Conservatives only green on the outside?

You'd have thought with the Conservatives believing in anthropomorphic climate change, wanting to strangle aviation, wanting to subsidise windfarms, embracing nuclear power, subsidising railways and keen on recycling, that the statist collectivist environmentalist movement would at least say there is nothing offensive here. It may not be enough for many, but you'd think that it would be a matter of degree.

No. Enemies of the Humans Friends of the Earth apparently approached Conservative candidates, and only FOUR of the 635 contacted would sign up to the pledges of that lobby group. This compares with 95 Labour candidates, 179 Liberal Democrats and unsurprisingly 267 Green candidates.

Maybe the Tories aren't so beholden to the environmentalist agenda after all? Maybe the candidates have simply decided the public are not interested in being told what to do at a time of severe economic recession.

What FOE wants is as follows:

Policy 1: A local carbon budget for every local authority that caps CO2 in the local area in line with the scientific demands for emissions cuts and local circumstances; and enough money and technical support to enable councils to do their bit to tackle climate change.

Quite how this is to be paid for is ignored - blank out.

Policy 2: Sufficient investment in switching to a low carbon economy to achieve a reduction in UK greenhouse gas emission of 42 per cent by 2020; create jobs and boost the recovery; and eliminate fuel poverty.

Again, uncosted, no way to pay for it.

Policy 3: An international deal on cutting emissions where those responsible make the deepest cuts first, and developing countries are supported to grow in a low carbon way.

The old chestnut that somehow the developing countries need do nothing, but developed countries must sacrifice. Those developing countries with high GDPs per capita and high emissions are ignored.

Policy 4: A new law which will tackle the major greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation caused by the UK’s dependence on imported feeds for livestock - and which will support better UK farming and domestic feed production.

Trade protectionism in other words. Quite how this fits into EU membership would be beyond FOE.

So only a fool would sign up to these pledges.

Fortunately, FOE publishes a list of the fools. In the Conservatives, millionaire pretty boy who is looking for a meaning to life, Zac Goldsmith (Richmond). Maria Caulfield (Caerphilly), Robert Walter (MP for North Dorset) and Jessica Lee (Erewash). No excuse to vote Conservative in any of THOSE seats now.

I wont believe the end to the Greenwash until the Conservatives backtrack on blindly opposing the expansion of Heathrow. Wrecking the growth of an entire sector of the economy just to win a few votes from NIMBYs in West London is the alternative, but then they are politicians who want power.

Last UK papers declare their hands

The Daily Telegraph stuns the nation by calling for a vote for the Conservatives. The editorial for Wednesday rightly says "Tony Blair's "project" was undermined from the start by two fundamental flaws. The first was the conviction that only big-government solutions can bring about lasting change; the second was the belief that to throw money at a problem is to solve it. The consequence was a spending binge of unparalleled profligacy conducted by an ever-expanding state machine – almost a million people have been added to the government payroll since 1997. When Labour came to power, public spending accounted for 40 per cent of GDP. Last year, the figure was 52 per cent."

Yes, of course, and largely right (although exaggerated) to say "Britain has become the most spied upon, regulated, nannied society in the Western world. Virtually our every move is caught on camera, ever more of our personal details are kept by agents of the state (and frequently lost by them, too). The state dictates where we can smoke and tries to tell us what we should eat and drink. This is not so much big government as Big Brother."

Sadly the Telegraph unwinds itself by saying "The Tory vision of the Big Society plays strongly into these new political realities. Built on the concept that the state should do less, better, and that decisions are best taken as closely as possible to where they impact, it addresses the straitened circumstances of the time. There is a coherent body of policies to support this vision, notably on education, welfare, law and order, and immigration. A smaller state means lower taxes"

There is nothing small government about the Big Society, there is little in the Conservative manifesto about a smaller state and precious less about lower taxes. The instincts and philosophy of the Daily Telegraph has a lot to commend it, sadly the Conservatives are letting them down.

The Independent unsurprisingly calls for a vote for the Liberal Democrats, or if that has no chance of success, a vote for any party to keep the Conservatives out. The key agenda is electoral reform, a rather odd priority at a time of record public debt, budget deficit and the risk of the economy slipping back into recession. However, the Independent hasn't been a successful business for years, so it is hardly surprising that it is incapable of understanding economics.

Finally, the most sane editorial yet comes from Allister Heath in City AM. He is supporting the Conservatives, as the least worst option of the main three. At least philosophically that newspaper has a positive grounding in capitalism. It isn't objectivism, but it is light years away from the rest:

City A.M. is proud to be an independent newspaper; yet that does not mean that we are free of values or devoid of a worldview. We support the City, London’s financial and business community, capitalism, economic growth, hard work, low taxes and a real free-market economy with no corporatism, bailouts or handouts. Good firms should be allowed to make (and keep) vast sums of money; bad ones should go bust. Success as well as failure should be privatised. We stand for meritocracy, where anybody, regardless of background, creed or gender, can get on in life; as well as for a truly compassionate society, whereby the better off have a duty to give the poor a helping hand and support those who cannot look after themselves.

A newspaper that supports capitalism, a free market economy without subsidies is a rare thing. Oh and City AM is free, funny how greedy capitalists can give away something for free isn't it? Herein lies one of the grand myths of the statist self-righteous "we know best" left.

He continues:

"We stand for internationalism, free trade, cultural openness and global engagement but shun unaccountable global bureaucracies and despise totalitarian movements. We like competition and open markets and dislike monopolies, cartels and state-granted privileges; we support knowledge, scholarship, sound science and evidence-based policies and reject irrationality, hysteria and obscurantism. In short, we are classical liberals in the tradition of Adam Smith, David Hume, Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek."

Yes, stone the crows, the UK isn't just about who can compete for the socialist vote, although Heath makes it clear that the choices are not great:

"None of the parties in Britain truly reflect this strand of thought. All have concealed the need to cut spending. All have promoted a simplistic, vote-winning narrative of the crisis which trashes the City indiscriminately, rather than trying to understand the complex and often policy-induced causes of the recession."

So he supports the Conservatives on the basis that most candidates are pro-free market and have the right instincts.

I can only hope he is right.

Meanwhile, as Labour faces accusations of lying about Conservative policies on child tax credits only ONE major national UK newspaper supports a vote for Labour in this election. The Daily Mirror. It's only useful contribution is flooding its working class readers with cries to not support the BNP.

Of the rest, the Guardian and the Independent are supporting the Liberal Democrats, and all of the rest are supporting the Conservatives. As newspapers like to back winners, it is more likely to be wishful thinking than any real influence upon voters. For most papers they back who their readers are likely to back. The Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and the Independent would support the Conservatives and LibDems respectively regardless. The Sun and The Times try to back the winner. The Guardian is the most interesting decision, turning its back on Labour.

None of these means very much, but it DOES mean that the UK papers are full of a diversity of perspectives and columns across the mainstream political spectrum, albeit not as wide as I would like. None of the main parties get away without strident criticism and critiques of their policies (although the perspectives of those critiques are not necessarily that diverse).

Contrast that to the near empty void of the NZ press.

UPDATE: London's Evening Standard is backing the Conservatives, because it fears a hung Parliament and believes change is needed.

My (extremely reluctant) choice in the UK election

I don’t feel clean or enthusiastic about it. I voted for UKIP.

Why UKIP?

The point was really about what does a vote mean. A vote has next to no effect, but to me it is an expression of my moral values and what I endorse for government. It is not, as many describe it, as a choice between poisons and picking the one that hurts the least. I wont grant moral sanction to govern me on terms I disagree with.

Because of that, I could not endorse a Conservative Party that has embraced the agenda of environmentalism, that has agreed to increase taxes (national insurance) even if it is less than the others, and which has chosen to posit a new form of big government (Big Society and national service), rather than tackle the budget deficit and repeal the big government that Labour introduced. A Conservative Party that has failed miserably to confront the economic mismanagement of Gordon Brown, but more importantly the infantilism of the public. It could have said it would not reverse the NHS increases, but instead it seeks to increasing spending on it ABOVE inflation. It could have said it would abolish welfare for middle classes, but it promised to largely preserve it. The Conservative Party has thrown off its bigoted xenophobic past, to embrace the bigoted anti-individualism of the left. It is devoid of remotely consistent philosophy, on the one hand saying people know best how to run their lives, and on the other calling for a “big society” imploring people to sacrifice their lives for others.

Yes, the Conservative Party is, marginally, better than the two parties of unabashed statism, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. However, it is only because Gordon Brown has been such an unabashed liar about his own record, which has been one of gross fiscal mismanagement, that the Conservatives look good. The only substantial shining light in the Conservative manifesto is the commitment to reform education, by allowing free schools to be set up, away from state control, with funding following the student. Even that is a half hearted copy of the successful Swedish model.

