and sadly another Air NZ plane crashes. The Airbus A320 was about to be returned to the airline after a lease to XL Germany expired and has been lost on a training flight off the coast of France. With 2 bodies found, the likelihood that the remaining crew (flight engineers) surviving is slim. A tragic day for the families and friends of those on board, and a reminder that training flights are not without their dangers.
28 November 2008
Mumbai's Islamist hell
The terrorist attacks in Mumbai, not only in hotels, but even hospitals specifically targeting US and British nationals, as well as local Jews is sadly a wakeup call to us all. Islamist terrorism never went away, it remains outside the Middle East, and has now damaged India - a state not founded on religion, but on pluralism and liberal democracy.
The finger will naturally be pointed at Pakistan and perhaps Bangladesh, both which should unreservedly condemn the attacks and work closely with India, if the perpetrators are from or gain succour from those in those countries. Hopefully it wont result in the rise of Hinduism in reaction, as Hindu nationalism can be equally as virulently hateful and violent as Islamism.
It is a chance for India's erstwhile neighbours to come together to stamp out Islamist (and other) terrorism - what's the chance Pakistan has the means to do so?
The finger will naturally be pointed at Pakistan and perhaps Bangladesh, both which should unreservedly condemn the attacks and work closely with India, if the perpetrators are from or gain succour from those in those countries. Hopefully it wont result in the rise of Hinduism in reaction, as Hindu nationalism can be equally as virulently hateful and violent as Islamism.
It is a chance for India's erstwhile neighbours to come together to stamp out Islamist (and other) terrorism - what's the chance Pakistan has the means to do so?
25 November 2008
Back from NYC
Well it was nice to retire from thinking about politics for a number of days. Especially in New York - one remarkable city. Vibrant, continuously. With the full range of people from the very friendly to the dismissively rude, with the wonderful range of cuisine, the art (and architecture) from the Guggenheim to MOMA, to the wondrous scene of this great city from atop the Empire State Building or from the Staten Island Ferry. The enormous diversity of shops and what they sell, the diversity of service from the gracious effortlessness to the Soviet style abruptness. New York is both everything you expect it to be, plus more. There is much that could do with fixing, but I'd rather not think of that - what I do think is that it proves one point of mine above all others - you never know the USA from just one city, and I have been to several US cities in various states (California, Arizona, Nevada, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio, DC, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York - not counting those I've sat in airports at).
However, the USA does have two notable qualities that make me smile - they are optimism and enthusiasm. New York has both of these, it is as if 9/11 did not happen, the dusty dark closed platform of Cortlandt Street subway station (which was adjacent to the WTC) is a was the only rather solemn reminder for me.
The optimism is what persuaded me to try NOT thinking about the world of politics while I was there. However, I will be blogging as per usual shortly. Sadly for too much that is pessimistic.
The new NZ government, a cobbled together mishmash of ACT, Peter Dunne and the Maori Party, is not, I bet, what most people who voted for those parties wanted. National has bent over for the likes of Peter Dunne, who should have been sent out to the political wilderness as an unnecessary adjunct, and his piece of pork is Transmission Gully. I will wait and see.
The UK on the other hand is going to "pump prime", meaning borrow from future taxpayers, by increasing spending, cutting some taxes (VAT from 17.5% to 15% for a year - yes don't wet yourself from excitement. Oh by the way, the EU wont allow the UK to drop it further, but no it's not some leftwing organisation is it now?) and increasing taxes on those earning above £150k.
The USA shows us that Change you can believe in actually means putting Hilary Clinton in one of the most powerful positions in the country. This lying power hungry control freak, who started some of the "I'm not sure Obama isn't a Muslim" nonsense is status quo politics par excellence. The "new politics" look rather familiar.
On that note I will make one point. In street stalls and markets around New York there are mountains of Barack Obama t-shirts, badges, hats, mugs and other miscellany - and I don't mean campaign material, but post-election. The man is a superstar, his image is everywhere and, for a moment, I believed it was good that, at least, many people are personally optimistic about the future.
However, that is sadly decimated by why they are optimistic - a politician made them so. Not by wanting to set them free. Martin Luther King Jr. sought that and spoke that. No. Obama made people optimistic because of the word "change". Little about what he proposes is new at all. People are optimistic and love Obama not because of his policies, or what he believes in (which is at best rather vague and oblique), but because of how he can speak, his background and because he is different. He is partly the creation of a news media that fell in love with him, so much of the USA followed. He has a lot to live up to - I am very sceptical that he can meet half the expectations placed upon him.
Though one thing does matter - go to New York if you can - there is so much more I want to see. It is an expensive trip from New Zealand (more than London), but cheap from Europe. It is a remarkable city, too much that is so different from every other city in the USA.
I can't believe it has taken me so long to go - and I'll go again, and again and again.
However, the USA does have two notable qualities that make me smile - they are optimism and enthusiasm. New York has both of these, it is as if 9/11 did not happen, the dusty dark closed platform of Cortlandt Street subway station (which was adjacent to the WTC) is a was the only rather solemn reminder for me.
The optimism is what persuaded me to try NOT thinking about the world of politics while I was there. However, I will be blogging as per usual shortly. Sadly for too much that is pessimistic.
The new NZ government, a cobbled together mishmash of ACT, Peter Dunne and the Maori Party, is not, I bet, what most people who voted for those parties wanted. National has bent over for the likes of Peter Dunne, who should have been sent out to the political wilderness as an unnecessary adjunct, and his piece of pork is Transmission Gully. I will wait and see.
The UK on the other hand is going to "pump prime", meaning borrow from future taxpayers, by increasing spending, cutting some taxes (VAT from 17.5% to 15% for a year - yes don't wet yourself from excitement. Oh by the way, the EU wont allow the UK to drop it further, but no it's not some leftwing organisation is it now?) and increasing taxes on those earning above £150k.
The USA shows us that Change you can believe in actually means putting Hilary Clinton in one of the most powerful positions in the country. This lying power hungry control freak, who started some of the "I'm not sure Obama isn't a Muslim" nonsense is status quo politics par excellence. The "new politics" look rather familiar.
On that note I will make one point. In street stalls and markets around New York there are mountains of Barack Obama t-shirts, badges, hats, mugs and other miscellany - and I don't mean campaign material, but post-election. The man is a superstar, his image is everywhere and, for a moment, I believed it was good that, at least, many people are personally optimistic about the future.
However, that is sadly decimated by why they are optimistic - a politician made them so. Not by wanting to set them free. Martin Luther King Jr. sought that and spoke that. No. Obama made people optimistic because of the word "change". Little about what he proposes is new at all. People are optimistic and love Obama not because of his policies, or what he believes in (which is at best rather vague and oblique), but because of how he can speak, his background and because he is different. He is partly the creation of a news media that fell in love with him, so much of the USA followed. He has a lot to live up to - I am very sceptical that he can meet half the expectations placed upon him.
Though one thing does matter - go to New York if you can - there is so much more I want to see. It is an expensive trip from New Zealand (more than London), but cheap from Europe. It is a remarkable city, too much that is so different from every other city in the USA.
I can't believe it has taken me so long to go - and I'll go again, and again and again.
18 November 2008
So you’re going to be a Minister? Part one
Now some of you have been Ministers before, some of you will find this your first time. There are a bunch of things you need to know. If you’re friends with a soon to be ex. Labour Minister you may learn a little of this, but be wary. The last time the Nats entered government much of the public sector had already been “socialised” into Rogernomics (with some distinct exceptions). Things have changed somewhat, there are legions of bright eyed bushy tailed mediocrities in the public service who have spent up to nine years serving a pro-active interventionist government, but there are some sources of common sense. So, here’s some advice:
1. Get a Senior Private Secretary who is bright, hard working, sceptical, can handle stress and get on with as many people as possible. This will be an ally closer to you than most of your Parliamentary colleagues. Make sure you look at CVs closely and interview very carefully, this is sometime who you need a watertight relationship with.
