Clark and Key stick beaks into private company

Yes it's Contact Energy. It is increasing its directors' fees. It is nobody else's business, it is a private company in a competitive market. If you don't like it, sell the shares or don't buy its electricity.

Clark, the interfering harpie that she is said "This is absolutely extraordinary when the ordinary consumer is extorted over power bills".

How Helen?

Who forces anyone to buy Contact Energy's products?

If you think the ordinary consumer is extorted over power bills, does that include the three power companies your government owns and extracts dividends from?

How about this rudeness? To get paid NZ$250,000 as directors is "many more times than people earn in a hard-working job". Really? Well I earn more than that Helen (albeit in the UK) and I'm hard working, in fact people on high incomes more often than not are.

John Key was more mild mannered but still said "All New Zealanders are being asked to tighten their belts because of economic conditions and I would have thought the directors of Contact would have taken that on board, especially given the price increases that are flowing through to consumers".

No John. All New Zealanders are NOT being asked to tighten their belts. Who is asking them? The Great Leader isn't.

The right response is simple: "Contact Energy is a privately owned company, it can choose how it remunerates directors, managers and staff, and what it charges consumers. Shareholders who disagree can vote at the AGM or sell. Customers who disagree can choose a different power company. It is not for the government to hold a view of what private companies legally do in a competitive open market, especially one when the government owns that company's biggest competitors!"

Only Libertarianz seems to think so.

Smith foolish, but Williamson made sense

Well Lockwood Smith's demotion is hardly surprising. He is one of the most slippery MPs they have, and when he had the chance he didn't confront the teachers' unions as Minister of Education. The man is gutless, and his stupid remarks were always going to be interpreted as him being racist. The left has always harboured a belief that those not on its side are racist, sexist and the rest, but then enough of us know about Smith's gutlessness. Tariana Turia called him racist, which of course is the pot and kettle really.

Williamson on the other hand was expressing nothing shocking at all. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane all have toll roads, Auckland is about to get one thanks to Labour. Labour has done more for tolling than National ever did, but John Key is gutless. He hasn't the courage to stand by his caucus or attack Labour on policy substance. Maurice of course could have avoided talking about how much tolls would be, he would have been better talking about Labour's new regional fuel tax. However, we don't really know if National would abolish it.

Are there any tax rises National would reverse?

Labour's hypocrisy on tolls continues

I like tolls, pricing the roads is user pays after all, and if the roads were properly priced then the ones people want would be properly funded, and the ones too many people wanted would be at a premium, and not gridlocked (and the scope would be there to build more capacity, or for public transport to emerge as competition).

National and Labour both like tolls too, though you wouldn't think so reading Labour's press releases and leftwing blogs which pretend tolls are something Labour know nothing about.

Following National’s pork for Waikato roads announcement, Labour is saying that it thinks National will do it by Public Private Partnerships with tolls, although National said nothing of the sort. (Frankly I’d happily tell the private sector if it wants to build some motorways, paying for it itself and charging tolls, go right ahead without any taxpayer money).

Labour is saying it doesn’t like Public Private Partnerships, despite introducing and passing legislation to allow them six years ago! On top of that Labour announced it would investigate using PPPs to finance the Waterview extension of State Highway 20! It then welcomed a report recommending this approach! In August 2008 Ms King said:

"It seems that Waterview, New Zealand’s largest ever roading project, could well be the first PPP, but the generic blueprint provided by the steering group report could, of course, lead to other examples in the future, such as a new Auckland harbour crossing or Transmission Gully in Wellington"

On top of that, Annette King says National isn’t to be trusted to not toll the remaining sections of the Waikato Expressway. This is hilarious, given that the former Transit New Zealand investigated where across the country tolling COULD be introduced, and one section of the Waikato Expressway came up as being a possibility. Labour has never ruled out tolling parts of the Waikato Expressway.

Indeed it approved tolling the next extension of Auckland's Northern Motorway, and the Transit former website identifies four more roads for tolling.

Then she creates conspiracies “Ms King said she believed the National Party's secret agenda "is to change the law so a free alternative route isn't required when a toll road is built". Why, Ms King, has Labour funded the first and second stages of the Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study, which is specifically about tolling existing roads in Auckland? Not that there is anything at all wrong with this, but Labour isn’t much different from National on this.

She then says “the National Party had opposed the potential increase in non-roading expenditure, like coastal shipping, and rail freight”. Maybe because National believes that taxes collected from road users ought to be spent on roads? What a radical concept! So unfair!

Labour is fighting against National because National talks about tolls – a policy Labour introduced, passed legislation to allow and approved for two toll roads(and surrendered one as the price to pay for NZ First support after the last election). Labour is criticising National because it talks about public private partnerships, a policy Labour introduced and passed legislation to allow.

Labour itself commissioned studies into introducing tolling on existing roads in Auckland. Paul Swain as Transport Minister, in 2003 said:

"Cordon tolls, zone tolling and congestion charging also offer significant potential as both a source of funds and a tool for traffic management."

Indeed, so why the desperate fuss to point the finger at National when you've been funding a project, using motoring taxes, to build a tolling system that will be scalable to more toll roads.

and what is a 10c/l regional fuel tax (12.5c if you include GST) if it isn't a sneaky toll, of around $5-$8 every time you fill your tank up.

Get your pork, Waikato

Oh dear, National disappoints again. It's decided, based on ignoring objective analysis, that it will direct the Waikato Expressway to be built.

Is it the best use of road users' funds? No. Why? Because there are lots of other projects which have a lower profile, do more good for the dollar. Don't know what they are? Of course not, you're no better than a politicians - why would THEY know?

Politicians the world over have played this game. The high profile big road like a totem they support, Peter Dunne has Transmission Gully. The Nats have the Waikato Expressway.

So given I know a bit about it, let's examine it. given National's bizarre policy! The Waikato Expressway HAS been getting built by Labour, albeit a little haphazardly.

Labour says it will build three more sections within 10 years, the sections worth building in fact:
- Rangiriri Bypass: A small section to link the existing section of expressway with a rather well built 3 lane section of highway. Basically means the highway is of a good standard all the way from Huntly to Auckland.
- Ngaruawahia Bypass: A very valuable shortening of the highway, bypassing the deadly slow section through Ngaruawahia.
- Cambridge Bypass: Another valuable bypass, avoiding heavy traffic through this small town and making for a far more direct route south of Hamilton.

Now it would make sense to consider accelerating those, but beyond that National would push these projects:
- Longswamp to Rangiriri: An expensive, very poor value project, unnecessary because accidents along here have been largely avoided by some smaller upgrades. Money could be better spent on saving lives elsewhere on Waikato roads, particularly SH2 and SH3.
- Huntly Bypass: A very expensive hilly bypass of Huntly. Basically to relieve the township of through traffic, but at what cost? Over $300 million? The congestion isn't that bad, at all. Again, that money could be spent on plenty of congestion relieving projects in Hamilton city itself.
- Hamilton Bypass: An even more expensive pie in the sky project. Hamilton has a rather half complete western bypass. Parts are being upgraded and more is to come. That's because much traffic entering Hamilton starts and finishes there. However what National wants to support is a big four lane motorway to the east of Hamilton, going nowhere near it. You'll notice there is a signposted eastern bypass already called SH1B, it is far from congested today. At best this project has a benefit/cost ratio of 1:1, meaning that, if all goes to plan, if it doesn't go over cost, it will generate enough savings to motorists to be worthy of the cost.

However what is telling about ALL of these is National isn't willing to use tolls to fund them. A Hamilton eastern bypass could never be built as a toll road given current traffic predictions because there isn't enough willing to pay to justify spending over $400 million on the road. The same for the planned mountain range climber Huntly bypass. If the likely users wont pay, why the hell should you?

National once passed legislation that prohibited the Transport Minister from ever influencing what road projects got funded, to avoid this sort of nonsense. National once supported taking the roads even further from political hands, and the highways being run as a commercial business - setting tolls, and enabling motorists and trucking companies to contract directly for road services, and getting fuel tax refunds in the process.

Now it's back to old Muldoonist style Think Big projects, showing it isn't thinking, it's buying votes with stinking pork. Don't be fooled, these big projects seem glamorous, but they take money from the roads fund that would otherwise go on hundreds of smaller projects, to fix dangerous bends, add useful passing lanes, strengthen bridges, and not a few better value larger projects - like the Maramarua bypass, Petone-Grenada link road and Schedewys Hill bypass north of Auckland.

