Labour numbers 64-54 - not much to see here

In the next 10 Labour candidates on the list (63-54), only two are without profiles (remember these are the candidates that would be elected if Labour was around 50% of the vote, a position it was expecting in 2002). Of this lot, Kate Sutton is undoubtedly the most skilled and ambitious, many of the rest are truly mediocre - which says a lot about how serious Labour is about getting her elected. Of those below, maybe two have a tiny chance of picking their electorates up, Julian Blanchard in Rangitata (though the swing to National should rule this out), and Denise MacKenzie in Wairarapa (again the swing to National should rule this out). The list positions are too low, if you expect Labour to not get above 45%.

It's worth noting how many "minority" Labour candidates there are near the bottom of the list. Yes, it shows Labour being diverse without actually risking these people getting elected - how's that for being patronising?

Kate Sutton – Epsom – number 63: A photo, profile and a website. Someone who seems like she wants to win. Her profile isn’t too bad, neither is her website. Now Kate is 27 and Women’s Vice President of the Labour Party, been President of AUSA, and well clearly is ambitious and keen. However she is far too optimistic about government doing good (although she is keen on private sector involvement too). She wants to spend more of your money “We need to address the need for more affordable housing especially in the big cities” well letting the property market deflate will help, as would getting out of the way. She has a blog showing that nobody has donated a cent to her campaign through it. She seems rather bright and ambitious, maybe she’ll finally see how much waste and interference by the state is negative rather than positive.

In 2005 Rodney Hide beat Richard Worth with 3102 votes, and the Labour candidate was a distant third, another 6011 votes behind, so Kate has no chance really. Rodney’s fairly safe. However, even though Labour was second on party vote with 27.2% it was well behind National on 58.5%. She gets credit for the best website so far, but the competition of her lower ranked Labour candidates is poor.

Susan Zhu – list only – number 62: A profile, no photo and no website. “It is essential that we continue to develop, so that our families, business, young people and senior citizens can experience a much improved standard of living and quality of life. Such values enhance Labour's core objectives of social justice, equality and prosperity for all.” Hmm well Labour devalues the efforts of those trying to improve their standards of living. No chance.

Anjum Rahman – list only – number 61: A profile, no photo and no website. “My main motivation goes back to advice in 2004 from a friend. She told me that if I wanted to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, then I should stand for parliament.” Your friend is wrong Anjum, but don’t worry you have no chance.

Hamish McDouall – Whanganui – number 60: No profile, but a photo and no website. Must be disappointing for a seat that was Labour’s until Chester Borrows defeated Jill Pettis in 2005 by 2402 votes. Labour got 40% of the party vote here in 2005, but is punting up an unknown who can’t be bothered putting a profile up. Chester Borrows looks safe, Labour’s letting Wanganui down, again.

Julian Blanchard – Rangitata – number 59: Photo, profile and a website. Nothing special or too ridiculous in his profile, though the profile has a bad link to his website. He’s 33, his grandfather was former Labour MP Sir Basil Arthur. However, his press releases show enthusiasm for just spending more taxpayers money on everything from subsidizing rural broadband to Kiwirail. Rangitata is a new electorate, combining pieces of Aoraki and Rakaia, both currently National seats. Julian has a very low chance of winning this against National MP Jo Goodhew, who won Aoraki from Labour in 2005.

Denise MacKenzie – Wairarapa – number 58: Profile and photo. “We need an efficient broadband network, well maintained roads, user-friendly public transport, well-resourced schools, and accessible health services. I pledge to work hard to make all these a reality in the Wairarapa electorate.” Nothing exciting there, pretty standard centre left candidate, wants to focus on government spending more money. She stood in 2005, and lost against National’s John Hayes who gained a 2752 majority when it had been held by Georgina Beyer until she chose not to stand again. National gained 45.1% of the party vote against Labour’s 36.1%, so it’s a closer race. However, Denise has only a very low chance to swing against the tide.

Farida Sultana – list only – number 57: Profile, no photo and no website. “I have been active in the community and voluntary sector since 1995 and set up Shakti which has grown into a national, multi-ethnic community organisation that strives towards achieving human rights of immigrant women, and promotes violence-free families.” Nothing wrong with that. “The Labour policies promote inclusiveness, elimination of poverty, sustainable economy, human rights and international peace.” How? Oh dear, slogans aren’t good. “For the past 9 years, Labour has done unparalleled work for and within the diverse ethnic communities as well as wider New Zealand” Yadda, yadda, yadda. Banal and meaningless. No chance.

Michael Wood – list only – number 56: Profile, no photo and no website. “The decisions made by our elected representatives have a real impact on the lives of New Zealanders.” You can tell he’s a genius. “I believe that no person is an island, and that we are all better off when we work together as a society to look after one another.”

Fine Michael, but why do you want to use force? Why is your altruist collectivism a violent one? “I want to see public institutions and services that are the envy of the world, an end to the shame of child poverty in New Zealand, and a thriving economy, the fruits of which are shared justly.” Well Michael, you go and help the kids, but screw your socialism. The fruits of a thriving economy are shared justly by those who taking risks profiting from their success and paying for their failure. I can’t believe Kate Sutton ranks lower than this idiot. No chance.

Don Pryde – Clutha-Southland – number 55: Profile, Photo and no website. Ahh he’s President of the EPMU, so a hard arsed working man no doubt, well as hard working as a unionist might be. “We have had an outstanding government since 1999” well, he’s a believer isn’t he? “the only way for working families to get ahead together is through higher wages, stronger work rights and decent public services like health, education and ACC. And that needs a Labour Government”. They could be more productive, better educated and advance themselves rather than use the state. Bill English commanded 66.7% of the electorate vote in 2005, Labour 23.3%. The party votes were 57.1% for National and 28.7% for Labour. Don the socialist believer has no chance.

Jo Bartley – Tamaki – number 54: Photo, no profile and no website. Allan Peachey took this seat with 58% of the vote in 2005 against Labour’s Leila Boyle with 31.7%. Party vote 53.9% for National and 32.3% for Labour. Clearly Jo Bartley doesn’t think it’s worth fighting for, and I’m sure most Tamaki voters will take that into account when they re-elect Allan Peachey.

10 more Labour candidates, 1 has any chance

10 more Labour candidates I'm profiling, and of them three have photos on the Labour website, and three don't even have candidate profiles, showing how interested they are in campaigning. Only one of the ones below has any chance at all, and he isn't Jordan Carter.

