Think of what politics is

Why do people get into politics? It is a truly filthy sport. It is about trying to convince the greatest number of heads that what you and your party want to do to them is the right thing.

Most who enter politics claim to do so out of "service". You heard that a lot in the US campaign, both Obama and McCain talked about serving their country. I don't mean the military, I mean politics.

However what IS politics? It is the pursuit of power - power to make laws, power to take money from people and spend it on what you think is best for them. Take it from me, the people who do this are no better than most of you - they are mostly average - most are not particularly clever or bright - yet so many of you trust them.

The power they wield is enormous. Passing laws means that if people go against them, they could be fined or imprisoned. That is not something you can do to people, it is called using force.

Politicians seek the power to use force, to use violence.

If your business or charity or other voluntary organisation wants money, it has to earn it, persuade people to buy your services or persuade them to donate money.

Politicians don't do that, they can make you pay for what they want - not only do they do that, but they have made it so you're guilty till proven innocent if you get it wrong. Taxes are the tool of the politician. Statists say it is the price of a civilised society, as if it is civilised to make people pay for that which you cannot convince them of.

Across the spectrum they have plans for you and your money, the things they don't want you to do, the things they want you to pay for - for your own good.

The Greens for example have a long list of things they want to ban, subsidise and compel. They are control freaks par excellence. Labour isn't far behind, it believes it knows best to buy you health care, control your children's education and to save for your retirement. It buys you a railway that you didn't want to buy. The Maori Party also believes it knows best.

National will do less, but it wont reverse anything. Most disturbingly it wants the state to maintain a database of DNA of everyone arrested of certain offences, whether guilty or not. The state shouldn't be spying on you if you've not broken the law. National also thinks it can pick winners in spending your money on infrastructure whether or not you will use it. It offers nothing more than a better version of Labour - beyond the Electoral Finance Act, National will repeal nothing of substance that Labour has done.

I would like politics to be peripheral. Government is essential. The state provides for law and order, to protect us from those who will do violence to us, who will defraud us. That is a given and the priority. However, beyond that government is incompetent. I know it will take a long time for people to take responsibility, for their healthcare, for their kids education, to consider charity instead of welfare, and to stop thinking the government can fix problems they can't solve.

Politicians who promise they can change and fix things by spending your money and making people do what they want are shysters. Your only chance to say no to this advance auction of stolen goods is to vote for less of it.

Helen Clark and the Greens participate in it, gloriously and argue strongly that it is the only way things should be.

National participates in it, somewhat reluctantly, unable and unwilling to say no. Unable to say - sorry the government can't fix this, but it can get out of the way of those who might have a chance.

The government you get after the election tomorrow will be different, it could be John Key leading a semi-fresh team, of which he is probably the best person in it. I honestly wish him well, and I hope that all of the vote gathering is style not substance, and Key will change New Zealand for the better by getting the government out of the way and changing the culture of dependency on the state. Sadly I see little to prove to me that he will, even if a handful of ACT MPs push him a little further.

If Helen Clark and the Greens and Maori Party get elected then you'll see change, and it wont be pretty. However you can watch the next three years like I have watched the last 9, and see National unwilling to reverse almost everything Labour did.

Politics you see, is a nasty game. A game of surrendering principle, of kissing babies and promising to people that you'll give them things, without being honest about what you're taking from them. It is about kidding the vast masses of people that you can make their lives better, when the truth is people can really only do this themselves.

The election is about counting heads, not what was in them, but I hope you too will enjoy at least the sight of many politicians losing power, the sight of Helen Clark probably no longer being able to claim to be a victim of her own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister.

However as you do so, remember these people only have the power you have granted them. That is power you granted through your vote. I voted Libertarianz as the only power I want the state to have is to protect me. What power have you said you want the state to have over your life?

Gordon Brown has cause to cheer

In a busy political week, the UK has seen another by-election. This time in Glenrothes, Scotland.

Labour held onto the seat, with a majority of 6,737. A smaller majority, but still a great victory for Gordon Brown personally and Labour. With the SNP having fought hard to win the seat, it shows a few things about politics in Scotland.

1. The SNP, now being the government in Scotland, finds it hard to blame others for the failings of government. Labour just says "well the SNP looks after internal Scottish matters".
2. Labour has pointed out that an independent Scotland couldn't embark on the large scale (socialist) bank nationalisations and bailouts that the UK government can manage.
3. Scotland absolutely drowns in dependency on the state and what the state can do for people. The third place result for the Conservatives that only got 1,381 votes speaks volumes, and the Conservatives are no party of small government, just less statist that the others.

So Gordon Brown will be smiling.

Why Libertarianz and NOT Act

My reasons for 2005 are here, but since then National has moved to the left and ACT? Well it has changed too.

Those on the small government side of the spectrum are split between those who advocate voting for ACT, and those who say vote Libertarianz. The arguments on both sides are fairly short and sweet.

ACT advocates say:
1. A vote for ACT is a vote to move New Zealand towards less government, albeit at a far slower pace, degree and extent compared to Libertarianz.
2. ACT is almost guaranteed Parliamentary representation because Rodney Hide will almost certainly win Epsom.

So it comes down to ACT is pointing in the right direction and is in Parliament. However what does “the right direction mean”?

Being fair to ACT, the party looks better now than it has ever done. It has more policies to hinder the growth of the state than ever before, Rodney Hide has upped his game, and having Sir Roger Douglas on the ticket is notable, as he is light years ahead of any National MP in terms of courage and intellect.

ACT is better than National, but it didn’t need to work hard.

You see for me, I want to see six major changes in policies:

1. At least the option of opting out of state health and education.
2. Serious shrinkage of the welfare state
3. A significant reduction in the size of central and local government.
4. Significant reductions in tax consistent with the above.
5. Protection of private property rights.
6. Repeal of victimless crimes.

Obviously the Nats will do none of the above. How about ACT?

1. ACT policy is education vouchers, a step forward, and talks about an option for people to buy private healthcare. So, that gets a tick.
2. ACT would shift sickness beneficiaries towards an insurance based approach. Not exactly cutting the welfare state, but an improvement, so on balance the right direction.
3. ACT would cap central government to growing spending at the rate of inflation and population growth. That isn’t shrinking the state, it’s maintaining it at the same level as Labour. Standing still isn’t a direction. It would shrink local government, so why not central?
4. ACT’s tax policy sends mixed signals. It wouldn’t cut taxes until 2011. That is LESS than National. However, if you don’t shrink the state it is hardly a surprise. ACT also advocates a carbon tax. Yes you read right, it would replaced ETS with a carbon tax.
5. ACT would review the RMA so it would only supplement common law principles, but it doesn’t mention private property rights, except in terms of “where private property is taken or regulated for public good purposes.” So where are private property rights again? Why is it afraid of saying it?
6. Victimless crimes? ACT never discusses them, never touches them. It is tough on crime, but that doesn’t include reviewing criminal law. It has a “national security policy”

So with ACT I get something positive on health, education and welfare, I get the government of the same size as what Labour has left us with, and no tax cut for two years (but might get a carbon tax). I get the RMA reformed, but with no mention of private property rights, and of course ACT is silent on victimless crimes.

How, honestly, can a libertarian say that is worth voting for? I want tax cuts, I want the state to shrink. I don’t believe New Zealanders should have to put up with government as big as Labour has left us with and no tax cuts for two years. I want private property rights protected, I want a government that knows the difference between real crimes, like murder and theft, and victimless crimes, like bans on cigar magazines, smoking cannabis and allowing smoking inside your bar.

A vote for ACT is saying none of those things matter enough. To me they do. So vote ACT if you wish, but to do so you are accepting compromises with those who don’t want tax cuts, those who don’t want to protect private property rights from the RMA, those who believe zero tolerance should apply to all crimes, whether there is a victim or not.

I voted some days ago for Libertarianz, because I want to make a statement with my single vote, that the government shouldn’t own my life. Some Al Gore supporters in 2000 complained that those Americans who voted for Ralph Nader took Democrat votes off of Gore. They didn’t, they voted for what they wanted.

Your vote is a tiny indicator of what YOU believe in. It is nothing more than that. It isn't a veto - after all, it takes tens of thousands of votes to shift a single MP from one party to another.

So I am not “robbing ACT or National” of “their” vote. It is my vote. I voted for more freedom, less government – I invite you to do the same.

Legalise Cannabis?

Well if you believe adults should be able to peacefully consume cannabis on their own property, then your choice is rather simple.

The Green Party has abandoned pursuing this, partly because Nandor Tanczos has gone on to do other things, but also because it didn't really fit the ban/regulate/compel agenda of the party, and more importantly talking about it frightened middle class voters who thought the Greens approved of smoking cannabis. A vote for the Greens to get cannabis decriminalised or legalised is a wasted vote.

The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party has been on a long path to nowhere. It is completely dormant between elections. In 1996, it got 1.66% of the vote, in 1999 1.1%, in 2002 0.64% and in 2005 0.25%. As a one issue party it will never cross the 5% threshold, and has frittered away its support year after year. It also doesn't care about responsibility, doesn't care about healthcare or the right to ban cannabis users from private property. Ticking the leaf will mean nothing other than you only care about cannabis.

