EFA has chilling effect on election campaign

According to the NZ Herald, Dr. Helena Catt, head of the Electoral Commission, has said in a speech that the Electoral Finance Act "has had a chilling effect on the extent and type of participation in political and campaign activity." This is due to the uncertainty surrounding the regime, and the difficulty in interpreting the legislation.

None of that is a surprise.

As we approach the final two months before the general election it should send chills down the spines of all New Zealanders, except those who want Labour to win no matter what. It should also tell National that it should repeal the Act in full. It is time for elections to be events of volunteers choosing to fund political parties and campaigns as they see fit, and the unabashed envy of the left (and its derogatory attitude that its supporters can have their votes bought by advertising, when it buys their votes with future taxes) should be consigned to history.

At the end of the election, it is up to an individual to choose to vote - and nobody cares less that so much of the mainstream media is biased towards statism.

Nats want government spending to increase

The story in the Press is that the Nats slam the 8% p.a. spending increases by government under Labour. This, of course, begs the question as to how much government spending can be cut without commensurate reductions in the services taxpayers consume.

Imagine if National had stayed in power in 1999 and remained in 2002 and 2005, continuing the same policies it had then. Government spending would be substantially lower than today. However National clearly believes it got it wrong in 1999, and Bill English now says:

"It will be a big challenge if we are the government to slow the rate of growth. You can't actually pull back the absolute amount of government spending"

Why Bill? Ruth Richardson did. Is everything the state does right? If so, why are you not a member of the Labour Party, since you're willing to accept its programme?

Bill English is saying is there would be "restraint" but no cap on government expenditure.

That's right. No cap. National is willing for spending to grow faster than inflation, for the state to grow except, I may surmise, it might be a 7% increase not 8%.

Great win that would be right?

National is truly being Labour lite. A watered down vision of a growing state, a state which grows faster than GDP, faster than inflation. Why would anyone on the side of smaller government be supporting this?

Another small hint to the Nats

So you're making everyone pay for school leavers to go to tertiary institutions to get high school qualifications. So you're saying that they wont be able to get a benefit unless they take up training.

hmmmm

Why should anyone under 18 get a benefit at all?

A cop wants a ban

Wonder if Sue Kedgley would be interested? A paid journalist has reported how a single cop in Southland has called for absinthe to be banned. (One man is a "call" for something you see not much news in Southland obviously?) Why? Because some fool teenager over indulged.

He was underage, so he presumably got access to alcohol illegally anyway. Nevermind that, Sergeant John Harris wants to take away the fun from others who KNOW how to consume absinthe. I can understand his desire to protect the ignorant, but cars kill people every day, people do stupid things every day - banning those things which gives others great positive utility in order to protect the foolish IS the definition of Nanny State. Sergeant Harris has good intentions, but he'd be better off focusing on young teens who wander the streets at night drunk and vulnerable, rather than using Sue Kedgley's favourite word.

The world of the Green Party - an investment

You have to love the evasion of the Greens. ETS creates a "billion dollar fund" like some magical money tree that you've planted, and you don't even have to think about what those who earned the money might have spent it on - you can spend it in whatever way you wish. Good that.

This fund is to subsidise the installation of insulation in all of the homes of people who OWN their properties (hardly the poor) who couldn't be bothered paying for it themselves.

So it is a tax on everyone, to transfer to those who are moderate to high incomes, to reward them for their own unwillingness to spend money on their properties.

Great!! You can see the Green Party incentives at work there, force other people to pay for something we think everyone should have, rewarding those who are least interested in getting what we want, and who are also undoubtedly able to do it if they so choose to do so.

Furthermore it's an "investment". Yes. You, in your insulated house, being forced to pay for someone else to get his house insulated returns $5 in benefits for every dollar spent. This evades who is paying and who gets the benefits. The person paying gets none of the benefits, the person receiving the benefits is getting a high ratio of benefits to cost because everyone else has been forced to pay for them.

It's like "investing in public transport", which is really about making people who never use it and wont benefit from it (except at the margins) to pay for something that others (who don't even pay half the costs of using it) will benefit from.

So the Greens are selling snake oil. Pay $1 and give someone else $5 worth of benefits.