To give the Conservative Party my moral endorsement to govern, and more specifically to govern me means I have to accept an increase in national insurance (a form of income tax) for me. I have to accept the embracing of the climate change interventionist agenda, the totem of which is a multi billion pound taxpayer funded high speed railway, whilst openly explicitly stifling the expansion of the British airline and aviation sector by stopping a private company from paying to expand the world’s busiest airport in terms of international passengers. If that isn’t little Britain thinking surrendering to the luddite like idiocy of the environmentalist movement I don’t know what is.

Five years is a long Parliamentary term. The Conservatives might surprise me and be Thatcherites in sheep's clothing, but I doubt it. On top of that I considered whether the Conservative candidate himself was worthy of my endorsement, but he wasn't. His own blog has been entirely uninspiring, he would fit in well with Cameron's Conservatives. I wouldn't condemn the man, but there isn't enough in his own statements to offset the negatives about the Conservative platform overall.

So I voted UKIP. It wasn’t an easy choice. UKIP is anti-immigration, and I am an immigrant (albeit one with the entitlement to citizenship by birth). UKIP thinks the budget deficit can be largely solved by withdrawing from the EU, but it’s wrong. UKIP is a ragtag mob of disgruntled conservatives, unified by hatred of the EU, but with ideas and philosophies ranging from the libertarian to the xenophobic. My vote for UKIP was simply to say that the EU is now a fundamental problem for the UK and those who believe in less government. It was also an endorsement of UKIP having a few other worthwhile policies, such as supporting a flat rate of income tax, allowing people to contract out of the NHS and cutting state spending to 1997 levels. It’s not enough by any means, and it isn’t libertarian, but it does comprise of some policies the Conservatives should embrace.

So if the Conservatives do not win my constituency by a margin of the UKIP votes, it may make them think. The message should be that a belief in less government is NOT inconsistent with social liberalism, and social liberalism does not mean initiating force against those who disagree with you.

To take an alternative view is to effectively say, if the Conservative Party wins and follows its manifesto, I have no reason to complain as I will have endorsed it. Quite simply, there is not enough in the Conservative manifesto that is good for freedom and for the UK to offset the banal embracing of the Cameron vision of big government for me to endorse it. Voting for UKIP was a protest vote, knowing the git who was standing wont win, but also knowing that it makes a small statement about believing in less government. Next time I am hoping to do something about creating a better choice.

Oh and before anyone says it, if Gordon Brown or Nick Clegg are Prime Minister after the election, do NOT blame me. My refusal to vote for Cameron is not an endorsement of the other two. Besides, the differences between the lot are, in most cases, marginal, and where it really matters (defence) the Liberal Democrats are outvoted by the other two parties.

UK election: Seats to watch

In a Parliament of 650 constituencies I am NOT going to review every one, but given the UK has first past the post, it is worth noting that many of those are NOT worth noting.

The bellweather seats worth keeping an eye on are:

Gillingham and Rainham: The Conservative's highest ranked target, if that can't be won it will be a bitter disappointment to the Conservatives and give Labour much cheer.

Guildford: The Liberal Democrat's highest ranked target, although it is Conservative held. If it stays Conservative, it will show the Liberal Democrat surge has not been at the expense of the Conservatives, but if it shifts it will be a big worry for Mr Cameron.

Waveney: Assuming a uniform overall swing, and no losses, this is the seat the Conservatives need to win to get a majority. It needs a 12% swing from Labour to the Conservatives, a fairly hard ask.

Rochdale: Where Gordon Brown's "bigoted women" resides. This is the number one Liberal Democrat target held by Labour. It would be very surprising to see this not fold, but if it doesn't then the Liberal Democrats will be worried indeed.

Bethnal Green and Bow: George Galloway's Marxist, Islamist party RESPECT took this seat last time round, but there have been major boundary changes (and he isn't standing in this seat). Labour will be keen to win this one back given Galloway's absence, the end of British military presence in Iraq and the lower controversy over Afghanistan. Watch Birmingham Hall Green for a similar reason, as the current leader of RESPECT, Salma Yaqoob is standing although RESPECT was not in the top three in 2005.

Poplar and Limehouse: Galloway IS standing here, but this is a very mixed constituency, including wealthy bankers living in apartments at Canary Wharf, a middle class on the Isle of Dogs and a substantial Bengali low income presence. Expect this to be three way between Conservatives, Labour and RESPECT.

Ochil and South Perthshire: This is the Scottish National Party's prime target to win from Labour, and given the high likelihood of a hung parliament, the SNP is key to play a role if it can. However, while a swing from Labour seems natural, the SNP has been burnt by the banking crisis, as some Scots no longer believe that an independent Scotland can hold out in the event of a major recession. If this doesn't go SNP, expect Scotland to be one of Labour's few areas of relative success.

Brighton Pavilion: No party gets positive coverage like the Green Party, and so it is seeking to make this its first seat. Caroline Lucas the wolf in sheeps clothing MEP and Green leader is standing in this Labour held seat. However, if she does well it is likely to be at the cost of Labour, so she might let the Tories slip in with the leftwing vote split. Watch and Norwich South and Lewisham Deptford for the same reasons.

Buckingham: Held by John Bercow, the speaker (from the Conservatives), it is a tradition that the two major parties never contest the seat held by the speaker. Now without confusing Bercow with the Scottish git who removed himself after the Parliamentary expenses scandal, there is a chance that a high anti-politics vote could remove him. The lead contender is UKIP's Nigel Farage, although there are a multitude of independents and joke parties. UKIP came second in the European elections for the UK last year, so will be keen to make this breakthrough, bringing a very different flavour to the House of Commons.

Barking: Held by Margaret Hodge for Labour, this should be a safe seat. However the big challenge comes from the BNP, as leader Nick Griffin is contesting. The BNP came a close third behind the Conservatives in 2005, and is pulling out all stops to get Griffin elected. It is unlikely he will win, as it is likely Liberal Democrat and Conservative supporters will hold their noses and vote Labour to prevent it. However, if Griffin does significantly better than the 16% the BNP got last time, it will show more than ever that parts of working class Britain still hanker to blame johnny foreigner for their own woes.

Morley and Outwood: Contested by Education Minister Ed Balls, one of the candidates on the Labour left to potentially replace Gordon Brown, this is being fought hard by the Conservatives to make a "Portillo" moment (when Conservative Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo was ousted by Labour in 1997). The odds are not high, but if it can be achieved it will be a clear sign of a sound Conservative victory.

Bury North: Number 50 in the Tory target list. If this can't be won, it will be a clear sign the Conservatives have not broken into the north and wont be the largest party in the House of Commons. 5% swing required from Labour for this seat.

Keighley: Number 100 in the Tory target list. If this can't be won, then it will be difficult for the Tories to form a majority. 10.5% swing required from Labour.

Dundee East: Labour's number one target against the SNP. A 1% swing needed here, which is possible given disenchantment at the Scottish Assembly where the SNP is in government with the Liberal Democrats.

Carmarthan West and Pembrokeshire South: A Plaid Cymru target. If this can be won, Plaid Cymru will have lined itself up for 3 or maybe 4 more seats in the House of Commons.

Hastings and Rye: The threshold at which Labour loses its majority. Assuming the Conservatives obtain an even swing of 2.5%, the loss of this seat will mean Labour cannot govern alone. However, it does not mean the Conservatives can either.

Liverpool Wavertree: Not as interesting as it might have been. A safe Labour seat with 52% of the vote in 2005, but now has a Labour-Co/op candidate (the Co-operative party is aligned with Labour and has a very low profile) who is controversial locally for being a London carpetbagger. Actor Ricky Tomlinson expressed interest in standing, given he is a Marxist, but decided not to do so for business reasons (ironically). Instead, Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party has put up a candidate endorsed by Tomlinson. The red flag flies in Liverpool?

Cambridge: Libertarian blogger Old Holborn is contesting under that very name as an independent. At least this academically inclined city has a choice that is clearly about much less government, even if you don't agree with all of his views (e.g. on Afghanistan). His campaign website is here, and he is campaigning wearing the V for Vendetta mask worn by the character "V".

Safe seat games?

It is worth for budding psephologists to look at what happens in safe seats, the obvious six worth watching are:

Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath: Gordon Brown's seat. He had 58% of the vote there in 2005, with the SNP a distant second on 14.5%. Interesting to see how many protest vote to other parties.

Witney: David Cameron's seat. He had 49% of the vote in 2005, with the Liberal Democrats second on 23%. UKIP and the Liberal Democrats may both get a boost.

Sheffield Hallam: Nick Clegg's seat. With 51% of the vote in 2005, the Conservatives are a closer second on around 30%. Protest votes unlikely here though.

Liverpool Walton: Labour's safest seat. About 73% of the vote in 2005, the Conservatives not even able to rustle up 16%. Lib Dems, BNP and a socialist candidate all hope to make inroads.

Beckenham: Safest Conservative seat. 45% in 2005 but boundary changes have significantly strengthened that.

Ross, Skye and Lochaber: Liberal Democrat's safest seat, held by former leader Charles Kennedy with around 59% of the vote. Labour a distant second on around 15%.

