Don't like Auckland's trains? Pay more!

Well it's hardly surprising. You get what you pay for.

You see the fares only recover around a third of the operating costs, and not a dollar of fare revenue has been used to pay for the trains themselves, the track upgrades or the station upgrades. They have been paid for by ratepayers, motorists (through petrol tax) and the proceeds of the privatisation of the Yellow Bus Company.

So when Peter Lyons in the NZ Herald moans about services being late, moans about standing room only, moans about the services being inferior to his expectations he shouldn't be surprised. Taxpayers have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the system. He starves the system by paying fares that are a fraction of the operating costs, it's a con that deludes Aucklanders into thinking that you can have a first class urban passenger railway without either paying fares to sustain it (as in Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan) or paying a fortune in rates or taxes (as in Paris, Vienna, Montreal).

So the debate is really this. Are those who want Auckland to have a passenger railway willing to use it and pay the fares necessary to sustain it? If not, why should Aucklanders who don't want to use it be forced to pay taxes for those who do?

Meanwhile, if you think it is the solution to congestion in Auckland, consider that 88% of commuters in Auckland do NOT work in downtown Auckland, where the railway goes. Consider that the railway itself only serves three out of the five main corridors in Auckland radiating from the central city, then you can see that at best 7% of Auckland commuters might use it.

It would be nice if a journalist would put in a LGOIMA (official information) request to the ARC to ask the difference its rail plan would make to traffic speeds in Auckland if fully implemented (according to peer reviewed consultants' reports).

World's biggest nationalisation?

According to the Times, The Bush Administration has injected US$200 Billion of US taxpayers' money into the Federal National Mortgage Administration (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), at the same time as it has taken over the companies, replaced the chief executives and suspended dividends to the private shareholders.

Both companies finance more than 80% of the US housing market, what this means is a massive subsidy for US homeowners. Future taxpayers (as the US is in budget deficit) will pay to prop up the property market now.

Reuters reports Barack Obama supports it as being necessary, but welcomingly said "In our market system, investors must not be allowed to believe that they can invest in a "heads they win, tails they don't lose" situation." Which of course, is what has happened.

It also reports John McCain also supports it, but also this:

""The long-term reforms are to scale down Fannie and Freddie so their size is no longer a threat. And then privatize them. Get them off the taxpayer's books entirely," said McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.".

Meanwhile, according to Bloomberg former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan criticises the bailout saying the companies should have been nationalised, given the shareholders nothing and privatised the two companies into many smaller firms.

These two firms were government creations, as part of the New Deal. It's about time the US economy was no longer dependent on them both. As Not PC said, they should have been allowed to fail. Bailing them out is taking money from those who didn't take those risks, it delays and reduces future tax cuts. The money for the bailout does not come from trees, it comes from people.

As Paul Gigot in the Wall Street Journal writes:

"Even now, after all of their dishonesty and failure, Fannie and Freddie could emerge from this taxpayer rescue more powerful than ever. Campaigning to spare taxpayers from that result would represent genuine "change," not that either presidential candidate seems interested."

As it is a fait accompli, the best that can hoped for is to take Greenspan's solution, fully nationalise the institutions, split them and sell them. Ensure these creations of government are returned to the dustbin of history.

Turkey tries to improve relations with Armenia , sort of

According to the Sunday Telegraph, Turkish President Abdullah Gul has visited Armenia. The first ever visit by a Turkish leader to independent Armenia, which given the history between the two nations is important. However, sadly, Turkey seems still unwilling to accept its past.

President Gul said of Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian "He did not mention... the so-called genocide claims"

According to Wikipedia:

"The date of the onset of the genocide is conventionally held to be April 24, 1915, the day that Ottoman authorities arrested some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. Thereafter, the Ottoman military uprooted Armenians from their homes and forced them to march for hundreds of miles, depriving them of food and water, to the desert of what is now Syria. Massacres were indiscriminate of age or gender, with rape and other sexual abuse commonplace."

Between 300,000 and 1.5 million Armenians died during this period. However arguing over numbers is beside the point. It is also beside the point to consider that many Turks also died in the ensuing conflict. There is little evidence that there was a deliberate effort to wipe out Turks by Armenians.

Modern day Turks have little to fear from admitting that the Ottoman Empire discriminated against Armenians, that Armenians sought independence, and the corrupt brutal Ottoman regime co-opted many Turks to expel and execute Armenians. Germans have had to face their role in the most well known genocide of all. Turkey needs to engage internally about this dark period of history, resist nationalist pride, and acknowledge the evil of the past. Precious few alive today are likely to have had any responsibility for it, and it would be a fitting first step before seriously considering secular Turkey's membership in the European Union.

UN says eat less meat to save the planet

The Observer reports that Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has called for people to have one meat free day a week (something I do regularly if you regard meat excluding fish), because of "the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals".

Now setting aside the harm this causes economies with a high proportion of meat rearing agriculture, setting aside that the UN produces nothing other than exhorbitantly highly paid and underworked bureaucrats, this call blunders in so many ways. It doesn't distinguish between efficient producers and inefficient producers. How much good would be done environmentally and economically if subsidies and protectionism for meat production was ended worldwide? Oh and at the same time, do it for all other food production, so that other foods are over or underpriced? Sadly British restauranteur John Torode makes the common mistake in thinking that buy local would do it, when NZ lamb has a far lower carbon footprint than British lamb, even after transporting it.

I've noticed how little success the Green Party in NZ has had in fighting the foodmiles myth in the UK - or perhaps how little effort it has taken.

There are reasons to moderate meat intact, mainly health ones. The evidence that a high meat diet may be strongly linked to heart disease and cancers of the digestive tract is quite overwhelming. However, there are also countervailing factors, such as high fibre consumption, fish oil consumption and red wine!

Joanna Blythman in the Observer reflects:

"Try telling the Masai tribesmen who have reared livestock for millennia that they should plough up scrubby Kenyan savannah and plant millet"

and points out the value of cattle grazing in some parts of Britain:

"Heather left untamed grows out of control - stringy and lanky - and strangles the growth of other plant species. Without sheep and cattle to graze on them, heather landscapes would eventually become barren and would start to pose fire risks."

As usual, the central planner has a simple solution that does not have universal application (and may be highly damaging).

For all that, it's still some highly paid bureaucrat telling people of all nationalities, what to do, whilst living an affluent lifestyle paid for compulsorily by them. If he talked about agricultural trade liberalisation as well, I might listen, because you see that offers enormous benefits for the world economics and environment.

Polly Toynbee was wrong about Gordon Brown

but she wont admit it. Her latest column in the Guardian calls for Gordon Brown, who she once saw as being the true Labour leader (she went off Blair), to be replaced.

However, pass on the article. It's the usual bunch of leftwing Keynesian tripe about increased taxes and spending more money on those who haven't earned it. Go to the comments section. There is true magic there. My favourite is this from "Cloutman":

Another great article Polly. Marvelous to see such an eloquent demonstration of the old saw - 'the convert is the greatest zealot'. You're really starting to hit the nail on the head - your ex-hero Gordon Brown is indeed as much use as a third buttock. As you have now come to recognise, you absolutely were 100% wrong with all that guff you used to write about how wonderful he was.

