Liberty Scott

Is racism worse than murder?

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 12:24:17 +0000

Ayn Rand described racism as “the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism”. However, she wouldn’t and neither would most people with any measure of morality would describe a verbal expression of racism as being worse than murdering another.

A radical comedy today might parody modern “anti-racism” to a ridiculous absurdity, defending people from claims of racism over defending people from murder.

Reality is not funny though.

British journalist Ed West wrote a few weeks ago on his Substack an article called “Moloch must be Fed”.

He recalls the following instances…

Salman Abedi

“One evening in May 2017 a security guard in Manchester was alerted to something that didn’t look right: a man of Middle Eastern appearance with a rucksack was seen by a member of the public approaching a pop concert filled with teenage girls. The man looked ‘dodgy’, in the words of the 18-year-old guard, who later recalled his moment of agonising: ‘I felt unsure about what to do. It’s very difficult to define a terrorist. For all I knew he might well be an innocent Asian male. I did not want people to think I am stereotyping him because of his race. Concerned that he would be accused of racism, the young man went with his doubts and let the British-born Libyan Salman Abedi walk on. The rucksack was packed with homemade explosives, mixed with nuts and bolts to maximise the suffering they would inflict on human flesh, and fifteen minutes later Abedi pressed the detonator, killing 22 people, ten of them under 20 and the youngest aged just eight.”

Valdo Calocane

“had attacked his flatmate on one occasion, and assaulted strangers on others. He was clearly very dangerous, and while mental health professionals had been ‘leaning towards’ sectioning him, he was released after they ‘considered the research evidence that shows over-representation of young black males in detention’. Calocane went on to butcher three people in broad daylight, including two 19-year-old students from the same university”

Axel Rudakubana

“At the Acorns School in Ormskirk, headteacher Joanne Hodson said she felt a ‘visceral sense of dread.”.. about him, as he “had been caught bringing a knife into class in his previous school, and when Hodson asked him why, had replied coldly: ‘to use it’. When she raised the risk posed by the dread-inducing young male, mental health workers accused her of ‘racially stereotyping’ him as ‘a black boy with a knife’.”

Rudakubana went on to murder three girls, aged nine, seven and six at a dance workshop for girls aged six to eleven in Southport.

The story about Henry Nowak is giving cause for concern among many in the UK about the priorities of policing. The criminal justice system’s first priority should be to protect the public from violence. The Daily Telegraph has published the sentencing notes for Nowak's murderer and the background to the case.

Nowak called out to Vikrum Digwa, and asked if he was a “bad man”, and filmed Digwa on his phone. Digwa, a Sikh, alleges his turban was knocked off by Nowak. Digwa stabbed Nowak four times and his face was slashed. One of the stabbings proved fatal. Digwa and his brother filmed Nowak escaping, scaling a fence before landing on a car and falling to the ground, where he bled to death. By then the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary had arrived. Digwa’s father was helping keep Nowak upright, but Digwa had told the police that Nowak had racially abused him.

The teenager is then heard shouting in a hoarse voice “I’ve been stabbed, I can’t breathe, call an ambulance”.

Officers can then be heard asking Digwa for his version of events, before dragging Henry across the gravel while saying: “Let’s get you out of there, shall we?”

When the university student again told them he had been stabbed, the officer responded: “I don’t think you have, mate.”

Henry is then placed in handcuffs while repeatedly telling officers: “I can’t breathe.”

With the teenager in handcuffs, a female officer asks Henry, “where do you think you’ve been stabbed?” before saying to her colleague, “we have to check, don’t we”.

The near-three-minute footage ends with the arresting officer asking for Henry’s name, before reading him his rights.

At this point, the female officer seems to realise his deteriorating condition and calls an ambulance, noting that “his pupils aren’t even reacting”.

Nowak bled to death in handcuffs, because police were more concerned about Digwa’s claim of racism, than Nowak actually having been stabbed.

Nowak calling “I can’t breathe” has shades of another event we all know, although there are multiple differences in the contexts, the primary point remained – the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary prioritised “anti-racism” over a murder.

Of course, the police were, in fact racist. It prioritised the feelings of one man who was hardly scratched over another bleeding to death, because of racism.

Many on the left in particular wonder why politicians they deem “far right” are getting popular appeal. I can’t imagine how blind they might be when these instances are happening, time and time again. The people who want to protect others, like the security guard, the teacher and most police, mean to do well. They are undermined by a philosophy, which is advanced by academia, accepted by much of the media, absorbed by gateway professional associations and implemented by “professionals” and it is all facilitated by politicians.

It’s a repeat story that could be a parody of a lunatic political philosophy if put into practice, if it weren’t a parody and hadn’t been put into practice. It is the application of today’s melding of various post-modernist philosophical movements into politics and into law and social/cultural practice. It combines Constructivism (which posits that there is no such thing as “objective truth” but rather reality is constructed by people as part of social processes, interests and beliefs), Structuralism (which posits that human behaviour can be understood through structures and systems within which they operate, rather than the specific behaviour itself and Critical Theory (which posits that injustice exists in current power structures which exist primarily to benefit and sustain those with power, who are deemed to be members of groups that created or succeed the most in those structures).

As with most philosophical movements, there is some truth in all of them in different contexts. However, the culmination of all of this applied consistently is that identical behaviour by two separate people is interpreted differently according to each person’s background and deemed level of privilege or disadvantage within the “system” they are living. Critical theory has little time for Common Law justice systems which treat individuals as free agents (unless proven otherwise) who, if they act to infringe upon the basic rights of other free agents, should be subject to judgment and punishment according to what they did and the harm they caused. For example, while there may be mitigating circumstances in specific situations (e.g. self-defence), murder is murder.

Objectivists, rationalists, classical liberals and other modernists regard racism as a pre-modernist view of humanity. The idea that human beings should be judged based on their inherited characteristics rather than their behaviour, is a legacy of pre-modernity. Race or ethnicity is not determinative of unjust behaviour, and especially not determinative of justifying injustice against that person. Awareness of this grew enormously in the aftermath of World War Two, the Holocaust, the legacy of Japanese militarism and subsequently decolonisation of much of the world, and the Civil Rights movement in the USA have made people aware of the need to treat people as they are, not for what they are.

In almost all societies deliberately killing another person, especially a child, is seen as the most morally depraved and injust act that can be committed. Yet in the UK today, there is a growing number of incidents whereby people, when judging whether to act to protect others from murder, have chosen to act based on another concern – is my action going to be seen as racist?

I'm reluctant to grant any politicians in the UK a shade of belief in their ability to confront this philosophical cancer. Keir Starmer or those willing to replace him in the Labour Party have no remote interest in confronting this - for they are the ones who have facilitated this ideology. The Liberal Democrats and the Islamist adjacent Greens are even worse. Nigel Farage is an opportunist, and in calling for a "cold rage" he is showing his irresponsibility, and the emptiness of his thinking. However, it is unsurprising he has popularity when for so long the Conservatives held no principle other than to retain power (when they were in power for a wasted 14 years).

There is a chance, just a chance, that Conservative leader and Leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch, could, if only because she is the only party leader who can confront the issue of racism with a background that befuddles the "anti-racist" racists. She has said:

What Nigel Farage is doing is reinforcing the difference. I have said that we need to find what we have in common, not what separates us. I don’t want to hear about Black Lives Matter. I don’t want to hear about White Lives Matter. We all matter.

“Enough of this nonsense, where we keep separating everybody and splitting people into different groups. We are descending into tribalism. I do not want that. It is why I say that we should be a multiracial country, not a multicultural country. Let’s have one shared culture, British culture. How the police treat everyone should not matter, depending on the colour of their skin, and we shouldn’t pretend that racism is something that only happens to ethnic minorities, it happens to everybody, black or white"

I hope it is not too little, too late, to avoid the anger and violence which comes from people who think, not only is there a fundamental problem with the philosophy behind how so much of the state and the institutions of power function, but who think it is all fundamentally antagonistic to them, their family and their community - and are willing to burn the whole lot down, by handing power to those who literally have no coherent answers.

UPDATE: Spiked's Brendon O'Neill puts it perfectly following the publication of the bodycam footage of Nowak's death:

For me, the most chilling thing in the bodycam footage of Henry Nowak’s last moments of life is the cops’ cruel presumption that he is lying. As he writhes in terror and agony and cries out ‘I’ve been stabbed!’, a voice in the background – presumably that of the lowlife who murdered him, Vickrum Digwa – says: ‘He hasn’t been stabbed.’

A female officer responds. ‘I know’, she says. ‘But we have to check, don’t we?’

I know. It is delivered with dry, bureaucratic indifference. Henry is heard moaning, begging, ‘I can’t breathe’, yet here is a representative of the state seeming to agree with his knife-wielding tormentor that he is making it up. That cold, cavalier utterance – I know – will have cemented dying Henry’s great dread: that the police were taking the side of his killer rather than him....

... Try to take in the Kafkaesque moral madness on display here. They learn the lessons of a black man killed while saying ‘I can’t breathe’, only to see their own cops horribly mistreat a white boy who said ‘I can’t breathe’. The very ‘anti-racism’ they imbibed in response to an African-American man dying with a cop’s knee on his neck leads to a situation where their officers drag and cuff a dying white kid. It is undeniable now: the state’s overcompensation for past acts of racism has unleashed new horrors. It is now official ‘anti-racism’ that nurtures injustice, unequal treatment and barbaric state behaviour. It is now ‘anti-racism’ that dehumanises the citizenry, dividing us into ‘the oppressed’ and ‘the oppressors’, and gifting or denying us moral worth accordingly. The horror on that driveway was more than a police screw-up – it was the metaphorical boot of wokeness on the neck of a young man, and a whole nation.

Our political class is in for the mother of all awakenings if it fails to recognise the anger this case has caused. Keir Starmer’s belated statement on the Nowak horror was horrendously perfunctory, yapping on about the ‘cycle of tragedy’ caused by ‘knife crime’. All the knee-bending passion he felt after George Floyd’s death seems to have evaporated into the cursory, fleeting angst of the impassive lawyer. Millions are clocking this. That he doesn’t know that is a tragedy – for him.

The next Mega-Ministry is coming and it is going to disappoint

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 28 May 2026 12:29:34 +0000

Notwithstanding the histrionics from the Greens and other hard-left activists, the Ministry for the Environment isn't being shut-down, it's being merged with two other Ministries and part of a Department to create the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT).

I opposed this when it was floated nearly a year ago, and I still oppose it. Not because of the claims that it will risk MfE's work programme (if only!), but because bigger bureaucracies are NOT more cost efficient, and they are certainly not more dynamic, nor do they result in integrated and co-ordinated thinking.

I've worked in both large and small government agencies, but it's not just that experience that informs my opinion, it's the experience seen elsewhere. The views on savings are largely from the perspective of accountants, who typically measure "X-efficiency" which is about minimising wasted resources. In the context of government it is really around the number of managers vs. output, which given the outputs are highly subjective, is hard to assess without a close understanding of the detail of those outputs. It's not goods sold or customers satisfied. It might consider productive efficiency based on numbers of people relative to outputs, although the "productivity" of policy agencies ought to reflect the quality of output, which I'd be astonished if the Public Service Commission could identify at more than a rudimentary level.

What definitely isn't measured is dynamic efficiency (how responsive organisations are to innovations and technology), nor do they measure allocative efficiency (allocating resources to meet most specifically what is desired - in this case by Ministers).

From experience, large Ministries can be awfully inefficient and slow to be responsive. For example, I half wonder if I still have a live "on demand" employment contract with MBIE, even though I left its predecessor permanently 26 years ago, although I did work casually for it for a subsequent 2 years. I never received any communications terminating it. However I digress.

One of my favourite administrative failures of MBIE's predecessor - MED - was how it spent three years developing an all of Ministry centralised Document Management System, which was designed primarily for "security". There were full time staff dedicated to this project, who were bewildered when one senior advisor pointed out that every single document created in this system was copied onto individual PC hard drives, which were accessible to anyone who logged onto the PCs. It took another year for the system to be implemented, by which time it was already obsolete.

As much as there are efforts to try to bring together people in a single Ministry to be co-ordinated across sectors, the record of doing so successfully, without bringing other activities to a snail's pace is not particularly inspiring. By and large, MED and its predecessor the Ministry of Commerce, largely operated in silos. The idea there was some commonality between how energy, telecommunications, land planning (RMA) and industrial/trade policy was fanciful. Electricity was heavily regulated and resulted in structural separation, telecommunications was very lightly regulated, land use planning was largely about tinkering with the RMA (and monitoring the impacts of its implementation), industrial/trade policy focused on tariff removal and supporting MFAT on trade negotiations. Throughout the five years I had there, the proportion of effort of the Secretary/Chief Executive in telecommunications, broadcasting, postal and IT policy as a share of activity was <5%. In other words, mega-Ministries struggle to get their senior management across everything they do. Small ones don't have that problem. Of course that can be an advantage for divisions/directorates/units led by managers who want to get on with their jobs without micro-management at a more senior level, but it is hardly amenable to accountability. Of course what it does mean is that there are multiple Ministers for the Ministry to report to, over the head of the Secretary/Chief Executive (otherwise the Secretary would spent all of her/his time at every Minister's office).

What mega-Ministries DO implement is a rather significant in-house administrative function, which inevitably justifies more staff to perform functions across IT, HR, finance and information management.

I've pointed out that MBIE and DIA, both large Ministries have not displayed much capability in delivering innovative reforms over recent years. MfE of course delivered an abject disaster with Labour's proposed RMA replacement with two pieces of legislation imposing greater costs on property owners and more complication through centralisation of power. This is primarily because MfE's culture is antithetical to economic growth, development and private property rights (you can still see in the new Planning Bill which is far more diluted and modest than what is needed to address the sclerosis in development). This was so apparent when in 2023, Vicky Robertson departed as MfE Chief Executive and stated:

In her presentation she pointed to the programmes that will have a profound and lasting positive impact on our environment.

She spoke about how reforming the resource management system has been the Ministry’s key priority and remains our single biggest deliverable for a system that is future-focused, adaptable, and encourages decisions that are good for our long-term wellbeing.

I'm not sure whose wellbeing she meant, certainly not taxpayers...

“People still say what they love about the Ministry is how people care about each other. They still say that now, as they did when I started. It’s pretty incredible how we’ve gone from 320 people to 1200 and held onto our culture. I’m proud we’ve been able to do that,” she says"

Being proud of more than trebling staff numbers says all you need to know about bureaucratic culture. Now that is being merged with the local government arm of DIA (which spent decades responsible for the statis of water policy), the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (which was established in 2018 and presided over the country's most rapid increase in housing prices) and Transport (which itself has seen a more than doubling of staff numbers over 25 years).

Another example.

In 2004, Transfund New Zealand was merged with the Land Transport Safety Authority to become Land Transport New Zealand. That entity was merged with Transit New Zealand in 2008 to form the NZ Transport Agency. The end result has been to create a bureaucratic monster. In 2004, the three separate agencices had a combined total of around 700 staff. In the 2023/24 financial year, NZTA had 2,769 permanent employees.

In 2007 announcing the merger, then Transport Minister Annette King said:

“Combining the functions of Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand will create one organisation accountable to one board, ensuring improved focus on value for money for land transport activities and an appropriate balance of land transport activities".

Value for money?

