Iran simmers

The Times is giving rolling updates, which appear to include continued protests, a counter protest organised by Ahmadinejad, and rumours of a crackdown. Clearly many Tehran residents are not letting this lie, and are not meeting expectations of protests dying down. In circumstances like this either energy dissipates, as nothing changes or there is some key change with backdowns or the seizing of key locales of power (broadcast media, military/police or political headquarters). The regime clearly has decided a partial recount would cut the numbers of protestors, but are those protesting simply wanting freedom?

Could it be that rigging the election ends up being a better result for freedom than letting Mousavi win (as some mild liberalisation and end to sabre rattling would have released much pressure)?

Is Iran blinking?

The BBC is reporting that hundreds of thousands of people are at a rally in Tehran protesting the outcome of the Presidential election, an outcome that is best described as unsafe, but an outcome even if it were legitimate - does not justify the oppressive theocracy that bastardises democracy to service the will of a small group of mullahs, and sustains a brutal and malevolent state.

Shots have been fired, and although all commentators believe that it is highly unlikely that anything will come of the protests, in terms of revolution, it appears that Iranians are giving it their best go. Iran is indeed divided between the traditional, sexist and highly Islamist rural countryside, and the cosmopolitan Tehran, but if Tehran goes so does Iran.

It is notable how many Tehran women are pushing for change, given the sexist rules that apply to what women should wear compared to men.

The poorly educated anti-semitic, economically illiterate buffoon Ahmedinejad continues to make a fool of himself claiming all is well, but in fact this is the best chance Iranians have to unshackle themselves from the grip of this brutal theocracy. Had opposition candidate Mousavi won then it would have been four years of a little less strident Islamism, but Islamism nevertheless. Women, religious minorities and homosexuals wouldn't be getting a better deal, but at best the screws may have eased off.

Time (not a typically reliable source of news to be fair) has given five reasons to question the result, basically:
- Lack of independent supervision of the election (the Interior Ministry supervises it);
- Some polling stations ran out of ballots, and opposition observers were not always given access to polling booths;
- Initial results came only an hour after the polls closed, which is ridiculous in a country with manual counting of paper ballots;
- Results were strangely consistent across regions, previously support for candidates varied across regions significantly. Mousavi didn't even win his own hometown, despite apparent high popularity. Ahmadinejad won in cities, despite previous polling suggesting otherwise;
- The result was a massive increase in the majority for Ahmadinejad, despite the poor state of the economy and past elections which saw far more support for reformist candidates.

So power to those in Iran seeking freedom - as they so proudly announced. Few actions could improve the prospects for peace and freedom in the Middle East and South Asia more than an end to spending 30 years in the dark ages, of a regime that oppresses its own, spreads a doctrine of violence and death of those who don't wish to succumb to surrendering themselves to permanent submission to the decrees of elderly mullahs.

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reports on how the internet has brought down barriers between Iranian youth and the rest of the world that the Iranian government is ill equipped to handle. Iran has started trying to block BBC World Service radio broadcasts in Persian. May we cross our fingers in hope that the more the regime tries to turn on the people, the more they turn back and resist.

After all, that will do more for peace than the so-called peace movement ever could.

Are Mt Albert voters that boring?

I would have been pleasantly surprised and astonished had Julian Pistorius won, but the Mt. Albert result was disappointing. However, I guess an electorate that ticked Helen Clark consistently for 28 years was unlikely to be a place of free spirits or individuals who were gagging to have more control of their own lives. So voting Labour is clearly like breathing to most of them.

Most by-elections are interesting, and produce results well out of kilter with a general election. This one didn't. The last proper one was Taranaki-King Country, when ACT came a close second. In Selwyn, the Alliance came a close second. In Mt Albert, the voters could have voted Green to say no to motorways - but didn't. They could have voted National, but admittedly there was no good reason for that. They could have voted Libertarianz, but clearly the idea of being responsible for yourself frightened too many of them.

So all in all a bit of a yawn. The majority of Mt. Albert voters preferred Clark's vote bribe for the motorway, than stopping it at all (Greens) in favour of a railway, or private property rights (Libertarianz). They didn't want a voice in the current government (National or ACT) either.

So can anything be concluded? Are most voters just inert, and repeat what they always do? Labour is a comfort blanket and they can't bring themselves to go more radically for the state, or less?

Do the majority in Mt Albert fear not having the warm embrace of the state housing, teaching and funding them? Has Helen Clark convinced them of how generous the state is giving them so much, and how incompetent they would be choosing schools, health care and housing, and how horrible people are if she isn't there to regulate them?

Why do people vote Labour?

In fact why did many vote National? Melissa Lee was hardly a star, but do many vote National because it isn't Labour? Or do all of them support the government?
Same with ACT, presumably those voters supported the government and John Boscawen personally.

So Mt Albert has got what it asked for before - except David Shearer is more talented and interesting than Helen Clark.

So are the 35 who voted Libertarianz the only people in Mt Albert who believe in protecting their property rights?

Vote Pistorius to make Clark squirm

Well Mt Albert voters it should be simple.

You either like handing more of your life over to politicians or not.

The polls are saying the majority of you trust the Labour Party to spend your money and tell you what to do when they want you to, I think it is time for you to political catamites in the words of Jim Bolger in relation to the pollsters.

For those who believe in less government, the choice of Julian Pistorius, your Libertarianz candidate, could not be more stark.

Melissa Lee has demonstrated that the National Party is supremely competent in choosing someone who doesn't have the nouse to prepare and research what she is to talk about. She really doesn't have a chance of winning, and what if she did - she is already an MP - she can already "work for the people of Mt Albert". All you would be doing is filling in a bit more of her time. She would be a wasted vote, although many of you are tempted to vote for her just because the polls say she is one most likely to topple David Shearer. However, is she really any better that you'd positively endorse her?

John Boscawen wont win, so any vote for him is a vote to send a message. What a message to send though. The message being that for you less government means allowing bylaws to ban gang patches, and to support a mega-city. If you think National needs a message, then what does ACT need? Boscawen is already there, a vote for him will achieve nothing in terms of sending a message.

Want less government? Well it isn't with them.

Of course many will be looking to tick David Shearer - damned if I know why. He is the successor to Helen Clark, but obviously you wont be getting the Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition, as she has been for the last 16 years. Beyond writings on mercenaries, he is simply another Labour party member who thinks that your life would be better if you just trusted the government more to deliver services that it wants a monopoly on. Inspiring? Well maybe if you want a lazy life on a low income as a beneficiary, but beyond that? No. Oh and if you think voting Labour somehow protects the private property rights of those in the way of a motorway, it demonstrates stupidity on a grand scale. Labour wasn't going to protect anyone's private property rights, it was going to burrow under them using a billion dollars worth of other people's money.