And I'll let you into a secret. You know all that other stuff you write about poverty and inequality? That's all bloody tripe as well.

David Cameron outdoes John Key

In the first year or so of David Cameron’s leadership of the UK Conservative Party I was critical of how much he was willing to step back from the proud tradition of Thatcher in rolling back the state. He was embracing the anti-rationalist philosophy of environmentalism, and inefficient producer interest shackled state institutions like the NHS. He didn't seem to stand for anything that different.

It seems Mr. Cameron has moved forward. With the gap between the Tories and Labour growing ever wider, he has become more confident. He now calls for the state to be wound back, if slowly.

In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph he makes it clear that the state must shrink to give the British public some of their money back. He is calling for tax reductions that are affordable. However more important he wants the proportion of GDP going to the state to shrink.

He opposes state intervention to rebolster the mortgage market, preferring to cut the punitive stamp duty - a tax on property sales.

He advocates the type of school choice ACT is promoting - the Swedish voucher system whereby the private sector gets funding per pupil as parents send their kids to the school of their choice.

However in New Zealand, after National had a wide gap with Labour, it became even more limp wristed and gutless! Bill English says that the growth in state spending should be less than under Labour. He doesn’t want the state to shrink, he just wants it to grow less. National rejected Rodney Hide’s suggestion that state spending grow no faster than population and inflation – which over time would be less than GDP growth. This modest proposal by ACT should be core National policy, on the basis that the state should be getting more efficient and if successful should progressively disengage itself from people’s lives.

Labour believes the opposite. Have no bones about it, Labour would increase the size of the state given the chance, as it has been. Working for Families is a part of that, free GP visits, student loan handouts, more state housing, state subsidised rural telecommunications, a grandiose underground railway for Auckland, greenplating a motorway so it costs $2 billion in a tunnel instead of a quarter that above ground. It is a vision of taking from everyone to giving to everyone, just in different proportions.

National is apparently incapable of fighting this, incapable of really articulating a vision that in a growing economy the state can easily and appropriately take a proportionately lesser role.

John Key is calling for tax cuts, but there is plenty of poor government spending that should be highlighted and cut. Come on John, if David Cameron can do it after 11 years of relatively centre-right New Labour, you can do it after 9 years of centre-left Clarkistani policy.

Kim Jong Il close to croaking?

Well Sky News says so and so does the International Herald Tribune citing a South Korean newspaper. This is on the basis that he hasn't been seen in public for three weeks (which isn't actually that much of a big deal in North Korea). The South Korean National Intelligence Service says he has heart disease and diabetes, which means he wont outlast his father (and let's face it Kim Jong Il since his teens has had a rich lifestyle, with little need to undertake any work), and apparently several Chinese doctors entered the country and remain there (though this could mean anything).

The Korean Central News Agency (which has an absolute monopoly on news from North Korea) of course says nothing of General Secretary Kim Jong Il. In fact its news reports are worth reading for tragic/humour value. Take this:

"Art performance "Really Good Country" of kindergarteners from across the country was given at the Pyongyang Schoolchildren's Palace on Sept. 4 to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the DPRK...The numbers included small chorus "The General Goes along the Endless Road to the Front" and instrumental ensemble "Bean-based Milk Van Dashes Forward" which make one keenly feel the noble traits of General Secretary Kim Jong Il."

Well yes "Bean-based milk van dashes forward" certainly inspire feelings about Kim Jong Il, especially if stands in front of it. If there wasn't so much vile tragedy, murder, brainwashing and psychological abuse in this nightmare necrocracy (as Christopher Hitchens points out, the 14 year dead Kim Il Sung is still President), it would be really funny.

Meanwhile North Korea stopped disabling its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, after blackmailing the world to keep propping its vile regime up, and continues to enslave and torture children of political prisoners in gulags.

Meanwhile the Green Party says nothing about either.

UPDATE: Now, according to the Daily Telegraph, a Japanese professor claims Kim Jong Il has been dead since 2003, and doubles have been used ever since for speeches and public appearances. He has written a book called "The True Character of Kim Jong Il". I'm not convinced, but such a hermetically sealed state will create such speculation. It is also known that several dictators had doubles, including Saddam Hussein, and Albania's Enver Hoxha - the latter of which inspired the novel/story by New Zealand author Lloyd Jones called "Biografi", which is definitely a good read.

Swaziland's corrupt dictatorial misogynistic king

The highest rate of HIV per head of population in the world (41%).
70% of its inhabitants live on under NZ$0.61 a day.

So King Mswati, the absolute ruler of Swaziland, with 13 wives, who goes on multi-million pound shopping sprees with them, who suppresses political dissent, who owns helicopters, limousines and palaces, looks pretty vile.

Swazis actually like him, in spite of it all says The Times, or they are too busy to fight, dying or fearful of being arrested.

In 2000 he called for everyone with HIV to be branded and sterilised, which didn't happen. Then he called for a five year ban on sex, which he didn't respect, naturally.

Life expectancy is around 30 years.

You'll notice Bob Geldof, Bono, Madonna, Oxfam and other great advocates for Africa doing their bit to demand this vile corrupt kleptocracy be overthrown and for part of the King's wealth to be used to fund the infrastructure needed to provide some health care, instead of blaming the West.

Fortunately the UK supplies no official bilateral aid to Swaziland. That's a small relief at least.

What the hell is wrong with school choice?

If you're a parent, and your local state school doesn't deliver the education you want, and of course, you're a taxpayer, why is it unreasonable to expect that you should be able to send your child to another school - and for your taxes to follow where you send your child?

Now I'd argue that the parent should get the money back and pay the fees. Many would say "what if it isn't enough", which becomes another argument. I would say that YOU should help that family if you are so concerned, but also that private schools elsewhere often provide scholarships for kids from poorer backgrounds to attend. In the UK some private schools have up to 20% of pupils attending with fees part paid by such scholarships - and that is without anyone getting their taxes back. Imagine if parents had their taxes back, could choose the schools and those who could not afford would be helped by those schools, charities and their families. Yes, that's where Libertarianz aim for things to be.

Far too much for the Nats to contemplate, which is understandable - it couldn't convince people that most are quit generous.

However, there are steps along that path. ACT advocates school choice through vouchers, similar to what Sweden has implemented. The vouchers aren't actual pieces of paper, but each child has taxpayer funding that follows him or her, and the school receives that money, whether the school be state or private. The private schools can even be profit making (I know, and they don't even use the children for slave labour or their organs!).

It would be a simple step forward, schools would need to be attractive to parents - which is predicated on parents knowing what's best for their kids. Schools that succeeded would be funded on a per student basis, those that didn't would need to change or fail or face takeover.

National once had this policy, in 1987. Ancient history now. Parents choosing, schools accountable? Not any more.

A very modest step forward would be bulk funding. Schools funded on a per student basis, but only state schools. At least some accountability for performance. No. National can't even argue that schools should get money per student.

It's going to "plan talks on zoning", you know the law that means schools can only target students from local areas, with some exceptions. According to The Press, Education spokeswoman Anne Tolley said that "zoning "certainly won't go altogether" under National, but "I think there is some tweaking we can do"." So glad your political career is ambitious Anne.