The Police State none of the parties will confront

The Daily Telegraph reports on the appalling story of the Baptist preacher, Dale McAlpine, who was arrested in Cumbria for saying that he believed homosexuality is "against the word of God".

"Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act."

I shouldn't have to say this, but it is the simple Voltairean precept. I disagree with what he says, but I defend his right to say it. What is Britain today when a preacher cannot say in public what he believes?

I am an atheist, I don't agree with the mindless bigotry and judgment that people of many religions apply to homosexuality and homosexuals, but that does not give the state the right to police their opinions and criminalise him. Mr. McAlpine was arrested and put in jail for seven hours before being released. Why? Because the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police was offended.

He has been released on bail on condition he does not preach in public.

How fucking DARE they stop him preaching?

THIS is how "liberal" and "progressive" the so-called "Liberal" Democrats are, hand in hand with the Labour Party which passed this legislation.

It also shows how "liberal" the Conservative Party is, running absolutely shit scared from debate on such an issue, when Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling mentioned in a private meeting that owners of B&Bs that are Christian should be able to exclude homosexuals from their own homes if they wish. That perfectly reasonable expression of respect for private property rights was hounded down by the leftwing homosexual lobby and the left more generally as harking back to the days when homosexuality was a crime.

What absolute nonsense.

The Public Order Act should be repealed or amended to make it clear that "causing offence" is not defined by expressing opinions. The only public speech that should be criminal is that which is clearly threatening.

As vile and irrational as Mr. McAlpine's views are, they are his views and it is his right to hold them and express them, as it is my right to hold the contrary and express them (which no doubt offends him).

This is the sort of case that should fire up the Conservative Party to amend the law, but it is so overly concerned about removing its vile bigoted past in how it treated homosexuals, that it wont confront a lobby that wants to criminalise alternative opinions. That isn't British, it isn't liberal and it certainly isn't a belief in the government getting out of people's lives.

If you don't like people saying homosexuality is a sin, then argue with them, make your own point, or walk away. Otherwise you may as well start arguing to prohibit religious expression and non-religious expression you don't like.

Another reason to not vote Conservative.

UK election: Infantilisation of the electorate

Perhaps the most overwhelmingly depressing part of the UK election is not the blancmange tedium of the three main parties, nor the half chance that the vile BNP might win in Barking, or the Islamist loving RESPECT in east London, nor the anti-growth Greens in Brighton. It isn't the mass evasion of the trillion pound public debt and hundred billion pound budget deficit, although that comes a close second.

It is how, as Matthew D'Ancona correctly writes in the Sunday Telegraph, the Labour Party has infantilised Britain. He says "Margaret Thatcher had saved the country from economic perdition, ended the stranglehold of the unions, and nurtured a culture of enterprise, self-reliance, and share and council house ownership. But she had not truly weaned the electorate off government: the corrosive belief that "they" – some bureaucracy, the gentleman in Whitehall – can and should do everything for us. It is the great British paradox: the only thing we dislike more than intrusion is being left to our own devices.

New Labour identified this aspect of the national psyche, encouraged it and made it the basis of an awesomely successful electoral coalition. Labour would "invest", the Tories would "cut".

Well indeed, except that this infantilisation goes well before New Labour, and has never really been addressed by the Conservatives. It goes to 1945, when British voters were offered a deal by the Labour Party which essentially was "we've run your lives during the war, let's keep doing it". So the NHS was born, and half of the economy was nationalised, and the UK's growth was stagnated for decades, not least because the social planners put so many of Britain's poor in council estates that became hothouses of despair and crime.

The infantile attitude can be seen in what almost everyone who engages in politics on televised debates or seen in streets is saying "will you spend money on xxx?". A few ask "what will you do about the deficit?", but are unlikely to like answers of "cut spending on this, put up taxes on that".

Most tellingly, infantilism is seen on healthcare. The Conservatives surrendered to it, because the idea of PAYING to go to the doctor, let alone anything else, would guarantee political oblivion, for the result would be like the wailing of babies denied a chocolate bar. It is an attitude promoted by the Labour Party, which treats the NHS as if it is sacred, as if it is the totem of a caring society, rather than a rarely copied centrally planned queuing mechanism that sucks up more and more money as demands upon it are endless.

However, the idea that "they" ought to "do something" about this or that problem, has become the childlike dependency upon government to fix problems, pay for things, and make everything better. It is the philosophy peddled openly and proudly by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the philosophy that "they" will protect families, look after "your education and NHS" (note the use of the term NHS rather than just healthcare, the means is more important than the ends). It is feeding the childlike comfort of socialism.

The Conservatives can't talk that language with the same conviction, and so that provokes fear among the infant like electorate, which Brown nurtures "you'll lose your child tax credit, the economy will be ruined, you'll lose this, you'll lose that, mean old Mr Cameron will take away your toys like that nasty Mrs Thatcher once did". Instead of confronting it head on, the Conservatives, having no solid alternative philosophy, simply evade and cave in. The Conservatives have guaranteed to increase NHS funding in real terms year on year, despite the NHS having had record increases under Labour, well above inflation. The Conservatives have also promised to keep a host of benefits and payments that Labour introduced.

Why? Because the Conservatives know that, if they want power, they need to nurture the infants, and can only wean them off of nanny state by stopping its growth, and making a few select steps back. This time the key measure to change it is education, with a watered down version of the Swedish free school voucher system, because it can undermine the local government monopoly on state schools. However, this is a pale attempt at challenging the infantilism of the left. Even then, it is unlikely that even 40% of the electorate has enough confidence in this to vote Conservative. So so many say they have always voted Labour in the past, but can't bring themselves to vote Conservative, as it would be a "betrayal", or it would be voting for the "party that looks after the rich". The slogans peddled by the left who have their claws dug into those that want dependent upon the big nanny state for their healthcare, education, housing, employment, retirement income and everything else that comes with it. Nobody has dared challenge the simple notion that if it is your money, you have every right to keep it yourself - rather than you are obliged to let others have some of it.

That is the pernicious, destructive nasty taste of envy of British class warfare. It is only exacerbated by the anachronism of the country's biggest welfare dependents in the Royal family, and the existence of the House of Lords. However, these are minor in the scheme of things. What is truly disturbing is how the state and the state's institutions have effectively left so many of those, avowedly working class, to believe that success and wealth comes primarily to those born with it, not those who aspire to it.

To challenge this, the Conservative Party offers little, it doesn't have the testicular fortitude or the circumspection to abandon what is fundamentally wrong with it - the residue of conservatism and the belief that the state is fine, as long as "we" run it, like good chaps well educated, who know how to look after everyone. You see, the Conservatives haven't a great record in reducing the size of the state. Thatcher largely only stemmed the growth of it, with the great liberalisation coming from privatisation of major industries, not the fundamental reform of the social sector.

To make a difference the UK needs is a party that has the proud liberalism that was once the Liberal Party, liberal on individual rights, but also liberal on markets and the economy. The Liberal Democrats have a veneer of social liberalism, matched with hardline leftwing state management of the economy. It needs a party that does NOT pander to the anti-immigration, old conservative rhetoric of judging people on their background not their deeds. It wont happen for this election, but it will be time for those who believe in less government to consider afterwards, what vehicle should be used to take these ideas forward. For unless the Conservative campaign has been a great con, that wont be the vehicle to do anything other than to slow down the rot.

Back to the 70s

Given this inane story, here's some ideas:

Government companies making locally built computers, TVs, shoes, ships, mobile phones, cars....

Yes the railway workshop builds freight cars, successfully, following competitive tendering. Yes it overhauls locomotives, successfully. Yes once NZ railway workshops built everything for the railway, including rivets, nails, bolts and the like - often at many many times the unit cost of importing the same. Imagine any business building all of its own components, but not selling those components to anyone else - how sustainable is that?

It just shows some idiots haven't learned from the past. New Zealand cannot economically sustain a car ASSEMBLY industry, for thousands of units per annum, let alone sustain building bespoke passenger trains and locomotives. It is worth remembering the Ministry of Commerce report in the late 1990s which stated that the cost of each car assembly job was over $100,000, for people paid a quarter of that.

Last time it assembled passenger carriages it was the 1950s (the old Wellington units about t obe replaced by new imported trains), the last locomotives assembled were a handful of shunters in the early 80s.

Of course it does raise the very real point about how stupid Labour is - given that it happily let the Wellington Regional Council order 48 new electric units being built in South Korea, while it was in power.

Still, the government shouldn't be surprised this sort of silliness is brought up, given it owns the railway and is spending half a billion of your money on the folly of a rail network that will serve the needs of perhaps 2% of all trips in Auckland, and will lose money year after year. Still, a majority of you voted for that.

UK elections: How about transport then?

I am not driven by transport policy in voting in the UK, because it isn’t that important. Good job, given how absolutely devoid of reason all three main parties their transport policies are.

How?

