Maori Party campaign - what's it all about?

Not PC has blogged about how some of the Maori Party policies look a lot like some Libertarianz ones. That being less tax, particularly introducing a rather large income tax free threshold. Not bad on the face of it, but what else is the party campaigning on? Is it a new vision for Maori, distinct from what Labour offers, or is it just recycled socialism with a strong nationalist flavour (yes I avoided the obvious misuse of both words)?

It is easy for me on the small government end of the spectrum to dismiss this party as Marxist racists, but there is something more to it - have no bones about it, I don't like parties based on race, and many in the Maori party have Marxist roots, but is it all bad?

Well the NZ Herald report on the launch indicated that the party is committed to the Treaty being part of a constitution. Tariana Turia said "Certainly we would like to see in future a constitution that is underpinned by the Treaty and we don't think you can have a constitution for this land without the Treaty being a significant part of it" which raises more importantly the issue about what it really means. However, the party realistically sees republican status a long time away so isn't focusing on it.

Of greater importance is overturning the Foreshore and Seabed Act - which from a libertarian point of view is about applying private property rights to those areas. That's another debate, and I am unsure if the Maori Party really understands private property rights, but that doesn't mean that it isn't open.

However then it wants to entrench the Maori seats - pure self interest, and pure democratic separatism. The Maori Party knows it may struggle to get 5% of the party vote if the Maori seats disappear after all.

It's worth noting how the Maori Party condemned the Ruatoki raids, given the evidence the Police held at the time, and I have noted before its support for Cuban communist agents. Both suggesting a radical leftwing side that is far from supportive of individual freedom. Note also that for a while it refused to judge the

It previously supported court action wanting more money for welfare recipients.

It previously treated US action in Iraq as equivalent to Islamist action.

The NZ Herald published a Q & A with Tariana Turia. Her big drive is clearly Maori, she couldn't care that much about everyone else with statements like "my vision is that our people are restored to being strong and independent people so that they can contribute to their own well-being" as quite objectivist as that is on first appearance - it's still "our people".

However, it is very clear that Turia knows that welfare does a lot of harm

"I don't like the word welfare and I think what we want to do is encourage our people to be independent of welfare. We don't want welfarism to be their goal in life. We want them to be independent people, not having to rely on state agencies, but restoring that same courage that our tupuna had to stand on their own two feet and make their way in life. That's what we want for our people. Our main focus is on whanau ora - the well being of family and what it takes to make them well, healthy, independent, standing on their own two feet."

That in itself is encouraging - of course Working for Families is all about that, but is Maori Party policy consistent with this?

She further says "One of the things we want to do is unbundle all of the money that's being spent on Maori people and we want to know how it's being spent and what the outcomes have been." That is a start too. It should reveal how appallingly wasteful state monopolies are.

Yet this same woman once said that it was impossible for Maori to be racist.

She said that all Maori deserved an apology, presumably because they are all victims.

The same party says that banning gang patches (which i approve) is like how Jews were singled out in Nazi Germany.

So what a mismash. A bizarre collection of a desire for Maori to be successful individuals, but also clearly separatist. A view of the world which suggests that Africans can't be condemned as much as non-Africans, that Nazism was just another period of oppression and that Cuba is just another form of self determination.

There is some recognition that welfare doesn't work, that violence in Maori communities is damnable and that education and self esteem are answers, but it is too much rooted in the power of the state. Perhaps most sad is how much the Maori Party is rooted in its own nationalism. It isn't explicitly racism in that it denigrates others, but it lifts Maori as a priority above all others - which, of course, is what the Maori seats do.

Maori voters clearly see something in the Maori Party, more as a clear alternative to Labour - one not addicted to the arrogance of power, but actually interested in making a difference, but it is a difference rooted in the left, state power and nationalism - itself a rather banal concept. Identity politics is tribal, and it is what sadly causes far too much conflict - the idea that your ethnic identity is paramount when you consider how to treat others.

It seems most of all to be pragmatic, not guided by ideology at times, except when it is anti-American, sceptical about Western values and avowedly nationalistic about being preferential towards Maori. For that it wont ever be a party that can grow beyond the Maori seats. For now, as long as the Maori seats remain - as long as the National Party thinks it needs the Maori Party, to weaken Labour - this will remain an unfortunate part of New Zealand politics.

For quite simply, Maori are more political diverse than that represented by one political party - it should never be "I am Maori, therefore I vote Maori Party". Yet is that not what the Maori Party is advocating?

European socialism working well then?

BBC reports "World stock markets have plunged after government bank bail-outs in the US and Europe failed to stem fears of slower global economic growth."

Confidence has been rattled, big time, and the European interventionist governments can't resolve their own banking system, after what the Economist described as schadenfreude about the US financial crisis. Europe's more left leaning governments saw it as part and parcel of Yankee wild wild west capitalism - gee how everything looks as bad or worse close to home.

Sarkozy, once seen as the Thatcher of France is no more. The Economist reports:

"In the space of three days, he twice laid into free-market capitalism. “Laissez-faire is finished,” he announced in Toulon. “The all-powerful market that is always right is finished.” It is not just rhetoric. With unemployment climbing, Mr Sarkozy has launched a scheme of state subsidies to supplement low pay, paid for by an extra 1.1% tax on capital income that dismayed his own party’s deputies. Talk of tax cuts has been shelved. " at the same time as saying "that “capitalism is the system that has enabled the extraordinary development of western civilisation,” adding firmly that “anti-capitalism offers no solution to the current crisis.”"

It's not only the USA that printed money indirectly through central banks offering excess credit.

Peak Oil right?

Oil below US$90 a barrel according to CNN.

It's basic economics. The US, European and Japanese economies are stagnant, demand for oil has dropped as the high price suppresses demand globally, demand for Chinese exports has dropped, reducing economic growth there. So with less demand for oil, the price drops. Those hurt now are those, such as some airlines, who hedged jetfuel prices to be getting higher.

Inflation drops, and relief appears for motorised transport users.

The oil age wont end due to a lack of oil. It also doesn't need anyone thieving more of your money to subsidise alternatives.

Bush couldn't get elected - 2000

For those who think McCain is finished, here is an article from Slate in 2000 about why Bush couldn't get elected against Gore.

(Hat Tip - Tim Blair)

Tax cuts for whom?

Before Idiot Savant talks about National “looting the state for the benefit of their rich mates” shouldn’t the following be made clear?

According to the Treasury website, in 2007, those on the top income tax rate of 39% comprise only 14% of taxpayers (remember when Labour said it would be 5%?) but they pay 49% of all income tax. Nearly half of all income tax is collected from those earning more than NZ$60,000 per annum – itself a fairly paltry sum, especially for anyone raising a family.

That’s the rich – the ones actually paying for the state. Go to those earning more than NZ$90,000 and you find that is only 4% of taxpayers, and they pay 31% of income tax.

By contrast, 52% of the population earning less than NZ$30k (and not those earning nothing – e.g. children with no savings accounts) paid only 16% of all income tax.

So if the Nats miraculously got rid of the 39% top tax rate, as is ACT and Libertarianz policy, it would be handing back part of the money earned by those who pay 49% of all income tax.

Besides the point that someone who loots you (the state) can hardly be looting anyone when it gives you back your money in the first place – but even if the Nats DID cut taxes for the “rich”, it would hardly be giving money to those who hadn’t paid it in the first place would it?

Imagine an election slogan - love the rich - they pay half of all income tax already, pay to keep the same number of people and their families clothed, fed, housed, emi-educated and given healthcare, and are those most able to leave.

Imagine moreso, what would happen if that 14% left tomorrow?

The disappearance of half of all income tax revenue and 20% of all tax revenue would the least of your worries - think of all the occupations of those so hated by the left for being "rich". Think of what the economy might look like.

Post 1500

Well it has been three years since I started blogging, meaning I have blogged, on average, more than one post a day. My main inclination was to have an outlet for my endless rants on global, NZ and UK politics, and it has grown a little bigger than that. It is intended to reflect my own profound beliefs in personal freedom, the role of the state and belief in reason and that the highest value is life, and the pursuit of the enjoyment of it - within the bounds of reason and respecting the same right in others.

You see my views on both the NZ and US elections are influenced by that set of beliefs. It starts, you see, with values. My highest value is life - the protection of life, and the enhancemet of it. I don't believe my life exists for anyone else, nor should anyone else's. Your life is yours, and you should enjoy it, as much as you can, as long as you do not interfere with the right of others to do the same.