However not enough people have heard of those, unlike the Waikato Expressway and I suspect Transmission Gully. On this, National is no better than Labour.

Is nobody going to....

Delve the depths of aesthetic political incorrectness and ask....

Who is the hottest female political candidate in the 2008 New Zealand General Election?

Public health care + ACC = no accountability

This appalling set of cases reported in the NZ Herald are not the sort of thing Michael Moore describes when he waxes lyrically about how socialised health care is so wonderful. Take this:

"Patient 1 - Aug 2006: A suspected retinal detachment in Whangarei is referred to specialists at Auckland DHB.

Ten days later: No word from Auckland; patient asks Whangarei doctor to follow up. Auckland confirm they have the referral.

Feb 2007: Still no action from Auckland. Patient again asks doctor what is happening. By then the condition has worsened too much for the treatment.

Nov 2007: Patient's left eye is removed."

It can be explained, at one level, by the following.

- Capture by providers, who get funded according to what bureaucracies recommend, and certainly not based on what consumers want;
- ACC protecting providers from being sued.

ACC, you see, is an absolute travesty. It provides a one-size fits all socialised insurance scheme, where you get what the scheme dictates - because you couldn't have chosen another provider. The insurer doesn't claim it from the incompetent or the incompetent's insurer (which is ACC too), doesn't hike up the premiums from the incompetent. The incompetent says sorry, and the victim loses an eye.

Yes, fantastic system, so low cost - except for the victim of medical malpractice.

Yes, in the USA it would take months for a lawsuit to proceed, maybe years with appeals. However, the incompetent ones would seek to settle, to avoid those costs, and the mere fact of having to face up to these costs directly changes behaviour.

ACC is the socialist way of spreading the cost of accidents among everyone, including those who don't cause them, don't have them, and the costs for victims are flattened, ironed out, so you don't get more than "your share".

It needs to be opened up to competition, at all levels, so that people can choose the cover they want, so insurers can charge premiums according to risk, so that the incompetent face their costs, and others do not.

In the meantime, it will be simply another "oh we're very sorry" to those who lose an eye, have cancer spread potentially fatally, and have another stroke.

At this election, ACC has barely a mention. National will consider re-opening the employers' account to competition, which wont touch this. ACT would open all of ACC up to competition, which would make a difference. Libertarianz would open all of ACC up to competition, privatise it and restore the right to sue.

So what do you think? Would competition in ACC be enough, or should health professionals face being sued for their incompetence? I don't mean the crazy subjectivist US tort cases where people sue for their OWN incompetence, but clearly establishing on the balance of probabilities that the other party has been unreasonably negligent.

What is rich?

I was astonished a few years ago when visiting part of my family in the provincial south and discovering that it was generally thought among them all that NZ$60k per annum was high income. Given that at the time, even though I was still living in New Zealand, I was comfortably above that income, I was slightly embarrassed, for fear that said relatives (who I love dearly) would think I was living the high life, when I most certainly was not.

I never considered that paying the mortgage on a three bedroom house in Northland, Wellington, an annual overseas trip, regular domestic trips, occasionally buying new appliances and clothes to be an extravagance. Indeed, at the time I eagerly gathered airpoints so my overseas trips could be upgraded, and was remarkably frugal.

Of course the UK offers much more, although it is dangerous to do the simple NZ$-£ conversion and think one is wealthy. If I do that it seems crazy, but Purchasing Power Parity is far different between London and Wellington.

So that's why Cactus Kate's post on the pathetic SST piece on how to earn NZ$100k a year is apt. NZ$100k is not good money, it is £36k - which is only slightly more than a good teacher would earn in the UK.

New Zealand has a currency that has a poor value. This, of course, is seen as wonderful by exporters simply because it makes it easier to compete with others. This, strangely, wasn't a concern in the 1970s when the NZ$ and A$ were on a par, and when the £ and NZ$ were at a 2:1 ratio, instead of 2.5-3:1. However, the quid pro quo of a low dollar is that, in reality, your buying power is low. Buying capital goods is more difficult, travel is more difficult. The result is the quality of life is reduced because less can be bought, which is why (until the recession), tourism from the UK boomed. British tourists saw a bargain paying as little as £750 to fly to NZ (less than flying premium economy to the USA) and everything being relatively "cheap". Some were more than willing to pay double that or more to fly premium economy for what was to them the most epic flight they would ever do - which is why Air NZ has expanded premium economy on its long haul jets three times.

Which brings me back to NZ. Salaries are lower because the cost of living is lower, competition for positions is lower, and expectations are lower. I have seen an enormous difference in standards among some people I have worked with the UK compared to NZ, but I have also seen the UK have (in government in particular) absolute fools who seem to comprise an extended make work scheme. Yes, bureaucracy in the UK is occupied by many people who are less competent, intelligent and experienced than their NZ counterparts. Hardly surprising really, as outside high echelons of major departments, the public sector pays NZ levels of salary.

The Labour Party, Greens and other parties who drink yard glasses of envy whenever they meet, like to berate the "rich", painting to those, like my South Island relatives, that those who are even moderately successful should have their wages pillaged to pay for the lumpen proletariat to have schools, superannuation and health care that frankly, they can't afford in the 21st century.

UK exporters can sell goods at a high price because they are perceived to be high quality - selling them in pounds sterling. It is about time New Zealanders stop aspiring to be selling lots of what is cheap to the world, and started selling what isn't. Most of the developed world doesn't worry about their higher exchange rates, if you aim high you can earn them too!

Life's unfair

Green Party

Life's unfair - it's because heterosexual white men in suits are greedy and want everything for themselves, and "their system" means they can only get ahead by oppressing and exploiting others. If they had their own way they'd sell children, enslave women and treat all other races as slave labour too - Life can be made fair, if only you give us all the power we ask for, in the hands of the state, and we'll make it fair, we'll make sure it's fair.

Libertarianz

Life's unfair - it's reality, get over it - Life can't be made fair. Those who say it can be are trying to con you, and the only way they can try is by having more power over your life.

and all those in between?

Labour

Life's unfair - that's because periodically you elect the National Party, and they are greedy, want everything for their rich, foreign mates, and are only too happy to watch poor working class people, like us, work hard physical jobs for pitiful amounts of money while our kids go to school without shoes and breakfast. Life can be made MORE fair, by trusting in the Labour Party. Keeping us in government forever.

National

Life's unfair - that's because periodically you elect the Labour Party, and they are greedy, and want everything so that bureaucrats, unionists and others who don't know how lucky they are under National, can spend money willy nilly on doing everything wrong. They don't know the kiwi way, they weren't born to rule, we were. - Life can be made MORE fair, by trusting in the National Party. We'll see you right.

Maori Party

Life's unfair - that's because of British colonialism, which still exists and still applies, and denies the Tangata Whenua the wonders of the paradise civilisation of Aotearoa that existed before the imperialist genocide merchants arrived. The Labour Party have taken us for granted as well - Life can be made MORE fair, by giving us the chance to inflict impose use power trusted in us by the people.

NZ First

Life's unfair - It's all the bloody foreigners stealing our jobs, unreasonably paying market prices for our land, setting up businesses, contributing meaningfully to society and showing up half of us for the semi-literate knuckle draggers that we are. They trample on the elderly, run them over and steal their pensions, after all remember how those slanty eyed people were during the war - you can't trust them! - Life can be made MORE fair, give Winston a chance, again, for the third time. He's the reincarnation of Rob Muldoon, and he was fair.

United Future

Life's unfair - I left the Labour Party because it went leftwing under Helen Clark, I joined up with 6 other ex Labour and National MPs to be a real centrist party called United, and only I got elected in 1996. Again in 1999. Then I joined with some Christians and went in with Labour in 2002, then some left and I was down to three, now I think it will just be me. It's so unfair. I am the centrist party, the party that every coalition should live or die on - Life can be made more fair, vote for United Future!

Greens rule out Nats - thankfully

Jeanette Fitzsimons states the obvious, courting the Labour vote, at a time when the Greens look like a party of Nanny State loving control freaks. The Greens clearly feel confident that they can play a strong role with Labour, as it is highly likely neither NZ First nor United Future would be adequate to give Labour a majority after the election.