PPTA President Robin Duff, (the PPTA being defenders of the right of teachers to get unified pay increases without any measure of performance or accountability), said "If you juggle things around with zoning, there are winner and loser schools". There already are.

The PPTA has long fought the right of funding to follow pupils, it has long fought teachers being paid according to performance, it fought vouchers and bulk funding. Nothing substantive will change in education until this bastion of old fashioned union monopoly dominance is smashed.

It is time for education to be about what parents want, not what teachers think is good for them.

National's ambitions for education are woeful. It is depressing that it can't even argue for funding for students to go to the school parents choose. Centrally planned education funded Soviet style is the status quo - and that's the education system you will keep getting under National.

Unless you are wealthy and can afford to opt out - which is perhaps why plenty of Nats don't care, why should they give a damn about children from middle class homes?

Teachers can use force to protect other kids

According to the Dominion Post, Police Inspector Chris Graveson says teachers are too cautious about using force to protect children in classrooms even though they are entitled to do so.

Apparently the issue is adolescents, some of whom are being sexually aggressive and violent towards other kids. Teachers, understandably terrified of being accused of being abusers themselves, fear touching kids even to defend others. It's dead wrong.

Inspector Graveson has made it clear that teachers should intervene, which is common sense of course. He points out that if some children are restrained, there is a risk they may bruise, particularly if they remain violent. The choice is simple though - a teacher is morally obliged to protect children from their peers if violence is witnessed.

Of course with a headline "Teachers can use force on kids", the "journalist" Lane Nichols is being deliberately provocative. It is not initiating force, it is using force to defend one child from another.

Teachers, particularly male ones, have been inflicted with a feminist led hysteria against any physical contect between themselves and their pupils, on the implication that it "could" be sexual and abusive. Few deny the seriousness of teachers sexually abusing their pupils, but teachers are well aware of the risks of any such allegations. Children are long taught to report "bad touching". However it has paralysed teachers providing comfort to upset children. I recall being hugged and held by a teacher when I was 10 because I was upset as my grandfather had died. I am grateful for that, I was crying and needed that comfort - it is natural, and this is what has been lost, to a feminist hysteria that has literally thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Teachers must do the same to protect other pupils.

Of course the reaction of the eminently useless Office of the Children's Commissioner was to say "would be very surprised if it was official police policy to encourage teachers to use a level of force that would leave bruises on primary school children".

That is NOT what it was said. It is NOT encouraged, but accepted that it may be necessary if a child is resisting restraint and it is to protect other adults and children.

You see children are not always innocent.

8 years for fraud, 6 years for rape

Now I'm not privy to all the details of both cases, but if you wanted examples of how the criminal justice systems looks unfair to your average punter then check these two cases out:

- A welfare benefit fraudster is getting 8 years in prison. According to Stuff he defrauded taxpayers of NZ$3.48 million over 3 years, using 123 separate identities (yes he was determined)! An incredible amount. His flat alone contained NZ$868,000 in cash and NZ$355,000 in gold ingots, which of course is now state property (don't expect your share back though). Wayne Thomas Patterson appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court. 8 years is a hefty sentence, but much of that is deterrent.

- The Waikato Times reports that Joshua Ruatekaumatahi Baker has been sentenced 6 years in prison for repeatedly raping a girl under 16. It was a four to five hour ordeal inflicted upon the victim. He warned her to tell no one, returned two weeks later to her bedroom undoubtedly to repeat his crime when she "alerted family members". We wont know if this lowlife is a family member, but we do know this girl is traumatised and it will last longer than 6 years. We also know that Baker lacked remorse, although he wrote a letter of remorse one wonders if this was following legal advice.

6 years for rape, with an individual who is probably going to pose a threat again. 8 years for benefit fraud. Should the sentences be reversed? Should the rapist be getting the 14 years maximum for sex with someone underage? What happens to both men when they are released?

My view is that criminals should have a points system. The crime you commit earns you "points" which when they go beyond 100 puts you in long term preventative detention. Property offences would earn no more than 20, violent offences could earn up to 100. The lesson would be simple. Criminal justice gives everyone one chance to rehabilitate, if there is genuine remorse and perhaps undiagosed mental illness. Depending on the severity of the crime there may be more chances or no more.

However first and foremost, sentencing should be relative according to the crime and impact on the victim. The taxpayer is less hurt by the thieving actions of a fraudster than a girl is by a rapist.

More girls kissing

Because it is Friday...

Why the Family Party is just so wrong

From a press release:

"Family Party Candidate for Northland, Melanie Taylor, is concerned over The Edge FM competition being held nationwide at 4.30pm today.

The station is encouraging girls to publicly kiss for about 20 seconds, with one girl/girl couple winning a trip to Melbourne to see Katy Perry, singer of the hit song "I kissed a girl and I liked it."

This follows this report in the Press about the contest.

Shouldn't the Family Party care about actions where people really get hurt?

No it shows itself to be oppressed, shame filled and judgmental.

Some simple points:

1. It is not a crime for two girls to kiss in New Zealand, never had been. It is not sex. It is not dirty, it is an expression of affection and love.

2. Most men (especially when you exclude gay men) and quite a few women like it. If you don't, then look away.

3. Why do you think it is acceptable for young children to be smacked in public but not for young women to kiss in public?

4. Many families believe that kissing is acceptable and positive, just because you teach that it is shameful and that children should grow up feeling shame about their bodies, doesn't mean the rest of us should buy into this abusive philosophy.

Leave peaceful people alone, let women snog in public and get concerned about something that hurts people you busybody ayatallohs!

Nats do little to ease ETS burden

So the Nats, according to the NZ Herald, will introduce a "forestry offset scheme to reduce the costs of changing land use from forestry to other purposes". So this effective attack on private property rights is barely changed at all.

The Nats will "put the fishing industry on the same level as other trade-exposed industries, and "grandparent" it for 90 per cent of 2005 emissions" except it wont be on the same level as the competitors in other countries.

The Nats will "allow small and medium-sized businesses to get involved in the scheme. Lower, or potentially remove, the 50,000 tonne threshold an emitter must meet in order to be eligible" which does beg the question as to the extent that such businesses could benefit from this, at all.

The Nats will "write a 50 per cent reduction of 1990 emissions by 2050 into the legislation as an objective". To what end? How will this benefit anyone in New Zealand?

Nick Smith has long been one of the most statist, anti-freedom National MPs. He is one of the key reasons the Nats wont seriously confront the RMA. It's about time he joined the Green Party and stopped infecting the Nats with his worship of the climate change religion. The bottom line is NZ does not need to damage its economy over this.

Daniel Radcliffe and the older woman

Well really, it's good publicity and good for him, it is reported in Details magazine. He chose someone older (saying it might freak some people out, so surely at least mid 20s) to lose his virginity to, not one of the UK's hundreds of thousands of easy young strumpets.

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.

The worst possible reaction to housing prices

Centre-left governments are funny with their contradictions. When property prices are rising beyond inflation, and people's family homes (and investment properties) are enjoying comfortable capital gains, governments are happy for people to enjoy the fruits of this. Indeed in New Zealand with property rates funding most local government activities, local government enjoys not only the fruits of property revaluations to increase rates, but they increase rates ANYWAY, so that local government revenues grow significantly faster than inflation.

