UK sex pay gap is not about discrimination

Professor J R Shackleton in the Sunday Times writes that the so called "gender" pay gap is not an issue for public policy concern:

"What accounts for the gender pay gap? Not discrimination. For one thing, you find differences within male and female populations that employer prejudice can’t explain. As an example, although married men earn more than married women, single women earn the same or, as they get older, more than single men."

Don't see too much concern about THOSE variations do we? Furthermore:

"There are differences between ethnic groups. Black Caribbean women earn slightly more per hour than black Caribbean men, while Bangladeshi women earn a quarter more than Bangladeshi men. Or consider sexual orientation: gay men earn more per hour on average than “straight” men, while lesbians earn more than heterosexual females. How does that fit the view that labour markets are riddled with discrimination? These pay differentials arise partly from differences in the jobs people do. Few Bangladeshi women work: those who do are well educated and so have jobs where they earn more than the typical male, a third of whom work in restaurants. Gay men are relatively highly educated and concentrated in a narrow range of well-paying jobs. "

On top of that there are other factors, such as risk:

"Men are 1½ times more likely to be made redundant than women and 2½ times more likely to suffer a serious injury at work."

The UK's pay gap is higher than other European countries, but only because of a higher proportion of women in work. Bahrain, Shackleton notes "has a pay gap of about 40% – in favour of women. Very few women, only the educated members of elite families, are in paid work". I doubt whether leftwing feminists would regard that to be a role model country.

As British "Equality Minister" Harriet Harman said, her new "equality bill" will be about "empowering the resentful". Surely public policy can be on a basis of evidence and rational analysis, not the anger of aging socialist feminist politicians?

UK government could learn from the Stasi

The report last week of the proposal of a compulsory national register for everyone who owns a mobile phone in the UK harks back to the era of Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania. There, everyone who owned a typewriter had to have it registered, so that any anti-government literature could be traced to the person who typed it.

GCHQ wants to keep a database of every single phone call, email and website accessed by the general public. The presence of millions of anonymous prepaid cellphone accounts interferes with this. This is being sold, obviously, on the basis that "terrorists and criminals" are the ones with such accounts, because obviously if you're innocent, why would you fear such surveillance? That, you see, is the answer of every defender of dictatorship.

You shouldn't fear the state, unless you have a good reason to do so, and a good reason obviously is because you've done something wrong.

Simon Jenkins in his final Sunday Times column makes a plea for liberty. He notes:
- Privacy International put Britain bottom of the European league for surveillance and civil intrusion (A mistake as Belarus would be lower, he means EU);
- The "interception modernisation programme" is budgeted at £12 billion, on top of ID cards;
- How 25 million child benefit recipients had their personal details, addresses and bank accounts lost by the state;
- How the anti-terror laws have been used to seize Icelandic bank assets, and for councils to monitor rubbish disposal by residents;
- the Association of Chief Police Officers warned that collecting so much data was "a real threat to the individual".

Virtually nobody defends the innocent British citizen from this Stasi like growth in state surveillance. It is fueled by a pernicious infectious desire by security services to "know more", be "more intelligent", to be "more responsive" oblivious to who they are serving and why. It ignores the sheer incompetence of such a state, and its complete lack of accountability when it gets it so very wrong - my mismatching data, by leaking it, and most of all by accusing the innocent.

Jenkins concludes:

"The war on terror has been a wretched blind alley in British political history. It has revealed all that is worst in British government – its authoritarianism, its sloppiness and its unaccountability. Yet restoring the status quo ante will be phenomenally hard.

In all my years of writing this column, from which I am standing down, I have been amazed at the spinelessness of Britain’s elected representatives in defending liberty and protesting against state arrogance. They appear as parties to the conspiracy of power. There have been outspoken judges, outspoken peers, even outspoken journalists. There have been few outspoken MPs. Those supposedly defending freedom are whipped into obedience. I find this ominous."