Libertarianz would legalise cannabis, and other drugs safer than alcohol, for sale and adult consumption on private property. It would also ensure users of such drugs would be responsible for paying for their own private health consequences, and while such consumption would be a right, it would be the right of private property owners to ban it on their own property, and for employers to insist employees do not enter their premises under the influence of the drug. Legalisation does not mean approval or disapproval, it is simply not the business of the state to tell you what you must or must not ingest.

So I urge those who regard the cannabis laws to be oppressive, those who see the current laws as being an abject failure, and those who believe they should choose what they ingest (but also be responsible for the consequences of consumption), to vote Libertarianz. Odds are that Libertarianz will beat the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party this time round, given the trends of both parties, and a vote for the Greens on this point will be wasted. The Greens failed to make a change in the past 9 years of government that they effectively endorsed.

You think the small government vote is split?

Forget ACT vs Libertarianz. If you really believe in really big government, then the two main ends of THAT spectrum, the Marxist and the conservative are all very split as below:

If you have a Christian bent to politics:

Kiwi Party- The Future part of United Future, divorced. It wants to raise the drinking age, criminalise buying sexual services, make drug laws on a par with murder, raise the minimum wage and use GST instead of road user charges to fund roads? Weird - a mix of all sorts of stuff. Shame Rebekah Clement hasn't left, she is brighter than Gordon Copeland.

Family Party – Destiny NZ with a new name. Tougher version of the Kiwi Party and little regard for separating church and state. The morality of Brian Tamaki and all that is about.

Pacific Party – Philip Field, and the morality attached to him.

Ah better than Christian Heritage right?

However, if you miss the Soviet Union, loathe capitalism, individualism, business and believe nothing would be better than to unite the workers so they’ll never be defeated by the beloved people’s government, and you think Helen Clark is a sellout to global capitalism. You can choose:

The Alliance – Yes, nationalise, keep those foreigners and their money out, make everything free and pine about Muldoon (quietly) and how Jim Anderton is a sellout.

RAM – Foaming at the mouth conspiracy theory led Marxists who think big money is running everything, and only when they control things through the state can they look after themselves, I mean you. This is where the really crazy Alliance people went, I know, I talked to one and I wondered where her straight jacket went.

Workers' Party – You can’t make an omelette without cracking a few eggs, so think of the firing squads, gulags, political prisons and the 100 million slaughtered by communism as a small price to pay to defeat capitalism. Workers' Marxist Leninist dictatorships have such a record of poverty, executions, torture and despair, but hey that was all cooked up by the American Zionist conspiracy - all those fake witnesses to murder in those workers' paradises. Not quite North Korean friendly, but wouldn’t have been distressed had North Korea won the Korean War.

Greens – Yes the Marxist party you have when you want to seem respectable. Policies on almost everything, science replaced with faith based ideologies, enthusiasm to regulate, ban, compel, tax and subsidise all they hate and love respectively, AND most of the MPs have Marxist backgrounds. Allegedly about the environment, but doesn't let reason, science and economics get in the way of a good bit of telling people what to do.

So why shouldn't you vote National?

Given I’ve already told you how to vote in your electorate, it’s time to think about your party vote.

I’ll make a few assumptions:
1. You want a change, not an Obama like bland “change” without saying to what, but you want rid of the Labour led government, you want a change in direction, you want...
2. Less government. Government that doesn't assume that government should regulate, compel, tax or subsidise – and that is in business and personal life.

So as a result you have to rule out Labour and all parties that would grant Labour confidence and supply. The Greens, Maori Party, Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party, United Future and NZ First are all in this vein. If you like the views I express here, but intend to vote for one of those parties then I can’t help you anymore.

So National?

National has swung to the left since 2005. It has policies that in principle and substance are no different from Labour – they are different forms of the same thing. National would cut taxes more than Labour, but its interest in controlling the size of the state is about efficiency, not abolishing departments, and not reducing the amount of legislation. National promises to spend a fortune of your money on infrastructure whether or not you use it, and to subsidise the telecommunications sector. It wont make a fundamental difference to health, education or the welfare state, in fact it will increase the welfare state. It promises to keep a DNA database for every person arrested of an imprisonable offence, whether guilty or not. National and freedom do not go together, it will trade off having “one law for all” and “colourblind state spending” for a coalition with the Maori Party.

What will it do?

- National will continue to make you pay for the state controlled queue rationed health system. You wont be able to opt out, or get your taxes back for using private healthcare.
- National will continue to make you pay for the centrally funded and controlled state education system, whether it suits you or your childrens' needs or not.
- National will maintain and grow the welfare state, and retain all of Labour's increases in it (Working for Families, income related state housing rentals).
- National will maintain and grow the state's role in the economy, including Kiwibank, Kiwirail, Air NZ and subsidise a state controlled broadband telecommunications network.
- National will amend the RMA to protect private property rights and to accelerate state funded infrastructure projects.
- National will maintain the Maori seats and maintain state broadcasting in all its forms, Maori, Pacific Island, TVNZ and Radio NZ.
- National will, somehow, ban gangs, whilst building a DNA database for everyone arrested of a serious crime, whether found guilty or not.
- National will continue and strengthen the war on drugs.
- National will keep local government's powers of general competence and grow its role, by involving it in 20 year plans. It wont cap local government rates or spending.
- National will not abolish a single government agency, including the Families Commission.
- National will continue to force you to pay into the worst pension scheme in the country, with no guaranteed returns, whilst forcing that scheme to invest 40% in New Zealand.

A vote for National is a vote to change heads, a vote for people who – in a quiet discreet moment – might agree with much of what I believe in, but haven’t the courage, skill or conviction to argue for it, or implement it. In which case, why be in politics if all you want is a different version of the status quo?

By ticking National you are saying that even going back to National's policies in 1999 is too radical, you're endorsing most of what Labour has done since 1999 since National will repeal so little. The best you can hope for is:
- Slightly bigger tax cuts than Labour.
- Less enthusiasm for more government than Labour.
- Repeal of the Electoral Finance Act.
- Tougher approach to law and order where it matters (but also victimless crimes too).

No. If you believe in less government, you can't tick National for your party vote. You will change the government by name and by people, but not in substance. Instead of moving left at pace, New Zealand will move left at a snail's pace. It's hardly surprising. Every National government, except 1990-1993, and even then it included the RMA, has at best just adopted Labour's past policies and changed little, at worst it went far far further into Nanny State (Rob Muldoon).

You can't expect the National Party to change anything - it exists for power, that is, to stop Labour having it.

So what about ACT then?

Libertarianz pro-cycling? sure

When Cycling Advocates’ Network asked political parties what their policies on cycling are, Libertarianz had a very easy response. Cycling isn't special.

You see the question was:

Do you support increased provision for cycling through policy, funding or implementation?

So the answer is, yes, if people choose to fund it. It is no if it is about forcing people to fund it. Cycling is a great activity if you like it, cyclists share road space which they don’t pay for (except for rates on local roads) and if cyclists or others want to pay for bike paths, lockers and the rest, then there shouldn’t be barriers on them doing so.

However CAN was looking for subsidies. It wants to make you pay for cycling infrastructure, whether or not you are a cyclist or want to support it. It is no different from asking general taxpayers to pay for roads, electricity or telecommunications - those are all subsidies – and in fact Labour has subsidised all three.

Libertarianz wont make others pay for cycling facilities, but it wont make cyclists pay for what others use too. Cyclists shouldn't pay to subsidise buses with their rates, or to subsidise roads used heavily by trucks. No other party will do that.

After all, what should cyclists expect from the government?

Libertyscott's Electorate voting guide

The electorate vote is not as important as the party vote, with a few distinguished exceptions. So how should you vote? Taking the lead from Blair Mulholland, I've thought long and hard about all of them.

So here is the Libertyscott guide to your electorate vote. It is based on the following premises:

1. Vote for the candidate who most supports giving you back your freedom and taxes.
2. Vote for the candidate who is most likely to defeat the worst candidate.
3. Let a mediocre incumbent who has little chance of being unseated alone by voting for the person who is least objectionable.

Some are more important than other. The names in bold are those that you can vote for positively OR which make a difference against someone quite loathsome.

I've endorsed 26 National candidates, 16 Libertarianz, 15 ACT, 11 Labour, 1 Maori Party and 1 seat I can't pick at all.

Now most of you who love freedom can't disagree with that can you? After all National only won 27 seats in 2002!

Auckland Central - Nikki Kaye - National

This is a chance to defeat Judith Tizard. Nikki Kaye is smarter, harder working and as a bonus, better looking that the former Minister assisting the Prime Minister with her handbag. Tizard is a mediocrity. It is time to remove the peculiar Tizard dynasty from New Zealand politics. She is not high up the Labour list enough to be safe. National needs the likes of a young ambitious intelligent woman like Kaye. Your electorate vote counts here, give it to Nikki Kaye.

Bay of Plenty - Frances Denz - ACT

Tony Ryall has this seat in the bag. He is one of the mediocre “brat pack” who helped National achieve its worst defeat ever in 2002. He doesn’t need your vote. The Labour alternative has no chance and is hopeless as well, and we don’t need Peter Brown. ACT’s Frances Denz is ex. Labour and should be rewarded for moving in the right direction. Give Frances your electorate vote.