The NZ Herald report says the Greens said "both major parties scored poorly on genetic engineering and food safety issues." Thankfully again, as the Greens are on the wacko fringe on both, obsessed with opposing GE, and obsessed with food safety (but not if it is organic).
"National did worse than Labour on climate change, energy efficiency and road building." Again, thankfully. Though I see little difference in all of those, notice road building is bad, not poor quality transport spending. The Greens are experts at that.

Take the most twisted perverted version of the truth the Greens have in saying National supported to "change the legislation in order to make sure NZ homes stay cold and damp".

Yes! Stupid me, you are no longer allowed to pay to insulate your own home. In the Green world of state socialism, only the government can make sure your home is cold and damp.

Complete nonsense!

More ominously the Greens see a lot in common with the Maori Party "and would consider negotiating as a bloc if that was something the other party wanted." Given Maori give precious little support to the Greens, I'd have thought there was little point in the Maori Party supporting this and being tied to Labour.

John Key warned people to be "very cautious of that arrangement because that means Helen Clark is going to be prepared to sell your jobs down the river and economic growth is going to go on the backburner" which is putting it mildly.

Of course I'm glad Jeanette Fitzsimons has ruled out giving confidence and supply to National, National wasn't going to rule out governing with the Greens after all!

Rule out tax rises, go on

With PWC NZ Chairman John Shewan saying GST would have to go up to 15% and the top tax rate to 45% to fund the big spending promises of both parties, you do have to wonder if that was a strategic press release designed to undermine Labour's one time pledge to spend up large.

Thankfully that seems to have evaporated, perhaps as taxpayers didn't respond well to the government spending up big when others can't afford to.

Curiously, John Key didn't rule it out, just saying that if National does a half decent job at growing the economy, raising GST wouldn't be necessary. He should have said that National would rather cut waste and be more efficient than increase tax.

ACT - no tax cuts for two years?

ACT's launched its campaign, it's clearly aiming for the disenchanted National supporters who want more than Labour lite. With Sir Roger Douglas at number three on the list it definitely tempts those who want less government to give Roger a second go, if only to give National the coalition partner it ought to have, instead of the Maori Party or Peter Dunne.

Rodney Hide's interview with the NZ Herald certainly seems promising. For the first time in ages I have seen an ACT leader prepared to be honest about health:

"I believe that the state health system has been a failure and that what it does is take our money and then ration health care by queuing us up in pain and agony. "

Indeed.

"I much prefer that we use the private system and focus the Government's attention on ensuring that everyone has access."

Sounds a lot like Unfinished Business, and is half of the libertarian solution. It is one I can see being a big leap forward for healthcare. So what else is new? Well it's all in this policy PDF.

Well ACT wants to keep growth in government spending capped to inflation, EXCEPT for law and order and a one off injection into health spending. Hardly ambitious, something National ought to embrace if we were lucky. This means government growing slower than GDP. Oh how far we have slipped back when this is seen as radical.

39% top tax rate would be gone immediately, again good, but National voted against this tax rate and isn't promising to abolish it.

Then two years of NO tax cuts. Yes ACT offers you nothing till 2011. Presumably it's about fiscal prudence, because after then there is a rolling programme of cuts to a flat rate of 15% by 2018 (12.5% on the first NZ$20,000). Yes 10 years from now! Yes better than nothing, but this ought to be mainstream. National supporters should be embracing this.

GST down to 10% as well, in the same timeframe. Hmmm, public servants really have nothing to fear.

However there is one gem in ACT's policy, but not one I expect the mainstream media to publicise widely.

It is offering a taxfree threshold of NZ$25,000 for those who want to opt out of ACC, the right to claim sickness benefits and state healthcare. It talks of offering a top up for such people to cover their children too for all of that, and education.

So, a chance to opt out of nanny state. THAT is revolutionary, but in parallel with two years of no tax cuts, it is hidden in the mix.

This is what National should be offering, at the very least slower growth in government spending, progressively lower tax cuts to a low flat level, and the chance to opt out of state provided health cover. However ACT should be offering more. ACT offered a flat tax in 1996. It should be pushing for tax cuts every year. It should be calling for serious cuts in spending.

I did think that there was much promise with Rodney Hide, and with Roger Douglas back on board, and yes, ACT shows National what a change in direction could be.

However, it remains profoundly disappointing. I do not see the point in voting for no tax cuts for two years, besides abolishing the 39% top rate.

Zimbabwe writhing like a tortured corpse

The world turned away for a while, after Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai signed a power sharing deal - a deal that seemed incredible to most of us, that the murdering tyrant would surrender any real power to his popular nemesis. I wrote at the time that I feared Tsvangirai being cauterised like Mugabe did to Joshua Nkomo in the early 1980s. Mugabe wants Tsvangirai for two reasons:
1.) To shut up the international community and present the facade of power sharing, whilst maintaining a monopoly grip on power;
2.) To obtain booty in the form of loans, aid and trade from the world to boost his destroyed economy, claiming credit for as President for the revival, and being able to damn Tsvangirai if it goes wrong.

Tsvangirai isn't playing ball, much to the chagrin of Mugabe and his idiot mate, Thabo Mbeki.

Mbeki remains confident, he can't see why his murderous mate can't have what he wants, and can't see the absurdity of a negotiation between a murderers and the one leading the victims, led by a friend of the murderer.

Mugabe chose to hold onto defence, foreign affairs, home affairs (Police, courts, media, local government, land policy and the mining sector) and offered to hand over finance. Tsvangirai insisted on also having home affairs. He could not countenance the corrupt judiciary, electoral system and police forces remaining in the hands of the man who used them against his own people.

The Economist writes that Mbeki should stand down, as he is a lame duck politically, and that Kofi Annan should step into the mediating role. Meanwhile, 80% of the population is unemployed, a quarter of the population has fled across the porous borders, the media remains tightly under Mugabe's control, spreading lies about the negotiations, and people are on the verge of mass starvation.

Inflation is 231 million % per annum. That's over 5% a day, every day, cumulative. Doesn't sound much? That means prices double in just over nine days. After another six weeks, prices have gone up tenfold. In another 6 weeks it is one hundred fold.

Zimbabwe is sadly an ongoing disaster, and more power to Tsvangirai if he can hold Mugabe to account - but it still shows the place will be better when the old tyrant has a bullet through his skull, and his murderous comrades can be strung up and their ill gotten gains given back to those who they stole them from.

Economist gives McCain one last chance

The Lexington column in this week's Economist gives John McCain some advice. I can only hope he takes it.

Basically it reminds us that Reagan was 8 points behind Carter 10 days before the 1980 election. Tells him what not to do (forget dumb populism, forget attacking Obama's links to dodgy people) and to look forward in three ways:

1) Obama is one of the least business-friendly Democrats in a generation. Obama has been close to the union movement, which has strongly supported his campaign. It is calling for the end to secret ballots and the removal of laws prohibiting closed shops. During these times of low business confidence this is the last the USA needs, and Obama's credentials for letting business be free are low.

2) Having one party control the Presidency and both houses of Congress is not preferable if you want to ensure accountable government. McCain could usefully veto pork barrel budgetary matters, but most importantly Americans have rarely allowed one party to control both legislatures and the White House.

3) Obama has never taken on his own party, or even seriously tried. As a Senator he has voted Democrat 97% of the time, an astonishing result. McCain is known to be a maverick in his own party. The odds are Obama could be the vehicle for the most leftwing administration since the 1960s. Obama has not at all demonstrated that he can be a maverick and confront the mainstream of his party - defeating Hilary Clinton was a personal not a philosophical mission.

McCain can fight a respectable campaign and could, on balance, win, just. However he is running out of time, and chances.

Powell and Hitchens nailing more into McCain's campaign coffin

The Sunday Telegraph reports that long standing Republican, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell is endorsing Barack Obama. Powell talked of Obama's "ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America". This contrasts with McCain's lacklustre approach to the economy "Almost every day he had a different approach to the problems we were having". I suspect Powell is looking to be part of the incoming administration, and indeed it may be the case that if an Obama victory happens we would all be better off if Powell was part of it.

Meanwhile, strong supporter of the war to topple Saddam Hussein, writer Christopher Hitchens is also backing Obama in his Slate column. Hitchens loathes the Clintons, and is no friend of Bush, but backed Bush over Iraq. He feels pity for McCain's performance:

"Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear had to feel sorry for the old lion on his last outing and wish that he could be taken somewhere soothing and restful before the night was out."

It appears that McCain's selection of Sarah Palin has been the death knell of McCain's credibility to Hitchens:

"It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses."