However, if you think politics is about using taxpayers' money to bribe voters, then I guess you fit well into the Labour mould - but don't complain when the Nats do it too!

Russel Norman? Well he is against the motorway, but then again he is against you driving at all. He think you are forced to drive, don't like using your car at all, and he wants to pillage money from you to give alternatives he thinks are cool - like trains (you see he doesn't want you paying for something you use). Seriously - don't encourage him, unless you really do feel a bit of a retard who needs nanny to look after you.

So why vote Julian Pistorius?

There are negative reasons against voting for others.

1. Don't over inflate the influence of your vote - it is one of tens of thousands, it is counted like the others, it is not counting what's in your head, just the number of heads with that view. This is a chance to choose positively what you want - not to surrender to the best of the worst.
2. It wont change the government to vote Labour, Green or ACT, it wont rock the boat at all.
3. Whoever is elected wont stop the motorway going through or the Public Works Act being used, but only one candidate will say the issue isn't about whether or not to build the motorway (as it remains a fundamentally good idea to everyone except the Greens who think road transport is a sin), but the respect or otherwise of property rights- Julian Pistorius.
4. Three candidates are already MPs - you gain nothing by adding the ticket Mt Albert to them.

However, most of all, a vote for Julian Pistorius will positively send a message in favour of private property rights, in favour of tax cuts, in favour of much much less local government and for less government generally. It will be an assertion of your individual rights and for those in the way of a motorway, your property rights. It would really piss off the narrow minded infotainment merchants at TVNZ who think politics should be about personalities and image, rather than policies and principles, but most of all it would shock the bejesus out of Labour, National, ACT and the Greens.

You see, suddenly it isn't about populism, it isn't about vote bribing and it isn't about worshipping gaia - it is about the smallest minority in the world, those who achieve everything, who create and who invent - the human individual.

Vote Pistorius in Mt Albert tomorrow - do it for you, but also do it knowing - as it said at the beginning of this campaign - that nothing will be more worthwhile that imagining the look on Helen Clark's face and the words from her mouth if she learnt that Libertarianz won "her seat", or even came second.

Why did the BNP do well?

Well for starters it didn't do as well as has been made out. It gained less votes than the last election, partly because turnout was down. So it inspired less people to vote for it. However, some are wondering if it represents a real underlying racism in the UK among some, or if it is just an ignorant protest vote, or if the BNP actually does say what some working class young white men want to hear. The truth is a mix of all of the above.

The explicitly racist part is only a small part of the picture, otherwise it would campaign like the erstwhile National Front, which still comes out from time to time spouting openly racist policies. They never got the National Front far in the past, so the BNP has been more clever. An ignorant protest vote? Perhaps, but then protest votes can go a lot of places - the key is the BNP is made up of people who are like its voters - poorly educated, white working class, who believe the world ignores them.

It is a constituency the Labour Party believes it is entitled to. BNP voters almost all wouldn't vote Conservative - it can't relate to a party seen as upper class, involving businesspeople, the university educated, speaking received pronunciation who send their children to private schools, drive nice cars, live in the South East and use the word chav as an insult. The Liberal Democrats are invisible to them, as are the Greens, besides neither party appeals to young men whose primary pastimes involve drinking, football, cars and women.

However in that respect, Labour isn't much different either. The party formerly consisting of men who did hard manual labour, who were in unions, who barely knew what a university was and who waxed lyrically in parochial accents has changed into one that looks more and more like a group of university graduates, who never had a "real job", who espouse what is known as "political correctness" to censure the young working class male from making inappropriate jokes or comments, and who positively gush whenever minorities get elected. Minorities being those Labour embrace, women, people of Afro-Caribbean or Indian sub-continent descent or who are of non Judeo-Christian religions.

Is it any wonder the average barely educated young male thinks the Labour party ignores him? Quite simply because it does. So the BNP rhetoric about immigrants taking "their jobs" makes sense to them, because few bother arguing the merits of immigration, and most young working class men don't think of the reverse - them emigrating, for where would men who have rudimentary literacy in only English go in Europe to work?

Furthermore, the BNP has socialist policies on virtually all other issues. Opposing privatisation, supporting renationalising the railways, supporting tight regulations of business, opposing free trade and investment across borders, opposing EU membership, embracing the NHS and public services and wanting to crackdown on tax loopholes. None of this would have looked out of place in Michael Foot's Labour Party, but in Gordon Brown's it is half-hearted and almost embarrasing to have candidates who espouse many of these views.

On top of that, the BNP takes a hardline on one of the issues that working class young men face more than most - crime. It supports the death penalty and harsh penalties for child molestors, with hard labour for other criminals. It supports taking a draconian approach to drug traffickers (with a tinge of "well it isn't our people bringing this stuff into the country"). Few working class folk would disagree with these sentiments.

By contrast, what does Labour offer? A welcoming welfare state for all, which is noticeably enjoyed by migrants in increasing numbers. Strategies and job titles for state employees to advance ethnic minority access to taxpayer funded housing, health and education all sound like "foreigners are using our facilities and taxes to benefit from our system". Given education stats show the poorest performing demographic being poor working class white boys, is it any wonder that their families feel neglected. The scale of immigration to some communities particular in the North, and East Midlands has seen the ghettoisation of ethnic minority communities, which has frightened those of other groups. While the BNP likes to make a hyperbole of it, there is some truth to comments that a few youth of non-European minorities feel free to intimidate others knowing full well that accusations of racism are rarely believed in that direction.

Now I'm not providing enormous sympathy for the uneducated young white male underclass, whose own ignorance and lack of aspiration is largely to blame for their poverty. Their resentment is partially their own lack of self esteem projected onto blaming others for their status in life.

However, as Philip Johnston states in the Daily Telegraph "for years now they have been considered an embarrassment, a low-achieving, boorish, poorly educated affront to the sensibilities of the "progressive" elite that preached the virtues of multi-culturalism, promoted mass immigration and makes up much of the political establishment, including the modern Labour Party." In other words Labour would rather talk about the poor than talk to them, especially if they are young white men. Such men who are not worldly, whose primary interest is their own lot and who don't know why they should give a damn about people of different ethnic groups, who Labour openly courts. This has only been exacerbated by the rise of Islamist terrorism and the apparent flagrant way that some Islamists can promote violence in the UK, whilst being able to benefit from the generous welfare state.

