Compulsory training or what Helen?

So Helen Clark will make 16 and 17yos be at school, in training or on apprenticeship.

So if you have a job at such ages, you'll also be forced to be in training! You could be working in a family business, but no Auntie Helen wants your life.

So what happens if they don't? Will you get arrested if you're not in training?

Now I'd simply abolish welfare benefits for those under 18 - but that's a separate issue. Since when has Clark decided she can control 16 and 17yos?

Don't let the financial crisis damage capitalism

According to the Financial Times, UK Conservative Leader David Cameron has said that it is important to not let the left use the financial crisis as a reason to undermine capitalism:

“We must not let the left use this as an excuse to wreck an important part of the British and world economy"

Indeed. He further rejects calls for tighter regulation of financial markets and higher taxes, saying centre-right leaders should unite in defence of capitalism.

Remarkable - look forward to John Key doing this then right?

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are on 52% in the polls, and Labour at 24% (Lib Dems at 12%) look convincing winners - if the election was not two years out. The Tories are getting a little bolder with policies the wider the gap grows - and it seems to be working. Education vouchers are mainstream policy in the UK - but not in NZ.

Anderton, Bradford and Sharples let off lightly

Not PC has pointed out that the mainstream media continues to be on the Winston Peters feeding frenzy:

"while Helen Clark campaigns on "trust" that she's already demonstrated she's lost ,and John Key promises to "change" New Zealand when he's already promised not to make any change that will in any way make a difference -- while all this happens, New Zealand's media is still fiddling around with Winston Peters, his dancing monkey, and the question of which dog ate whose homework, and in which motel Brian Henry might have been when it all happened".

Meanwhile, the paid "professionals" known as journalists have completely let it slip by that the leader of one party supporting Labour, a co-leader of a party that may support either Labour or National, and the MP of another party have all publicly backed a group of Cuban spies convicted of conspiracy to murder.

Yes, Jim Anderton, Pita Sharples and Sue Bradford have declared their credentials to be blood red. They repeat the nonsense that Cuban dissidents are "terrorists" and that these Cuban spies were fighting terrorism when they dobbed Cuban refugees into the Cuban police state. THAT should be a small scandal, it SHOULD be getting scrutiny that a senior Cabinet Minister has aligned himself to a police state.

However, for the cherubs who are reporters in the mainstream media, that is too complicated - you see they would have to explain how Cuba is a police state, how Cuban dissidents help Cubans flee and spread propaganda to encourage Cubans to rise up against their dictators, and then explain the judicial process faced by the Cuban Five.

Not as interesting as Winston though is it? Three MPs (and by implication three political parties) are sympathisers to those aligned with a communist dictatorship and nobody gives a damn.

Imagine voting for National

To do that I'd have to accept either this:
- Centralised bureaucratically funded and directed education, with central bargaining for teachers and no performance pay, with no funding following students, and no tax refund fior buying your kids' education is ok;
- Centralised bureaucratically funded and directed health care, with central bargaining for nurses and doctors, and no performance pay, with a virtual lottery on getting surgery and no accountability for poor performance and no refund for providing for your own healthcare, is ok;
- Property rights remain under the control of local government with the RMA, except that central government can fasttrack its projects whether they be by energy SOEs, transport agencies or local government;
- All the current bureaucracies should remain and not face any real cuts in funding or roles;
- Government spending should still grow, just less than 9% per annum;
- Local government should retain its current wide ranging powers to use ratepayers money for any purpose it deems as promoting the economic, social, environmental and cultural wellbeing of "communities";
- The government should hold onto unprofitable and poorly performing SOEs and not seek private capital;
- Some minor tightening of the welfare state is all that is needed, but state housing stock should continue to grow, and people should still be able to have state houses with income related rents AND accommodation supplements;
- The Maori seats are not to be questioned, nor are laws that grant any ethnic or racial group different rights from others;
- The ETS and the Kyoto Treaty commitments are not to be questioned, but ETS should be tweaked;
- The top tax rate should remain higher than most major trading partners (outside the EU).

OR National has a secret agenda, which ala Ruth Richardson in 1990, will bring tears to my eyes and make me smile.

I want Labour out of power. I wont be voting for Labour. Voting for a party that will not grant Labour confidence and supply is not supporting Labour being in power.