So, Hitchens supporting the man who opposed the war in Iraq? Well he believes Obama can be convinced to change, Hitchens is no "true believer":

"I used to call myself a single-issue voter on the essential question of defending civilization against its terrorist enemies and their totalitarian protectors, and on that "issue" I hope I can continue to expose and oppose any ambiguity. Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke."

Only a few weeks ago Hitchens called Obama "vapid, hesitant and gutless" in that he doesn't ask questions straight and clear. I suspect Hitchens has largely been too disappointed by McCain and angered by Palin to go anywhere else.

Now I want to know what the Ayn Rand Institute thinks. I'm betting it will back Obama too. It's backed Kerry and Gore in the last two elections.

Labour's talent continues numbers 24-20

Yes people, I haven't forgotten getting through the Labour list. So...

Sua William Sio – Mangere – number 24: Profile only (and facebook). Nothing about Sua on the profile but “I will strive with you to build a strong, safe, inclusive and vibrant society where we are united in our diversity. A society where our children receive the best opportunities to achieve economic independence and reach their fullest potential. Where our families will access to jobs with incomes that will sustain them into the future. Where the elderly, sick, disabled, destitute and weak are protected and supported with access to affordable housing, education, healthcare, and transportation.” Now this was David Lange’s electorate and Taito Philip Field’s so this will be more interesting. Field got a staggering 70.6% of the vote in 2005, with Labour getting 72.9% of the party vote. Against that, Clem Simich wasn’t getting more than 13% and National 13.6%. So the issue is whether Sio can unseat Field. Field’s personal standing is clearly high, but without Labour it will lose a lot of cache. Prediction: I don’t want to say too close to call, but the record of incumbent independents holding on in NZ is rather poor. Field has no support outside his electorate, but his electorate has uncharacteristically strong support for him. The question is whether Mangere votes for the man or votes for Labour - I suspect more will tick Labour and Sio, than remember Field.

Mita Ririnui – Waiariki – number 23: Profile and photo. Mita is a sitting list MP. “My parents instilled very strong religious and political views in myself and my 9 siblings and I believe it has been through this, that I made my transition into politics.” So he hasn’t changed his views from them? Good to know he questions his own orthodoxy. Hmmm.
“I began my adult working career in the private sector, working at numerous levels. I then shifted into the public service in the early 90’s and progressed until deciding to enter into politics.” Hmmm not a great path really.

“My main focus is Maori development, whether it is through Treaty Settlement, developing and providing quality health, education and social services or any other facet of public service and politics. Maori development has been and will always remain my main focus within politics.” Which is, of course, why you want him elected on the list vote, which will be what happens again. Mita believes in big government, nothing new or exciting there. Mita lost this seat to Te Ururoa Flavell of the Maori Party in 2005, by 54.6% to 39.5%, a rather substantial margin. Though Labour did get 53.1% against 30.8% for the Maori Party. This is unlikely to be reversed. Prediction: Mita wont unseat Flavell, he'll be another Labour list MP.

Sue Moroney – Hamilton East- number 22: Photo, profile and believe it or not she is an MP! Yes, who’d have thought, she did so much. She is an another ex trade unionist, and trainer of health and safety personnel. “ I am committed to constantly improving our public health system. I am also a keen advocate of the need to improve wages for all hard-working New Zealanders.” Which she thinks is about making bosses pay more, the petty Marxist that she is. “In my first term of Parliament I have ensured that all workers get the right to decent breaks at work. I have also secured $4m of Government funding for Stage II of the Waikato Innovation Park at Ruakura and $9.8m for the clean-up of Te Aroha's toxic Tui Mine.” Really? Because those slave bosses make it so hard for them? Oh or is it the 30-40% of taxes taken from them to pay for what you want to spend their money on. Oh dear, she’s not the brightest spark. Take this from her maiden speech (yes she is currently a list MP):

"Strictly speaking, the term political correctness means the correcting of power. Power is corrected when rights and recognition are given to those who previously didn’t have them and this has the effect of taking power out of the hands of the few and putting it in the hands of the many. Therefore, when I hear people complaining about something being “politically correct” I know that they are worried it will pass some power onto another group. It’s called power sharing and I’m all for it."

She likes power. You must wonder why anyone would want power over anyone else. National’s David Bennett took this seat from Dianne Yates in 2005, with 51.1% of the vote against 36.8%, so Moroney has little chance. National won the party vote on 45.4% against Labour’s 35.5% as well. Prediction: Moroney will be a list MP, again, sadly.

Raymond Huo – number 21 list only: Profile only, no photo or website link (but he does have a website). Raymond is a Chinese born lawyer. “Raymond believes the Labour Party’s vision of strong and inclusive communities is important to everyone given that it promotes understanding between the diverse groups that cal New Zealand home. His professional background and track record helps bridge the now Asian community and the wider communities.” So if you’re a Chinese candidate it is only about diversity, not policies, not trust, not a vision of what government should and shouldn’t do? Hmmm nothing much to see here. He’s clearly a clever guy, but what does she stand for, other than he’s not a petty Marxist unionist like most of his comrades will be. He immigrated from Beijing in 2004 – it would be interesting to know why. Raymond's website says that he supports Labour because "They have a vision of building a strong and inclusive community and I share that passion". I hope he hasn't joined Labour because he thinks you need to join the ruling party to get anywhere in politics. Prediction: He’s in on the list of course.

Jacinda Ardern – number 20 list only: Profile and a website called kiwivote.co.uk. She is working for the British government using my money! It’s so clever, it pretends to help overseas kiwis vote then says “We'll throw our hands up now and declare that we're biased. Here at kiwivote we support a labour led government. They're better by far.” Oh those big Labour banners fooled me. “A job that will continue when she heads back to New Zealand to run as a candidate in the Waikato.” Funny that, she isn't an electorate candidate.
“Over the past few years I've been lucky enough to travel the world working in international politics” doing what?? “We must continue to play an active role on the world stage, through a strong and independent foreign policy, and we must work to strengthen and protect our clean, green environment.” Oh an ambitious anti-American greenie, nice. Just what those successful expats want, someone voting for New Zealand to become more leftwing, like the UK! Prediction: She’s going to get elected, a young leftwing Labour MP. Can't have too many of those of course!

My overall sensation is why? Why do you all want to run other people's lives? What do you gain from wanting to do things to people, spend their money, regulate? Why oh why? At least not all of you are unionists.

You're your own sex offender

The United States sadly has far too many stories like this. Sadly too many on the conservative right is only too quick to resist any reforms to address it.

Cases of child sexual abuse are always cause for concern, when children are violated and harmed it rightfully causes outrage. The law is based on a simple precept, that those under the age of consent only engage in illegal sexual behaviour because they have been forced or persuaded by some perverted adult. It is, of course, a nonsense. The law draws a line for certainty and to protect (and deter) against such activity, but it doesn't draw a line between sexual innocence and precocity.

This is why law and order conservatives ought to think carefully before they embark on mandatory sentences, mandatory sex offenders' registers and the like.

A New Jersey girl of 15 has been arrested for taking nude photos of herself and distributing them. You see she has a cellphone with a camera, as do many (if not most) her age, and so she snapped away and forwarded them on to some of her peers. Incredibly, she has spent a weekend in jail and is charged with producing child pornography (illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material), a second-degree felony, and possession of criminal tools, a fifth-degree felony. She could face being a registered sex offender and being required to register her address for 20 years, and being screened for a whole host of employment.

She is being treated no differently than if a man twice her age had done it. Why? Well combine the understandable visceral outrage about sex offences against minors, a complete wilful blindness about the sexuality of minors (who have always shown off and experimented in fairly harmless and embarrassing ways) and zero tolerance for crime, and these things slip in.

Worse "the investigation into the incident remains open, including exploring whether charges will be filed against the minors who received the photos." Yes, you didn't even ask for it and you're a criminal!

Yes, there are problems when children are violated, yes it needs to be deterred, but this?

and it isn't just because it is in Licking Valley - I kid you not.

Vile extension of Green population policy

Is this.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. It's an organisation that believes the best future will be when people decide not to breed, so the earth is without humanity at all. It's logo is disturbingly Orwellian.

" Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom. When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons. "

Could there be a philosophy that is more anti-life, anti-achievement, anti-reason? Now the difference between this movement and, those who would murder to achieve this end is the MEANS not the end. The website goes further, in language that wouldn't be out of place on the Green Party website:

"The Movement is voluntary. We are promoting reproductive freedom, not "population control".