"Rightly or wrongly, this group of voters believes that the people who suffer most discrimination in modern Britain are "white people". This is the response of 77 per cent of BNP supporters; but it is also the view of 40 per cent of voters overall. They don't like the way that Muslim extremists appear to sound off with impunity while anyone defending their country's heritage and traditions is denounced by the progressives as a fringe loony. Hence the BNP's heavy reliance on wartime imagery to appeal to this nostalgic sense of a lost past."

So in essence, you take a bunch of disenchanted young white men, who witness an ever straining socialist health, education and housing system, enjoyed extensively by immigrants, a barely shrouded embarrassment among Labour activists for the culture and concerns of the underclass, an ongoing cultural cringe in the UK about what it means to be British and what the values of British society are about, whilst Islamists happily preach their own vision of the future damning what most people think British society IS about. Poorly educated white men who think the world owes them a living, a socialist housing, health, education and welfare system that is open for anyone in the EU and any new migrant to enjoy, a fear of expressing a British socio-political cultural identity whilst no such fear from those from outside Britain, including those who wish to destroy some of the bedrocks of the British system. Add a lot of socialist economics and social policies, and you have the BNP - it is a lot of old Labour, with some carefully shrouded proud nationalism.

The only difference with old Labour is that the BNP is socialism for one skin colour only. Traditionally, that end of British politics has been filled by barely competent inadequates, it has only been with Nick Griffin corralling his barely literate troops of racists (after all, who participates in the BNP if it isn't to let off some racist steam) to talk of racism working the other way, to talk of immigration straining public services and talk anti-capitalism, that has given it some credibility. Griffin is careful to oppose racism publicly, and to treat insults as water off a duck's back - knowing that the best way to respond to mainstream media baiting is to look tired at it.

As long as he leads, the BNP can maintain this veneer of credibility among a small minority of voters, but as long as Labour continues to treat what are its core supporters with barely shrouded contempt, it wont get them back. Indeed it created the dependency culture that its former supporters want to deny those of others races, it create the myth that for the working classes to progress, they needed Nanny State to advance, it also created the drive for "equality of outcomes" that have bizarrely resulted in bureaucracies and councils focusing on groups other than poor white males.

In short, the BNP did well because it exploits a culture of statism and dependency that the left have long promoted - blaming the failures of the system on immigration. The problem is not that, the problem is the system itself - and Labour will never ever tackle that.

What to wear on your feet in summer

Giles Coren from the Times has written lucidly on what is wrong with much that people wear in summer - basically stop showing your feet off!

Men's feet of course are vile: "Men's feet, in particular, make me squirm and gag: the mottled colouring, the sparse hair, the little toe that has been crushed into the one next to it over the years so that it has turned and bent and cuddles up against it now, sadly, as if trying to spoon an unwilling lover, the yellowed, cracked toenails, and the fully blackened one on the right biggy from toe-punting a goalpost 14 years ago. How can bringing these out in public be considered acceptable?"

Women's feet fair only slightly better: "all women's open shoes are revolting. Those strappy mules where the sole rolls out of the end of a wide, asymmetric toe-hole so that the shoe looks like it is vomiting toes. Toes that are all pointing to an imaginary origin just in front of the middle toe because of being crammed into closed, pointy shoes all winter. And heels all red and covered in Elastoplasts because in early summer the bare skin is not yet used to the rub of the strap.

Worst of all are these quasi-bondage shoes of which, among others, Louis Vuitton does one called a "Spicy", which involve a vertiginous heel sloping down to a 2in platform and the foot tied in with all sorts of ribbons and chains. I think it's meant to be a nod to fetish, but the effect is to make the wearer (who is paying maybe a grand a pair) look as desperate and slaggy as a pole dancer, while at the same time reminding us of the horrors of ancient Chinese foot-binding."

Quite. Only foot fetishists disagree and of course the men who design the shoes who "are not into women, and cannot bear to think too much about any part of them more intimate than their feet."

Hereth end the lesson. btw Giles Coren is one of those on a list of "reasons to live in the UK". He writes restaurant reviews like no other.

Is the UK facing another 1922?

It is far too early to say, and the issue had been raised in 1983 following that general election. Is the Labour Party facing being sent to the political wilderness to come third place at the next general election?

In 1922, the Liberal Party was in disarray, having previously been the party of Opposition in the UK, and as it had split into two, it lost enough votes to Labour that it rose from only 57 seats to 142, becoming the official Opposition. It was a blow to the Liberal Party that it never recovered from, but which it nearly broke through in 1983. With the help of a breakaway faction from Labour, the Liberal/SDP Alliance gained 25.4% of the vote, narrowly beaten by Labour on 27.6%, although the Tories won handsomely on 42.3%.

This time the local and European elections show Labour doing far worse, coming third in both. With the Liberal Democrats ahead in the local elections, and UKIP in the European elections (and Lib Dems close in fourth), it looks like many core Labour voters are going elsewhere, although it is clear that local and European elections are different from a general election - and a general election could be nearly a year away.

However, there is a sense that maybe things have changed. The Labour spin is that it has lost support purely because of the Parliamentary expenses row, but it goes beyond that. It has been polling poorly for many months, and Gordon Brown has looked indecisive on such a regular basis, expenses being the most recent example - but it started with him teasing for a general election and then deciding not to have one.

The Conservatives have done well rebranding themselves as a party of middle England - which is what was needed to recapture the South and centre, and even make inroads in the North, Wales and Scotland. The Liberal Democrats have moved to the left, and have captured some of the traditional Labour vote, by promoting more government, and opposing some of the intrusions on freedom that Labour have promoted, whilst embracing a statist vision with more tax. Labour now presents nothing.

The Conservatives have inherited the gentle reformist agenda of Blair, with a somewhat different philosophical direction, seen in supporting education vouchers and being more sceptical about the EU and bureaucracy. The Liberal Democrats are partly old Labour, so what is Labour now? The tired spent force, which has lost the will to reform the economy, which ran deficits during the good years and has poured money into state services to see little real gain - except for unionised labour. Many of its traditional supporters are sceptical about Europe, partly due to the net loss that the UK endures from funding it, but also a more malignant xenophobia against continental European labour.

You see Labour's supporters have been an odd coalition. Up till recently, it included middle class aspirational families, and some small to medium sized businesspeople. It included most of those dependent on the state - welfare beneficiaries and bureaurats. Pensioners, who have long been bribed by Labour with other people's money, and of course the working class envy pack - the ones who despise businesspeople, and happily voted Labour in 1983 to shift Britain towards a Warsaw Pact style way of running the economy. Labour has also courted ethnic minorities, spreading bile that the Tories are racist - although the war in Iraq and war on terrorism has cost the Islamic vote somewhat.