Anne Pankhurst Number 73 – Tauranga “I have an in-depth knowledge of the city and the issues facing the city along with the excellent achievements that have been made here recently, through my involvement on the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee the 50 year growth management strategy that drive’s the future development of the city. It is important to have an understanding of both the strategy and need for growth management” (sic)

What the hell is “drive’s”? Anne it is important to have an understanding of the English language. So you’re responsible for forcing construction of unwanted high density housing near public transport corridors? Control freak. It’s a two horse race between the Nats and Winston, but feel free to take pro government votes from Winston, we’ll all be grateful. However Tauranga isn’t where Labour’s party vote is strong either, 30.2% in 2005 vs National’s 45.3%. Anne wont be helping that along

Renee van der Weert Number 72 – Taranaki - King Country doesn’t even have a name on the profile page. Maryan Street got 13118 less than Shane Ardern (who got 67.6% of the vote) in 2005, and Labour got only 25% of the party vote vs National on 56.4%. No interest, no point, no chance, a Nat shoo in.

Traceey Dorreen – Number 71 – list only - no profile, no interest, no chance. Labour’s lowest ranking list only candidate. Why bother?

Jordan Carter – Number 70- Hunua. Well, we know Jordan.

“believing in the equal worth of everyone” so the murderer of James Whakaruru is worth the same as James? “I'll work hard for a fairer society with great public services, a secure retirement, a fairer share for families, and a real balance between the needs of our economy, our society and our planet”. The planet has needs!

Sorry Jordan, you wont be chosen by Hunua or voters to join the gang of thieves. Your sanctimonious tribalism is so vapid and one-eyed it isn't funny. If everyone has equal worth you’ll be happy that someone of equal worth will have beaten you. Hunua is a new seat, formerly Port Waikato. Jordan has no chance against Paul Hutchison.

Brian Kelly – Number 69 – Pakuranga – “I have been fortunate to have a successful career in health and education and am now ready to serve the wider community as the nation is looking for the next generation of leaders” Stick to your day job Brian, leaders aren’t needed, self starters are. Maurice Williamson got 54% of the vote last time, with 53.3% for National. Labour got 30.3%. Brian has no chance.

Eamon Daly – Number 68 – list only. Again, Labour’s not looking for him to be in Parliament. “I’m a youthful and energetic 39 year old who’s built a successful academic career in ICT and Philosophy.” Philosophy with a capital P? How?

“I’ve lived overseas and I’ve become extensively involved in human rights” Oh you mean political dissidents? Torture? Journalists imprisoned? “…, disability advocacy, and ethics committee work.” Ah no you don’t mean that. “Oh, and I’ve been tetraplegic and in a wheelchair since a trampoline accident in 1985”. Tragic indeed, but clearly Labour doesn’t think you’re ready to be elected yet.

Vivienne Goldsmith – Number 67 – East Coast Bays. A photo, and someone with a website, shame it's really quite banal! “I have been able to serve the many different faces of my community through the organizations I have belonged to.” American are you? The loose “z”.

“I have personally benefited from the many polices that the Labour has put in place over the last 8 years” Polices? What have the Police been doing with you personally? Or hasn’t education benefited you yet? “More people should get the opportunities that I have received.” Well give it to them, don’t make others do it. “I want to be able to get out into my community and meet and talk with people who think in terms of survival rather than in terms of possibilities.” Who is stopping you? Go to Africa, you’ll really meet those people, but you’ll meet lots who think in terms of possibilities too. Aim low and you’ll achieve. “I believe that the people of the Bays need a visual, reliable and active representation in Parliament” So someone that you can see, hmmm. Maybe that is why she is the lowest ranked candidate to actually have a photo on the site! Murray McCully’s majority was 7286 in 2005, Labour got 31.8% of the party vote, National 52.3%. Vivienne, you have no chance, and maybe your next website will have more substance than that of someone a quarter your age.

Jills Angus Burney – Number 66 – Rangitikei. No page on website. Simon Power had a 9660 majority in 2005, with 60.4% of the vote, with 46% of the party vote for National against Labour’s 36.1%. However, Jill is clearly uninterested, uninspiring and unelectable. No chance.

Koro Tawa – Number 65 – Botany. A photo!! “Botany has benefited from policies that have ensured fairness, prosperity, opportunity and sustainability.” Ensured fairness? How has fairness been ensured? Is everyone prosperous? If not, it hasn’t been ensured has it?. As a new seat, Koro has a chance, up against Pansy Wong for National. So, if Koro gets in, will he ensure fairness and prosperity for all?

Conor Roberts – Number 64 – Rodney. A photo too, but Conor Roberts is a former student union President – so expert in forcing students to pay for representation they didn’t ask for, and demanding the state make people pay more for things they wouldn’t choose to pay for. However Rodney is Lockwood Smith’s seat, he won 55.6% of the vote in 2005, against Labour’s Tony Dunlop on 24.5%, party votes went 52.3% vs 27.8%. Again, no chance, but he is one of the young hopefuls for the future, maybe he'll learn something.

Well on I go, working up the list - seeing who has a chance from Labour. I'll do the same with National, and then do electorate profiles.

Key will listen to public service?

According to the NZ Herald John Key has said that "National will expect a high degree of professionalism from the public service, part of which is telling ministers what they are not comfortable hearing...As part of this openness, policy advisers will be able to take part in Cabinet committee discussions where it is appropriate".

Now that may well help secure the Wellington Central vote, but there is something in this - and I know this only because I once worked for the public service and saw the dramatic change in attitude between National and Labour in dealing with it. Quite simple Labour didn't trust public servants, especially those from Treasury, what was then the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Transport and also Department of Internal Affairs and several others, although the more "social" the Ministry, the warmer Labour has been towards it.

I recall one Minister not wanting to see words that she considered being "New Right Business Roundtable speak" like "accountability", "transparency" and "efficiency". Others were suspicious of getting told policies were expensive or difficult to implement, advice was rejected. More importantly, political advisors became the new vetting staff between officials and the Minister. Heather Simpson being the most important, but most Ministers got political advisors quickly - to send back reports, draft Cabinet papers and the like, or request them. It reduced official contact with Ministers, it meant Ministers got what their political advisors thought they would get and what they understand. Some Labour political advisors are very intelligent, Heather Simpson being one, setting aside the politics. Others are/were not the sharpest knives in the kitchen.