The Movement is life-affirming and will benefit all life. We are not advocating suicide, nor an increase in human deaths.

The Movement is pro-child. Every existing child deserves a good life.

The Movement is pro-parent. Existing children are in need of good parents.

The Movement is opposed to bad stuff."

It just wants humanity to die off.

Go on, ask your local Green candidate if it wouldn't be better if nobody ever had children. Ask if the earth would be a better place if there were no people around to appreciate it. Ask why your local Green candidate has chosen to breed, if he or she has done so.

Banality of Green population policy

So what are the Greens up to?

A population policy (not family policy)- which of course in itself implies that one is needed. The overall tone is disturbingly collectivist and Leninist in outlook. It harks of course to the nonsense that is Malthus. Statements like "Ministry of the Environment current modelling estimates put our carrying capacity at 5.7 million" imply that somehow if that population is above that "something bad will happen". One of the principles is "New Zealand's population should not exceed the ecological carrying capacity of the country".

What does that mean? Who does this "carrying"? Besides which, consider the central planning behind this principle and the whole policy.

It continues... "Uneven regional distribution of the population will be remedied through regional development measures" Yes, vee cannot have zee uneven population diztribution can we comrades? No. It vill be REMEDIED! Who distributes this population? Actually it is individual decisions - people choose to live where they want. It's called freedom you planning zealots. What the hell is a "regional development measure" other than perhaps:
- Laws banning development where people want to live?
- Subsidies bribing people to develop where they don't want to live?
- Taxes discouraging people from living where they do want to live?

You'd think property prices would be a clue, but no, the authoritarian planning fetishists don't believe that's enough.

It continues "Informed decisions about family size and spacing will be made by the parents concerned" Will they?? You see I would have thought that when Keith Locke says "it would be quite wrong to take from this that we are asking parents to have less kids" that he's wrong.

Read it yourself.

Of course i'd make one simple point - if you care so much about the size of families and people breeding, why they hell do you want to increase subsidies for people who do breed?

Let parents make their own decisions and, amazingly, pay for them.

Either your stupid, or you have some fetish for centrally planning and managing everything, control freaks that you are. You LIKE people being dependent on the state - which you think is some proxy parent or version of society. You LIKE making people pay to your beloved leviathan state, telling people how to live their lives, how best to live, how to meet with the plans of "society".

It's about time this benevolent, loving the trees nonsense was revealed for what it is, a barely shrouded desire to grow a big Nanny State that has policies on absolutely everything.

It ISN'T based on results, it ISN'T based on empirical evidence, it ISN'T based on science, it ISN'T based on anything beyond an ideological fervour to control.

It is statism through and through.

New Zealand doesn't need a population policy, it doesn't need you telling families how to live their lives when you want to force GOOD families to pay more taxes to pay welfare to all families, including abusive, negligent, lazy and even criminal ones. You treat everyone the same, except you want to tax the successful and control them, and pay more money to the least successful, the ones that aren't responsible. You want the state to reward the bad, and penalise the good.

Green policy promotes violence - but it is the violence of the state regulating, taxing, compelling and threatening. It promotes state control and authoritarianism, despite proclaiming peace and justice. It is, basically, a bunch of do-gooding control freaks in love with the idea of pushing people around with the state, instead of convincing people to make different choices, voluntarily, and tolerating when they don't.

The Green Party is, undoubtedly, the party of an intrusive invasive and disturbingly ubiquitous Nanny State.

Greens and the dole

Ah remember the days when Sue Bradford was a professional protestor. Once heading the "union" called the "Unemployed Workers' Union" (which since I was a kid I always found oxymoronic - you're not a worker if you're not actually working), which was simply a leftwing protest group.

Now of course she defends the "right" of people to receive an income confiscated from other people. According to the NZ Herald, she doesn't like the suggestion by the Maori Party that the unemployment benefit be scrapped. Tariana Turia said "I'm opposed to the dole. I have to be very frank with you - I don't think it is healthy for the spirit of our people, to be getting money for doing nothing".

Indeed, although make work schemes may only be slightly better - they are at least paying people for doing, what may be lowly productive work, but still work.

By contrast, defender of the demanding welfare recipients Sue Bradford describes the Green Party policies which are pretty simple:
- Government to create jobs (presumably by taking money from those with jobs);
- Nobody be "forced" to work for a living;
- Increase welfare benefits (so you get more for not working for a living);
- Forcing taxpayers to pay for the voluntary sector.

The Greens believe in more state dependency, they believe that you should be forced to pay for people to live and those people shouldn't be forced to do anything for it.

Bradford clearly thinks people on benefits are useless saying abolishing the dole would mean "we will see family breakdown, child poverty, crime, begging and homelessness at levels way beyond anything we can conceive of at present". Family breakdown doesn't happen at record levels? Beneficiaries are criminals we are paying off to not rob us? Which of course means Sue wouldn't actually do anything herself to help these poor people - she wants you to be forced to help them, in exchange for them doing nothing.


Tariana Turia, to her credit, has seen the poverty of ambition and aspiration this has produced for two generations. Although the Maori Party is full of statists, and lacks any common philosophical thread (other than a primary concern for Maori), it does have the advantage of being, somewhat, open minded. Although let's not use the railways for jobs shall we?

The Greens think, cynically, that they can get the vote of unemployed Maori, because they will protect the dole and increase it, and so that would be cool then right?

No. Even at the last election, when National campaigned against the Maori seats, National won more party votes than the racist, identity politics laden Greens, in every Maori seat. That tells you how enthused about the Greens Maori voters are.

Key cuts to bureaucracy?

Hmmm it swings all over the place doesn't it - National policy I mean. One week government spending cuts aren't going to happen, and now the NZ Herald states "National would ask state sector bosses to find savings in their departments" and John Key "would call state sector chief executives in to talk with him after the election and ask them for a "line by line" of their expenditure with an aim to make savings."It's very important that we get value for money because that's what New Zealanders are being forced to do around their kitchen tables every day,""

Great stuff! Just what is needed, in fact not dissimilar to what I recommended a while ago. Get every departmental head to justify its existence and budget, and cut projects.

You know it is good policy because one of the biggest advocates of making you pay for people who don't actually produce anything you want to pay for growing bureaucracy, the PSA, is bleeting utter nonsense "If people lose their jobs because of the crisis, they will need support from public services to ensure they can feed their families and to try and get them back into the workforce".

Excuse me? If you lose your job, it is important that we continue to tax you on what you earn, invested and buy so that we can give you help you weren't willing to pay for in the first place? Besides that - how many policy advisors help people feed their families?

No, the PSA should shut up and be accountable to the people who pay their wages - they are called taxpayers, and if they vote for a change in government one reason will be because they are fed up with the PSA thinking taxpayers can be milked endlessly to pay for their jobs.

What will happen to the Maori seats?

So let me get it clear. Let's assume National forms a government after the election. There are several configurations, but the following appear possible. However, what will happen to the Maori seats under these options?

1. National majority government: Maori seats stay until Treaty settlements process concluded. So no change over that term.
2. National coalition/confidence & supply agreement with Maori Party (or Greens): Maori seats stay.
3. National coalition/confidence & supply agreement with ACT: Who knows?

Only Libertarianz explicitly has as its policy (I can't find it on the ACT website, so am happy to be corrected) to abolish the Maori seats and Maori electoral roll, so Maori votes can be counted as with all others, in both electorates and the party vote. So that's where good National Party policy came from in 2005 and has gone again.

Oh and if you think it is racist, then ask the Royal Commission on the Electoral System which saw implementing MMP as rendering the Maori seats as unnecessary, with a 4% party threshold that could be suspended for Maori political parties (hmmm).

Winston's old tune

The NZ Herald reports Winston calling for immigration to be cut to "protect NZ jobs". How big a yawn can that be? Immigration is by and large good, because as long as your immigration policy does not open up the welfare state to the world, immigrants tend to be better motivated and harder working than locals - especially those who never leave!

I have a very simple approach to immigration. It is a halfway house whilst there still is compulsory state health, education and welfare.