You see this is where rights come in. Your right to life is fundamental, and in order to realise that life your body is owned by you - it carries life and is your greatest instrument, because it contains your brain. So you must control what your body does, what you ingest and your interactions with other bodies Quid pro quo that others have no right to your body.

So your right to life means your right to control your body, and those rights end with other people's bodies.

Of course you can't survive with body alone, for human beings to survive they need to apply their brains to the environment, and collect, farm, hunt or otherwise produce. So you need to have the right to what you produce - that is called property rights. So you have a right to not have your property stolen or vandalised.

So the right to life means your right to control your body and your property.

Now to maximise your life you almost certainly need to interact with others, but the only person who best knows your interest is you. So all of your interaction should be voluntary. Surely you should own what you produce, and trade on terms and conditions that are mutually agreed.

Reason is the means by which human beings must survive. You can't escape it. Faith wont work. Reason is why human beings know how to hunt, how to farm, how to trade, transport, how to combat disease, prevent disease - how to live longer, how to have enough time for leisure.

The antithesis of reason is force. Force is the tool of the murderer, rapist, thief and government. It is the tool of the censor, the warmongerer, the bureaucrat. Force denies debate, discussion or agreement.

So it is important for people to be protected from force. That is the right to self defence. However, when people commit crimes of initiating force or fraud, it often isn't clear who the perpetrator was, and that person needs to be caught, and tried. That is what government is for- to protect citizens from each other. It arbitrates disputes on contracts, it provides the objective legal framework that clearly delineates rights of property, contracts and relationships.

Anything beyond that by government is the initiation of force. It isn't human beings interacting voluntarily. Democracy isn't that either, it is the counting of votes for who you want to govern - it doesn't give a right to take away the rights of others to not have force initiated against them.

This is why I am a libertarian and an objectivist. I believe all adult human interaction should be voluntary - it doesn't mean I agree with it all, or like it, but it does mean that, fundamentally, what consenting adults do personally, contractually or in trade is not my business.

That's why I despise the cheerful statism of the Greens and the Labour Party, both loving how government can "do" things, meaning use force to make people pay for what they otherwise wouldn't choose to pay for, or to make people do things or ban them from doing things that, fundamentally, are not about initiating force or fraud. National ought to be opposed to this, but it is not much different, ACT is somewhat - but it isn't consistently committed to individual freedom.

So I'll be blogging from THAT perspective - the one that says freedom matters, whether it makes you uncomfortable, or whether it reveals failures in our current set of property rights (public nudity being one), or whether it means you have to convince people to care for others. It's a different way of thinking - the idea that you can't just force change on people - but you need to convince them - and that you can't force people to pay for things, you have to convince people.

Next time you get a chance to ask a politician about a policy ask him or her, why do you have to make people do this? Why can't you convince them, and if you can't, why is it moral to use force?

NZ First launches campaign

One truth about NZ politics has been to never write off Winston Peters, he's not going down without a fight, and he didn't in every election he fought on his own. So his launch of the NZ First campaign is the lifeline he is hoping to grab to save his political career - because have no two ways about it, without Winston Peters, NZ First will be like the Alliance without Jim Anderton, a tiny rump ready to fade away.

So Winston has launched his campaign.

NZ First is playing the nationalist card par excellence now with a curious range of policies.

- Cutting GST to 10% and having a tax free income tax threshold of NZ$5,200. (Both of which I agree with of themselves, obviously);
- Cut immigration (immigrants make many talkback callers feel inferior because many are better educated, harder working and use better English than locals. This is just unabashed xenophobia);
- Renationalisation by choice, with the state setting up a fund for the public to invest in to "buy back" "strategic assets" (nationalism with socialism, but in a more liberal form - after all, Labour just renationalises with taxes);
- Restrict foreign investment (depressing prices for businesses and restricting capital investment);
- Engage in trade protectionism (inflating prices and deflating quality and choice for consumers. It's a bluff of course, as New Zealand can hardly reverse its low tariffs without being hurt by retaliatory measures by other countries under WTO rules).

So it's "fear the foreigners and stand strong, buy NZ made and buy back assets from foreigners".

However, NZ First has some other messages, some sane, some sinister.

He talks some basic simple sense about Maori:

"Real Maori men do not beat up women and children. They do not feed drugs to young people. They do not hang out in gangs that prey on the weak and defenceless. They do not sell their teenage sisters and girlfriends into prostitution. And the Maori women we know nurture and protect their young. They do not mistreat them."

Though not one policy on this.

"We’ve been told that it is not important to win, and that it’s good to hug a tree." An inkling of sense in this, but he hasn't really got the point, and when he said "We’ve been taught not to compete and that boys and girls are exactly the same." you wonder how different he thinks boys and girls are? Sexism after all is irrational and nonsensical.

"why are government and local body accounts with foreign banks, so they can clip the ticket on every transaction." It's the Jews Winston, the Jews run the world. Maybe they offer better deals than the locally owned ones for those bodies? Maybe New Zealand owned and operated isn't always offering everyone the best deal?

"We will protect your investments and savings by providing a government guarantee to approved financial institutions like Kiwibank and the Taranaki Savings Bank.
We’re going to guarantee deposits up to $100,000 in NZ owned banks." This would be contrary to WTO commitments, but joins the lunacy of the Europeans all of which offer taxpayer guarantees for banks. Given Kiwibank is state owned is should be rather obvious, but TSB? Why? It is a good bank, I am a TSB bank customer and have found it to be so, but it does not need a government guarantee. Indeed that would be a reason to withdraw my funds.

"New Zealand First is going to use the States credit and loan facilities to drive interest rates dramatically down. We will stop this vacuuming of over $4 billion per year profit to foreign owned banks." Heh heh heh, Rob Muldoon is alive and well. So Winston after doing that, which no sane government will ever let you do, you plan on price freezes to combat the massive inflationary effect? Or have you joined Social Credit (maybe Winston is after the 0.05% Democrats for Social Credit got in 2005?)

"after decades of National and Labour governments you are living in a country with scores of imported cultures, some with no respect for normal human values." The imported cultures shouldn't be feared of course, but yes a handful have no respect for values such as non-violence. Winston means the handful of Islamists who abuse women and children, does he? He could mean the Pacific Islanders who beat up their wives and kids. He could have just focused on people needing to respect our laws, but no - he's playing his dusty old race card isn't he?

So we are back the old formula, keep the foreigners out, keep the foreigners' money out, keep the foreign made goods and services out, and spend taxpayers' money on the elderly and on subsidising export led businesses. It's Muldoon all over again.

Winston's finest moment was in 1996, when as the third party with 13.4% of the vote and 17 MPs he was the kingmaker, and after Jim Bolger and Helen Clark acting like the town sluts seeking to seduce Winston into bed, Winston picked Bolger. That coalition lasted two years, was the downfall of Jim Bolger, and saw Winston face the 1999 election barely scraping by thanks to a handful of people in Tauranga. 4.3% in 1999 was followed by 10.4% in 2002, as National was forlornly led by Bill English and Winston was seen as the only Opposition. It took a determined National Party to fight back in 2005, with NZ First down to 5.7% and Winston losing Tauranga.

Tauranga looks like a lost cause again, and it really will be a case of whether the recent scandal over Winston's alleged obfuscation of party funding will cost him enough votes to drop below 5%. National is counting on NZ First not being elected, otherwise it wouldn't have ruled it out of any post election deal (we all know the Nats are political whores par excellence, as can be seen in 1998-1999). However, we should not forget that NZ First has been the party of government for the last three years. Labour has depended on NZ First support for confidence and supply, taxation, spending and almost everything it has done.

It isn't over yet though. Winston Peters has a habit of capturing enough media attention to waken up the handful of neurons inside his supporters heads, and enough might just tick the box to keep the party above 5%. Prolonged media scrutiny plays into his hands as would any TV debates, where he tends to perform quite well.

I want NZ First gone - it is probably the political party that more want out of Parliament than any other - it is perhaps the least intelligent, most populist driven and conspiracy driven party in Parliament. It suits nutters basically.

However it is worth noting one point - the Greens and NZ First basically agree with each other on trade, foreign investment and state owned businesses. That's the inconvenient truth the Greens would never ever admit to.

What I didn't need to know..

"In a book to be released this week former radical Tim Shadbolt who became mayor of Waitemata and subsequently Invercargill mayor claims he shared a bed with Green MP Sue Kedgley, who was drunk at the time" says the NZ Herald.