Labour has announced it wants to spend money, that it doesn’t have, on a high speed rail network. A network that will have a HIGHER environmental impact that the existing rail network, that will mostly attract users from existing rail services, and which would only affect domestic flights if built to Scotland for tens of billions of pounds. Note domestic flights are completely unsubsidised. This new cargo cult will mostly benefit business travellers, to an enormous cost to taxpayers. The Liberal Democrats and Tories say ME TOO! So unsurprisingly, it is easy to be cynical of politicians seeking totems for themselves. By the way, the Channel Tunnel was built, operated (and went bankrupt) with no taxpayer funding.

Labour also promises to spend more money it doesn’t have on upgrading railways, whilst maintaining a meagre programme for road expansion while it collects four times the revenue from road users as it spends on roads. The only bright side is support for a third runway at Heathrow airport, but a ban on any other airport runways being built.

Liberal Democrats are worse, with a religious opposition to road improvements, and a fetish for reopening rail lines paid for by money that doesn’t exist. The Liberal Democrats oppose airport expansion and want road pricing (which is economically rational, but not to pay for roads!). The Conservatives oppose airport expansion as well, and don’t want road pricing, except for foreign lorries. Disappointing given how the Conservatives once privatised rail (not particularly well), aviation, buses and road freight (yes the government ran a trucking company!).

So basically, don’t bother, nothing to see here. Not the slightest chance of embracing economically rational policies, so that transport users meet the costs of what they use, and for the state owned or managed infrastructure to be run to maximise efficiency. No, just continued socialism rubbing up against capitalism, with a strong taint of environmental theology.

UK elections: A tame manifesto for the UK?

Given none of the parties I can vote for inspire me beyond the slightest, I thought I’d write my own manifesto for the UK. It isn’t THAT radical, but it is to try to reflect where I think the Conservatives SHOULD have gone in the next five years at least. As such, the headings mostly reflect Conservative manifesto portfolio headings. In short, if the Conservatives could do this, or even do half of this, I'd have some enthusiasm for giving that party my vote...

Big Society: No policy. Eliminating laws that restrict the peaceful activities of the voluntary sector should be a priority in the next term, that includes restricting organisations from determining their own membership, and restricting prohibitions on trade.

Business: Reduce company tax immediately to match the lowest in Europe (12.5% in Ireland) with a view to eliminating company tax once the budget deficit is eliminated. Part pay for the cut by immediately ending all subsidies and grants to industry, and closing the bureaucracies responsible. The best assistance to business is to get the hell out of the way, and to make the UK the most tax competitive economy in Europe.

Constitutional: Directly elect the House of Lords via STV, retain its current role or reviewing and delaying legislation. Establish independent Electoral Authority to ensure boundaries reflect equivalent population sizes. Give Scotland and Wales referendums with a choice of independence, full integration into the UK, or full federal type autonomy (with tax raising powers). Give Northern Ireland full autonomy to raise its own taxes and run its own internal affairs.

Energy and climate change: Eliminate all measures that impose restrictions on the introduction of zero-emissions energy that are inconsistent with private property rights and protection from force or fraud. Remove restrictions on construction of new power stations consistent with private property rights and transitional planning laws until emission and water discharges are converted into private property rights. Eliminate climate change levies. Eliminate OfGem’s role over three years.

Community relations: No policy beyond making it clear that British values include respect for individual rights and individual choices in a free liberal democratic capitalist society. All new immigrants will be required to sign up to respect of the individual rights of others, including a commitment to leave or be removed if those rights are not respected demonstrated by criminal conviction.

Countryside and farming: Remove restrictions on the peaceful use of private property. Commence negotiations to change the terms of UK EU membership including abolition of agricultural subsidies.

Crime: Undertake a fundamental review of all criminal offences to ensure offences only remain for the initiation of force or fraud. Commence reform of drug laws to progressively remove adult use and trade in narcotics from the criminal law.

Culture, media and sport: Cap spending on the Olympics, privatising the Olympics so that it does not have an increasing draw on taxation. Eliminate cross media and foreign ownership rules on all media outlets. Eliminate restrictions on commercial broadcasting, sell Channel 4, prepare BBC to sell non-core channels and replace licence fee with voluntary options for payment once analogue television is closed. Eliminate OfCom and transfer its non-coercive functions to the private sector, with radio frequency rights transferred to private property rights. Eliminate competition law requirements upon media providers.

Defence and National Security: Replace Trident, support continued deployment in Afghanistan. Continue to

Economy: Encourage economic growth by starting to cut and eliminate taxes. Repeal increase in national insurance. Cut company tax to 12.5%. Repeal 50% tax rate. Eliminate stamp duty and inheritance taxes. Eliminate budget deficit over three years by widespread cuts in the state sector, including introduce public sector pay freeze until budget deficit is eliminated, end contributions to public sector pensions, eliminate winter fuel subsidies for pensioners, eliminate income tax credits in exchange for introducing £10,000 tax free tax allowance. At least a freeze in nominal terms of all state sector budgets except defence and law and order. Once budget is in surplus, simultaneously cut 40% tax rate and increase tax free allowances. Cut VAT to 15%. Eliminate laws inconsistent with protection against the initiation of force and fraud. Privatise all government owned businesses at a time at for offers commensurate with getting the best price to repay public debt.

End the creation of fiat money by the Bank of England, allow issuance of free money by banks.

Environment: Eliminate landfill tax, abolish OfWat to let water companies to charge money. Demand reform of the Common Fisheries Policy to introduce private property rights. Undertake a wholesale reform of planning law to base all on private property rights including rights to airspace, waterways and sight lines.

Europe: Negotiate new terms of membership of the EU, including cessation of funds for subsidy programmes, the right to offer more open borders for trade in goods and services than the EU offers, opt-out of all directives that initiate force or fraud on businesses and individuals. Retain freedom of movement within the EU but eliminate reciprocal arrangements for welfare, health and education for EU citizens in the UK and vice versa.

Family: Cap funding on Sure Start, start transferring Sure Start centres to the private sector as registered charities, phasing out state funding over five years. Eliminate legal requirements for employers to provide parental leave.

Foreign Affairs: Commit to NATO and to the dissemination of secular, pluralist values globally. Support multilateral sanctions against Iran. Maintain clear support for the UK sovereignty over the Falklands and Gibraltar. Promote a new WTO trade round.

Health: Shift the NHS and national insurance to an individual insurance model. Initially compulsory, the new NHS insurance model will have a voluntary opt out for those wishing to buy their own health insurance or health care. The NHS insurance system will raise national insurance rates to remain solvent, and will be empowered to charge differential national insurance to reflect risk, and offer options for part payment by payers. As a transitional arrangement, all citizens will remain covered by NHS insurance unless they opt out.

Housing: Eliminate stamp duty. Reinforce private property rights to allow land and homeowners to do as they wish as long as they respect property rights of others. Eliminate local authority powers to regulate land use, or to use council tax to pay for public housing. Grant ownership of all public housing to tenants of five or more years, transfer all other public housing to private housing charities.

Immigration: Require all new immigrants to permanently relinquish any claim on state health, education, welfare or pensions, have sufficient funds to be housed for at least three months and funds for a return airfare, and be committed to the broad values of a tolerant, secular society respecting the individual rights of others (including no criminal record for genuine crimes). Focus border control on people trafficking, and the entry of criminals and terrorists.

International development: Freeze aid in nominal terms, focus on phasing out development aid, but supporting governance reform in developing countries to promote the rule of law, private property rights, free trade and individual freedom.

Jobs and welfare: Cap all welfare benefits in nominal terms. Tighten eligibility for benefits. Eliminate minimum wage.

Justice: Eliminate victimless crimes and agencies to vet working with children on the basis of suspicion not conviction. Scrap ID cards. Reform DNA database so that it retains data only of convicted criminals, and others who consent. Remove convictions for victimless crimes from personal records. Introduce preventive detention for serious violent and sexual offenders. Replace ASBOs with trials for real offences and a points based three strikes law. Introduce test for conviction and sentencing of children based on understanding nature and consequences of their acts, and to convict parents using children as agents.

Local government: Permanently freeze council tax. Abolish regional assemblies and development agencies. Abolish power of general competence of local authorities, restricting them to delivery of “public” goods and devolved delivery of policing, and residual state services.

Pensions and Older People: End requirement to buy annuity at 75. Cap state pension. Establish pension accounts for all citizens of five years or longer corresponding to age. Hypothecate portion of income tax to pension accounts, allow account holders to transfer to private sector and contribute as much extra as they wish. Eliminate winter fuel payments once tax free threshold increased. Leave free transport passes to transport providers.

Schools, universities and skills: Remove all restrictions on establishing schools, and allow funding to follow students to any institutions, or for parents to receive a tax credit to use for education. Freeze university funding, giving them free reign to increase fees as they see fit.

Technology: Eliminate state involvement in the roll out of broadband.