In Australia, a mega-Department I've previously done work for had a total of six project leads for a single project I was involved in as a contractor, over five years. Each time the new lead had to be brought up to speed and learn again. The reason why was because the mega-Department kept poaching anyone talented to work on other projects in other areas. One comment I heard from a different agency was "this is the Department you send projects to so they die". That's a bit unfair, but isn't entirely untrue. Quite simply there are five layers of management on top of each project or activity, so it is easy for them to get lost.

So I'm not optimistic. I'm not sure a single entity co-ordinates better than separate entities, because the bigger the organisation the more sluggish it is to work as an integrated whole. Moreover, so much of what these agencies do is not across other portfolios. I doubt aviation policy has ever paid much regard to housing policy, local government or the environment, but I am sure there are people in a couple of those who would keen to get involved - which would slow it down. A mega-Ministry has great potential for sclerosis.

I hope I'm wrong, but I've seen multiple mega-agencies in several countries over 30 years. I'd love to see the example that, by an objective external measure, has delivered serious innovative reforms that have released productivity, growth and dare I say "wellbeing" for taxpayers and the public.

Is New Zealand a capitalist command economy?

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 10 May 2026 06:06:15 +0000

Head of Lifestyle Economics at the UK's Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a free-market thinktank, has written an excellent piece at The Critic called "On Britain as a capitalist command economy".

The central hypothesis is that the UK is both far removed from being a free-market economy with a small state and light-handed regulation, and from being a state-owned economy run by bureaucratic, politically driven trading departments. It is worth reading in whole!

He describes the conundrum of how to describe the UK economy...

The left call it neoliberal but neoliberals have had no meaningful influence on British governments for thirty years. The right call it socialist but neither the Tories nor Labour have shown much interest in seizing the means of production. Keir Starmer’s government is more left-wing than he wants you to believe, but even if he renationalises the rail and water companies, it will be a nostalgic gesture rather than a heartfelt effort to control the heights of industry. Only on the fringes of the left is there any desire to return to the days when British Airways, Jaguar and Thomas Cook were under “democratic control”.

Arguably New Zealand isn't much different. Of course the Greens, TPM and parts of Labour will say the country is under the oppressive yoke of neo-liberalism, their latest scapegoat "billionaires" and "foreign capital", and of course people like me will rail against the "commie kids" on the left in Parliament, and in local government, but there's little real evidence of NZ embarking on Douglas/Richardson Mk. 2 or becoming the DDR under the last government.

Jim Bolger put the brakes on free-market liberalisation and shrinking of government after the 1993 election, although the direction of travel largely remained the same until 1999 when the Clark Government starting turning things back - notably by passing legislation to cancel the contracts of private ACC employer account providers to return ACC to a state monopoly insurer. Clark followed by renationalising Air NZ and the Railways, setting up a state retail bank (Kiwibank) raising income taxes and vastly expanding the welfare state with "Working for Families". The Key Government did little to change this trajectory, and the Ardern/Hipkins Government doubled down, with significant spending increases (even leaving aside the Covid response), and increasing both the size of the public sector and scale of regulatory intervention in the private sector.

On the face of it, the post-Thatcher settlement has held, but there is nothing Thatcherite about this government, nor the ones that preceded it.

Likewise in NZ. It's not to say the Douglas/Richardson (note it isn't the PMs noted for these reforms) reforms have been unwound. New Zealand isn't returning to rampant protectionism, nor has Labour embarked on vast renationalisation (the Government isn't going to get a national bus company, shipping company, hotel network or life insurance company), but what has happened is an accretion of central command and control. The UK of course has long had it with the Town and Country Planning Act, the single biggest act constraining housing supply and enabling local government to be the greatest NIMBYs in the UK's history. It was passed in 1947! New Zealand has only had the Resource Management Act since 1991 (passed during the height of Ruth Richardson's reforms, but inherited from Labour led by Geoffrey Palmer - which speaks volumes), but it too had kneecapped housing supply, inflated the cost of infrastructure and is only now with a chance of being replaced with something a bit less worse.

Snowdon writes about price caps introduced in the UK on energy, the Starmer Government's ban on "no-fault evictions" of tenants and enabling legal challenges on rent increases.

He highlights the nonsense of the Equality Act in the UK, which is being used to impose "pay equity" claims of the sort Brooke Van Velden has put a stop to, much to the chagrin of retired former politicians.

the Equality Act ... stipulates that men and women should be paid the same salary if they do work of “equal value”. Grotesquely over-interpreted by activist judges, this led to the bankruptcy of Birmingham City Council and 16 months of strikes after it was ruled illegal for (mostly male) dustmen and gravediggers to be awarded bonuses when (mostly female) cleaners and carers were not. ..

In the Next case, it was revealed that the company offered its 25,000 retail staff a chance to work in the warehouse but only seven took up the offer (three of whom walked out within a year). Despite one of the claimants admitting that she didn’t find the prospect of working in a noisy warehouse appealing but would have considered it if she was offered a lot more money, the company still lost.

The process used to determine what was "equal value" is what Snowdon describes as "that looks like something from a Marxist professor’s fever dream to decide the value of an employee’s labour." This diagram is the basis for a bureaucratic central planner's view of how people's pay should be set, which bears zero reference at all to how many people want to do the job for the pay offered. Have you seen a single politician or journalist in New Zealand outline how ridiculous this is? This is exactly the outcome of the philosophy of the capitalist command economy.

Snowdon describes it as essentially the application of activist state seeking to remould capitalism to meet centrally determined goals:

An activist state is systematically coercing the private sector in the pursuit of a range of social engineering goals, all of which are implicitly assumed to be more important than the economy. It is a form of central planning, albeit with a patchwork of different plans rather than one overarching goal.

Following on from my previous post, this is exactly what you can see from the Opportunity Party, whose leader "stepped into the world of... purpose-driven business". The purpose you can be sure is not why people and other businesses risked capital in the business, it's a purpose that is mostly about signalling virtue, and just chips away at its competitiveness, its resources to respond to consumers and competitors (especially in economies that don't have this sort of regulatory impost).

It's commonplace for people to refer to the People's Republic of China as a "communist" country. While it is led by the Communist Party, and has a great deal of central command and control, in many aspects it lets private enterprise run rip and be competitive, especially when exporting and seeking to win against foreign rivals. While it has plenty of state owned enterprises it directs and controls, it is less interventionist in the private sector. You see China actually cares about economic growth and development, because it works.

In the UK and across much of the developed world, governments are far more concerned about social engineering goals. Snowdon notes Net Zero (regardless of cost) which in the UK sees car retailers fined for selling too many cars that people want (petrol or diesel powered) relative to cars fewer people want (EVs). The market doesn't price goods the politicians want people to buy cheaply enough, and the public don't want to pay more for them, so the politicians penalise companies selling people what they want. The Ardern Government did this more softly by taxing the cars people wanted to subsidise the ones the government wanted people to buy. It did it by implementing US style government procurement rules to preference responses to tenders that included Maori enterprises, just because of their ownership, regardless of the value the enterprises offered to taxpayers relative to others.

Snowdon notes how far the public health lobby has gone in the UK (and it's obvious the same lobby in NZ wants similar steps):

Supermarkets have already been banned from offering multi-buy price discounts on “less healthy” food and are prohibited from displaying these products in certain parts of their shops. Wes Streeting plans to go even further and start fining supermarkets for selling too many calories.

I don't think New Zealand is quite so bad. A cursory look at economic statistics indicates:

- State spending as a proportion of GDP is 41% in NZ, 44% in the UK

- Tax as a proportion of GDP is 27% in NZ, 35% in the UK

- Public debt as a proportion of GDP is 41% in NZ, 98% in the UK.

It's notable that many of the command and control steps in the UK haven't been followed in NZ, although some of these were stopped with the removal of the Hipkins Government.

However, the approach of regulatory control of the private sector remains at the heart of what the Wellington bureaucracy advances to meet social goals, and it has widespread support in academia. Some elements of the capitalist command economy remain very much in place.

Even with its replacement, the Resource Management Act will still not put private property rights first, and will still mean local government very much is in command.

The electricity industry remains a weird blend of a market economy, with significant state investment, constrained by the planning system, which neither resembles a free market (given how difficult it is to build new generating capacity, and the state majority owning three quarters of the sector), nor a socialist system (as there is not a monopoly state provider). The previous ban on new oil and gas production (which in the current environment seems absurd) was purely an exercise in social engineering and virtue signalling, to show off a commitment to "Net Zero" even though it made virtually no impact on such targets (and no impact on climate change). However it certainly scared off new investment in the sector, fearing a change in government could ban its industry once again.

While supermarket competition is not what some would wish, this is largely due to the planning system, although there remain calls to split up the industry in ways unheard of in other countries, with even the Finance Minister having floated it, and it still being a "live" policy with some political parties. The fact this was even considered by a purportedly centre-right government indicates how far from the 1980s and 1990s NZ has gone.

New Zealand lacks the compulsory centralised pay bargaining seen in Australia, which bears the cost of it because the wealth generated from mining is so significant, the loss in productivity is diluted. However, it was only a change in government in 2023 that stopped it being implemented in NZ.

So I'd say New Zealand isn't quite as far down the path of regulatory sclerosis as the UK, but that is not because of a lack of will to continue down that path. You can see it in Labour, the Greens and the Opportunity Party, as well as within the glance of part of the National Party and NZ First to seek to add "just another" regulation to make business have "purpose" to meet the politicians' goals.

The fascists of the 1930s (actual fascists, not David Seymour) didn't advance communist style nationalisation of the economy because they preferred to use regulation and state control over business and industry to meet their goals. The word is vastly overused by the far-left, but its approach philosophically is not a million miles away from the bureaucratic command and control state regulating capitalism to meet the lofty ambitions of politicians.

One thing is for sure, it sure isn't a free-market capitalist economy.

The Opportunity Party is clearly on the left

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Fri, 08 May 2026 07:06:23 +0000

What was TOP and founded by the eclectic Gareth Morgan has been through a few leaders, and is into its latest one, and instead of using the acronym, has gone from the “Opportunities” party to just Opportunity. Just one opportunity, presumably for its candidates to get a handle on power.

I last wrote about it in 2020 when I said:

The centre-left policy wonks' party. For clever people that would usually vote Labour, and think they can solve many solutions if only the tax system were tinkered with. There are a couple of clever people here, but it just the intellectual wing of the Labour-Green parties, and takes its support from there. Long may it do that.

This remains largely the case. While it avoids the Hamas-adjacent one-eyed view of Israel of the Greens, and the self-interested grifting of unions seen in Labour, it is essentially a party of left-wing activists combining those who have made careers in corporate virtue signalling and productivity sapping, or in the public sector. You need only look at the profiles of the leader, deputy-leader and some candidates to get a clear picture that this isn’t a party of free-wheeling entrepreneurs, advocates for freedom of expression and competition and choice in public services.

Leader Qiulae Wong profile states “After studying law and politics, she stepped into the world of human rights, disability inclusion, ethical fashion, climate and purpose-driven business”

Now that fits right into the standard box-ticking of left-wing virtue supporting. Human rights, inclusion, ethical and then the weirdest... "purpose-driven business"

If you think “purpose-driven business” is different from other businesses, then you don’t understand business. The purpose of business is to make a return on capital. However, she presumably thinks that isn’t enough, and business should seek to show off some noble intent beyond providing goods and services at a quality and price that customers are willing to pay for.

She led the “B Corp” movement in NZ which is a corporate grift that seeks to extract money from businesses to get a virtue signal stamp to:

“Be part of a growing global movement working to create an economy that benefits people and the planet”

This is largely vacuous nonsense. The economy exists because people produce goods and services that benefit people.

However, if you want to be part of a movement that is about putting productivity and wealth creation secondary to sacrificing shareholder value to identitarian and zero net impact climate change goals, then good for you, but let’s not pretend this is “centrist”. I am sure they will think I am some awful mean nasty capitalist individualist who thinks it's ok to run people over and kill pandas and whales to make a buck, but this sort of language and empty concepts are largely conceived by small groups of people who are very much the same as each other. They are all trying to prove to one another that despite their considerable wealth, education and relative luxury level of living, they are actually altruistic and generous people who care about something beyond themselves and their family, and this is proven by showing off credentials that are popular amongst themselves.

You can be sure probably none of them donate to Iranian's fighting the Islamic Republic, North Koreans trying to defect to the free world, Mauritanians fleeing slavery or Ukrainians repelling Russia. It's far more glorious to save a few tonnes of emissions from installing a solar panel or getting equal numbers of highly paid women on the local board of a major accounting multinational.

It could be right from the Green Party. You see these movements are great for big companies that can afford to waste money hiring people or consultants to do zero-value research, publicity and branding to look good to airhead consumers, finger-wagging politicians and activist NGOs. However, they are deadly for small entrepreneurs just trying to break even, minimise costs and maximise consumers in taking on competitors like this.

Deputy Leader Daniel Eb is cut from the same cloth. “Dan works to transition Aotearoa New Zealand to a just, regenerative food system”. Wait, what? How is it unjust now? How is not regenerative? Well he might tell you because…

“Dan founded a communications agency to help tell stories about rural innovation, community building and nature-positive farming”

Again, this could be right from the Green Party. Marketing and spin oriented.

Dr Kayla Kingdon-Beb (Wellington Bays candidate - where she is up against Julie Anne Genter) is “a well-known environmental policy leader and advocate. She believes Aotearoa’s most crucial (and undervalued) asset is nature”. She is Chief Executive of WWF-NZ and before that was Director of Policy at the Department of Conservation. Again, could be right from the Green Party, and probably a good candidate to win votes from the far too frequently angry Julie Anne Genter.

I wont go through all the candidates, although this image of them tells a story that shows how it isn’t like the Green Party. The Green Party isn’t keen on white males as candidates anymore, whereas the Opportunity Party is. Indeed a majority of candidates are male. Maybe it's centrist to not just select people on identitarian grounds nowadays?

Yet it is policies that tell you how leftwing the Opportunity Party is:

Universal Basic Income: Welfare for all. Paying people to be idle (of course it’s not characterised as that), by taxing some people more is a distinctively leftwing policy. It is directly redistributive, taking from some to give to all, and it is distinctively uninterested in productivity or wealth creation. $370 a week to everyone isn’t enough for some to live on but is a nice handout to the daughters and sons of lawyers, doctors and policy wonks at university. Note it doesn’t replace all benefits. The proposal is that solo parents get extra money, there are extra payments for people with children, housing support. So “admin” savings on this aren’t going to be total. With labour shortages in some sectors, the idea that people should receive other people’s money unhindered by any obligation to do anything is fundamentally socialist.

Fully subsidised Public Transport: This is another transfer from taxpayers to a small number of people, which has been proven elsewhere to achieve little. It is a blunt tool to help the poor (many of whom don’t live in places with much or any public transport, or certainly not public transport that goes to where they need) but is a big hand out to middle income taxpayers who work downtown in major cities like Auckland and Wellington. Overseas experience indicates it does little to relieve traffic congestion but does a lot to attract people from walking and cycling. Making the supply of a service free at the point of use is a fundamentally socialist concept. Imagining it is “just” for a six-figure sum public servant in Wellington to get a free trip into work, but for the shift-worker in Naenae who starts at the airport at 4am to not do so (because she drives) is quite something. Of course the party also wants to pour more money into public transport, regardless of net benefits (because well… socialism).