Who is left? The middle classes have gone Tory or Lib Dem. The working classes are bitter at so many Labour MPs ripping off expenses, and don't like the EU (and foreigners). So it is bureaurats and welfare beneficiaries - the ones Labour pillages taxpayers to pay for. It isn't enough.

So without a change in leader, Labour seriously faces a groundbreaking defeat in the next UK general election. Could it put Labour third? Well it would be a huge hurdle to cross. It would require the Conservatives to win a decisive majority, a swing of around 15%, but also for the Liberal Democrats to do well- without losing to the Conservatives much. That also requires a relative gain of over 12%, which would be an enormous effort, but not inconceivable.

My money is that this wouldn't happen. Nick Clegg isn't enough of a figure to attract that amount of a swing, but if it makes itself the place where a protest vote can be safely made, it may make enough gains that put Labour in Opposition for many years as it needs to fight on two fronts.

Whatever happens, it is becoming increasingly clear that the only British Labour leader to win an election in the last 35 years will have been Tony Blair (or 50 years if you consider the 1974 win to be half hearted given Labour didn't get a clear majority).

What does that say about how British politics has changed over a generation?

Does Rodney have a secret agenda?

I can only hope.

I was thrilled to read a Green press release that there is apparently a Cabinet Paper to reduce the powers of local government "This Cabinet paper wants to implement ACT Party policy by narrowing the powers of local government and making it easier to sell Auckland's $23 billion in public assets. The paper proposes to do this without public consultation" says an exasperated Russel Norman.

Russel is upset that Rodney Hide wants to remove special requirements to consult when contracting out council services or privatising, special requirements that don't apply when councils want to grow their activities - which of course, Russel wholeheartedly welcomes, as the Greens pretty much just love government growing.

Although Sue Kedgley hysterically waxes on that "This paper reveals Act's secret agenda to castrate local democracy. He is trying to reduce local government's powers to the point where they are unable to deliver social and environmental services, which are surely their core business." she has often been the mistress of hyperbole. I can only dream she is right.

For the Greens to believe local government's core business is delivering social and environmental services, when most people would say it is roads, footpaths, rubbish collection and perhaps libraries and handling complaints of nuisance, is nonsensical.

It exposes the Green's agenda for local government which is for "democracy" to mean whenever someone wants local government to interfere in something, it should. For Kedgley to claim cutting local government down drastically is "extremely dangerous" shows she isn't taking her pills. However, Sue thinks burgers, cellphones, foreign TV programmes, cars and most things imported are bad.

It begs the question though - if Rodney DOES have a secret agenda for the new Auckland mega city to have drastically curtailed powers, wouldn't it be helpful if he told us? How many ratepayers would welcome with open arms councils no longer able to set up businesses, subsidise businesses, set up hospitals, schools or radio stations?

His press release is a teaser for more "Cabinet has authorised a review of the Local Government Act 2002 to improve the transparency, accountability and fiscal management of local government. I want the Act reviewed to ensure ratepayers and citizens have better tools for controlling council costs, rates and activities. I will be looking at ways of ensuring local government operates within a defined budget and focuses on core activities"

Here's a start Rodney - get local authorities to send you a list of all of the activities they do, and then sit down for a day and cross off those that are unnecessary and absurd - then whatever is left should be what is statutorily defined as what local authorities can do.

Anything else councils do will have to be undertaken by companies that councillors themselves, and willing citizens (or anyone) have shares in by voluntary contribution. You see that would be truly democratic - on the one hand, small tightly constrained councils, and on the other hand the power (which has always existed) for those who want more to be done, to do it themselves and pursuade others to pay for it.

Somehow, I don't think the Greens (or Labour for that matter), really believe in democracy that is about voting with your own money, rather than voting to pilfer someone else's.

UK Labour gutted at local elections

In the UK, there are local elections virtually every year, although they are for different parts and levels of local government. This year it was for counties and unitary authorities in England, which are equivalent to regional councils in the NZ context. Most counties were up for grabs, and in most it was for all seats. London was not included.

Given the scandal over Parliamentary expenses, and the slow response of Gordon Brown, it was always going to hurt Labour - but few could have known the scale of the defeat.

34 councils were up for grabs. Labour lost control of all of the three councils it held, including Staffordshire, Lancashire and Derbyshire, all counties of the north - Labour's former heartland. The Conservatives picked up control of ten councils, including some previously run by the Liberal Democrats.

In terms of councillors, the results were even more devastating for Labour. Labour lost 291 councillors, out of a previous 469, losing more than half of its seats. The Conservatives picked up 244 seats, now holding 1531. The Liberal Democrats lost a couple by comparison. The Greens did well, particularly in Norfolk picking up five seats from Labour. The racist BNP picked up three seats, less than many expected. However, more surprisingly the anti-EU UK Independence Party picked up 7 council seats.

So Labour has been absolutely gutted, it came third in share of party vote, behind Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, one needs to be careful about that on a national scale - because it is ONLY England, and without London and some other parts of the country it is a distortion.

What was Gordon Brown's response? To reshuffle his Cabinet, but he wanted to replace Alastair Darling, but got rolled. He appointed Sir Alan Sugar - yes the TV star property developer - to be an advisor on small business. Sir Peter Mandelson, a peer, is now effectively deputy Prime Minister. So Brown now is putting people in positions of responsibility who are unelected, he is "taking action" on Parliamentary expenses - though of course, he wouldn't have done so had the Daily Telegraph not outed the issue in the first place. He says he will move on constitutional reform - whatever that means - and to reform public services to put patients and parents first in the health and education systems.

In other words, he is trying to be the man for ideas - but he is running a government on life support. Ministers have resigned, and most recently an MP, he had taken Labour to a stunning third place defeat in the local elections. Brown now has his last chance, but it is not over yet.

Tonight the European election results come through, if, as some predict, Labour could come fourth - then surely Brown cannot last. If Labour gets beaten by UKIP - which doesn't even sit in the House of Commons, then you must wonder what future it has.

The scale of Labour's likely defeat could be as groundbreaking as the change in the early 20th century that saw Labour beat the Liberal party as a major party in the UK.

Hong Kong shows China of the future?

150,000 people in Hong Kong holding a vigil in memory of the suppression of protestors at Tiananmen Square in June 1989 should give pause for thought.