Botany - Kenneth Wang - ACT

Botany is a new seat that has become the Wang Wong show. Kenneth Wang doesn’t have a profile on the ACT website, but does have a website. Pansy Wong is in on the list anyway. You might tick Wang, but if ACT only gets enough party votes for 3 MPs, then Wang pushes Roger Douglas out of Parliament because the third MP, after Hide and Roy will be Wang. Funnily enough leftwing voters in Botany might find it preferable to vote for Wang if they dislike Douglas. For me, Wang seems the better choice, because Wong has hardly been that impressive.

Christchurch Central - Nicky Wagner - National

Brendon Burns is the Labour candidate, who was Labour’s chief spin doctor in the Beehive. He’s well up the Clark hierarchy so it is important to vote against him. Nicky Wagner the National candidate is already a list MP. She speaks in favour of many mad Nat policies, like 40% local investment from the Superannuation Fund, so is otherwise loathsome but this is about Burns. Burns is lowly ranked on the Labour list. Wagner will be elected regardless so electing her as the local MP will deny Burns from Parliament, and will mean she is an electorate MP, not a list MP – in Labour heartland. So hold your nose and vote for Wagner.

Christchurch East - Aaron Gilmore - National

Lianne Dalziel has this one cornered, with National’s Aaron Gilmore having little chance. I know Aaron’s wife, and she is intelligent so I trust her judgment. Give Aaron your vote to try to get Dalziel’s share of the vote below 50%.

Clutha Southland - Roly Henderson - ACT

Bill English is a shoo in, so you can happily vote for someone who believes in freedom. Roly Henderson of ACT is a sheep farmer who says “We don’t need our government to do more for us, we need less government so we can do more” that’ll do nicely.

Coromandel - Sandra Goudie - National

Sandra Goudie of National did good work in removing Jeanette Fitzsimons from this seat and she isn’t half bad. Give her the tick, Jeanette comes third in this seat that she once held – a fairly devastating verdict.

Dunedin North - Michael Woodhouse - National

Pete Hodgson is another shoo in, so tick Michael Woodhouse of National. He is President of the NZ Private Surgical Hospitals Association and was previously the Vice President of the NZ Private Hospitals Association, so he’d bring a useful perspective on private sector provision of health care to the National caucus.

Dunedin South - Conway Powell - National

Clare Curran is out to capture Benson- Pope’s seat for Labour. She’s a vile little PR hack who is seeking to portray National as enemies of the people. As a result, Dr Conway Powell, a centrist scientist standing for National is worth a vote to try to keep her out of Parliament.

East Coast - none of them

Anne Tolley took this from Labour last time, but Anne Tolley has a problem. She likes censorship. Now while I agree with her concerns about child pornography, she drafted a (defeated) bill that would have banned any material that “deal with” sexual conduct by young people. It would have banned a vast range of novels, films and indeed information leaflets.

Drafting kneejerk bills about laws you know little about isn’t encouraging. Moana Mackey? Well she is leftwing, she likes unions, compulsory Maori language and bleats on about the 1990s being a horrible time. The bright side is she is a scientist and supports allowing genetic engineering on a case by case basis. Judy Turner from United Future doesn’t deserve your vote either, and Catherine Delahunty is on the far left of the Greens. Advice? You don’t want to be associated with any of these control freaks. Don’t bother.

East Coast Bays - Elah Zamora - Libertarianz

Murray McCully is a shoo in, so vote for Elah Zamora of Libertarianz and know you’re voting for someone who is hard working and a determined supporter of freedom. The Labour candidate here is especially awful, so don’t even think about her if you hate McCully. Zamora is the moral choice.

Epsom - Rodney Hide - ACT

Richard Worth tried to paint Rodney Hide as being pro drug liberalisation, as if it were a bad thing. Rodney has been a good MP. Richard Worth is so awful I’d like Rodney to remain MP for Epsom. He is one of the better MPs in Parliament.

Hamilton East - David Bennett- National

National’s David Bennett took this from Dianne Yates, which was good although the Nat’s website lies about his age. His maiden speech talked about less welfare, more personal responsibility and tax cuts. Give him a chance and secure this seat from the awful Sue Moroney.

Hamilton West - Tim Wikiriwhi - Libertarianz

Labour’s Martin Gallagher could well face serious defeat here, BUT the National candidate – Tim Macindoe leads Arts Waikato, which seeks taxpayer money from Creative NZ and from local authorities. So he likes big government, so not really much point switching men but not philosophies. Vote for a man who has turned his life around, and who is passionate about what he does, and works very hard – Vote Tim Wikiriwhi, Libertarianz, Parliament wont know what’s hit it.

Hauraki-Waikato - Nanaia Mahuta - Labour

It’s a two horse race here, Nanaia Mahuta against Angeline Greensill. Greensill is seriously Marxist, so vote for Princess Mahuta. It also reduces the Maori Party overhang.

Helensville - Peter Osborne - Libertarianz

John Key doesn’t need your vote, he is in on the list and the awful Darien Fenton from Labour would be worse. Vote for Peter Osborne of Libertarianz. He’ll work hard calling National list MP John Key to account, without backtracking on his principles

Hunua - Bruce Whitehead - Libertarianz

The awful patronizing prick Paul Hutchison (I am speaking from experience here) will think he has this in the bag. He so doesn’t deserve it. Jordan Carter hasn’t a hope of Cubanisation of this seat, but Sir Roger Douglas does add some colour. However, Bruce Whitehead from Libertarianz deserves you vote. He says “money taken from you (via tax) to fund someone else's "great idea" without your permission is theft”, Sir Roger for what he’s worth would never say that. However he is a strong second choice, better than Hutchison.

Hutt South - Phil Howison - Libertarianz

Trevor Mallard doesn’t need your vote here. Paul Quinn of National negotiates Treaty settlements. Now I know both the ACT and Libz candidates here. Lindsay Mitchell is well deserving, but the young and very smart Phil Howison gets a hard time from most of the other candidates here and deserves your vote. He’s come through the state education system and survived to be spokesman on education. Give Phil Howison your electorate vote, after all Mallard will win anyway.

Ikaroa-Rawhiti - Parekura Horomia - Labour

Three in this race, the Greens aren’t worth considering, so it is Derek Fox vs Parekura. Fox is a long standing leftie who while wily and smart would also increase the overhang of the Maori Party. Hold your nose and vote for the big man Parekura Horomia – he will be in anyway on the list, but Fox doesn’t deserve to enter Parliament.

Ilam - Brian Davidson - ACT

Gerry Brownlee will slide into this easily, and Labour’s Sam Yau is too nice a guy to elect into Parliament. Brian Davidson for ACT doesn’t want to be an MP and says “He has been motivated to stand for the ACT Party in the Ilam Electorate by the propensity of this Labour Party to tell us how to run our lives and watch over us in an over regulated society which is strangling the enterprise and vision of this wonderful country”. Shrink Brownlee’s majority by giving Brian your electorate vote.

Invercargill - Shane Pleasance - Libertarianz

Eric Roy should manage to keep Lesley Soper out of Parliament (she’s just another braindead unionist), and Roy is just one of the mediocre middle ground of National. So give Shane Pleasance your electorate vote, he’s the Libertarianz candidate, Director of the Southland Chamber of Commerce and he believes in Invercargill, freedom and personal responsibility.

Kaikoura - Colin King - National

National’s Colin King is comfortable here against Labour’s nutty Brian McNamara, and he isn’t bad enough to vote against. I don’t know enough about ACT’s Dave Tattersfield to give him the nod, so make your own pick. I’d pick King, because Labour needs a hammering and it is nice to discourage a leftwing Labour candidate.

Mana - Richard Goode - Libertarianz

Winnie Laban is in under the list anyway, and the awful “Pakeha owe Maori loads” public sector consultant Hekia Parata of National is simply vile - from personal experience. Richard Goode of Libertarianz is mild mannered and one of the most rational speakers on liberalising drug laws in New Zealand today. Vote for Goode.

Mangere - Sua Sio - Labour

This is a race between the awful Philip Field, and Labour’s Sua Sio. National has Mita Harris, who works for DOC and has a past in Treaty claims. ACT has Michael Tabachnik, a university student. Look, Field would create a overhang if he won. So grin and bear it, vote for Sua Sio, because strategically this IS moderately important. Keep Field out.

Manukau East - Kanwal Bakshi - National

Ross Robertson is one of the Labour MPs I dislike least, and he isn’t on the party list which means if he wins, it helps keep the likes of Judith Tizard out of Parliament. However, he is pretty much guaranteed to get elected. Kanwal Bakshi of National is a businessman who set up a voluntary organization to help teenagers. You can’t go wrong voting for this man.

Manurewa - Cam Calder - National

I’m not so generous to George Hawkins. He was a hopeless Police Minister, and while he is on the right side of the Labour Party, and his victory also denies Labour one of its list members, this man isn’t exactly a stunning talent. Dr Cam Calder is National’s candidate and he is no libertarian, but seems decent enough. So take your choice. The ACT candidate doesn’t even have a profile on the ACT website. Hawkins or Calder hmmm.

Maungakiekie - Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga - National

The vile Carol Beaumont of Labour is vying for this seat. She’s a unionist and thinks Labour has benefited democracy. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga is National’s candidate, he seems to have done well in business and in community work, so you can vote for him positively to keep the Marxist Beaumont out of Parliament.

Mount Albert - Ravi Musuku - National

Clarkistan means you want to feel positive about who to vote for. Sadly it’s not great here. The ACT candidate has no profile on the ACT website. National’s Ravi Musuku is a Methodist pastor, who is a mechanical engineer, not the party’s best. I’d probably give Musuku the tick, only because Clark is so so much worse, and he will come second.