Who cares if idiots shag?

Nice to see the mainstream media finding that after some ground breaking in depth analysis of party policies in the general election, that it has the capacity to publish such doggerel.

Appeasing North Korea

So:

- You run a totalitarian slave state which a loud declared intent of "liberating" your neighbour. You are known to already hold ICBMs, biological and chemical weapons.
- You develop a nuclear weapons programme which isn't admitted as even being a nuclear programme until the US confronts the world with the evidence.
- You announced withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement all the time continuing to develop your nuclear programme. The IAEA declares that it cannot provide any meaningful assurances that you are not developing nuclear weapons.
- The Clinton administration does a deal - the "Agreed Framework" to supply fuel oil, light water reactors and economic aid, in exchange for ceasing plutonium enrichment. In comes the fuel oil, and the aid - you're smiling.
- The IAEA immediately states its dissatisfaction with the Clinton Administration's deal because it gives North Korea too long to comply- which of course, pleases you immensely, because you can move things.
- The aid continues, you allow inspections of the facilities you have cleaned out, and you keep both the aid, and the reprocessed plutonium and uranium.
- Under the Bush Administration, after being called a member of the axis of evil, you admit to having a nuclear weapons programme all along. You say you have every right to do so, and besides the promised nuclear reactors are years behind schedule. You refuse to allow inspections, but say you will halt (again) if you get aid. Your first bluff worked - you got aid AND weapons.
- Meanwhile a ship is discovered with missiles you've made being transported to Yemen.
- The US halts oil shipments and aid, and demands you keep up your side of the bargain. You remove seals from the original nuclear reactor and announce it is going to be activated again, and you'll restart reprocessing plutonium.
- IAEA refers the issue to the UN Security Council.
- You declare how you proudly develop your nuclear deterrent and you'll prove it, but you'll freeze in exchange for concessions.
- Clinton Administration Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admits that you cheated during the Clinton years.
- You say you'll treat the US as a friend as long as it stops slandering your system - President Bush had previously called your leader a tyrant, you maintain concentration camps for children of political prisoners down to infant age.
- You reach agreement with the US again to halt the programme, and rejoin the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement. Then you say you want a light water reactor again.
- You test fire seven missiles just to show you're serious.
- You announce you'll test a nuclear weapons, and you do.
- UN Security Council passes resolution of sanctions, mainly financial and trade in luxury goods.
- You agree to shut down the reactor after receiving 50,000 tonnes of fuel aid, and allowing inspections to verify. Inspections verify you have shut down the reactor.
- You throw out inspectors once more and recommission the plant.

Now a deal is struck between you and the US, for you to be removed from the list of countries supporting terrorism, and to have a new verification plan for the ceasing of activities.

You still have nuclear weapons, missiles and still sabre rattle daily against South Korea, Japan and the USA on your media.

Yes, I know the question is - what else can be done? Well, this house of cards is ready to collapse - you'd be wiser to engage with it as much as possible, offer North Korean officials trips to learn about economics, business and governance elsewhere, and plan for the collapse.

However playing its endless game of blackmail and bribe, is not the answer. That should end. Meanwhile, I am sure South Korea and Japan are grateful for the US nuclear umbrella.

Labour candidates 40-36 - mostly mediocre

Continuing my series on Labour candidates are numbers 40 to 36. This is when we are getting into the margin between winning and losing. It is conceivable that Labour wont get enough party votes to save these MPs if they do not win their constituencies. Not because Labour wont have 36 MPs, but because enough lower down the list and off list will have a bigger chance of winning electorates, so there will be a lesser need for the list MPs. Now guess the profession of most of them...

Mahara Okeroa – Te Tai Tonga – Number 40: Profile, photo and no website link. He has a facebook. Mahara is Te Tai Tonga’s current MP. Mahara was a teacher and a regional director for Te Puni Kokiri before being elected in 1999. Nothing unusual in a Labour MP coming from teaching and bureaucracy, makes a small change from unions.

“By removing barriers to Maori in education, healthcare, housing, and employment, we have made sure that Maori are equipped with all the tools to enable them to reach their full potential.” Yet some don’t, care to explain why Mahara? What barriers existed before?? “Maori are entrepreneurial, youthful and dynamic, and Labour is determined to build on these attributes, to ensure that Maori have the best possible future.” Well quite positive really. To give Mahara credit his profile doesn’t engage in attacking other parties, and he talks about opportunities and less about government support (although he certainly implies that a lot).

He’s certainly head and shoulders above Louisa Wall as a Maori candidate.
In 2005 Mahara won with 47.2% of the vote against the Maori Party’s Monte Ohia on 34.1%. Labour got 57.9% against Maori Party’s 17.6%. Mahara may well be able to hold his own here against Rahui Katene, the Maori Party candidate. Although I support abolishing the Maori seats, in the meantime, I hope he does hold on, though you have to wonder who the three people were in Te Tai Tonga who voted for the One NZ Party! Prediction: Mahara will hang onto his seat, Te Tai Tonga isn’t a Maori Party stronghold.

Mark Burton – Taupo – number 39: Profile, no photo and no website. Mark has been MP since 1993 first for Tongariro then Taupo. Mark was a social worker, and worked for the Red Cross, Social Welfare and Otaki Health Camp before being elected. He has been a Minister of Internal Affairs, Defence and SOEs, but resigned from these roles in 2007.

“Labour has major policies to roll out and progress, building on the broad range of social, economic and environmental policies we have advanced over the last nine years. " Like?

“So in Election 2008, I am proudly campaigning, and Labour is campaigning - as we always have, on substance – on policies delivered and policies to come, because we know that none of the very real challenges New Zealand has faced and faces now, can be met with short-term fixes and one line slogans.” Hmmm yes, Labour wouldn’t do that, I mean the website has no one line slogans does it?

Now Mark is going to be looking for another job after the election. He won Taupo with 45.5% of the vote in 2005, against National’s Weston Kirton on 41.1% (Mayor of Ruapehu District). With boundary changes this is the most marginal seat in the country, so Mark is almost certainly gone. On the party vote National was ahead in 2005 with 44.3% against Labour’s 37.3%. Louise Upston is the National candidate. Prediction: Mark Burton’s political career is over. Labour has virtually guaranteed it.

Judith Tizard – Auckland Central – number 38: Photo and profile, no website. Judith’s life has been in local body politics, and owning and managing a restaurant. She is of course the final member of a bizarre political dynasty that includes her grumpy dad and foul mouthed mother. Judith has been an MP since 1990 (Panmure, then Auckland Central defeating Sandra Lee in 1996).

Judith’s profile has no statement, it looks like a CV – convenient really because there is a reasonable chance she’ll need it after the election. It shows her out of Cabinet portfolios and her interests “Politics, reading, gardening, cooking, swimming and theatre”.

Nothing about aspirations, nothing about Labour’s “achievements”, nothing about future policy, nothing about what she wants for Auckland Central or has “achieved”. Great that.

Judith won in 2005 with 43.9% not a high percentage of the electorate vote, against Pansy Wong with 33.1% . Mind you Nandor Tanczos got 14.8% of the electorate vote. It is telling the party vote for Labour was higher on 45.2% with National on 33.7%. National’s Nikki Kaye is working damned hard to unseat Judith, and she has a chance. Judith’s position is on the knive edge locally and on the list. Nikki Kaye has a large gap to bridge, and with Nandor Tanczos retiring it does offer votes that can go elsewhere. It is a brave man who is certain on this one, but I’d like to think Judith would barely be ousted. Prediction (maybe optimistic but): Judith will be surprised when Auckland Central is tired of her and the Labour vote just scrapes below enough to save her on the list. Nikki Kaye will be the bold intelligent hard working new MP for Auckland Central.

Damien O’Connor – West Coast-Tasman – number 37: photo and profile, no website. Damien has been MP for that region since 1993. He has been a farmer, adventure tourism operator and union rep (funny that).

“While being the elected representative for our region since 1993, I am particularly proud of what has been achieved for the electorate during the last three years. Both the West Coast and Tasman continue to flourish; a result of considerable government investment and sustained economic growth. We must ensure this continues.”

Nothing exciting, rather bog standard, then a long list of pork that he claims he is responsible for getting for the West Coast. At least he’s honest, though government should never be about pork. Damien got 47.7% of the vote in 2008, against National’s Chris Auchinvole who got 40.9%, so this is no longer the safe Labour seat it once was, particularly when you note National won the party vote here with 39.6% against Labour’s 37.2%. Chris Auchinvole won a list seat and is running again. It could be a tighter race, though Damien has a strong local following. Prediction: Damien O’Connor will scrape in.