The Nats may well do the reverse of Labour, believing Treasury over all others, which frankly wouldn't be a bad place to start. Most departments have evolved under Labour to reflect a more interventionist approach on many issues, some of course simply should not exist and they will justify their existence in ways that needs some tight scrutiny (Treasury has relaxed that a little over the years as Labour Government Ministers WANTED to spend more money).

Of course in the last few years the numbers working for the public sector, doing policy, have grown enormously. The quality has reduced significantly as a result - ask for objective analysis, economic appraisal, optioneering and with some you'll get a blank stare. The Nats could do worse than simply demand significant reductions in those in the state sector who prepare "advice" - the most important advice is "this is what we shouldn't be doing".

In fact the first questions that Ministers for an incoming National government should ask of departmental chief executives is this:

"Tell me all the things you currently do that have no net value for taxpayers. I expect a list within 5 working days."

"Tell me all the things you currently do that have a net value for taxpayers, that they would agree to choose to pay for from their own pocket. Give me evidence, that should come in 10 working days"

"Tell me all the programmes started by the current government, tell me your free and frank advice about them, and why I shouldn't end them immediately. You have 5 working days"

"Tell me your budget in 1999, show me how to reduce your current budget to those levels in real terms and what the consequences are if they are not reduced. If you didn't exist then, tell me why you should exist now. You have 5 working days".

Ask Treasury the same of all the budgets, and ask it to scrutinise them all.

It would be a start.

Key vs Cullen

So, John Key was at best evasive over his Tranz Rail shares, even though he had no insider knowledge, did not profit from asking questions in Parliament and indeed could NOT profit more than the average person from doing what he did.

Apparently that is a reason to call him into doubt more than otherwise. He has been foolish, because of the political uproar caused and doubts raised about him, never mind that the media will evade the true impacts and importance of the issue - it raises doubts about his willingness to be honest. Not that Labour politicians could be accused of this too!

Meanwhile, Dr Cullen has never admitted when Labour started seriously thinking about buying Toll Rail, and the advice that Treasury has been giving, over some years, as to the cost of any purchase. That involves hundreds of millions of dollars of OTHER people's money.

The 1999 Labour Manifesto did not say it would buy back the Auckland rail network.
The 2002 Labour Manifesto did not say it would buy back the national rail network.
The 2005 Labour Manifesto did not say it would buy Toll Rail. It implied that money recovered from operators would be "used to further develop and maintain the network" when it didn't even enforce such charges against Toll Rail when it was in private ownership;

Now according to the NZ Herald, an additional $380 million of taxpayers' money is being put into this "business", Labour didn't say it would do that either.

So John Key has lied and cost the taxpayer nothing - Michael Cullen and Helen Clark hasve avoided telling the public their intentions before elections, and cost the taxpayer not far short of a billion dollars. The latter isn't new of course, but if fingers are going to be pointed for evasion most politicians ought to be hiding.

Catholic school apparently bans cervical cancer vaccine

A Roman Catholic high school in Bury, Greater Manchester, has decided to not permit its students to be vaccinated against the papilloma virus on its premises. Now the report (from the Manchester Evening News) is purely about a letter, not yet sent to parents, about the decision, and nobody from the school has commented directly on the report, so it is only preliminary.

Now I would defend, vehemently, the right of the school to make this decision. It is the school's property, and parents have the choice whether or not to send their daughters to the school. Furthermore, as the vaccine is taxpayer funded, there should be other options to obtain the vaccination if parents so choose. I do not object to the right to withhold it. This is a libertarian stance - asserting private property rights.

However, as an objectivist, I find the stance itself based on irrational and immoral grounds. It has been reported that the letter announcing the reasons for withholding permission
"points out that the vaccine protects against only 70 per cent of cervical cancers, and gives details of possible side-effects to the jab".

Only 70%!! As opposed to all those vaccinations derived from the Vatican, which has done wonders in fighting cancer over the years. Now the side effects are logical to advise about, but that should then be a question of rational trade off.

The real problem the school has is with sex. "Morally it seems to be a sticking plaster response. Parents must consider the knock-on effect of encouraging sexual promiscuity. Instead of taking it for granted that teenagers will engage in sexual activity, we can offer a vision of a full life keeping yourself for a lifelong partnership in marriage".

So dramatically reducing the risk of a cancer that at best could mean a lengthy period of medical treatment, at worse death, is "encouraging sexual promiscuity". Well then by extension there should be NO vaccinations, indeed there shouldn't even be any drugs or treatment for people with STDs or HIV should there? The threat of cancer discourages sexual promiscuity.

So presumably the school and the church regards those girls who get cervical cancer as sinful, and deserving of their fate - because after all, they should have not sinned because, somehow, that protects you completely from the papilloma virus and cervical cancer. As usual, the wisdom of celibate men on these matters

Is anyone delivering the message that "get this vaccine and you can shag without protection happily"? Of course not. The message is more a case of, here is a vaccine that could possibly save your life. Nobody is saying that the risk of pregnancy has gone or the risk of HIV or other STDs. Who thinks that girls go "hold it, I might get the papilloma virus, I will wait till I'm married". Most who do wait do so for a host of reasons which are emotional and rational, none of which celibate men are really in a place to understand well. Much as they understand a "full life keeping yourself for a lifelong partnership in marriage" - an ideal I think is rather lovely, if it is sustained genuinely rather than by altruistic sacrifice.

However it is more serious than that. Women can get cervical cancer from the papilloma virus without having been sexually promiscuous. Indeed people can get HIV without having been sexually promiscious as well. Yet the school, and by implication the Roman Catholic Church cares not about that. Death apparently isn't so important that the achievements of medical science should be as widely available as possible to delay it.

Moral? Hardly. It is one thing to frighten young girls into fearing an eternity of agony and damnation if they dare wander off a certain path, it is another to deliberately deny them a means to prevent the onset of a fatal disease, so that the threat of that disease can be hanging over them if they wander off that path. So not only do they risk being punished in this life, but having that life shortened as well.

The school has every right to do this, but that does not make it immune from criticism for its apparent motives.

Number 21...

Bugger. down from a hat trick of 18, but the competition is heating up. Going to Ireland for five days completely away from net access had an effect on post, but even with my traffic going up, it is clear many leftwing blogs are coming to life. Of course I'm hardly objecting to healthy competition!