Mount Roskill - Phil Goff - Labour

Phil Goff or Jackie Blue, hmmm there’s a choice. Goff could be Labour’s next leader, he’s one of the few left who could bring it back to the centre, but think how far he has slipped. Blue is in on the list, so she doesn’t need your vote. ACT’s Shawn Tan hasn’t given me enough reason to support him. I want more than that. Don’t feel bad about ticking Goff because he’s the most Rogernomic part of Labour left, but if you can’t then ticking Blue or Tan.

Napier - Chris Tremain - National

Chris Tremain is the successful businessman who is now the local MP, a Nat. The apologist for vile criminals, Russell Fairbrother is standing for Labour and it is too important to keep that man out of Parliament. He isn’t on the list, so keep him out. Vote for Tremain to keep Fairbrother out.

Nelson - Maryan Street - Labour

Maryan Street is one of Labour’s best and smartest candidates. Yes she is part of the Clark government through and through, but she isn’t Nick Smith. Nick Smith is the most loathsome of National MPs, a little control freak, who doesn’t believe in private property rights, who embraces the RMA. So vote Street, because for all she is, she is better than Smith.

New Lynn - Tim Groser - National

Local MP Silent T is a vile nasty character, whose intelligence belies a cold instinct to love power and step on those who get in his way. National’s Tim Groser is a solid supporter of free trade and damnit we need that. Vote for Groser to give Silent T a kick where it hurts and to support one of the better Nat MPs.

New Plymouth - Mike Webber - Libertarianz

Harry Duynhoven is probably a shoo in here too, for some reason this town’s just wild about Harry. Mike Webber of Libertarianz is good at giving the bastards heaps, he’s a feisty chap and deserving of your vote.

North Shore - Michael Murphy - Libertarianz

Wayne Mapp will win this, so you’re safe giving the good natured, hard working and far more entertaining Michael Murphy of Libertarianz your vote. He’s President of Takapuna RSA and done more to serve his country than the others combined.

Northcote - Peter Linton - Libertarianz

Dr Jonathan Coleman is the Nat MP. He’s a clever chap but at 26 on the list he’s in anyway. Pick Peter Linton of Libertarianz. He’ll stir them up and be a strong advocate for your self defence and your right to decide on your health care and education.

Northland - Alan Wood - ACT

Hone Carter’s seat of course, so you can vote elsewhere happily. Blair suggested Shane Jones of Labour. ACT’s Alan Wood is a lemongrower. I have no other reason to vote for him, but it’s better than Hone or Jones, so give Alan Wood your tick.

Ohariu - Katrina Shanks - National

Ahh yes a very important seat. It’s simple. Dunne has to go. This man has voted to keep Labour in power for two terms and to grow bureaucracy. Katrina Shanks is National’s candidate. Charles Chauvel is a Clark lackey and National could do with more clever women. Vote Shanks to remove Labour’s right hand man.

Otaki - Peter McCaffrey - ACT

Darren Hughes will lose this seat, but Nathan Guy is into Transmission Gully, his maiden speech used the word “free” once and he talked favourably about how important Nandor’s “Waste Minimisation Bill” is. You can’t seriously vote for this guy, beyond how he apparently is good looking says Cactus Kate. Peter McCaffrey of ACT leads ACT on Campus Wellington, which is worth supporting. Give him the tick.

Pakuranga - Maurice Williamson - National

Maurice Williamson’s seat. Maurice is one of National’s better MPs, being an opponent of the awful move to the left of English in 2002, and supporting Brash in 2005. Key has stomped on Maurice, so that’s enough reason to give Maurice the benefit of the doubt.

Palmerston North - Malcolm Plimmer - National

Labour candidate Iain Lees-Galloway is trying to succeed Steve Maharey, and he is worse. This man is just vile, being anti-individualism and a unionist. Vote to keep him out, Malcolm Plimmer of National is uninspiring, but this is about keeping Lees-Galloway out of this seat. Turn Palmy blue.

Papakura - Judith Collins- National

Dave Hereora is one of Labour’s under performers, give Judith Collins the tick in the hope she might be a future National leader. Seriously, there isn’t really anyone else with the capability to succeed Key.

Port Hills - Geoff Russell - ACT

Dyson is awful, and Social Credit nutbar Terry Heffernan is worse. Dyson is in on the list anyway, so voting for her to keep Heffernan out makes sense. If you can’t stand that it is Geoff Russell of ACT who might give you an out, but seriously Heffernan stood for Social Credit, the Alliance and NZ First, umpteen times and failed. The Nats need to be punished for adopting this fool.

Rangitata - Jo Goodhew - National

Jo Goodhew is the Nat MP. There is no good reason to vote against her, she described herself in her maiden speech as one who “juggle work and family, who scorn political correctness, who value self-reliance and believe that working hard should bring personal benefits, not increased taxation”. Not great, but not bad, so give her a tick.

Rangitikei - Jean Thompson Church - ACT

Simon Power insurmountable fortress. You might tick Steve Gibson, an independent, because he’s a cop who cut crime in Taihape, but he also issued over 100 speeding tickets in one day. Jills Angus Burney had no profile on the Labour website, showing she’s not interested. Jean Thompson Church is ACT’s candidate, and she is quite elderly. Let her get her deposit back and give her a tick, because Power will get in regardless.

Rimutaka - Nigel Kearney - ACT

Now Swain is off with his young new bride, it is a bit more wide open. Richard Whiteside is the National candidate (the Labour one – Chris Hipkins is far too leftwing to endorse) and is a lot like John Key in that he doesn’t really say anything. ACT’s Nigel Kearney has a blog and expresses views that aren’t far removed from my own. So give him the tick, don’t worry – Ron Mark wont win here.

Rodney - Beryl Good - ACT

Lockwood Smith is one of the most disappointing of National’s MPs. He showed his testicles were inert against teachers’ unions in the early 1990s. He deserves to be out, but Conor Roberts – a student unionist, has no hope of doing this. Vote Beryl Good for ACT as she has more interest in freedom than Lockwood, and you wont feel so dirty voting for her.

Rongotai - Mitch Lees - Libertarianz

You have the smart and apparently good looking Mitch Lees of Libertarianz to vote for. He’s smarter and better looking than the rest, but the main reason you want to vote for him is to beat Gordon Copeland and Russel Norman. Annette King is hardly threatened by Chris Finlayson, although he is one of the better Nat candidates.

Rotorua - Fred Stevens - Libertarianz

Steve Chadwick is finished, but Todd McClay is from that National family. So really you’d feel better voting for Fred Stevens of Libertarianz, at least so he can beat the nutty RAM candidate.

Selwyn - Amy Adams - National

Amy Adams of National will almost certainly pick this one up, and she’s alright, better than Labour’s David Coates. Give her a tick, the Nats need more intelligent women in their caucus.

Tamaki - Allan Peachey - National

Allan Peachey is a sensible National MP who will win and who there isn’t really good enough reason to vote against. Jo Bartley of Labour was invisible when I searched for her, so give Allan your vote.

Tamaki-Makaurau - Pita Sharples - Maori Party

Louisa Wall isn’t good enough against Pita Sharples, who for all that is wrong with him is better than she is. He’s by far the best of the Maori Party caucus so deserves to win again.

Taranaki-King Country - Bill Izard - ACT

Shane Ardern, yawn. Yep, what a star. Bill Izard of ACT seems invisible too. The Labour candidate is invisible as well. I’d probably tick Izard given Ardern nearly was beaten by Owen Jennings, and the electorate that voted Jim Bolger in incessantly needs a shake up.

Taupo - Louise Upston - National

is a Labour seat likely to go to the Nats. Voting Louise Upston would help seal the deal to get rid of Mark Burton who is too low down the Labour list to remain.

Tauranga - Simon Bridges - National

You know what you have to do. Vote Simon Bridges National to put your nail in the coffin for Winston’s political career. Even excluding that he aint half bad.

Te Atatu - Tau Henare - National

Chris Carter will remain in on the list. Tau Henare will make things more interesting, and I can’t tick an ACT candidate who is law and order obsessed. The main value in Henare is he will shake up the boring Nat caucus.

Te Tai Hauauru - Errol Mason - Labour

You can’t vote for Tariana Turia, she’s mad as can be. Tick Errol Mason, he’ll help keep Judith Tizard out as he is well down the Labour list.

Te Tai Tokerau - Peter Tashkoff - ACT

The loathsome Marxist Hone Harawira doesn’t deserve your vote, Peter Tashkoff of ACT does, if only to show that the Maori seats aren’t a two horse race.

Te Tai Tonga - Mahara Okeroa - Labour

Mahara Okeroa will keep the Maori party away from overhang. There is no other reason to vote for him.

Tukituki - Craig Foss - National

Yes well Craig Foss is the Nat MP, Rick Barker was the Labour MP and to be fair to Foss he’s been fighting hard on the HBDHB issues with the government. The ACT candidate Duncan Lennox founded a Christian school, which of course is enough of a reason for an objectivist to say – tick Foss.

Waiariki - Mita Ririnui - Labour

Mita Ririnui will keep the Maori party away from overhang. Again, no other reason to vote for him.

