Thanks and a short break

Now I'm off to the US today for a while, but will be blogging there - erratically. Thank you for your support, the hit rate has been high since the US election getting around 400 - 500 a day. I may blog from the Virgin Clubhouse at Heathrow tomorrow, but I will in the weekend.

Meanwhile what is going on?

Obamania continues, although his fans have to remain calm as he wont have power for a couple of months. News drips out about what he will do, around stem cell research, remove restrictions on funding support for abortion as part of aid programmes, but my biggest fear is on trade.

New Zealand awaits the mind blowing excitement of seeing what portfolio Peter Dunne gets, (racing sounds appropriate), what "Business portfolio" Rodney Hide gets (what's a bet Minister of Economic Development - the portfolio invented by Jim Anderton) and what the Maori Party gets (what's a bet it is Associate Maori Affairs and Youth Affairs). Once the Cabinet is sworn in, I'll be posting a beginners' guide to Ministers - which since I've dealt with five in my previous life as a bureaurat - does have some basis in reality.

The UK - meanwhile - languishes under the cold dead hand of Gordon Brown. If only the unprofitable black hole called the London Olympics could be abandoned!

So farewell, have fun and a rest from political mania - until the special votes are in and the new Cabinet is announced.

Turia's lack of love for Labour

Ah, way to put your foot in it Phil, warning the Maori Party about a deal with National. According to the NZ Herald, Tariana Turia took it quite simply as patronising and patriarchal - the big Labour Party warning the breakaway children not to play games with the mean ol' National Party. Turia rightfully said "Labour didn't even invite us to sit with them in the last government and our people are sick and tired of being told what to do".

That is notable, even though Turia's politics are collectivist and wacky, the one lesson is that the Maori Party doesn't want to be taken for granted. Of course it's rather stuck - the Maori Party, wisely, wants to keep its options open knowing that if it can be the party either might need in a closer race, it can use its leverage to get what it wants. After all the Maori Party isn't about less government, it is about using government to advantage Maori.

So, of course, while National seems less than willing to concede much to ACT - with 3.7% of the vote, how much will it concede to the Maori party with just over 2.4% of the vote.

and who is saying that conceding to ACT is more than likely about spending less (and taxing less), but conceding to the Maori party is almost certainly the opposite.

One thing is for sure - it will take quite a bit for Labour to get the Maori Party onside, despite Labour winning the party vote convincingly. However, I'm not looking forward to the Maori Party having much of a say - unless it really is about abolishing the dole. Of course we don't know what John Key offered, neither do most Maori, what's a bet it is about spending more of your money on what the Maori Party wants?

Catherine Delahunty - the Greens' newest enemy of reason

I've written a little before about Catherine Delahunty, she is a hardened socialist who is well to the left of much of the Green Party - and one of its new intake. Her speech a year ago called "State of the Pakeha nation" (you see she likes collectivising people, as do post-modernist identity politics followers) tells much of her scary views of the world.

She dislikes democracy “democratheid (apartheid by majority) in maintaining control of Aotearoa”. Of course she has some truth to this, but she doesn’t believe in individual rights. Oh no. She thinks most of you are racist. Her view is that "pakeha" are a nation and vote as one, compared to "Maori". Her little brain can't conceive that individuals of both groups have a wide range of political opinions, from communism to nationalism to libertarianism. Identity politics followers don't accept that any member of an "oppressed group" that doesn't take a "liberation" based view of politics is truly a member of that group.

She says "there’s the flag on the Harbour Bridge debacle. How can we trust Transit to build bridges when they can’t even fly our two nations' flags together”. You see she just "accepts" the Tino Rangitiratanga flag as representing Maori, because it represents the Maori SHE associates with, though it might not represent those who vote National, ACT or Libertarianz because - well - they aren't really "Maori" from her perspective.

Think of the world she occupies. It gets worse:

“We have plenty of beaten women; gutted communities and whanau living in state housing that have never had proper electricity or water supplies. But lots of Pakeha are drinking wine and surfing, and they say so loudly without saying a word, would you please shut up about the connection between racism and poverty?” "We"? I didn't beat them Catherine, but you don't want to blame those who do. You gloss over that - it's the system, not the subculture of violent hedonistic irresponsibility - you wont ever accept that individuals are responsible for the crimes they commit, will you? Unless they aren't in a "powerless" group.

