students at a tutorial at Vic University - the wimmin (and I DO mean that) branded me as white heterosexual male = the problem, the oppressor and stereotyped me, just in the way that they would have hated if someone else said a Muslim man was a terrorist. I was racist if i thought anything special for Maori was inappropriate - I pointed out that the reason most Maori are in prison are because they committed crimes, against other people, often Maori - stunning really!
Anyway I digress, Brash exposed this and outed it - and after calling it racist, the left learnt it was calling many of its supporters racist - blue collar workers want everyone treated the same way - it is moral and it is right.
Brash was assaulted and abused and misquoted by those with an agenda, and unwilling to listen. The Maori seats SHOULD go - the Maori party will then not hold us to ransom by the overhang of winning these racist seats. He is at best risking abuse, at worst risking a level of uprising and violence - but it will show the true side of those he confronts - the ones who do not believe in freedom, do not believe in equality before the law and do not believe in democracy.
The second reason Brash gets my respect is because he is unashamedly supporting tax cuts, not the tiny 1% cuts National pathetically campaigned on in 1999, but a lifting of thresholds and lowering the 21% rate to 19%. The numbers are not great, but the principle is - National believes the state can let you keep more of your money IN THOSE WORDS. That is important, Labour doesn't believe in holding your own money, Labour believes your life is linked to everyone elses and you are obliged to pick up the tab for anyone it thinks is unfortunate.
I will be pleased to see the back of Labour - big sister government par excellence - it has at least provoked National to get some backbone, soft though it is, it is still more backbone than it has ever had since 1993 - and more honesty than it has had since Muldoon. That honesty is refreshing given National's blatant deception at the 1990 election sowed the seeds of NZ First and MMP - National has some dignity again, and some principles... but
they don't go anywhere else. Some examples of the lack of backbone and the obfuscation. You don't see this in the Greens, and dare I say it even Labour:
The others in the National caucus include Nick Smith - a man who is as committed to Nanny State as some of the Labour caucus, Tony Ryall - who doesn't believe that victimless crimes should be abolished. Yes John Key is probably one the best they have, but I am still disappointed.
Brash has let pragmatism slide in everywhere, and he is more popular as a result - popular because he is largely supporting no change where change is needed. He could attack local government, cut funding for the arts, NZ On Air, sell minority shareholdings in SOEs, not bother with an Infrastructure Minister - and support would hardly be touched. Brash has been got at by his centrist pragmatist colleagues - who could easily sit with Peter Dunne and the United to do nothing party.
That is a pity. He could do better.
He has done it by being upfront, largely not obfuscating issues and being prepared to confront the wholesale evil snake oil which is sold by Labour, the Greens, Maori Party, most academics and the trade union movement. That snake oil is that it is necessary to grant special legal or financial status to Maori in specific circumstances that - if the people concerned were NOT Maori - they would not have the same rights. It is the snake oil that it is "the system" that is to blame for Maori failure when it happens, that the state fixes things rather than fucks them up - the idea that Clark, Cullen, Hodgson, Swain, King, Goff, Anderton and co somehow know best how to spend YOUR money.
I remember the howls of indignation when I confronted quotas for Maori and Pacific students at a tutorial at Vic University - the wimmin (and I DO mean that) branded me as white heterosexual male = the problem, the oppressor and stereotyped me, just in the way that they would have hated if someone else said a Muslim man was a terrorist. I was racist if i thought anything special for Maori was inappropriate - I pointed out that the reason most Maori are in prison are because they committed crimes, against other people, often Maori - stunning really!
Anyway I digress, Brash exposed this and outed it - and after calling it racist, the left learnt it was calling many of its supporters racist - blue collar workers want everyone treated the same way - it is moral and it is right.
Brash was assaulted and abused and misquoted by those with an agenda, and unwilling to listen. The Maori seats SHOULD go - the Maori party will then not hold us to ransom by the overhang of winning these racist seats. He is at best risking abuse, at worst risking a level of uprising and violence - but it will show the true side of those he confronts - the ones who do not believe in freedom, do not believe in equality before the law and do not believe in democracy.
The second reason Brash gets my respect is because he is unashamedly supporting tax cuts, not the tiny 1% cuts National pathetically campaigned on in 1999, but a lifting of thresholds and lowering the 21% rate to 19%. The numbers are not great, but the principle is - National believes the state can let you keep more of your money IN THOSE WORDS. That is important, Labour doesn't believe in holding your own money, Labour believes your life is linked to everyone elses and you are obliged to pick up the tab for anyone it thinks is unfortunate.