However, many have said it before and I can only reiterate a very warm thank you to Tim Selwyn for the excellent work, I am sure it spurs some of us to work harder at attracting audiences - rather like having radio ratings - except none of us has inane competitions to attract punters!

Four more unlikely Labour MPs

Continuing my rather peculiar review of the chances of Labour candidates. Starting at the bottom of the list, it's fair to say this lot wont get in on the list, but any chance at all of being electorate MPs?

Raj Thandi – number 77 – list only. “My ambition in life is to be successful in work and my personal life. I would like to be a positive role model and leader for the Indian community” not being elected to Parliament will help with that, being an MP is hardly high up the list for being a positive role model. No chance

Carol Devoy-Heena – number 76 – Bay of Plenty. “Demography suggests that Labour voters in this electorate should now be the majority” she says. What if they are not? So bloody arrogant. Given Tony Ryall won it last time with 57.8% of the vote and a 13584 majority, and National got 57.2% of the party vote against Labour’s 28% it puts paid to her claim that “I feel I can provide the impetus to achieve the political change necessary for this area, whilst supporting core social democratic values.” No chance.

Hugh Kininmonth – number 75 – Coromandel. “I am standing to ensure that the development of our nation as a world leader continues” in what?? What can you "ensure"? Then there is “Labour stands for equality of opportunity and fairness for all. The alternative is to turn the clock back to the 1990s” Imagine if everyone had the same opportunities, what sort of ironed flat, everyone the same hellhole that would be. Sandra Goudie got 53% of the vote last time, the Labour candidate 23.6%. She also pulled in 44.2% party vote for National, with Labour on 31.7%. Hugh has a website, so give him credit for that, as putting some effort into the campaign. He’s a public sector health manager, and he still believes in it. No chance.

David Coates – number 74 – Selwyn. “My focus is on making our communities safer and better places to live - even better than they are under Labour today.” The planet he is on is what?? “Public commuter transport is something else I believe needs further investigation from “sleeping suburbs”. Removing the single-occupant vehicles from the roads must be a plus for all. Less pollution, less congestion, less fuel usage.” What’s this obsession with transport? So he wants to remove single occupancy vehicles from Selwyn roads?? Oh please, control freak. Selwyn is a new seat, with rural and dormitory towns around Christchurch combining parts of Bank’s Peninsula and Rakaia. It should be National seat, Amy Adams should have a good chance of entering Parliament, but it isn't a sure thing. Low chance for David Coates.

Mbeki steps down - and about time

The blood stained hands of Thabo Mbeki will no longer be landed on the desk of the President of South Africa.

I have blogged enough about this anti-science thug, whose legacy to South Africa is the growing epidemic of HIV - which he once thought was a conspiracy.

He shook the hand of his murdering mate Robert Mugabe, and has done more than anyone outside Zimbabwe to bring that country to its knees, through sheer inertia, cowardice, denial and explicit support for Zanu-PF's thieving murdering kleptocrat bullies.

Good riddance to a very stupid, palpably ignorant, gutless friend of evil.

My posts related to Mbeki here, his appeasement of Mugabe, being a friend of fascism, continuing being an accessory to bloodshed in Zimbabwe, his hypocrisy, his fawning over Mugabe, the pathetic pointless man, his desire for compromise after a stolen election, his recent explicit support for Mugabe, other countries condemning his ambivalence about Mugabe.

So now Jacob Zuma, who is a serial polygamist, with four wives (one who killed herself), three fiances and has bred 18 children, thinks having a shower after sex protects from HIV, will lead South Africa. The only thing that can be said is he has been more critical of Mugabe than Mbeki - small blessings huh?

Cyclists should pay for their own bridge

You see the current bridge was paid for by motorists paying tolls, and more recently maintained by motorists paying fuel taxes and road user charges. There isn't a cycling lane or public walkway because of a deal done by Auckland local authorities at the time protecting the ferry operations and the local government owned bus services.

So, as cyclists don't pay a cent into the National Land Transport Fund they have no right to demand motorists pay for an exorbitantly expensive NZ$42.8 million new lane. $42.8 million is NZ$4 million more than the Wellington Inner City Bypass, $1 million more than the Avalon Drive Bypass in west Hamilton on State Highway 1. It's an expensive project.

Furthermore, what the hell is the ARC Transport Chairwoman Christine Rose doing supporting the illegal cycle protest from Sunday? The Auckland Harbour Bridge is part of the Northern Motorway - cycling on motorways is a traffic offence because motorways are not designed to handle slow traffic.

This silly bint - apparently responsible for so much of Auckland transport (except the motorways and indeed your cars) said according to the NZ Herald "I'd like to know why it isn't safe, why can't you cycle across, and who organised that".

Being even more banal she also said that "walking and cycling across the bridge was an equity issue and "a human right"". Great, you go do that, every day Christine - maybe Aucklanders will be better off with you walking the motorways, getting taken into court or maybe, perish the thought, run over. If you don't know what the hell a motorway is, then you shouldn't be chairing transport at the ARC.

I notice also the Police, ever keen to catch a speeding driver who presents next to no harm to anyone else (like me doing 108 km/h on a straight empty highway in Canterbury) didn't fine the cyclists because "there was no harm done". There you go, a $250 fine avoided - perfect chance for more Green protestors to clog up Auckland's motorways. By the way motorists pay for the Police to do traffic enforcement through the National Land Transport Fund too - good to see the cops not doing their job then.

The illegal protest drew support from Labour and Green candidates apparently.

My view is simple - the bridge should be sold. The new owners should toll it to fund the expansion of the Victoria Park viaduct and a duplicate crossing if they deem it commercially worthwhile, and can choose to install cycling/pedestrian ways if they so wish. Meanwhile, those who haven't paid for something shouldn't moan because they can't use it - it's called life. Cyclists get full use of almost all roads in the country, even though they pay nothing to use state highways, and only pay towards local roads as ratepayers. If they want better facilities, they ought to cough up the money themselves or do some fundraising.

UPDATE: Brian Rudman has a rush of blood to the head, and is against the cycleway clipon in the NZ Herald. On the various proposals he says "there is no evidence to suggest building either will lead to widespread use. All we get is faith, argued on the basis of what is said to happen elsewhere".