However to vote National is a positive endorsement of either a wholesale capitulation to almost all Labour policies since 1999 or wishful thinking that it is a lying deceitful bunch of confidence tricksters who will play a one trick game of liberalising the New Zealand economy, education, health and welfare systems. I say a one trick game because it will revive the political fortunes of Winston Peters in one foul swoop if that IS true.

If I had voted National in 1996, I would have had to swallow the deal with NZ First, the deal with Alamein Kopu, Tuariki Delamere and the rest of them, the continued abomination of the RMA, the lack of any constructive change in education, health or welfare. However EVEN then, National still privatised, still was seeking to restrict local government's role and deregulated postal services, abolished tariffs on imported motor vehicles. National said it would do these things. Now? Nothing.

What is it I am voting FOR if I choose National? All I can see is that it gets rid of Clark, and Co. A fine goal indeed, but on day two I get to be governed pretty much to the same extent to the same degree in similar ways by people who apparently don't have the courage of their convictions in doing it. Labour believes it is good to govern the country, National believes it has to, almost grudgingly.

Maybe that's it?

Vote Labour if you want big government and to be governed by people who believe they should be governing you.

Vote National if you want big government and to be governed by people who believe they have to be governing you.

So who do you vote for when you don't want to be governed, but want government to protect you?

Leftwing economic illiteracy and hypocrisy

Well The Standard obviously thinks tolls are a bad idea, having posted on this several times, even though:

- Labour introduced and passed legislation to allow toll roads to be introduced by Order in Council under recommendation by the Minister of Transport. The ALPURT B2 Orewa motorway bypass will be the first. Tauranga Harbourlink would've been the second if Winston hadn't made removing the toll a condition of his confidence and supply agreement. Penlink in Rodney District may be the next one;

- Transit New Zealand under Labour undertook a study following the passage of that legislation to investigation what other new highways could be part funded through tolls. It concluded that several Auckland projects (Waterview connection being one), parts of the Waikato expressway, an expressway in the Bay of Plenty and a handful of other projects could be tolled.

- The Labour led government commissioned a study into introducing road pricing in Auckland to reduce congestion and raise revenue called the Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study (ARPES). It considered a daily charge which was $6 a day, so that means $30 a week for a commuter.

And the Standard got this hatred for tolls from a Green blog - when commonsense says that charging vehicles for road use is bound to be better for the environment that subsidising roads from general taxes.

but apparently the Standard opposes Labour policy. How odd.

Black Power's treaty claim

Yes, seriously according to Stuff. You see it claims that gangs exist because of colonisation. Remember when the UK invaded NZ during the lifetime of those gang members, and they had to club together to fight the oppression of the imperialist invaders who took their property, denied them education and stopped them expressing their culture?

"It's the story of our lives really and the way we're treated. From our perspective there have been multiple Treaty breaches, every article has been broken. The way we've dealt with the different breaches is to get together with other like-minded people" says spokesman Eugene Ryder.

Yes, poor you, hasn't "society" dished you a raw deal? Shouldn't everyone be forced to bail you out of your lives? Hardly surprising that Marxist Maori nationalist lawyer Moana Jackson is talking favourably about the claim.

This is the consequence of a culture, and government that supports a culture that individuals are not responsible for their lives and not responsible for improving their own lot. A culture that doesn't blame individuals, whether themselves or their families, but blames "structural" issues, blames the whole collective of society - so it can then claim that everyone be forced to pay to make their lives better.

A simple answer is to disband the Waitangi Tribunal, and redirect the sort of claims that have gone to it before to being a matter of property rights claims when the state has historically stolen from citizens (Maori and others). So which political party will advocate that then? It doesn't begin with the letter "N".

United Future's tinge of less government

Now I'm not getting excited, but check out these policies on the United Future website:

"support the continuation of the 'no-fault' regime and mandatory workplace accident insurance, but support competition in the provision of accident compensation services” This is ACT policy. Open up all of ACC to competition.

“retain the Ministry of Economic Development, but re-focus key elements of their work away from 'picking winners' and towards removing impediments to business especially exporting” Mild, but a small step forward.

“cut taxes to 10% up to $12,000, 20% between $12,001 and $38,000, 30% above $38,000” bigger tax cuts than National, including getting rid of the 39% top rate.

“UnitedFuture will promote "no regrets" policies to address climate change – i.e. measures that will provide both environmental and economic benefits.” Not too shabby, but it also supports ETS.