I will be pleased to see the back of Labour - big sister government par excellence - it has at least provoked National to get some backbone, soft though it is, it is still more backbone than it has ever had since 1993 - and more honesty than it has had since Muldoon. That honesty is refreshing given National's blatant deception at the 1990 election sowed the seeds of NZ First and MMP - National has some dignity again, and some principles... but
they don't go anywhere else. Some examples of the lack of backbone and the obfuscation. You don't see this in the Greens, and dare I say it even Labour:
- Arts and Culture : retains funding at existing levels. Why? Why keep funding these business beneficiaries, the people who have consistently voted Labour to give them the state tit because they WONT lower their own fees to perform at a price people are prepared to pay. Funding arts on a merit basis - says who? Why can the government judge this?
- Defence : Wont commit to rebuilding the strike capacity of the RNZAF, wont commit to allowing nuclear POWERED vessels in- not prepared to argue on principle about this point. The Nats fought this in 1984 and 1987 with principle, during the Cold War, why be scared of the Green hysteria?
- Environment: establish a New Zealand Environmental protection Authority. Why? Why have more bureaucracy? What is wrong with using private property rights more?
- Education: Besides trust schools - which has some modest promise, there is no commitment to genuine choice. Where are vouchers? A key part of 1987 policy, what is wrong with letting funding follow kids to independent schools. Where is the vision that parents know best?
- SOEs: Oppose Kiwibank and hang onto it? It has been a net drain on the taxpayer (in real terms). Why not sell electricity generators or at least a cornerstone shareholding, these assets need serious capital investment to provide capacity? Most funny is saying the rail network needs to prove itself - it cost $1 to buy because the government promised Toll NZ a virtual monopoly on freight and to plough $200 million into it- great investment, it couldn't be sold to anyone. Where is the attitude that the state doesn't need to be involved in business?
- Communications: So we hang onto the Telecommunications Commissioner, after 9 years of opposing a regulator - Maurice Williamson should remember that, he was at the forefront of it. The regulator that officials recommended against establishing originally.
- Broadcasting: Not selling TVNZ - though unclear why. Retaining NZ On Air, to fund more of the people who never vote National- why does the state fund this industry, why doesn't it fund book publishing or online publishing? If it was canned, hardly anyone would notice.
- Local government: Nothing about repealing the power of general competence - Labour's plans for big local government that can do anything it wants are NOT repealed. Besides some tinkering, the knife is not out to slash away one of the most pernicious, cancerous growths on the country - petty local planners and bureaucrats who love ruling how people live. It is time local government was slashed back and rates were capped, National will allow the growth to continue.
- Infrastructure: Appointing a Minister of Infrastructure. Why? Why not let the electricity sector invest and grow? Why not allow roading to be corporatised like you once proposed? What good will a Minister do directing infrastructure like some Stalinist central planner?
- Health: Besides contestability, no chance to opt out of the state system and insure yourself with YOUR money for non-critical care. Not even starting to confront the enormous growth in spending and drop in productivity - National is scared of the health lobby, which begs for more and gets it from Labour.
The others in the National caucus include Nick Smith - a man who is as committed to Nanny State as some of the Labour caucus, Tony Ryall - who doesn't believe that victimless crimes should be abolished. Yes John Key is probably one the best they have, but I am still disappointed.
Brash has let pragmatism slide in everywhere, and he is more popular as a result - popular because he is largely supporting no change where change is needed. He could attack local government, cut funding for the arts, NZ On Air, sell minority shareholdings in SOEs, not bother with an Infrastructure Minister - and support would hardly be touched. Brash has been got at by his centrist pragmatist colleagues - who could easily sit with Peter Dunne and the United to do nothing party.
That is a pity. He could do better.
11 September 2005
How biased is the media?
After hearing countless diatribes about the Exclusive Brethren "scandal" I am intensely pissed off that there appears to be NO coverage on TV about Labour's "eviction" notice letters to state house tenants in Dunedin. TVNZ and TV3 should be ashamed.
There is plenty about this scandal, which scares state house tenants through propaganda, on Aaron Bhatnagar's blog here and here.
So has David Farrar here
Gman has a good summary as well of the double standards
I believe all state houses should be flogged off, the state shouldn't be providing housing, the accommodation supplement should be phased out too. I couldn't care less what happens to state housing - but I do care that the media does not seek out stories of the Labour Party scaring the people it is meant to care about. It proves to me that TVNZ is largely run by a bunch of statist sycophants to its owner and TV3 news are even bigger arse lickers to the status quo than TVNZ (I gave up on John Campbell when he admitted he supported the Alliance).