2. Read the briefing to the incoming Minister with some scepticism, and get someone else to review it for you who may have past experience in your portfolio. Remember that departments will be reporting on initiatives started by the past government, and being free and frank with you will be new for some of them. The key is to ask what isn’t being reported on.
3. Read the CVs of your departmental Chief Executives thoroughly and ask around about the said individuals. You need to know who you can rely on, and who you can’t. They will all be professional, but remember you are the Minister, you are in charge.
4. Meet your departmental Chief Executives only after you have done points 2 and 3 above. Make the first meeting a relatively relaxed affair, make it very clear what your overall strategic intentions are. DON’T be bogged down in detail (e.g. if you have transport, don’t ask about a particular road) because it will show how easily you can be distracted. Say you have a long list of questions and issues you want discussed, and in particular the purpose and value of the department, and how you could possibly justify its budget or existence. Even if you DO think it is justified, you have been elected, in part, on a platform of more frugal government. Don’t assume that the department you have command of is in fact necessary at all.
5. Read the Statement of Intent and the Purchase Agreement between the previous Minister and your department. These specify exactly what the department is meant to deliver. One of your first priorities is to amend both of these, which cannot be done until you’ve done the line by line review of what is in them and what you want the department to do. Note that if you want it to do more you’ll need the Finance Minister’s approval.
6. You might find there are Crown Entities under your portfolio or even SOEs. They will see themselves as a law unto themselves, which SOEs sort of are, but Crown Entities and Companies are not. Some of them will try to provide competing advice to your core department, some of them will think they aren’t really accountable to you at all. Understand thoroughly what they do and don’t do, what you can do, and remember if you have a Statement of Intent and Purchase Agreements with them, you are in charge.
MORE TO COME
1. Get a Senior Private Secretary who is bright, hard working, sceptical, can handle stress and get on with as many people as possible. This will be an ally closer to you than most of your Parliamentary colleagues. Make sure you look at CVs closely and interview very carefully, this is sometime who you need a watertight relationship with.
2. Read the briefing to the incoming Minister with some scepticism, and get someone else to review it for you who may have past experience in your portfolio. Remember that departments will be reporting on initiatives started by the past government, and being free and frank with you will be new for some of them. The key is to ask what isn’t being reported on.
3. Read the CVs of your departmental Chief Executives thoroughly and ask around about the said individuals. You need to know who you can rely on, and who you can’t. They will all be professional, but remember you are the Minister, you are in charge.
4. Meet your departmental Chief Executives only after you have done points 2 and 3 above. Make the first meeting a relatively relaxed affair, make it very clear what your overall strategic intentions are. DON’T be bogged down in detail (e.g. if you have transport, don’t ask about a particular road) because it will show how easily you can be distracted. Say you have a long list of questions and issues you want discussed, and in particular the purpose and value of the department, and how you could possibly justify its budget or existence. Even if you DO think it is justified, you have been elected, in part, on a platform of more frugal government. Don’t assume that the department you have command of is in fact necessary at all.
5. Read the Statement of Intent and the Purchase Agreement between the previous Minister and your department. These specify exactly what the department is meant to deliver. One of your first priorities is to amend both of these, which cannot be done until you’ve done the line by line review of what is in them and what you want the department to do. Note that if you want it to do more you’ll need the Finance Minister’s approval.
6. You might find there are Crown Entities under your portfolio or even SOEs. They will see themselves as a law unto themselves, which SOEs sort of are, but Crown Entities and Companies are not. Some of them will try to provide competing advice to your core department, some of them will think they aren’t really accountable to you at all. Understand thoroughly what they do and don’t do, what you can do, and remember if you have a Statement of Intent and Purchase Agreements with them, you are in charge.
MORE TO COME
New cabinet?
Oh please, I'd rather not comment much during my break.
For this week, New Zealand is a small country of which I know nothing.
Needless to say the tag I chose for this says it all.
For this week, New Zealand is a small country of which I know nothing.
Needless to say the tag I chose for this says it all.
14 November 2008
Thanks and a short break
Now I'm off to the US today for a while, but will be blogging there - erratically. Thank you for your support, the hit rate has been high since the US election getting around 400 - 500 a day. I may blog from the Virgin Clubhouse at Heathrow tomorrow, but I will in the weekend.
Meanwhile what is going on?
Obamania continues, although his fans have to remain calm as he wont have power for a couple of months. News drips out about what he will do, around stem cell research, remove restrictions on funding support for abortion as part of aid programmes, but my biggest fear is on trade.
New Zealand awaits the mind blowing excitement of seeing what portfolio Peter Dunne gets, (racing sounds appropriate), what "Business portfolio" Rodney Hide gets (what's a bet Minister of Economic Development - the portfolio invented by Jim Anderton) and what the Maori Party gets (what's a bet it is Associate Maori Affairs and Youth Affairs). Once the Cabinet is sworn in, I'll be posting a beginners' guide to Ministers - which since I've dealt with five in my previous life as a bureaurat - does have some basis in reality.
The UK - meanwhile - languishes under the cold dead hand of Gordon Brown. If only the unprofitable black hole called the London Olympics could be abandoned!
So farewell, have fun and a rest from political mania - until the special votes are in and the new Cabinet is announced.
Meanwhile what is going on?
Obamania continues, although his fans have to remain calm as he wont have power for a couple of months. News drips out about what he will do, around stem cell research, remove restrictions on funding support for abortion as part of aid programmes, but my biggest fear is on trade.
New Zealand awaits the mind blowing excitement of seeing what portfolio Peter Dunne gets, (racing sounds appropriate), what "Business portfolio" Rodney Hide gets (what's a bet Minister of Economic Development - the portfolio invented by Jim Anderton) and what the Maori Party gets (what's a bet it is Associate Maori Affairs and Youth Affairs). Once the Cabinet is sworn in, I'll be posting a beginners' guide to Ministers - which since I've dealt with five in my previous life as a bureaurat - does have some basis in reality.
The UK - meanwhile - languishes under the cold dead hand of Gordon Brown. If only the unprofitable black hole called the London Olympics could be abandoned!
So farewell, have fun and a rest from political mania - until the special votes are in and the new Cabinet is announced.
Turia's lack of love for Labour
Ah, way to put your foot in it Phil, warning the Maori Party about a deal with National. According to the NZ Herald, Tariana Turia took it quite simply as patronising and patriarchal - the big Labour Party warning the breakaway children not to play games with the mean ol' National Party. Turia rightfully said "Labour didn't even invite us to sit with them in the last government and our people are sick and tired of being told what to do".
That is notable, even though Turia's politics are collectivist and wacky, the one lesson is that the Maori Party doesn't want to be taken for granted. Of course it's rather stuck - the Maori Party, wisely, wants to keep its options open knowing that if it can be the party either might need in a closer race, it can use its leverage to get what it wants. After all the Maori Party isn't about less government, it is about using government to advantage Maori.
So, of course, while National seems less than willing to concede much to ACT - with 3.7% of the vote, how much will it concede to the Maori party with just over 2.4% of the vote.
and who is saying that conceding to ACT is more than likely about spending less (and taxing less), but conceding to the Maori party is almost certainly the opposite.
One thing is for sure - it will take quite a bit for Labour to get the Maori Party onside, despite Labour winning the party vote convincingly. However, I'm not looking forward to the Maori Party having much of a say - unless it really is about abolishing the dole. Of course we don't know what John Key offered, neither do most Maori, what's a bet it is about spending more of your money on what the Maori Party wants?
That is notable, even though Turia's politics are collectivist and wacky, the one lesson is that the Maori Party doesn't want to be taken for granted. Of course it's rather stuck - the Maori Party, wisely, wants to keep its options open knowing that if it can be the party either might need in a closer race, it can use its leverage to get what it wants. After all the Maori Party isn't about less government, it is about using government to advantage Maori.