“Task the Local Government Commission with a review of the size and shape of all local government areas in order to reduce local government activity to a pre-1995 level” Again more adventurous than National.

“Hold an early referendum on the future of the Maori seats in Parliament, as UnitedFuture believes that no ethnicity should have special privilege above others in our proportional electoral system.” Whereas the Nats would do a deal with the Maori Party.

"Introduce tax concessions to recognise the savings created by those who choose to take out private health insurance, or pay for private treatment, prioritising those aged over 65. Investigate the feasibility of a national health insurance scheme for non-trauma based disability, in particular elective surgery for the elderly.” Steps beyond what National would suggest.

However, remember this only looks interesting because National policy is so bland, and before you think about giving Dunne a tick remember, not only has he kept Labour in power over TWO terms, set up a new bureaucracy called the Families Commission, but also has some weirder policies.

“Introduce a Multicultural Act, similar to Canada, for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in New Zealand.” Whatever that means.

Steps backward like “convert Transpower NZ Ltd to a public utility with the sole objective of transporting power through the National Grid at the lowest possible long-term cost to the consumer” instead of being able to be profit oriented and invest in the infrastructure.

More tax funding to “Establish overseas aid at 0.5% of GNI immediately and reach the accepted international millennium goal of 0.7% by 2015.”

and far too much on a wide range of policies, with endless interventions in a wide range of areas.

Peter Dunne has dabbled with ex. National MPs, with the Christian right, with hunters and fishermen, and is now dabbling with a little less government and tax. I don't doubt he actually has a more libertarian set of policies in many ways than National - but sadly that says more about National than it does about Dunne. It's a sad day when a vote for Peter Dunne looks like a more radical option for change than a vote for National, but you can't really be sure that he wont support Labour.

You see he's been supporting Labour every single day since the last two elections.

SPCA spies on child abuse?

Oswald Bastable blogs on a scheme whereby the SPCA will report on "signs of child abuse" when inspecting or taking animals from homes, and Child Youth and Family will report signs of animal abuse and neglect while working on families.

Note this isn't about calling the Police and laying a complaint, but reporting to each other - in other words the SPCA, full of well intentioned animal lovers, will be judging whether there are signs of child abuse.

Obviously child abuse is a serious issue, and there are plenty of Police and teachers who see cases whereby children are being neglected, and there needs to be a judgement about intervention. However the SPCA? It isn't a state agency.

Obviously if anyone witnesses child abuse or finds children who have clearly been subject to physical or sexual abuse (hospitals encounter this not infrequently), there is reason to call the Police if there is no reasonable answer from the parents. The biggest flaw with the family unit is when the parents abuse their position of power and act as sadists at worst, or just ignore their kids - the state must be in a position to intervene beyond a certain threshold. However getting non-state bodies to spy, when they have no professional ability to make this call is disturbing.

Australians have a new Opposition leader

Whilst the US and NZ election campaigns are under full swing, one could be excused for neglecting what has happened across the Tasman.

Brendan Nelson has been replaced as Liberal Party leader by Malcolm Turnbull - a multimillionaire former merchant banker according to the Sydney Morning Herald (so Michael Cullen will look down upon him).

The Daily Telegraph (UK) says he is a staunch republican, which obviously raises clear issues about the long term future of Australia as a Constitutional Monarchy, as Turnbull is the first Liberal leader to be so explicitly in favour of Australian becoming a republic. He chaired the Australian Republican Movement from 1993 to 2000. Turnbull is a Roman Catholic, but quite liberal on matters such as stem cell research and the abortion pill RU486.

The Liberal Party might start looking a bit more liberal, compared to how it was under John Howard.

Greens are right!

Yes, Frogblog has made a post I basically can't disagree with.

"Giving your party vote to a specific party increases that party’s proportion of seats in parliament and thereby diminishes every other party’s proportion. Vote for what you believe in. It’s that simple.

In the end we should stop trying to play the FPP game where the big parties pretend each of the small parties is actually just a faction of them. Assess each party on its policies and past history and vote accordingly. If you’re looking for a moderate centre-left party with a dash of ‘cling to power at all costs’ realism, vote Labour. If you’re looking for a ‘don’t worry there’s no secret agenda, we’ll keep things the same but say we’re offering fresh change’ party vote National. Otherwise look around. If you get Act or New Zealand First in government and didn’t want them, blame the people who voted for them, not the people who voted for something different."