TV3, of course, is entitled to have any bias it wants, it is privately owned. TVNZ on the other hand should provide even handed coverage - the Brethren matter was not a "debacle" it was an issue. At worst, Brash did not admit that he had a hunch who was responsible for "shock horror" anti-government leaflets.
One point - anyone who thinks the Exclusive Brethren influence National Party policy is clearly nuts or creating mischief, unlike the CTU which DOES influence Labour policy.
This is NOT North Korea (see my links list), anti-government leaflets are legal, and who really cares who Don Brash meets and gets support from? This is a liberal democracy, it is ok, get over it!
Libertyscott
There is plenty about this scandal, which scares state house tenants through propaganda, on Aaron Bhatnagar's blog here and here.
So has David Farrar here
Gman has a good summary as well of the double standards
I believe all state houses should be flogged off, the state shouldn't be providing housing, the accommodation supplement should be phased out too. I couldn't care less what happens to state housing - but I do care that the media does not seek out stories of the Labour Party scaring the people it is meant to care about. It proves to me that TVNZ is largely run by a bunch of statist sycophants to its owner and TV3 news are even bigger arse lickers to the status quo than TVNZ (I gave up on John Campbell when he admitted he supported the Alliance).
TV3, of course, is entitled to have any bias it wants, it is privately owned. TVNZ on the other hand should provide even handed coverage - the Brethren matter was not a "debacle" it was an issue. At worst, Brash did not admit that he had a hunch who was responsible for "shock horror" anti-government leaflets.
One point - anyone who thinks the Exclusive Brethren influence National Party policy is clearly nuts or creating mischief, unlike the CTU which DOES influence Labour policy.
This is NOT North Korea (see my links list), anti-government leaflets are legal, and who really cares who Don Brash meets and gets support from? This is a liberal democracy, it is ok, get over it!
Libertyscott
Labour's commitments
What I think of them...
1. No interest on student loans for NZ based graduates. Oh there is no money for tax cuts! Why should students get interest free loans, why not young people who set up businesses, own farms? Why should students get money they can use for holidays, deposits on buying houses, cars? Why should they get to borrow for free? How good a deal is it to get an interest free loan and pay 33% on every extra dollar you earn when you graduate to your first job at $38000 p.a.?
2. 7500 more cataract operations and 10000 extra major joint operations in the next term. So no commitment on other medical procedures? How about heart bypasses? How about glue ear? Maybe they will be cut, as productivity in the health sector continues to plummet as Labour feeds the unionised monopolised public health behemoth. Besides, since when do we know that that is the right number, and couldn't more people buy health insurance if you gave them their money back?
3. Final date for lodging historical Treaty claims by 1 September 2008, and commit to finish all settlements by 2020. Notice the word "historical". There will be modern day ones, like claims for radio spectrum, so they will continue. Besides, isn't this sort of policy "racist" to post-modernist cultural relativist lefties like Helen Clark? How can Labour commit the government to 2020? Would Labour have done this had Brash not made his Orewa speech?
4. Increase the maximum rates rebate to $500 and increase income eligibility thresholds. This wouldn't be an issue if Labour hadn't taken local government off its leash with the "power of general competence". Councils can now enter into any legal activity they wish, giving them carte blanche to waste ratepayers money, and compete with the private sector. Rates are inherently unfair, and bear little relationship to what local authority services you consume - user pays is fairer, and capping council spending would help.
5. $1000 kick start for everyone joining Kiwisaver and up to $10000 as a grant for couples ($5000 for single people) saving to buy their first home. Welfare for everyone, why first home? Why continue to fuel demand for housing as an investment? Easier and fairer to give people their money back in decent tax cuts, instead of a new bureaucratic system for helping people - Nanny State par excellence!
6. 5000 extra modern apprenticeships. Nanny State increasing her grip on education. This is something that the private sector COULD and WOULD do, if taxes were lower and the regulatory compliance hassles of IRD and OSH didn't make it costly to do. The demands for tradespeople are high, and the supply can be met privately - however it wont happen if the state does it.
7. 250 extra community police on the streets. Actually agree with this, as long as they aren't pursuing adult cannabis users or growers, or other victimless crimes. 1 out of 7 Labour!
1 out of 7 for Labour.
National's commitments tomorrow.
1. No interest on student loans for NZ based graduates. Oh there is no money for tax cuts! Why should students get interest free loans, why not young people who set up businesses, own farms? Why should students get money they can use for holidays, deposits on buying houses, cars? Why should they get to borrow for free? How good a deal is it to get an interest free loan and pay 33% on every extra dollar you earn when you graduate to your first job at $38000 p.a.?