So, of course, while National seems less than willing to concede much to ACT - with 3.7% of the vote, how much will it concede to the Maori party with just over 2.4% of the vote.
and who is saying that conceding to ACT is more than likely about spending less (and taxing less), but conceding to the Maori party is almost certainly the opposite.
One thing is for sure - it will take quite a bit for Labour to get the Maori Party onside, despite Labour winning the party vote convincingly. However, I'm not looking forward to the Maori Party having much of a say - unless it really is about abolishing the dole. Of course we don't know what John Key offered, neither do most Maori, what's a bet it is about spending more of your money on what the Maori Party wants?
13 November 2008
Catherine Delahunty - the Greens' newest enemy of reason
I've written a little before about Catherine Delahunty, she is a hardened socialist who is well to the left of much of the Green Party - and one of its new intake. Her speech a year ago called "State of the Pakeha nation" (you see she likes collectivising people, as do post-modernist identity politics followers) tells much of her scary views of the world.
She dislikes democracy “democratheid (apartheid by majority) in maintaining control of Aotearoa”. Of course she has some truth to this, but she doesn’t believe in individual rights. Oh no. She thinks most of you are racist. Her view is that "pakeha" are a nation and vote as one, compared to "Maori". Her little brain can't conceive that individuals of both groups have a wide range of political opinions, from communism to nationalism to libertarianism. Identity politics followers don't accept that any member of an "oppressed group" that doesn't take a "liberation" based view of politics is truly a member of that group.
She says "there’s the flag on the Harbour Bridge debacle. How can we trust Transit to build bridges when they can’t even fly our two nations' flags together”. You see she just "accepts" the Tino Rangitiratanga flag as representing Maori, because it represents the Maori SHE associates with, though it might not represent those who vote National, ACT or Libertarianz because - well - they aren't really "Maori" from her perspective.
Think of the world she occupies. It gets worse:
“We have plenty of beaten women; gutted communities and whanau living in state housing that have never had proper electricity or water supplies. But lots of Pakeha are drinking wine and surfing, and they say so loudly without saying a word, would you please shut up about the connection between racism and poverty?” "We"? I didn't beat them Catherine, but you don't want to blame those who do. You gloss over that - it's the system, not the subculture of violent hedonistic irresponsibility - you wont ever accept that individuals are responsible for the crimes they commit, will you? Unless they aren't in a "powerless" group.
This crazy nutbar thinks that "pakeha" drinking wine and surfing should "do something" about women being beaten, or Maori living in state housing. Somehow it's "their" fault - it certainly isn't Catherine's fault - she wont spend a cent of her money or find ways to help directly - no - it's the system.
Racism and poverty - yes, people are poor in New Zealand because of racism. Forget those Caucasians in poverty - blank out - ignore. Forget those in poverty who breed without a second thought, who raise children whilst drunk or drugged, who use their kids as verbal or physical punching bags or worse - no - Delahunty says it is racism. It is the most disgusting betrayal of those victims of domestic violence. Though it is not unknown elsewhere on the left.
I'm not responsible because I don’t abuse kids, I don’t rob people, I don’t live a destructive lifestyle that produces victims in my wake because I don’t care about what happens to people around me. YOU are failing them because you remove any notion of personal responsibility from those who have failed and who raise children not only when they cannot afford them, but when they don’t even give them the common decency of love, attention and aspiration. You prefer you’re privileged finger pointing lifestyle of blaming people who have their lives sorted out for those who haven’t – it’s an irrational non-sequitur.
People like Catherine Delahunty are part of the problem, spreading their mindless delusion that individuals don't bear responsibility for their lives and how they treat others.
She goes on and on, but I'll finish with this:
“The severing from ancestors and from the land has brought us material advantage and spiritual emptiness. The denial of this condition assists us in our denial of the tangata whenua indigenous reality and justifies our control of resources.” In other words, because non-Maori came from elsewhere they are "severed from their land" (give me a bag). Spiritual emptiness? Say that to the hundreds of thousands who do have religion in their lives and those who don’t and are quite content. Control of resources? It’s called property rights, you buy, sell, discover and create what you own. You’re against them because you’re a socialist and think everything should belong to everyone.
Catherine Delahunty is dangerous, she thinks of people in terms of groups - by race at least, if not also sex. She judges on background not deed. She thinks crime is the fault of the system not the individual, but she also thinks "resources" are something that just exist, that get "distributed" instead of created and traded.
It is part of the failing of the whole mainstream media that the likes of her get into Parliament with virtually no scrutiny. Think how many regard Sir Roger Douglas as dangerous, when the likes of her is virtually unknown.
She dislikes democracy “democratheid (apartheid by majority) in maintaining control of Aotearoa”. Of course she has some truth to this, but she doesn’t believe in individual rights. Oh no. She thinks most of you are racist. Her view is that "pakeha" are a nation and vote as one, compared to "Maori". Her little brain can't conceive that individuals of both groups have a wide range of political opinions, from communism to nationalism to libertarianism. Identity politics followers don't accept that any member of an "oppressed group" that doesn't take a "liberation" based view of politics is truly a member of that group.
She says "there’s the flag on the Harbour Bridge debacle. How can we trust Transit to build bridges when they can’t even fly our two nations' flags together”. You see she just "accepts" the Tino Rangitiratanga flag as representing Maori, because it represents the Maori SHE associates with, though it might not represent those who vote National, ACT or Libertarianz because - well - they aren't really "Maori" from her perspective.
Think of the world she occupies. It gets worse:
“We have plenty of beaten women; gutted communities and whanau living in state housing that have never had proper electricity or water supplies. But lots of Pakeha are drinking wine and surfing, and they say so loudly without saying a word, would you please shut up about the connection between racism and poverty?” "We"? I didn't beat them Catherine, but you don't want to blame those who do. You gloss over that - it's the system, not the subculture of violent hedonistic irresponsibility - you wont ever accept that individuals are responsible for the crimes they commit, will you? Unless they aren't in a "powerless" group.
This crazy nutbar thinks that "pakeha" drinking wine and surfing should "do something" about women being beaten, or Maori living in state housing. Somehow it's "their" fault - it certainly isn't Catherine's fault - she wont spend a cent of her money or find ways to help directly - no - it's the system.
Racism and poverty - yes, people are poor in New Zealand because of racism. Forget those Caucasians in poverty - blank out - ignore. Forget those in poverty who breed without a second thought, who raise children whilst drunk or drugged, who use their kids as verbal or physical punching bags or worse - no - Delahunty says it is racism. It is the most disgusting betrayal of those victims of domestic violence. Though it is not unknown elsewhere on the left.
I'm not responsible because I don’t abuse kids, I don’t rob people, I don’t live a destructive lifestyle that produces victims in my wake because I don’t care about what happens to people around me. YOU are failing them because you remove any notion of personal responsibility from those who have failed and who raise children not only when they cannot afford them, but when they don’t even give them the common decency of love, attention and aspiration. You prefer you’re privileged finger pointing lifestyle of blaming people who have their lives sorted out for those who haven’t – it’s an irrational non-sequitur.
People like Catherine Delahunty are part of the problem, spreading their mindless delusion that individuals don't bear responsibility for their lives and how they treat others.
She goes on and on, but I'll finish with this:
“The severing from ancestors and from the land has brought us material advantage and spiritual emptiness. The denial of this condition assists us in our denial of the tangata whenua indigenous reality and justifies our control of resources.” In other words, because non-Maori came from elsewhere they are "severed from their land" (give me a bag). Spiritual emptiness? Say that to the hundreds of thousands who do have religion in their lives and those who don’t and are quite content. Control of resources? It’s called property rights, you buy, sell, discover and create what you own. You’re against them because you’re a socialist and think everything should belong to everyone.