Now it IS likely that if Labour got into power it would be because some people voted NZ First and Labour did a deal with NZ First. That's a reason to blame Labour for wanting to do such a deal, and of course the retards who vote NZ First for creating the opportunity.

I'd extend it further. Voting for any party does not put another party in power. No party "owns" your vote or is entitled to it. It is as that old leftie Ralph Nader said in response to Democrats who thought he "stole" the 2000 Presidential election from Al Gore and gave it to George W Bush - He essentially said 'you don't own my vote, you're not entitled to it. I choose who I vote for, it doesn't mean I endorse any other and doesn't mean I "took" it from you. It wasn't yours".

Just because I am highly likely to vote Libertarianz doesn't mean I've stolen my vote from ACT, let alone National. It's my vote, and if other parties haven't attracted it, then that it their problem.

Buyer's market

Go on, when stocks plummet along with property prices, there is opportunity. Want to buy a home? Want to buy some shares in major utilities? There are winners and losers when there is a major economic upheaval, don't ignore the opportunities to be a winner. The simple reason is that it may as well be you - because there are plenty just waiting to bargain hunt.

Oral sex speculation

What do you do when you want to make up a story - find a paper at a Sexual Health Congress (obvious joke for the more well read in that phrase) about oral sex.

However, it has never been "the exclusive domain of sex workers".

Most survey results are rather what people are willing to say rather than what happens, and moreso who knows what happened in the past?

It has never been illegal in New Zealand between women and between women and men. It is naturally a matter of personal choice and taste, very intimate, with one less obvious danger for women.

Thankfully politics can stay well out of it, but it is remarkable how it has become de riguer culturally. I can only hope that it is indulged in out of desire and passion rather than a sense of "I'm expected to do this".

Cullen plays hypocrite

Now I'm not warm towards John Key politically, but he is a smart guy, and he has had a real job. One thing that can't be said of him is that he is a failure - he doesn't need to be in politics, which naturally makes one wonder why he is, but that is besides the point.

According to the NZ Herald, Dr Cullen has claimed that Key is a "gambling currency trader" and that's the last sort of person that New Zealanders should want running the economy. Hilarious really, when Dr Cullen gambled taxpayers' money (money they didn't choose for him to gamble with) in many ways, such as:
- Buying the Auckland rail network for $81 million when Treasury valued it at $20 million tops, and before the whole network was bought back for $1;
- Buying the whole rail network for $1 after promising an Australian owned company monopoly rights to run across it, and to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade it, and then not enforcing the price it agreed with the company for it to pay to use the network;
- Buying Toll Rail well above the price that any commercial operator would have paid to buy it;
- Buying Air NZ after letting it nearly go into liquidation, instead of allowing Singapore Airlines to provide a 25% capital injection.

John Key in his previous career made business decisions for people who chose him to make judgements about their money. I'd trust John Key on macro-economic decisions anyday beyond the history lecturer, who has NEVER been trusted to manage the money of thousands of people before, and certainly never been accountable for failing to do so wisely.

Who would you rather have as your banker? John Key or Michael Cullen? To conclude, if currency trading is seen as "gambling" (which is an exercise that by and large is about taking a chance on blind odds in most cases), then what is using money taken from other people to buy businesses and assets at many times the price they were valued add commercially?

Cullen struggles to justify rail purchase

Dr Cullen, according to a government press release (not election campaigning of course!), says that the purchase of Toll Rail was essential because "With rising fuel prices and growing awareness of the threat of climate change, the restoration of New Zealand’s rail system is now an economic necessity".

Yet rail customers weren't willing to buy it, which makes it rather a curious claim. Economic necessity? Hardly.

Furthermore, he bizarrely thinks that because Toll said the railway business was worth a lot of money, it must have been!:

“Toll believed, however, it was worth over $1 billion. As the government had to take national interest factors into account and as the existing owners of the track itself, we were always going to have to pay more than commercial rail operators who did not have an interest in keeping services open. In the end roughly half of the price the Crown paid was to buy Toll out of its long term monopoly right."

Well I can say my car is worth $100,000, but it doesn't mean it is - it means if you believe it, I'm ripping you off. If Toll believed that, why didn't it sell Toll Rail to someone who would pay it? Why sell to the government? It was a bluff, a standard commercial negotiating technique, which Dr Cullen is either too stupid to see, or was being willfully blind because he wanted to buy it, at any price (and could threaten to force a sale).