Land Value Tax: New Zealand already has this in rates, but this extends it to central government. The premise being that it could replace some income tax, but the proposal is that there would be three income tax brackets – 28%, 34% and 39%. Lower income tax rates are abolished because of the welfare to everyone payments. The point of the Land Value Tax is to encourage more intensive use of land, except in rural areas (the party is keen on zoning of course). There would be lots of exceptions as well including Māori land, conservation land, land owned by NGOs, government and social housing. Woe betide government be taxed the same as the great unwashed “speculating land bankers”. Now I don’t think Land Value Tax is necessarily left wing, if done simply and lowers income tax equally, but this isn’t it.

Citizens’ Assemblies: Heaven help us all if this comes in so that the curtain twitching finger-wagging brigade of semi-retired activists get to dictate public policy. This sort of direct-democracy will inherently exclude business-owners and people with multiple jobs (who won’t have the time to participate), but be perfect for lobbyists, activists and retirees who are just aching to get involved in running other people’s lives. It’s exactly this sort of approach to planning that has caused NIMBYism, and which ultimately gets hijacked by people who want to interfere, who want to tax and spend other people’s money and run any policy area like a village. It’s the atmosphere that has no place for radical individuals, doing something different in business, community, society, art or even just in their own lives that doesn’t harm anyone else. The Greens would love it.

There’s other stuff like creating a “circular plastics economy” presumably regardless of cost or impact. Implementing Labour’s previous ban on smoking for adults as they age (helping grow the black-market in tobacco for organised crime). Raising youth court jurisdiction to 25 (soft-pedalling on repeat offenders who cause untold harm to victims).

It’s interesting it has dropped capital gains tax because it wouldn’t have the same impact as a land value tax, but let’s not pretend the Opportunity Party cares much about economic growth and productivity as much as it cares about redistribution and being virtuous.

It talks about bringing left and right together. Well it brings left for sure, I’m not sure what it brings on the right.

For example, what does it say about fiscal prudence? There is little about saving on government spending, the main emphasis appears to be to let the economy “grow” to surplus (although that seems a bit like Nicola Willis to be fair).

What does it say about foreign affairs? Nothing

What does it say about greater choice in health and education provision? Nothing

What does it say about improving New Zealand’s competitiveness internationally? Nothing. Just keep sliding down below the per capita GDP of Italy (and well below Australia)

I’m very happy for the Opportunity Party to attract some voters from the Greens or Labour, but let’s not pretend this is some haven for disaffected National voters who think there is a chance for any principles of smaller government, personal responsibility and individual freedom to be respected. This is still a party of policy wonks, now led by a grifter of “corporate social responsibility”.

It's a victory!

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 11:45:00 +0000

In July 1953, then Premier of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kim Il Sung, declared victory in the Great Fatherland Liberation War (the "Korean War" to the rest of us). This was a war he started in 1950 (although he claimed the US started it), and had a clear purpose, which was to obliterate the Republic of Korea (south Korea) and unify the country under his communist rule.

This was after over 200,000 military deaths and the death of over 1 million north Korean civilians (and likely over 200,000 Chinese deaths, as Mao intervened to deter the US attacking China), and the net loss of 3,900 square km territory. However, Kim Il Sung treated it as a victory and the Kim dynasty has done ever since.

Sure it lied about why the war started, and it is logically impossible to think that the war was any sort of victory for the north, but at least the Kims have an excuse - they are part of a psychopathic totalitarian dynasty clinging to power.

Trump doesn't have that.

Sure, 90% of the Iranian Navy has been destroyed, but it is clearly fully capable of attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz, using small boats, coastal based cruise missiles and drones. The US and Israel have obviously not destroyed that capability.

Sure, most of the Iranian airforce has been destroyed, and its ballistic missile capability has been badly damaged, but it isn't over. Perhaps its nuclear programme is completely, or mostly destroyed, but its motivation to have a nuclear programme will not have abated, indeed quite the opposite.

After all, Kim Il Sung himself also knew that once the Soviet Union collapsed, the only security guarantee the regime in Pyongyang could rely upon is having its own nuclear weapons. That has been proven, as there is little real chance of the US engaging in a first strike against north Korea, because the risk of nuclear retaliation, whether to the south or to Japan or beyond, is very real.

The Iranian regime has been weakened, it has lost leaders, but it has not loss control of the borders, the mass media or the instruments of domestic repression. It has not been destroyed, but it has been battle hardened and has - rightfully - claimed victory. Victory against the United States is defined as survival. It is not a victory Saddam Hussein could claim, as the Iraqi Government fell completely. It is not a victory Muammar Gaddafi could claim either (although the regime of Nicholas Maduro is - largely - intact without him).

Trump's claim of victory isn't quite as hollow as Kim Il Sung's, but at best he has diminished and deferred the ability of the Islamist regime to project its terror abroad, and only moderately diminished its capability to project terror domestically.

If the regime remains, it will be more hardline, more focused on advancing terror abroad, including targeting the US, Israel and liberal democracies globally.

I bet the Cuban regime isn't that worried anymore.

TACO indeed.

What's the role of government in an energy crisis?

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 07:35:00 +0000

For all of the fatuous claims of those who think fossil fuel use should be ended "as soon as possible", we can all see that the world values them, not just to power transport, and provide base-load energy generation in many countries, but to provide the essential materials for a vast range of industrial and consumer goods. Notwithstanding the nonsensical claims by the likes of Greta Thunberg and de-growth multinationals like Greenpeace, oil use continues to grow worldwide according to the International Energy Agency. Half of that growth comes from aviation and chemical feedstocks - in other words the use of oil as an input into the manufacturing of everything from pharmaceuticals to pipes to electrical insulation to asphalt and paint.

Yes there is some substitutability around energy in some sectors. Most obviously in electricity generation, although no single alternative to oil or coal is "ideal". Hydro-electricity is geographically dependent, nuclear is difficult primarily due to extremely high capital costs and public opposition, and solar/wind power is intermittent (and storage remains expensive).

In transport there have been huge leaps ahead in technology for light road vehicle, and medium weight trucks and buses doing short to medium haul trips are increasingly electric as well. However, it is going to be some years before long haul heavy trucks (and coaches) will go electric.

Aviation isn't moving from petroleum for some time, although hope it being seen in biofuels, that has its own issues. Shipping likewise, which mostly uses heavy fuel oil, is also not moving away from petroleum. What many activists ignore is that most transport, certainly commercially provided transport, is only too aware of the importance of minimising fuel costs. Conventional engines have never been more fuel efficient, and that is driven by market factors more than anything. Airlines, shipping companies, trucking companies all want to save on costs, because most of what they do is motivated by profit.

Private individuals less so because they trade off high capital expenditure vs. lower operating costs, and many don't have much capital to spend on cars, but the incentives are there. As someone once said, the stone age didn't end because of a lack of stones. Similarly railways did not move from steam locomotives because coal (and fuel oil) were scarce, but because technology made diesel and electric traction more cost effective.

Outside transport, and outside the wishes of planners hoping people will trade off time and comfort to use public transport and active modes more (which will happen anyway due to cost), the big consumers of fossil fuels are in agriculture, industry and manufacturing, and much of that isn't changing soon.

So what SHOULD government do when petroleum gets more scarce and more expensive?

1. Not meddle with prices. Higher prices ensure more supply and encourage more supply. When people face the real price of energy they will take steps to conserve or change energy sources, and trade off whether they think it is a short or a long term saving they get from switching. The idea that politicians or bureaucrats have any clue as to what best meets the needs of everyone using petroleum products now is simply absurd. High prices are already encouraging people to shift modes of transport, to drive less and consider what their next vehicle's fuel consumption is. Let that work, and don't listen to the excitable planners who think more needs to be done. A majority of the costs of urban public transport are already predominantly paid for through motoring taxes and rates, as it is already "being encouraged" with fares well below cost. It doesn't need to be more.

2. Don't get in the way of exploring for more energy. The Ardern Government's ban on new oil and gas exploration was always an act of virtue signalling to fly a vacuous flag around climate change to the world, even though the impact of no more exploration on climate change is nil. The even more preposterous argument that "there isn't any more to discover" makes it more ridiculous, because there is no need to ban something that wouldn't happen anyway. Norway has the world's highest takeup of electric vehicles (96% of new light vehicle sales are EVs) and it is the world's seventh largest exporter of petroleum and gas (and there is bipartisan consensus about expanding it).

3. That means all energy. Whether it be wind power, solar power, nuclear power, tidal or coal, government should get out of the way. There are negative externalities with some options, but these should be treated as property rights issues. Pollution is an escape over property boundaries and permission should be obtained from owners of such property if pollution represents anything from nuisance level onwards. There should be minimal restrictions on installing solar panels, wind turbines or damning waterways if you own them, and the replacement of the RMA should enable this. It also means that electricity generators should also be able to plan for future supply.

4. Maintain constructive foreign and defence relations with allies: Freedom of navigation is critical to survival for New Zealand. That means defence matters, including the alliance with Australia in particular, but also other like-minded liberal democracies. Yes that includes the United States, Japan, south Korea and Singapore. It means that there should be a blue water navy and an air force that is a credible contribution to collective defence of sea lanes. It doesn't mean having to go along with every military action by allies, but it does mean contributing to the defence of allies, and having clear lines about what matters in the national interest.

5. Maintain a minimum critical reserve of supply: The International Energy Agency recommends member states keep reserves worth 90 days of supply. This isn't "free" to do, but should be considered a core part of national defence. Without such supply, significant parts of the economy and the public would be in danger.

6. Sell off your ownership in gentailers: As clever as it seemed for the Key Government to sell 49% of three electricity gentailers, it doesn't go far enough. For these generators to build more supply they need more capital, and it shouldn't be constrained by governments having to put their own capital into the three SOEs. Government should state that, at the very least, it is relaxed about becoming a minority shareholder, or better yet just hand over the shares to the general public for it to do with as it pleases. They can sell them or hold onto them. Before that happens, it should break them up. Generation and wholesaling electricity should be separated from retail, so the retail market can thrive. I don't mean the private gentailers like Contact, just the majority state owned ones. That will stir up the market and encourage investment in capacity, which is just what is needed as more choose electricity over gas and petrol.

I'm old enough to remember how the National Party's greatest conservative socialist, Muldoon, tried to centrally plan New Zealand away from the volatility of oil prices, and lumbered the country with billions in debt for inefficient pet projects. From the Motunui gas to gasoline plant, to the North Island Main Trunk electrification, many Think Big projects were an economic disaster because officials assumed oil prices would remain high perpetually, which was not to be the case.

The Muldoon government subsidised CNG and LPG conversions for vehicles, and subsidised the roll out of CNG and LPG refuelling at service stations across the country, and by the mid 1980s the growth in demand in CNG and LPG had collapsed. It also indirectly subsidised road use by such vehicles, as fuel duty on CNG and LPG was (and still is!) significantly lower than that for petrol.

In a few months, the US-Iran war will be over and the crisis in fuel prices will have ameliorated, and despite the eager calls by central planners, the best government can do is to

The climaxes of those who absolutely love expensive and scarce oil

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 11:43:00 +0000

There are people absolutely loving the price of fuel going up and eager for there to be fossil fuel shortages. It’s getting them terribly agitated, in a quasi-sadistic scolding way. “Told them so” said one, “those car fascists are going to pay” said one politician, “if only there were cycleways, the teachers and nurses would use them to get to work” said an earnest unionist. “It’s ironic that the white supremacist genocidal Zionists are helping up” said keffiyeh wearing angry woman.

It started online of course, chatting together getting all excited. “Shortages will show them we were right all along, public transport is better, that’s why we need to tax people more to make it free” said the urban planner. “The people, well I mean they aren’t really human are they, that own Ford Rangers or RAM are going to feel it bad, and they’ll realise how uncool and hate filled such vehicles are” shouted the Greenpeace staffer. “Child murderers!” cried out the neurodiverse kindness campaigners. “They’re not all ACT or Winston supporting straight white men who don’t have degrees though right?” said the elder gentleman who once marched against apartheid”. “No, but 90% of them are” said the suspicious purple haired non-binary student. The university lecturer noted “Look this will expose the far-right white supremacist Zionist Trumpist terror supporters to the mass of good people who support a powerful exemplar of decolonising resistance”, before the photographer yawned and said “steady on now, we need to be practical if we are to free people from the car addiction they don’t want.

A failed list candidate said “Great, even though the climate destroying far-right scum are in power, it’s election year and can get The People on our side. We can finally show people how wonderful it is to share journeys with others on public transport, or enjoy being with nature in a cycleway”. A sick, sniffing one said “and it doesn’t matter about the Nazi Ranger drivers, all we need is for the Greens to give Labour enough of a boost to kick out Peters and Seymour”.

I might jest, but they really are almost tumescent in their excitement.

This is the chance, the central planners can take more taxes, they can impose new rules, they can spend more of your money and direct the poor “addicted” car users to the more enlightened future of more public transport use, more cycling, more walking and of course freight should go by rail. Not having convinced enough people that abandoning driving was necessary to save the planet, they think they can convince people that it is for their own good to abandon their transport choices.

What do they want? You don’t even need to ask it’s all pretty clear:

• Make driving less attractive. Slower speed limits, remove general traffic lanes, remove parking, tax cars more.

• Tax you more (now or later) to subsidise public transport even more with cheaper fares, despite demand being up and the cost of providing services going up as well.

• Tax you more to subsidise rail freight, because businesses that use it already need a helping hand from… you.

• Tax you more to subsidise people who can afford to buy new cars to buy EVs, and for other people to buy e-bikes.

Lunatic fringe academic Timothy Welch is one of these people . He’s a senior lecturer in urban planning, which of course is something we need much less of. He gets republished by leftwing media because he plays to its unconscious bias, as he really knows little about the commercial side of the transport sector and is keen to selectively quote data as facts to support his own point of view. His claims are mostly value judgment nonsense.

His latest piece of polemic sees him supporting taxing buyers of petrol vehicles to subsidise buyers of EVs (it wasn't long ago he was bemoaning EVs saying "EVs require the same amount of road space and, due to their increased weight, potentially cause more road damage. But EV owners don’t buy petrol, which means they don’t pay excise tax – the same tax that pays for expanding roads". EV's don't cause more road damage, but then after the Government put EVs onto road user charges he bemoans it making EVs "less competitive". More generally he supports making new vehicles more expensive (through the “Clean Car Standard”) which helps ensure the vehicle fleet stays older for longer, but Welch doesn’t like cars at all. He loved that fewer utes and SUVs sold under the Clean Car Standard. He bemoans the car ownership rate of 815 cars per 1000 people “one of the highest in the world”. This should be celebrated that so many can afford a car and have the freedom it provides (urban planners aren't big on this), but he ignores that NZ is larger than the UK with 8% of the population. He claims that every decade there is an oil shock, which isn't really true, but even when it happens that all dies down (remember people like him warned us of Peak Oil? That was until fracking discovered more). The 1979 oil shock one provoked Rob Muldoon to advance Think Big, and every single one of those projects turned out to be a net drain on the economy, because in a few years oil prices dropped right back. Welch doesn’t let that stop his excitement for reducing car ownership. He finishes with this absurdity:

Every bus electrified, every cycleway built, every train funded is a direct reduction in exposure to the next crisis. The question now is whether New Zealanders begin to treat their car dependence not as a lifestyle choice but as a strategic liability.