Waikato - Mark Davies - ACT

Lindsay Tisch hasn’t been a star, and Jacinda Ardern the young London based Labour candidate is standing. She’ll be in on the list, so don’t give her a second thought. Mark Davies of ACT is saying the right things, so give him a tick.

Waimakariri - Clayton Cosgrove - Labour

Keeping Clayton Cosgrove around will annoy the Labour left and Kate Wilkinson of National is already a list MP. So why not tick Clayton Cosgrove, he was a Mike Moore acolyte and must be a moderating influence.

Wairarapa - Richard McGrath - Libertarianz

Vote for NZ’s most freedom loving GP – Dr Richard McGrath for Libertarianz. He’s a fine man, and given the Nat’s John Hayes will win, you don’t want someone called Amy Tubman from the Alliance to beat him now do you?

Waitakere - Paula Bennett - National

Paula Bennett of National needs your vote to try to unseat the Marxist Lynne Pillay.

Waitaki - David Parker - Labour

Yes, take Blair’s advice, swallow a hard drink and vote David Parker, the Labour candidate. Jacqui Dean is the current MP and an enemy of freedom, voting against her is like voting against Jim Anderton. Her website says “Jacqui thrives on hitting the road”, make her hit it with her fist on all fours in disappointment. Parker is in anyway on the list, so hold your nose and vote Parker.

Wellington Central - Bernard Darnton - Libertarianz

Now I know it is wide open, and you might just think Stephen Franks is worth a shot, but the man is no libertarian. He is intelligent and articulate, but did he try to take Helen Clark to court for breaking the law? No – Bernard Darnton - Libertarianz Leader did – he deserves your vote here for fighting for the rule of law and liberal democracy. Franks doesn’t deserve credit for moving from ACT to National, and National doesn’t value him enough to put him high up the list – so vote for freedom, vote for Darnton.

West Coast-Tasman - Damien O'Connor - Labour

Chris Auchinvole is the Nat list MP standing against Damien O’Connor. He is ok, but there is a good reason for voting for O’Connor. He will take a list position from someone else who is bound to be worse. O’Connor is on the Labour right and doesn’t pander to political correctness. So hold your nose and vote for him. It’s not that there is anything wrong with Auchinvole, but this is about keeping the rump Labour party from being the mad unionist cabal it looks like being.

Whanganui - Alan Davidson - ACT

Chester Borrows is the Nat MP here, he thinks all children are ours and like Sue Bradford says “I want to live in a country that claims all children as their own and accepts the glory and the responsibility of that”. The Labour candidate isn’t worth ticking, the ACT candidate Alan Davidson wont win but his profile does talk about not telling people how to run their lives. You can tick that.

Whangarei - Helen Hughes - Libertarianz

Phil Heatley is another shoo in here, so you can safely vote for someone who does passionately believe in individual freedom. Vote Helen Hughes for Libertarianz, with pride. She’s more charismatic and better looking than Heatley any day.

Wigram - Ben Morgan - Libertarianz

Jim Anderton isn’t under any serious threat here, because the vote against him is split two ways. ex. United Future MP, now Nat Marc Alexander doesn’t deserve your vote, as he isn’t really a believer in individual freedom. The Labour candidate Erin Ebbor-Gillespie is much worse than Jim Anderton, even though voting for her would probably increase the chance of Labour being defeated (as she’d replace a list MP, and ousting Anderton would shrink the left vote). Ben Morgan of Libertarianz stands for freedom, and so it’s time people in Anderton’s seat stood up for it too.

National wont get 50% of the vote

It didn't happen for decades under First Past the Post, Muldoon got 47.6% in 1975. With ACT, United Future and even NZ First and Libertarianz, part of National's core support will be elsewhere.

So the questions become this:

Can Labour cobble together the Greens and the Maori Party to govern?
Or will National need ACT, the Maori Party and Peter Dunne altogether?

The answer could be how well Labour does in the Maori seats - you see the more Maori seats Labour wins, the better it is for National. An electorate seat win by Labour is a swap for a list seat - no net gain or loss. However an electorate seat win by the Maori Party (assuming party vote remains low) increases the size of Parliament and the threshold needed to form a government.

So how can overhang best benefit the left, and how can it benefit the right?

For the left it should want to have electorate MPs overhanging that are on its side. That means a party vote for the Maori Party is a wasted vote. It also means a party vote for Jim Anderton's Progressives is a wasted vote. You want Jim's seat to be an overhang, along with the Maori Party ones. The Greens have no chance in any electorate so as long as they get 5% the left should be happy, regardless of whether it is bled off Labour or not. However, the left needs the Greens to reach 5%, otherwise it is over. NZ First breaking 5% would help the left immensely too.

For the right, it needs the same. Let's be clear, that means a vote for United Future is a wasted vote. Peter Dunne as an overhang would be good for National. ACT clearly has enough party votes to not overhang, even if it picks up Botany. More clearly it needs NZ First to not reach 5%. The Greens missing 5% is also important. However it is better for the Maori seats to go Labour and for Maori to vote for the Maori Party, to avoid THAT overhang.

However, if National is willing to do a deal with the Maori Party that it is willing to do - which may be questionable, then it is another story.

Me? Well I'll tell you later how I think you should all vote in every electorate.

USA - it IS the man in the mirror

So a majority of those who voted want change.

Really?

Why do you think that one man, with a lot of power, is going to make that change? You do not live in North Korea, where everyone is taught they owe everything to one man and his son. You live in a country where life is what YOU make it.

If you want to change your community, you do something about it. Use YOUR money, your time, why do you think the Federal Government would be more effective?

If you want everyone to have health care, what are YOU doing about it? Why don't you sponsor another family to have health insurance, or is it better for the Federal Government to force you to do it?

If you want to be better off, what are YOU doing about it? Retraining? Are you looking for new opportunities?

Is the Federal Government in your way, or does it help you? Most of think it will help you, most of you probably didn't think how in order for it to give, it must take away.

So as much as I am loathe to quote Michael Jackson it IS about the man (and woman) in the mirror.

If you're worried about global warming, drive less, use less electricity, fly less. You can choose to do that. If you're worried about people less fortunate than yourself, give them money, work for a charity, do something direct - voting is possibly the most useless thing you can do.

The Federal Government can change a lot - it can spend more of your money, it can withdraw from the world, it can cease to give a damn about what happens in other countries. However if you want your life to change, it's up to you - if you spend your life worshipping the idea that someone else is your saviour, then don't be surprised when nothing changes the way you want it. Because you handed him the power to change.

Castro on US elections

Castro writes in the official Cuban state newspaper (there is no other kind) Granma about how he prefers Obama.

Interesting to wonder why he thinks it is ok for Americans to get to choose their President, but he has always denied Cubans that same right.

Obama's victory speech

His groupies in rapture, he talked of family, thanked McCain for his concession. He talked of the campaign made of millions who helped him get elected. It is "their victory".

He talked of a "planet in peril"
He talks of harnessing new energy, building new schools, alliances to repair.
"We will get there" (wherever that is).
The government can't solve every problem
Need a new spirit of service and sacrifice.
Republican Party believed in individual liberty, values we all share.
New dawn of American leadership is at hand.
Those who seek peace and security we support you.
Those who seek to tear down the world we will defeat you.
Our Union can be perfected.
Unyielding hope.

It all sounded nice, he sounds inspiring.

However, what does it really mean?

"Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

and people believe it.

Other US results

Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr came fourth, with 347,161 votes at 0438 GMT
Ralph Nader third with 421,978 votes.

Other states?
Arizona - McCain 10 electoral votes
South Dakota - McCain 3 electoral votes
Nebraska - proportional McCain 3, Obama 2
Colorado - Obama 9 electoral votes (a change from 2004)
Florida - Obama 27 electoral votes (a change from 2004)
Nevada - Obama 5 electoral votes (a change from 2004)
Hawaii - Obama 4 electoral votes

338 Obama to 155 McCain

A convincing win for Obama.

Ballot measures:
Arizona - Ban on gay marriage - 56% yes (74% counted)
Arizona - Ban on hiring illegal immigrants - 60% no (74% counted)
Colorado - Human life from moment of conception - 74% no (37% counted)
Maryland - Allow video lottery - 59% yes (67% counted)
Massachusetts - Repeal state income tax - 69% no (79% counted)
Michigan - Allow medical marijuana - 63% yes (50% counted)
Nebraska - End affirmative action - 57% yes (55% counted)

So what now USA?

Barack Obama is President elect. He has been elected on a wave of enthusiasm by young people, African Americans and people hyped up on a campaign of slogans and promises of a better future.

It is difficult to belittle how important Obama's success is to many African Americans who lived through appalling bigotry only a generation ago. If they now feel they can participate in the political process, that may well be nothing other than a good thing. Accusations that the USA does not have a system that offers opportunity can be put to one side.

However Obama has promised much, on the basis that government can deliver economic recovery, jobs, health care and a better society. He has promised cheap energy, he has promised a new foreign policy that makes friends abroad.

Now he will be expected to deliver - with a majority Democrat Congress.

Will he discover how hard it is to get government to deliver anything? Will his supporters learn that relying on government to save them is a lost cause?

Hopes have been raised high - on the basis of little more than Obama being a star. How will his groupies react when they find he can't deliver?

0401 GMT: Obama over the threshold

Yep with California, Washington and Oregon all predicted to go to Obama, through exit polls, it is 297 for Obama. McCain picked up Idaho with 4 to go to 139.