Transport: Privatise the Highways Agency network by granting ownership to all registered owners of motor vehicles, with full powers to set tolls. Issue no new rail franchises that are subsidised. Remove state role in vetting airport and port development. Eliminate air passenger duty. Require local authorities to put local roads into companies with shares held by property owners. Permanently cap fuel tax and allow motorists to opt out of fuel tax by paying tolls directly to road owners. Let high speed rail development be a purely private enterprise endeavour.

Women and equality: No policy.

UK election: Newspapers make their point

One of the best aspects of UK politics is how the papers are overtly political and unashamed about taking a thoughtful position based on an overarching philosophy. Whether you agree or disagree, at least it is refreshing to see journalism that involves some thinking.

So what are they saying?

The serious papers are comprised of the Telegraph, Times, Independent, Guardian and the FT.

The Daily Telegraph yesterday and Sunday Telegraph today are supporting the Conservatives. Hardly surprising, but it is worth looking at the editorials which make some similar points:

"If you examine the Government's record, there is no doubt that the top-down, target-driven, statist approach has reached a dead end." Quite, although I don't trust the Conservatives to do anything other than stop the growth of it. The Telegraph always supports the Conservatives, so no surprises here.

The Times and the Sunday Times have been more fluid. In 2005 both supporting Labour, although with some reluctance. Now it is clear:

"A Chancellor who had proclaimed an end to boom and bust embarked on a spending spree of remarkable improvidence. Public sector staff now earn £2,000 a year more on average than their private sector counterparts. Spending rose, over the Labour years, by an extraordinary 54 per cent. Productivity lagged behind. Gordon Brown savaged the private pensions industry and sold off the bulk of Britain’s gold reserves much too cheaply. In short, Labour squandered the boom."

It continues: "Mr Brown’s pitch at this election is that voters should not risk the recovery by backing the Conservatives. He does not seem to realise that the greatest threat is more of the same. Yes, the economy is in peril. Mr Brown is the danger.”

The Sunday Times echoes this "As the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out, Britain had the biggest rise in public spending among 28 OECD countries in 1997-2010, moving from 22nd highest-spending nation to sixth. When most western countries saw their tax burdens fall, Britain’s went up substantially; only those of South Korea, Hungary and Portugal rose more steeply."

So both support the Conservatives given "Amid the sound and fury, a fundamental philosophical difference has emerged: the Conservatives want to reduce excessive public expenditure, the Labour Party wants to keep on ratcheting up benefits, tax credits and other forms of state spending."

The Guardian is traditionally a supporter of Labour, but this time is more measured. It even complements David Cameron for reforming the Conservatives but concludes "A Cameron government might not be as destructive to Britain as the worst Tory regimes of the past. But it is not the right course for Britain." So funnily enough, the Guardian supports the Liberal Democrats? Why? Because the LibDems are more socially liberal, and more fundamentally leftwing than Labour "The Liberal Democrats were green before the other parties and remain so. Their commitment to education is bred in the bone. So is their comfort with a European project which, for all its flaws, remains central to this country's destiny. They are willing to contemplate a British defence policy without Trident renewal. They were right about Iraq".

Demonstrating how the Liberal Democrats are the new inheritors of the left in the UK.

The Observer naturally agrees.

The Independent on Sunday agrees saying "the best outcome of this election would be a Lib-Lab coalition." so is calling for a vote for the Liberal Democrats where that party could win, but Labour when it could not, as it supports electoral reform.

The Mail on Sunday, which rails against immigrants and criminals, and says the war in Iraq was a mistake, supports the Conservatives, cautiously, although Christian columnist, Peter Hitchens, says no - because he fears the Conservatives are TOO liberal.

The Sunday Express also supports the Conservatives, it cites a long record of failure of Gordon Brown such as "remember how in May 1999 the then relatively new Chancellor Gordon Brown decided to sell more than half of our national gold reserves; a total of 395 tonnes. At a time when the price of gold had slumped, our precious metal sold at an average price of $275 per ounce. This weekend gold was being traded at $1,162.20, more than four times as much. It’s quite a record and it speaks for itself. " It supports the Tories to reform immigration and welfare, but I suspect it expects too much.

The Sun, usually fascinated with tits, is supporting the Conservatives, having supported Labour last time "the real story of the Labour years is one of under-achievement, rank failure and a vast expansion of wasteful government interference in everyone's lives… At the 2005 election, we and our readers believed Labour had many failings but gave them one last chance over a lacklustre Tory party. They have had that chance and failed. That is a fact Gordon Brown cannot escape, for all his rhetoric yesterday - his rewriting of history, his absurd caricature of the "heartless" Tories, his tired promises to solve problems he has had 12 years to solve."

The Mirror by contrast is lock, stock and barrel Marxist. "On one side we have a man of enormous experience hailed throughout the world as the leader of the fightback against a recession which could have plunged into depression. On the other there is David Cameron and his vacuous sidekick George Osborne. Could there be a more terrifying thought than that these two may be entrusted with the nation's finances? “

Now vacuous sidekick is very true indeed, but Brown is now leader of the “fightback”, a “fightback” that means needing to address a massive deficit. Overspending didn’t save Greece, and it isn’t saving Japan, but the Mirror isn’t exactly the repositary of the highly educated. The Mirror is still engaging in class war, thinking the Conservatives “They always think of the demands of City fatcats and business leaders first rather than the needs of ordinary workers”.

So it remains the ONLY major national paper still supporting Labour.

So overall, it looks bleak for Labour. The Mirror is all that is left, the other leftwing papers are supporting the Liberal Democrats, and the rest are all with the Conservatives, along with the Economist.

As for me? Certainly a Labour or a Liberal Democrat influenced government would be a leap backwards, but the Conservatives? I think it would be a case of slowing down the rot, and not much more. I don't want to vote for tax increases. What do I want?

UK election: Economist backs Conservatives

The Economist has declared it is supporting the Conservatives winning the UK election. Why?

Well according to Conservative Home (which has a preview of tomorrow's editorial) on Labour:

"it praises Brown for keeping Britain out of the euro, yet on the economy states that "a prime minister should not get too much credit for climbing out of a hole he himself dug as chancellor", describing the budget deficit as a time-bomb which Brown is "ill equipped to defuse"."

Quite.

On the Liberal Democrats: "Whilst stating that it has been "looking for a credible liberal party in Britain for nigh on a century", it is swift to dismiss the Lib Dems with their enthusiasm for the euro, flirtation with scrapping our nuclear deterrent, desire to abolish tuition fees, opposition to nuclear power and policies on business which are "arguably to the left of Labour's": "Mr Clegg has been a delightful holiday romance for many Britons; but this newspaper does not fancy moving in with him for the next five years".

I suspect the TV debate tonight will see Clegg exposed on the LibDem past support for the Euro. The Liberal Party it is not.

So Conservatives? Hardly a ringing endorsement but it:

"praises David Cameron for modernising the party and stamping out social illiberalism. It also congratulates George Osborne for not giving in to the demands of the Right for tax cuts and for committing the party to an austerity programme

Stamping out isn't true, since there is little sign of tolerance on issues like drugs and censorship. Moreover, the Tories are supporting tax increases, on a more limited scale than Labour. The liberalism of the Economist isn't really holding true in ignoring this.

"More than their rivals, they are intent on redesigning the state. They would reform the NHS by bringing in more outside providers; their plans to give parents and teachers the right to set up schools are the most radical idea in this election. Centralisers under Margaret Thatcher, they now want to devolve power to locally elected officials, including mayors and police chiefs. Some of this is clouded in waffe about a Big Society. Other bits do not go far enough: it is foolish to rule out letting for-profit companies run schools and wrong to exempt the NHS from cuts. But Mr Cameron is much closer to answering the main question facing Britain than either of his rivals is. In this complicated, perhaps inevitably imperfect election, he would get our vote."

OK, the education policy IS worth a tick. That is about it. The insouciance about the failures of the entire NHS model is disappointing, and I don't trust locally elected officials more than centrally elected ones.

However, the endorsement is understandable. A clear Conservative victory is preferable to a hung Parliament or a Labour victory. A hung Parliament will inevitably mean electoral reform that will mostly favour statist parties like the Liberal Democrats, Greens and the BNP. Labour victory will simply be unjust.

UK election: Winner will be out of power for a generation

According to US economist David Hale, he said "I saw the Governor of the Bank of England last week when I was in London and he told me whoever wins this election will be out of power for a whole generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be"

Edmund Conway in the Daily Telegraph, who quotes this says that few understand the scale of the deception that politicians are engaging in on the amount of austerity needed.

In essence, if you believe the state should NOT grow, it means drastic spending cuts, which will have to include education, welfare and probably health.

If you don't care about the size of the state, it would mean some of that, but also tax increases that will deeply affect the competitiveness and image of the UK internationally.

Conway continues:

We have been insulated from the full pain of the financial/economic crisis so far by unprecedented low interest rates and by the bank bail-outs. At some point, the anaesthetic will wear off and we will face a period of austerity that may well make the ruling party so unpopular that it effectively becomes unelectable for decades. There will be strikes; there will be stagnation; there will probably be a double dip of some variety. But this time the pain will be unmistakeably imposed by the politicians.