He admits he was willing to pay more than a commercial operator because he wants to keep services open that effectively can only be kept open at a loss.

The waffle ends with:

"Having KiwiRail in Kiwi hands will allow us to protect rail services for provincial economies, move more freight off roads and onto tracks, and help make our economy a truly sustainable one"

Protect them? So provincial economics need rail to move logs, milk, coal and containers, at a loss? So the loss of revenue from less road user charges will be saved in maintenance costs? Was the economy truly sustainable when it was illegal to ship freight more than 150km by road?

KiwiRail is going to be a huge success for our economy. Really? So after paying over a billion dollars to buy it back and upgrade the lines and trains, will it return dividends that will pay that back and some? No, of course not. It's smoke and mirrors, it is faith not facts, it is worshipping the same altar of religion of rail that the Greens bow down at.

It's bad economics and complete nonsense. Toll took Dr Cullen, the Labour/NZ First/United Future/Jim Anderton government to the cleaners, and flogged off an unprofitable business for a fortune. Now Dr Cullen is spouting out rubbish about the gains this "investment" will bring.

My challenge is simple to the government- produce an independent economic appraisal of the net economic return from the renationalisation of Toll Rail. I dare you.

Malaysia on the brink of a quiet revolution

Malaysia has been dominated by one party for all of its years since independence. UMNO has led a coalition of Malays, Chinese and Indians to govern Malaysia somewhat autocratically since 1958. Now, Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, formerly Deputy Prime Minister, who had been convicted on trumped up charges of sodomy 10 years ago (and facing new charges), believes he has the numbers in parliament to bring down the government according to the Daily Telegraph.

Mr Anwar claims 30 government MPs are ready to cross the floor, but fears that the government will crack down on opposition. It already sent 50 MPs on a trip to Taiwan to reduce the risk of MPs defecting!

If it happens, it will challenge the explicitly racist nature of the Malay led government. Malays have long dominated the government, instituting quotas for jobs and higher education to try to advance their position economically, compared to the far more successful Chinese. Malaysia's ethnic tensions may re-emerge, but what is most important is to have a peaceful handover of power in Malaysia from UNMO. Malaysia needs this to be a modern liberal democracy and so the state can be accountable, and be purged of corruption. It has had many years of successful economic growth, and I wish Malaysia well (having visited twice). Its people will be best served if they are to be free.

Clintonistas not flocking to join Obamaniacs

According to the Daily Telegraph, Hilary Clinton's pleadings for her supporters to back Obama isn't getting the reaction that was hoped for. Given the bitter campaign between the two Democrat candidates, distrust is high towards Obam. 28% of Clinton supporters in Ohio have said they will vote for McCain. Michigan and Pennsylvania, where Clinton did particularly well, could well go to McCain as a result.

I can't but help think that Clinton wouldn't mind Obama losing - as she could quietly say "told you so" and have a shot in 2012.

The latest poll of polls on CNN puts both Obama and McCain on 45% - it is a brave person who would call this election by any means.

Mickey Mouse - Satan's soldier

So says Sheikh Muhammad Munajid, a Muslim cleric, former Saudi Arabian diplomat, who according to the Daily Telegraph says under Sharia both household mice and cartoon mice should be killed. The cartoon ones, you see, teach children than mice are lovable. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, tsk tsk.

He said in an Arab language TV broadcast:

"Even creatures that are repulsive by nature, by logic, and according to Islamic law have become wonderful and are loved by children. Even mice.

"Mickey Mouse has become an awesome character, even though according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases."

Ahhh Islam can be such fun. Though I love the quote about what he said about the Beijing Olympics:

"Last month Mr Munajid condemned the Beijing Olympics as the "bikini Olympics", claiming that nothing made Satan happier than seeing females athletes dressed in skimpy outfits."

Well, given that Mr Munajid is such a fun fellow, you can be sure that anything that most in the world considers fun is immoral to him - but when did he last rally against female circumcision?

Zimbabwe deal deja vu?

There is considerable hope that the deal between Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangarai's MDC will result in real change in Zimbabwe, although to be honest that hope is only because the alternative is so bleak.