What utter rot. Unless the bus is taking people out of cars, and unless a cycleway takes enough people out of driving cars to offset its cost of construction, it does nothing to reduce exposure. He advocates fully taxpayer funded public transport, which has been shown in multiple examples (e.g. Tallinn, Estonia) to largely replace walking instead of driving (in Tallinn car use dropped 5%, but walking dropped 40%, and car mode share climbed back up because public transport was overcrowded with people riding it for short trips).

There’s photographer Patrick Reynolds made a name for himself as an urbanist, and has for some years been an activist for the Green-left’s war on private motoring. This is why he was appointed to be board of NZTA in the first term of the Ardern Government, as the Greens strongly advocated for him. He’s positively excited about the crisis on the ~~Green Party~~ Greater Auckland blog. He says we should think strategically (i.e. don’t just react to the crisis, but think of the “long term”). His next step is to “rapidly reduce demand” and to “ensure an equitable path”. He said we are “structurally addicted” to driving. Curiously he floats the idea of lower speed limits for everyone but EV drivers, which is nonsense of course. Of course he doesn’t talk about aviation or shipping because These are blind spots because, by and large, governments don’t tax you to pay for their infrastructure, vehicles or services, because you’re willing to pay for them yourself (directly or indirectly through freight).

Of course it is now rounded off by the Greens. Chloe Swarbrick has, finally, taken time out shouting for the destruction of Israel and touting Hamas propaganda to demand "free" public transport and a new tax.

This wont excite the car hating mob though. Nothing gets them over the top quite as much as penalising car driving. Cars, the epitome of individual freedom, expensive capital assets that exist purely to sit idle for the owner to use when wanted, to go when and where they want to go. So unlike public transport which is planned (!) and scheduled and directed to be a sharing experience, not so fast, not so direct and not so "selfish".

And No. Unlike the control freaks, I really don't care how you get around, or how goods get around, as long as people pay for it themselves. No modes of transport are "bad" or "good", they just are well suited for different purposes. For as long as this fuel crisis continues, people will respond to the price signals in the ways they want. Some will drive a bit less, some may buy vehicles that use less or no fuel, some will ride public transport, some will bike and some will walk. Most people are quite happy buying their own cars, fares, bikes and shoes, and the way it SHOULD work, is the more people buy of one mode, the more that can be provided.

Funny how the planners don't really think that should be the way isn't it?

UPDATE: Oh look another one, this time from Professor Alistair Woodward, from the University of Auckland's Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, who RNZ conveniently cited without counter-argument that there should be regulations on people buying vehicles he thinks are bad. The public health lobby's appetite for micro-managing what everyone does, because a small handful engage in bad behaviour has no end.

Whether your agree with it or not, the US has to win in Iran

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 04:48:00 +0000

Morally it was entirely justifiable to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many will disagree honourably because of concern that the international order, represented by sovereign states with recognised borders respecting each others territorial integrity, is fundamental to international peace and security. They believe that this order protects peace and supports negotiation and diplomacy as the path to dispute resolution. However, it is a defensible position that the Islamic Republic of Iran (distinct from Iran the nation) is not deserving of that protection or recognition, because it does not afford that to some other sovereign states.

It is a regime that has spent its entire history calling for death to the USA and Israel, and used terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Israel and Yemen to spread its evil poisonous misanthropic ideology of ultra-conservative Islamist theocracy. Besides calling for "death to Israel" it has actively spread anti-semitism globally, including hosting conferences questioning the Holocaust. It has the world's highest per capita rate of executions, killing over 972 in 2024 alone, and most recently reportedly slaughtering tens of thousands of protestors across the country. Its theocracy includes a morality police dedicated to policing what women wear and how people interact in public, and it uses rape as a punishment of dissident women.

Given its long standing global sponsorship of terrorism (which included the IRA back in the Troubles), its pursuit of uranium enrichment and lack of transparency, it is easy to justify military action to stop it obtaining nuclear weapons.

Whether or not it was tactically correct for the US and Israel to take on Iran only history will tell. As much as those against the war will be wanting Trump to lose, to embarrass him, this is a very narrow and suicidal position. The very last thing anyone who supports liberal democracy, rule of law, individual freedom, human rights and civilisation should want is for the Islamic Republic of Iran to defeat the US, Israel and by proxy, the Gulf states as well.

Overthrowing the regime would be a success, weakening it so it fails due to domestic pressure (including from the Kurdish north) would be a partial success, but emboldening it even if its ability to project abroad is significantly weakened, would be seen as a victory for the regime, and a victory for its proxies.

For it would embolden Iran and its proxies to attack not just in the Middle East, but beyond, endangering Americans, Jews (don't even think Iran separates Zionists from Jews). This would make us all less safe, it would embolden Islamists across the world to promote their ideology, and for a few to be willing to use force to terrify us all.

If the Islamic Republic survives, it will embolden Putin and Xi to give it succour, money, arms and to push on. Putin already knows Trump wont stop him in Ukraine, Xi already knows the US will do little in the South China Sea, and wonders if he can attack Taiwan with little more than sanctions.

At this stage the biggest risk is that Trump chickens out, and wants a "deal". There is no "deal" with those who want you dead, who want your country dead and another dead. As much as the international law purists want pontification from the Western world about the legality of the war on Iran (they think it isn't legal), that horse has bolted.

While it's entirely possible (and probable) the Iranian regime could be replaced by one that is far from ideal (see Iraq, Libya and Syria), it is also likely it could be better. Better is not wanting to destroy other countries, better is not wanting to fund, train and arm multiple terrorist proxies across the Middle East, and across the world to "globalise the intifada" against the infidels.

Better is not expounding an ideology that is a fundamentalist misanthropic dark-ages view of humanity, as serving a supreme religious leader who sends people to their deaths for the sake of Allah, who restricts music, literature, art, apparel, human relationships and human expression, for the sake of blasphemy. Humanity, and in particular Europe and the Western world have been spending centuries unshackling themselves from the tyranny of theology.

The end of the Islamic Republic of Iran wont remove this, as there are plenty of others expounding such a view, including some it is attacking, but it will remove the most toxic, virulent and violent example embodied in a outwardly aggressive state. For it to "win", survive and double down on militarising itself and securing weapons of mass destruction would be dangerous to us all.

Allister Heath in the Daily Telegraph:

Either Donald Trump holds his nerve, crushes the Iranian regime, rides out the oil shock and reopens the Strait of Hormuz, or he and America are finished, exposed as unserious, fickle and incapable of forward planning, a superpower manquée felled by drone-wielding barbarians.

The challenge is Trump’s character, his willingness to accept short-term economic and electoral pain, not America or Israel’s exceptional military capacities. Does the US president, a hawk on Iran for 47 years, have it in him to finish the job, going down in history as the saviour of civilisation from nuclear Islamism, or is he merely the unidimensional man child his critics believe him to be?..

The great danger is that Trump snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. A loss would involve the Iranians shutting the Strait for an extended period, the Americans panicking at elevated oil prices and the US president walking away with a premature declaration of victory. Iran would be bloodied, but unbowed.

This would be a calamity from which neither Trump nor the West would recover. It would be interpreted by our enemies, chiefly China, North Korea and Islamists, as proof that their stereotype of the average Westerner is correct, that we are coddled, narcissistic consumers who cannot handle even the smallest discomfort.

It would also embolden the West’s defeatist class. Their “analysis” relentlessly asserts that the US cannot possibly win, and dismisses any contrary evidence. Everything to them is a miscalculation; killing Ali Khamenei will backfire, we are told, but not killing him would have been criticised just as harshly.

There is nothing wrong with caution, but some of these people sound as if they want Iran to win. These same experts rightly loathe Putin, correctly seeing him as a fascist monster, who is willing to kidnap children and ethnically cleanse civilians. They rightly support Ukraine, emphasise its victories and urge it not to give up when Russia strikes a blow.

Yet they are not as passionately opposed to the Iranian regime, even though it is just as fascistic as Putin’s. They loathe Trump and Israel. They were willing to suffer high energy prices to help defeat Putin, but cannot tolerate dearer petrol to take out the Iranian regime. Their double standards and hypocrisy are vile.

This is a civilisational struggle, a battle between good and evil. The West must win, or all bets are off...

Luxon or not

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 08 Mar 2026 11:55:00 +0000

It's hardly news to most people, other than some members of the National Party caucus, that Christopher Luxon is not doing well as Prime Minister in convincing even a plurality of voters that he is the right person for the job. He defeated Chris Hipkins in 2023, and now more people think Hipkins would be a better Prime Minister than him, although I suspect a significant plurality think neither of them are any good (and a smaller number dream of minor party leaders, especially Winston Peters).

Luxon was clearly a competent CEO, and his best characteristic is that he is a good delegator. He has largely left most portfolios to their Ministers, and it shows. The Ministers that are most highly rated are those that have shown results, or at the very least, show competence in dealing with difficult issues. Regardless of what I think of any of them personally or even some of their policies, it is fairly clear that Erica Stanford, Chris Bishop, Simeon Brown and Mark Mitchell (of the National Ministers, as there is competence in NZ First and ACT as well), have all shown themselves to be able to "get things done".

I would be one of the first to criticise Stanford in many ways, in particular I think she is just another wet who is almost wholly submissive to the teaching unions, but she has shown both a willingness to effect change and a passion for what she does. Her efforts for curriculum reform, pushing structured literacy and passion for lifting standards is clear. She projects confidence and communicates clearly and competently, even if I think the government is incredibly weak in opening up the education sector to more choice, this isn't about libertarians, it's about the general public believing in competence and leadership.

Chris Bishop on infrastructure has also demonstrated a commitment to results. You can criticise the replacement of the RMA on multiple grounds (as Nick Clark from the NZ Initiative competently did), but you can't criticise his passionate commitment to a long-term fix of the housing crisis, and his efforts to hold Kainga Ora to account, and take interim steps making it easier to build some homes and infrastructure. Furthermore, I've never encountered a Transport Minister in New Zealand or anywhere in the world who both believes in road pricing and sees it as a tool to improve conditions for drivers, and to make better investments in road improvements. Whether it is housing, transport or social infrastructure, he doesn't just talk in carefully curated soundbites, he speaks off the cuff and shows a passion for change and results. It helps that he has twice won the usually safe Labour seat of Hutt South (Luxon, Stanford, Brown and Mitchell all have safe seats), which takes considerable effort and shows a cut-through to much more than the party base.

Simeon Brown, despite childish and cheap jibes directed at him on social media, has demonstrated calm, capable competence in delivery. In health, traditionally an albatross around the neck of politicians almost anywhere, he quickly got across the issue of Dunedin Hospital, and made a decision about its future. This matched developing a five-year health infrastructure plan and setting five key health targets. As Transport Minister his great achievements were in turning around the spending plans of NZTA to meet those of the government, and to reverse the widespread speed limit reductions. He has a financial and economic competence as a "dry" member of Cabinet, which reflects his education and previous career in banking.

Finally Mark Mitchell has been the face of National's commitment to law and order, cracking down on criminal gangs and delivering a demonstrated reduction in violent crime, following increases in Police numbers and corrections staff. Although this was undoubtedly supported by policies from both ACT and NZ First, Mitchell is convincing as a Minister against crime.

All of this contrasts with Luxon. He is unconvincing, he seems unable to show a serious passionate spirit that chimes with much of the population. As much as delegating is good, people want a Prime Minister to be across it all. Not necessarily like Helen Clark was (as she was a control freak Prime Minister, micromanaging most policies and not trusting most Ministers on major issues), but at least as well as John Key and Bill English could. PMs need to be able to ad-lib, to respond spontaneously without briefing notes, based on a philosophical and policy grounding about the direction of government and principles. Some might say it is a bit too much to ask a Prime Minister, especially a National Party one to base thinking and what he says on principles, but principles and passion are where authenticity comes from, and authenticity helps win elections.

People want political leaders to believe in something and to express it, showing their passionate commitment to not just results that people want, but the basis for getting there. Luxon hasn't got it, he didn't have it before the last election, but the public were so fed up with the failed performance of the Ardern/Hipkins years, post-Covid, that they were willing to give him a go. That willingness has been eroded considerably. There is a chance he can pull together enough support at the election to defeat Chris Hipkins, in part because Winston Peters has clearly positioned himself on the conservative right, and David Seymour continues to have a decent base of support for those who think the National Party is too wet, but that chance is far from a safe bet.

Much more importantly, New Zealanders deserve a Prime Minister who they have confidence in, who can take a clear, principled stand on issues, without fluffing his lines. I'm not fussed really if Luxon wants to support the US and Israel over Iran, or oppose it because he thinks it may be against international law, or claim that NZ is watching, not involved and does not want to take a stance out of respect of our allies. Just believe in something.

So he needs to go. Stanford or Bishop look like the leading contenders to replace him. Mitchell hasn't the breadth and depth for the role, and Brown is too young and too conservative to attract the non-politically engaged middle voters National needs. However, Brown would be an excellent Finance Minister.

Stanford is Auckland based, and socially liberal, with the undoubted advantage of being a woman, with a clear, pleasant voice. She would need a deputy who is more conservative and able to moderate concerns she is too wet and centrist. Some may think she could look a little like a National Jacinda, but that is under rating Stanford. It seems unlikely she would characterise herself by emotions and over-ambitious targets. To address concerns about being wet, Brown would be an ideal deputy to Stanford, although two Auckland leaders is not ideal, it is not as problematic as two Wellington ones.

Bishop, notwithstanding the alleged failed plot late last year, is equally as compelling. Being Wellington based is no asset, but the Hutt is a bit different, and he is much more of an "everyman" able to reach across to a broader group of voters. He would need a deputy who is not Wellington based, and although he isn't a "wet" at all, he is socially liberal, so a more conservative deputy who is either Auckland or regionally/rural based would be ideal. Brown again would deliver this, although the push for a woman would suggest Stanford could be a choice, two social liberals might grate against part of the caucus.

I've not mentioned Willis although some would suggest she is the automatic choice, as the current Deputy. There is a clear couple of reasons for that. Firstly, she has anchored herself as a Luxon loyalist, it's difficult to see his weaknesses as not reflecting on her. Secondly, and far more importantly, she has not delivered on substance, particularly on the cost of living, but also notably in turning around the economy. Rather she has pushed relatively insignificant policy measures and issues with little real result. You can predict exactly what the Opposition is going to say, because so much of what she has pushed has delivered little.

I doubt more than 10% of voters could name Family Boost as one of her signature policies, because it's achieved little despite her efforts to publicise the handout. The Opposition has portrayed her as a harsh austerity Finance Minister, which if it were true, would have demonstrated results, with a path to surplus being sooner (and commensurate impacts on inflation and interest rates). She would have upset public sector unions, recipients of government largesse and leftwing academics, but at least would have some respect from the public for taking difficult decisions that were unpopular with some, for the sake of better long term outcomes. She didn't need to be Ruth Richardson to just take spending down to the levels (as a proportion of GDP) when Labour got elected in 2017. In reality she has stemmed the growth in government spending, but wears the banner of "cuts" and hasn't been able to repudiate it. What's much worse than her weakness on spending is the populist hobby horses she has chased to no avail. The utterly fake dressing down of the head of Fonterra for the high price of butter, when no one credible thought anything could be done about it (bear in mind she used to work for Fonterra as a lobbyist), was cringeworthy. Furthermore, she cried wolf so much about supermarkets so when it was clear that the main solution - RMA reform - was actually out of her hands, and given the price of groceries in New Zealand (when GST is taken into account) is not disproportionate to Australia, she couldn't communicate reality and back down after fuelling hype that delivered nothing. Finally, while she has claimed credit over lowered interest rates, that all about to reverse, thanks to a lowering dollar and now the war in the Middle East. She couldn't even get the Reserve Bank's profligacy under control. The public want action on the cost of living, but few believe she can do anything.