Of course whilst property prices appreciate, there is concern about those unable to afford to buy a home. This is a public policy concern sufficiently that governments intervene in different ways including:
- Providing special schemes taking taxpayers' money to subsidise deposits for first home buyers;
- Using taxpayers' money to subsidise large scale new housing developments and new "eco towns";
- Using taxpayers' money to further inflate the cost of new housing, by building new subsidised rental housing (state/council housing).

Now there is an understandable concern about people being able to have housing, but by taking taxes off of everyone, subsidising people to enter the property market further inflates that market, producing a rather vicious cycle.

So what has the UK government done more recently. Property prices on average across the UK have fallen by around 10% in the last year. This creates problems for those who have 100% mortgages in areas of low forecast growth, so many thousands now have "negative equity" where their mortgages are worth more than their properties. These are part of the credit problem, whereby financial institutions lent money to those who were barely able to sustain buying property, and are now unable to shoulder the capital loss in the short to medium term.

This is painted as a disaster, which it is for those with negative equity, and isn't positive for those relying on property capital gains as an investment. However there is another side to this story.

Those not currently in the market can see an opportunity. With significant price drops, the catchment of people able to buy homes increases - though this is partly relative to the availability of mortgage finance. However, in effect the situation is self correcting. It SHOULD lead to less government involvement in the housing market as it has become affordable.

No. The UK Labour government couldn't let that one go, so what has it done? It is now letting local authorities buy up properties under mortgagee sales, it is also allowing councils to underwrite bad mortgages - in effect is propping up the market using taxpayers' money. The same taxpayers of whom some are suffering from decreasing property values and others who are seeking to buy - they are indirectly subsidising the market. A market where only part of the population benefits from this and many others lose.

It is a massive taxpayer subsidy to property owners, and it is vile and counterproductive for the UK as a whole.

Ross Clark in the Times damns the Brown government's moves saying "why should you want your taxes used to bail out feckless homeowners who borrowed too much during the boom and, worse still, the greedy banks that lent it to them?".

He points out that mortgage lending in the UK has dropped by two-thirds in one year, from £17.2 billion in July 2007 to £4.3 billion in July 2008. So while the market corrects itself, Gordon Brown wants to prop up those with an interest in part of the equation, because he figures the swing voters are in that category. The poor feckless lower income people vote Labour anyway, so screw them.

As Clark concludes:

"To force taxpayers to rebuild a stock of council homes now in a falling market is not just perverse; it would also rank alongside Gordon Brown's sale of gold reserves at the bottom of the gold market in 1999 as one of the most crass cases of public investment ever.

There are few problems so bad that a government cannot make them ten times worse by intervening. The housing market is no exception. Much as it will cause pain to those who bought too late into the dream of home ownership, the only sensible policy is to stand back and let the market find its own level."

The Times editorial today also sums it up:

the most fundamental objection to the housing package is that government has no legitimate function in targeting asset prices. The most direct way to assist first-time buyers is to allow an overvalued market to find its own equilibrium. There is no reason for the Government to seek political salvation by populist appeals to the economic interest of existing homeowners.

Indeed, and in the meantime some may be looking to snap up some good buys!

Labour does good on trade

A free trade agreement with ASEAN is a good step forward, opening up access to relatively close and fast growing markets in South East Asia, and so congrats to Phil Goff for this. Indeed, the pursuit of a liberal open trade agenda is one of the few areas I'll give Labour credit for continuing, as it is a fairly bipartisan activity politically.

Now the Nats can build on this and take it further, as Labour has tended to ignore areas like audio-visual services and the like. I expect only the Greens, NZ First and perhaps the Maori Party will question it, because they share xenophobia about foreign made goods, and the Greens in particular find the idea of consumers and producers interacting voluntarily to be some breach of people's sovereignty!

John Key and Barack Obama

Yes in so many ways...

However I love Gman's comment "In what way is John Key like Barack Obama? Is it the lack of experience, the lack of policies or the lack of substance?"

Why do I not want Labour to be re-elected?

Labour presents a vision of more government, more government subsidies, more middle class welfare and an uncomfortable level of statism across many aspects of everyday life and business. The failure of state health and education to deliver the expectations of the public is not something Labour has an answer to, beyond spending more money, which suits the interest groups that it gets succour from, such as the teaching and nurses unions. However, most disconcerting of all is Labour’s underlying message of class warfare.

You can be successful and quite wealthy under Labour, but you should be fitting in with its “visions” and “strategies” and you better be giving a lot back, because you owe it. Labour has an underlying suspicion of those “too” financially successful, as if they got there off the back of the workers, whereas it has a generous view of those who have failed. Labour sees those closer to the bottom as always deserving of more money, more assistance and that their circumstances are “no fault of their own”. It is the leftover legacy of socialism. The belief that, deep down, people shouldn’t be allowed to fail, and the successful shouldn’t be allowed to “get away with it”. Most of all it is the belief that the state is a force of good and it can intervene and do more good, most of the time.

I see the state as necessary to protect rights, not to grant privileges and take money from some and give to others (redistribution). I find the notion that the successful owe everyone else to be rather vile, but most of all I find the culture that says that everyone else owes you something, and you owe everyone else something to be most insidious.

Now the reasons to remove Labour from power are quite overwhelming. For me it is:

- The arrogant belief of the Labour Party that it knows best how to spend a significant proportion of people’s money, and its lack of accountability for wasting it. Taxpayers’ money is the government’s money and there is little appreciation of where it came from;

- The chilling view of Helen Clark that “the state is sovereign” showing scant regard for individual freedom;

- The culture of envy and sneering hatred for “the rich” and successful, particularly in business, that comes through in the general Labour attitude to “rich pricks” and the like;

- The almost complete lack of business experience or economic expertise in the Labour caucus, which is dominated by ex. teachers, union officials and public servants. That ISN’T representative of New Zealand (despite what Idiot Savant thinks);

- The sclerotic paucity of accountability and consumer driven reform of the education system under Labour, which is designed to serve what bureaucrats and the teaching unions think it best for education, not parents. Perhaps the greatest scope to open up innovation and cultural change in New Zealand would be in opening up education to be driven by users and providers in a virtuous circle seeking better performance from children;

- The insidious willingness of Labour to consider blunt Orwellian processes to monitor the lives of all children, regardless of their parents’ performance, as a response to the chronic child neglect and abuse by an underclass of barely functional adults;

- The lack of regard for private property rights whether it be homeowners on the one hand or large businesses on the other, or indeed the lack of willingness to use private property rights to deal with issues such as the foreshore and seabed;

- Complete emptiness of courage and ideas to manage the unmanageable burden of the public health system whereby demand, supply and incentives are highly perverse and will continue to deliver below expectations;

- Its cheerful willingness to increase the scope and size of the welfare state to incorporate middle class families, to put them in a cycle of dependency of government for a portion of their income, rather than deliver tax cuts;

- Labour’s almost religious willingness to sign up New Zealand to an Emissions Trading System and commitments to address CO2 emissions without there being any substantive evidence that the benefits will outweigh the costs;

- The ongoing willingness to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money bailing out businesses that are failing in part because of its own unwillingness to accept foreign investment (Air NZ), or because of a quasi-religious obsession with a particular industry (Kiwirail);

- A similar willingness to decimate the private property rights of a major company (Telecom) whilst complaining about that company’s level of investment in new infrastructure;

- Cheeringly developing endless visions, strategies and statements about various sectors of business and communities, as if nothing should be left to people’s own choice, spontaneous decisions and dynamism. Labour does not perceive that it doesn’t have a role in just about everything – whether it be aging, what you eat, what you watch on TV, how you travel, what entertainment you consume, how to dispose of waste.