Gordon Brown should bear most of the blame for this. He ran deficits in the "good times", ran up massive increases in state spending with little to show for it, and cheered on an economy propped up by cheap finance, property speculation and state spending. Now it's all the fault of the greedy bankers, and we should all feel lucky he was in charge.

No Gordon, you screwed up. The only fair result is that the Labour Party comes a distant third to the Conservatives and the new leftwing major party, the Liberal Democrats. It is only because it spreads such fear among those it has made dependent on its big state, that it has any chance of power today. If the Conservatives win, and have to engage in massive spending cuts, Labour will take the opportunity to moan about it, and offer nothing in return.

Gordon Brown's place in history will be one of utter disgrace.

(Hat Tip: Edmund Conway, Daily Telegraph)

UK election : Vote BNP if you're not white British?

The Independent reports that the BNP is proposing to GIVE £50,000 in resettlement grants, per person, to "non white British" residents of the UK to leave. I suspect the BNP feels its core vote of racist envy dripping malcontents is drifting away.

As someone who would undoubtedly be classified as "white British" given my parentage, I'm outraged.

For if the BNP ever got into power, I'd happily want to take £50,000 and flee to a country that wasn't being run by knuckle dragging, semi-articulate, barely literate incompetents. Of course, if that was a real possibility, the £ sterling would already have plummeted to parity with the Kiwi drachma.

UK elections: So how about UKIP?

I have seriously flirted with voting for UKIP, until tonight.

Why UKIP? Well it helps that Googling UKIP comes up with "Libertarian, non-racist party". Beyond that there are many policies consistent with wanting less government:

- Flat tax of income tax of 31% and income tax free threshold of £11,500;
- Abandon the European Union, but retain free trade and investment with the EU;
- Reject carbon taxes or carbon trading as it rejects interventionist policies on climate change;
- Allow people to opt out of the NHS with a tax credit scheme;
- Introduce school vouchers and allow free schools to be established;
- Abolish regional assemblies.

OK, not too bad. However, then it gets a bit more tricky. It isn't just the typical war on crime stuff or the rather odd massive increase in defence spending, it means policies that frankly are contrary to freedom:

- Amend takeover code to prevent "foreign interests" gaining control of "strategic British companies". In other words, outright socialist nationalism;
- A socialist style public works programme of nuclear power stations and high speed rail lines;
- A 5 year freeze on ANY immigration for permanent settlement, effectively shutting out the world's best and brightest regardless;
- Zero tolerance on crime, "three strikes and your out" without removing victimless crimes;
- Expand NHS coverage and keep it free;
- Ban BAA (a private company) from expanding Heathrow runway and terminal capacity;
- Build more social housing, ban greenbelt development and introduce democratic planning controls;
- Ban the burkha and veiled niqab in"certain private buildings" (quite why you need to on private property is a bit odd)
- Oppose GM food production and retain farming subsidies.

Of those, it is the amendment of the takeover code, the ban on immigration, irrational ban on GM food production and the belief in more state spending that make UKIP unpalatable.

On top of that, I asked my local UKIP candidate how he would cut the budget deficit. He said, among other things, that withdrawal from Afghanistan would help. Apparently Afghanistan reverting to the Taliban and the Taliban spreading to Pakistan shouldn't be a concern! In addition, the other answers were partly trite (cutting the ID Card while laudable wont save money already spent!).

The ONLY reason to vote UKIP is a protest vote to rattle the Conservatives, which is safe since UKIP really only has a chance in one seat (not mine). UKIP says to them to not take their core voters for granted, and that for many the European Union remains an issue. However, do I really want to be associated with a party that is so vehemently anti-immigration? Do I want to be associated with being hardline on crime, including drug and censorship "crimes"? Do I want to give moral support for public works programmes and banning some foreign investment? Finally, more specifically, do I want to support a candidate who opposes UK involvement in Afghanistan (and doesn't know the UK has already withdrawn from Iraq)?

My conclusion is, no. The candidate himself is not worthy of my moral endorsement.

So I am left with the Conservative candidate, of whom I know little. He's next in the questioning...

UK election: All three parties to thieve some more

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published a presentation outlining its conclusions on the plans of the three main parties for tax and spending. The conclusion?

ALL of them propose more tax.

The Liberal Democrats propose on average an extra £760 per household in tax, Labour £610 and the Conservatives £390.

So vote Conservative for more tax? Hardly the choice if you want LESS government. Indeed, the Conservatives are better for low to middle income earners than Labour, as their tax rises hit the wealthiest the most.

So since I wont be voting Labour or Liberal Democrat (what do you think I am?), is it Conservative as the least worst of the parties likely to hold power, or do I go for the only other option in my constituency that isn't about more government - UKIP?

The NZ$ vs the £ Sterling... correction time?

The NZ$ is at a record high against the British Pound. Travelex are currently selling NZ$2.05 for £1. This is almost a record low for the Pound against the dollar.

City AM is arguing that a long run correction will be on the way, and the right thing to do is long selling of the kiwi vs the sterling. In other words, the Pound is likely to rise after the election (assuming the uncertainty built into the price is corrected), and that the NZ$ will be on a track to fall because of pressure from the Reserve Bank of NZ.

What does this mean for kiwis in the UK? Bring your money here. The pound is unlikely to ever be this cheap against the NZ$. The NZ$ strength is driven in part by the relatively high interest rates, but also naive belief by some currency traders that the NZ$ has parallels with the $A. City AM dismissed this link a few months ago, as the A$ is driven by rising commodity prices around minerals. The NZ economy is not driven by this, and in fact has a tourism sector being hit by the drooping Pound, Euro and Yen.

Meanwhile, kiwis wanting an overseas holiday should book trips now - it will never be this cheap to visit the UK and Europe, whilst the pound remains low and the Euro gets damaged by the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain). Unless, of course, you believe in reducing CO2 emissions in which case keep yourself on NZ soil or else you can be readily accused of blatant hypocrisy.

Gordon Brown's latest gaffe

Bigot.

It is what he muttered under his breath about a woman who asked why so many eastern Europeans had been let into the UK. A former Labour voter she now is. Now it isn't so important that she doesn't like eastern Europeans, as she used to vote Labour it is not hard to figure out how well developed her views may be.

What is important is that the Prime Minister says such things about the average voter/taxpayer. Gordon Brown may well have just helped accelerate the loss of votes from Labour to other parties.

Lord Mandelson, ever the slimy spindoctor has tried to grease Gordon out of it by saying "you may say something in the heat of the moment that you should not do but, more importantly, that you don't believe. Gordon Brown does not believe what he said about her. But he said it because people do sometimes say things on the rebound from a conversation like that. That's what makes him a human being, as well as a politician" according to the Guardian.

The Guardian continued that Mandelson defended Gordon Brown on the BBC "It is not something be believes. He does not believe it publicly or privately."

This prompted the interviewer to ask if Brown often said things he did not believe. At that point Mandelson turned distinctly frosty and said he had already addressed the point.

Given Labour's likely strategy in the next week is to frighten Britain into thinking only a vote for Labour will keep the scary mean Tories out, I would have thought another whole series of voters will just have decided that the race may well be between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.

UPDATE: He was so scared of the fallout, he went to her house to apologise profusely, off camera.

UK election: A battle for the left

With the rise of Cleggophilia, the potential has been raised as to whether this election will actually be a lot more than just a hung Parliament, but a seismic shift in the fortunes of the two major explicitly leftwing political parties.

Almost all polling in the last two weeks shows Labour coming third in opinion polls of voter preferences. Notwithstanding the vagaries of polls (and the possibility that respondents may be less likely to admit to voting for the encumbents under the current circumstances), if translated into votes it will be a devastating blow. Given the allocation of current support across constituencies, and the UK having a first past the post electoral system, it would still mean the Liberal Democrats would come third in terms of number of seats.

In 2005, Labour received 36.1% of the vote and 349 seats, the Conservatives 33.2% of the vote and 210 seats, the Liberal Democrats 22.6% of the vote and 62 seats, whilst a bunch of smaller parties received 8% of the vote and 29 seats, in a Parliament of 650.

The latest poll of polls puts the Conservatives on the SAME proportion of the vote as in 2005, with around 33%, the Liberal Democrats skyrocketing to 30% and Labour slipping to 28%.

However, what this means is, with the swing spread evenly among current constituencies Labour STILL has the plurality of seats with 276, the Conservatives only increase to 245, and the Liberal Democrats increase to 100 (others have 29).

Under that scenario, Labour would have the right to form a government BUT being third would mean its moral authority to do so would be highly questionable. The Liberal Democrats would almost certainly demand electoral reform in exchange for support to either major party, but LD leader Nick Clegg has said that if Labour came third in popular vote, it would not support Labour led by Gordon Brown for government, as it would be clear that the vast majority of voters would have rejected his government. So there may be the spectre of the Liberal Democrats backing the Conservatives as the party with the highest plurality of vote, whilst Labour with the highest number of seats is in Opposition. The price of Liberal Democrat support will be clear though - it would mean a change in the electoral system (although almost certainly not to MMP like New Zealand was led to do by the hard left).