You are welcome to New Zealand if:
1) You have no criminal convictions for offences that would be violent/sexual/property/fraud offences if they happened in New Zealand. A false declaration to this effect will result in deportation;
2) You accept you are ineligible for welfare, state health, housing and education (including for your family). After three years you are either eligible or you receive a tax credit to recognise your self sufficiency from the state (which also can be offered to current residents);
3) You have employment or sufficient funds to provide for yourself and your family (jointly if a couple) for three months, including an airfare to your previous resident country;
4) You swear allegiance to not engaging in any criminal activity, under threat of deportation.

After all, if an immigrant isn't a criminal and doesn't claim from the taxpayer, then why would you NOT welcome them?

Unless you're just a whinging xenophobic loser?

Green's uncosted transport policy

Well so you may think, the Greens have launched a transport plan for Auckland without a single cost for construction, let alone any (undoubted) subsidies for ongoing operations. Like a bunch of 13 year olds doing a project.

So the tooth fairy might fund it, because the Greens don’t give a damn about costs. Benefits? No. The Greens haven’t evaluated the proposal, you don’t get to see how many minutes travel time you might save, how much emissions will reduce, even how much it would cost to ride this gold plated transport system. I don't mean exact economic appraisal, but some ballpark so that it can be rebutted.

No – the Greens just say that you’ll get less congestion, cleaner air, “healthier lifestyles” (you’ll walk more) and a rather sinister “more room on the roads for essential travel” (they know when your travel is essential and when it is trivial – the petty fascists that they are).

How can they possibly be taken seriously on this? Like I’ve said time and time again, it is religious worshipping of rail. However they’ve outdone themselves this time. Some blatant mistakes:
- Funding will shift from ratepayers to government, reducing the burden on ratepayers (but no mention of taxpayers);
- The Waterview connection of SH20 is mentioned for scrapping, except their own map indicates a motorway on that route – for buses. What’s that about?;
- “BRT (bus rapid transit) is much faster and cheaper to build than rail” they say, which begs the question, why are you obsessed with rail?
- Funding that goes to Transit New Zealand for motorways would go to ARTA they say, except Transit New Zealand was abolished by legislation the Greens supported. Are motorways to not be maintained??

Don’t forget, since 1999 the Greens have worked closely with Labour on transport policy. You might think that since transport matters to the Greens they may bother costing and evaluating their policies. No. Like I’ve said before, it’s the Green religion – railways good, cars and trucks bad, don’t ask any questions, just write out the cheque. I mean cheques, because by no stretch of the imagine will people riding this flash new public transport system be paying the full costs of operating it.

Greens like National's super theft policy

When the Greens say "it’s nice to see that National does have some good ideas. Investing 40 percent of the Super fund in New Zealand is a positive way to support New Zealand businesses and jobs, as well as protect and diversify New Zealand’s economy."

The most diehard National supporter must surely start being suspicious.

This from people who launch a grand transport policy for Auckland, without any costs attached to it, (except they want to divert $1.9 billion from a road project, but no indication that this is enough), it ought to make you wonder when economic illiterates support you.

Or was this National's grand plan to divert votes to ACT?

NZ Superannuation Fund fraud

Think of a superannuation scheme or pension fund that you join - or rather, are forced to join.

Your contribution to the fund varies according to your income. The more you earn the more you pay.

What you receive from the fund depends on one thing: How long you live.

If you don't reach age 65, you'll get nothing, your inheritance will get nothing, in fact your contributions will just have gone to someone else.

If you do reach 65, you'll get - whatever the government thinks everyone who reaches that age will get. If you spent your life on welfare or low income jobs paying next to no tax you'll get the same as a successful entrepreneur who has spent many years on the top marginal tax rate.

You wouldn't choose such a fund now would you?

So why do you vote for political parties that set it up, want to maintain it and even want to use it to play political games as if it is a sovereign wealth fund it can throw at "investments" it makes.

Greens want to deflate house prices more

Yes, the Greens think the time is right to pillage more of your children's taxes (it's called borrowing) to build more state houses. Even though property prices have been heading downwards, increasing the affordability of buying a home, the Greens remain outside the planet where price is a factor demand and supply, and think that forcing people to pay for more housing is a good thing.

So the Greens pillage your money and encourage your house price to drop too. Of course they want it in places where there is "excellent public transport" - ignoring whether that public transport actually would take you where you want to go, because a railway station is like a church to them.

Great stuff, check out the loopy economics. Easier to afford a home (cheaper), easier to move around without a car (cheaper) AND you are forced to pay for it whether you own a home, use public transport already or not.

Hopefully voters will simply say - f-off and leave my money alone in a recession you thieving socialists!

British banks to lend you your own money

Satirical website Daily Mash has an excellent take on the UK government's recent welfare subsidising nationalising handout to banks.

"THE government is to invest £500bn of your money in British banks so they can lend it back to you with interest"

The best line has to be this:

"Meanwhile, Emma Bradford, a sales manager from Bath, said: "Why doesn't the government just give my money to me so I can buy stuff from businesses who will then make a profit and put it in a bank?"

But Mr Darling insisted: "Shut up.""

Earth to Jeanette Fitzsimons

Jeanette. You're in the Herald complaining about why motorways get fully funded but railways don't. There is a reason why the Government foots the full cost of motorways.

The revenue for it comes from - road users. The people using the roads pay for the roads (well the state highways anyway). Understand the concept? Fuel tax and road user charges are fully dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund, which funds motorways. Most people would see that as being fair, if a bit blunt.

Let's look at your beloved "urgent public transport improvements", you want the whole Auckland rail network electrified and a NZ$1 billion-plus (yep note the plus, I'm guessing half a billion more) tunnel for a two-way rail loop through central Auckland to the western line at Mt Eden. Where do you want the revenue to come from to pay for that? The people who will use the trains? No. In fact at best they will pay perhaps a half of the operating costs of the trains (if they can match Wellington).

You want ROAD USERS to pay for your rail schemes, even though only 7% of all trips in Auckland are by public transport, and of those a majority are by bus and ferry.

Not only that you want road users to pay to subsidise the operation of the rail scheme too. However you begrudge road users expecting their motoring taxes being spent on the roads they actually use?

Yes I know you'll argue that the road users benefit because someone has decided to ride a train, instead of drive. Well of course that person riding the train has apparently benefited more, because the road user is subsidising their travel. Why should that person not pay the costs of their travel?

Jeanette, don't you realise the reason the roads are congested is because capacity is built according to politically determined funding criteria, and roads are charged the same no matter wherever and whenever you drive, unlike how airlines, hotels, phone calls and other services are charged. Don't you realise your beloved Soviet style management of highways is the problem, not the lack of a goldplated public transport system?

So go on Jeanette - tell motorists that the Greens believe that the majority of fuel taxes and road user charges they pay should be used to pay for transport modes they don't use. Tell them how many minutes they'll save in trips, how much fuel they'll save from this approach - show you've done the research.

Oh, it's just a "belief" isn't it. Yes, that damned religion of yours.

Destructive scum should be denied welfare

The Dominion Post reports on the sort of people who will live off the back of others, who gain great pleasure in destroying what others produce - they aren't a big focus of the criminal justice system - and the welfare system will happily pay them to live, and breed.

It's a very simple policy to stop paying criminals to live and breed. Those convicted of such an offence should be denied any claim on the welfare state, and required to pay full compensation for the damage.

While the compulsory welfare state remains, why should those who wantonly destroy what others create, get the proceeds of it all?

What a leap forward it would be if National just promised to deny welfare benefits to those convicted of property offences, for at least ten years.

What's a bet Sue Bradford would say those who did this are "disadvantaged" (as if the intellectually disabled users of this IHC workshop are not), and deserve more of your money to keep them from being so destructive.

National policy "akin to communism"

So says a man who should know – Dr Michael Cullen according to Stuff.

He was commenting on the absurd policy announcement by John Key that National would direct the New Zealand Superannuation Fund – the only superannuation fund in the country that pays out the same regardless of how much or little you contribute to it – to invest 40% of its funds in New Zealand companies.

Key’s announcement is completely banal. It risks not only reducing the returns for the fund, but also concentrating too much risk in New Zealand investments. Furthermore, he talks about it investing in “infrastructure bonds”, which means simply, funding government borrowing. You don’t need infrastructure bonds if you let the private sector build, operate and charge users for infrastructure – such as how the country’s two mobile phone networks have been financed and built, and how the internet has been developed, how Auckland and Wellington airports have been developed. No – John Key is in Think Big land.