Is that enough?

TelstraClear damns National's Think Big on telecoms

"political opportunism and a lot of hype",

"What we are seeing is a series of questionable studies and hype"

"At the moment we don't believe that putting fibre into every home is economic or necessary."

Word from the Telstra Clear Chief Executive Alan Freeth, according to the NZ Herald, and given Telstra Clear actually put a hybrid fibre-coax network to the kerb of nearly every home in Wellington, Christchurch, the Hutt Valley and Kapiti Coast, he might know a bit more than your average politician. You see his business is about selling broadband to customers, and he thinks National has got it badly wrong.

He suggests that many homes will just download more movies and porn, rather than become "more productive". Of course, the simple point is that subsidising very fast broadband is subsidising a lot of entertainment. Something the advocates ignore.

I asked where is the demand in April. Why can't those who want broadband pay for it? As Freeth is quoted saying, what good is fibre to every home in Hokitika? Indeed, why should a business that benefits enormously from high speed broadband be subsidised by one that isn't, or a pensioner, or anyone else?

I called it Think Big.

It is headline grabbing, it ignores the risks that government "investment" brings, it ignores the ethical and economic problems of forcing people to pay for something they otherwise wouldn't pay for, and may not even benefit from. It is taking money from people who may otherwise invest it in businesses or their families for what they see as greater benefit.

Labour isn't much better though, but isn't it about time that all of you who don't want to be forced to pay for this stood up and said no? Or are there far more of you who can't wait for everyone else to subsidise your movie, music and porn downloads? Or you are all running enterprising net based businesses that need subsidies right?

McCain panders to the religious right

Yes well picking Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin may be wise, on the surface, by putting a woman as the vice presidential running mate. Not the first time of course, as Geraldine Ferraro had her own shrill leftwing tilt at it in 1984, with Walter Mondale - a ticket doomed to fail against Ronald Reagan.

However she IS a Christian Conservative. A wise move again for a Republican who many on the religious right see as not being one of their own, but it isn't a wise move for freedom.

The Republican Party is a broad church of social conservatives and small government liberals. McCain has a bit of both, but he is no Bush - he isn't from the religious right. However his platform sounds an awful lot like he is. Now the Vice President isn't important, at all. Let's face it, who was voting for Bush when they voted for Reagan, who was voting for Quayle when they were voting for Bush, who was voting for Gore when they were voting for Clinton. It is really a stand in position, and little more.

So it is time to shine a light upon John McCain's policies. Obama is an unabashed big government statist, who (until recently) would rather Iraq fall to Islamists than let the US support the democratically elected government that is now in power there. He's not fit to be President, but is McCain?

ETS benefits?

Go on, give me one.

I don't mean "makes environmentalists feel good". I want something quantified, preferably one that will offset the increased costs to consumers and producers.

Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" has as its primary thesis that even if anthropomorphic global warming is occurring, it may be more beneficial to humanity to NOT intervene to change this, but to rather target other issues, such as trade, clean water supplies, sanitation and inoculations in developing countries.

In other words, when you take a cold economic appraisal of the problem, it may not be worth addressing it. Certainly, New Zealand going alone whilst the likes of China, Russia, India and the entire Middle East do nothing is madness.

Yet it is mainstream politics to go along with it. What is the imperative for New Zealand to lead on this? What are the costs? More importantly, why do almost all political parties in Parliament sign up to it?

Bloggers vs journalists

Not PC mentioned about David Cohen's amusing dig at bloggers in the NBR. David Cohen is one of the few NZ journalists I rate, because he can write well, and he thinks. Indeed, as I have said before there is a difference between journalists and reporters, and sadly far too many in the mainstream media (and TV is significantly worse) are reporters. Their idea of a story is:

- The government announced it would do X today. It said that doing X would solve a long standing problem of Y and Z. The cost of doing X is $A, which Minister B said would be great value. Lobby group C supported the move cautiously saying while a step forward, it wasn't enough. National spokesperson D said it was too little too late.

Cohen put forward a 20 point test that is meant to mean you've moved from being a "mere blogger" to being a journalist. How destroyed is my ego that I haven't passed, (well I got 10) though I'll live as I am lot happier actually doing stuff than just writing about it, and my bank balance is happier too.

After all I am paid for my writing, I think my formal qualifications in law and public policy don't make me cry about having not done journalism, my writing is typically peer reviewed, I know the difference between practice and practise, I've used the OIA (and see how poorly a few journalists use it as they don't know enough to ask the right questions), I've often met deadlines, I've had my work read by Cabinet Ministers and Chief Executives of public and private sector organisations. So on and so on.

Keith Ng has a good set of questions too in response. My favourites from his are:

Do you ever write stories where more than half the content comes from one press release?

Do you ever write a story about a report solely from the press release accompanying the report, without having read the report itself?

Both are far too common, and infantile. Why should people pay to read such drivel when they can go to Scoop and read the press releases as they are?

I have a better set of questions for journalists, to see how smart and honest they are:

Do you make your political and religious affiliations transparent to your readers? Do you declare any political parties you have been a member of or donated to?Do you questions assumptions made in government reports and press releases, as well as opposition ones?

Have you ever asked a politician whether the answer to a problem is for the government to do nothing? Have you ever written an article where you analyse what might happen if the government did less not more in a particular policy area?

Do you ever make an Official Information Act (or LGOIMA) request knowing exactly what it is you need to know to determine what has gone on?

Have you ever written about H2's control on the areas of government policy she has the greatest interest in and which the PM trusts her in? Do you even know what she does?

Could you get a similar level job writing for The Times, Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, The Guardian or The Independent (UK not NZ!)? (or even the Economist?)

Do you understand that the value of money declines over time so quoting financial statistics without adjusting for this is not comparing like with like?

Can you accurately name under which Prime Ministers and Finance Ministers the NZ government privatised NZ Rail, privatised Telecom NZ, corporatised the Railways Department and privatised NZ Post? (trick question)

Do you know what onanism is (without going and Googling it now) and have you never had anyone describe your work as such?

Oh and while I'm at it here are some examples of journalism missing a point:

1. This article doesn't mention that Telstra Clear didn't install its own network, it is using Telecom's, so it is competition on unequal terms.

2. This article, didn't include any interviews with any school principals, even though it is about schools.

3. This article, quotes Chris Turver, ignoring that he was once a Wellington Regional Councillor until last year. It also doesn't even note that funding has been approved to extend the electrification of the rail network to Waikanae, so it looks like another problem ignored.

and that's just today.

Labour's list could see some joblessness

Well one can hope, but with Judith Tizard at number 38, and Nikki Kaye fighting hard in Auckland Central, it might be the end for the Tizard dynasty - a dynasty that has long been a triumph of mediocre obscenities and grumpiness over talent, temperance and taste.