The power sharing deal means day to day power is meant to be transferred to Tsvangarai as Prime Minister leading a council of Ministers, whilst Mugabe remains President and chairs another Cabinet. In short, Mugabe loses little, and gains some scapegoats and the chance that aid may once again flow to his beleagured land of subjects. Zimbabwe, with a life expectancy of 32 years, and inflation that averages at over 4% every single day, meaning prices double every 2.5 weeks, is on its knees - and the man that did it, and the men and women who stole from Zimbabwe will remain immune.

As Ayn Rand once said the only winner when good and evil compromise, is evil. It is clear that the murdering, thieving, destroying thugs of Zanu-PF will get away with their kleptocratic homicidal deeds. It is clear that Robert Gabriel Mugabe will continue to be President, continue to fly in a private jet and be feted by lesser (and occasionally greater) thugs and murderers around the world. In short, there will be no justice for the people of Zimbabwe, when the appropriate response would be to put him and his cronies on trial, Ceausescu style and put them in front of a firing squad.

However, Morgan Tsvangarai is tired of hoping for that outcome. Thabo Mbeki, another accessory to murder and theft, has long insisted on a compromise that would suit his fellow gangster mate Mugabe. Only a handful of African leaders spoke up against the festering sore of that regime, and so Tsvangarai felt stuck, without arms, without a means of overthrowing the kleptocracy that murdered and tortured his supporters, he sought peace.

Peace has a price.

Joshua Nkomo of ZAPU, a tribal based party aligned with the Ndebele minority saw how Mugabe could operate. As recalled by the Times, Nkomo was an opposition leader who also fought for Zimbabwe's independence. After some violence and rivalry, Mugabe gave Nkomo a cabinet seat before accusing him of plotting to overthrow the government. Following that accusation, Mugabe ordered his murderous Fifth Brigade (trained by North Koreans) to unleash a genocidal campaign on Matabeleland that saw 20,000 Ndebele murdered. Nkomo relented and announced the merger of ZAPU and ZANU, creating ZANU-PF - destroying Zimbabwe's opposition. He did it for peace, and died a broken man:

"The parallels with today are uncanny,” Heidi Holland, author of a recent book, Dinner with Mugabe, about the tyrant’s political rise to power, told The Times. "

Peace, you see, isn't a virtue when it is under slavery. One would hope Tsvangarai knows this lesson from history and is seeking to not repeat it, but one also knows Mugabe is cunning and slippery.

I notice the NZ government is welcoming the deal with caution, but saying many issues need to be addressed. I'd prefer to say that the sooner Mugabe and his cohorts were deposed from power and subject to trial for their crimes against Zimbabweans the better.

The heartbreak that is Zimbabwe is far from over, there is no reason to cheer just yet.

UPDATE: The Times writes about what is needed to make a real change in Zimbabwe. Repeal of the draconian security laws. End of the blockade on humanitarian aid being delivered directly to those in need. End of the intimidation of opposition supporters. Drastic action on inflation. Restoring to productivity the formerly white-Zimbabwean owned farms that have been pillaged and ruined. Constitutional reform to hold truly free and fair elections. Without that, this deal is window dressing.

Anderton and the Greens support Cuba too

Yes, hot on the heels of Dr. Pita Sharples supporting the Cuba Five - a set of spies convicted of conspiracy to murder, who infiltrated an anti-Castro organisation and told the Cuban government of plans of Cuban to flee the prison state of their country. This resulted in the Cuban government shooting down light planes containing Cubans fleeing to the USA.

Jim Anderton and Sue Bradford support these men. They put their names to a press release claiming "The Cuban Five were engaged in a peaceful mission to stop Miami-based organisations from continuing to carry out terrorist attacks against Cuba".

Terrorist attacks against a one-party state that imprisons political opponents, suppresses independent media and which at one time sought to become a nuclear weapons base to threaten the USA?

So the Progressive Party (which is Jim anyway), and the Greens appear to prefer the Cuban dictatorship's view of the Cuban Five over the US government. At best they could be ambivalent and not know who to believe, but this attitude shows a conviction that the Cuban government is morally equivalent to the USA, and even New Zealand.

That is fundamentally naive and quite evil.

What's choice?

Maori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato Angeline Greensill (and former Mana Maori Party candidate) says "It’s choice to be young and Maori".

Actually Angeline, you can't choose your age, or your genetic history.

Choice is about freedom, it's about being able to choose your own destiny for your body and your property. It's not about initiating force, and it's not about preferring one race over another.

Engaging young Maori people in politics is fine, until you are advocating more government and initiating more force against others - and the Maori Party is.