Catherine Delahunty is dangerous, she thinks of people in terms of groups - by race at least, if not also sex. She judges on background not deed. She thinks crime is the fault of the system not the individual, but she also thinks "resources" are something that just exist, that get "distributed" instead of created and traded.
It is part of the failing of the whole mainstream media that the likes of her get into Parliament with virtually no scrutiny. Think how many regard Sir Roger Douglas as dangerous, when the likes of her is virtually unknown.
Hide not getting his way?
Newstalk ZB reports ACT is unhappy with the portfolios John Key is offering, which given ACT has already pledged confidence and supply, isn't that surprising.
In 1996 Winston gained a huge amount from National because he COULD play off Labour and National. ACT has no such bargaining power, indeed National could entice the Maori Party if it so wished, which ACT - if it were strategic, would let it. After all, what better way to shore up ACT votes than for Hide to say National gave us nothing, and went to the Maori Party - if ACT only gets consumer affairs and say local government (although that does have potential).
National, you see, wants to dictate the terms of government, which it can only do if ACT lets it. ACT rightfully is arguing that Dunne being a Minister is absurd, as he got less than 1% of the vote. Even Jim Anderton's Progressives had over 1% of the vote in 2005. Be clear, Hide can't demand to be Deputy PM, but he can demand a single major portfolio and a minor one - National needs him, unless it wants to be painted as a party that prefers the Maori Party to ACT.
I'd like Hide to get Environment and Local Government - because it would deprive these from the obvious creature who aspires to the first one.
In 1996 Winston gained a huge amount from National because he COULD play off Labour and National. ACT has no such bargaining power, indeed National could entice the Maori Party if it so wished, which ACT - if it were strategic, would let it. After all, what better way to shore up ACT votes than for Hide to say National gave us nothing, and went to the Maori Party - if ACT only gets consumer affairs and say local government (although that does have potential).
National, you see, wants to dictate the terms of government, which it can only do if ACT lets it. ACT rightfully is arguing that Dunne being a Minister is absurd, as he got less than 1% of the vote. Even Jim Anderton's Progressives had over 1% of the vote in 2005. Be clear, Hide can't demand to be Deputy PM, but he can demand a single major portfolio and a minor one - National needs him, unless it wants to be painted as a party that prefers the Maori Party to ACT.
I'd like Hide to get Environment and Local Government - because it would deprive these from the obvious creature who aspires to the first one.
Roy for Consumer Affairs?
Wow, gripping stuff so says the Dominion Post. A job so tough it is currently Judith Tizard's!
To be optimistic, Heather Roy should be able to run rings around the Ministry of Consumer Affairs (a subset of the Ministry of Economic Development). I am heartened by Consumer New Zealand Chief Executive Sue Chetwin saying "an interesting person to do it", which is code for "oh shit, a Minister who might not want to regulate everything so consumers are protected from their own stupidity". Sue Kedgley will be barking like the hysterical harpie that she is, but Roy should say "caveat emptor" over and over again.
Now of course she should do as I recommend and ask the MOCA chief executive what good the Ministry does, why she shouldn't recommend scrapping it in next year's budget and giving all the money back to taxpayers (who are consumers after all). The right answer is NOT because it exists due to legislation, as that will only delay the scrapping a little bit longer.
After all, three years should be long enough to do away with a Ministry that didn't exist before the fourth Labour Government - yes, this was a creation of the halcyon years of Roger Douglas and David Lange.
To be optimistic, Heather Roy should be able to run rings around the Ministry of Consumer Affairs (a subset of the Ministry of Economic Development). I am heartened by Consumer New Zealand Chief Executive Sue Chetwin saying "an interesting person to do it", which is code for "oh shit, a Minister who might not want to regulate everything so consumers are protected from their own stupidity". Sue Kedgley will be barking like the hysterical harpie that she is, but Roy should say "caveat emptor" over and over again.
Now of course she should do as I recommend and ask the MOCA chief executive what good the Ministry does, why she shouldn't recommend scrapping it in next year's budget and giving all the money back to taxpayers (who are consumers after all). The right answer is NOT because it exists due to legislation, as that will only delay the scrapping a little bit longer.
After all, three years should be long enough to do away with a Ministry that didn't exist before the fourth Labour Government - yes, this was a creation of the halcyon years of Roger Douglas and David Lange.
12 November 2008
John, learn from John
John Key could do worse than emulate the Auckland City Council under John Banks and Citizens & Ratepayers. Together they are slashing spending, containingAll with the intention of keeping rates under check.
The NZ Herald reports a significant scale back in spending just to hold rates to inflation. It shows a council prepared to turn the clock back on ever growing spending of other people's money. Of course what it raises is the spectre of people who want to know why they can't get what they thought they'd get, forgetting that other people were to be made to pay for it.
After all if you want "training lights on sports field", why do you raise money for it with the sports teams or people who play there? If you think land should be bought to create parks then what is stopping you, or others like you from setting up a trust and doing just that? If you want the footpath outside your home to be fixed, why not suggest to Auckland City Council that you'll buy it and look after it yourself, of better yet let your street do it with a body corporate? All sounds a bit complicated? Well the mafia finds it easier coercing people to do what it wants too, there is more strength (and morality) in being able to convince people of the merits of what you want.
Having said that I do wonder about stormwater spending, given the hoards of money sitting in Auckland Regional Holdings (formerly Infrastructure Auckland) which has come from Port of Auckland dividends and other sources which was meant in part to go to fix the stormwater infrastructure deficit. The ARC would, of course, rather spend this money on railways.
The simple answer to those City Vision councillors and others on the left upset that their pet projects are delayed or cancelled is this - raise the money yourselves. ASK people to pay for it, forget using force use persuasion, persuade people that they should spend money on what you want.
Meanwhile, John Key might want to talk to John Banks about how his ideas could be applied at central government level, but also local government. Wouldn't it be a nice start if all councils had to trim spending to keep rates from rising above inflation? Given this is ACT policy, I would hope that this shouldn't be an issue given the country's largest local authority by value, led by an ex. National Cabinet Minister, can implement it.
After all if many private citizens and businesses are having to retrench during a recession, why should local government expect it can demand more when it can do much much less?
(Oh and in case you think I've become a revisionist on local government, I think the long term case for local government isn't convincing, which means a permanent cap on rates in nominal terms so councils engage in a permanent process of privatisation - but not enough of you voted Libertarianz to enable that policy to be negotiated into government, so...)
The NZ Herald reports a significant scale back in spending just to hold rates to inflation. It shows a council prepared to turn the clock back on ever growing spending of other people's money. Of course what it raises is the spectre of people who want to know why they can't get what they thought they'd get, forgetting that other people were to be made to pay for it.
After all if you want "training lights on sports field", why do you raise money for it with the sports teams or people who play there? If you think land should be bought to create parks then what is stopping you, or others like you from setting up a trust and doing just that? If you want the footpath outside your home to be fixed, why not suggest to Auckland City Council that you'll buy it and look after it yourself, of better yet let your street do it with a body corporate? All sounds a bit complicated? Well the mafia finds it easier coercing people to do what it wants too, there is more strength (and morality) in being able to convince people of the merits of what you want.
Having said that I do wonder about stormwater spending, given the hoards of money sitting in Auckland Regional Holdings (formerly Infrastructure Auckland) which has come from Port of Auckland dividends and other sources which was meant in part to go to fix the stormwater infrastructure deficit. The ARC would, of course, rather spend this money on railways.
The simple answer to those City Vision councillors and others on the left upset that their pet projects are delayed or cancelled is this - raise the money yourselves. ASK people to pay for it, forget using force use persuasion, persuade people that they should spend money on what you want.
Meanwhile, John Key might want to talk to John Banks about how his ideas could be applied at central government level, but also local government. Wouldn't it be a nice start if all councils had to trim spending to keep rates from rising above inflation? Given this is ACT policy, I would hope that this shouldn't be an issue given the country's largest local authority by value, led by an ex. National Cabinet Minister, can implement it.