Mark Burton, Mahara Okeroa, Martin Gallagher, Dave Hereora (who?) and Louisa Wall all look like they might have to look for real jobs as well. Grant Robertson has to win Wellington Central to get in, against Stephen Franks for National - so unlike previous elections it truly is a battle between the two main parties.

Also notable is Raj Prasad, former Families Commissioner - so a man used to undertaking useless jobs (although I'm aware he is quite a thoughtful gentleman, I'd have thought he'd have better judgment than to be spoilt by Parliament).

A few others are new, who appear to be 20 something wannabe control freaks (I mean seriously, why would anyone want to be a Labour MP today unless you wanted to boss people around and use their money?).

Notable is that Jordan Carter isn't on the list (sorry 70 is like being 17th on the ACT list). He isn't that keen on being an MP, or is it that the Labour Party isn't that keen on HIM being one?

Key rules out Winston: good!

According to Stuff, John Key has emphatically ruled out any deal with NZ First after the election. That means coalition, confidence and supply and as a result any chance Winston Peters could ever be a Minister. Good.

Unsurprisingly, Deputy PM Dr. Michael Cullen has now said that this is unfair saying "John Key's stance shows that he has no respect for basic New Zealand values of fair play".

I see - so the party of multiculturalism thought it was fair to make a man who has built part of his political career opposing Asian immigration the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

At least now it is clear - if you vote NZ First, you are going to be supporting a Helen Clark led Labour government, because that is exactly what has happened since 2005, and it is the only option for NZ First in 2008.

So Mr Key, what might you compromise on if you turn to the Maori Party or the Greens then?

Bravery from gay pupils

The Dominion Post has reported how some gay high school pupils are being prohibited from attending school balls, unless they "unless they sign contracts confirming they are homosexual" according to an organisation called Rainbow Youth.

Frankly the mere fact that there are some gay high school pupils willing to be "out" in the media is itself an act of bravery, and a significant step forward from a generation ago. That should be a reason for all lovers of freedom to celebrate - young people should not be scared to be who they are.

Now the article itself is lazy journalism (and some journalists think bloggers are "light") as it interviews not one school principal about its policies, so there hasn't been a chance to determine what school policies actually are - simply what a lobby group says (it may be right or wrong, but it is wrong to not check with some schools as to what their views are). However it is wrong for the Human Rights Commission to be involved. This should be a matter between pupils, schools, parents and others who wish to make their points of view heard.

My view is schools should be open, and frankly let pupils bring whoever they wish as long as they do not pose a risk to others. The sex of a partner should be irrelevant. Independent schools have the choice to make their own decisions on this - as any private institutions should. That doesn't mean that they would be right in being bigoted on this, but it should be their choice. State schools should not have that choice at all - the state should not be bigoted.

So I offer my support to pupils who seek to end such bigotry, good for you. I'm not gay, but I remember chillingly the bigotry in the mid 1980s when the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was being put through Parliament. Those who opposed that were nasty vile filthy bigots. Teenage years are difficult ones as it is, without people threatening or judging you for what are harmless feelings.

Promiscuous Girlz lucky?

Has any brothel had so much publicity before its opening? Well the appropriately white trash sounding "Promiscuous Girlz" brothel in Dannevirke can hardly say it hasn't had enough publicity. According to the Dominion Post it is now open for those who care to pay for carnal stimulation.

My view on this is fairly straightforward. It isn't up to the state to judge those who choose to sell services using their bodies and those who choose to purchase such services. It is up to the state to protect those forced into providing such services - less of a problem in NZ than in Europe, where trafficking in women is serious and tragic. The film Lilya 4-ever is a tragic story of a girl trafficked from Russia to Sweden and forced to be a prostitute. This is where the criminal justice system and those concerned about prostitution should focus their top priority - underage girls being forced into this trade, which of course remains illegal.

However, one cannot help but wonder what brings women (and men) to enter into this business. For many of us it seems inconceivable to be paid to have sex with strangers that, otherwise, you wouldn't go near. For many it is undoubtedly the attraction of being relatively well paid, that becomes the focus. For some this is seen to be necessary to support a drug habit, which itself is perhaps more expensive and risky that it may otherwise be if it were not illegal, but I digress. A few may well enjoy it, Xavier Hollander has written extensively about how she enjoyed being a prostitute - she's not the only one. There are genuine concerns that it is a business that seriously affects ones own esteem and sense of life. The truth is that it varies - I can't say, nor can you, nor the Police, nor the state, nor a church. That is why this profession will always be a choice for some.

It is perhaps better instead of judging all prostitutes, to not judge, but to consider those who DO ask for help, who are in need. The best way those who despise prostitution can help is to be active in helping women (and men) who are prostitutes out of desperation and abuse. Sadly I see precious little of that from the noisy opponents who would prefer them to be incarcerated.

The flipside is the demand. Why do people (predominantly men) buy sex? Again, the reasons will vary. Many undoubtedly do so out of sheer convenience and because they value that over the two obvious options - seduction of the unpaid and masturbation. The former they may not choose because of time (it takes time to find someone willing), poor self-esteem (which may be based on imagined or a fair perception of their own attractiveness) or their own preferences (may be difficult to find someone to meet their kinks). The latter because it is typically an inferior experience to actually being with someone. It may also be simple loneliness.

Yes many who procure sex are married, or with partners. That's their lie to their partner, it's something they risk, and it is between them. The state doesn't patrol marital fidelity - well outside Saudi Arabia and Iran.

"Promiscuous Girlz" will rise or fall on its customers (yes yes I know!). Those who wish to protest it, boycott it or oppose it can do so. However, if you want to know what workers and clients are motivated by, ask them -you might be told where to stick your nose, but that's the only way you're going to ever know. As long as peaceful people choose to buy and sell sex then it will remain a curiosity, and for some involved it is sad and unfortunate, for others a delight. I haven't ever bought or sold sex, but I'm not so hasty to judge all those who have.

A historic speech

Don't let the leftwing vapid minnow standing for the US Presidency erode the tru value of this day

Tolls and PPPs

Given Maurice Williamson's minor faux pas while I was in Ireland, I thought I should put in my rather short (you'll be relieved) free and rank on what I think of what the Nats have said on this:

1. I'd welcome opening up investment in roads to the private sector, but the more the private sector can carry the risk (and any profits) the better. Think, for example, if the Auckland Harbour Bridge was privatised, even by lease to avoid Treaty of Waitangi/Public Works Act issues, including SH1 from Spaghetti Junction north and from Constellation Drive south (both being where other state highways intersect). The new owner could toll it, could investigate, design, build, finance, operate the second crossing. If very clever it could even work with the state to refund road user charges and fuel taxes paid for using the motorway (or the state could pay the equivalent to offset the tolls to the company). Let it be the example to New Zealand of how the private sector can build, operate, own and manage a highway - see how the tolls will go up at peak times which is exactly when the second crossing is needed, so exactly the users who should pay for it. See how the tolls will be marginal at off peak periods, see how private bus companies can take advantage of a less congested crossing to provide more services for those who wont pay the toll. Oh and while we're at it, see how the Victoria Park Viaduct widening/tunnelling can be financed the same way.