However, I expect few will do anything. The Conservatives get sold this snake oil on the basis that it fights criminals. Labour gets sold on it making the state "more efficient in delivering services". The public shrugs it off and doesn't care. The criminals care even less. After all, what nincompoop in Whitehall thinks registering prepaid cellphones will stop criminals getting falsely registered or unregistered ones? Ah, so there needs to be more surveillance...

(Check out the NZ ranking by Privacy International here)

GM tomatoes with higher antioxidants

The Sunday Times reports scientists at the John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK have developed genetically modified tomatoes, including snapdragon genes, to produce anthocyanins, which are antioxidants that offer some protection against cancer, heart disease and diabetes. This complements the lycopene in tomatoes.

A great step forward which potentially could enhance the health and wellbeing of millions.

So of course Pete Riley of the anti-science group "GM Freeze" says that even the idea of "GM superfoods is fundamentally flawed". There being "no need" for foods to ward off cancer. Furthermore it is unlikely to "benefit the world's poor". How utterly evil. Almost every single major advance in medical science has not benefited many of the world's poor, because they are hardly in a position to access it or afford it. Pete Riley would presumably prefer that research on disease stop till the "world's poor" (him not being one) have access to all other treatments, something he no doubt is doing little to achieve himself.

My own family, and a friend of mine both have propensities to cancer, without smoking, without any of the other lifestyle factors, it is genetic. Anything which can help ward off cancer is welcome, but the ecologist zealots, worshipping their "nature is better than science" dogma would stop that.

This is one area where it is clear what the Green Party (in any country no doubt) would think. It would say no. Ask yourself on what basis. Is it evidence of ill effects of genetically modified food? No. It is purely a belief that there are no positive effects and people "don't want it". People not wanting something is a good reason to ban it, apparently. That's what the Green Party is about.

The sad filthy fury of the Red Army in Berlin

"A Woman in Berlin" is a film to be released early next year about the experiences of women raped by Red Army soldiers as Nazi Germany fell. According to the Daily Telegraph:

"An estimated two million women faced savage, multiple attacks which would start with the spine-chilling words – 'Frau, Komm'. The film is based on "Anonymous," an autobiographical account originally published by a German journalist and editor in the 1950s, describing her experiences between April and June 1945...Most have hidden their agony and shame since those terrible days in 1945 when girls as young as seven and grandmothers as old as 90 were attacked by legions of drunken, depraved and diseased soldiers. Women were raped on their death beds, pregnant women raped hours before they were due to give birth. Some women were raped by 30 men one after another and day after day. "I can smell them now," said Ingeborg Bullert, now 83, but 20 when the soldiers came for her in her bomb cellar in Berlin."

It is clear the atrocities of that era remain to be uncovered, but sadly it is unlikely that the current Russian government is likely to countenance any denegration of the great myth that the Red Army "liberated" Berlin. For it would be justice if those who committed such crimes could be brought to trial. Sadly it almost certainly is not to be.

Richard Dawkins going off beam

Yes, I can see my conservative friends smiling.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Professor Richard Dawkins, author of the compelling book "The God Delusion" has declared that he is to "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales."

Oh dear oh dear. His concern is that fairy tales might have an insidious effect on rationality! This being because there is no scientific evidence to back them up.

"Prof Dawkins said he wanted to look at the effects of "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards". "I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know".

Professor Dawkins, I am an atheist. I enjoyed fairy tales and other such stories from a very young age, with talk of magic and the like. I always knew they were stories and made up. It is called fun. Do your research of course, but do you not see parallels between your own desire to combat all that is fiction and magical with that of evangelicals who think Harry Potter is satanic?

That's the irony. I will happily take up serious reasoned arguments against organisations and individuals who wish to use their supernatural beliefs as a basis for government or to initiate force or fraud agaist others.

Go on Professor Dawkins, write your children's book on how to think about the world, even have a go at children's fiction. You are an intelligent thoughtful man with much to add to secular society, and to increase the understanding of science. Waging war against fairy tales will alienate many with a sense of life and fun, and they are hardly the enemy when the world remains infected with the likes of this and this. Teaching children martyrdom is a little more disconcerting than magic.