Millions are celebrating.

Now will he make it a landslide through the undecided seats?

0359 GMT: The waiting continues

Yes it is literally all over, bar the counting, but Obama still isn't over the hurdle. Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida remain too close to call. That is the difference between the landslide and just victory.

McCain has virtually no chance to recover, but he could make it a close race.

Since 0330 GMT Virginia has gone to Obama with 13 projected.
Obama 220
McCain 135

Senate - D 52, R 38, independents (pro D) 2
House - D 171 R 111 (9 R>D)

Popular vote - 51% Obama, 48% McCain. At least that is showing a decent gap.

0330 GMT: Still no landslide

Iowa for Obama with 7 electoral votes is another switch from the Republicans in 2004, no doubt because Obama backed agricultural subsidies!

Texas, Mississippi, Kansas, Arkansas, Utah for McCain with 34, 6,6,6 and 5 respectively. All solid Republican states.

Popular vote is still 49% McCain, 50% Obama. Again, hardly a landslide.

Obama 207
McCain 135

Senate- 52 D, 36 R, 2 independents for Democrats (4 go from R to D)
House- 149 D, 91 R (218 for majority) (9 go from R to D)

Obama should win, given projections for Ohio, New Mexico and Iowa for him. However, I didn't think I'd need to be waiting up this long to get the result.

It remains painfully close in many states.

0300 GMT - Obama on the cusp of victory

Obama now adds Ohio, New Mexico as projected wins, 20 and 5 respectively to hit 199. However, both are still with less than half the vote counted. However, if it goes through these are the first two states to fall from the Republicans, should mean an Obama victory.

McCain adds Louisiana with 9 to hit 78

Senate - projected 50 Democrat, 36 Republican, 2 independents (pro Democrat). Democrats will be happy.
House - projected 103 Democrat, 68 Republican. Long way to go yet.

The only ballot declared so far is Massachusetts - on abolishing state income tax - 69% no, with 44% declared.

0230 GMT - McCain needs Florida and Ohio

McCain must be worried about North Carolina, which remains slightly ahead for Obama with 39% of the vote. Ohio, Virginia and Indiana are too close to call. McCain needs them all.

CNN says:

Obama 174
McCain 69

Obama has:
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, DC, New York, Pennsylvania.

McCain has:
Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Wyoming, North Dakota.

BBC is calling Ohio for Obama, which if true will be the breaking point for McCain.

Post 0200 GMT results preliminary from BBC

Michigan Obama 17 electoral votes
Minnesota Obama 10 electoral votes
Wisconsin Obama 10 electoral votes
New York Obama 31 electoral votes
North Dakota McCain 3 electoral votes
Wyoming McCain 3 electoral votes
Rhode Island Obama 4 electoral votes

No change from 2004 - still

CNN saying Obama 174 McCain 49

0159 GMT- On the cusp of the key states

Florida still too close to call, Georgia looks like McCain, along with Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma.

Senate - Democrats 47, Republicans 30
House - Democrats 38, Republicans 20

but a barrage of results about to come

No states have changed compared to 2004 yet

I still would put my money on Obama, but one thing is clear:

It's 0145 GMT and not a single state that voted Bush in 2004 has voted Obama this time round.

Far too early to call, but... since last time:
CNN has declared Pennsylvania for Obama
so it IS 102/34

0130 GMT - US election

CNN has Obama at 81, declaring New Hampshire but not Pennsylvania. McCain still at 34.

McCain needs Florida, North Carolina and Virginia. These all remain too close to call.

0115 GMT - US election update

Pennsylvania projected for Obama 21 electoral votes
New Hampshire projected for Obama 4 electoral votes
Illinois projected for Obama 21 electoral votes
DC projected for Obama 3 electoral votes
Massachusetts projected for Obama 12 electoral votes
Delaware projected for Obama 3 electoral votes
Tennessee projcted for McCain 11 electoral votes
Maryland projected for Obama 10 electoral votes
Connecticut projected for Obama 7 electoral votes
Oklahoma projectd for McCain 7 electoral votes
Maine projected for Obama 4 electoral votes
New Jersey projected for Obama 15 electoral votes

Obama winning Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are both major blows to McCain who hoped to pick them up. Both went to Kerry in 2004

Fundamentally there have not been any changes in states compared to 2004.

CNN is saying 77 for Obama and 34 for McCain.
BBC is saying 103 for Obama.

The landslide hasn't happened - yet.

0100 GMT - US elections

President - McCain 16 (South Carolina projected to win although Obama is ahead!), Obama 3

Still no change from 2004 election. Too early to say.

Senate - (including uncontested) Democrats 41 Republicans 27. 1 win for the Democrats
House - Democrats 8, Republicans 6

75% turnout reported

Real Clear Politics - real clear coverage

Yes, go here, watch it add up with the proportion of the vote counted, and the proportion for the candidates.

It's easier to use than any of the TV networks.

It's looking closer than many would have thought.

What to watch

States to watch are:
Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
Michigan
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
South Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Senate- Democrats hold 39 and Republicans 26 that aren't up for grabs. 35 seats up for grabs. 2006 saw the two parties holding 49 each, with 2 independents holding the balance of power. Democrats will be looking to grab 21 seats out of the 35 to get a supermajority. Republicans obviously seeking to grab 25 to keep the Democrats at bay.

House - 435 up for grabs. Democrats won 233 in 2006, Republicans 202.

US ballot measures worth watching

One side of the US elections are state based referenda on many issues. There are few this time compared to recent years. So courtesy of CNN - here they are.

Measures I would support:
California - Parental or guardian notification of abortion sought by a minor
Colorado - End affirmative action
Maryland - Allow video lottery
Massachusetts - Repeal state income tax
Michigan - Allow medical marijuana
Michigan - Allow stem cell research
Nebraska - End affirmative action
South Dakota - Limits on abortion to 20 weeks, and cases of mother's health
Washington - Allow doctor assisted suicide

Measures I would oppose:
Arizona - Ban on gay marriage
Arizona - Ban on hiring illegal immigrants
Arkansas - Ban on gay couples adopting children
California - Ban on gay marriage
Colorado - Human life defined as from moment of conception
Florida - Ban on gay marriage
South Dakota - Limiting abortion to rape/incest and health of the mother

First US results

Kentucky McCain 8 electoral votes
Vermont Obama 3 electoral votes

No change from 2004

Record turnout in US election

The Daily Telegraph is predicting 65% turnout, well above that of 55% in 2004, 51% in 2000, 49% in 1996.

That is a good thing.

It's either a massive turnout for the rockstar Obama, or a massive turnout to reject him. Methinks the former.

Most African Americans are, understandably, voting for the candidate who represents their aspiration. However, it is remarkably sad that beyond that, so many are choosing based on style - and that goes for both sides. Substance is sadly lacking.

Green policy means keeping kids indoors

It's so stupid it is worth highlighting again:

The Green Party electromagnetic policy includes "Minimise exposure to electromagnetic radiation especially for children and pregnant women."

Electromagnetic radiation includes visible light.

So the Greens presumably want kids keep indoors during the day, and at night, keep the lights out.

Oh and if that isn't good enough for you, it would include wifi internet, it would include all computer monitors, TV screens, and even radios - they all emit electromagnetic radiation.

Do you still trust the Greens on anything scientific?

Anderton right to call Key's approach Muldoonist

Yep more stinking pork, now it is National promising Tauranga money for a road - like the very worst in politics, without even knowing the cost and without knowing how worthwhile that project is compared to others - or even whether those who use it would pay for it. Like a King going round making promises to the little people.

Anderton says "There may well be a good case for the road in Tauranga, but it needs to be transparently compared to the business case for other possible infrastructure uses for $100 million, and there needs to be a very transparent total pool of funding available" which there is, and in fact another use is to give it back to those who paid it. If National simply applied its policy from the 1990s, it would be just as Anderton describes - even though he opposed it at the time.

Funny old world politics isn't it? It isn't about policies - it is about being scoundrels to principle.

Will John Key announce National will fund the much needed widening of the Victoria Park Viaduct ( now foolishly an overly ambitious tunnel project) in Auckland? That is one of the best road projects in the country - objectively speaking - but clearly winning votes among Auckland commuters is less important that beating Winston.

Or maybe he will announce funding the Kapiti Western Link Road, one of the best projects in Wellington, or maybe he'll announce the Schedewys Hill realignment north of Auckland? Maybe he hasn't heard of any of these? Because he's a politician and if you rely on politicians to make decisions on things like this, they'll make mistakes, they'll spend money to get votes, not to deliver best outcomes.

That's Muldoonism and oh John, it's Winston Peters, Peter Dunne and the Labour party too.

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians admitted they DON'T know what's best for everyone?

I mean other than Libertarianz of course.

Greens have another anti-science policy

I blogged about this a couple of months ago - the scaremongering hysteria of Sue Kedgley about cellphone towers.

Now it is Green Party policy - a policy on electromagnetic radiation!

Kedgley barked:

"Communities all over New Zealand are fighting the construction of cell towers. Many are desperate as some towers are near their homes and even children's bedrooms, and they are worried about the potential health effects - as well as the effect on their property values."

Only because you're scaring them you evil conniving bitch. How utterly despicable she is, "children's bedrooms". Have you mapped all of the TV translator locations near "children's bedrooms"? Have you told them the REAL evidence you have of health effects?