He recalls this issue from decades past when the truth was that hardly any cyclists really cared "If I wanted to call the lobbyists' bluff, I'd lay on a trial shuttle between Northcote and Shelley Beach Rd and see how many takers there are. Even the cost of providing this as a free shuttle would be cheaper than commissioning another report. Thirty years ago, after a similar clamour, several shuttle trials were conducted. The first month-long trial carried 25 bike/passengers a day. A subsequent three-month trial shuttle carried fewer than 10 return travellers a day. A final year-long trial in 1983 averaged under 20 users a day.

The cyclists argue that shuttling or catching a ferry mid-journey forces them to a timetable and restricts their free-as-a-bird independence.

But surely they owe the public purse a better justification than pure faith, before asking for $43 million."

Indeed Brian - but the Green Party transport policy IS pure faith.

Greens release transport (religion) policy

Yes, what a surprise, the Green Party's transport policy continues to worship at the altar of the environmentalist religion. It's pretty simple:

Cars are bad - slow them down, tax them more, spend more of the taxes taken from them on people using other modes of transport. Make them more expensive to own and to drive, people don't like them anyway (they are dependent on them, like a drug).

Trucks are bad - slow them down, tax them more, spend more of the taxes taken from them on companies using other modes of transport. Regulate them to be smaller, use less roads.

Trains are good - Spend other people's money on upgrading tracks, electrifying them, don't tax them, subsidise them, do all you can to provide more lines, more services, reduce fares, don't really pay any attention as to whether they are used.

Buses are quite good - Spend other people's money on bus stations, trolley buses, don't tax them, subsidise them, get local government to control them more, reduce fares, provide more services, turn a blind eye to when they are empty.

Bikes are great - Spend other people's money on bike lanes, bikes even, subsidise them, give them away.

Planes are bad - However the state should run them, tax them a lot, regulate them, don't tell people it makes overseas travel more expensive, even though it does.

Well that's without reading it, but what does it actually say? Let's ignore the mindless nonsense about the transport system being biased in favour of cars and trucks (which means that users prefer them, there is no bias since almost all central government transport funding comes from taxing cars and trucks!). Jeanette complains that 20% of the National Land Transport Fund is spent on public transport, cycling and walking, ignoring that almost all of the money COMES from cars and trucks, and that half of the money goes on road maintenance. Evading inconvenient facts is something religious evangelists often like to do.

She wants two-thirds of the National Land Transport Fund money to go on public transport, cycling and walking - which, as I have pointed out before, will result in roads going without necessary maintenance becoming potholed and unsafe, hardly good for cyclists, but that's the religion.

She wants local authority public transport, cycling and walking projects to be fully funded from road users' taxes - so absolutely no accountability to ratepayers for spending money collected by central government. Why? Because state highways are fully funded from road users - that seems unfair according to the Green religion - so local government can propose public transport projects (it doesn't propose state highways, that's a central government responsibility) and spend it. Public transport good according to the religion.

She wants all off peak public transport to be a dollar per user - more of your money paying to subsidise people wanting to move about by bus and train.

She wants to increase the rate of collisions between cars and buses by saying "On roads with a speed limit of 70 kph or less, drivers will have to give way to buses pulling out of a bus stop", so when you next approach a bus on a major urban arterial you might get killed.

She wants to make motorists responsible for collisions with pedestrians and cyclists "We will create a legal presumption that, so long as a cyclist or pedestrian is observing all road rules and common courtesy, in a collision with a vehicle the motorist will be held responsible". Just wait to see how that will bite, especially since pedestrians can cross roads almost anywhere.

Finally, she wants to push up the price of new cars by imposing mandatory fuel efficiency standards, which at its worst could limit the number of expensive high performance cars entering the country. So the vehicle fleet will remain a bit older, a bit less safe and a bit less fuel efficient because restricting imports keeps the price up.

Like I have written before, Green transport policy is completely devoid of evidence, it is a childlike worshipping of some modes good, others bad. It ignores objective evidence that a bus is more polluting than a car if it isn't carrying at least eight people, and a train isn't more efficient than a bus unless it is carrying at least three bus loads. It ignores evidence that trucks sometimes have a lower environmental impact than trains. It even prefers that NZ ships operate subsidised services instead of allowing foreign ships to carry domestic cargo when they are operating along the coast anyway. In total, the Green transport policy is NOT environmentally friendly, it is just a religion.

Excellent North Korean travelogue

Ex Expat (Stef) has some excellent posts and photos from North Korea, showing you much much more about this Orwellian hell hole. It's an excellent travelogue, well written with great photos (and I've read a few in my time). So go forth and see what this totalitarian anti-capitalist part of the world is like...

The border with China...

Part 1 The trip there
Part 2 Children's Palace, Pyongyang
Part 3 Yanggakdo Hotel Pyongyang with Anchor butter
Part 4 DMZ from the northern side
Part 5 Kaesong
Part 6 May Day
Part 7 Victorious Fatherland Liberation War Museum
Part 8 Mt Myohyang and the International Friendship Exhibition
Part 9 buildings and monuments in Pyongyang

Boris Johnson wants new London airport

According to the Sunday Telegraph, London Mayor Boris Johnson wants an island built at the Thames Estuary and a new airport built there, Hong Kong like, with fast rail services to London and four runways, allowing Heathrow to be closed.

Ambitious it is, but to think it would cost less than the £13 billion it will take to build a third runway at Heathrow is to dream. London is not Hong Kong, construction costs are many times higher and the cost of a new rail corridor into London would be exhorbitant.

Of course, it should be allowed to be built if investors seek it - which means allowing for landing slots to be auctioned, and for investors to convince the big Heathrow airlines - BA, Virgin Atlantic, BMI and Lufthansa, to shift. However, the taxpayer shouldn't be involved. I look forward to a feasibility study and some accurate costs, but the UK is a very expensive place to build large infrastructure projects.

Meanwhile Heathrow remains one of the most remarkable airports in the world. Terminal 5 is perfectly pleasant as far as airports go, it HAS changed flying through Heathrow, and Virgin Atlantic's improvements at Terminal 3 give BA a run for its money. Terminal 1 is substantially improved now that BA has gone, and Star Alliance carriers are dribbling in (like Air NZ and United). Terminals 2 and 4 remain dire, but the former is to be demolished and the latter will be getting a major refurbishment. Any shift from Heathrow will see all terminal improvements there being a sunk cost, and be a massive shot in the arm for many property owners on Heathrow flightpaths, and the opposite for those immediately adjacent (because of the loss of jobs). However, London does need more airport capacity - and if it can be done commercially and efficiently beyond Heathrow, it should be.