Hong Kong IS a Special Administrative Region, but it is still an integral part of the People's Republic of China. The Government of the People's Republic of China has said it will guarantee Hong Kong's "system" until 2047 at least, but if it felt threatened it would undoubtedly step in. It clearly believes the prosperity of Hong Kong is too important to threaten, and threatening free speech and political freedom in Hong Kong would threaten Hong Kong's prosperity.

In other words, China IS changing, it is evolving. Taiwan too was once an authoritarian state, as was South Korea - both now free thriving liberal democracies. It may simply be a matter of prosperity, but it does show that opening up economies is a path to more individual freedom.

It is a message that leftwing so called human rights activists might bear in mind.

Obama to Muslims: We share common principles

There was some criticism of President Obama choosing Egypt rather than Indonesia for his speech to the Muslim world. Indonesia has a thriving (and recently formed) open fairly liberal democracy with a free press – notwithstanding decades of US support for the Suharto autocracy. It is a far more welcoming example of a country with a high Muslim population than Egypt. Egypt by contrast is a dictatorship, admittedly with much more personal freedom than many countries in the Middle East, it is still dominated by one man, who does not tolerate much questioning of his rule.

So going to Egypt to talk to the Muslim world was perhaps a mistake. However, it is the largest Arab state, the third biggest recipient of US aid, and the first Arab state to make peace with Israel – albeit that relations remain frosty.

So what did he say? His speech in full is here, but overall I found it disappointing, with some flashes of inspiration.

There is some which is positive, reaffirming the alliance with Israel, damning those who would deny the Holocaust, criticising Israel’s continued construction of settlements on the West Bank. He talked openly about the rights Muslims have in the USA, and how their rights to freedom of worship are protected. This was a positive message, one not made often enough in the censored world of much media in the autocracies than control most of the Muslim world.

He made it clear that the USA will “relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.” A critical point, but there are sadly more than enough of all faiths who believe in killing innocent men, women and children, and faiths who believe no one is innocent – Islamists who happily seek to murder any in the name of jihad or those Christians who think everyone is a sinner.

He clearly tried to reach out to moderate Islam by claiming “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.” Yet surely without Islam, Al Qaeda would not exist, Hamas would not exist, in fact terrorism would be confined to far more localised actions and not united by a religion that can be used to justify waging war on non-believers. Afghanistan would be far safer if it was full of objectivists, for example! If the US is to promote peace it can do no better than to promote respect for individual rights, and to let Islam wither.

However, while Obama sought a new beginning, talking of ending a “cycle of suspicion and discord”, some of the language he uses is a cause for concern.

He wants to “fight negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”, which begs some obvious questions:
1. What is a negative stereotype, compared to a negative fact – i.e. when Islamic regimes employ violence against their own citizens for matters that should be free will, such as apostasy, criticising Islam, homosexuality? Who decides what is a stereotype and what isn't?
2. How does this fit in with the fundamental right of free speech in the 1st amendment of the US Constitution? Can nobody poke fun at Islam anymore? What of negative stereotypes of atheists or those of other religions?

Obama suggested that there needed to be mutual respect. Indeed there does, between individuals, and by governments of individuals. However, will Muslim states even allow people to promote other religions, eliminate apostasy as a crime and allow the promotion of atheism?

The mutual respect he calls for is based on “the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings”. Whoa hold on a minute. “America” as a political/philosophical concept is embodied in one document – the Constitution of the United States. “Islam” is embodied in the Koran, how DO they overlap?

What of those common principles? Well you can say the USA was founded to achieve justice, but the philosophical basis underpinning justice is what is important - justice in the concept of fundamental freedoms, not submission to a deity. Something that Obama carefully sidestepped away from.

The United States is based on the premise that government does not exist for God, or the rulers, but as an instrument of the people. That government exists to protect their rights, and explicitly guarantees rights of free speech, assembly, association, religion, bear arms, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, a right to jury trial etc. etc. The fundamental underpinnings of government that protects individual rights, and has a superstructure of separation of powers, liberal democracy and government to serve the people.

Islam, the very word, has its roots in the Arabic word Aslama, meaning to “submit”. Islam demands individual submission, the USA demands the state be submissive to the rights of the individual. How different could you be?

Yes, it is possible to distil elements of Islam that would be seen compatible with individual rights, it is easy to acknowledge that in the USA Muslims are free to live their personal lives compatible with Islam, as long as they respect others to do the same. However, beyond that Islam and secular individualism ARE in competition, it is quite naive to suggest that a secular government protecting individual rights (the idea of the USA) can be compatible with an Islamic government demanding submission to Islamic law.

Obama may have been better to suggest that the values expounded by the USA are universal, apply to all individuals, and that they allow Muslims to practice their religion, and promote it, as long as they respect others to do the same. Indeed, relatively secular Egypt is in some respects a partial example. One can be Christian or atheist in Egypt relatively easily, although the law still has some elements of Sharia, and by no means is one free to criticise the government openly.

On Iran he simply wanted it to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but also talked about the abolition of nuclear weapons. Without context to that, it is a meaningless concept – and for me that context is one where all countries relate to each other more like western countries do, where the idea of military action of any kind between each other is inconceivable.

He appeared supported democracy in a more optimistic way than I would have expected “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.” The freedom to live as you choose is the closest he has got to yet on individual rights, which is more than democracy – something that should be welcomed.

As is his belief that “we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.” Although what respect means is obviously a bit unclear, and sadly his further statements don’t help “No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.” Respecting the rights of minorities is NOT respecting the rights of individuals, and a spirit of compromise when it comes to individual rights is hardly tolerable. Besides, every dictatorship in recent history has talked of the interests of the people. Russia would meet this standard, and even China may claim power through consent and happily claim the rest to be true.

His words on faiths bringing people together are relatively benign, and he encouraged women having rights, which in Egypt they do have more than most states in the Middle East.

Overall, his message was clearly intended to be one of goodwill, but it falls far short of promoting the idea that Islam should only exist within a framework of individual rights. He is badly mistaken to claim overlaps between the USA and Islam, but more disturbingly to want to fight negative stereotypes about Islam – he is effectively endorsing laws to harass Danish cartoon makers, for example. His view of democracy gave enormous room to move to allow for continued repression of individual rights, as he talked only of rights for minorities – which of course can be defined by governments themselves. So the verdict? Not hopeless, but maybe 4 out of 10. Clear messages on Israel, against Holocaust denial, against terrorism and alluding to freedom are welcome, along with clarity on what rights Muslims have in the USA, but he did not have the courage to explain what the USA is about – nor did he expound democracy as being besides the point if fundamental individual rights are not respected.