No.

You go around the country scaring the scientifically dumb, scaring them for votes. Painting the telecommunications industry as evil, threatening the health of children and with what evidence?

Nothing.

However, big foreign telecommunications companies are an easy target for a mediocre, scientifically illiterate socialist.

Do you talk about the effect of broadcasting transmitters? No. Even though they have been around a lot longer, have far higher powers. Because you couldn't tell people TV and radio is harming them could you.

Do you talk about the effect of EMR from electric railway catenary? No - because you like electric trains. After all, there couldn't be EMR from

Do you stop using your cellphone? No of course not, don't be silly.

Oh and Sue? You're bathed in electromagnetic frequencies every day - in fact you're about to hit the period of the year when it gets most intense. Visible light is electromagnetic radiation you ignorant twit.

So what WOULD this policy mean?

It would ban any new TV or radio stations, the sale of home wireless routers, laptops with wifi capability, cellphones. Because:

"protecting public health and taking preventative action before certainty of harm is proven must be the basis of decision making" (sic) would mean no more EMR".

Kids wont use laptops, wont use radios (they emit EMR as well as receive it), will stay indoors, and will not use lights because the Greens will "Minimise exposure to electromagnetic radiation especially for children". After all light, infrared, ultraviolent, radio waves (which is what cellphone towers emit) are all forms of EMR.

You might find you can't use your cellphone at all in many areas because the Greens would "Not permit cell phone towers in residential areas or near schools and childcare centres, and ensure communities get to decide where they go".

So that's it - why have a cellphone? You wont have coverage near your home.

The policy is utterly brainless, it is completely divorced from science and evidence, and shows exactly where reason and the Greens are located - on other planets. The worst part of the policy is how the despicable scaremongering Sue Kedgley scares ignorant mothers to think their children are at risk from cellphone transmitters.

That is simply plain evil.

Maori Party want more welfare too

Yes it's not just abolish the dole, according to the NZ Herald, it's also give $500 to the poorest families - taken of course from everyone else.

What do they get that for?
What did they do to earn it?
What will they spend it on?

The Herald asks Adelaide Wharakura, a mother working part time, who would get the money if she backs it, she obviously says yes, but even so she is wiser than the Maori Party. She said:

"Who it makes a difference to depends on which families you give it to. There are a lot of drugs and alcohol. If I'm being honest [there are some who would] rather spend money on things like that. This money shouldn't be spent like that - there should be some checks or rules"

Yes, money taken from hard working taxpayers as a handout, which some will use on drugs and alcohol.

Even the Maori Party's candidate for Hauraki-Waikato said "it was likely that for some children the money wouldn't trickle down and the majority would miss out"

So a bit of theft and giving money for nothing is still ok - take from more successful families to pay for less successful ones.

Marxist Maori Party nonsense - it wants to take your money and give it away for nothing.

and Labour and National will both go to bed with it for power. So why would you vote for them?

UPDATE: Not PC posts eloquently on the nonsense of the "multiplier effect" of boosting the economy by taking money from people in the first place.

National's agenda after the election

Stuff reports that after tax cuts and an increase in welfare:

"He also intends introducing at least seven big bills dealing with violent offenders, criminal gangs and youth crime, DNA testing for every person arrested for an imprisonable offence and increased police powers to protect domestic violence victims."

Yes, you read it. DNA testing for every person arrested for an imprisonable offence, whether guilty or not.

ACT's website has no recent press release on this, but it does have them from 2004 and 2002. Then ACT supported having a DNA database for all convicted criminals, any taken from suspects who are cleared should be destroyed.

I'd like to know what ACT policy is now. I know Libertarianz would categorically reject a database of DNA from people who are not convicted who did not consent to it.

Labour wipes out $56 from your pocket

That's the writedown in value of Kiwirail according to the Dominion Post. The book value for Kiwirail on the Crown's accounts is now NZ$448 million, after Dr Cullen took your money to pay NZ$690 million. NZ$56 for ever New Zealand resident gone.

That's what I meant a while ago when I said when politicians use the word "investment" it is nothing of the sort.

The Greens are full of "investments" like this as well. National's "investments" are roads and telecommunications.

I needn't remind you that Libertarianz believe in investments too - that means you spending your own money, not government spending it.

English is a fool but hardly a warrior

So the tape of what Bill English said about Obama is Labour's latest ploy.

English was concerned Obama might reduce the role of the US and be unwilling to take decisive military action when needed. A fair point, although I think Obama will be less unwilling than many would have thought, given his more recent statements on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So what does Phil Goff say? "The reality is that underneath it all National leaders are the same unreconstructed Cold War warriors they have always been"

Hold on, what does that mean? That National leaders have always been willing to fight on the side of the free world against Soviet (now Russian) tyranny? Heaven forbid - how awful! What Cold War?

Does it mean Labour has always been more ambivalent about the Cold War, after all Russia - USA - both the same right?

Clark said "If there's a war going, they want to be a part of it".

Unlike Labour's "independent foreign policy" which in the 1980s was a great big finger in the face of Western allies, which took New Zealand out of the Western alliance and made it "neutral" - a vile unforgivable position against the tyranny of the USSR and its satellites. Clark quite happily distanced NZ from ANZUS and the Western alliance.

National isn't abandoning the irrational anti-nuclear policy, National didn't argue that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was moral and correct, National has virtually no foreign policy difference from Labour. Bill English was foolish to talk indiscreetly about his views on Barack Obama, but he is no warrior - the National Party will make no substantive change in foreign policy. It didn't in 1990 and wont in 2008.

US election blogging

I'm about to take a break in the next 12 hours from the NZ campaign (unless something major happens), to blog about the US elections.

The apparently record turnout suggests Obama will do remarkably well, the rockstar has inspired this, it is likely to be a short painful night for the Republicans.

UK press mostly cheering for Obama

The lead in the Times says the campaign has been dignified "This is a contest that could so easily have featured distasteful hints about race or nasty gibes about age. It could have centred on the outlandish remarks of Obama's pastor the Rev Wright or his occasional meeting with the terrorist William Ayers. Instead Senator McCain has shown admirable restraint, Senator Obama admirable dignity."

The Times also notes the worst endorsements the candidates ever got. McCain's must be the KKK, whereas Obama's would be Hamas.

Mick Brown in the Daily Telegraph talks of how Obama won so many over.

Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph warns that McCain is the safer option regarding foreign policy. "Mr Obama is a confection; he is an image, a brand, a lifestyle. He has the talents of the thespian, less obviously those of the executive." "Mr McCain, who understands well how foreign powers and military operations work, would have a much more informed discussion with his advisers. Mr Obama would be starting from a position of near total ignorance, and on a matter of life and death."

The lead in the Daily Telegraph is concerned about Obama "What we do know of his policies is not encouraging - higher taxes, protectionism, a bigger role for the state, particularly in health-care. For those who believe that the United States' greatest strength - from which the whole world benefits - is the can-do individualism that fuels its boisterous free market economy, Mr Obama presents a worrying prospect." and McCain has blundered badly "this time round he has allowed himself to be diverted into a negative game-plan that combines ugly ad hominem attacks on Mr Obama with the specious claim that only the Republicans represent "real America". So on balance prefers McCain "His ill-considered choice of running mate appeared not only wilful but also defeatist because it seemed designed simply to shore up the Republican base, rather than reach out to a wider electorate. Yet on the big issues, Mr McCain is by far the sounder candidate. He is a tax cutter, a believer in small government, a zealot for free trade. He may have made something of a fool of himself with his grandstanding during the banking crisis, but he was not alone in that (though Mr Obama wisely kept his counsel)."

Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian has been seduced by the star "If voters reject McCain today they will also be rejecting that McCarthyite brand of politics, embracing Obama's insistence that, at a time when the problems facing America are so big, it makes no sense that its politics are so small"

Clintonite Sydney Blumenthal in the Guardian talks about the end of the Republican era, though says next to nothing about Obama, and talks utter nonsense about the US economy.

Johann Hari in the Independent says this is about transformation. Transcendence of race (true), the end of passive government (it never existed), the end of the culture war of the conservatives vs everyone else (perhaps), the end of US unilateralism (probably not). Again another Obama fan.

The lead in the Independent fawns over Obama. "Indisputably, he has also had a gentler ride from the media than Mr McCain. But gifted politicians make their own success. Over the past two gruelling years, we have learnt a great deal about Mr Obama. He is formidably intelligent."

The Daily Mail bemoans the BBC sending 175 people to the USA to cover the election, although I wonder how much coverage the BBC is onselling at a profit.

What the Presidential candidates DIDN'T talk about

- China
- Somalia
- Food
- Illegal immigration
- Drug gang violence in Mexico

So says Foreign Policy and it is concerned that there has been so little on these.
In terms of where the candidates stand:

Virtually no difference on China - both will engage, both concerned about debt owed to China, both concerned about human rights.

Virtually no policy on Somalia - concerning, since it is a failed state, a haven for Islamists, a hell for its residents (you can't be a citizen of a non-existent state), and a location of US intervention disaster from the 1990s, which happened under the Clinton Administration. Yes I know you'd forgotten that. Obama did too.

Big difference on food. Obama supports subsidies for biofuels, McCain opposes them. They are a significant contributor to the increase in food prices. Obama also supports higher agricultural protectionism, McCain opposes it.