2. Tolling for new road capacity is good, but the scope to do this in New Zealand is limited due to the nature of its road network, the volumes of traffic involved and the ready availability of other routes. However, it could be considered as a means of moving away from fuel tax.

What I DO want to ask Maurice Williamson is:

Will National abolish the regional fuel taxes?
Will National abolish automatic inflation based indexation of fuel excise duty and road user charges?
Will National consider shifting from taxing motorists and property owners to pay for roads, to motorists paying to use the roads?

The first would be consistent with how National voted in Parliament, as would the second. The third would be consistent with National's policy when it was voted out of office. It's technically and economically feasible to go down this path, and a sensible way forward would be to commercialise road management, and then consider how to privatise it.

Social report makes assumed value judgments

The NZ Herald reports on the Ministry of Social Development's 2008 Social report which produces statistics of "social indicators" to determine if things are getting "better or worse". The headline was that the "rich poor pay gap is shrinking". This is measured by a simple ratio of the earnings of the top 20% of income earners over the bottom 20%. It doesn't measure whether the bottom 20% are in abject poverty or quite comfortably fed, clothed and housed, what it does measure is the envy ratio.

Apparently the "rich" (a word Idiot Savant and others on the left are addicted to using as a term of implied abuse) are earning 2.6 times that of those in the "poor" category, a drop from 2.7 the year before. That is apparently "good". Why? I'm not sure. After all it could mean the bottom 20% have bettered themselves, but it could also mean the top 20% have suffered a decline in living standards. Both are quite different. However you need to believe that this matters. If the top 20% earned 10 times the bottom 20% it could indicate their success, and indeed in London I am sure the ratio is bigger because of the relative success of the financial sector in attracting people who earn very high incomes. It only matters if you believe that wealth is distributed not earned. If you believe that wealth is something dished out by someone powerful, not something received for producing or trading value. However, I wouldn't expect someone in the Ministry of Social Development to understand this as none of them do this.

Let's see some other "improvements". Qualifications at bachelors degree level or above have increased. This of course could be meaningless. Germany is overflowing with graduates, but many have few business skills, and it hasn't helped Germany increase its net wealth - how useful are these degrees, how good are they? How literate and intelligent are the graduates? Who knows??

How about things that have gotten worse? "Housing affordability" has a flipside, which is capital assets of those owning their homes. However, the property market is now correcting itself somewhat, improving affordability but damaging the capital people have tied up in their homes. Winners and losers whichever way the market goes, which raises the issue as to why affordability is better than asset valuation.

Then something that hasn't changed - "potentially hazardous driving", which of course can be anytime you actually drive above 20 km/h, since driving is by its very nature "potentially hazardous". Perhaps it means speeding, but then again how does anyone really know this? There isn't real time monitoring of every driver all of the time.

Then "obesity" hasn't changed. Which of course isn't true, as it has changed for thousands, as many have seen it increase others decrease - but if you're a collectivist thinking bureaucrat you find that impossible to manage so you average it out (presuming you know the facts around people's weights).

So I ask the question, what does the report usefully do? It's useful if you're a statist and want to know how to intervene in a wide range of areas, but beyond that it is just a snapshot. Ruth Dyson will use it to show "Labour is good" by saying "it showed New Zealanders overall wellbeing was improving".

Funnily enough most people focus on improving their own wellbeing as a matter of course - and it's the government that likes to take away a third of your income while you do that. Imagine how much wellbeing would improve if the government took less.

Farewell Winston but...

Whilst the Serious Fraud Office investigation into NZ First finances should certainly see Winston removed from his Ministerial positions (if not then Helen Clark will have made a serious misjudgment), the question becomes whether NZ First will withdraw confidence and supply. If so, it might provoke the announcement of the election date, but it would also be likely that NZ First MPs would be looking for a new job. If not, then Labour has to ask itself whether it is comfortable governing reliant on a party that has proven itself to be at best slippery with the truth around its finances.

NZ First has never been popular with the mass media of course, partly because it has always couched itself as the party of the people who don't have a voice. NZ First is the party of talkback land, of the Waynes and Sharlenes who don't like the Chans who moved in next door with their nice car and children who are far more articulate than they are, who are suspicious of big business and think that "old" New Zealand was "taken away". The barely shrouded racism expressed (but probably not believed) by Winston Peters meant NZ First did worst in the likes of Wellington - NZ First is in effect the National Party of Rob Muldoon. It may be facing its swan song. Rarely does the media give the impression that NZ First is a party like others, but then again rarely does Winston Peters want this.

So let's move on. Does the degree of scrutiny that the media place upon NZ First ever get applied to the Green Party or the Maori Party? Who delves in the control-freakery of both? The anti-American hypocrisy of both parties, the strong emphasis on increasing the size of the welfare state, the unabashed racist agenda not to oppress a race, but to advantage one, their xenophobia about foreign investment.

Labour undoubtedly would do deals with both parties to stay in power, but where is the media scrutiny? National would almost certainly do a deal with the Maori Party, and wouldn't dismiss the Greens if it needed Green support to govern.

I acknowledge that NZ First's behaviour in recent months has raised serious issues, but fundamentally it is MORE important to consider what policies and who will be seeking to govern NZ in the next three years. The mainstream media loves a scandal, and is appropriately sinking its teeth into Winston Peters - but the same teeth could be sunk into all of the parties in Parliament - and with vigorous serious journalism, it would happen. Will it?

Why would the Democrats excite anyone?

I've long been perplexed as to what drives those who get excited and engaged with the two major US political parties. The Demopublicans and the Republicrats are different only in the areas they don't overlap. However both are predominantly concerned with power, power over businesses, individuals, to spend other people's money and take that money, to give other people's money to businesses they prefer, taking more from those they don't. It's an absolute abomination against reason, and is little short of braindead.

Barack Obama is a lightweight style focused rather leftwing vaccilating Presidential candidate who is riding substantially on his race and youth to differentiate himself, and present himself as an agent of "change". Yet his "change" is little more than more taxes, more spending couched in words of "support" and an ever changing approach to foreign policy. He has proven he is no friend of free trade, having voted to substantially increase agricultural subsidies, including subsidies to produce nothing at a time of high food prices. He has had substantial links with rather nasty men.

However the difference between Obama and John McCain is not huge. Hillary Clinton's bizarre statement that "Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hang in the balance," is enormous hyperbole. I prefer McCain for reasons outlined before and I don't doubt McCain is better for New Zealand and indeed the world.

Yet stand back from it all and ask what is it really about? A man who talks of change, but with little substance riding on the back of image and his historic nomination from a racial point of view. A party painting the USA as being in despair, ignoring that it controls Congress and controlled both Houses far more often in post war history than the Republicans. It is truly the triumph of hyperbolic disinformation distributed with vapid alacrity.

Oh and don't believe I'll think the Republicans will be much better. However look for the hook, look for what the Democrats think they'll seriously change, and ask yourself why anyone would want to spend any time campaigning for this pablum - unless, of course, you expected to get some substantial benefit from more statism, which isn't what the USA was meant to be about.

A dream to follow

Today is a day to remember one of the great men of history and his dream, a dream that is a great one of liberty, a message of hope and aspiration that, unalloyed by the statist motivations of many who quote it - should be the universal declaration of hope of individualism. I need not say anymore than this, and urge that THIS be remembered today, despite the ambition of a gang of control freaks, liars and corrupt mediocrities currently having a conference in Denver to take control of the United States and further erode what this dream really means.