2. 7500 more cataract operations and 10000 extra major joint operations in the next term. So no commitment on other medical procedures? How about heart bypasses? How about glue ear? Maybe they will be cut, as productivity in the health sector continues to plummet as Labour feeds the unionised monopolised public health behemoth. Besides, since when do we know that that is the right number, and couldn't more people buy health insurance if you gave them their money back?
3. Final date for lodging historical Treaty claims by 1 September 2008, and commit to finish all settlements by 2020. Notice the word "historical". There will be modern day ones, like claims for radio spectrum, so they will continue. Besides, isn't this sort of policy "racist" to post-modernist cultural relativist lefties like Helen Clark? How can Labour commit the government to 2020? Would Labour have done this had Brash not made his Orewa speech?
4. Increase the maximum rates rebate to $500 and increase income eligibility thresholds. This wouldn't be an issue if Labour hadn't taken local government off its leash with the "power of general competence". Councils can now enter into any legal activity they wish, giving them carte blanche to waste ratepayers money, and compete with the private sector. Rates are inherently unfair, and bear little relationship to what local authority services you consume - user pays is fairer, and capping council spending would help.
5. $1000 kick start for everyone joining Kiwisaver and up to $10000 as a grant for couples ($5000 for single people) saving to buy their first home. Welfare for everyone, why first home? Why continue to fuel demand for housing as an investment? Easier and fairer to give people their money back in decent tax cuts, instead of a new bureaucratic system for helping people - Nanny State par excellence!
6. 5000 extra modern apprenticeships. Nanny State increasing her grip on education. This is something that the private sector COULD and WOULD do, if taxes were lower and the regulatory compliance hassles of IRD and OSH didn't make it costly to do. The demands for tradespeople are high, and the supply can be met privately - however it wont happen if the state does it.
7. 250 extra community police on the streets. Actually agree with this, as long as they aren't pursuing adult cannabis users or growers, or other victimless crimes. 1 out of 7 Labour!
1 out of 7 for Labour.
National's commitments tomorrow.
Why I am voting Libertarianz and it is not a wasted vote
I am voting Libertarianz for my party vote, and Bernard Darnton for my electorate vote for Wellington Central. Why? Most people would say I am wasting my votes in both cases.
For the electorate vote it is relatively easy - either vote to oust Marian Hobbs as local MP (but not list MP) and vote for Mark Blumsky, or vote for someone I like. Given that Marian and Mark are both assured election under the party vote (assuming the Nats pull in 35% plus), and that I don't think Blumsky is much more than a marketing showman (though a clever one and certainly with more neurons than Hobbs), it was easy to choose Bernard. He's a nice guy, I like him a lot and he has had the balls to run in an electorate where the Greens get over 10% of the vote as a matter of course - and I want him to beat Stephen Hay the Communist, and hopefully the Social Credit, Progressive and Alliance candidates too - though it might be a big call. Stephen Franks honestly doesn't want the electorate vote, so I think it is time for every liberal rightwing voter to tick Bernard - Blumsky is in anyway.
For the party vote- the argument usually is "if you are so against the Clark government, why don't you vote National to change the government?" ACT supporters also ask, why not support ACT - ACT has more often than not led support for a liberal view in Parliament.
To that I say, hmmm sometimes.
I'm voting Libertarianz because I believe the only legitimate role of the state is to protect citizens from each other and invasion - in other words, defence, justice, police. I am willing to debate ways of transitioning to that - about privatisation, education, health, welfare - as long as the trend is for the state to get out of the way. I want a shrinking government, central and local, and I want to elect politicians who will do that, consistently, in ALL areas. Economic, social and personal freedom being enhanced.
I am NOT voting ACT because, despite Rodney Hide being a man who I respect and trust, and who is light years ahead of Richard Prebble (who I did vote for in 1996 and 1999 for my electorate candidate), because ACT does NOT believe the state should shrink in all areas of life. ACT MPs in the last term voted on the civil union bill and prostitution reform bill by conscience - never did ACT state that prostitution (adults only) should not be a matter for the criminal law, never did ACT state that marriage or civil unions should not be a matter for state prescription, but simply contracts between consenting adults, of EITHER sex. ACT does not support the decriminalisation of cannabis.
So why does that matter? I don't use prostitutes or work as one, I am not gay, and I'm not a drug user. However, all of these are very important as they cut to the heart of being libertarian and being human - it is about the state telling adults what to do with their bodies or their relationships, and that offends me more intensely than having public hospitals, owning Air New Zealand or the 111 system. How DARE politicians tell me I cannot act in a way that does not hurt or harm anyone else- it is NOT their business whether I want to pay for or sell sex, get married or ingest something into my body. How COULD it be? If ACT declared that, I'd feel Libertarianz had done its job. I know ACT has done much to outline poor government spending, but it never says the state should get out of so many areas - have you heard ACT advocating an end to state funding for the arts and broadcasting?