One NHS fraud may end

According to the Daily Telegraph, NHS patients will be permitted to pay for drugs that are not funded by the NHS AND not lose their NHS treatment. I blogged on the current scandalous state of affairs some months ago. In short, the status quo is this:

Say you have cancer, and you receive treatment. You are made aware that there is this new, expensive drug, that is probably your only chance of recovery and saving your life. However, the National Health Socialists wont pay for it. You say you'll pay for it, you are desperate after all. The National Health Socialists say, "oh you're rich are you? Well pay for all your treatment now, bye".

The philosophy being simple - the NHS is either something you pay into and take what it gives you and be grateful it exists, or you buy something yourself and having taken you money, it gives you nothing. Nobody on the NHS should get a higher standard of care than anyone else, even if that higher standard is paid with using your money.

Apparently, the Brown government may relent. Apparently it can see how unpopular it is for people to pay to the socialist health system, and then have it turn its back on them when they want care that might actually save their lives. The left's magnanimity to those who pay for its totems knows no bounds!

McCain not tortured? Who can you believe?

I'm not inclined to fully believe the story of John McCain's jail director - Tran Trong Duyet - from the Vietnam War who claims "I never tortured or mistreated the PoWs and nor did my staff" which comes from an article in the Times by Leo Lewis.

John McCain does, of course, have every incentive for hyperbole, but so do those interviewed in the article, including nurse Nguyen Thi Thanh who looked after him. It seems Leo Lewis has forgotten that Vietnam remains a one-party state, with the communist party firmly in power. Those who looked after him are hardly going to confess to torture or mistreatment, and indeed the regime itself does not admit to how it currently treats political prisoners.

In the report there is nothing much other than a statement that “I never tortured or mistreated the PoWs and nor did my staff" and " He was very brave, very manly, he dared to argue with me and he was very intelligent. But all the talk of being tortured is for the sake of votes". In response "The McCain campaign refused to comment on the claims yesterday."

Now it would have been more helpful had others who stayed there spoken up, it would have been even more helpful if others who were on guard were talked to, off the record. However no, we just have a claim by those living and who fought and worked for a communist insurgency that they never tortured, against those who said they did. It's not convincing.

Times calls for review of euthanasia laws

It's always one of those difficult issues. On the one hand, the assertion that you own your life, including the right to terminate it when you choose to do so. On the other hand, the fear that putting that decision in the hands of others creates, however small, the risk that you really didn't want to do it at that point. After all, the decision is irreversible.

Few argue for open slather, after all those who do what is asked of them want legal protection from accusations of murder. However, whilst many defend the status quo I find that morally reprehensible as well.

This is where I think of values. Objectivists value life, but also that you own your life. This means that nobody else can tell you how to live it, or even to live it. Assuming you are sane, there should be no legal barrier to you ending you life, and being able to express that. This is not just about pain, for many who suffer terminal illness also suffer in great agony, or with great despair about what they have lost in dignity and independence.

The Times on Saturday contains a short editorial asking that Parliament reconsider a Bill on death with dignity. This is due to the growing number who go through the effort to be "assisted suicide tourists" to Switzerland.

In New Zealand, of the political leaders, Helen Clark, John Key, Winston Peters, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Tariana Turia and Rodney Hide all voted for the Death with Dignity Bill, Peter Brown's only political moment I give him credit for. Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne were the leaders who voted against it. However, only NZ First and ACT all voted in favour. (Sue Kedgley was opposed, presumably because it wasn't banning anything).

It is a worthy issue to debate, across parties, because this should be about balancing the right to own your life, and the right to terminate it under clear and consistent guidelines. There are legitimate fears about misuse of such a law, but let us not close our eyes to the agony doing nothing creates. Regardless of the political, religious or personal views you may have about it, and how it may apply to those you love, you cannot - ever - have the right to decide what another person does in these circumstances. I know if someone I loved had clearly expressed a will to die under circumstances of great pain, indignity and with no hope for recovery, I would do what I could to end that person's agony.

Fueling child murderers

Yes, makes you proud doesn't it? The "independent" foreign policy of New Zealand, so moral, claiming the high ground internationally.