She might think she is entitled to be the next Prime Minister, but it's not clear what she has to offer. Most recently, her speech in Parliament about Iran demonstrated a patronising tone that focused not on the events in the Middle East, but what it means for New Zealanders. In foreign affairs, the public wants someone to talk convincingly about what is happening in defence and humanitarian terms, balancing the death and destruction of war, with the optimism of potentially ending a brutal tyranny, and concern about the end-game and what it means for the people involved. New Zealanders know they are far away, and they are not just concerned about inflation and trade, they do not just think of foreign relations as transactional, but as a matter of what is right and its global impacts.

So no, Willis is not the answer. She should not be the next Prime Minister and if Luxon is replaced, she should go too and be replaced, with a Finance Minister who understands what it takes to raise productivity and make New Zealand more attractive for starting and sustaining businesses. It isn't tax breaks for movies.

Of course nothing might happen. Maybe some National MPs want to retire early (!), maybe some think Luxon is misunderstood and the media is to blame, or the polls are missing those who are undecided and will be drawn to him for stability on voting day. They are all wrong. Luxon has been a disaster.

Labour has twice had one-term governments, and twice had two-term governments. National has never had a one-term government, or even a two-term government, but it nearly had a one-term government in 1993. It was saved not just by the voting system, but because voters rejected Mike Moore's second attempt to be Prime Minister as Bolger, just, convinced voters that tough decisions were made for later gain, which proved to be true.

There is a risk in rolling Luxon (and Willis) that it makes the government look like a mistake from the start, that it draws into question the whole period since the last election. However that risk is smaller than just fumbling along and hoping Labour will look less credible, and people will be frightened by the Greens and Te Pati Maori.

With a passionate principled Prime Minister, and a competent, economically literate and sharp minded Finance Minister, a blend of time and courage can convince voters than the National Party has listened and wants to give the public confidence in a new Prime Minister and refreshed impetus to focus on what matters the most to them. It needs to purge the mediocrity, the man who forever says "you know" (when you know he is trying to convince himself as much as you) and give New Zealanders passionate, competent and principled leadership. The time for change is now.

Mourning the Ayatollah

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 11:31:00 +0000

I understand those who think initiating military action against Iran is wrong because it risks lives and money with uncertain results. I also understand those who think intervention either to maintain international peace and security, or to relieve a humanitarian catastrophe (such as an oppressive murderous regime), should have multilateral endorsement.

However, if you are in a secular liberal democracy, and you mourn the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, then you're contemptible.

Of course you should be free to do it. As much as you are free to memorialise the death of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao etc.

Don't expect not to be ridiculed or despised for it though.

ABC (Australia) reports:

Ali Alsamail and Julie Karaki, directors at the Shia Muslim Council of Australia, a peak body, said Khamenei's death was a "religious and communal loss".

"Reducing his death to celebration alone erases the reality that millions are grieving," they said.

"At a time when the Muslim community is already carrying profound anguish over the humanitarian catastrophe and documented human rights violations in Gaza and elsewhere in the region, this moment compounds an already heavy burden."

Oh please.

If your beliefs, regardless of whether they are religious or secular, embrace anguish over someone who presided over a state that ran an oppressive theocracy, which would imprison, torture and execute opponents, including abusing women who didn't follow a misogynistic stone-age view of their rights, then you should bear the burden of others celebrating his death, and disdain from those who are concerned that you endorse such a political and philosophical perspective being applied more universally.

It's one thing to be concerned and upset about Gaza. I get that.

To be mourning and moreover to be demanding there be respect for that mourning is utterly anti-human.

Indeed the ABC continues:

Deakin University chair in global Islamic politics Greg Barton emphasised it was only five out of some 80 Shia mosques and centres in Australia that held commemorative events.

And he suggested the Iranian embassy could be pressuring Iranian religious groups in Australia to do the vigils.

"The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps runs not just a police state in Iran but to the best of their abilities, operates out of embassies and consulates to surveil the diaspora population," Professor Barton said.

Strength be to Iranians. They deserve freedom from the tyranny and oppression of a dark ages regime that treats them all as subservient subjects to a death cult version of Shia Islam.

If you're sad at the Ayatollah's death. Sure, you are free to be, and you are free to mourn, but don't expect any public displays of sadness to not be subject to judgment or criticism.

In particular, consider if you want anyone who is an acolyte of the Ayatollah to be working for you, serving you, working in a hospital, teaching children or, in particular, working in defence or law enforcement. Replace the word Ayatollah with "the Fuehrer" and all that goes with that, and you may be clearer on this.

Regime change in Iran should be celebrated.... if it happens

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 01 Mar 2026 11:23:00 +0000

Unless you're an Islamist, a tankie or a Jew hater, all of whom loathe individual freedom, secular liberal democracy and capitalism, you'll be elated at the sight of thousands of Iranians worldwide cheering on the attacks by the US and Israel on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Of course international relations lecturers, the UN and international law advocates will all claim that the attacks are "illegal", which may be true. They cite the inviolability of state sovereignty - the concept that all states are entitled to have inviolable borders and to be free from aggression.

The point of this is that people should be free from war, but the single biggest philosophical question in the context of the attack on Iran, is how legitimate is that principle when it protects a regime that wages war on its own people.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a tyranny, a misogynistic theocratic autocracy that does not hesitate to imprison, torture and execute dissidents. From its oppressive ultra-conservative treatment of women, to its global sponsorship of terror and promotion of its bigoted intolerant brand of theocratic totalitarianism, it is wilful blindness for anyone to claim that this regime was in any way peaceful, or had any remote sense of moral authority.

The celebration of Iranians in the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere for the killing of the Supreme Leader is a message of the illegitimacy of a regime that does not tolerate challenge, does not allow for peaceful transitions of power, and suppresses freedom of speech and the media egregiously.

The Iranian Islamist regime has funded, trained and armed terror groups in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Israel, and has provided arms for Russia's aggressive revanchist war against Ukraine.

There are fair and reasonable questions to be asked about the attacks on Iran:

Will the Islamic Regime actually be overthrown? Or could it remain in power through sheer brutal force against Iranians who seek to overthrow it?
What sort of government will replace it, and could it be worse (more radical)?
How will its proxies, such as the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas respond, spreading conflict further?

After all the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime saw the power gap replaced by an Iranian backed regime following the disaster of ISIS. The regime of Muammar Gaddafi was followed by civil war and bifurcation of the country. The US couldn't sustain the overthrow of the Taliban. So there is good reason to be sceptical about the US being willing to do what is necessary.

However, it is not a reason to cite the belief that the Islamic Republic of Iran is entitled to protection under "state sovereignty" because it doesn't respect the sovereignty of multiple sovereign states, nor does it respect the autonomy of its people.

Those granting the Iranian regime moral equivalency to Israel, the United States, to any liberal democracy, are either completely banal, or morally bankrupt.

When the Iranian revolution happened in 1979, there was much domestic opposition in Iran to the regime of the Shah, which was itself autocratic and intolerant. Some liberals and many Marxist activists backed the Islamic Revolution, and were promptly arrested and had their political movements suppressed.

Anyone who supports individual freedom and peace will want the end of this regime, let's just hope it happens, and Iranians, the Middle East and the world will be freer and more peaceful after this action against one of modern history's most brutal, terror promoting and fascist regimes.

The abomination of Britain's Gorton and Denton by-election

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:01:00 +0000

The UK is having one of its regular by-elections, this time in Gorton and Denton, a constituency in Manchester. The constituency was new at the 2024 election, and at the time was won by Labour's Andrew Gwynne with 50.8% of the vote, with Reform a distant second on 14.1%. Gwynne had been an MP for a previous constituency since 2005. He was suspended from the Labour Party for a series of Whatsapp messages ranging from joking about hoping a constituent dies, retweeting "sexualised comments" about deputy Angela Rayner, and claiming an American psychologist's name was "too militaristic and too Jewish", he subsequently resigned from Parliament due to ill health.

Gorton and Denton has a relatively low income nationally, with a significant (27%) Asian ethnic minority population, mostly Pakistani, but 57% are white Europeans. A slight majority voted for leaving the European Union in the 2016 referendum.

The campaign has been dominated by the Greens and Reform. The Greens claiming to be the party of the poor and for the Pakistani and Bengali population. Its campaign video depicts Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi, explicitly designed to stir up anti-Indian bigotry, as well as depicting Foreign Secretary David Lammy alongside Benjamin Netanyahu, designed to stir up anti-Israel bigotry. Reform's reaction to this is to call for a hardline against illegal immigration. Labour looks well behind, and the Conservatives are nearly irrelevant. The Greens say they are fighting the hate of Reform and racism, but Allister Heath, editor of the Sunday Telegraph sees the Greens as pandering to racist hate even moreso and calls for this all to stop.

From Allister Heath in the Daily Telegraph:

We should start by calling out the Greens for what they have become: a hateful, despicable, extremist party that has identified an entrepreneurial opportunity in weaponising tribalism, division, stagnant living standards, misinformation and envy. Their behaviour in Gorton and Denton has been abominable.

Following a playbook pioneered by far-Left parties worldwide, the Greens, now led by Zack Polanski, are targeting a red-green coalition of white, woke “progressives” and the reactionary subset of the Muslim electorate. These two groups may appear culturally incompatible, but they can be united not just by their support for socialism but also their often virulent Israelophobia, an atavistic prejudice that the Greens unashamedly pander to....

The Green candidate in Gorton and Denton was photographed wearing a keffiyeh, symbol of Palestinianism, has accused Reform of Islamophobia and racism, and has fronted a video in Urdu featuring Benjamin Netanyahu and Narendra Modi meeting Labour politicians, as if these were self-evident provocations and proof of a grand betrayal....

It’s a scandal. Extreme tribalism of the sort promoted by the Greens is incompatible with a democratic culture that requires a strong sense of commonality, a belief in a peoplehood that transcends differences of ideology, race, religion or class. It requires a neutral, single-tier rule of law, where citizens are treated as individuals, not as members of a group. Democracy isn’t just about tallying votes, and handing power to the winner. It is about debate, trying to change people’s minds, feedback mechanisms and punishing or rewarding politicians who fail or succeed.

None of this is possible in a world in which voters vote along religious or ethnic lines, and where the best that can be hoped for is peaceful coexistence and Northern Ireland-style or Lebanese confessionalist power-sharing. Under that scenario, democracy becomes a mere game of arithmetic, of demographic superiority. Outcomes are pre-determined, governed by community leaders.

This may not trouble the Greens: they have reinvented themselves as a vehicle for a new Left that combines Marxism-Leninism, Third Worldism, critical theory, and other radical anti-Western and anti-bourgeois philosophies. They detest private property and family values.

They support quasi-open borders and are soft on crime. They are infected by every Left-wing pathology of the past 200 years, every intellectual error. They have imbued the poison of “anti-colonial” Soviet propaganda, of woke writers such as Derrida, of fanatics such as Edward Said.

Britain used to be a beacon among nations, a country uniquely hostile to extremist parties. The British Union of Fascists never won a single council seat. The Communist Party of Great Britain only seized a couple of parliamentary seats in the 1930s and 1940s. The National Front never made it to Westminster. Militant grabbed Liverpool City Council but was kicked out of Labour by Neil Kinnock. The British National Party won councillors and MEPs, but just 1.9pc of the vote in 2010.

Our record mixes world-class success with catastrophic failure. Some groups have integrated extraordinarily well, and children of immigrants often do better at school and in the labour and housing market than the white British. There has been a surge in mixed-marriages.

At the same time, we have suffered the rise of Islamism, separatism and intra-minority tensions, fuelled by race-obsessed woke policies that denigrate Britishness. We use incorrect metrics: materialistic markers of achievement, rather than ideology. Numerous Islamists are well educated; doctors have been stuck off for anti-Semitism. Many British Jews, whose synagogues offer prayers to the Royal Family weekly, are having to reconsider their future in Britain.

The Panglossians, who believe that tensions will diminish spontaneously; that sectarian voting will wane as it did in England and Scotland by the 1970s; that secularism will dissolve all differences; that Islamism is overblown; that today’s minorities will rapidly become latter-day Huguenots or Irish immigrants, indistinguishable from the rest of the population in all but surname, are delusional.

In addition to slashing immigration, we will need to be more muscular. We will need to crack down pitilessly on extremism, including in some mosques or in local areas where prejudice is rife. We will need to learn from Singapore and other well-managed multicultural states. We cannot allow our country to fragment. Regardless of race or religion, we must all be British.

Ukraine : A fight for civilisation

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Wed, 25 Feb 2026 09:51:00 +0000

From the Daily Telegraph (UK):

And understandably: this is not just a struggle for Ukraine, but for the West itself. Aside from Beijing, which is not yet engaged in open warfare against us, the Kremlin has become a focal point for every authoritarian and sadist who would have us subjugated or dead.

The deformed child of 20th-century communism loves Putin. Neo-Nazis love Putin. The Chinese love Putin. The Venezuelan regime, or what’s left of it, loves Putin.

The North Koreans fight in his orc army. Even sponsors of jihadists are his bedfellows; on our first night in Ukraine, of the 297 drones and loitering munitions that were launched into the country, about 200 were Shahed drones made by Iran.

In his book The Fourth Political Theory, the nationalist Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin, nicknamed “Putin’s Rasputin”, lavished praise upon the “conservative revolutionist” Osama Bin Laden. The terror mastermind offered hope that “those values that were gathered into a heap and taken to the junkyard can still arise”, Dugin enthused.

Clearly, the overlap between Moscow and jihadism runs more than skin deep. Just as the Western far-Right conjures Putin as an anti-woke strongman rather than the murderous tyrant he is, Dugin absurdly projects onto jihadism a kind of orthodox cultural conservatism.

But what these repulsive groups really have in common is that they all loathe the free West. In recent years, three peoples have found themselves facing this omni-enemy on the civilisational frontlines: the Iranians, the Israelis and the Ukrainians. They know they stand together and they know they stand for us.

Herzog deserves to be welcomed

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 11:43:00 +0000

If Isaac Herzog were not Jewish and certainly were not Israeli, an objective assessment of him would see him ticking most mainstream liberal boxes on political views. He was a member of the Israeli Labor Party before it merged with Meretz to be the new secular centre-left party of Israel. Herzog believes in a two-state solution and “land for peace”, which is the mainstream view of virtually all liberal democracies across the world on the Israel-Palestine conflict. He is socially liberal. He was a strident critic of Netanyahu and was Leader of the Opposition for four and half years.

President of Israel is not the same as President of the United States. It is not an executive function, but a constitutional head of state. It is elected by the Knesset for a single seven-year term, and is largely a ceremonial and administrative function, not political. The President doesn’t declare war or decide on the budget or pass laws.

He’s currently visiting Australia in response to the worst terrorist attack in Australia’s history, which targeted Jews for being Jews, on the holiest of days, in Bondi on 14 December 2025. This is understandable, as Israel exists as the national homeland of Jews. He has travelled to Australia to offer condolences, sympathy and comfort to the families and friends of the 15 who were murdered, and the entire Australian Jewish community who feel vulnerable, threatened and frightened.