Stuart Nash – number 36 list only: profile, no picture or website. My guess is that Labour needs to get to this party vote to have a serious chance at power.

“I have the skills and experience to handle the complexities of the 21st century and to get the job done. I am well educated and experienced in business, strategy, marketing, management and trade, with Master’s degrees from Auckland and Canterbury Universities.” Degrees in business hmmm but that means “I was the Director of Strategic Development at AUT University” so not REALLY business then.

The funny thing is he never once mentions Labour, at all, not anything the government has done, or any policies, or the word Labour!

“As this country embraces the 21st century. I am confident with my experience and abilities that we will be able to handle the issues and challenges that are going to confront New Zealand in the future.”

Well it’s a list position, but I think Stuart wont quite make it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh dear, Damien O'Connor and Mahara Okeroa have the best chances of this lot, Mark Burton is a lost cause, but the real race is Auckland Central. What sweeter victory for National than to remove one of Parliament's lazier MPs. However, Labour's party vote also needs to drop below 38%.

Labour candidates 44-40 underwhelming

In my ongoing series of Labour candidates, I cross into those who are actually in Parliament - the ones that Labour needs re-electing to be in power, and a sad lot they are. None of them I believe will be re-elected:

Lesley Soper - Invercargill - number 44: Profile, photo, no website on site. Lesley is the first list MP I have profiled, having entered Parliament following the resignation of Georgina Beyer. She's a unionist (yawn yawn what a surprise), having worked for the primary teacher's monopoly and unaccountable pay rises union (NZEI).

She believes in Southland, but I had NO idea that it is the DIARY capital of the country. I must get a new diary next time I am down there. Why? Well she says :"the whole province has done well under the Labour-led government, from education and health to jobs, to diarying expansion & oil exploration, to a new CourtHouse , to an international-class Sports Stadium". Diarying indeed! An MP who values education!

She's a list MP, so if Labour does as well as last time, she's in - but Invercargill? It's a National seat, Eric Roy took it last time with 49.5% of the vote, against Labour's Wayne Harpur on 43%. Bear in mind Mark Peck held it until 2005 when he retired. So Soper will be trying to win, but her chances are low. Party vote last time was won by Labour on 45.2% against National on 39.5%, so she should be focusing on holding that. Prediction: Soper will be looking for another job, she wont unseat Eric Roy and Labour wont do well enough for her to be elected on the list.

Louisa Wall - Tamaki Makaurau - Number 43: Photo and profile, but no website on the party site. She doesnt appear to have a website for campaign too. Louisa is another list MP, known for her netball. She got into Parliament because of the retirement of Ann Hartley.

Louisa's profile states she "gained a Masters degree in Social Policy in 2001. I have used this degree to advance the needs and aspirations of Maori working within public bureaucracies as a Maori specific representative." Oh dear, so she loves advancing people who are unproductive in a "Maori context", just what Maori need - encouragement to live off of the back of others!

For Maori to have an MP who stands for self reliance, success, education, reason, entrepreneurship and getting the state off their backs. Well it isn't Louisa. Yes she is young, successful in sport, Maori and lesbian - but that isn't enough to consider passing laws and spending other people's money. Tamaki Makaurau was won by Pita Sharples with 52.4% of the vote against John Tamihere on 41.2%. Louisa will surely struggle against Sharples. On the party vote Labour got 55.1% the Maori Party 27.5%, so she'll mainly be campaigning for that, which frankly is the main way she may get re-elected. Prediction: Louisa will be looking for another job, she wont win Tamaki Makaurau, and the party vote wont quite be enough.

Dave Hereora - Papakura - number 42: Profile, photo. Dave Hereora is one of the least impressive MPs of all. Nobody knows him, he is a list MP and just another unionist.

This on his profile is difficult to comprehend: "Having canvassed the Papakura electorate, of the number of issues raised, crime is highlighted as a concern relating to the recent raft of incidents within the wider South Auckland area." OK, you know Labour has been in power for nine years. Crime highlighted relating to the raft of incidents???

"Although statistics show a drop in crime, I am continuing to work alongside the Police in support of their presence and have attended, along with the schools and community, the opening of the Awhi Centre in Smiths Avenue. I am also working closely with Mayor Penrose and meeting and visiting local retailers to improve their networking and safety procedures. " Meeting AND visiting, because an MP can teach you networking and safety.

What a genius, talent and there aren't enough unionists in Parliament are there?

Dave is standing for the new seat of Papakura against Judith Collins, who is the incumbent from Clevedon. Dave will struggle against Judith, but it isn't ruled out. As we move further up the list, that may be where his chance lies, but don't forget, others lower on the list have higher chances of winning electorates. Prediction: Dave will be looking for another job.

Martin Gallagher - Hamilton West - number 41: Profile, photo and well yes Martin is an electorate MP since 1999. "I am seeking re-election to parliament because of my absolute commitment to social justice." Another bloody thief - social justice meaning those successful get money taken from them to pay for those who are not.

"I want to be part of a Government that recognises and promotes our uniqueness as a society and takes our values of peace and fairness to an international stage." Pass the bucket. Save me, can't any of these tossers write anything substantive? Peace? Fairness? Surely more can be expected from a former Deputy Mayor, a member of the multi millionaire Gallagher family? Guilty about success so much he is part of government sucking success out of others.

So Hamilton West was won by Martin in 2005 with only 45.9% of the electorate vote against National's Tim MacIndoe on 43.5% - 825 votes in it. So it is marginal, as is the party vote with Labour on 41.3% and National on 40%. Tim MacIndoe is standing again for National, so Martin faces a serious challenge. Again the list position isn't that high if those higher up win their seats as some may do. Prediction- Martin Gallagher will be going back to the family business.

Labour brings you more petrol tax and a useless railway

Yes, electrification of Auckland's passenger rail network is to go ahead, but don't expect those using it to pay for it.

No. Dr Cullen has said you'll be paying, if you drive in Auckland.

Motorists will, with a new petrol tax for Auckland. Even those driving in Warkworth, Waiuku, Orewa, Bucklands Beach, everywhere without being a "cooee of a railway station" as the PM once said. Yes, Labour is taxing all road users in Auckland to benefit a relatively small number of people who can choose the train to go to work, and those with adjacent properties.

You see in Auckland only 12% of jobs are in the CBD - and perhaps only another 2% are served by other stations along the Auckland rail network. Only 3 out of 9 of Auckland's main transport corridors are served by rail (the one's that aren't are North Shore-CBD, North Shore to West Auckland, CBD-central isthmus, CBD- Pakuranga, Pakuranga-South Auckland and West Auckland to South Auckland (unless you accept it is very slow)). So of that, let's say 15% of jobs, only 5% of commuters could even USE rail, if it was convenient times etc. Around 30% of commuters to downtown Auckland already use bus, so many of those using rail will be ex. bus users, bus services that in many instances are commercially viable privately run operations.

So this is about benefiting at best maybe 2.5% of commuters - it wont reduce congestion, it never has done anywhere else, it will take people from buses and will be a very expensive subsidised trip for those lucky enough to live near a station and work near one.

It's a show off toy for politicians to open. Are you prepared to spend more on petrol to pay for something you don't use? If you want it, are you prepared to pay a fare that fully recovers the cost of providing the service? If not? Why are you prepared to pay a fare that does if you want to fly to Wellington?

Why should urban public transport not be expected to be self sustaining?

The Auckland Regional Council thinks it is essential - it is entirely in the thrall of the failed Smart Growth rail based public transport religion that has seen billions wasted throughout the USA to no avail. "regional council transport chairwoman Christine Rose said it was essential electrification be secured through a fuel tax" the same silly bint who supported the illegal cycle protest over the Northern Motorway, and who wants to waste money on an expensive cycle bridge over the harbour.

Unsurprisingly, the Nats haven't said if they would reverse the petrol tax, but they wouldn't reverse the waste of money of electrification. Fine if it is a contractually committed sunk cost, but that's it.

Auckland has wasted a lot of money on rebuilding its virtually useless railway system to replace a lot of bus services, it is about to spend a fortune on pursuing electrification which may generate more trips, but at a huge subsidy - and with virtually no impact on congestion. Aucklanders who want a railway should pay for it - those who don't shouldn't. How hard is it for people to pay for the transport they use? Yes, that does mean tolls for new roads, it does mean no more ratepayer funding of local roads and it does mean not building a tunnel under the PM's electorate for a motorway.