Dr Cullen is right – regardless of the merit of the NZ Superannuation Fund – not letting the fund managers invest where they see fit will devalue the fund. Furthermore, to suggest that it should finance “Think Big” style central planning government infrastructure projects on telecommunications, water, roads or whatever, is further reducing the likely return (or increasing government borrowing costs, you can’t have both), as well as supplanting private sector investment (increasingly used overseas) with compulsory taxpayer funding.

Of course, renationalising an airline and a railway are also “forms of communism”, so Dr Cullen is very experienced in what he is talking about.

The right answer is to do what, ironically, Winston Peters once advocated. Divide the NZ Superannuation Fund into individual accounts, and hand them to taxpayers to keep, invest in or sell. The consequence is that you are responsible for all or part of your retirement income (with some pro rata adjustment for those currently retired or relatively close to retirement).

Imagine - politicians for individual responsibility.

Cullen leaves Air NZ vulnerable to bloodbath

According to Stuff Qantas, through Jetstar, is about to wage war on the NZ government state owned airline. The statement "Jetstar also plans to use the two centres as a hub for direct flights to the United States and Asia using the new Boeing 787 Dreamliners." (meaning Auckland and Christchurch) will send shivers down the spines of Air NZ's minority private shareholders.

Who should be surprised - it is exactly the consequence of Michael Cullen's decision to not allow Air NZ to be bought by Singapore Airlines in 2002.

Many will have forgotten how Michael Cullen effectively vetoed by indecision Singapore Airlines increasing its stake in (the 100% privately owned) Air New Zealand/Ansett from 25% to 49% in 2002, despite the Air NZ board voting unanimously for the deal, despite Air NZ desperately needing the capital to re-equip its fleet and Ansett's fleet, despite the deal being recommended by officials (who saw it as critical to enable the airline to grow and have a strong strategic future). Dr Cullen did it because Qantas made a rogue bid to invest in Air NZ, which Air NZ's then shareholders opposed, which would have kneecapped its strongest competitor to enable them to merge. A concept Qantas's cunning management sold to the Labour Government, with the undercurrent that it was better for Kiwis and Aussies to stick together and face the world as one (with an enormous monopoly airline), than for NZ to sell out to... others.

Dr Cullen wanted to consider both the Qantas and Singapore Airlines bids, whilst in the meantime Air NZ bled red ink, lacking capital, desperately needing to restructure Ansett - until finally, following September 11 2001, the airline was to fall over, and Dr Cullen renationalised it, on condition that Ansett was left to fail. The rest is history.

Qantas saw its longest standing competitor on domestic and some international routes fall over, granting it complete dominance over the lucrative domestic business market in Australia, it saw its growing international competitor - Ansett/Air NZ/Singapore Airlines - pull out of Australia. Qantas faced only a new and budget market driven Virgin Blue, and saw competition reduce on the lucrative USA and Japan routes.

Qantas owes Dr Cullen a great deal for letting its competitor fail - because Dr Cullen would rather own the airline himself, than let owners of one of the world's best and most successful airlines own it.

So after all that it tried again, and Dr Cullen supported Qantas buying the rump Air NZ - despite competition authorities saying it would be disastrous for the state owned carrier to be owned partly by its biggest competitor.

Thankfully that brought it all to an end. Air NZ restructured, became a profitable carrier, Singapore Airlines bailed out after Dr Cullen severely diluted its ownership, and as a result felt cheated by the Labour government. Air NZ is a shadow of its former self in terms of size, although it has upgraded its fleet and products to compete. Its long haul international network largely comprises routes it monopolises or dominates, with only traffic to Europe and Hong Kong facing serious competition. It does it very best, its efforts of late to install personal video screens on 767s and Airbus A320s for all Trans Tasman flights is a clever competitive move, as it providing more legroom for frequent flyers on its domestic 737s.

However it lacks capital and lack a strategic investor from a large foreign airline.

Dr Cullen would say it should have been Qantas, ignoring that this would decimate competition on domestic, Trans Tasman routes and from Auckland to LA. If the airline continues to be majority state owned with no new capital, it will face all of its lucrative markets under pressure from Qantas-Jetstar. It is already facing a significant decline in UK, Japan and US origin tourism.

Jetstar has a huge advantage over Qantas, in that it has a lower cost base, because the employment contracts were signed outside the legendary generous Qantas pay structure. Jetstar has the economies of scale of the Qantas group, and will aim at the primarily low yield NZ tourist market (the business market will remain with Air NZ, but this is rather small beyond domestic routes, USA and London routes).

So well done Dr Cullen - your own xenophobic preference for Australian capitalists over Singaporean capitalists, your bizarre refusal to give a damn about competition in the aviation industry, and your desire to own an airline come what may, has left Air NZ - which to its credit has improved its game enormously in recent years - vulnerable to the Qantas group waging a war of attrition against it.

Singapore Airlines wont buy it while Labour is in power, for obvious reasons, and indeed there will be little interest in the airline unless it has a presence in the Australian domestic market - already crowded with three airlines (Qantas-Jetstar, Virgin Blue and Tiger Airways). The choices are simple:
- Seek a substantial foreign investor (preferably a Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, um that's about it in this environment);
- Pour taxpayers' money into financing a competitive battle;
- Let the airline withdraw from markets that are decimated by Qantas/Jetstar.

Well done Mr economic genius.

Greens take from the wise to pay for the foolish

The Greens are all in a funk about the Nats proposing to drop Labour’s “subsidise the wasteful” policy of paying for homeowners to insulate their own property. Their approach to this issue speaks volumes about what it thinks about incentives, rewards and penalties. Stuff reports on Jeanette Fitzsimons moaning about how she thinks it is a huge return on investment - which of course makes you wonder why people wont do it themselves.

Now having said that I support insulating state houses, as it increases their value for a future sale, but that isn't going to happen soon.

If you own your home, you either bought one with insulation or had it installed yourself, in either case you paid for it – with your own money. It’s called private property, a concept the Green Party has remarkably little time for. Presumably you did it for all of the good reasons the Green Party outlines, it saves money on heating, reduces risks of dampness and the related health problems (and damage to other property). In short, it can make very good sense to have insulation. However this is where the Greens, freedom and responsibility separate.

Choosing not to have insulation is a valid choice. The Greens don’t think it is, so want to bribe those who choose not to install insulation. What they don’t get, because they believe the state is some sort of benevolent Santa, is that the money to pay for this bribe comes from those who did choose to install it (and those who didn’t).

It is NZ$1 billion, not a paltry sum, over NZ$650 per household (more when you strip out state and council housing), a fair contribution to paying for installing insulation. That money could be returned to those who have and have not got insulation, and they could choose if they prefer insulation or prefer new clothes, a holiday in Australia or to invest it. Choices the Greens would disapprove of, because nothing is as important as the religion of “reducing emissions”.

So the Greens want to penalise those who have made a “good” choice and reward those who made a “bad” choice. Why? Jeanette Fitzsimons gives this banal explanation “This will keep people in worthwhile work during the recession, reduce power bills, improve health, especially for children with asthma, and reduce our climate change emissions”

Worthwhile work!! Because the way YOU would have spent your money wouldn’t have been for worthwhile work, those shops, that business you own, the airline and hotel you may have bought a holiday from – that isn’t “worthwhile work”, no.

National has made the right move. Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for those who don’t see value in insulating their properties anymore than they should be paying for new carpet, better heating, new hot water cylinders or curtains. The Greens should butt out of the decisions that property owners make about their own properties, and if they want to help people get insulation, give them their taxes back, instead of rewarding those who can’t be bothered paying for insulation themselves.

Their press release that the Nats plan to keep homes cold and damp speaks volumes of their statist centrally planned mindset. The message kiddies is simple, if you own a house YOU are responsible for whether it is cold and damp. If you depend on a politician to fix it then you are too stupid and irresponsible to own a home, and if your child's asthma is exacerbated by it, what kind of a parent are you? The sort who votes Green and Labour to get other people to tell you what to do and give you money to do it I suppose.

Tragic failure of the McCain campaign

John McCain has sadly failed to demonstrate positively why he should be elected President of the United States. I say sadly because he is quite a man in and of himself. He is not of the socially conservative wing of the Republican Party, but unfortunately those who aren’t don’t get agitated enough to propel that party along.

