Nats want to give local government more "tools"

Whilst central government is clearly the growing leviathan in our lives, one should never forget the petty fascists in local government. The ones that use the RMA, bylaws and your rates (if you're a property owner, sorry tenants you don't pay rates, your landlord does). Rates rise most years in many councils, and do so faster than inflation and faster than tax. Remember that these rates are nominal on TOP of years of increasing property prices. You might wonder why councils have to spend money at an ever increasing rate, and why your vote every three years makes little difference.

I put it down to many of those who stand for local government, they are busybody do-gooders who think if they have some statist power to regulate, tax and spend, they can do their little bit to "make the world a better place" rather than just leave peaceful people alone. Comparatively few people who want less government stand for local government - partly because they are concentrating on their own lives, jobs, businesses and families, but also because the ability to do much about constraining local government is relatively low. The recently elected Auckland City Council has started to be more frugal in some respects, but still there hasn't been a wholesale rollback of local government since central government reforms of the late 80s, early 90s.

Labour whilst in power reformed local government to give it more powers - specifically known as "the power of general competence", allowing it to do as it wishes on any area of activity, excluding a tiny handful reserved for central government. In other words, local government could provide welfare benefits, healthcare, schools, run restaurants, railways, racecourses, radio stations, whatever it wishes. So it is no wonder local government has continued to grow.

So you might think National could reverse that and at least limit local government to core "public goods". Well this is what John Key had to say to Local Government New Zealand...

"We want to give local government a broader range of tools that can be used to address the needs of local communities. These options could involve increased use of partnerships, charging arrangements, and longer-term financing."

OK so a generous view would be allowing private investment in infrastructure. Well fine, forget Public Private Partnerships and go for privatisation. However charging arrangements? What does that mean? Does he mean new taxes? Why not simply cut what local government does John? Get it out of the provision of services that can be done privately.

Then he says, not only will he provide new tools but:

"We will also look at more appropriate ways to ensure that local government knows what central funding and other support it would receive for undertaking new responsibilities. A National Government will not be looking for a free ride at the expense of ratepayers"

He wants local government to do more and charge taxpayers everywhere to do it!

Now he also said "we need to ensure that taxpayers’ money and ratepayers’ money is being used effectively and efficiently." This implies some central government oversight of local authority spending, which may be a rather bureaucratic way of saying "no".

However, there is a point where in his speech you think he MIGHT get it:

"People are struggling with rising costs and an economy that is going backwards. Households are tightening their belts, and in turn they expect that central government and local government – which take money off them through taxes and rates – should be tightening their belts as well, and should be striving to deliver them value for money."

but NOOOOO. He doesn't....

"This environment puts real pressure on politicians, both local and central. But it also gives us an opportunity to look at how we can most effectively provide the services that people expect from us. Over the next few years we will need to concentrate on the basics – on providing good services where people want them, and at a reasonable cost."

Concentrate on the basics MIGHT imply what I said earlier, so maybe he'll be honest with us - the ratepayers and say he wants to cut the size of local government.

What do you reckon? Does he record suggest anything will change? Here are some pointers about what SHOULD change.

Cullen has a point

You have to laugh at the Scoop website's Maoist depiction of John Key, and the inevitable press release from the government that "Key admits support for communism".

Dr Cullen said of Key:

“He attacked Working for Families as ‘communism by stealth’ and a ‘costly welfare monster’, then yesterday he said it was important support for families and affordable, and then said today that it was in fact ‘communism by stealth’ again.

Which really is bizarre. It IS a costly welfare monster, and it is, if you take it to its logical end, communism by stealth. However it is also important support?

Come on John - the truth is you can't face voters and tell some of them you'll give them their taxes back but not any more!

Dr Cullen concludes:

“How can anyone take anything this man says seriously? When you change your mind this often, you can always change it back again.”

Which is, of course, an occasion when I can wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Cullen. There are umpteen reasons why I disagree with him on many things, but one thing he is - someone who believes in what he says and what he does.

Now John, either give evidence that Dr Cullen has misrepresented you, renounce the policy on Working for Families or grab the red flag and fly it high!

What do the Greens fear?

So the Greens have blogged about nuclear energy, typically using "we" phrases as if the Green Party speaks for what everyone thinks and does.