Can someone at least ask for an independent study into the economics of Auckland passenger rail?

David Cameron - what DOES he believe in?

Widely acclaimed as one of his best speeches, David Cameron was lining up the Conservatives as a future government.

It was a mixed bag, but plays to the philosophical middle of the road in the UK. Some snippets:

Supporting the armed forces "We are going to stop sending young men to war without the equipment they need, we’re going to stop treating our soldiers like second class citizens we will do all it takes to keep our country safe and we will do all it takes to protect the heroes who risk everything for us."

He thinks freedom is anarchy, sadly "But freedom can too easily turn into the idea that we all have the right to do whatever we want, regardless of the effect on others. That is libertarian, not Conservative - and it is certainly not me."

Sensible personal responsibility extended to obligations towards others, your existence allows others to claim upon you. Is that what this means? "For me, the most important word is responsibility. Personal responsibility. Professional responsibility. Civic responsibility. Corporate responsibility. Our responsibility to our family, to our neighbourhood, our country. Our responsibility to behave in a decent and civilised way. To help others. That is what this Party is all about. Every big decision; every big judgment I make: I ask myself some simple questions. Does this encourage responsibility and discourage irresponsibility? Does this make us a more or less responsible society? Social responsibility, not state control. Because we know that we will only be a strong society if we are a responsible society."

He sounds good on cutting spending: "It means ending Labour’s spendaholic culture it means clamping down on government waste and it means destroying all those useless quangos and initiatives. So I will be asking all my shadow ministers to review all over again every spending programme to see if it is really necessary, really justifiable in these new economic circumstances. But even that will not be enough."

He says taxes are YOUR money: "I know it’s your money. I know you want some of it back. And I want to give it to you. It’s one of the reasons I’m doing this job. But we will only cut taxes once it’s responsible to do so once we’ve made government live within its means. The test of whether we’re ready for government is not whether we can come up with exciting shadow budgets. It is whether we have the grit and determination to impose discipline on government spending, keep our nerve and say “no” - even in the teeth of hostility and protest."

Then he starts to want to spend your money, on ridiculous pet projects, while stopping the private sector spending its money: "I have never believed in just laissez-faire. I believe the government should play an active part in helping business and industry. So when our economy is overheating in the south east but still needs more investment in the north the right thing to do is not go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow but instead build a new high speed rail network linking Birmingham, Manchester, London, Leeds let’s help rebalance Britain’s economy."

Then he swings back to not believing in Nanny State: "Labour are clutching at it as some sort of intellectual lifeline. It goes like this. In these times of difficulty, we need a bigger state. Not just in a financial and economic sense, but in a social sense too. A Labour minister said something really extraordinary last week. It revealed a huge amount about them. David Miliband said that “unless government is on your side you end up on your own.” “On your own” - without the government. I thought it was one of the most arrogant things I’ve heard a politician say. For Labour there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance."

Just when it sounds good he wants "efficient government", and more obligations upon people: "No, when times are tough, it’s not a bigger state we need: it’s better, more efficient government. But even more than that we need a stronger society. That means trusting people. And sharing responsibility."

So that's the choice in the UK. A party that will offer more choice in education, and reform welfare, but believes you do owe others a living, believes business should be subsidised, believes in less government, believes in personal responsibility, but also collective responsibility for others.

Truly this is what the centre-right is about - half of it I can vote for, support, and know it is a lot better than Labour - but then it still wants to waste money on subsidies, interference, and the NHS. Have no bones about it, this is about change, it is different from Labour - unlike National in New Zealand - but it is still disappointingly weak for a libertarian. I can hope the Conservatives can shrink the state, but it really is only a start - well, continuing from what Thatcher did (and reversing some of what Labour has done).

Men aren't people?

"A fire at a pornographic video theatre in downtown Osaka, Japan's second-biggest city, killed 15 men and injured 10 people, local police said." according to Reuters via Stuff.

The establishment, which described itself as an "adult video theatre", is among many in Japan where customers can watch rented videos in small, separate rooms. Equipped with showers, the theatres are often used as cheap hotels by customers to spend the night, domestic media said.

At "Cats", customers could stay up to 11 hours for 1,500 yen ($NZ21.23) after 11 p.m.

So backpackers, there's your place to stay in Osaka, if you dare.

Labour candidate reviews list numbers 48-45

As I continue my series on Labour list candidates, it is becoming clear that these ones have a good chance of winning their electorates. In 2005, Labour got to number 48 on its list, so this is the level at which Labour hopes to achieve again this time. Voting Labour helps guarantee these people getting elected and gaining power - but as you'll see the candidates I list below are in seats where, sadly, the plurality of voters seem to be Labour supporters.

Iain Lees-Galloway – Palmerston North - number 48: A profile, with no photo nor a website. However, he DOES have a website, just not linked on the Labour website. He’s another unionist, student union first then Nurses. Diversity being a hallmark of the Labour Party.

He says “My greatest satisfaction is empowering individuals and groups to achieve change by providing them the support and advice they need”. Whatever floats your boat Iain, but good for you – you don’t realize that being in the Labour Party you’ll be by default trying to control people and spend their money. None of his profile is offensive “We need New Zealand and the world to know about the great things we have to offer in education, research, distribution and healthcare – our fortes and the keys to our future” he could be promoting Palmerston North. Innocuous enough.

His website shows him to be a classic collectivist socialist though “Do we continue with positive, progressive, inclusive change that delivers for all New Zealanders or do we change back to the bad old days of individualism and division? Of the politics of the few at the expense of the community? Is that really the Kiwi way?” Yes Nanny State is good for us, don’t you go off being an individual you selfish bastard! The community first, your property, your taxes, your life, your business come second to Iain (see he hasn’t run a business).

This is Steve Maharey’s seat, and he is retiring. Maharey got 53.9% of the electorate vote in 2005 compared to National’s Malcolm Plimmer on 36.7%. As the party vote for Labour was lower (45%), this shows Maharey had considerable local appeal. Although curiously National’s party vote in Palmerston North was virtually identical to the electorate vote. Iain should comfortably win Palmerston North, although National has selected Plimmer as its candidate once more. Another leftwing unionist almost certainly walking into Parliament if the voters of Palmerston North vote like 2005. Prediction- Iain Lees-Galloway will be the MP for Palmerston North.

Chris Hipkins – Rimutaka – number 47: Photo and profile, no website link on the Labour site, but he does have a website, and a blog. He’s only 30, and is yet another ex student union President. His education was a BA in politics and criminology, and he most recently has been inculcated into the Labour government by working for Trevor Mallard, Steve Maharey and Helen Clark.

“New Zealand has become a better place during Labour’s time in office, but there are new challenges ahead. Labour has the best ideas and plans for the future, and I hope to bring some new energy to the task of changing our country for the better.” Yep plans for us all, ha ha ha ha. No, seriously, just another lot of centre-left blandness. He thinks Labour is responsible for things "becoming better", not the hard work of businesspeople and other individuals.

He has made some bold assertions in speeches “We led international opinion against apartheid in South Africa and the war in Vietnam.” Really? I thought that black Africa did the former, and the latter was the USSR! New Zealand fought in Vietnam Chris.

Bless he doesn’t think some things can be done differently “When you visit the doctor, the majority of the tab will be collected by the taxpayers of the future. The same will apply when you collect your weekly super. Even when you drive to the local supermarket, you’ll be using roads maintained through the taxes and rates of those still in the workforce.” He even thinks it is right!

Rimutaka is Paul Swain’s seat, he also is retiring to be with his tall young wife. He got 54.2% of the vote in 2005, against National’s Mike Leddy who got 30.2%. Party vote was 47.6% for Labour and 33.9% for National, so again a bit of personal loyalty. Hipkins should take Rimutaka relatively easily, so he’ll be a young new voice on the left. Prediction - Chris Hipkins will be the next MP for Rimutaka,

Grant Robertson – Wellington Central – number 46: Photo, profile, no website link on the Labour site, but he has a website. After all this IS Wellington Central. “I want to play my part in developing Wellington as a truly sustainable city, and ensuring that all Wellingtonians get to enjoy all that it has to offer.” Ensuring all?? A big ask. “I am involved in politics because of my passionate belief in social justice and my desire to make our country and the world a fairer and more equal place. For me equality is the basis of aspiration, opportunity and success. I am proud of what Labour has done in government since 1999.” Ugh, social justice – the euphemism from take from those you don’t like and give to those you do. Equality – as I said before, the aspiration of the Khmer Rouge – pushing down those at the top to the level of those below. Everyone successful, everyone as good as each other – nobody too rich, too successful.