John McCain could have campaigned as himself, a man who is deeply committed to the USA, committed to its security and opposed both in word and deed to the existential threats made upon it over his lifetime. At one point it was Marxism-Leninism, today it is Islamist led terrorism. He took his own principled, and unpopular stance in favour of overthrowing the murderous gangster Hussein regime, and in favour of the surge which has turned the tide of the Iraqi insurgency and granted Iraqis the peace and freedom they should have had after the fall of Hussein – but failed to do so because of the Bush Administration’s crass errors. The Middle East and the world are a safer place because of that.

Beyond that John McCain has been promising on two fronts domestically. Firstly he has opposed pork barrel politics in government spending, something that Barack Obama can’t ever say without his nose growing. The use of pork, a cancer of theft and corruption that infests so much of the US body politic, is something that war deserves to be waged on. A McCain Presidency could, at least, veto pork wherever it came up, to tame a Democrat dominated Congress. Not that the Republicans are averse to some pork – but McCain himself is. Finally, McCain’s principled belief in free and open trade has been a beacon of reason in a world where protectionism is becoming de rigueur once more, led by the irrational response of developing countries to high food prices, whilst Europe remains in a statist coma. A revitalised Doha round would have helped contribute to a global recovery.

There are many reasons to criticise McCain. His desire to move forward on health care reform while well intentioned has been misguided, although shifting tax preferences for private health insurance from employers to individuals would do wonders to shift this regulated market to one of personal responsibility. He is patently incapable of moving his party to a more liberal stance on individual freedom issues. His performance in the Presidential debates has been stilted and unfortunate, Obama is clearly the better speaker, and Obama also has the advantage of believing in what he says – even though most of what he says is drivel.

McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin was thought by some, including myself, to be inspired from a political point of view, even though on the face of it she didn’t offer much from my perspective. No doubt the selection of Palin was hoped to attract three different constituencies, a strategy that has backfired in several ways.

Palin was first and foremost intended to fire up the conservative Christian base – a base that re-elected George W. Bush in 2004, and a base that has felt distinctly neglected by the Republican primaries when both Mitt Romney and more importantly Mike Huckabee looked unlikely contenders. As an evangelical, it was thought Palin could connect with those voters and give them a reason to back the far more secular talking McCain. Secondly, it was hoped Palin being a woman would help swing middle America female voters who may have backed Hilary Clinton (and less enchanted with Barack Obama). As the only woman on a ticket, this on itself would attract attention. Thirdly, her youth was seen as a contrast to his age, almost a mirror image of the Obama-Biden camp.

She gained media attention, but beyond the superficial and the curiosity value Palin has demonstrated one thing overall – her inexperience. The Vice Presidential role is largely a symbolic one, I say largely because it is about stepping in if the President is incapable of acting – something that admittedly didn’t stop Americans voting for George Bush senior when he had the idiot Dan Quayle running with him. However, Palin has come across as a fool – indeed one that takes the stereotypes of insular, unworldly and ignorant and shows them up to be true. To talk of foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia – to not be able to name a single newspaper she relies on for international news (even if she didn’t read it) – this is not someone that many Americans, including most definitely many women and young people want one step away from the ability to wage war with nuclear weapons.

Palin’s conservatism is unsurprising – perhaps the saddest tragedy of US culture today is the yawning gap between the closed minded authoritarian Puritanism of the conservative right, and the moral equivalency, sacrifice worship, anti-science statist identity politics of the so called “liberal” left. One side preaching God, the other side preaching the environment, collective identity and “all cultures are as good as each other”. One side preaching family, hard work and co-operative communities, another side preaching non-discrimination, respect for individualism and secularism.

Barack Obama is likely to win not because he offers anything substantial to the US voting public. He doesn’t. He is an image and a brand, with hype based on his race, his speaking style and his slogan of “change”. On foreign policy he is keen on putting more effort into Afghanistan, whilst pulling out of Iraq, and talking to “everyone” (although his position on what he’d say is far from clear). Domestically he believes in tax cuts for the “middle class” and tax increases for the “rich”, whilst he has an enormous plan for pork, subsidies and government spending that is understandable given his left wing political roots. He is suspicious of free trade, and his response to the global financial crisis is to inanely say it’s Bush’s fault. Meanwhile, he wants to force the health insurance industry to accept everyone regardless of risk.

He has fired up the Democratic base because of his short centre-left credentials, his race, and his inspirational way of speaking (without saying very much at all). That in itself should ensure his victory.

McCain’s remaining chance is small. He can’t ditch Palin and choose another. He can’t undertake the TV debates again, but he can be himself. He can talk about how the USA built its wealth on freedom, markets and business not government. He can talk about his consistent opposition to government programmes and spending at a time of recession, against Obama’s desire to spend his way out of the recession. He can talk about his strong determination to protect the national security of the USA, and willingness to be firm against its enemies, and to seek peace but not at any cost – and not at the cost of sacrificing Iraq to Islamism.

It is hard to fight with a media who is smitten with style over substance, who sees the relatively young multi-ethnic Obama as being more than what he is – and has little time for negative attacks on him – contrast its treatment of the Bush administration.

The campaign is not over yet – Obama could make an awful mistake, McCain could prove himself yet to be the one more Americans might trust, and perhaps some of Obama’s shady past could haunt him more than smiles and slogans can rebut. Whichever way the election goes it will devastate the party that loses. The question should be, at a time when the economy comes first and foreign policy a close second, who should Americans trust to lead them through this troubled time. Sadly the conclusion at the moment is that neither can offer inspiration and substance that is worth enthusiasm.

The best I can muster is that McCain appals me less than Obama - and that both appal me less than the vile Hilary Clinton. Great.

How should Maori Party voters vote?

Yes yes, they shouldn't, I know - they should vote Libertarianz, but seriously it’s not really me to help out those who I think are voting for statist collectivist racially based party, but the thing is that MMP does it for them, and Maori Party voters figured it out last time anyway. They have something supporters of virtually all other parties have – a party vote that is best NOT given to the party they support. Why?

The magic of the overhang. You see last election the Maori party won 4 electorate seats, but only won just over 2.1% of the party vote. Typically, a party is entitled to its share of the seats in Parliament according to the party vote, as long as the party wins either 5% or one electorate seat. Yes, I know most of you already knew that. However, the Maori Party won more electorate seats than it won proportionate to the party vote, which means an overhand. The Maori Party has one more seat than it would’ve got had it won one electorate seat and then just had its party vote counted.

So what does this mean? Well for starters the size of Parliament crept up by one, which meant that the number of seats for a majority crept up too.

More importantly it shows that the party votes for the Maori Party were as good as wasted – and indeed many Maori Party voters, probably unconsciously – reflected that, since in all seats won by the Maori Party, Labour won the party vote.

Maori Party voters got the best of both worlds, from their perspective. represented by a Maori Party MP and Labour list MPs.

What it means is that voting for the Maori party on the list is pretty much futile if you believe the Maori party will win more electorate seats than it is likely to get as a proportion of the party vote – which is highly likely.

For those of us who believe in less government it means, ironically, that we can either encourage those who vote for the Maori Party on the electorate vote to vote for a party that supports private property rights and less government (Libertarianz or ACT) or encourage them to, vote for the Maori Party (stopping Labour getting their vote. You see if the Maori Party wins many more party votes then the overhand disappears, there are less MPs in Parliament representing the Maori seat voters, which probably means less Labour MPs – a good thing from my perspective.

If National (or ACT or Libertarianz) were clever they would accept and welcome Maori Party supporters vote Maori party in their Maori electorates – but seek the party vote wholeheartedly. For whilst there may be an overhand, the party vote would be held by someone other than Labour.

Perverse? Yes, but that is what the electoral system allows. I once saw an ACT video pre-1996 proposing that National voters vote National in their electorates and ACT for the party vote, for the very same reason. Of course any major party actively pursuing this would be incentivising the other major party to split into Labour- electorate and Labour – party vote, parties, an absurdity, to create an enormous 65 seat overhang of constituencies.

So remember that this election, the Maori Party has every chance of winning more seats than its party vote would entitle it to do, which no doubt is what the Maori Party would want. The bigger question is whether the Maori Party listens to its supporters who will, undoubtedly, predominantly vote Labour on the party vote – or whether it will support National. The latter, surely, would be enormously risky for the Maori Party, but more importantly, if successful, such a partnership would be much much riskier for Labour.

Would Maori Party supporters dare risk a party vote for one other than Labour? Which political party has said it would repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, and defend Maori private property rights? It begins with L - and it isn't Labour.