Gordon Brown's solution? More unfunded socialism

Yes, facing record budget deficits, economic recession, growing unemployment and inflation, what does Gordon Brown do for the UK? Promises MORE government spending, MORE state dependency and says nothing about what it will cost future generations.

In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Telegraph he calls for extending subsidies for nursery care to two year olds. He says it is about increasing social mobility, something he effectively subsidised by pump priming the property market for several years and which is now reaping the opposite effect. He wants nursery care for two years old to allow mothers to return to work earlier, not considering that it may be better for children to be with their mothers at that time, and more importantly ignoring that families may be better off having more time with their children if they didn't have to have both parents working with 20-40% of their income going on tax.

You see proposals like this show Brown remains wedded to old Labour solutions - more government, more dependency and while he claims it may save a family £1500 a year, it will cost more than that for taxpayers, because of the deadweight cost of bureaucracy involved. He can only afford it by borrowing more, meaning taxes for future generations will be higher.

He talks of irresponsible financial markets, but is willing to spend another £1 billion per annum of money that he has to borrow. Financial wizard? Hardly.

He's wary of more regulation for the City, because he knows that the financial sector has bankrolled the UK economy, and so much of the taxes he depends on. However he has nothing new to offer - he wont cut spending, wont cut taxes and wont admit that the property and mortgage bubble he encouraged and allowed on his watch was partly his fault.

The thing is, whilst some Labour MPs want him gone they have nothing new either. They can only swing to the left and frighten investors, donors and middle class English voters like they did in the 1980s. I am doubtful that he will be rolled yet. It is two years till the next UK elections, he is a patient man, he spent many years in the shadow of Tony Blair awaiting his turn - he's not going to give up without a fight, even if it means stealing from future generations to bribe current ones.

Ross Robertson - will win but not ambitious

Harold Valentine Ross Robertson (I kid you not) has been an MP since 1987, being for Papatoetoe initially and then from 1996 Manukau East, he is the last in my profile of Labour candidates NOT on the party list.

He won in 2005 with 59.4% of the vote, National's Ken Yee only pulling in 28.2%, so Robertson looks safe once more. His electorate support is pretty much duplicated by party support. This is largely an electorate of low income Pacific Islanders, where Labour fights hard for turnout.

His most prominent role is as Assistant Speaker. Yes 21 years and that's what he gets. Nevertheless, the locals must love him. His Labour 08 profile is rather unambitious:

"I am especially aware of the need for safe communities and quality standards in healthcare and education, so that business can create wealth, the vulnerable are encouraged, and all our citizens are invited to contribute.

I will continue to be available to listen and serve, and welcome the challenges of continuing to serve Manukau."

At least he isn't claiming credit for schools, roads and the like. At least he has a profile. National's Kanwal Singh Bakshi has little hope of defeating him.

PREDICTION: Robertson's a shoo in, but he doesn't want to be in Cabinet (or isn't up to it), though perhaps what that electorate wants is a local representative and assistant full time.

Brian McNamara - you wont hear from him again

Labour's Kaikoura candidate is Brian McNamara. Again, another without a list place. There is little information about him, other than his Labour 08 profile which says "my voice would represent the wishes and needs of ordinary Marlburians and North Cantabrians for

• full employment,
  
• higher wages,
  
• better services and quality of life for all, and
  
• the sustainable and beneficial growth of our agricultural, horticultural, high tech mechanical and tourist industries."

Full employment? Higher wages? Ah he is another one who believes in the socialist easter bunny.

It doesn't matter anyway. National's Colin King (yes I know nothing about him yet either) is the incumbent MP, who won in 2005 with a respectable 51.7% of the vote and 4675 over Labour Beehive stalwart Brendon Burns (from whence the name "Burns Unit" came for the PM's Beehive communications group). It is solidly National on the party vote as well (45% vs Labour's 36%) so McNamara will fade into political obscurity, thank goodness.

PREDICTION: Colin King will retain this seat effortlessly.

George Hawkins - a meritless likely winner

George Hawkins is the Labour candidate for Manurewa, having been the MP since 1990, and winning a rather astonishing 59.7% of the vote in 2005. Yes Hawkins is in the club of MPs who truly can say a majority wanted him to represent them. His majority is 11667 ahead of a National candidate who got only 20.4% of the vote, it will be miraculous if the Nats can turn that around with Cam Calder. The party vote also is little different between that result. This is Labour heartland through and through.

However, George doesn't have a list place and he hasn't been a Cabinet Minister (by choice, after the disgraceful 111 incidents before the last election) since the last election. You have to wonder how much of a lame duck MP he can remain being?

The Labour 08 website says it all when you see its empty profile for him. Labour doesn't even think it NEEDS to fight in Manurewa, that sort of complacency is sad for the people of Manurewa, but it is up to them. If they want to elect a failed former Cabinet Minister to represent them, then they sow what they reap.

PREDICTION: Hawkins will sleepwalk to victory, and Manurewa will be served by George until he wants a quiet retirement

Russell Fairbrother - the next big thing for me is railways??

In my ongoing series on Labour candidates...

Russell Fairbrother - Napier (no list placing): Napier was a solid Labour seat under FPP since 1954 and under MMP since 1996, until Russell Fairbrother won it in 2002. He lost in 2005 to National's Chris Tremain, with a 3591 majority, a stunning defeat in what was once Labour heartland country. National also beat Labour in the party vote with 42.2% vs 40.9%. However, like many Labour MPs who lost their electorates, he was back in on the list at number 38, but now he's not on it at all. Russell will be looking for a new job in a few weeks time and it will be about time.

Russell's own profile on the Labour 08 website is abysmal. He claims credit for "bringing the Meeanee expressway overbridge to Napier", when it was simply a very good project that was already a national priority for Land Transport NZ when it approved funding, some time ago. He did nothing. Even his own website is dormant. The rest of his profile is banal platitudes about "I experience both the good and bad of this beautiful city", such as what? Waiting lists? Parents not affording education at the schools they want to send their kids to? Crime? Finally, his biggest priorities for Napier are NOT dealing with intergenerational welfarism, crime and drug abuse among the underclass, inadequate educational achievement, the increasing cost of living, no he says...

"The next big thing for me to achieve is better public transport throughout Hawkes Bay and a strong rail link between the central North Island, Napier, Wairoa and Gisborne."