Grant is BA(Hons) politics, been a diplomat, advisor to Clark and Hobbs, and yet another Student Union President. Bloody student unions! However have no doubt about it, he’s a socialist:

“people no matter who they are or where they are from are entitled to opportunity and equality. There is no doubt in my mind that this will require forms of redistribution and redress. It requires recognition that discrimination can not be allowed to develop, and that affirmative action may be required. A humane society will not cease in its journey to social justice.”

So he is at least honest, he believes in taking money from those he considers “rich” and giving it to others, unearned. He believes that privileges dished out by race or sex (affirmative action), discriminating against those at the margins who aren’t of those groups, is good. He believes in Nanny State.

He warns of something some of us dream for “The “useless bureaucrats” as John Key has described them will be sacrificed by National at the alter of tax cuts for the wealthy.” I wish.

This is Marian Hobbs’s seat, Marian got 49.3% of the electorate vote in 2005, against National’s Mark Blumsky on 34.2%. The party votes were 43.3% for Labour and 32.6% for National – yes the electorate of public servants tends to vote for the government. However, it is also highly volatile. It would be a mistake to treat Wellington Central like other safe Labour seats. Marian Hobbs certainly had a strong personal following, and this is a seat that was held by ACT from 1996 to 1999, and by National before that. Stephen Franks may give Grant a run for his money, but it would be a brave punter that picks Wellington Central. I’d say odds favour Robertson this time round, a 15% gap will be hard for the Nats to narrow. Prediction - Grant Robertson will win by a slim margin.

Clare Curran – Dunedin South – number 45: Profile and photo. No website.

"People want secure jobs, better wages, superannuation and living standards and a society that cares for its most vulnerable.They also want their communities and neighbourhoods to be safer, more cohesive, better resourced and with strong links to public transport and other core services." However Clare doesn't want to encourage them to do something about it, but rely on nanny state to deliver it for them.

Dave at Big News posted about her last year: You see, she is a PR hack. Another spin doctor, a little like Brendon Burns.

"In 2006 Curran wrote this paper entitled "language matters" on framing the discussion to generat support for Labour. It states:
How National set the agenda in 2005, not Labour
* The media don’t create the message, they run with it
* The need to come up with a new set of phrases such as “We’ve made mistakes” (would pay to see Helen say that one)
* How to position National as the “enemies of the people”"

Now the big issue with Curran is that she has replaced David Benson-Pope as the Labour nominee. Assuming Benson-Pope does not stand as an independent, it should be Curran's seat for the taking. Benson-Pope had 57% of the electorate vote in 2005, against National's Conway Powell at 26.7%. If Curran can't deliver this solid Labour seat, she needs to abandon PR altogether. Party vote proportions were nearly identical to electorate votes as well. Conway Powell is standing for National again, but realistically his chances are low.
Prediction- Curran will be the new MP for Dunedin South.

So all of these four should win their seats. Robertson is perhaps the one at greatest risk. However, I'd be surprised (pleasantly of course) if Labour did not get all of these seats. Certainly the odds that these candidates could win on the list alone is not particularly high.

TV debates

TV3 is a private company, it has every right to determine how it wants to hold debates. I don't get to see them so it is neither here nor there for me.

TVNZ is state owned. It should hold several debates. It should hold at least one of the two leaders who are likely to be Prime Minister. It should hold one of all the political party leaders of those in Parliament. It should also hold one of all of the political party leaders of parties registered. There is no good reason for state television to be discriminatory or exclude, indeed it should go out of its way to avoid that.

Clark vs Key is critical, but should not be the only debate. Clark should face questioning from the likes of the Greens and the Maori Party. Jim Anderton should be able to differentiate himself. Peter Dunne and Winston Peters exposed for being toadies of Labour, and Rodney Hide to hold John Key accountable. Finally, a forum for all party leaders, big and small, to present what they believe in would be worthwhile. Yes of course that includes Libertarianz, but if there is going to be state owned TV it should be impartial.

Non state TV channels can do whatever they like - it's called property rights.

Grateful for your tax cut?

Lucky little kiwis getting a tax cut, which I admittedly also benefit from.

Now you're meant to be grateful to Dr Cullen and Hel Clark Il for letting you keep a bit more of money that was yours to begin with.

So just think about that. If you hadn't worked, or invested your money wisely, Clark and Cullen wouldn't have had any money to take from you to "invest in the community" or other forms of doggerel Labour MPs go on about.

Don't forget also that if Don Brash hadn't made it an issue in 2005, it wouldn't be such an issue now. Labour nearly lost because of it.

Don't forget that as you take your tax cut back from Cullen's cold hands, he's also wasting your money on:
- Increasing the welfare state by increasing the Working for Families package;
- Making you pay for pensioners who want to travel on urban buses and train, by giving thm free off peak travel;
- boosting National Superannuation.

It was your money in the first place, would you thank a thief who gave you back a little from what he steals from you?

Contact Energy prices rises are an opportunity

So according to the NZ Herald, Contact Energy, a privately owned electricity generator and retailer raises its prices. It is reported that "Commerce Minister Lianne Dalziel said she failed to see how Contact Energy's increases could be justified".

Contact Energy shouldn't have to justify to her. Especially since the government owns Contact's three biggest competitors. You see, it is an open market. The government if it was a responsible shareholder would be pleased that Contact offers its electricity companies an opportunity to compete. Meridian, Genesis and Mighty River Power could all now offer lower prices than Contact, and consumers would win, the government would win and Contact would decide how to respond.

Don't expect that to happen though, Labour Cabinet Ministers are scrambling for an inquiry. Muldoon like, they want a justification from a private company for a price increase in a competitive market.

National's response? To criticise Labour for not doing something soon enough!! What would National do? Blank out - nothing. Mindless politicking for the sake of it. The right response would be to say "National broke up the state owned ECNZ monopoly when it was in power so New Zealanders could have choice and competition in their electricity providers. The recent price rise announced by Contact is an opportunity for New Zealanders to shop around with other suppliers, and for those providers to compete. Sadly as three of the main competitors are state owned, we anticipate they wont be that nimble and responsive as they may well be in private ownership".

Grey Power punts up its usual Muldoonist socialist racist whining "This is a classic case of greedy foreign companies ripping off New Zealanders" says Les Howard, Grey Power President. Les, choose another company. You couldn't when your mate Rob was in power, now you can, go on choose a less greedy state owned company!

Meanwhile, isn't it about time that Genesis, Meridian and Mighty River Power were all privatised too, so that the market could thrive, and new capital be injected into electricity generation?

So stop moaning, change supplier and don't complain when a state owned company raises power prices - you don't want to vote for a party that privatises do you?

The Burns Unit stands for Parliament

He's number 49 on the Labour list and standing for Christchurch Central. He has a profile and a photo on the Labour website, and his own website too.

It's Brendon Burns.

Burns is well known in Parliament, as he created the infamous “Burns” unit, which is the Labour government PR function in the Beehive. He doesn’t mention this in his profile. Funny that, you’d think being Helen Clark’s spindoctor would be something he would be proud of. The "Burns unit" is responsible for ensuring Labour MPs deliver publicity "on message", consider it the Labour Central News Agency (Pyongyang has the Korean Central News Agency).

Being a master of spin there is not a sign of it on his profile or his website. No, his instrumental role in spinning the Labour Party's message while in government is curiously absent - he will know why, because it isn't good spin!

He’s firmly on the left, as his website proudly proclaims his banal fights against privatizing water and contracting out the provision of council services. He likes making people pay for what they don’t use, and council monopolies spending ratepayers’ money. He also says “Helping Christchurch achieve a fibre optic network that provides high speed connectivity is hugely important.” I guess Telstra-Clear’s HFC network passed him by, or is privately owned so “doesn’t count”. “we need to insulate every home, no matter what the income.” So subsidising the homes of the wealthy too Brendon? “I also wants to ensure more low-moderate cost housing is built in Christchurch Central”. What’s stopping you Brendon? Go build some? No - he wants to spend more of your money as well.