After all if many private citizens and businesses are having to retrench during a recession, why should local government expect it can demand more when it can do much much less?
(Oh and in case you think I've become a revisionist on local government, I think the long term case for local government isn't convincing, which means a permanent cap on rates in nominal terms so councils engage in a permanent process of privatisation - but not enough of you voted Libertarianz to enable that policy to be negotiated into government, so...)
11 November 2008
Armistice Day
For all who fought and died in a war of empires, states and appalling sacrifice, it is a day to remember. A day to remember all those who paid the ultimate price for the state in the "Great" War, and those who fought for our right to express our views, to vote, to live our lives as we see fit, against tyranny. Few of us can begin to know what those who went through the First World War went through, but we can acknowledge the loss of almost a generation of young men - and know the lesson learnt.
Goff as Leader of the Opposition
And who remembers when he first promoted the student surtax for university students to pay for the cost of their education.
Yes, Phil Goff voted to privatise Telecom too.
So he is being set up as the fall guy to last a term and an election.
So Sir Roger Douglas might have some fun.
but the Labour Party is irredeemable, stuck with old solutions, entrenched with the unions, vested interests in the state sector and worshipping the totem of state provided health and education of a uniform standard, and sticking with it, even if it is appallingly bad in some places.
Yes, Phil Goff voted to privatise Telecom too.
So he is being set up as the fall guy to last a term and an election.
So Sir Roger Douglas might have some fun.
but the Labour Party is irredeemable, stuck with old solutions, entrenched with the unions, vested interests in the state sector and worshipping the totem of state provided health and education of a uniform standard, and sticking with it, even if it is appallingly bad in some places.
So who's new then?
Having said goodbye to a whole bunch of MPs, we shouldn't forget that it isn't the end of the story. We're getting another lot, and one more! Don't blame me, I didn't vote for any of them!
Now David Farrar has kindly provided the list, and while he is generous about most of them (he does love politics and politicians a lot he does), I thought I'd do my dash through the lot to see if there are libertarian reasons to like any of them (or any other random reasons that might make up for anything else). I did, after all, go through all the Labour candidates and didn't have enough time (or commitment, or willingness to sacrifice employment) to go through the Nats. So, because it's harder this way, let's look at the parties in reverse order of number of new MPs.
The rating I'll give an MP elect is tentative, after all what WILL he or she do? However it will be fairly simple: pro-freedom, status quo or anti-freedom with a mild or a strong. Note none are libertarian, being pro-freedom means compared to the status quo, it isn't necessarily consistent.
Maori Party
Rahui Katene (new MP for Te Tai Tonga) Father was cousin of Eva Rickard, she's a lawyer who graduated from Victoria, career been in Maori Legal Services and contracting as a legal consultant to iwis. Nothing that indicates much one way or the other, except she IS in the Maori Party and does mention the Marxist Angeline Greensill. Verdict: Anti-freedom given her party affiliation, but really too early to tell.
ACT
Sir Roger Douglas we all know. Roger does believe in less government, privatisation and more consumer choice, but we also know he likes efficient taxation and maintaining the welfare state and universal health and education access funded by the state. He's pro freedom, but no libertarian.
John Boscawen is significant for being behind the campaign against the EFA, that's enough to say Pro-freedom on this issue at least.
David Garrett from the Sensible Sentencing Trust is more worrying. While I'm supportive of a tougher line on crime, SST wants everyone arrested to have to supply DNA. This is further than National's policy. I'd like David to clarify what he thinks should be done. Anti-freedom if he believes in a Police state to Police us, awaiting clarification.
Green
Kevin Hague. Former Health Board CEO. History of causes from opposing apartheid to promoting Treaty of Waitangi. Another gay MP. Clearly strongly socially liberal but also keen to use the state to compel being liberal. Odds are he wants more governmet. Anti-freedom.
Catherine Delahunty Mad as can be Marxist who believes in overthrowing the capitalist system, is anti science (GE) and anti free trade. Strongly anti-freedom.
Labour
Rajen Prasad Nice guy, but as I said before he is into a carefully constructed society that wipes every tear. Now that isn't that scary when you have met the guy, he is a very gentle man, but it doesn't bode well for less government. Mildly anti-freedom
Jacinda Ardern Member for London. Look if you joined Labour this recently you have to love Nanny State. Anti-freedom.
Raymond Huo Nothing much to tell here, I'll give him benefit of the doubt. Status quo.
Phil Twyford He's firmly on the left loves government. Mildly anti-freedom.
Carol Beaumont Turned a safe Labour seat to National, is ex. CTU and believes in "activism". Wants to strengthen democracy so is deluded about the EFA. Anti-freedom.
Kelvin Davis Actually not half bad, but he's Labour. Status quo
Carmel Sepuloni Believes in participating in all levels of decision making, is involved in local government, believes in social justice and equity, so clearly approves of Nanny State. Mildly anti-freedom.
Stuart Nash. Fairly empty profile, nothing exciting here though DPF says he has real charisma (maybe why he never mentions Labour on his profile). Status quo.
Clare Curran - Dunedin South. Like I said before, vile little PR spinmistress. Promoted How to position National as the “enemies of the people”. Cheerleader of Nanny State and truth stretching. Strongly anti-freedom.
Grant Robertson - Wellington Central Into redistribution, equality and affirmative action. Strongly anti-freedom.
Chris Hipkins - Rimutaka Deluded into thinking NZ led the world on fighting apartheid and the Vietnam War, but he loves the state running health and roads. Strongly anti-freedom
Iain Lees-Galloway - Palmerston North He says "Do we continue with positive, progressive, inclusive change that delivers for all New Zealanders or do we change back to the bad old days of individualism and division? Of the politics of the few at the expense of the community" Strongly Anti-freedom.
Brendon Burns - Christchurch Central Well he's a PR hack for Labour, and got passionate about stopping the privatisation of local power companies. ugh. Anti-freedom
shudder, now the Nats, surely there is some hope here?
National
Steven Joyce. Founder of Energy FM New Plymouth, quite an entrepreneur. Managed the 2005 campaign for National. Mildly pro-freedom given background
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga - Maungakiekie. Lawyer, city councillor, involved in the voluntary sector. Who knows?
Hekia Parata - Ex bureaucrat and runs a "business" selling Maori consultancy services primarily to the state sector. Doesn't tolerate dissenting views. Anti-freedom.
Melissa Lee - Korean born journalist, not many other signs of ideology. Who knows?
Kanwal JS Bakshi Businessman who works in the voluntary sector too, and a migrant. Who knows?
Paul Quinn Big on Treaty issues, businessman, successful in sports. Hard to tell this one. Suspicious of anyone who has been part of the Treaty industry who doesn't explain what's wrong with it. Status quo.
Michael Woodhouse. Private hospital manager, got to be some hope in that. Mildly pro-freedom
Simon Bridges - Tauranga. Calming down from him slaying Winston, he's a Crown Prosecutor, and struggle if I may, I can't figure out what he believes in.
Amy Adams - Selwyn. Lawyer, fought against Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill, believes in personal responsibility. Mildly pro-freedom.
Louise Upston - Taupo. Business woman, project manager and something called a Business Excellence Evaluator (ugh). Who knows?
Todd McClay - Rotorua. A diplomat who believes "that healthcare is a fundamental right that should be affordable and available to all". Mildly anti-freedom, given his father's credentials.
Tim Macindoe - Hamilton West. CEO of Arts Waikato, is a parishioner and appears to have sought local and central government funding for several causes. That's not good for freedom. Mildly anti-freedom.
Aaron Gilmore - Yeah he's ok. Mildly pro-freedom.
Nikki Kaye - Auckland Central - Scientist, training to be a lawyer, but is partly popular due to her looks and unseating Judith Tizard. However, nothing much to say she'll do anything about freedom. Who knows?