So I cannot vote for ACT. I voted ACT for party vote in 1996 because it had a flat tax policy, and had been saying most of the right things up to that point, and I wanted to give Prebble's lot a chance. They delivered on responding to the left, but not in advocating freedom - I voted ACT for the party vote because Libertarianz did not stand (the Secretary of the day was incompetent with the paperwork) and there was some hope that Rodney Hide would shift ACT closer to individual freedom, he sort of did - but not enough for me.
PC has suggested what ACT could do now to gain some true freedom credentials, but I doubt it will happen. It would grab some headlines, and make me think carefully about voting ACT, because ACT would truly believe in freedom then. I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not voting National because I want more than shifts in tax scales, I want a commitment to getting rid of the envy tax rate of 39%, I want schools to be controlled locally by parents and teachers, and the state to work its way out of its social engineering through that system. I want a commitment to shrinking the state, and I do NOT agree with toughening up the war on drugs. Don Brash is a good man, who would be the best Prime Minister in many years, but he is surrounded by too many petty fascists - like Nick Smith, Tony Ryall and Brian Connell - men who don't understand freedom one little bit. National is a conservative party led by a liberal man, advised by conservative pragmatists.
So back to the main point - why isn't a vote for a party with bugger all chance of getting into Parliament this time, a wasted vote? The only reason it is seen as wasted is because of what others do - for your vote not to be "wasted" around 100,000 others have to vote the same way - your individual vote makes virtually NO difference to the election, the marginal effect is tiny. The total effect of all votes cast is immense - so your vote is a chance to be honest with yourself and what you believe in. Many people will decide whether or not to vote ACT PURELY on the polls - If ACT rises to around 5% or Rodney looks like he will win Epsom, more will vote ACT than otherwise. If ACT looks like a lost cause, it wont do more than 1% - sort of where Libertarianz is aiming at. If Libertarianz get 1% this time I will be thrilled, though 0.5% is a more realistic goal. Think that is a joke? Peter Dunne's United Party got about that in 1999, barely enough to justify him not being an overhang MP.
So I am voting Libertarianz because it is what I believe in - in its own marginal way, I am telling the main parties that I believe in freedom, and I know several thousand other New Zealanders will do the same - at a time when there is immense pressure to vote for National to get rid of the People's Republic of Clarkistan - I will vote according to what I want, not third best!
Libertyscott
For the electorate vote it is relatively easy - either vote to oust Marian Hobbs as local MP (but not list MP) and vote for Mark Blumsky, or vote for someone I like. Given that Marian and Mark are both assured election under the party vote (assuming the Nats pull in 35% plus), and that I don't think Blumsky is much more than a marketing showman (though a clever one and certainly with more neurons than Hobbs), it was easy to choose Bernard. He's a nice guy, I like him a lot and he has had the balls to run in an electorate where the Greens get over 10% of the vote as a matter of course - and I want him to beat Stephen Hay the Communist, and hopefully the Social Credit, Progressive and Alliance candidates too - though it might be a big call. Stephen Franks honestly doesn't want the electorate vote, so I think it is time for every liberal rightwing voter to tick Bernard - Blumsky is in anyway.
For the party vote- the argument usually is "if you are so against the Clark government, why don't you vote National to change the government?" ACT supporters also ask, why not support ACT - ACT has more often than not led support for a liberal view in Parliament.
To that I say, hmmm sometimes.
I'm voting Libertarianz because I believe the only legitimate role of the state is to protect citizens from each other and invasion - in other words, defence, justice, police. I am willing to debate ways of transitioning to that - about privatisation, education, health, welfare - as long as the trend is for the state to get out of the way. I want a shrinking government, central and local, and I want to elect politicians who will do that, consistently, in ALL areas. Economic, social and personal freedom being enhanced.
I am NOT voting ACT because, despite Rodney Hide being a man who I respect and trust, and who is light years ahead of Richard Prebble (who I did vote for in 1996 and 1999 for my electorate candidate), because ACT does NOT believe the state should shrink in all areas of life. ACT MPs in the last term voted on the civil union bill and prostitution reform bill by conscience - never did ACT state that prostitution (adults only) should not be a matter for the criminal law, never did ACT state that marriage or civil unions should not be a matter for state prescription, but simply contracts between consenting adults, of EITHER sex. ACT does not support the decriminalisation of cannabis.