Well Russell, the railway line has existed for over 60 years, and it doesn't seem too many in Hawke's Bay want to use it often enough, and you can do a lot about improving public transport in Hawkes Bay after the election - you will be free to be a bus driver.

PREDICTION: Russell will be looking for a new job, probably defending hardened criminals because no organisation or individuals failed them "social structures did" (as his maiden speech enlightened us in 2002).

Harry Duynhoven - a shoo in

Labour Party candidates that are only standing for their electorates can only mean two things:
- Very high likelihood of winning electorate (so not needing a list position); or
- Token electorate candidate that the Party doesn't really care about winning anyway.

This isn't nefarious, as the Nats do this too. So after Sam Yau and Paul Chalmers (both clearly in the latter category) who else is standing for Labour, but not on the list?

Harry Duynhoven - New Plymouth: Yes, Harry has held New Plymouth since 1987 and has a loyal following. He is trained as a teacher, electrician and has a Masters in Public Policy, he is known as a hard worker and quite dedicated to local affairs. He is Minister of Transport Safety and Associate Minister of Energy. One of his pet projects has been compulsory third party property insurance for motorists, despite much official resistance to the idea. His majority was a solid 5439 in 2005, one of the few MPs to win a majority of votes cast (53.2%) during an election when Labour lost many provincial seats to the Nats. As National won the party vote in New Plymouth (44.5% vs 37.6% for Labour) it shows he has a high personal following in the seat. National's Jonathan Young will have to work hard to unseat Harry. Harry is unlikely to be too worried, but if on the night it is looking tight it will definitely be spelling doom for Labour, certainly Harry's personal following didn't translate into anywhere near as many party votes for Labour.

PREDICTION: Harry holds on but National's party vote lead will see his majority tighten.

Qantas to fly A380 to NZ for promotion

So why on earth has Stuff included a photo of an Emirates flight attendant inside an Emirates plane in its article, with the caption "Qantas by a nose: Qantas will be the first airline to fly the new Airbus A380 to New Zealand". (photo to the right).

Mainstream media, carefully edited and double checked - not.

The report says, of course, that Qantas plans no scheduled A380 service to New Zealand. The first routes will be from Australia to the USA, then to Hong Kong/Singapore and the UK. Emirates by contrast will fly an A380 service daily to Auckland.

Meanwhile, the easiest way for NZers to fly on the A380 is Singapore Airlines, from Singapore to London after flying from Auckland or Christchurch.

Airline industry faces enormous challenges

The massive hike in jetfuel prices, although moderated in recent weeks, has taken its toll in the airline industry worldwide. The most recent casualty, XL airlines (a UK low cost airline/ charter/tour operator) fell over because it hadn't hedged against price increases adequately, and had sold its tickets many months in advance. Being an operator at the bottom of the market left little room for fat, so it has gone. Others to fold have been Trans-Atlantic low cost carrier Zoom (again the bottom of the market has little profitability in it), US carriers Aloha, Skybus, ATA, Futura of Spain, Hong Kong's low cost carrier Oasis and the three all business class Trans Atlantic airlines, Maxjet, EOS and Silverjet. The last three folded because they couldn't offer the frequencies, network connections or airport access at London that was needed to be competitive.

So what does this hold for airlines down under? Well both Qantas and Air NZ have been hit hard, primarily because of a major collapse in international tourism from Europe, the USA and Japan. Long haul flights burn a lot of fuel, but the fare per passenger km is lower than short haul (and the staff/amenities required are much more elaborate than on short flights), so routes to and from Europe have been badly hit.

Air NZ in particular is vulnerable. Although it remains profitable, it is small, it retains the same risks it had before it bought into Ansett many years ago of not having much access to its nearest large market, and it extends itself far beyond New Zealand to an extent almost unparalleled by airlines of similar sized countries.

Air NZ's share price closing Friday was NZ$1.05, that is less than it was after it was largely renationalised in 2002, at NZ$1.75. More of your money Dr Cullen has spirited away. However, none of this should be a surprise:

- The domestic market remains largely stable, as Air NZ completely dominates the high yield flexible ticket business market and most provincial routes. It is shoring up that business by having converted the front half of its 737s to a new "Space +" configuration for Koru Club members, Gold and Gold Elite Airpoints members and full fare customers. That 3-4 inches more legroom will earn loyalty.

- The Trans Tasman market is growing, as Aussies and Kiwis travel closer to home, but it remains a bloodbath on prices. Pacific Blue is increasing frequencies as is (the apparently immune to oil prices) Emirates which will fly a daily Airbus A380 across the Tasman from February. Air NZ is also putting a "Space +" section at the front of economy class on its 767s and Airbus A320s on this route, also to shore up business traffic (as it will have the most legroom in economy class on the Tasman), as well as installing personal TVs for every seat in every class on 767s and A320s. Again it is hoping that aiming for the top of the market will increase yields, but it faces one huge disadvantage - no access to the Australia domestic market. Business traffic feeding to the Tasman domestically almost entirely goes on Qantas, because it can offer that.

- The Pacific Island market is low yield mostly, comprising ex.pat Pacific Islanders "going home" from NZ, and NZers going on holidays. They are all seekers of low fares. Air NZ has chosen to almost abandon the US/Europe to Pacific Island tourist markets through LA, although these have also plummeted significantly.

- The Asian market is also low yield. Tourism originating from Japan has collapsed significantly in the last few years. Air NZ has dropped routes to Nagoya, Fukuoka in recent years and the Osaka route is down to twice weekly (and about to be operated by 767s, a drop in 79 seats from 777s as well as a major drop in Business Class seating). The routes to China (Shanghai and Peking) are also disappointing, as there is very little business and premium economy demand, and the economy passengers are again at the cheap end of the market. Hong Kong has more balanced demand, though that is in part a feed to Lufthansa and Swiss flights to Europe (as well as the route to London).

- Routes to US and Canada tend to have plenty of business and premium economy traffic, but the economy class end of the market has declined significantly due to the recession in the US.

- Lastly the London routes are currently unprofitable, which is why the route via LA is being downsized to a 777 (also reflecting the increased competition between London and LA since the Trans Atlantic Open Skies agreement came into effect). UK origin tourism has dropped significantly, and Emirates has hurt Air NZ's business on routes to Europe.