Cam Calder - A dentist, website never mentions freedom or individuals, but talks about resourcing health and education. Status quo.
Jonathan Young - New Plymouth. Venn Young's son (As in Venn Young, Muldoon era). Teacher and preacher. Mildly Anti-freedom surely.
So, calmed down now?
Let's wait till the special votes are counted, and then the maiden speeches. Maybe they will tell us more. On balance though quite a few believers in big government and a whole bunch of people who didn't ever say what they thought the role of the state was, or mention freedom, or individuals, or what government shouldn't do.
Now David Farrar has kindly provided the list, and while he is generous about most of them (he does love politics and politicians a lot he does), I thought I'd do my dash through the lot to see if there are libertarian reasons to like any of them (or any other random reasons that might make up for anything else). I did, after all, go through all the Labour candidates and didn't have enough time (or commitment, or willingness to sacrifice employment) to go through the Nats. So, because it's harder this way, let's look at the parties in reverse order of number of new MPs.
The rating I'll give an MP elect is tentative, after all what WILL he or she do? However it will be fairly simple: pro-freedom, status quo or anti-freedom with a mild or a strong. Note none are libertarian, being pro-freedom means compared to the status quo, it isn't necessarily consistent.
Maori Party
Rahui Katene (new MP for Te Tai Tonga) Father was cousin of Eva Rickard, she's a lawyer who graduated from Victoria, career been in Maori Legal Services and contracting as a legal consultant to iwis. Nothing that indicates much one way or the other, except she IS in the Maori Party and does mention the Marxist Angeline Greensill. Verdict: Anti-freedom given her party affiliation, but really too early to tell.
ACT
Sir Roger Douglas we all know. Roger does believe in less government, privatisation and more consumer choice, but we also know he likes efficient taxation and maintaining the welfare state and universal health and education access funded by the state. He's pro freedom, but no libertarian.
John Boscawen is significant for being behind the campaign against the EFA, that's enough to say Pro-freedom on this issue at least.
David Garrett from the Sensible Sentencing Trust is more worrying. While I'm supportive of a tougher line on crime, SST wants everyone arrested to have to supply DNA. This is further than National's policy. I'd like David to clarify what he thinks should be done. Anti-freedom if he believes in a Police state to Police us, awaiting clarification.
Green
Kevin Hague. Former Health Board CEO. History of causes from opposing apartheid to promoting Treaty of Waitangi. Another gay MP. Clearly strongly socially liberal but also keen to use the state to compel being liberal. Odds are he wants more governmet. Anti-freedom.
Catherine Delahunty Mad as can be Marxist who believes in overthrowing the capitalist system, is anti science (GE) and anti free trade. Strongly anti-freedom.
Labour
Rajen Prasad Nice guy, but as I said before he is into a carefully constructed society that wipes every tear. Now that isn't that scary when you have met the guy, he is a very gentle man, but it doesn't bode well for less government. Mildly anti-freedom
Jacinda Ardern Member for London. Look if you joined Labour this recently you have to love Nanny State. Anti-freedom.
Raymond Huo Nothing much to tell here, I'll give him benefit of the doubt. Status quo.
Phil Twyford He's firmly on the left loves government. Mildly anti-freedom.
Carol Beaumont Turned a safe Labour seat to National, is ex. CTU and believes in "activism". Wants to strengthen democracy so is deluded about the EFA. Anti-freedom.
Kelvin Davis Actually not half bad, but he's Labour. Status quo
Carmel Sepuloni Believes in participating in all levels of decision making, is involved in local government, believes in social justice and equity, so clearly approves of Nanny State. Mildly anti-freedom.
Stuart Nash. Fairly empty profile, nothing exciting here though DPF says he has real charisma (maybe why he never mentions Labour on his profile). Status quo.
Clare Curran - Dunedin South. Like I said before, vile little PR spinmistress. Promoted How to position National as the “enemies of the people”. Cheerleader of Nanny State and truth stretching. Strongly anti-freedom.
Grant Robertson - Wellington Central Into redistribution, equality and affirmative action. Strongly anti-freedom.
Chris Hipkins - Rimutaka Deluded into thinking NZ led the world on fighting apartheid and the Vietnam War, but he loves the state running health and roads. Strongly anti-freedom
Iain Lees-Galloway - Palmerston North He says "Do we continue with positive, progressive, inclusive change that delivers for all New Zealanders or do we change back to the bad old days of individualism and division? Of the politics of the few at the expense of the community" Strongly Anti-freedom.
Brendon Burns - Christchurch Central Well he's a PR hack for Labour, and got passionate about stopping the privatisation of local power companies. ugh. Anti-freedom
shudder, now the Nats, surely there is some hope here?
National
Steven Joyce. Founder of Energy FM New Plymouth, quite an entrepreneur. Managed the 2005 campaign for National. Mildly pro-freedom given background
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga - Maungakiekie. Lawyer, city councillor, involved in the voluntary sector. Who knows?
Hekia Parata - Ex bureaucrat and runs a "business" selling Maori consultancy services primarily to the state sector. Doesn't tolerate dissenting views. Anti-freedom.
Melissa Lee - Korean born journalist, not many other signs of ideology. Who knows?
Kanwal JS Bakshi Businessman who works in the voluntary sector too, and a migrant. Who knows?
Paul Quinn Big on Treaty issues, businessman, successful in sports. Hard to tell this one. Suspicious of anyone who has been part of the Treaty industry who doesn't explain what's wrong with it. Status quo.
Michael Woodhouse. Private hospital manager, got to be some hope in that. Mildly pro-freedom
Simon Bridges - Tauranga. Calming down from him slaying Winston, he's a Crown Prosecutor, and struggle if I may, I can't figure out what he believes in.
Amy Adams - Selwyn. Lawyer, fought against Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill, believes in personal responsibility. Mildly pro-freedom.
Louise Upston - Taupo. Business woman, project manager and something called a Business Excellence Evaluator (ugh). Who knows?
Todd McClay - Rotorua. A diplomat who believes "that healthcare is a fundamental right that should be affordable and available to all". Mildly anti-freedom, given his father's credentials.
Tim Macindoe - Hamilton West. CEO of Arts Waikato, is a parishioner and appears to have sought local and central government funding for several causes. That's not good for freedom. Mildly anti-freedom.
Aaron Gilmore - Yeah he's ok. Mildly pro-freedom.
Nikki Kaye - Auckland Central - Scientist, training to be a lawyer, but is partly popular due to her looks and unseating Judith Tizard. However, nothing much to say she'll do anything about freedom. Who knows?
Cam Calder - A dentist, website never mentions freedom or individuals, but talks about resourcing health and education. Status quo.
Jonathan Young - New Plymouth. Venn Young's son (As in Venn Young, Muldoon era). Teacher and preacher. Mildly Anti-freedom surely.
So, calmed down now?
Let's wait till the special votes are counted, and then the maiden speeches. Maybe they will tell us more. On balance though quite a few believers in big government and a whole bunch of people who didn't ever say what they thought the role of the state was, or mention freedom, or individuals, or what government shouldn't do.
What DID leftwing campaigners tell some people?
This report that some people rang the Police when the election results were coming through is alarming in several ways:
1. That people thought their benefits would disappear because National was being elected. What sort of untrammelled nonsense have the left been spreading about such a situation? How despicable are those who promote such lies among people who are clearly rather unhinged? How many were persuaded to vote Labour or Green or else their benefits would dry up?
2. What do people think the Police will do? Arrest John Key and Rodney Hide? Call an end to general elections? Do they think when things don't go their way the Police should be called in? How scary is that?
3. Most disconcerting is the helpless dependency of such people who think the only way forward is to remain dependent on money taken by force from others. How insipid has the welfare state become that there are people terrified at the prospect of having to earn themselves a living?