Is it that Obama does not understand what the US is about, or does he simply lack the courage to explain it?

20 years since the PLA turned on the people

20 years ago there was much optimism in many parts of the world. Mikhail Gorbachev had ushered in a new age of freedom and openness in what was then the Soviet Union, and had made it clear to the former Soviet satellites in eastern Europe that what happened to the politics of those countries was up to them - no longer would the USSR intervene as it had done explicitly in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 (and less explicitly on many other occasions). Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia were already moving rapidly forward, as it appeared the Cold War was fading away. This was watched by tyrants in all "really existing socialist" states that remained, as the regimes in Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany and Albania all clung on in Europe, whilst in Asia, Pyongyang, Hanoi, Beijing and Vientiane remained defiant.

Mikhail Gorbachev sought to end frosty relations with China by visiting Beijing in May 1989, the coverage of which was significant, as Gorbachev brought with him a message of openness to government, and an end to the totalitarian tentacles of single party rule involving itself in most aspects of life. It was a message noted by students in Beijing, which brought about protests in Tiananmen Square calling for similar reforms to bring freedom of speech and an end to the unfettered rule of the Communist Party of China.

The events of 2-4 June 1989 in Beijing are well known. I have blogged before about it, one noting a report from the then Radio Beijing English Language Service which you wont hear on the modern day China Radio International. I don't intend to repeat it.

It is worth noting that China is freer now than it was 20 years ago, not least because the advent of cellular phones and the internet has made it more difficult to control information flows to the public. However, the Chinese government has also loosened up, criticism of officials and debate about how policies are implemented appears. While questioning the rule of the Communist Party can still land you in prison or worse, the appearance of protests and the reporting of protests about situations and issues at the local level shows progress. There is little doubt that as Chinese gain property rights and prosperity they are more demanding of government. This is something unheard of when Sue Bradford went to Maoist China in the early 1970s.

Yet it isn't enough - China has two vibrant examples of free, open Chinese societies on its doorstep. Hong Kong is within its grasp, and flourishes with the rule of law and a quasi-democratic system of government in a free society. Taiwan has a vibrant liberal democracy and free society. The Communist Party of China, which essentially is running a corrupt state capitalist system (rather like an organised crime syndicate, as it is not accountable) fearful about what would happen if it "let a hundred flowers bloom". However, it is, in effect, slowly letting the screws loosen - even if questioning its rule remains taboo.

Reports after the Tiananmen Square massacre range in deaths from the low hundreds to the thousands. The most memorable image being the one man standing in front of the row of tanks. It is true for evil to be done it simply requires good men to do nothing, but in this case it was the People's Liberation Army that turned on the people. Chinese people still get arrested, imprisoned, tortured and executed for challenging the government, and the behemoth of the Chinese government and Communist Party of China can still bulldoze over people, leaving no trace of where they have been, with no accountability.

The BBC has an audio archive to remember the events.

It is time to take a moment to wish for more freedom in China, and gently remember those who strived for that which so many of us take for granted.

Left rallying against Gordon Brown's leadership

The Guardian is the serious paper of the left in the UK. It almost religiously supports voting Labour each election. For the Guardian to publish as editorial as it did today, on Gordon Brown, indicates the time for change has not just come from the broad centre of the population, but from supporters of the Labour Party.

On the upcoming EU and local elections: Labour faces its worst defeat in its history on Thursday, but the prime minister does not recognise his direct responsibility for the mayhem.

The verdict is damning: The truth is that there is no vision from him, no plan, no argument for the future and no support. The public see it. His party sees it. The cabinet must see it too, although they are not yet bold enough to say so. The prime minister demands loyalty, but that has become too much to ask of a party, and a country, that has was never given the chance to vote for him.

The Guardian appears to support major electoral reform, but sees Brown as unable to progress it: Labour needs to enter the next election having reformed parliament. But Mr Brown will never do it. The prime minister was absent from the start of the debate and cautious now he has joined it. His instinct is usually to hesitate, and to establish reviews and commissions. Meanwhile, the chance of a generation is being missed.


Of course, it also notes that those of us who don't ever want Labour to regain power are thrilled Brown clings on:

This paper believes Britain has often been at its best when Labour has been at its strongest. People who disagree with that will welcome its implosion, knowing that it will make a Conservative landslide inevitable. That is why they are not clamouring for Mr Brown to go.

Quite, notable also that Guardian columnists the socialist Polly Toynbee calls for voting Liberal Democrat, and Jonathan Freedland promoting the Greens.

Regular service about to resume

Let's just say a combination of a ton of work, medical concerns and unrelated stresses have just meant I couldn't be arsed writing much in the past week.

I will be after I've had a day off for a regular anniversary and got my head out of the backlog of menial tasks I must do to pay for bread crusts, shelter and train fares!

Sexual equality in Australia?

Stuff has published an AAP report that says "Australian women are as keen as men to take part in consensual group sex, and they initiate it almost as often".

Albeit this is a survey from an online dating site - so there is nothing scientific about it.

"80 percent reporting nothing but fun, with everyone's rights being respected." which of course you couldn't know unless all those involved were surveyed.

Though RedHotPie.com.au (!) "relationship expert" Geoff Barker says "This kind of thing has been going on since Adam and Eve," which of course begs the question. How?? Adam and Eve does not a group make - and the next people were their offspring, which takes it down a whole different path.

Funnily enough, I don't believe any of this has ever been illegal in NZ - it isn't illegal to portray it at all, despite it shocking and upsetting people. Although I don't think NZ has gone down the British path, as I think many Kiwis wouldn't know what dogging is (or they'd think it has something to do with dogs). It seems like a peculiarly British pastime for strangers to go to car parks or parks and have anonymous sex with each other, in groups sometimes. Although I understand the Germans are rather keen too.

What did you really expect?

From Bill English? The man who brought National to its worst ever electoral result in 2002, the man who couldn't make political capital from Labour increasing taxes, returning ACC's statutory monopoly, pushing away foreign investment so that it could nationalise Air NZ, wasting enormous amounts of money on health for little gain.

After all in this budget he said "We have continued to invest in rail. Budget 2009 includes $115 million to fund Kiwirail’s purchase of 20 new locomotives and to provide it with access to working capital. In Budget 2009 we are announcing an additional $90 million of operating support for KiwiRail."

Invest? Who would trust a man who regards pouring bad money after bad down a plughole to be an investment? Operating support? It's a fucking loss. Tell it like it is - you've been lumbered with an entity that bleeds red, and you either need to keep it limping along till it is sold, or start cutting off the limbs that bleed.