None of this matters to the psychopathic hate mobs who have been protesting in Australian cities about his visit, calling him a “war criminal” (even though he has literally no role whatsoever in declaring, waging or ending war) and choosing to disrupt solemn occasions created by the Jewish community to support themselves, and to mourn the dead.

Plenty of them are well meaning but ignorant people, who are riled up by anger about what happened in Gaza, which is nothing to do with Australian Jews and little to do with President Herzog, and of course which they don’t give any agency to Hamas which started the war by a sadistic massacre of Jews at a music festival, and abduction of hostages, many of which it killed. A mix of understandable distress and anger about the suffering of some, blends with hyperbolic propaganda, and the deep buckets of Jew hatred spread by Hamas and its backers in Tehran and elsewhere, to a venal expression of hate. Hate not just for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but a hatred of Israel itself, demands that it be eradicated (and who imagines what happens to Jews and Arabs who are happily Israeli citizens during and after this process), and of course anyone who opposes them is a fair target. Given most Jews support the existence of the State of Israel (even if many oppose the Netanyahu Government), it’s a very short jump to want to wipe Israel off the map and want to wipe Jews off the map or rather eject them from their homeland. You know the land that, if it were in Australia would “always is and always will be” their land?

Some are not well-meaning people of course. Those are the ones flying the flags of the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing solidarity of the ones who claim that there is a Zionist conspiracy running the media, governments and the world. Those are the ones who think the Bondi massacre was a false flag, or Israel’s fault. Those are the ones who want Jews to be scared, because they are probably pro-Israel. Those are the neo-Nazis, Hamas supporters and utterly evil.

Yet they all march, protest and shout together. They say nothing about the 30,000 murdered for protesting the brutal authoritarian Iranian Islamist regime. Like they say nothing about mass murders in Sudan, Syria, Ukraine or Burma. For they aren’t human rights activists, they don’t care about peace, let alone freedom of individuals. Nor do they care about the deaths of Muslims (for the ones in Iran don’t count, because they are rejecting an Islamist theocracy), or Arabs (see Syria’s civil war which saw no protests of Russia backing barrel bombing/chemical weapon dropping Assad).

It matters not to them that Herzog wants a Palestinian state, opposes settlements in the West Bank, wants peaceful co-existence and is simply in Sydney to give support, sympathy and courage to a Jewish community as shattered by its terror attack as Muslims in Christchurch were by the attack on them. They couldn’t just spend some days being quiet, letting Jews have space and time to be themselves, with a head of state that is there for them. No, they couldn’t.

The moronic can change, because almost everyone was once young, naïve and stupid. It doesn’t take much to learn something about the topic you protest about, to stop following your readily packaged social group going on protests you think are righteous because people you like think that way (and how could they be wrong). The malignant are another story. They deserve all of the contempt and disgust that polite company treats Nazis.

For they can't just let Jews live in peace.

Loony leftwing teachers

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 22 Jan 2026 10:08:00 +0000

In the UK...

"A Labour MP was prevented from visiting a school in his constituency because the teaching unions and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign do not like the fact that he believes Israel should have a right to exist. The MP in question is Damien Egan, who represents Bristol North East" ...

We know of this story only because Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, who describes himself as a Zionist, mentioned it during an address to the Jewish Labour Movement, without naming Egan. Reed said of the people who had scuppered Egan’s visit: ‘They will be called in, and they will be held to account for doing that, because you cannot have people with those kinds of attitudes teaching our children.

Well, Steve, there’s people with those kinds of attitudes teaching our children in pretty much every school in the country, save for a few free schools and some of those in the private sector

"In fact I cannot think of a single occupation more likely to be stocked with these pig-ignorant dunderheads than teaching, a calling which they gravitate towards because they are useless at everything else and also to acquire a soupçon of power which is otherwise wholly absent from their wretched, impotent lives"

Rod Liddle, The Spectator

Happy New Year

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Tue, 20 Jan 2026 20:22:00 +0000

It's a bit late. I thought of writing about the fact it is election year in New Zealand, but that seems almost inconsequential when the entire international order is being turned upside down, primarily because the President of the United States does not value individual freedom, liberal democracy, free market capitalism or alliances at all.

It's easy to cheer the overthrow of Nicholas Maduro, but perplexing to see the anointment of his Vice-President as someone Trump can "do business with" while snubbing the actual Opposition leader, who actually won the last election and has broad based support, because presumably she hasn't shown enough obeisance to him. Venezuela is better off, but not by as much as it could be.

It's also easy to be hopeful that Iranians will shrug off the evil, totalitarian Islamic Republic, and starve the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah from waging terror on the people they govern and hate, but note that for all of the bluster, it's far from clear what anyone else is doing to help Iranians remove their racist, misogynistic masters.

It's not so easy to be optimistic about Ukraine, even though it has largely held off the Russian military from total victory, because on the one hand Europe has been pathetic in providing support it needs, and President Trump has decided that Russia taking over its immediate neighbours is none of his business. On the other hand it is hard not to see Russia flailing about as a failing empire, with an economy largely fuelled by moral relativist allies buying its oil and gas, while producing 1980s era military hardware, as its population tumbles and it looks to Beijing to give it some assurance.

It's also not so easy to be optimistic about Taiwan, again although most of its citizens are willing to fight for their free, liberal democratic "Republic of China", because nobody really knows if Trump will help it, or not. Japan looks like it might help it, which would be a significant step. However, we know the leadership in both Canberra and Wellington are far more interested in selling goods to the aggressive PRC than in showing any moral leadership. Meanwhile, the PRC itself faces multiple challenges, ranging from a spiralling property investment debt bubble, declining population (especially among working age adults), 30 million more men than women and a population increasingly fed up with the distractions of the CCP.

It's difficult to not be pessimistic about the divide between the US and Denmark, Greenland and the rest of Europe. The US has almost unfettered access to Greenland for military purposes under NATO. The mineral resources of Greenland are far too costly to extract given the thickness of the Arctic tundra. The idea that the US, rather than Denmark or the people of Greenland themselves should govern the world's largest island because of an "imminent threat" is just absurd. There is no threat from the PRC through Greenland, and the threat from Russia seems specious when there us little effort to kneecap Russia's revanchism over Ukraine (and elsewhere). Turning all of Europe against the US is not something many would have forecast, but it makes Moscow and Beijing grin.

On the other hand, there is mild optimism that Israel remains capable of inflicting a bloody nose against Hamas when it seeks to wipe out Jews, although there is less optimism that an enduring peace settlement can come from Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Maybe the overthrow of Iran could help that, but so would US pressure on Israel.

There is some optimism that the self-sabotaging policies of many Western countries, in regulating and taxing industries for the sake of mitigating climate change, only to see those industries shift to China, India and elsewhere that do not care one bit about mitigating climate change, is coming to an end. However, there is little optimism that it will be matched by liberalising economies and freeing them from the constraints that mean Europe, in particular, generates little new business innovation on a global scale.

There is also optimism that the trend towards the post-modernist critical constructivism that ranks people like Marxist-Leninists, according to fictional hierarchies of oppression and domination, is losing traction. More and more people are resisting the confected idea that merely because of your race, sex, gender and sexuality you're either an enlightened downtrodden oppressed victim who needs to be "listened to" and "empowered" (even if you're already a high-profile politician or celebrity with a large personal fortune) or an obsolete oppressive white supremacist (you don't even have to be white) misogynist who should be "shut down" and "know your place" (even if you're an unknown nobody who owns little). This whilst those claiming it are living in the economic and social system that has allowed the greatest level of prosperity, freedom of self-expression and diversity of viewpoints and lifestyles in human history.

However, the pessimism is that part of the reaction to this is to embrace post-modernist conspiratorialism that is xenophobic, ultra-nationalist and anti-capitalist, that doesn't just want to leave peaceful people alone, treats outsiders as the enemy rather than people who can embrace free-market capitalist high-trust liberal democratic society, and sees criticism of itself as being as binary as the far-left critical constructivists.

Nevermind, I have something else on my mind this year.

What the Gaza protestors could have done to not stir up Jew Hatred

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Wed, 17 Dec 2025 06:03:00 +0000

I’m not going to pretend that I would protest for any movement that has the support of Hamas or Fatah, but of course anyone in a liberal democracy has the right to express their views on what happens in Gaza. The consequences of some of those views are to stir up not just hatred of Israel, but hatred of Israelis and of course of Jews, despite the claims of best efforts of many protesting that they oppose all forms of “anti-semitism” (and curiously then say also “Islamophobia” et al, because you can’t just criticise Jew hatred without relativising it with hatred of the people of the religion that seems to have a disproportionate number of promoters of Jew hatred).

People can protest for an independent Palestinian state (the idea it would be “free” is fanciful, but the far-left, which dominates these protests, regarded leaders from Robert Mugabe to Macias Nguema to be “liberating” their people), but perhaps some of the following might be less likely to encourage and promote Jew hatred:

• Exclude anyone calling to “globalise the intifada”: Don’t kid yourself. If you read about what the Palestinians intifadas involved, it was targeting Israeli civilians in terror attacks. Intifada is violent resistance. If you want to undertake it globally, who do you want to target? Who will get targeted? It’s Jews (nobody undertaking such attacks.

• Exclude anyone supportive of Hamas or the 7th October attack or justifying them: Justifying most murderous pogrom of Jews since the Holocaust, at a music festival is justifying violence against civilians. It wasn’t an attack on a military target, but much worse than that, it took men, women and children as hostages. It saw the gleeful slaughter of young people because they were Jews. If you want to justify the sadistic slaughter and taking of civilian hostages because of who they are, then you’ll justify it happening anywhere.

• Exclude anyone using symbols that place the Star of David into a rubbish bin or depict it with a swastika: Equating any regime with Nazi Germany is a tall order. Russia’s actions in Ukraine could justify it, given the use of the Z slogan, the abduction of children, the direct targeting of civilians and the desire to destroy Ukrainian culture, but the Gaza protestors are uninterested in that. North Korea has many shades of Nazism, given its totalitarian system that tolerates zero dissent and promotes racial superiority. However, to link Jews to the regime that sought to eliminate them is promoting Jew hatred. That’s not a call for a Palestinian state it’s a call to wipe them out wherever they may be.

• Promote peace talks and a two-state solution, not the extinction of Israel: Most governments agree that this is the only solution for a lasting peace, but so many protestors call for Israel to be destroyed. If you are chanting for the destruction of the Jewish homeland (where Jews have lived for thousands of years), then you’ll justify destruction of those who want to retain it and to keep Jews as a global diaspora always at the mercy of others.

• Call for the overthrow of Hamas and for Gaza (and the West Bank) to be a secular liberal democracy: If you just think Gazans should live under the jackboot of Hamas, with its explicit Jew hatred and support for eliminating Jews, then you’re hardly damning attacks on Jews are you?

• Demand an end to foreign support for Hamas: Iran and Qatar both fund and support Hamas, and Iran in particular constantly expounds Jew hatred, including Holocaust denial and tropes about Jews running the world. Maybe, just once, protest against the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Of course you can criticise Netanyahu, any Israeli political party, you can call for the occupation to end, you can call for a Palestinian state, but if you are silent on Hamas, silent on the Jew hatred that drips from Palestinian political movements and welcome explicitly anti-semitic individuals and their rhetoric into your protests, you’re part of the problem.

Some activists say that if you have one Nazi at your protest, you’re at a Nazi protest. Well, there is no lack of people that are part of the pro-Palestine movement who expound Jew hatred. Whether it is the trope that the Jews run the world, or that Mossad was responsible for 9/11, the Holocaust was exaggerated (or there was a good reason for it), there is plenty of evidence that that movement attracts Jew hatred.

Maybe, just maybe, treat these like you claim to treat people who are racist…

Oh and calling "despicable" the act of lighting a museum in the colours of the Israeli flag days after it had suffered an explicitly anti-semitic attack of Jew murder, isn't caring about Jews, is it MP for Auckland Central?

Sadly I wont be holding my breath while you pretend all your colleagues, friends and fellow travellers are all good people who are “anti-violence”.

It's all empty words.

The intifada came to Sydney

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 14 Dec 2025 20:33:00 +0000

When the leftie kids go on marches shouting "globalise the intifada" alongside the geriatric tankies and the blood-thirsty Salafist and Wahhabist Islamists (who know what it mean), they probably think it means protest marches, blog posts and "deplatforming" ~~Jews~~ Israelis.

Well Bondi is what it means. A group of murderers out to target Jews in a place far away from the Middle East, living lives of peace. It's not just the 15 murdered by the fascist Islamists, it's the pipe bombs found and the car containing explosives. The intifada perpetrators wanted a bloodbath - in Bondi - because they hated Jews.

Whether it's about Gaza or Palestine, or the age old belief that Jews control the world, or whatever it is, doesn't matter so much. When you call for a global holy war for your cause, then this is the result. This, when Gaza is under a ceasefire.

Jews are frightened in Tel Aviv, London, Paris and Sydney, and everywhere, because politicians enable a small bunch of radicals to let fascist ideology take over marches and protests that started almost instantly after the 7th October pogrom was launched.

Jews are always afraid of Nazis, so are Muslims, so are the many others Nazis hate, but they aren't the main cause of their fear. They fear the (Iranian supported) Islamists who want to wage war against them globally, and the far-left academics and students who cheer them on, or apologise for them, or now... say this is a false flag that Mossad set up.

The problem is mainstream politicians, not just the far-left, have appeased it as well.

If you don't think there is a direct line from the ghouls who were "elated" on Sydney streets after 7th October, or stood outside the Sydney Opera House shouting "where's the Jews" or "gas the Jews" (it hardly matters), then you're kidding yourself.

It's time for those politicians to come out, to make it explicitly clear that there shall be no intifada, that Jew hatred must be expunged from the public space AND from mosques that expound it, and that Australia is no place for anyone who justifies terrorism, or wants to make any peaceful citizens fear for their existence.

SH1 improvements in Wellington - a lot to like, but it wont complete the job

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 11 Dec 2025 06:36:00 +0000

So this was a quick couple of hours of thoughts... Feedback to NZTA is due by Sunday 14 December if you are interested.

Background information is here (PDF)

A video flythrough is here

Apologies, I've been following this whole segment of road for far too long, from growing up being driven through Mt Victoria Tunnel, to some work on the Inner City Bypass 20 odd years ago to living near the tunnel today.

....

The Government’s proposal for a 2nd Mt Victoria Tunnel, 2nd Terrace Tunnel, reconfiguration of the roads around the Basin Reserve and widening of Vivian St is the latest set of proposals to fix the unfinished business of the Wellington Urban Motorway. We will see whether all, some or any of it proceeds, but for the sake of Wellington at least some of it should (specifically the tunnels), because the status quo, notwithstanding the largely evidence free claims of Green Party politicians, is an absurd waste of time and energy in a city of this size.