Unlike all those below him on the list, he has a very good chance of getting elected this time round. Not because of his list position, which is just a bit high for that, but because Christchurch Central is a solid Labour seat. Tim Barnett had 52.6% of the electorate vote in 2005 - another majority MP, against National's Nicky Wagner on 29.3%. (who was elected as a list MP anyway). Now Tim clearly had some personal appeal, as the Labour party vote was 48.3%, with National on 30.5%, but you can't disguise this is a safe seat being handed to Burns on a plate as Tim is retiring.

So ask yourself this, how many Christchurch Central voters know about Brendon Burns? Labour's greatest spindoctor looks likely to waltz safely into Parliament after the election, it being unlikely Nicky Wagner can bridge a 22% gap this time round.

British Conservatives remain a mixed lot

You wouldn't notice it, but the Conservatives have been having their party conference - overshadowed completely by the financial crisis.

The policies coming from the Tories are all over the place:
- Council tax to be frozen for two years (a bit wimpish but a start);
- Private rooms for single mothers in hospitals (more government);
- University scholarships for apprentices (still more government);
- Abandon central government housing plans and reduce regulations that hinder construction (ok);
- Wasting £20 billion on high speed rail links and stopping a private company from building a third runway at Heathrow airport with its own funds (appalling);
- Scrapping national child database (excellent); and

Boris Johnson has announced a council tax freeze for London.

However one of them blames career women for the breakdown of society.

Oh dear oh dear, doesn't he recall who one of the most successful recent Tory Prime Ministers was?

So it's better than Labour - but that's about it - it can't stop spending money, and it can't stop interfering with the private sector. *sigh*

US taxpayers saved, financial markets sink

The Democrats could have passed the bill on their own - to take US$700 billion from future taxpayers to bail out the foolish borrowings and foolish lendings by US banks, encouraged implicitly by a central bank that kept extending the money supply - but even they couldn't be convinced. Too many saw their constituents demanding why they should be forced to bail out Wall Street. Many more Republicans said the same, and reacted to the lies that this was the result of "8 years of economic mismanagement" as rich little leftwing Democrat Nancy Pelosi bleated. Democrats want this to be painted as the fault of Bush and the Republicans, but their hands are far from clean. This goes back before Bush and even before Clinton - it is a longstanding problem of government growth in the money supply, and the long held belief that the government will step in.

So, according to CNN the Dow Jones has plummeted 7%, it is about time to do some bargain hunting.

Obama and McCain don't know what to do. Obama is trying to make hay from it, McCain is trying to say Obama would spend even more taxpayers' money on new programmes.

The truth is both look like less than Presidential material at the moment - neither give the public confidence in the economic future. Gerald Warner in the Daily Telegraph says that as McCain and Obama both supported the package, US voters chose "none of the above" in putting huge pressure on Congress to say no.

For now the taxpayers have won the battle - the question is what the cost of that will be in the short to medium term.

Nudity legal all over Wellington?

The Hive notes the story that an old bylaw, that is apparently unenforceable, banning nudity for over 8 yos on the beach has been repealed by Wellington City Council. This follows the same action by Kapiti Coast District Council. I assume Lucyna at NZ Conservative wont say its because Kerry Prendergast is a heterosexual National Party member. Mind you, the old bylaw was never enforced - but the publicity in the media means that people now know they can't be arrested for mere nudity - the question is whether it is indecent exposure.

However, to be serious I don't doubt that conservatives will fear this will result in a bout of flashing, perverted showing off and the like. Certainly people ought to not fear other people at the beach, their children especially shouldn't fear others. It shouldn't be a problem, because such aggressive behaviour will remain summary offences. Most Wellingtonians living on the Miramar Peninsula know only too well that Breaker Bay is an unofficial nudist beach. What will be legal is simply going into the water naked, or sunbathing naked, essentially minding your own business. Nudity is not, per se, sexual. Indeed in some contexts it is abundantly beautiful, it leads one to look at it because it is so - it is the difference between those who see nudity and think "porn" (which admittedly the majority of teenage boys probably think), and those who see it and appreciate it for how the human form can be quite exquisite.

Now having said that I doubt if 90% of those who may be nude on a beach in New Zealand would fit that mould for me - and I expect they also aren't being nude to be admired, just to be comfortable, and rather "laissez faire".

The Dominion Post reports that the legal position is more than just beaches, but any public place in Wellington City. Nudity in a park, nudity walking down Lambton Quay. Quelle Horreur!

Now Section 27 of the Summary Offences Act says that indecent exposure is when someone "intentionally and obscenely exposes any part of his or her genitals".

Simply lying on your back in the Botanical Gardens might not be the case, but certainly showing off and drawing attention to your genitals would. Also interestingly, it means breasts are allowed - regardless - they are not genitals.

However regardless of what you think - this is the tragedy of the commons. As long as peaceful people do not initiate force (or threaten it) against each other, the law should not be concerned. Private property rights mean you can control your land, your park, your mall, your shop - but that is where it ends. The solution to concerns about nudity in public is private property rights. The solution to those who think nudity is an opportunity to threaten is the existing criminal law.

Hamish McCracken - Labour's candidate for apostrophe abuse

Hamish McCracken has Labour's number 50 spot, he is also the candidate for Northcote.

Now for Hamish to get elected, Labour has to do a bit better than in 2005, which is a bit optimistic, but not out of the question. He has a profile, photo and a website.

That's when the learning begins. Hamishs’, Hamishs, Hamish’s’s, I mean Hamish’s profile lets Labour down with a fine example of educational failure “I want a society that values it’s people and demonstrates this through first class public health and education.” Well Hamish you need that education to have a promiscuous apostrophe inserting itself where it isn’t wanted.

You see Hamish has no idea how to use apostrophes, which of course makes him qualified to be a university lecturer despite saying on his website “Education policy for me remains the backbone of all else.”

I found where he stole the apostrophe from: “Tomorrows Choice”. Grrr, first class education he has and he’s still failing reasonable literacy standards! Click the annoying policy link and you’ll also find “Workers rights” which doesn’t link to anything at all, like most of the policies where appear non-existent. He also has “many NZer’s lives”, “many of Labours policies”. More illiteracy with “New Zealand has a special role in the pacific” the world’s biggest ocean not deserving of a capital. “one of the worlds first sustainable economies” arrgh when will it end!

How damned hard is it to get your material proof read, or are all those around you a bunch of leftwing unionist grunts?

Well don't worry, Hamish doesn't just lack in literacy.

“I am proud also that in championing sustainability Labour is extending the logic of egalitarianism, not just across society today but down through the generations to come. I want to be part of a government that will lead the world on this issue.” The “logic of egalitarianism”? What is that? It is “logical” that everyone be the same? Yes the Khmer Rouge thought so. “Lead the world on this issue”? Go on Hamish, raise the red flag to egalitarianism, you need it given your poor literacy.

The profile on the Labour website gets the link to his website wrong, but I worked it out. His website says “Hamish also has a passion for Economic Policy. He lectures at the Auckland University of Technology Business School.” Yes, spot the rot in education when the lecturers stand for Parliament. He has been a unionist too (Labour is SO diverse). He channels Tony Blair with “Labour has been tough on crime but more importantly we have been tough on the causes of crime.” Yawn.

He thinks taking money from families to give money to, families is an “investment” “Working for Families package – benefiting 370,000 families and worth $1.1 billion per annum. This is a logical step in encouraging people from welfare into work and an investment in New Zealand families” Yawn. He wants taxpayers to be forced to pay for – Tai Chi! “In times of record house prices” obviously in touch isn’t he?

“Labour supports greater democratisation of the United Nations and strengthened powers for the General Assembly. The current veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council should be abolished.” Oh really? What should the General Assembly be doing? More resolutions against Israel, but none against Zimbabwe, Iran and North Korea? Nice to see another cultural relativist in Labour. Nice to see such enthusiasm for an organisation that treats Libya, Cuba and China on a par with Europe and New Zealand on human rights.

“In Michael Cullen we have a finance Minister who has given significant assistance to kiwi families but who also has carefully shepherded our financial resources” Whose financial resources? Oh that’s right, everyone elses. Oh Hamish, your literacy deprived ravings are interesting, but that’s about it.

Carefully shepherded!

Surely though this has to be the best disclaimer:
“The Labour party has a rigorous policy process whereby we debate ideas and establish the eventual party manifesto. It is the party manifesto that represents the official party policy. While unsurprisingly as a participant in this process I support the manifesto, on this site I have endeavoured to give my own personal views and thoughts so you will know where I stand on issues. In the majority of cases these will be in line with party policy, if however you want official Labour party policy please visit http://www.labour.org.nz”

So it could all be his views, just to protect Labour.