This crazy nutbar thinks that "pakeha" drinking wine and surfing should "do something" about women being beaten, or Maori living in state housing. Somehow it's "their" fault - it certainly isn't Catherine's fault - she wont spend a cent of her money or find ways to help directly - no - it's the system.

Racism and poverty - yes, people are poor in New Zealand because of racism. Forget those Caucasians in poverty - blank out - ignore. Forget those in poverty who breed without a second thought, who raise children whilst drunk or drugged, who use their kids as verbal or physical punching bags or worse - no - Delahunty says it is racism. It is the most disgusting betrayal of those victims of domestic violence. Though it is not unknown elsewhere on the left.

I'm not responsible because I don’t abuse kids, I don’t rob people, I don’t live a destructive lifestyle that produces victims in my wake because I don’t care about what happens to people around me. YOU are failing them because you remove any notion of personal responsibility from those who have failed and who raise children not only when they cannot afford them, but when they don’t even give them the common decency of love, attention and aspiration. You prefer you’re privileged finger pointing lifestyle of blaming people who have their lives sorted out for those who haven’t – it’s an irrational non-sequitur.

People like Catherine Delahunty are part of the problem, spreading their mindless delusion that individuals don't bear responsibility for their lives and how they treat others.

She goes on and on, but I'll finish with this:

“The severing from ancestors and from the land has brought us material advantage and spiritual emptiness. The denial of this condition assists us in our denial of the tangata whenua indigenous reality and justifies our control of resources.” In other words, because non-Maori came from elsewhere they are "severed from their land" (give me a bag). Spiritual emptiness? Say that to the hundreds of thousands who do have religion in their lives and those who don’t and are quite content. Control of resources? It’s called property rights, you buy, sell, discover and create what you own. You’re against them because you’re a socialist and think everything should belong to everyone.

Catherine Delahunty is dangerous, she thinks of people in terms of groups - by race at least, if not also sex. She judges on background not deed. She thinks crime is the fault of the system not the individual, but she also thinks "resources" are something that just exist, that get "distributed" instead of created and traded.

It is part of the failing of the whole mainstream media that the likes of her get into Parliament with virtually no scrutiny. Think how many regard Sir Roger Douglas as dangerous, when the likes of her is virtually unknown.

Hide not getting his way?

Newstalk ZB reports ACT is unhappy with the portfolios John Key is offering, which given ACT has already pledged confidence and supply, isn't that surprising.

In 1996 Winston gained a huge amount from National because he COULD play off Labour and National. ACT has no such bargaining power, indeed National could entice the Maori Party if it so wished, which ACT - if it were strategic, would let it. After all, what better way to shore up ACT votes than for Hide to say National gave us nothing, and went to the Maori Party - if ACT only gets consumer affairs and say local government (although that does have potential).

National, you see, wants to dictate the terms of government, which it can only do if ACT lets it. ACT rightfully is arguing that Dunne being a Minister is absurd, as he got less than 1% of the vote. Even Jim Anderton's Progressives had over 1% of the vote in 2005. Be clear, Hide can't demand to be Deputy PM, but he can demand a single major portfolio and a minor one - National needs him, unless it wants to be painted as a party that prefers the Maori Party to ACT.

I'd like Hide to get Environment and Local Government - because it would deprive these from the obvious creature who aspires to the first one.

Roy for Consumer Affairs?

Wow, gripping stuff so says the Dominion Post. A job so tough it is currently Judith Tizard's!

To be optimistic, Heather Roy should be able to run rings around the Ministry of Consumer Affairs (a subset of the Ministry of Economic Development). I am heartened by Consumer New Zealand Chief Executive Sue Chetwin saying "an interesting person to do it", which is code for "oh shit, a Minister who might not want to regulate everything so consumers are protected from their own stupidity". Sue Kedgley will be barking like the hysterical harpie that she is, but Roy should say "caveat emptor" over and over again.

Now of course she should do as I recommend and ask the MOCA chief executive what good the Ministry does, why she shouldn't recommend scrapping it in next year's budget and giving all the money back to taxpayers (who are consumers after all). The right answer is NOT because it exists due to legislation, as that will only delay the scrapping a little bit longer.

After all, three years should be long enough to do away with a Ministry that didn't exist before the fourth Labour Government - yes, this was a creation of the halcyon years of Roger Douglas and David Lange.