What that means is that this Labour/Anderton/United Future/Winston Peters government is considering using your taxes to buy oil for a regime that arrests whole families for political crimes, from infants to the frail elderly, and keeps them in gulags. That is what Stuff is reporting a Japanese newspaper is saying.

Why? Because it was good enough to disable a nuclear plant it should never have built in the first place.

Japan is postponing it because it, rightfully, wants some answers about Japanese citizens abducted by this hideous regime. You see various Japanese citizens, from children to adults, have been abducted by North Korean agents over many years, and the fate of some is unknown. North Korea returned some remains that DNA testing proved could not have been of the people concerned.

However, to New Zealand presumably the abduction of innocent people, the imprisonment, enslavement, abuse and murder of children for political crimes, comes second, to the great goal of denuclearisation.

It's quite simple, if you are going to give this aid then make it conditional on two simple points:
1. Address the Japanese government's concerns about abductees;
2. Allow the ICRC and MSF into the gulags to observe the release of all persons under 16 into their aid and custody.

It's the bare minimum. So come on John Key, Rodney Hide, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Tariana Turia, leaders of all parties NOT giving this government confidence and supply, declare whether you think the taxes of hard working kiwis should reward this murderous tyranny for not wanting to threaten its neighbours, whilst treating children as it does.

Helen, if you want to donate the oil do it with your own money. Same with you Winston, Peter and Jim. After all, it is your government.

A word to be wary of

"Invest"

You'll see it being used by politicians of all stripes. Labour, National, the Greens, NZ First, Maori Party etc etc. They all want to "invest".

However, when have you ever gained a return from one of their investments better than you would with your own money?

I invest. It involves a simple concept:
- I use my own money;
- I choose where I want to invest it, seeking a return that increases the value of my initial investment;
- I use that return to invest more, or purchase something else;
- If I get it wrong, I lose my own money, learn something and move on.

When politicians say "invest" they mean:
- They use YOUR money;
- They wont ask you before they take it, and will use force to make you pay it;
- They choose where they want to invest it, and they are almost always not seeking a return that increases the value of the initial investment;
- Virtually none of their investments mean you get any of your money back, let alone more;
- If they get it wrong, they don't compensate you, they keep getting paid well above the average wage and face virtually no accountability for it.

Want an examples?

Dr. Cullen buys the Auckland rail network. Treasury valuation at best NZ$20 million, Dr Cullen pays NZ$81 million. Current market valuation? About NZ$20 million.

John Key promises to invest in the Waikato Expressway. Net financial rate of return zero. Economic benefit/cost ratio, 1:1 over 25 years (in other words you - by which I mean everyone on average, will only get your money back after 25 years, except you wont really, some people will save a lot of money on time and fuel, but you - by which I mean you and everyone else - will have paid for those people to get that).

Green party promises to invest in housing. Net financial rate of return zero. If you own a property already it will depress the price. You wont get any money back from that.

So next time you hear a politician talk about investing, ask them what rate of return you'll get from them spending your money.

It isn't an investment to spend someone else's money on something they didn't approve of and which wont see them get any of their investment back.

It's called spending other people's money.

So I am calling for some simple honesty. Don't say invest, when you just mean spend. You are campaigning for people to elect you so you can spend everyone's money on what you think is best for them.

That's not investment. It's being Nanny.

Wellington City Council to cut spending

According to the Dominion Post

"The rocky economic climate has forced Wellington City Council to review its performance and cut spending by more than $50 million.

The move is to ensure that future rates increases do not exceed inflation and cause undue hardship to cash-strapped ratepayers"

Which of course is the least it should do, which begs the question why ACT's policy of restricting rates increases to inflation plus population isn't National policy, when Wellington's Mayor - a long standing National Party member - can implement it?

Of course Libertarianz would go a lot further. I'd start by prohibiting rates increases, at all, ever. So councils could shrink, and shrink. Imagine not having local government, I find it hard to imagine what you need it for, once property rights are fully applied, and services are privatised.

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.