So it's tough, it is a major exposure for the government as well, and like Delta/Northwest, BA/AA, Lufthansa and Brussels Airlines, Air NZ must be looking to hook up with a major foreign airline to survive and grow. To do this the government must water down its shareholding. At the very least the incoming government should look to dilute its over 80% shareholding to 50.1% to give the airline an injection of capital and the strategic linkages it needs to grow. Not doing so will see it struggle to sustain long haul routes at times like these, which is, after all, one of the key reasons for the government wanting the airline to remain in any case.

Ian, it's polite to ask ok?

I'm very surprised to see that Ian Wishart's latest weekly newsmag (which is available for sale at NZ$3 oer month, and then distributed for free online) includes a post of mine. You see I only found out because it was mentioned to me on the NZ Conservative blog (which I enjoy visiting for some good debate, as you can imagine we often disagree). The newsmag in question is on PDF here.

Now I don't mind, as what's important to me is that people read and think about what I have to say - this isn't my job. However I DO ask one thing. I don't care if you want to link to this blog and comment on posts on your own. That's part of how the blogosphere works. I also don't mind if other publications publish my blog URL and also post excerpts from it.

However if you want to repeat a post, in full, and publish it on a subscription based magazine or newspaper, ask. I know this isn't copyrighted, but it is simply polite and if you're seeking to make money from what I write I want to know.

US taxpayers' kids will pay

First came the effective renationalisation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both Frankenstein monster creations of the US Federal Government in the first place. Then came the monster loan to AIG, effectively nationalising one of the world’s biggest insurers and now the US Federal Government is taking off the dud loans of banks.

This from the Bush Administration, long hated by the left internationally – it has now grown the size of the US Federal Government beyond recognition, in effect printing more money and engaging in what may be the largest action of intergenerational theft seen in history.

The banking sector has been bailed out, the losses have been socialised and will be born by this and succeeding generations of taxpayers. The profits remain private. If ever an event in recent history could fire up the critics of capitalism this is it – and it is because anything but capitalism has been applied to the banking sector.

The Bush Administration has decided to borrow from future generations to avoid a wholesale collapse of the mortgage market and several US banks. What that collapse would have meant has largely been glossed over as “disaster”, because it would mean banks folding, their shareholders losing out, depositors (a key political concern) also losing out, but debtors to banks having new creditors who may call in the assets to sell. That would have meant homeowners with worthless mortgages (those worth more than the property), but also airlines leasing planes from ILFC - a subsidiary of AIG - (although it is hard to believe that they would’ve been sold themselves given the same companies would be using them).

The result would have been significant deflation of many assets, in particular bank shares and properties – the housing bubbles would certainly be over, mortgages would be far harder to get, but prices would have dropped.

Of course there would have been winners from it, those banks which were far more prudent, those wanting to purchase properties, and other prudent investors. The wise would have won, the foolish would have lost – but that would have included many householders with dud mortgages, and not a few depositors. Bush politically knew that if that happened, McCain would have been finished, as would the Republican Party for at least two more elections. He renationalised for political reasons, and passed the bill onto everyone’s children.

The left will blame loose banking regulations, and “greed” – but wont say that same greed applies to those on modest incomes seeking to buy properties with 100% mortgages. The left will want to constrain the buying and selling of shares, and the availability of credit, with the sort of mindlessness of those who don’t understand economics and finance. Yet failing to note the state’s role in what is a boom/bust cycle. Both US and UK governments have long continued to borrow from their own and foreign economies, injecting inflationary spending into their economies, fuelling property inflation with central banks anxious to always avoid recession, on top of regulations requiring financial institutions to lend a proportion of mortgages to the “less well off”.

It’s notable that John McCain has been distinctively uncomfortable with the bailouts – they go against his own political instinct. Barack Obama is swimming in it though, because he mindlessly blames the Bush Administration, ignoring the Clinton Administration when so much of this started to happen. Lying being the standard stock in trade for politics. However McCain would have hardly done any different. The bigger question is how quickly McCain or Obama would privatise these new enormous liability companies – have a guess who would be slowest.

In the UK, Gordon Brown looks distinctly on the sidelines, as the banking sector itself responds to the crisis through mergers and acquisitions, but also taking the US taxpayers’ injection of their future earnings as a boost to confidence.

Sadly the worst part of all of this is not the bailing out of shareholders, not the bailing out of debtors, not the billions of US dollars worth of intergenerational debt that taxpayers will be forced to bear, but the erosion of a core capitalist principle by the US Federal Government’s actions. Those involved in investment and business take risks daily, whether it be farmers, shopkeepers, taxi drivers, publishers, radio stations, food processors, furniture manufacturers, trucking firms, hotels or charter airlines – the owners, their employees and customers rise and fall on the risks taken. Such businesses fold daily, with not a sign of taxpayer bailout – which is appropriate. Banking is different. The bigger the bank or insurance firm, the better equipped it should be to manage risk, but the bigger likelihood the state will bail them out – if only because the state fears the fallout from all those who deposit with and borrow from them.

This of course means that mortgages, finance and bank shares are clearly less risky than other investments in other sectors. It also means that if the revival of share prices flows onto property finance, the property bubble will return and shares will rise on the back of a massive injection of future taxpayers’ money.

It will happen again.

As Gareth Morgan says in the Dominion Post - the tendency for governments to "save the world" on these occasions is only increasing the frequency at which it will need to happen, and the cost to be met in later years.

Loser Labour candidate number 2 - Paul Chalmers

He is the Whangarei electorate candidate. He was the candidate last time. He got 27.9% of the electorate vote against Phil Heatley on 53.8%.

The profile on the website says:

"The National Party will simply serve the interests of the already wealthy and ignore the aspirations of those less well off. "

Such mindless rhetoric suits a man who has no chance of getting elected. Keep your day job Paul.

Poor Labour candidate of the day - Sam Yau

OK, he seems a nice enough chap. He's the electorate candidate for Ilam (not on the list) but he is so heavily deluded it isn't funny. He claims on his profile that National sold assets to fund tax cuts - absolute bollocks - it ran surpluses. The profile on the Labour website talks how the Labour government led the world on nuclear free policy -um, Sam, that was the PREVIOUS one. The one with Roger Douglas in it.

Sorry Sam, Ilam is well served with you being a JP and being self-employed. Good for you. However, the Labour Party just likes taking from the self-employed and telling people how to run their lives, and wanting to buy their education, healthcare and pensions for them.

However we needn't worry, Gerry Brownlee isn't going to be shifted by Sam. That will be good for both Sam and New Zealand.

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.