History

It wouldn’t be hard to write a book about the history behind all of this, which started with then US consultancy firm De Leuw Cather, preparing a “transportation master plan” for Wellington. It considered the option of a waterfront motorway (see Seattle and San Francisco for now demolished versions of this), but preferred what was known as the Foothills Motorway. It follows the existing motorway, with two instead of one Terrace Tunnel (3 lanes each way), with 2 lanes continuing on a motorway going under and over various streets and, initially, demolishing the Basin Reserve for a motorway interchange, before finishing up at a second Mt Victoria Tunnel (2 lanes each way using the existing tunnel). De Leuw Cather also proposed placing the Wellington commuter rail service underground to Courtenay Place, through the reclamation land. Of course that latter proposal wasn’t going anywhere, but the motorway started from Ngauranga (not connected to Ngauranga Gorge, but rather as just an extension of the Hutt Road from the Hutt). In the 1960s and early 1970s, the motorway cut a swathe through Thorndon and Kelburn, with much of a cemetery dug up and interred in a mass grave (don’t think that this was an era of much consecration to Christian religious values). However, the 1974 oil crisis (entirely stemming from the Yom Kippur War) saw a slowing down of the project, with the Muldoon Government ultimately deciding that it (and multiple other road projects) would be terminated at Willis Street, with the segment from Bowen Street south halved in scope. One Terrace Tunnel, one lane southbound, two lanes northbound.

At the time, with the motorway only being SH2 (SH1 still being the Hutt Road from Ngauranga to Aotea Quay, and continuing along the waterfront to the termination point of Jervois Quay and Taranaki Street), this made some sense. It was never congested, and the scale of traffic through Te Aro was easily handled by the Vivian St/Ghuznee Street one way pair.

In 1983 the Ngauranga Interchange changed all that, by around doubling traffic on the motorway, the end of the motorway became a bottleneck, exacerbated by the single lane in the tunnel. Further bottlenecks existed with Ghuznee Street and Buckle Street, with the dog leg route from the Basin Reserve to the motorway being utterly unsuitable for the traffic volumes going through it. This situation persisted for 12 years.

Meanwhile, a scaled back proposal to ease the traffic pressure came from the then National Roads Board. A motorway extension designed as an arterial highway with 70km/h speed standards. The original plan to destroy the Basin Reserve for a motorway interchange (which had been shelved some years previously) was replaced with a highway bridge across the northern boundary of the park. The Terrace and Mt Victoria Tunnels would be linked by a fully grade separated highway going under Willis and Victoria Streets, severing Cuba Street (except for a pedestrian bridge), passing over Taranaki Street before darting under Tory and Sussex Streets. One lane would extend from Mt Victoria Tunnel under Sussex Street to join a second lane from the south. Whereas one lane would exit at the Basin to Cambridge Terrace and Dufferin St, with one lane extending to Mt Victoria Tunnel.

1980 scaled down motorway extension proposal before it got dropped in a trench in 1991

Fully trenched but not covered in this brutalist image that looks like it was designed to kill it

The next decade or so would see the project rise up the regional priority rating, as other projects were built: Upper Hutt Bypass, Mungavin Interchange, Silverstream-Manor Park 4-laning etc, but then the funding system for roads was reformed. The Ministry of Works was abolished, and shortly thereafter, Ruth Richardson slashed funding for roads. At the time, funding was mostly allocated based on a cost/benefit analysis, with 25 year return periods. For around two years funding was not even sufficient to keep up with maintenance, and as the 90s progressed, the Wellington Urban Motorway arterial extension went up in cost and was always borderline for funding. However, it always had a BCR of over 2 when the threshold for funding was 5 or 4.

At the same time the nascent Green Party campaigned vehemently against it. To try to address concerns the project was first redesigned to be trenched the whole way across Te Aro, then put in a cut-and-cover tunnel to the bridge on the north of Basin (called Tunnellink). However, it was clear by the mid 1990s that funding wasn’t likely for over a decade. So a three stage project was advanced. First a simple one-way pairing of Buckle and Vivian Street, followed by what is now known as Karo Drive. Karo Drive literally took around 12 years from its inception to opening, largely because of the opposition to it by the Green Party spreading vast amounts of misinformation. Then Green MP Sue Kedgley always called it a “motorway extension”, and eventually when it got funded by Transfund, and all legal avenues under the RMA to stop it were exhausted, it got built. It was only meant to be a ten year stopgap until the Tunnellink could be built.

However, by then Transit NZ (later to be merged with Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority) had largely given up on the idea of a cut and cover tunnel. So the next step was to fix the Basin Reserve, and plus ça change it was stopped by an organised campaign of the Greens and Mt Victoria NIMBYs. This was for a two-lane 50km/h one lane bridge clear of the Basin Reserve, westbound.

2001 - preferred Basin grade separation without Tunnellink

2008 - one of the options for the Basin Bridge

At the tail end of the Key/English Government there was a commitment to a second Mt Victoria Tunnel, but of course that all was stopped under the Ardern Government, as the Greens made sure that the Let’s Get Wellington Moving project would prioritise emission reductions, and put little value on reducing general traffic congestion.

The Ardern/Hipkins Government did support a second tunnel, but it was to close the existing tunnel to motor vehicle traffic, and build a new one with four-lanes, two for buses. In short, no relief for general traffic.

What’s been proposed?

So here we are today with essentially five main elements to upgrading SH1 through Wellington. Once again the Greens are talking about “building a motorway through Wellington” which it absolutely does not do. It doesn’t build one metre more of motorway, but it does widen one section along an existing motorway corridor. The five elements are:

- Second Terrace Tunnel

- Upgrading SH1’s one-way pair through Te Aro

- Basin Reserve reconfiguration

- Second Mt Victoria Tunnel

- Widening eastern approach roads to Mt Victoria Tunnels.

Second Terrace Tunnel: This is sensible, because it will the single biggest measure to remove 20% of traffic from the waterfront route. It is on a smaller scale than the original proposal (will be two-lanes not three southbound and the existing tunnel will only be two-lanes northbound), but should not be controversial. What will constrain it is…

Upgrading SH1 through Te Aro: Reversing forty years of planning, Te Aro will still be blighted by heavy highway traffic pushing through it, by widening Vivian Street (which has been designated on the Wellington District Plan for many years) to three lanes one way. As a stopgap this is satisfactory from a traffic flow point of view. but is hardly a long-term solution. It should have a cut-and-cover tunnel along the line of Karo Drive, which would be expensive and disruptive, but would be transformational for Te Aro. A proper bypass would make a huge difference, but for now with the two tunnels being the major bottlenecks, that idea isn’t progressing. In short, this will be the new bottleneck, exposing the greatest number of pedestrians (and traffic) to delays and emissions. It’s the cheap part of the package, and it will need to be addressed at a later date.

What’s disconcerting is that there is little future proofing to enable a solution to his, especially with this proposal…

Basin Reserve reconfiguration: There is no shortage of options designed to fix this problem, which is essentially the need to separate east-west traffic from north-south traffic, while also allowing it to interchange. The latest proposal partially separates traffic, but it means the same number of traffic light controlled intersections westbound and eastbound on SH1. See below:

No doubt clearing Mt Victoria Tunnel congestion will improve eastbound flows, but it is far from clear that retaining a network of pedestrian controlled traffic lights and keeping SH1 at ground level in front of the Basin Reserve will not create new bottlenecks, and worsen the concentration of traffic/emissions across the northern side of the Basin. The Rugby/Dufferin Street sections outside the schools will be quieter, but be a ratrun for traffic from the city to SH1 west, and from Newtown to SH1 east. The big winner is north-south traffic to and from Newtown towards the city.

No doubt there will be a net improvement, but it is clear from the proportion of benefits of the total package that this is where not much will be gained. What’s particularly concerning is that it doesn’t look like it provides for future proofing building a parallel eastbound pair of lanes to take traffic from Vivian Street and over to the second Mt Victoria Tunnel. I understand the reluctance to elevate SH1 near the Basin, but it could be done by elevating Sussex Street over SH1 and building an artificial hill to carry the road with significant mitigation of the visual and noise impacts of a bridge. This is a mess. The new Green Link looks like it is preserving an option, or maybe it is preventing it.

Second Mt Victoria Tunnel: This is like past proposals and is entirely suitable as a solution to this problem. It is a shame that westbound its capacity will be constrained by unnecessary intersections at the Basin.

Widening eastern approach roads: Four-laning Ruahine St and Wellington Rd (six lanes at points) has long been the right approach, but the design of intersections seems bizarre indeed. Grade separating at Hataitai Park (to a new road where houses currently exist) seems over the top. The removal of Taurima St access to Mt Victoria Tunnel needs a solution, as does access to Hataitai Park, but why is this intersection getting such lavish treatment, but Wellington Rd/Ruahine St (which enables access from Newtown to the airport, from Hataitai to Newtown, and for access to southern Newtown to and from SH1 bypassing the bottleneck in front of the Hospital) is curtailed to simple slip lanes in one direction only? The latter should be a full scale intersection. Previous plans simply had an elaborate intersection at Goa Street, although there is some merit in having grade separation, it seems odd that a low traffic intersection gets it, but not the much heavier traffic ones at Kilbirnie Crescent and Evans Bay Parade (although imagine the outcry if that were proposed).

There are lots of minor details in this section which make access between Kilbirnie, SH1 and Hataitai worse, presumably to save money from more comprehensive wider intersections. Much of this looks worse for residents. In particular, anyone driving from Newtown to the airport will weirdly have to drive through Kilbirnie’s CBD (but not in the other direction). Anyone driving from Hataitai to Newtown will either have to go through Mt Victoria Tunnel to ratrun past the stands at the Basin Reserve, or go into Kilbirnie and ratrun up Duncan Tce. (a narrow street with poor visibility at the top).

This is all details though in intersection design, which I expect locals to have their views on. The Greens are claiming a big increase in traffic in Moxham Avenue will occur, but that’s mostly a shift from Taurima Street and the existing intersection on Ruahine Street.

Thinking more widely

There is talk of tolling the route, although no details have been presented, it is difficult to envisage it not simply being at the tunnels. On its own this would have merit if the whole proposal enabled free flow traffic all the way. It doesn’t. Paying a toll to drive through the Terrace Tunnel to end up at Vivian Street isn’t a compelling proposition, and would divert local traffic from the tunnel to The Terrace. Likewise paying to use Mt Victoria Tunnel to reach a pair of traffic light controlled junctions by the Basin Reserve. A full scale freeflow bypass would be another proposition, offering a high value fast trip, but that isn’t what is proposed.

On the other hand, a central Wellington congestion pricing scheme within the boundaries of SH1, which helps pay for this, would have much more merit as it would reduce traffic towards the city at peak times, and enable better flow of traffic around it. An AM peak inbound, PM peak outbound price for driving in and out of Wellington on weekdays would have some merit.

Much has been raised about the BCRs of the project, but although I put some value on economic analysis, when it comes to tunnels, the return period for them is much longer than any conventional highway or bridge. Tunnels last almost forever once dug, and only need moderate upgrades throughout their existence. So I treat the two tunnels as very long term investments in addressing the resilience of the city’s transport network, and enabling a future full scale bypass of the city.

Claims from the likes of the Greens that “car tunnels” (a deliberate misinformation campaign to diminish the role of freight and buses) will just induce more traffic are largely nonsense, especially if congestion pricing is introduced in parallel. There is no more capacity that will be build north of Ngauranga Interchange, so more traffic cannot be attracted from that direction, and with much of the traffic on the route bypassing the city, little of that is going to be attracted from public transport to driving. Modern cities have good bypasses, Wellington has lacked it for decades.

So I’m in favour of the tunnels, in favour of the widening east of Mt Victoria Tunnel (with some caveats), but the upgrade through Te Aro is cheap and nasty, and needs to make provision for something better once the two tunnels are built. It will be obvious the city needs a proper bypass. The Basin Reserve proposal is messy and poor value. It’s unclear why north-south traffic going in a four-lane trench is better than being on a four-lane bridge over the east-west traffic, and why so many light controlled intersections should be kept. It should be reconsidered.

And for the opponents...

"A City for People" is, of course, a Green Party oriented activist site (they always claim to be non-partisan, even though the members are largely not) ideologically and philosophically aligned to the other Green oriented activist ginger groups (which have a lot of interchangeable members) like Generation Zero, Parents for Climate Aotearoa, Cycle Wellington, Women in Urbanism, Renters United and the Sustainability Trust.

The propaganda inference is that if you don't support their policies, you don't want a "city for people". It's a shade of the People's Republics, which imply if you oppose them, you're opposed to The People. While I have some support for their campaign to enable more intensification, this isn't a group in favour of more freedom and less government. It is not in favour of people who want to drive, or people who ship goods or deliver goods.

It claims "A whole generation of people are being forced out from the city spending hours every day in traffic jams". While I have lot of sympathy about housing prices, the idea that people in Wellington are spending "hours every day in traffic jams" is nonsense.

It states:

The cost of this project is truly bananas. Per kilometre it’s the most expensive roading project in the entire country. It’s $2.9-3.8 billion (with a B - looks like this).

And it’s all about a relatively small aspect of Wellington’s transport problems: private-car congestion at selected times.

It makes no attempt to fix what will make the most difference to people (and LGWM’s origin story): the bus-network that’s already at capacity and hamstrung by being stuck in general traffic.

Even just for general traffic congestion, this project is jumping to a platinum-plated mega project solution before we’ve tried all the other things first.

It could do irreparable harm to Wellington, just as we’re starting the transition to being a real city.

It IS expensive, but tunnels are. I'd note that the Let's Get Wellington Moving project to build a single tram line to Island Bay and a second Mt Victoria Tunnel that added no new road capacity (but freed up the existing tunnel entirely for cycling and walking, and added lanes for buses) was $7.4 billion. That would have delivered a tram to Island Bay that would have been no faster than current bus services, and only modest relief to traffic congestion at the Basin Reserve.

The claim that the proposal is just about addressing "private car congestion" is misinformation, and minimises a situation that exists most of the day during weekdays and much of the weekends. It also affects bus congestion from the eastern and southern suburbs at the Basin and Kilbirnie Crescent. It isn't just cars, it's also trucks (the Greens pretend freight doesn't matter), taxis and rideshare services, besides the majority of trips undertaken in Wellington are by car, either as drivers or passengers.

It WILL fix bus network capacity issues, especially at the Basin Reserve, Kent Terrace and from the Eastern Suburbs, as traffic will flow much more freely, and take 20% of traffic off of the waterfront route. It's wilful blindness to pretend otherwise (because these people think any new road capacity is malign).

The claim it is a "platinum plated mega project solution" before "we've tried all the other things first" is pejorative nonsense, especially from people who were happy to spend double that, mostly on a tunnel and tram line. The only option that might help somewhat is road pricing, but the advocacy for that is muted. There is no realistic chance of significant modal shift for trips that bypass the city, because they have a diverse range of origins and destinations. Likewise, without an additional tunnel to the eastern suburbs, there will not be modal shift from there as buses cannot flow freely. It's fair to object to spending a lot on transport infrastructure, but not when you're solutions are more expensive and require significantly more taxpayer cost over time to subsidise their operations.

The claim it could do "irreparable harm" to Wellington is pejorative hyperbole. The land for the second tunnels is hardly significant, part of it is within the motorway corridor in any case.