Sorry folks, it's when the word Libertarianz replaces National that you might be worried, but by then the culture would have to have changed so radically that you wouldn't be scared anymore.
1. That people thought their benefits would disappear because National was being elected. What sort of untrammelled nonsense have the left been spreading about such a situation? How despicable are those who promote such lies among people who are clearly rather unhinged? How many were persuaded to vote Labour or Green or else their benefits would dry up?
2. What do people think the Police will do? Arrest John Key and Rodney Hide? Call an end to general elections? Do they think when things don't go their way the Police should be called in? How scary is that?
3. Most disconcerting is the helpless dependency of such people who think the only way forward is to remain dependent on money taken by force from others. How insipid has the welfare state become that there are people terrified at the prospect of having to earn themselves a living?
Sorry folks, it's when the word Libertarianz replaces National that you might be worried, but by then the culture would have to have changed so radically that you wouldn't be scared anymore.
10 November 2008
Cabinet is for the National Party
Well John Key's playing hardball - it's his government and he wants his people inside Cabinet. ACT will have at least one Minister outside Cabinet and Dunne will be one too - although you have to wonder why he deserves it at all.
Should ACT be disappointed?
On one hand yes, it means not being a part of all central policy discussions by the government. Being a Minister outside Cabinet means you have command of your portfolio, and your party will be consulted on Cabinet decisions that have legislative implications.
However it may well prove to be a blessing in disguise. Being outside Cabinet ACT can criticise government decisions as it sees fit, it can maintain its identity without breaching Cabinet collective responsibility.
Remember under MMP the only parties that have ever had seats at the Cabinet table have been:
1996-1998: National-NZ First
1999-2002: Labour-Alliance
2002-2005-2008: Labour-Progressive
Not much chance to fight a generation of propaganda from teachers that Sir Roger Douglas is "scary".
Should ACT be disappointed?
On one hand yes, it means not being a part of all central policy discussions by the government. Being a Minister outside Cabinet means you have command of your portfolio, and your party will be consulted on Cabinet decisions that have legislative implications.
However it may well prove to be a blessing in disguise. Being outside Cabinet ACT can criticise government decisions as it sees fit, it can maintain its identity without breaching Cabinet collective responsibility.
Remember under MMP the only parties that have ever had seats at the Cabinet table have been:
1996-1998: National-NZ First
1999-2002: Labour-Alliance
2002-2005-2008: Labour-Progressive
Not much chance to fight a generation of propaganda from teachers that Sir Roger Douglas is "scary".
World weirdly thinks National/ACT is conservative
so says CNN, so think how little you really learn about other countries from such media, when it gets this all so wrong.
Imagine a US party leader who was atheist, who led a party with openly gay members, which doesn't have a party position on abortion and who had a previous leader who was a woman who went along to a gay parade.
Funny how ACT isn't mentioned either - too hard for them to comprehend?
CBS does it too because both relied on a rather poor Associated Press article.
The Observer calls it conservative too
The BBC does a reasonable job though
The Times has an odd article with assertions like: "He surprised many when he took over the leadership of the party in 2006, after his predecessor Don Brash led National to a humiliating defeat." Who did he surprise? How was Brash humiliated taking the party from 22% to 38%? Although much of the rest of the article is quite good.
The Independent describes John Key as "a baby-faced former currency trader" but the word conservative is for "two small conservative parties, ACT and United Future". It gets it wrong twice saying "National and its allies had secured 59 seats in the 120-member parliament"
Imagine a US party leader who was atheist, who led a party with openly gay members, which doesn't have a party position on abortion and who had a previous leader who was a woman who went along to a gay parade.
Funny how ACT isn't mentioned either - too hard for them to comprehend?
CBS does it too because both relied on a rather poor Associated Press article.
The Observer calls it conservative too
The BBC does a reasonable job though
The Times has an odd article with assertions like: "He surprised many when he took over the leadership of the party in 2006, after his predecessor Don Brash led National to a humiliating defeat." Who did he surprise? How was Brash humiliated taking the party from 22% to 38%? Although much of the rest of the article is quite good.
The Independent describes John Key as "a baby-faced former currency trader" but the word conservative is for "two small conservative parties, ACT and United Future". It gets it wrong twice saying "National and its allies had secured 59 seats in the 120-member parliament"
Helen Clark's foreign job?
There is another country with an ailing leader, for whom Helen Clark would provide strong leadership and be right wing.
Her anti-nuclear credentials would be put to good use, and she'd having nothing to do other than liberalise and get rid of the nuclear arsenal.
It has mountains she can climb too.
I'm not a cruel man, and the idea is rather fanciful, but if she wants to really make a contribution to peace it would be helping this tragic basket case of a country to reform.
Her anti-nuclear credentials would be put to good use, and she'd having nothing to do other than liberalise and get rid of the nuclear arsenal.
It has mountains she can climb too.
I'm not a cruel man, and the idea is rather fanciful, but if she wants to really make a contribution to peace it would be helping this tragic basket case of a country to reform.
The excuse a few on the left will use
Low turnout.
Yet Barack Obama didn't achieve 78% and his victory was somehow legitimate.
Time to take some morphine for sore losers. Under MMP voters had a vast choice, let's consider what all the parties stood for:
Labour - status quo
National - status quo with minor changes and a new team
Greens - leftwing environmentalism
New Zealand First - conservative nationalism
ACT - freer market economics and a cap on government
United Future - something between Labour and National
Progressives - something between Labour and New Zealand First
Maori Party - anything that advances Maori but something between New Zealand First and the Greens depending on who you talk to
Kiwi Party - something between United Future and New Zealand First with a Christian based moral tinge
Family Party - evangelically led Christian theocracy
Bill and Ben Party - having fun and a bit of a joke while voting
ALCP - Legalise cannabis then we disband
Pacific Party - Polynesian based Christian morality
Alliance - socialism
Democrats for Social Credit - lunatic theory on money combined with conspiracy theorists
Libertarianz - individual freedom
Workers Party - communism
RAM - socialism mixed with lunatic conspiracy theorists
Republic of New Zealand Party - Farewell Your Majesty
Now there is no excuse that there isn't a choice, unless you're a Nazi, Islamist or Hindu nationalist perhaps. Indeed, the likelihood of a National led government has been pretty much on the cards for the last year or so, so if the lumpen proletariat didn't like it, they could have voted. The people have spoken - and an overwhelming majority voted against a Helen Clark led government. A majority of voters voted for a government including National or ACT.
They won, you lost, eat that.
Yet Barack Obama didn't achieve 78% and his victory was somehow legitimate.
Time to take some morphine for sore losers. Under MMP voters had a vast choice, let's consider what all the parties stood for:
Labour - status quo
National - status quo with minor changes and a new team
Greens - leftwing environmentalism
New Zealand First - conservative nationalism
ACT - freer market economics and a cap on government
United Future - something between Labour and National
Progressives - something between Labour and New Zealand First
Maori Party - anything that advances Maori but something between New Zealand First and the Greens depending on who you talk to
Kiwi Party - something between United Future and New Zealand First with a Christian based moral tinge
Family Party - evangelically led Christian theocracy
Bill and Ben Party - having fun and a bit of a joke while voting
ALCP - Legalise cannabis then we disband
Pacific Party - Polynesian based Christian morality
Alliance - socialism
Democrats for Social Credit - lunatic theory on money combined with conspiracy theorists
Libertarianz - individual freedom
Workers Party - communism
RAM - socialism mixed with lunatic conspiracy theorists
Republic of New Zealand Party - Farewell Your Majesty
Now there is no excuse that there isn't a choice, unless you're a Nazi, Islamist or Hindu nationalist perhaps. Indeed, the likelihood of a National led government has been pretty much on the cards for the last year or so, so if the lumpen proletariat didn't like it, they could have voted. The people have spoken - and an overwhelming majority voted against a Helen Clark led government. A majority of voters voted for a government including National or ACT.