So why does that matter? I don't use prostitutes or work as one, I am not gay, and I'm not a drug user. However, all of these are very important as they cut to the heart of being libertarian and being human - it is about the state telling adults what to do with their bodies or their relationships, and that offends me more intensely than having public hospitals, owning Air New Zealand or the 111 system. How DARE politicians tell me I cannot act in a way that does not hurt or harm anyone else- it is NOT their business whether I want to pay for or sell sex, get married or ingest something into my body. How COULD it be? If ACT declared that, I'd feel Libertarianz had done its job. I know ACT has done much to outline poor government spending, but it never says the state should get out of so many areas - have you heard ACT advocating an end to state funding for the arts and broadcasting?
So I cannot vote for ACT. I voted ACT for party vote in 1996 because it had a flat tax policy, and had been saying most of the right things up to that point, and I wanted to give Prebble's lot a chance. They delivered on responding to the left, but not in advocating freedom - I voted ACT for the party vote because Libertarianz did not stand (the Secretary of the day was incompetent with the paperwork) and there was some hope that Rodney Hide would shift ACT closer to individual freedom, he sort of did - but not enough for me.
PC has suggested what ACT could do now to gain some true freedom credentials, but I doubt it will happen. It would grab some headlines, and make me think carefully about voting ACT, because ACT would truly believe in freedom then. I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not voting National because I want more than shifts in tax scales, I want a commitment to getting rid of the envy tax rate of 39%, I want schools to be controlled locally by parents and teachers, and the state to work its way out of its social engineering through that system. I want a commitment to shrinking the state, and I do NOT agree with toughening up the war on drugs. Don Brash is a good man, who would be the best Prime Minister in many years, but he is surrounded by too many petty fascists - like Nick Smith, Tony Ryall and Brian Connell - men who don't understand freedom one little bit. National is a conservative party led by a liberal man, advised by conservative pragmatists.
So back to the main point - why isn't a vote for a party with bugger all chance of getting into Parliament this time, a wasted vote? The only reason it is seen as wasted is because of what others do - for your vote not to be "wasted" around 100,000 others have to vote the same way - your individual vote makes virtually NO difference to the election, the marginal effect is tiny. The total effect of all votes cast is immense - so your vote is a chance to be honest with yourself and what you believe in. Many people will decide whether or not to vote ACT PURELY on the polls - If ACT rises to around 5% or Rodney looks like he will win Epsom, more will vote ACT than otherwise. If ACT looks like a lost cause, it wont do more than 1% - sort of where Libertarianz is aiming at. If Libertarianz get 1% this time I will be thrilled, though 0.5% is a more realistic goal. Think that is a joke? Peter Dunne's United Party got about that in 1999, barely enough to justify him not being an overhang MP.
So I am voting Libertarianz because it is what I believe in - in its own marginal way, I am telling the main parties that I believe in freedom, and I know several thousand other New Zealanders will do the same - at a time when there is immense pressure to vote for National to get rid of the People's Republic of Clarkistan - I will vote according to what I want, not third best!
Libertyscott
10 September 2005
Great questions
PC has some questions that are pretty good -
I am sick and tired of the concern about the Exclusive Brethren - weird fuckers as they are - there is nothing wrong with anti-government leaflets, just like there is nothing wrong with pro-government leaflets. It is ok for the union movement to pour vast amounts of money from its members to keeping the Labour party in power, but somehow wrong for a religious group to do the opposite. grrrr.
The Families Commission is useless - we have had families for thousands of years and they are not more functional because a bunch of bureaurats have been hired to advise on family policy. One of the reasons I would PREFER National governing with just Rodney Hide and a couple of friends for a majority, would be to get rid of this stupid entity. Peter Dunne is NOT commonsense, he is headline grabbing opportunist pablum - he merges with a new party every year on average- no times does it do his party any good - United Future will hopefully be back to a reasonable level of support - 1% - this time round.
My extra questions:
Where is Mary Varnham, and why am I so happy she is invisible?
Whatever happened to Alan Duff?
Why does Headliners still get broadcast?
Who lets their twelve year olds go out at 1am in Courtenay Place unaccompanied?
Why don't Aucklanders tell their local politicians that they wont pay for the billion dollar passenger train system they wont use?
Why doesn't Don Brash point out that Labour were quite happy to have him look after inflation and interest rates for the first two years of their government, but say he can't be trusted on the economy now?
Why does Fiona Mckenzie get excited about United Future at Wellington Central candidate's meetings, when her party doesn't care which party leads the government?