No tax cuts, but there is $290 million to subsidise those who like watching Youtube, Xtube, Sextube or whatever - because they needed support didn't they? (maybe it's also why the censorship office is getting a massive boost, when it might have been easier to tightly focus it on material involving real crimes, not drawings, painting and written matter).

Of course there is more money to pour down the health black hole - which most of you tend to support, and which seems to do sweet nothing for health outcomes. More money for education, propping up a system that continues to not want accountability for teachers' pay or choice for parents.

A lot of money to subsidise people to insulate their homes - something the Greens like - rewarding people for doing what they like, by penalising those who already did it, or never want to.

Some trinkets for Maori - $42 million of specific spending - obviously enough to keep the Maori Party happy (though Maori "benefit" from health, education and law and order spending of course).

It's obvious Working for Families should have been abolished, in favour of retaining the tax cuts.

Another obvious step would be to prohibit people on welfare from claiming extra if they have more children, or for those convicted of violent offences to be ineligible from claiming welfare, but no.

Dr Cullen has delivered a budget where more is spent, when there was a real need to trim back the profligacy of the past, and which defers giving people back more of their own money.

Oh this time ACT voted for it too. Although you'd think Sir Roger Douglas reckons he is still in Opposition with this wonderful stuff:

"The tax cuts that have been shelved cost under $1 billion. Government spending in the 09/10 year is over $65 billion. In other words, the Government needed to find just 1.5 percent of waste to deliver their tax cuts. This is against a backdrop where Government spending is, in real terms, $18 billion dollars higher than it was nine years ago."

In other words, it would have taken little real effort to deliver cuts

"Health spending in nominal terms is set to increase by over eight percent. Nothing is being done about the incentives in the system, which under Labour saw spending increase by 50 percent, but productivity for doctors and nurses dive 15 and 11 percent respectively."

Yes - not the slightest willingness to confront the failures of the status quo.

Finally, the lack of courage to confront the deficit is appalling:

"The current level of Government deficit is one third what it was in 1984. Back in 1984, we managed to get the books back into the black within 3 years. Today, with a deficit one third of the size it was then, it is going to take 11 years to get back to surplus."

Now if you really want something different, try the Libz alternative budget, giving most of you an income tax free income (ACT once stood for that).

Let's be clear, if National relied on Libz for confidence and supply at the moment, there would be tax cuts.

So in Mt. Albert if you supported ACT, and supported National for tax cuts, you really only have one choice - Julian Pistorius. If Julian became the first Libz MP, then you'd have far more confidence at the next election that a vote for Libertarianz would hold the next government accountable. After all, what has ACT got to show for its efforts in this budget?

So what about the European elections?

Every year part of local government in the UK is up for election, and this year it also coincides with the election of representatives to the European Parliament.

The local election for me is simple, I have to choose one candidate between Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Labour is contemptible, the Greens are unimaginable, the Liberal Democrats are liberal with my money, so Conservative is the best of a bad lot.

The European elections are a bit different. It uses proportional representation with party lists, and the UK is split into 12 constituencies. The PR method of allocating seats is the d'Hondt method, which in explained here. In effect there isn't a threshold, rather each constituency has a number of seats to be won, so seats are allocated proportionately.

At the moment, the parties representing the UK in the European Parliament are:
Conservative 27
Labour 19
Liberal Democrats 12
UK Independence Party 12
Scottish National Party 2
Green Party (England/Wales) 2
Plaid Cymru 1
Ulster Unionists 1
Democratic Unionists 1
Sinn Fein 1

So while there have been 78 MEPs, no party has anything close to a majority.

MEPs form "blocs" of common political interest.

The biggest bloc is the "European People's Party - European Democrats" grouping, which is conservative centre-right. In the UK, this includes the Conservatives and Ulster Unionists. It is fair to say the bloc is split between pro-European Christian Democrats and the Euro-sceptic European Democrats, the Tories are in the latter, so this is hardly a unified bloc.

The second biggest bloc is the "Party of European Socialists" which forms the leftwing bloc. In the UK, the Labour Party is a member.

The third bloc is the "European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party" which forms a liberal bloc, sitting between the first two. It is made up of a diverse lot as well, with the ACT like Free Democrats of Germany, and the pro private enterprise small government People's Party for Freedom and Democracy of the Netherlands on the one hand, whilst in the UK it is the "left of Labour" Liberal Democrats who represent it, and in France the centrist (do nothing) UDF.

The fourth bloc is the "European Greens- European Free Alliance" part of which is self explanatory with green parties, but it also strangely includes "stateless nations", in other words leftwing nationalism. The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are both in this group (as are Basque separatists from Spain).

The fifth bloc is the "European United Left - Nordic Green Left" bloc, essentially communist and hard left parties. It includes The Left (successor to the Socialist Unity Party which was the communist party of East Germany), French Communist Party and in the UK, Sinn Fein represents it.

The sixth bloc is the "Independent/Democracy" group basically Eurosceptic parties. UKIP sits comfortably here.

The seventh bloc is the "Union for Europe of the Nations" which is another conservative bloc, more socially conservative. No UK parties in the European Parliament belong to it.

So from that I have a choice of 14 parties and one independent. So who are they then?

Animals Count: Basically campaigning on animal welfare as a single issue, includes granting animals the legal status as sentient beings. A nice message of kindness to animals, which means putting them ahead of human welfare. So that's a no then. No chance of success.

BNP: Yes, the racist party when you're not having a racist party. It wont let British citizens born in Britain, who aren't white, to be members. On top of its opposition to immigration, and promotion of encouraging non-white citizens and residents to leave, it has a highly socialist agenda of nationalised industries, education and healthcare, as well as national military service. There is a message of opposing appeasement of Islamists, but this is a bunch of white trash poorly educated malcontents who are personal failures that project their poor self esteem into hatred of foreigner. Ugh. However there is a reasonable chance of success this time.

Christian Party/Christian People's Alliance: A clearly Christian conservative agenda, which seems to combine transparency with radical environmentalism, banning abortion, voluntary euthanasia and apparently promoting a quasi theocratic view of the EU. Um, no. Again no chance of success.

Conservative: Well you know them, demanding a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and wanting less EU influence over member states. However, is this really about significant change? Conservatives are likely to do very well though.

English Democrats: Believe in England having its own Parliament, and withdrawal from the EU (but membership of EFTA), free vote on social issues, opposition to mass immigration. BNP without racism and without the socialist agenda. The nationalism puts me off, but it has little chance of success.