If Labour gets less than 27.6% of the vote, it will its worst result since before the Great Depression, as it managed to grab 27.6% in 1983 when it promised a hardline socialist manifesto (and the Liberal/SDP Alliance, precursor to the Liberal Democrats grabbed 25.4% of the vote).

Yet, it could be far worse for Labour. The Conservatives have shifted targets to a range of what were previously seen as "safe" Labour seats, where the Conservatives are second, on the basis that if the Labour vote seriously collapses, it could mean a significant sea change. The Conservatives implicitly see Liberal Democrat seats are unlikely to be winnable. The Liberal Democrats are also targeting Labour seats, with leader Nick Clegg saying in the Times that he wants to be Prime Minister and that "Liberalism has replaced “Labour statism” as the driving argument of the Centre Left". Of course what he means is liberal with other people's money and socially liberal, not classically liberal.

What is most important is that the Liberal Democrat leader has admitted he leads a party of the left, and he is seeking to supplant Labour as the centre-left force in British politics. While it would be a brave person to predict this will happen at the election, it would be a crucial blow to Gordon Brown and the Labour Party to find large numbers of their supporters switching to the Liberal Democrats.

The last time such a shift occurred was in 1924, when the Liberals lost a third of their vote and over two thirds of their seats, cementing Labour as the Opposition party (even though the Conservatives won most of the seats).

Such a shift would thrill the Conservatives, as they are left without major competition on the side of those who want less government and taxation (as limp wristed as they are in being committed to this), as shifting support from Labour to the Liberal Democrats increases the seats the Conservatives pick up along the way.

Personally, I doubt it will quite happen like that, but it is highly likely the Liberal Democrats could beat Labour on share of the vote, and the Conservatives may get less seats than Labour.

Oh and before the shrill self-righteous head counters (not head examiners) of the electoral reform left start shouting, the simple truth is that this is NOT an issue in the UK for anyone, besides the Liberal Democrats and a small handful. Most voters accept that the seats in Parliament won't actually be proportionate, and work within that system.

After Greece?

Portugal? Not yet but the Wall Street Journal reports "Its overall public debt is close to 80% of GDP, while's Greece's surpassed 110% of GDP last year.

The Portuguese government is slated to borrow around €20 billion to €22 billion from bond markets this year, less than half of Greece's borrowing needs". However, give it a few months and a lack of fiscal discipline.

Spain? Now that's a far bigger economy, but it has public debt at lower rates compared to GDP than the UK and France. Its problem is going to be prolonged stagnation, and unemployment at a destabilising 20%. However I wouldn't see it falling before any of the others.

Italy? As the third biggest economy in the Eurozone, this would precipitate a crisis that makes Greece look like a sideshow. Italy has serious problems, as the billionaire halfwit running the place continues to be willfully ignorant of the need to upset people by cutting spending. Italy has public debt proportionately similar to Greece, at well over 100% of GDP. Its most recent sovereign debt issue was only barely adequately covered by subscribers, meaning the next one will have to be at a higher interest rate. It has one saving grace, in that private debt levels are low as Italians have a savings culture stronger than other Eurozone countries. It is this, and the fact Japanese continue to "invest" in their government's sovereign debt, that has saved Japan from collapse (but meant the economy has been zombie like.

Ireland? It has bitten the hard pill of budget cuts, so should be safe but it still has the largest budget deficit of them all, because it decided to nationalise banks. Its recapitalisation of Anglo-Irish Bank has been classified as debt, when before the Irish government wanted to treat it as equity.

What's the verdict overall? Socialism doesn't work. It especially doesn't work if governments promise voters who expect something for nothing, and it shows the enormous damage and the costs imposed by constitutionally unrestrained governments. Governments who can overspend, and effectively issue promissory notes for debt that they issue, but have no means to repay. Governments that ever grow, that constantly offer more and more "freebies" to citizens, that grow the welfare state, that grow the bureaucracy of the unproductive, yet employed.

It is a path to absolute ruin, and it is a path that has been popular in much of Europe for some years, and a path that the UK, the US and New Zealand have also been following. Albeit all of them have had the option of devaluing their currency, effectively stealing from the holders of their currencies (in debt and savings) to enable this sovereign debt cycle to be perpetuated.

Who is accountable? No one. Politicians get 3-5 year bites at power, they get paid (and get opportunities to get paid far more afterwards), they promise to spend other people's money to get power, and the masses like children vote for it, and then wonder like imbeciles when governments eventually tell them the "good times" are over.

When government has unrestrained power to borrow on your behalf, demand you pay for its spending on its behalf, imprison you if you fail to do so, and the only restraint you have is to vote along with millions of others to change the teams, who by and large do the same with different flavours, this is what happens.

Reality evasion on a grand scale.

UK election: Evading unpleasant truths

Besides me not actually being in the UK for around a week, I've not blogged about the UK election lately because it has been an exercise in comprehensive banality largely focused by an unusual degree of hyperactive psephology.

Given that was fun just to write on its own, it is timely that the Institute of Fiscal Studies (an economics think tank that was formed in the 1960s) announced today that the three main political parties are misleading British voters of the scale of the budget deficit problem.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the IFS said ""Over the four years starting next year, Labour and the Liberal Democrats would need to deliver the deepest sustained cuts to spending on public services since the late 1970s,"

"While, starting this year, the Conservatives would need to deliver cuts to spending on public services that have not been delivered over any five-year period since the Second World War."

You see, the fundamental enormous lie they are all spreading is that the budget deficit is the highest it has ever been, by any measure, and public debt is the highest it has been, by any measure, for over a century.

This debt is, in part, because Gordon Brown decided to nationalise banks rather than let them fail, but is also because he has consistently run budget deficits over the last nine years. Borrowing, spending and hoping, so Labour could be re-elected by the people receiving the largesse stolen in advance from future taxpayers.

Most of that borrowing has not even been for the sort of infrastructure projects some economists argue produces a net positive outcome for the economy either. It has been to pay for the ever growing expansion of the welfare state in all of its forms.

Gordon Brown has tried to campaign on "business as usual". Labour, you see, "invests" its borrow stolen loot - "investing" means paying for wealthy pensioners to get free bus passes and subsidised gas and electricity. "Investing" means propping up homeowners who foolishly borrowed too much and have mortgages worth more than their properties. "Investing" means paying for new bureaucracies to run neo-Stalinist big brother checks on people who may spend time with children, vetting those without convictions or even charges. "Investing" means pouring money down the ever poorly performing ponzi style health and state pension plans. YOU can't invest of course, or rather, your children can't (since it will be them forced to pay for it). Don't be so selfish.

After all Gordon Brown saved the world, he's the genius who sold billions of pounds of Britain's gold reserves when the price of gold had been at a historic low, he abolished boom and bust. How dare mere taxpayers question him?

How can any person seriously trust this man with a piggy bank, let alone the finances of the world's sixth largest economy? Particularly when his own Treasury Secretary let it slip that the necessary cuts in state spending will be greater than that implemented under Thatcher's government in the 1980s (which frankly were modest), at the same time as Labour promises to introduce a socialised care service for the elderly.

Labour is lying and it knows it, because all it has ever offered the UK electorate, fundamentally, is to spend more of its money and to grow the role of the state. It will be cutting spending, and increasing taxes if it gets elected, because if it does not address the deficit convincingly, it will hurt the pound, the sharemarket and Britain's credit rating. However, Labour is partly expecting to lose, and is hoping to stem losses by promising to the masses to continue giving them more unearned proceeds from future taxpayers.

What about the Conservatives? Well, the only thing going for them is that they haven't wrecked the country's finances. The Conservatives say they'll be more ruthless on improving the efficiency of the state, but they too are fundamentally dishonest. They continue to promise real increases in spending on the centrally planned and "free at point of use" (so unlimited demand) state health system, and in aid to the wealthy in poor countries. They continue to promise toys like a state subsidised high speed rail line for business travellers. The Conservatives simply stopped talking about cutting spending because the lumpen-proletariat didn't like the truth, especially since Labour and the Liberal Democrats kept promising money borrowed from future taxpayers.

Taxpayers (and let's be honest, many millions who are net tax recipients), you see, appear to like being promised goodies, paid for by someone else, no doubt because past governments have treated them like children. So the Conservatives have chosen just to keep quiet.

The Liberal Democrats are having it both ways, because they claim to support deep cuts, although they also seek to increase some taxes and abolish income tax on the low paid. The net effect is not that different from Labour.