They won, you lost, eat that.
Dear Rodney Hide
Well done Rodney, you're now the best hope (with your team) to be the conscience of the incoming government. You did better because National did "me too" far too much, and now you've brought Sir Roger Douglas back to Parliament. John Key needs you, and you want him to need you instead of the Maori Party. So, the next three years are a chance to do what Helen Clark fears, and to lead John Key down a path of reform that is meaningful.
Firstly make it clear that you will only accept a coalition agreement if you get one Cabinet and one outside Cabinet position. Sir Roger Douglas needs to have a special role, because he is too valuable to not use. Your vote partly came from people wanting him to form a part of this government, he has more experience with economic crises than the rest of you combined, him having a role should be a bottomline.
Secondly, make it clear you will support Peter Dunne as Speaker, but not in Cabinet. If a party that gets 0.9% can get a Cabinet position then all your MPs deserve one. Remember Dunne brought us the Families Commission, and that should go.
Here are some ideas when you see John later today:
1. Education. Your policy on scholarships is radical for National, but it was the policy for National back in 1987. Grab this with both hands and make it a bottom line to change education. It means taking on the unions, who are blatantly self interested and will blackmail you all with doomsday scenarios and industrial action, so it needs to be done with extraordinary planning. Go with John Key to Stockholm, sell it to him and talk about what can be done. This will have a far more profound long term impact than almost any other policy.
2. RMA. Yes your policy isn't about getting rid of it, but you understand the problems more than Key. Insist that Nick Smith doesn't get his dripping wet hands on this. He is a Green Party member in drag. The RMA needs a bottom up review as to why such legislation is even needed, and how private property rights should be at the centre of planning policy (if it must exist).
3. Local government. Yes you could have this portfolio, National hasn't a clue on this, you do. It's time to put caps on rates, to repeal the power of general competence and to require water and roads to be in arms length entities. The left's second front is in local government, you can already see the ARC holding National to ransom about electrifying Auckland's rail network.
4. Law and Order. You see eye to eye on this, and three strikes and you're out is a great policy in principle. However, you do need to do a couple of things to stop it all getting worse:
i. Refuse to support a DNA database of all those arrested for imprisonable offences. Restrict it to those convicted of violent and sexual offences. The innocent should not be under surveillance.
ii. Refuse to support "three strikes and you're out" for drug offences and other victimless crimes. Make the "liberal party" slogan mean something, and ask for a review of criminal law with the point of identifying victimless crimes.
5. One law for all. Now you wont get rid of the Maori seats, National just wont do it, but you can address funding and government that is racially based. You could suggest a threeway dialogue between National, ACT and the Maori party to handle this issue, both in terms of reality and perception.
6. Getting rid of useless bureaucracies. Produce a list of departments and agencies that could go. The Families Commission would be a good start, but the Office of the Commissioner for Children should follow. Get Sir Roger to help out, and invite John Key to nominate a couple of Nat MPs to do the job.
7. Tax cuts. Support John Key's tax cuts with one addition, farewell to the 39% top tax rate. It is Labour's envy tax, a tax on the successful, a tax on New Zealanders who would return from overseas, and it has to go at the same time as the other cuts. Yes the left will whinge and say tax cuts for the rich, but remember what "rich" means now.
8. Welfare. National said it would do a little to reform this, it's time to do a little more. Talk to Lindsay Mitchell about the DPB and steps to take to drastically curtail the criteria for claiming it, for starters no more money for additional children whilst on it.
9. Trade. As I said to John Key, he, Tim Groser and perhaps Sir Roger should all go to Washington after Barack Obama's inauguration (and then London and Brussels) to demand a rethink of global trade. That means taking on Obama's protectionist instincts and pushing for a revitalised WTO round. This is critical, make the case before the portcullis of Democratic Party protectionism shuts down hope of an open trading market for agriculture.
10. ETS. You know you need to demand a rethink here. Yes New Zealand is in Kyoto, but it need not lead the way, it's time to renegotiate and consider how best to meet NZ's national interests. A carbon tax is NOT the way, but strangling this close to bottom of the OECD economy will not see you thanked by voters.
Good luck, it's the best chance New Zealand has in the next three years to move forward.
Firstly make it clear that you will only accept a coalition agreement if you get one Cabinet and one outside Cabinet position. Sir Roger Douglas needs to have a special role, because he is too valuable to not use. Your vote partly came from people wanting him to form a part of this government, he has more experience with economic crises than the rest of you combined, him having a role should be a bottomline.
Secondly, make it clear you will support Peter Dunne as Speaker, but not in Cabinet. If a party that gets 0.9% can get a Cabinet position then all your MPs deserve one. Remember Dunne brought us the Families Commission, and that should go.
Here are some ideas when you see John later today:
1. Education. Your policy on scholarships is radical for National, but it was the policy for National back in 1987. Grab this with both hands and make it a bottom line to change education. It means taking on the unions, who are blatantly self interested and will blackmail you all with doomsday scenarios and industrial action, so it needs to be done with extraordinary planning. Go with John Key to Stockholm, sell it to him and talk about what can be done. This will have a far more profound long term impact than almost any other policy.
2. RMA. Yes your policy isn't about getting rid of it, but you understand the problems more than Key. Insist that Nick Smith doesn't get his dripping wet hands on this. He is a Green Party member in drag. The RMA needs a bottom up review as to why such legislation is even needed, and how private property rights should be at the centre of planning policy (if it must exist).
3. Local government. Yes you could have this portfolio, National hasn't a clue on this, you do. It's time to put caps on rates, to repeal the power of general competence and to require water and roads to be in arms length entities. The left's second front is in local government, you can already see the ARC holding National to ransom about electrifying Auckland's rail network.
4. Law and Order. You see eye to eye on this, and three strikes and you're out is a great policy in principle. However, you do need to do a couple of things to stop it all getting worse:
i. Refuse to support a DNA database of all those arrested for imprisonable offences. Restrict it to those convicted of violent and sexual offences. The innocent should not be under surveillance.
ii. Refuse to support "three strikes and you're out" for drug offences and other victimless crimes. Make the "liberal party" slogan mean something, and ask for a review of criminal law with the point of identifying victimless crimes.
5. One law for all. Now you wont get rid of the Maori seats, National just wont do it, but you can address funding and government that is racially based. You could suggest a threeway dialogue between National, ACT and the Maori party to handle this issue, both in terms of reality and perception.
6. Getting rid of useless bureaucracies. Produce a list of departments and agencies that could go. The Families Commission would be a good start, but the Office of the Commissioner for Children should follow. Get Sir Roger to help out, and invite John Key to nominate a couple of Nat MPs to do the job.
7. Tax cuts. Support John Key's tax cuts with one addition, farewell to the 39% top tax rate. It is Labour's envy tax, a tax on the successful, a tax on New Zealanders who would return from overseas, and it has to go at the same time as the other cuts. Yes the left will whinge and say tax cuts for the rich, but remember what "rich" means now.
8. Welfare. National said it would do a little to reform this, it's time to do a little more. Talk to Lindsay Mitchell about the DPB and steps to take to drastically curtail the criteria for claiming it, for starters no more money for additional children whilst on it.
9. Trade. As I said to John Key, he, Tim Groser and perhaps Sir Roger should all go to Washington after Barack Obama's inauguration (and then London and Brussels) to demand a rethink of global trade. That means taking on Obama's protectionist instincts and pushing for a revitalised WTO round. This is critical, make the case before the portcullis of Democratic Party protectionism shuts down hope of an open trading market for agriculture.
10. ETS. You know you need to demand a rethink here. Yes New Zealand is in Kyoto, but it need not lead the way, it's time to renegotiate and consider how best to meet NZ's national interests. A carbon tax is NOT the way, but strangling this close to bottom of the OECD economy will not see you thanked by voters.
Good luck, it's the best chance New Zealand has in the next three years to move forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)