Now Northcote is fairly marginal. National’s Jonathan Coleman took it off Labour’s Ann Hartley by 2383 votes last time, and he should remain fairly comfortably ahead, but it is clearly a seat to watch. National got 43% of the party vote in 2005 against Labour’s 39.1%, so it is a battleground seat for the party vote in particular. Hamish lets Labour down, as a lecturer who can’t use apostrophes or capitalisation where relevant, as a unionist who thinks Michael Cullen “carefully shepherded our financial resources”, this should give his opponents plenty of fuel to fight him over. Thankfully, Hamish has a low chance of getting elected.

3 more Labour candidates - 1 without profile

To continue my series, I thought I'd countdown from numbers 53 to 51 on the Labour Party list.

Chris Yoo – list only- number 53: No profile, no photo, no website, no interest, no chance. Even he doesn’t think Labour will get far over 40% of the vote. This you see, is where you wonder how ambitious Labour is being? If it seriously thinks it is getting this far, why is this candidate without any profile at all?

Errol Mason – Te Tai Hauauru – number 52: Profile and photo. Errol has a long familial link to Labour, and says “It is important for Maori to have a united voice in Government. This Labour Government has delivered great opportunities. More Maori in employment, working for families’ package and affordable health care to name but a few.” Setting aside him wanting to sit in one of the racist seats, his profile is nothing special, but not mindlessly awful either. He has a considerable battle on his hands though. He is up against Tariana Turia who gained 63% of the electorate vote last time, against himself on 33.5%. Party vote in the seat remains mainly Labour with 53.1%, and the Maori Party second on 31.7%. He wont win the electorate, but I kind of wish he would. Turia after all is far away with the fairies.

Erin Ebbor-Gillespie – Wigram – number 51: Profile and photo. “I was motivated to join the Labour party in the late 1990s. I remember the “Mother of All Budgets,” state asset sales and restructuring. It was a dark time in our social history.” Took her a while, since the “Mother of All Budgets” was 1991, asset sales started under a government that included Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, and “restructuring” has happened on a grand scale under this Labour government (look at transport). Silly bint doesn’t understand history or economics, puts her in good stead to run against Jim Anderton though! She’s a family lawyer, which begs the question why she wants to control people’s lives? She concludes “If the self determination of the people is strong, the well being of the people is assured”. Yes Erin, but Labour takes much of the proceeds of people’s “self-determination” and spends it how it sees fit. She’s probably good at her job, but not much sense beyond her own experience.

As long as Jim wants to hang on, she has no chance in Wigram, where Labour comes third behind National in the electorate vote with 19.1%, (Anderton got 47.6%, National 22.2%). For party vote it is different, Labour led in 2005 with 48% of the party vote, so that’ll be what she is chasing. Fortunately it isn’t likely to be enough to get her in.

Less local government

It's only a start for me, but a good one. Stephen Greenhalgh in the Sunday Telegraph reports how he as leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council has:
- Cut council spending by 4%;
- Cut council tax by 3% each year, the past three years;
- Cut council employees by 18%;
- Cut council debt by £20 million;
- Introduced round the clock beat policing resulting in less reported crime;
- Increased satisfaction by residents in council provided activities by 11%.

It was done and continues to be done by seeking "lower taxes, less waste and better services" according to him. Frankly in a UK devoid of interest in dismantling nanny state it IS a great leap forward. Maybe this Conservative Party led council can show some others what that party ought to be about?

National Maori Affairs policy - me too again?

National's Maori Affairs policy (pdf) is no revolution, it talks of the Treaty of Waitangi being the founding document of New Zealand. It talks of continuing to support (read - use your taxes to spend money on) Maori broadcasting, Kohanga Reo and the like which, if you believe in state education, healthcare and broadcasting, can hardly be argued against (you see I'd argue against the lot). However, what is most disconcerting is the euphemism attached to what is the appalling violence, abuse and intergenerational criminal underachievement of the underclass of predominantly Maori families, failing again and again, and worst of all breeding children in a climate of fear, abuse and neglect.

National says "Despite recent achievements, there remain a number of Māori whose ability to participate in the economy and New Zealand society has not enabled them to realise their aspirations". That's telling it like it is - you could say that about everyone of course. My aspiration to be a concert organist isn't matched by my ability.

Oh and if you thought Te Puni Kokiri was a large bureaucracy that employed far too many people with mediocre qualifications and a lack of understanding of economics and hard headed public policy analysis, don't worry National will make it worse!

"TPK has a wide knowledge and understanding of Māori communities, and a regional presence which places it in a strong position to influence and monitor policy. We believe that, in the key areas of health, education, and housing, TPK can help achieve National’s objectives for a growing economy, and Māori aspirations for economic independence and self reliance."

How, by spending more taxpayers' money?

Now I didn't expect anything magic, and there is hope with the statement:

"The National Party believes it shares many values with Māori:
• The recognition of property rights and personal responsibility.
• Economic independence and choice rather than dependency on the state.
• Less state involvement in Māori lives and a preference for community provision of government services.
• The nurturing of strong families, whänau, and communities.
• Engagement in wealth creation, business, and enterprise."

However the policy does little to achieve that, the Nats wont allow education funding to follow the child, they don't allow health funding to follow individual choice, and the notion of reducing state spending seems invisible. Is it, like the Treaty Settlement policy, about keeping the Maori Party happy? Certainly Dr Pita Sharples - friend of convicted Cuban government sponsored murderers - thinks so.

National Treaty Settlement policy - support the Waitangi Tribunal

National's Treaty Settlement policy is back to the past, before 2005 that is, with a promise to conclude settlements by 2014. If this was full and final then that might be a cause to celebrate, but it is just an aim.

It seeks to "Appoint independent settlement facilitators to chair negotiations, keep the process moving forward, and ensure both parties act in good faith." a small step forward, although you may wonder who represents taxpayers in all of this.

However what's most disconcerting is its faith in the Waitangi Tribunal. The Waitangi Tribunal is little better than a kangaroo court, but it wants to provide "more support" to it.

This is a nonsense, as former Waitangi Tribunal member - ex. Labour Cabinet Minister Dr. Michael Bassett might testify:

"the industry doesn’t want the Tribunal process ever to end. After 23 years, no decision has yet been made to close off new historical claims. The major parties dither. Labour wants the party vote of Maori; National isn’t sure they mightn’t need the Maori Party’s support after the coming election. Both major political parties know that what is happening is wrong, and that ordinary Maori in whose name the claims are made, aren’t getting a cracker out of the money being spent on lawyers, researchers and Tribunal staff."

Previously he wrote "Existing claims must be settled as quickly as possible. Stopping fresh historical claims means that full and final settlements already made have a chance of working longer term. The Waitangi process was never intended as a permanent career for lawyers and under-employed “researchers”. It was to assist ordinary Maori whose interests, sadly, are too often over-looked."

National could do worse than listen to a man intimately involved in this process for years, but no - it wants power - it wants to broker a deal with the Maori Party to break Labour's stranglehold on the Maori vote - it will do that by continuing to feed the new Maori state funded aristocracy. National may not do a deal with NZ First (largely because it expects the party to disappear), but it will do one with the Maori Party.

I'll leave the final verdict on that to Dr Bassett:

"When politicians settled on land grievances as the cause of Maori problems they made a mistake. It would have made better sense to examine welfare and the huge damage it has done to Maori society. The Waitangi Tribunal should be scaled down. The industry is of no use to 99% of the people it’s meant to serve. "

Sadly the Maori Party seems unlikely to agree.

National electoral law policy holds glimmers of hope

National has released its electoral law policy which does distinguish it from Labour in a handful of ways, although is also a backtrack from 2005 - again.

First, its press release said it would abolish the Maori seats once the historic Treaty claims are settled, which it anticipates being 2014. However the policy statement (PDF) says "start the constitutional process to wind up the Maori seats". That's not doing much. Better than nothing, but not much more. A future confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party may be why this policy isn't much more, but why give away so much BEFORE negotiations?

Second, it wants a binding referendum on retaining MMP in 2011. Now I don't care either way for this, but interesting how this is more important than doing away with the racially defined Maori seats.

Finally it will repeal the Electoral Finance Act, reverting to the previous Electoral Act 1993 in the interim, before further reform before 2011. The repeal should be celebrated, and is perhaps the biggest reason to vote National in itself, but what comes next remains vague.