However, their cuts range, like abolishing ID cards (not much money), not replacing Britain's nuclear deterrent (not a lot year on year, but a fundamental change to foreign policy), to abolishing government subsidised Child Trust Funds. Slightly more honest? Well they would be if they were worth much, but most of what they say is the same "efficiency savings" "reduce bureaucracy" Sir Humphrey speak that is code for keeping the state as big as it is. The Liberal Democrats are largely an offshoot of the Labour Party. Given the recent celebrity style boost of the polls, the Liberal Democrats are also keeping quiet on spending cuts, as they see an opportunity to plunder Labour voters used to being promised something for nothing.

So what SHOULD be the biggest issue at this election simply isn't - it is whether the next government can avoid the UK making the same sort of failure to deal with public spending that has seen the Irish and Estonian government engage in major cuts in spending on a grand scale, and saw Greece face default.

Are the politicians just liars or is the public too stupid to understand?

UK election - Liberal Democrats, the naive protest vote

For a very brief period I thought about voting for the Liberal Democrats. Why? Because I want Labour out, and the Lib Dems came second in my constituency last time. Removing a seat from Labour is rational, but a moment of scrutiny shows the Liberal Democrats for what they are, a mediocre muddle of conflicting, contradictions, which at best is naively optimistic and at worst is peddling envy and big government.

The whole manifesto is here, but you'll fall asleep reading it. So I've compiled the highlights, it shows a party that is pulled in three different directions, socialism, environmentalism and liberalism. The result looks like a left wing more liberal version of the Labour Party.

On tax it starts looking good. The first £10,000 would be tax free for everyone. I can't oppose that, except that it isn't about cutting taxes overall. No. Capital gains tax would be increased, as would taxes on aviation (why tax aviation? Part of the environmentalist religious mantra, and helps to price the poor out of overseas holidays), and a new tax on owning a big home. The tax policy essentially benefits the middle class voters it wants to attract, while penalising the wealthier and the poorer (as the tax on aviation hurts the poorest who want to fly).

It then claims to look sensible on deficit reduction, but when you look at the detail it isn't much different from the weasel words of the other two, about more efficient procurement, reforming state sector pensions. The exception is the Liberal Democrat view on defence, which is for the UK to withdraw from the world somewhat. Scrapping Trident means phasing out Britain's nuclear deterrent over time.

However, the real danger is in the policy on banking. A new Banking Levy on all banks, would penalise the prudent as well as those bailed out, and it is a precursor to splitting up the banks. It also wants to drastically cut bank bonuses, effectively chasing the most talented in finance to Geneva, New York and Hong Kong. In other words a wholesale attack on one of Britain's leading industries, presumably to pander to middle class anger and envy about it. How can this be taken seriously? Why the hell aren't the Conservatives warning of how devastating this would be, except the fact that George Osborne hasn't a clue about the banking sector either?

Meanwhile, it might say it wants to cut the deficit, but then it seeks to made the Ponzi style state pension MORE generous. Surely not another vote bribe of the elderly paid for by more borrowing? It also extends the absurd Winter Fuel Benefit to the disabled and would give money to homeowners with homes that aren't used so they can be used for public housing. It also wants to eliminate child poverty by 2020, presumably by not leaving it to parents to look after their own kids. Increasing the welfare state at a time when it says the economy is in tatters?

It wants to expand corporate welfare by the state paying shipyards to make wind turbines? What sort of nonsense is that to put out of business existing manufacturers? It is illegal under EU competition law for the state to do that, you'd have thought since the LibDems love the EU, they might have known that.

It would set up an Infrastructure Bank to waste taxpayers' money. It sees it like a sovereign fund, except you don't establish those until you have low or no net public debt. Silliness again.

Then there is part privatisation of the Royal Mail, a sudden rush of blood to the head of common sense, rare as it may be.

Liberal? My arse. What liberal party would make it compulsory for job application forms to have NO NAMES, so people are not discriminated against for their sex or ethnic background? How the hell are you meant to interview Applicant X, or approach referees? How does that combat the suspected discrimination?

Education is largely tinkering, except for promising to abolish university tuition fees over six years. Again, the cutting the deficit idea is shown up to be bullshit.

Health is tinkering as well, although it is curious the LibDems are the only major party to not promote continued above inflation spending rises on the NHS. Although the quackery of the policy can be seen when included in health policy is opposing the 3rd runway at Heathrow Airport because it will reduce pollution and health costs. Yes, seriously.

Free speech? Well not really, not when you want to ban airbrushed images in advertising, for example. Requiring Facebook to have an online reporting function for perverts and bullies. See the trails of Nanny Statism all over the manifesto. You see it in setting maximum interest rates for credit cards, forcing rail fares to be reduced (even on overcrowded lines) and in wanting to set up a PostBank! Border exit checks add to this.

It wants to regulate supermarkets, so that they are forced to pay higher prices to farmers for food (as will everyone). Liberal? Just mercantilist protectionism.

It is in cuckoo land on energy policy to make 40% of energy renewable by 2020, which would mean a huge increase in energy bills. It would scrap nuclear power as well, and have an Australian style nationwide home insulation programme. Why? Because the LibDems are vehement about cutting CO2 emissions. It wants to spend more money on UN agencies, and to support wiping third world debt - seems bonehead Bono has got to them too. It is quiet on the EU, because it knows so many loathe the waste there, but it would strengthen European defence co-operation.

However, one policy on defence says it all about naivete. The LibDems rule out military action against Iran. It may not be a wise or a desirable move, but to completely rule it out tells Iran that Britain, at least, would not stand in its way of being a nuclear power. Why this policy even needs to be here (how many Iranians are voting?) is beyond me.

Transport isn't too important, but again it shows a childlike foolishness. It would seriously cut road spending (which isn't big anyway) to reopen closed railway lines, which would mean no road improvements and possibly more potholes and other serious deterioration of already underfunded roads. Along with banning new airport runways, and it is the typical Green "rail good, road baaad, planes baaad" religion.

Anything liberal? Well scrapping the ID card scheme is about all i can get enthused about, but the Tories say the same thing. There is an implied policy of not being so draconian on drugs, with policy based on harm, but that is barely scratching the surface. Libel laws would be reformed, innocent people's DNA removed from state databases and stop storing people's email and phone records without good cause. This is it on freedom, at the same time as regulating business and individual behaviour more, and changing taxes, but not reducing the size of the state.

Finally, it would reform the electoral system to introduce STV, and give the young and naive the vote at 16 (both would benefit the Lib Dems enormously). It would also empower local government to introduce local income tax, yes small government isn't to be found here.

It's atrocious. It is a mix of old fashioned socialist envy about banking and property ownership, lots of anti-capitalist environmentalism and hatred of certain technologies (aviation and nuclear power are notable), and a lot of tinkering, with a smidgeon of reducing state surveillance in some areas.

It could be the Labour Party without it's embracing of state surveillance, and its commitment to the defence status quo. However, it reforms very little, and in fact would cause immense damage to British business and industry, whilst gaining nothing for social services, and reducing Britain's influence in the world.

There is nothing here to excite, and quite a bit to fear. However, all the public are thinking is that Nick Clegg is a vote against both Brown and Cameron. Yet, he has enough seats and could win enough to hold a significant influence after the election.

What's next?

Well there is another debate next Thursday between the three leaders, so things may go a little different.

More importantly, Monday morning is only hours away from having the markets open and react to the high chance of a Liberal Democrat determined hung Parliament. I suspect that will tell a lot about what business thinks of the public's flirtation with the Socialist Democratic barely Liberals.

UK elections - Liberal but Democrats, so what are they this time?

I had the great fortune of missing the debate between the two men who will be Prime Minister and Nick Clegg on British TV - largely because I was on one of the last planes out of Heathrow before the volcanic ash cloud plummeted the country into environmentalist heaven.

The Liberal Democrats are deserving of attention for three reasons.

Firstly, the original "Liberal Party" once governed the UK and once proudly embraced free market capitalism and social liberalism. When it waivered from this, it moved to the centre, embraced Keynesianism and the Labour Party supplanted it as a major party, from which it has never recovered. Until the merger with the Social Democrats (a breakaway from Labour when it was avowedly Marxist).

Secondly, as the third biggest party, with 66 seats, it has the potential to be a kingmaker if neither major party wins an outright majority. This has happened last time in 1974, on that occasion the Conservatives came second, but Ted Heath tried to remain in power through support from Ulster Unionists. They had demands Heath was unwilling to agree to, so Harold Wilson from Labour formed a government with support from the Liberals, but the majority was so slim he called another election that same year. Labour won an small majority, which itself disappeared over the next few years as Labour lost by-elections and formed a pact with the Liberals. The possibility is real that this situation could be replicated.

Thirdly, with Nick Clegg allegedly the "winner" from the first leader debate, the poll ratings of the Liberal Democrats have soared. With both the Conservatives and Labour losing support to the Lib Dems, making it more of a three way race.

So should lovers of freedom embrace the presence of the Liberal Democrats, given their consistent support for civil liberties and suspicion of state interference in the rights of citizens? Or is it simply a wolf in sheep's clothing?