Virtually no difference on illegal immigration - Obama wants immigrants to be legal, McCain wants a secure border. Most voters get heated up about this issue, which frankly isn't where McCain is at personally.

Virtually no difference on the war on drugs - Both praised the Mexican government's crackdown on the drugs trade, despite 4,000 lives being lost and the violence growing. As noted in the article, the US government subsidies the Mexican government's war on drugs, and US citizens buy the drugs, and sell the firearms used in the war - on both sides. This policy failure is not something either side will touch - because regardless of the blood spilt, being soft on drugs doesn't win votes.

Iran hoping for US withdrawal

The Tehran Times is not picking a winner of the US election (although the headline is "Waiting for Obama", but is calling for the US to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and is calling for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital (notably not calling for the destruction of Israel).

Imagine if Iran would stop its interference in the affairs of its neighbours.

Braindead presidential election

US Presidential elections are remarkable experiences. The wonderful primaries give a chance for the public to choose the candidates they think best represent them and give their parties a chance to win. It is a two party system, and only with enormous money can a third party candidate be a spoiler. Ross Perot did this in 1992 and 1996, Ralph Nader can't be said to have done it in 2000, even though if they who voted for him had gone for Gore, history would have been different.

So it is between two big parties, with long, distinguished and not so distinguished histories. Few now see in the Democratic Party the party of Thomas Jefferson, or indeed the party of southern segregation which it was until Lyndon Johnson turned his back on all that. Few African Americans probably know the Republicans freed the slaves, because it was the Democrats that bravely confronted segregation in the 1960s and handed over a core constituency to the Republicans - the south.

In a world of asinine urges to split arguments into two - it is all too easy for the media and the public to paint both major US parties as miles apart, as representing two very different visions of the future. In truth both are very broad churches. The stereotype of the Democrats being the party of social liberalism and secularism is as inaccurate as saying the Republicans are conservative evangelicals. Both are right and wrong. Both are full of people who despise freedom, and reject science. It's just that the Democrats will prefer this on economic matters, and reject science on the environment, whereas Republicans prefer regulating social matters, and reject science on education and ethical issues. Generally speaking.

So what of Barack Obama and John McCain?

Barack Obama has inspired millions, a good part of that is because of race. Few can deny the importance that having a major party Presidential candidate who is part African American shows how far the USA has come in a couple of generations. That will, understandably, motivate almost all African-Americans to vote for him, but beyond that there is little positive to vote for. Obama has been propelled to where he is because he has star qualities. He looks good, he speaks good, what he says isn't important except you hear the same words again "change", "bring together", "new beginning". He talks about a different politics, but nothing he sells is different. He's a leftwing Democrat who has never steered away from that course. That none of this has had more than cursory attention from the bulk of the US media is scandalous. If John McCain had spent time promoting ultranationalist causes, there is little doubt it would have been an issue.

Obama's foreign policy is essentially to talk to everyone, and focus on Afghanistan rather than Iraq. He'll be liked internationally and he'll be tested, by the enemies of the USA, and that will be the supreme test - to see if he hesitates or can be decisive to take military action when required. Obama's domestic policy is also nothing new. Tax cuts for many, tax hikes for "the rich", he wants to grow the Federal Government with umpteen new spending promises and to radically reform health care. He offers the status quo on social security and education. He has a consistent record of supporting "pork barrel" subsidies and programmes.

Change you can believe in? Hardly.

Obama's chief campaign message has been change, it doesn't look like anything not tried before. Obama has also campaigned blaming the economic crisis on the Bush Administration, which he must know is a lie - as the conditions for the crisis go well beyond Bush. That's the old politics that Obama happily taps into, with little criticism from the media.

You see Obama is Hollywood, and the USA loves Hollywood.

McCain is an old hand, he had the potential to really mean change. He was right about the surge in Iraq, and he could do the same in Afghanistan. He believes in fiscal prudence, cutting spending, opposing any "pork" and cutting taxes. He believes in free trade, critical at this time of global recession, and he doesn't think the answer to every problem is government. Obama is friendlier towards government being the solution.

However McCain has done appallingly for several reasons. He has tried to throw dirt at Obama when the media wouldn't play ball, although some of the dirt is well worth looking into (Jeremiah Wright). He has made umpteen blunders in front of the camera and has not sold himself on a confident platform of less government. Worst of all he failed to differentiate himself from the White House financial bailout plan, which would have given him leverage and credentials on small government and opposing "pork". He played a card, that the party pressured him into, by accepting Sarah Palin as his running mate, which scared a majority of voters away. Palin is feisty and curious, but her ignorance is palpable. She'll fire up some on the religious right, many who she will fire up match her ignorance, most opposing her see a woman who shouldn't be near the White House. She was, on balance, a wrong move - because she performed so badly. McCain is now fighting back, with great difficulty. The damage has been done. McCain has sought to fire up the Republican base - which is as banal as ever. This isn't the real McCain, it is sad that he has had to resort to this, instead of attacking Obama in the centre battleground.

As a libertarian, both major parties turn me away. The Democrats are the repositary of the left, and the environmentalist movements in the US. I've seen how appallingly they have misgoverned cities, and spread the envy message throughout the country. They have played the xenophobic card, differently from Republicans. They think government is the solution and they listen, too intently, to the pseudo science of the environmentalist movement, and the identity politics of the left. They continue to oppose school choice. The Republicans are a true conservative party, containing far more bigoted banal Christian halfwits than the Democrats - the type who think the planet is a few thousand years old, that Darwin was wrong and few things should get you more worked up than a homosexual (!). They happily censor away, and like to treat non-Christians with suspicion and science if it is to interfere with their literal interpretation of the Bible. The Republicans do have a liberal small government side, but sadly it isn't dominant.

Both being defeated would please me, but for now one has to win.

On foreign policy it is a closer run race than it was some months ago. Obama has stopped talking about withdrawing from Iraq quickly, and has moderated his speech about talking to the enemies of the USA. Biden strengthens Obama's ticket on foreign policy. Palin weaken's McCain's. McCain would be comforting on foreign policy and a strong advocate for a new open trade round at the WTO. That could help spur on global recovery, something I see Obama being far less enthusiatic about. McCain after all votes against protectionism and subsidies, Obama has voted for them. On security matters, Israel would feel more comfortable with McCain, but I don't doubt the rest of the world would embrace him, they would see a USA willing to compromise - which on too many things would be unthinkably wrong.

On domestic policy Obama wants big government, McCain has always wanted less before, but who knows now.

The worst that can happen under McCain is that he passes away and Palin becomes President, a scary thought. However, beyond that McCain may simply spend his term vetoing budgets because the Democrats keep trying on new spending.

The worst that can happen under Obama is that he negotiates away Iraq, forces Israel to batten down the hatches with less support, and dramatically grows the federal government - FDR style. He isolates the USA with trade protectionism, and directs the economy.

For McCain the best that can be said is similar to Lindsay Perigo's comment that voting for McCain is about opposing Obama as it:

"may buy the country some time: time to reverse its slide into a European-style 'social democracy' - i.e., full-blown collectivist tyranny based on the airheaded consent of the tyrannized. For that to happen, not just Senator McCain and Governor Palin but millions more Americans need to snap out of their addled airhead postmodern stupor and acquaint themselves with Ayn Rand"

Some think it is better to smash and punish the Republicans because of much incompetence since 2000. I can empathise with that view, but I believe it is mistaken - the world needs decisiveness on foreign policy, a free trade President and a President who will say no to more government spending. That is NOT Barack Obama, and it might just be John McCain. McCain will prove to Republicans that they can win if they choose a moderately liberal supporter of less government. It will prove to Democrats that an agenda of more government is not enough to win. However it is more than that.

The USA deserves better than a man winning the Presidency because he is a star. Obama's celebrity status may say that an African-American could be elected President, but it also says that style wins over substance. Few who support Obama are likely to be able to say what "change" he will bring. Few have really put Obama's policies under the spotlight, few have asked him serious questions about his inconsistencies, and how he thinks spending taxpayers' children's taxes will help. It is truly the "airhead" politics as Perigo describes them - where choosing a radical leftwing pastor was dismissed as being a mistake, as if it didn't reflect on Obama's philosophy. Where a campaign of pure banality is treated as being some great revolution.

That is why Americans should reject Obama/Biden in favour of McCain/Palin. John McCain has made many mistakes, he has floundered and disappointed, almost painfully his campaign has been an appalling series of mistakes. Sarah Palin may be one of his biggest ones. However, he is, for now, the safer pair of hands compared to Obama. John McCain wont be a great President, but he would be one who could contain a Democrat led Congress, who could be a competent Commander in Chief, and would not seek government solutions to every problem. He could lead a new WTO round with some significant liberalisation from the USA to kickstart the global economy. He could be a change.

I know an Obama loss might trouble millions, and may even spark anger from disappointment, but that is not a reason to vote for him. Whoever wins the Presidency has to handle Al Qaeda, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, all decisively, I'll pick the man of experience over the man of slogans. As much as McCain's campaigning appalls, as much as Sarah Palin grates, and as much as McCain has looked tired, and his approach to the financial crisis wrong, he is the better choice. A vote for a McCain is a vote for the less government option, and a vote against the anointed believer in wealth redistribution, massive growth in the federal government and a campaign of banality.