You can read the speech to remember in full here, but for me the highlights are below. I am aware of the politics of many surrounding Martin Luther King, Jr, but neither they nor his religious beliefs take away for a moment about what this speech does. I defy those who passionately love freedom and despise the mindlessness of collectivism to not be moved.

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification - one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers."

The day before he was assassinated he talked of being at the mountaintop:

"All we say to America is, "Be true to what you said on paper." If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions. Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn't committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so just as I say, we aren't going to let dogs or water hoses turn us around, we aren't going to let any injunction turn us around. We are going on.

Never stop and forget that collectively -- that means all of us together -- collectively we are richer than all the nations in the world, with the exception of nine. Did you ever think about that? After you leave the United States, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and I could name the others, the American Negro collectively is richer than most nations of the world. We have an annual income of more than thirty billion dollars a year, which is more than all of the exports of the United States, and more than the national budget of Canada. Did you know that? That's power right there, if we know how to pool it."

May we all for a moment consider his ambition for a world free of racist bigotry - consider also his call for the use of voluntary protest and economic choice by those supporting him to influence change in behaviour. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not perfect, but he was a truly great man who changed the course of history and advanced freedom - oh to have a politician today who is 1% of what he was.

John Key shows principle

Yes!! Remarkable really. Good for him though. It looks like a coalition or confidence and supply agreement between National and NZ First is ruled out. The NZ Herald quotes him saying;

"I am ruling out Mr Peters. He simply doesn't have the integrity in my view unless he can somehow change that".

It is more than what Jim Bolger said or did, but then the same Jim Bolger who voted to privatise NZ Rail Ltd is now on the board of the renationalised railway. The same Jim Bolger who sits on the board of Kiwibank. However I digress.

I do wonder though, that if National did need NZ First, whether it would surrender power to a Labour mongrel coalition. However, it is worth noting a rare appearance of backbone.

NZ First has always been a party of blatant brainless populist opportunism, it seeks to tap the mindlessness of talkback radio, the very worst of much of New Zealand culture. The envy dripping suspicion of foreigners, the envy dripping suspicion of successful businesses, the belief that state owned enterprises are good when they are state owned, regardless of how poorly they perform and the resentment and anger of their privatised equivalents. The kneejerk belief that the "guvmint should do something".

However it has not done this in a vacuum. It has tapped a series of trends that have a grain of truth in the concern that NZ First voters carry.

NZ First would not have succeeded had National not lied to the electorate in 1990. Some of National's supporters today try to reassure the likes of me, and other libertarians that "wait till the Nats get in office then they can do some of the things you like", even though the Nats are saying little different from Labour. It is THAT kind of politics that NZ First rejected. One thing you can't say about Winston Peters is that he isn't clear about his policies. Jim Bolger promised to remove the hated superannuation surtax, but continued it after 1990. That single move decimated National's support among senior citizens. National created Winston Peters, he was one of them and it delivered an enormous deception to voters - greater than anyone could claim Labour generated in 1984 and certainly in 1987.

NZ First was also an early carrier of disenchantment at the Treaty claims process. A resentment from some taxpayers that some Maori were benefiting enormously from their taxes, and that the benefits were enriching a small number very well, was a genuine concern Winston tapped. However, he then went on to focus on the Maori seats and taking them all in 1996. Having moved across the spectrum on this issue, NZ First retains a not insubstantial level of support among Maori voters.

NZ First's big issue has been immigration, but sadly although there are serious issues about whether new migrants should be able to claim anything from the welfare state including health and education, Winston focused on race and bigotry. He played the race card, and stirred up a vile level of anti-Asian sentiment that appeared focused on successful East Asian migrants - you know the ones not filling the jails, welfare lines and talkback call lines. It was possibly the most poisonous recent part of modern politics, one that didn't stop National signing up to govern with NZ First, and didn't stop Labour.

NZ First also tapped the ongoing popular outrage at crime and the poor performance of the criminal justice system in addressing this, although it was little more than a repositary for rage. It still showed that Labour and National had not got to grips with a core concern of the general public.

However it is telling that while the superannuation surtax issue provided a huge catalyst to Winston's political career, his supporters did not reward him for removing it. Policies don't matter to voters as much as impressions and feelings, and NZ First was decimated at the 1999 election for its appalling performance as a team - even though it delivered on several promised policies, including abolishing the super surtax.

NZ First attracts protest votes, votes from people who don't like the status quo. It is hurting because Winston keeps Helen Clark and Michael Cullen in power - he can't evade or dodge that, as he is desperately trying to evade the allegations around donations. His politics were built on National lying, and tapping populist resentment that National has since partly tapped (although has also since backtracked on). Winston has built a career on being upfront and honest, and not having a secret agenda - his political career may be finished if National keeps its word and offers a government of bland "me too" policies that the public appears to be endorsing.

The problem is National looks like it has a secret agenda - given that it has virtually no policy differences from Labour, it is the only hook others have to attack National. It is the hook Winston has, and if it proves to be true even though I may agree with some of the policies it is still deceit and contemptible. Winston's political career will be reinvigorated if National has a secret agenda.

However, if National does not seek to govern with Winston's support, and enters government doing what it has said, then Winston's poison will have expired. It is clear that Labour is happy to govern with his support, and it is that which should be the focus. Labour is no more principled than National, it's just more deft at hiding how it sells out.

Light blogging till Tuesday but

Since I've been working my arse off for the last couple of months I am fleeing for a break as it is Bank Holiday weekend in the UK - so you'll hear little to nothing from me until Tuesday 26 August.

Rural Ireland should be a good break from looking at this screen, meetings and answering phone calls.

Meanwhile may I recommend to some of you who are regular to use a blog reading aggregator. Bloglines is the one I use, it tells me if any of the 20 or so blogs I regularly read have anything new and allows me to skim the articles and figure if I want to read more or not.

While I'm at it, let me note two of the books I have recently read:

"No One Left to Lie To" by Christopher Hitchens. The Clinton family and how awfully evil they are. Now Hitchens was certainly more leftwing then than now, and some of his criticisms are for Clinton supporting welfare reform, but it is the personal behaviour that is most telling. The fact Hitchens effectively calls Bill Clinton a rapist and hasn't been sued for it speaks volumes, and it is also damning how the Clintons got away with their lies and behaviour by a complicit mainstream media uninterested in giving ammunition to the Republicans. The critics of G.W. Bush would do well to read this to see how Clinton's foreign policy was, in some cases, an absolute disaster and i one case particularly cynical and evil.

"The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" by Christopher Hitchens. Mother Teresa, friend of dictators, no friend of the poor, running her home for the dying whilst celebrating in the suffering of the poor as it brought them and her "closer to Jesus". Read how this angel of death raised millions of dollars, yet her homes for the dying were spartan affairs without medical staff, which in one case refused to send a 15yo boy to hospital because "if we sent him, they'd all want to go". Determine for yourself whether this celebrity raised vast sums of money for the Vatican's aggrandisement and global crusade, and if not where did the money go?

Have a good weekend.