Why do the Greens enjoy oil prices being high, do they just want to feel righteous or do they really hate the private car that much?
I am sick and tired of the concern about the Exclusive Brethren - weird fuckers as they are - there is nothing wrong with anti-government leaflets, just like there is nothing wrong with pro-government leaflets. It is ok for the union movement to pour vast amounts of money from its members to keeping the Labour party in power, but somehow wrong for a religious group to do the opposite. grrrr.
The Families Commission is useless - we have had families for thousands of years and they are not more functional because a bunch of bureaurats have been hired to advise on family policy. One of the reasons I would PREFER National governing with just Rodney Hide and a couple of friends for a majority, would be to get rid of this stupid entity. Peter Dunne is NOT commonsense, he is headline grabbing opportunist pablum - he merges with a new party every year on average- no times does it do his party any good - United Future will hopefully be back to a reasonable level of support - 1% - this time round.
My extra questions:
Where is Mary Varnham, and why am I so happy she is invisible?
Whatever happened to Alan Duff?
Why does Headliners still get broadcast?
Who lets their twelve year olds go out at 1am in Courtenay Place unaccompanied?
Why don't Aucklanders tell their local politicians that they wont pay for the billion dollar passenger train system they wont use?
Why doesn't Don Brash point out that Labour were quite happy to have him look after inflation and interest rates for the first two years of their government, but say he can't be trusted on the economy now?
Why does Fiona Mckenzie get excited about United Future at Wellington Central candidate's meetings, when her party doesn't care which party leads the government?
Why do the Greens enjoy oil prices being high, do they just want to feel righteous or do they really hate the private car that much?
08 September 2005
Hooters
Killjoy Kedgley has slammed the plan to open an Auckland branch of the Hooters restaurant and bar chain. Al Bundy's favourite place.
Now the question is - would the Greens regulate this or allow local government to do so? Why is it wrong for adult women to wear hotpants and tanktops while in someone's private property serving drinks and food for good wages?
The neo-conservatism of the "liberal" left merges with the fundamentalist right on this - Brian Tamaki no doubt loathes such blatant displays of human beauty (as did Graham Capill - these girls are adults after all), but I am sure Rodney Hide and Don Brash wouldn't object.
Does it exploit women? Well ask those who work there, and who were not forced to sign a contract and do the job. It is their choice after all - just as it is your choice to not go, or even protest about it.
Andrea Black from Rape Crisis claims that it perpetuates the myth than women are purely there for men's sexual pleasure. Some men think like that, some women think men are like that too, and some men think men are like that - but the bottom line is that adults can choose what to do with their bodies and what to wear. Any other approach is going down the path of the Taliban or Iran.
Women's sexuality is something to be celebrated, be it straight, bi or lesbian - as much as men's is. Most people feel if they are gorgeous, they are proud of it and feel great, and are not ashamed, nor should they be - as long as everything is consensual it is part of being human.
Would the Greens and Rape Crisis regulate what women wear in the street, on a Friday night, in a bar? What would they call men who want to regulate that?
You got the picture! So does David Farrar
Now the question is - would the Greens regulate this or allow local government to do so? Why is it wrong for adult women to wear hotpants and tanktops while in someone's private property serving drinks and food for good wages?
The neo-conservatism of the "liberal" left merges with the fundamentalist right on this - Brian Tamaki no doubt loathes such blatant displays of human beauty (as did Graham Capill - these girls are adults after all), but I am sure Rodney Hide and Don Brash wouldn't object.
Does it exploit women? Well ask those who work there, and who were not forced to sign a contract and do the job. It is their choice after all - just as it is your choice to not go, or even protest about it.
Andrea Black from Rape Crisis claims that it perpetuates the myth than women are purely there for men's sexual pleasure. Some men think like that, some women think men are like that too, and some men think men are like that - but the bottom line is that adults can choose what to do with their bodies and what to wear. Any other approach is going down the path of the Taliban or Iran.
Women's sexuality is something to be celebrated, be it straight, bi or lesbian - as much as men's is. Most people feel if they are gorgeous, they are proud of it and feel great, and are not ashamed, nor should they be - as long as everything is consensual it is part of being human.
Would the Greens and Rape Crisis regulate what women wear in the street, on a Friday night, in a bar? What would they call men who want to regulate that?
You got the picture! So does David Farrar
The wild polls - now some realism
TV3 poll has Labour at 45% and National at 36%. So are the voting public that volatile? or is something else going on?
To figure out where the public are likely to be heading requires a bit of sobriety and to look at past elections. Clearly the New Zealand public will flee from a major party if it particularly disenchanted with it - National at 21% last time and Labour at 28% in 1996 are two good example. However, this election the minor parties have been sidelined - there is only one contest and it is the Helen and Don show.