Greens: UK branch of big government intervention in the economy, statist health and education, more welfare, more tax, legalising cannabis (and eventually all drugs) and scepticism of action against Islamism. Likely to do well as Labour supporters direct protest votes to them, and spreads the usual phobias around electricity, recycling, transport and trade.

Jury Team: Party based purely on selecting politicians by public referendum, interested in representation by people not parties. So why support it? Who knows, and that is likely to be reflected in the result.

Labour: The status quo. Not worth saying anymore about that. Labour is likely to be slaughtered this European election, I expect it could well slip to fourth behind the Lib Dems and UKIP.

Liberal Democrats: Embrace Europe, embrace pan-European laws and programmes. Talk of civil liberties, whilst also embracing the environmentalist agenda and welfarism. Likely to be where many unhappy Labour voters place their tick. Will seek to come second, but faces a tough battle with UKIP.

NO2EU: A cleverly branded socialist opposition to EU membership, because it sees it as a bastion of capitalism and free trade, which is opposes. Think BNP without the racism again. It is opposed to privatisation, open borders, the Euro for the UK. One of the members is the Community Party of Britain, which blames the tyranny in the Soviet Union on "encirclement by imperialism" Enough said, apologists for murderers. No chance.

Pro-democracy: Libertas.eu: This one intrigues me, it appears to be for cutting the size of the EU, a higher level of democratic accountability for the EU and is a pan-European party with branches in all EU countries. It is endorsed by Czech President Vaclav Klaus, which is fairly positive for me. It believes in an EU that only deals with matters that need to be agreed between states. Sadly I think its chances are slim, and its emptiness of philosophy (mostly it is about more democracy and less EU) is disappointing. If I don't vote Libertas, it will almost certainly be my second choice.

Socialist Labour Party: Arthur Scargill's vile party of moaning lazy socialists. A party once dominated by proud Stalinists, until Scargill expelled them because he wanted full control, but he halved his party as a result. Scargill is a denier of Stalin's mass murders and regarded unions as needing to be run as dictatorships that would tolerate no dissent. He believed the 9/11 attacks were undertaken by the Bush Administration itself. This vile little man wont get anywhere in the European elections, thankfully. Although the youth section looks like a party club, science club or somewhere to perv at girls' legs.

UK First Party: The party with the least information, and the least chance. Anti immigration, less tax, less welfare, withdrawal from the EU in favour of EFTA, removal of "hate crime" legislation. BNP lite with some liberalism? No chance.

UKIP: Withdrawal from the EU basically IS the policy, and I was going to vote UKIP, because it is the most principled stance to take. Britain should be in a free trade agreement, but not subject to the leftwing agenda that permeates Brussels (tempered only by some promotion of competition within the EU). UKIP supports fundamental reform of the gravy train of the European Parliament. However, the UKIP ads didn't inspire. One ad said "the EU prohibits the British government from providing financial support to the Post Office to keep post offices open, and forces it to open it to competition". My response was "good". Another ad talked of how the money paid to the EU (£40 million a day) could go into hospitals, schools and abolishing university fees - not tax cuts. It ignored how part of that did come back to the UK in agricultural subsidies. So screw that, UKIP can go to hell. I want my taxes back, I don't want to protect the poorly performing Royal Mail or subsidise feather bedded university students.

So is it Libertas or the Conservatives? Is it a statement of principle that wont get elected, or the least worst option that will be elected? I have a couple of days to decide.

North Korea goes on an explosive spree

First a nuclear test, now a couple of missiles, you'd think Kim Jong Il was desperate for attention.

Well he is.

That's all it is about. He wants attention, and to be given millions of dollars to keep calm and not threaten south Korea, Japan and the USA. The truth is he is highly unlikely to do anything more than do a few tests and shoot the odd missile into the sky. So he simply shouldn't be bought out, but the US should make it very clear what happens if North Korea DOES attack - annihilation.

You see the only real option in response to any North Korean nuclear attack is massive retaliation - destroying Pyongyang, and the annihilation of military targets across the country. Kim Jong Il's faithful underlings need to know that if he wants to take them all down that path, they will face annihilation. There must be the full understanding that there is no hope of victory, that their legacy will have been to support a man who brought annihilation and death to Korea, and to themselves and their loved ones.

Indeed, it has been that threat that has kept the peace on the Korean peninsula since 1953 (by and large), and it is one the Obama Administration cannot flinch from.

I don't believe Kim Jong Il will do more than sabre rattle, as he just gets upset that North Korea hasn't got much modern technology and the people outside Pyongyang live an African peasant existence of subsistence, coupled with Orwellian fear and rampant corruption. He wants to frighten the world to give him aid. The world should resist. The only way forward for North Korea is openness and non-aggression - sadly the entire regime is the antithesis of both of these words. It is the most closed and most aggressive regime anywhere - aggressive towards its own people most of all!

Bill English terrifies the public

The Dominion Post quotes Finance Minister Bill English saying "People won't be finding a lot of money in their bank account after this one".

That's quite a threat.

You're going to be stealing from my bank account? Why should I NOT be finding a lot there?

However, given I hope I am joking, he's already promising to reward irresponsibility by committing fiscal child abuse to subsidise home insulation, for those who couldn't be arsed paying for it themselves. All because those living there are suffering health consequences. If it's your own home then tough - blame yourself for not keeping your home warm. If you are renting, then presumably you take into account paying less for rent to pay more for electricity, or do you need Nanny State to help you keep your home warm because you're incompetent? The Greens think so.

Meanwhile, Bill English's threat should be taken somewhat seriously - be ready to move your money if he really is raiding bank accounts!

Obama sticks a finger up New Zealand

The Obama Administration, true to form, has decided to subsidise dairy exports. Given the Bush Administration sought global agreement to abolish agricultural export subsidies (and the EU - meaning the French - didn't want to), it demonstrates a great leap backwards for international trade.

Yes, all you fawning cheerleaders of the great leftwing change merchant, he's basically told the efficient dairy industry in New Zealand to go fuck itself. Federated Farmers have already responded calling the US dairy lobby a "compost heap" (which has made Lindsay Perigo smile).

Ironic that Maryan Street is calling for strong protests, because I'd put a bet that she and the rest of the Labour caucus cheered Obama's election, despite his record in supporting higher agricultural subsidies being clear.

Yes, it shouldn't surprise. The Obama Administration is no friend of free trade, which means it is no friend of the economies of other countries. It's a friend of big fat taxpayer thieving mud rolling stinking pork - change you can believe in? Yep, if you believe in subsidising inefficient producers to screw US taxpayers, and efficient dairy producers the world over.

Thanks for nothing Mr President.