Its statement below is one I don't necessary disagree with in part, except it rather inanely draws a conclusion that means the opposite of what is Green policy.

"Given that it is easy, even here in NZ, to get private finance to line up and support renewable energy projects, without a penny of government subsidy, one has to wonder why we continue to buy into the hype that nuclear is the way to go. The economic rational simply does not exist. With peak oil and climate change breathing down our necks, it is time to take decisive action. Action that can stand the test of time, sustainably." (sic) (can't this lot use English properly?)

Well if the economic rationale for nuclear doesn't exist, then there shouldn't be any legal impediment to nuclear energy being developed in New Zealand should there? If the argument against nuclear is economic, then set that argument free to be tested.

Secondly. If "renewable" energy apparently is economically viable as the statement implies, why take action at all?

Of course the truth is that the RMA stymies the development of the most viable and renewable electricity source - hydro.

So what are you voting for?

Do you want a change because of the Electoral Finance Act? It is probably the single biggest reasons to remove Labour, but what comes in its place isn't promising or clear.

Do you want tax cuts? Well yes fine, but so far tax cuts are only clearly announced by Libertarianz, ACT and NZ First.

Do you want a radical change in how health care is delivered so that it becomes consumer centric? Well yes fine, but again only looks like Libertarianz and maybe ACT could deliver that.

Do you want education for your kids based on what you want them to learn, based upon you choosing where they go and funding following your kids? Again looks like Libertarianz, and ACT could offer that.

Do you want the welfare state downsized and reformed so that only those who are truly unable to earn their own way get some assistance, and others are incentivised to buy their own insurance and protection against misfortune? Again, Libertarianz and to some extent ACT offer that.

Do you want private property rights protected? Only looks like Libertarianz from here, ACT is not that clear on this one.

Do you want less government? Libertarianz are clear on this, ACT appears to want to at least stop things getting worse and at best cut government's portion of GDP to Australia's.

So why are you supporting National? Do you just like Labour's policies but fed up with Helen Clark and Michael Cullen? You see, that's pretty much what it looks like you'll be getting.

So your choices:

Labour or Labour Lite (Helen Key and John Clark, whatever).
Libertarianz or Libertarianz Lite (truly)
Nationalists for Winston First (and stop those bloody Asians ruining our country you know?)
Green socialists (and stop those evil foreign drinkers of childrens' blood ruining our country you know?)
Maori Nationalists for socialism first, well we think (and stop both of them)
Dunne and Anderton one-man bands (build Transmission Gully and renationalise what you can and put the word "Kiwi" in front of it).

Methinks half of you just are fed up with politicians, Clark and Cullen especially - but don't really want change. After all, if you did, surely Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas would be able to command the sorts of support Winston once did, such as 10-12%. However they're not. Neither of course are Libertarianz.

So you do like big government don't you? You like how politicians and bureaucrats ration health care for you, decide what your kids will learn and whether to pay failing schools more, you like governments buying airlines, railways and building telecommunications networks, you like more welfare for the middle classes, you like being forced to pay for leftwing TV and radio, you like separate race based seats and laws, you like environmentalism and the way local authorities can run roughshod over your property rights.

Don't you? That's what this is telling me.

China and India helping to derail world trade talks

Associated Press is reporting that China and India are calling for INCREASES in agricultural protectionism, wanting the powers to increase tariffs if there is a significant increase in imports. They ironically have been seeking higher cuts in subsidies and protection from the EU and the US, whilst not wanting to reciprocate in opening up their own markets for agricultural or manufactured goods sufficiently.

WTO Chief Pascal Lamy has been trying to negotiate a deal that would include significant reductions in limits of EU and US spending on agricultural subsidies, while developing countries would cut manufactured goods tariffs by 20-25%.

Meanwhile, the French, Italians and Irish farmers, piggies supping at the trough of the EU Common Agricultural Policy are objecting to the modest compromise proposals.

If ever there was a time when the world needed to open up trade, and get rid of inefficient cost-plus subsidies and barriers to trade, it is now. European farmers have lived long enough off the back of the European taxpayers and consumers. Export subsidies should end immediately, quotas and other barriers to imports should also end, and existing subsidies phased out in a three year transition. Then, and only then, can European farmers deserve to not be called bludgers.