Labour got around 41% in the last election - which means it is highly unlikely to do BETTER than that this time round. There has clearly been some swing away from Labour- the only question is whether Labour has gained a few points from minor parties, like the Greens and even the 2% or so who will have fled the entrails of the Alliance/Progressives. I would be surprised if Labour reached 40% this time, but equally it is highly unlikely to drop below 35%. Labour won in 1999 with just under 38% of the vote- my pick is that Labour needs to get that to have a chance at government (38% + 1% for Jim + 5-6% for Greens + 3% Maori) and it will get between 36 and 40%. Less than 38% is a Labour loss. One factor not included in this is turnout - last time a Labour victory was pretty much assured, now it is not, and the party faithful (on BOTH sides) will turnout in higher numbers, the issue is whether Labour can motivate its crowd to vote, because they want to avoid a Brash government.
National at 21% last time is clearly, on worst estimates polling well above that. National has never had more than 34% in an MMP election, and even in 1993 only managed around 35%. For Brash to have rebuilt National to be polling above that consistently is in itself a victory. English, Bolger and Shipley couldn't manage that (excluding Bolger's 1990 campaign which saw pre-election and post-election policy not exactly matching!). National has clearly cannibalised the ACT, NZ First and United Future vote - there is about 15% of its increase simply in that. The rest comes down to Labour, and my bet is that National will manage to scrape into around 37-41%. I cannot see it doing much better than that. If National gets 40% and still does not form a government, Brash will still be the party hero - and will have let himself and the party down ONLY because he listened to the lilly livered quivering and flip flops that his advisors told him to do.
Brash believes in asset sales - he could credibly have said, why should the government own farms? Why not sell a strategic stake in Air NZ - Labour was willing to let QANTAS have part of it? Why not allow private capital to boost our SOEs?
Brash believes in education choice - why not advocate vouchers that allow parents to choose their school?
Brash believes in the defence alliance with the US - why not advocate improved relations and a referendum on the nuclear issue.
Anyway - both major parties will be close, unless one of them screws up badly. However, neither of them are likely to go above 41%
To figure out where the public are likely to be heading requires a bit of sobriety and to look at past elections. Clearly the New Zealand public will flee from a major party if it particularly disenchanted with it - National at 21% last time and Labour at 28% in 1996 are two good example. However, this election the minor parties have been sidelined - there is only one contest and it is the Helen and Don show.
Labour got around 41% in the last election - which means it is highly unlikely to do BETTER than that this time round. There has clearly been some swing away from Labour- the only question is whether Labour has gained a few points from minor parties, like the Greens and even the 2% or so who will have fled the entrails of the Alliance/Progressives. I would be surprised if Labour reached 40% this time, but equally it is highly unlikely to drop below 35%. Labour won in 1999 with just under 38% of the vote- my pick is that Labour needs to get that to have a chance at government (38% + 1% for Jim + 5-6% for Greens + 3% Maori) and it will get between 36 and 40%. Less than 38% is a Labour loss. One factor not included in this is turnout - last time a Labour victory was pretty much assured, now it is not, and the party faithful (on BOTH sides) will turnout in higher numbers, the issue is whether Labour can motivate its crowd to vote, because they want to avoid a Brash government.
National at 21% last time is clearly, on worst estimates polling well above that. National has never had more than 34% in an MMP election, and even in 1993 only managed around 35%. For Brash to have rebuilt National to be polling above that consistently is in itself a victory. English, Bolger and Shipley couldn't manage that (excluding Bolger's 1990 campaign which saw pre-election and post-election policy not exactly matching!). National has clearly cannibalised the ACT, NZ First and United Future vote - there is about 15% of its increase simply in that. The rest comes down to Labour, and my bet is that National will manage to scrape into around 37-41%. I cannot see it doing much better than that. If National gets 40% and still does not form a government, Brash will still be the party hero - and will have let himself and the party down ONLY because he listened to the lilly livered quivering and flip flops that his advisors told him to do.
Brash believes in asset sales - he could credibly have said, why should the government own farms? Why not sell a strategic stake in Air NZ - Labour was willing to let QANTAS have part of it? Why not allow private capital to boost our SOEs?
Brash believes in education choice - why not advocate vouchers that allow parents to choose their school?
Brash believes in the defence alliance with the US - why not advocate improved relations and a referendum on the nuclear issue.
Anyway - both major parties will be close, unless one of them screws up badly. However, neither of them are likely to go above 41%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)