Finally, their claims about the proposals are weak:

It aims to “fix” traffic congestion by building a bigger road in the centre. Never, not ever, has this worked.
If you look at the numbers for how LGWM’s package was going to “fix traffic”, it wasn’t the very expensive road-building that was going to do the heavy lifting: it was congestion charging (digital infrastructure and some gantries) and the second spine for public transport (paint, signage, timetabling). And the costs for civil construction (which this expansion project is all about) have rocketed since then.
There are lots of flaws with the logic: smooth, faster-flowing traffic through the city centre while also somehow not worsening severance in Te Aro, and while also allowing lots of cars to turn on and off it…
Its Cost-Benefit Ratio is already low (even with the extra-low discount rate now allowed to be used) and the Inner City Bypass was found to have been probably not worth the money spent on it (we lose more than we gain from having it) so it’s highly likely this will be worse given its far greater costs. The opportunity cost of this public money is dismaying.

First bullet is wrong. It is not a bigger road in the centre at all, and yes building new roads has fixed congestion in many cases, especially in smaller cities. Many cities have inner bypasses that work, such as Oslo, Berne and Bergen, and they DO relieve congestion. The first motorway in New Zealand, the Johnsonville-Tawa segment, remains adequate for traffic at most times and there is NO proposal to widen it. It's time that the oft-claimed "every new road induces traffic until it fills up" is tempered by reality that this is only true in some cases.

Yes, congestion charging will have a big impact on traffic, which is also being enabled by this government. The second spine for public transport wont work effectively without a better bypass to take through traffic off the waterfront (and any good congestion charging scheme enables traffic to bypass it because public transport does not do well serving most demand that does not start or terminate in the central city). Furthermore, just converting lanes on the waterfront to bus lanes will make congestion worse, which backs up to buses elsewhere in the network.

The third bullet has a point. Not building a proper bypass under Te Aro will worsen the severance due to SH1, but the Greens spent years campaigning against a cut and cover tunnel under Te Aro to fix this. Nothing will magically fix this problem, short of kneecapping the economy and demand for travel.

Yes it is a low value project, but it underestimates the real lifecycle benefits of tunnels (which last for much longer than any appraisal period). It is fair to argue about the opportunity cost of the money, but then I don't think the people pushing this want people to pay lower taxes and spend the money themselves! The Greens opposed the project when it had BCRs of 2-5 in the 1990s, with a much higher discount rate and 25 year appraisal period. It is difficult to believe that if it had a BCR of 5 or 10 the opposition would change, it is a blanket opposition to any new road capacity regardless of whether it is priced or not.

The whole wording of the opposition is childish and sneering towards people's choices. The language that sneers at ""popping down to Moore Wilsons” and “going to pick the kids up cos it’s raining”" is misanthropic. So what if people want to do that, as long as they pay at peak times. Most people can't live within walking or cycling distances of where they want to go.

These groups stopped Wellington getting a proper bypass in the 1990s and beyond, and the blight of having at at-grade SH1 through Te Aro is because of this philosophy.

Could it be better? Yes. Should there be pricing? Yes. Should it mean the tunnels shouldn't proceed? No.

Jews are targets for being Jews in England - and it's not from the traditional far right

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 05 Oct 2025 02:55:00 +0000

When Jews get targeted in what should be safe liberal democracies, it doesn't quite see the same response as when Muslims or targeted or even the general populace. We all recall that, by and large, the Christchurch mosque attack saw universal outrage and condemnation. Muslims targeted for who they are. Utterly innocent, and nobody would utter that they had some fault because they hadn't condemned say the Taliban, ISIS, Iran or any of the multitude of Islamofascist terror or totalitarian regimes. Certainly had anyone wanted to protest against the actions of any such groups the very next day, it would have been frowned upon and scorned. However, when it comes to Jews, targeted by association with Israel and therefore the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza, there is no thought around taste and sensitivity. The "pro-Palestinian" protestors (who range from people expressing concern over humanitarian conditions, to those wanting to wipe out Israel and "globalise the Intifada" (!) don't give a damn, after all it wasn't THEM doing it. Besides, "genocide". If you think that there is a deliberate campaign to wipe out an entire people, then a few Jews being killed by a jihadist are a mere detail.

Jews, you see, have a tryptych of groups who hate them. Traditionally their chief enemies were the (self-styled) Christian-aligned far-right, which of course inspired the Nazis, and are seen today in the actual far-right (you know, the Holocaust denying, "wrong side won the war", white power, big state type - not the current trend to call free-market liberal or traditionalist conservatives fascists). Their attacks on Jews are rare, thankfully.

The bigger problems are Islamists, often motivated by wanting to wipe out Israel, but also buying into pretty much the whole panoply of neo-Nazi conspiratorial Jew hate, and the far-left. The far-left, who also tout the anti-concept "whiteness" see Jews as "ultra-white". Jews are rich, successful in many industries and in politics, and of course are seen as "colonists" wherever they go. In the far-left's endless desire to categorise people under critical theory as "oppressed" vs. "oppressors", Jews get placed in the latter, so they don't count... again. They don't count.

As Nick Cohen said in the Spectator:

If they were from any other minority, no one on the left would have the slightest trouble denouncing the deaths of 53-year-old Adrian Daulby and 66-year-old Melvin Cravitz as the result of a lethal racist attack. A terrorist with the resonant name of Jihad Al-Shamie – talk about nominative determinism – went for them because they were Jews.

He continues:

Last night pro-Palestinian demonstrators couldn’t give it a rest – not even for 24 hours. They were outside Downing Street and Manchester’s Piccadilly station, chanting all the old slogans and ducking all the hard questions. ‘Globalise the intifada,’ they cried – does that mean killing Jews in Manchester? ‘Palestine will be free from the river to the sea’ – does that mean driving out all the Jews living between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan?

It should be the easiest thing in the world for pro-Palestinian demonstrators to reject accusations of Jew hate and dismiss these questions as smears. It’s not anti-Semitic to denounce Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli far right. Nor is it in any way racist to deplore the reduction of Gaza to a charnel house of rubble and bones.

Yet much of the British left cannot defend itself against charges of bigotry because many leftists (not all, but many) refuse to define anti-Jewish racism and declare it unacceptable. They can’t and won’t because any condemnation of anti-Semitism would imply a condemnation of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian theocrats. Rather than take a stand against the very people who have led the Palestinian cause to disaster, they prefer to say nothing at all.

Remember when Phil Twyford was hounded at a "pro-Palestine" rally for condemning Hamas?

Remember also the elation expressed by Islamist preachers protesting in Sydney just after October 7th.

As Julie Burchill said in the Spectator last year:

Excitement is the often overlooked element when it comes to anti-Semitism – an excitement that is almost sexual. There is a sadistic feeding frenzy to this anti-Jewish crusade, as though the rape rampage of Hamas made the cause of anti-Semites more, not less, worth rallying around. The ‘Paraglider Girls’ convicted this week appeared like overgrown Girl Guides, their grim insignia a twist on badges for Kayaking or being an Emergency Helper – only evil.

The fact that the pro-Palestinian marches started before Israel actually retaliated was a big tell; these people weren’t marching against Israel defending itself, but in favour of Israel being attacked. Unless they all had access to a big old time-travel machine, of course.

Nazis did this, the far-right does this, Maoists do this, and the Islamists do it.

It is, of course, entirely possible to protest against the Israeli Government, to call for peace and negotiations for a two-state solution. Remember though that many of the protestors for Palestinians don't want this. John Minto's Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa explicitly says:

PSNA aims to change public opinion and bring pressure on the New Zealand government to join the majority of the international community in requiring Israel to recognize and support the following principles:

A just peace in Palestine depends upon the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland and the dismantling of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel, recognizing that the further partitioning of Palestine in order to create the so-called Two-State Solution would only lead to further injustice and suffering.
Acceptance of the primacy of international law and United Nations resolutions as the basis for the ending of military occupation and all forms of ethnic discrimination in Israel.
The international community's responsibility for upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the urgent need for the state of Israel to be called to account for its gross abuses of Palestinian human rights.
Justice requires the establishment of a single state in Palestine, bi-national, secular and democratic, with full and equal citizenship for all with ethnic and religious rights protected in a democratic constitution.

So it wants Israel to recognize (sic.) that it should be destroyed, it rejects the "so-called Two-State Solution" and wants a single state that is secular and democratic. This is the policy of Hamas, it isn't even the policy of Fatah and the Government of the Palestinian Authority.

The entire mainstream left, including academia and much of the media refuses to call out the extremists in the pro-Palestinian movement, who celebrated October 7th and call for destruction of Israel, chant "from the river to the sea" as part of that, and then call to "globalise the intifada".

Murdering Jews at synagogues is what globalising the intifada looks like. For all of the mealy mouthed nonsense, it's a movement of violence and harassment, and it co-opts far-left Jew haters and far-right ones to join in on their embrace of the world's oldest hatred.

Unless those wanting justice for Palestinians can purge themselves of their Jew haters, can purge themselves of those who are the Islamist far-right (a tautology I know) as much as the Zionist ultra-nationalists who want to declare Judea and Samaria as Israeli land and purge it of Arabs, are the equivalent, then they are accomplices to Jew hatred.

Matthew Syed, a centrist journalist from The Times, went to a Palestine protest and asked "“Who do you blame for what is unfolding in Gaza? Do you think Hamas bears any responsibility?” and:

Here’s what happened next, as their friendly faces turned to, well, something else. “Go away,” one said. “Go away. You are a bad faith actor. We don’t want to talk to you. Just f*** off. It’s a really boring old line. You are disgusting.” “I am disgusting?” “Yes, you are disgusting. You are not a journalist. It’s very clear what your position is here.” Now, their voices were getting louder: “Piss off.” “Thanks for your time, I appreciate it,” I said retreating, but they were not finished. “What are you doing here anyway? You are prejudiced. Hopefully nobody will ever buy a book you write. You are a charlatan. You are a fucking racist.”

So they couldn't even accept Hamas bore some responsibility. Couldn't even say "sure, but Israel has overreacted".

It got worse:

I wish I could tell you that this was a one-off but I spoke to at least two dozen people and, with two exceptions (including a lovely black guy from north London who conversed intelligently and politely), the motivation for being here was obvious, potent and implacable. The hatred of Jews. I heard conspiracy theories (October 7 was a false flag operation), blood libels, and the pervasive view that the Manchester atrocity was not a heinous attack but righteous comeuppance for an evil people. My sense is that many felt liberated to say what they really thought by the proximity of like-minded others; the classic symptom of mob mentality.

We all know criticising Israel isn't anti-semitic. It's entirely reasonable to oppose Israel's actions in Gaza and not regards Jews as being to blame, wherever they may live (bearing in mind even around half of adult Israelis oppose the Netanyahu government).

However, we also know Hamas is explicitly dripping in Jew hatred. Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas has many times expressed Jewish conspiracy theories and questioned the Holocaust. Jew hatred is central to Palestinian politics, although it need not be so. Those who participate in pro-Palestinian protests that welcome Jew haters on marches - people who cheer on murdering innocent Jews a part of "globalising the Intifada" - are part of a movement of Jew hatred.

Think again, if there were protest marches that welcomed people who thought the Christchurch mosque attack was a false flag, or even justified, then we all know what those protests would be called.

It's time for the "pro-Palestine" movement to either exclude Jew haters, or be branded terror-backing hate groups, and for the far-left politicians who back them to deserve to be as ostracised as Nazis.

Who was it again who said that if you go on a protest and Nazi's attend, you're at a pro-Nazi rally?

Recognising a "state" that doesn't exist

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:47:00 +0000

Winston Peters has done the right thing. The entirely performative act of recognising the “State of Palestine” by three countries with left-wing governments is not a reason to follow. For a start, at least in the UK and Australia, the respective Labour (and Labor) parties fear losing Muslim voter support to minor parties or independents. The UK, Labour lost four predominantly Muslim electorates to independents in 2024. Some Australian federal divisions have similar challenges, with both independents and the Greens presenting challenges. France doesn’t quite have the same challenge, but France’s colonial past drives it to take its own stance to wage power in the region.

Objectively, nobody honestly believes that the “State of Palestine” actually exists. You’d think that might matter, but in this post-modernist age of relativism, then if you “believe” something is real, then it is true. So, let’s go through the factual basis for rejecting the recognition of something that can’t objectively be recognised as such.

The act of “recognising” a sovereign state is that of one state acknowledges another entity is legitimately its “equal” at least under international law. Almost always, this is a formality because states meet the formal legal criteria for actually “being” states. That being:

• Clearly defined borders

• Effective government over those borders and most of its territory

• A permanent population (comprising its citizens)

• The means to engage in relations with other states

The “State of Palestine” lacks most of this criteria for a whole host of reasons. It doesn’t have clearly defined boundaries. The State of Palestine has never existed, as before 1967 the West Bank was under the control of Jordan, and Gaza under Egypt. Given discussions on peace under the Oslo Accords were about this topic, it is clear this is far from settled.

There is no effective government over the borders of a not clearly defined territory as Israel and Egypt have control over those borders. Even if there were such control, there is no government with control over both the West Bank and Gaza, and even the Palestinian Authority has limited powers over part of the West Bank. With Hamas controlling Gaza, it hardly is a territory with effective control by the government. It’s hard to imagine a sovereign state without sovereign powers including that of entry or exit of its territory.

It may be possible to identify a permanent population, although many Palestinians identify as “refugees”, inferring they are not permanent residents of the land they live on. However, this isn’t such a barrier.

Of course, there are Palestinian ambassadors, embassies and other trapping of being a state, in terms of foreign relations, so arguably it does meet that criteria.

However, that’s not enough. There are not clearly defined borders, there is no effective government over most of the territory that could conceivably be part of a Palestinian state, and certainly not its borders. It may be easier to claim a permanent population and the means to engage in diplomatic relations, although given it can’t control its borders or airspace, it’s rather empty.

By contrast, Taiwan (Republic of China) absolutely meets all of those conditions, even if de jure it claims sovereignty over all of the territory governed by the People’s Republic of China, it’s clear where the demarcation line between the territory governed by the two Chinese governments is (and we all know the government in Taiwan has long ceded any formal interest in expanding its control beyond its current territory). However, you won’t see any serious campaigns to recognise Taiwan (for many reasons), but I digress.

Luxon and Peters had a choice. Look like they are following the UK, France and Canada (and over a hundred less than liberal democracies along with outright dictatorships), or look like they are following the US. What he did do was neither, although the critics bay it is some sort of Trumpian act (the ultimate pejorative nowadays, much worse than supporting Hamas or Iran), it is aligning NZ with Japan, south Korea and Singapore.

When the UK and others recognised the “State of Palestine” Hamas claimed that its tactic, of the 7th October pogrom “worked” alongside its sacrifice of thousands of Gazans as human shields for its members. “Pro-Palestine” activists don’t care about that, because far too many of them minimise Hamas’s pogrom, let alone its theocratic fascist policies (zero tolerance for political or religious dissent, zero tolerance for equal rights for women, let alone LGBT people), because they are driven more by hatred of Israel and Western capitalist liberal democracies than concern for Palestinians.

That doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a “State of Palestine” at some point, once there is a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that resolves the borders, the relationship between both entities, Israeli settlements, sidelining eliminationists on both sides, and guaranteeing peace and security for citizens in both entities. It appears difficult to envisage when neither side is willing to compromise or negotiate, but neither Netanyahu nor Abbas will govern forever. However, until there actually is a “State of Palestine” agreed which lets it fulfil all of the legal conditions for statehood, it is pointless “recognising” it.

Recognising Palestine DOES give succour to Hamas AND to Netanyahu, because it gives them both reason to snub any compromise. “You see, murdering Jews en masse DOES work, because it means they will create thousands of our martyrs and the world will hate them”. For Netanyahu “see the world hates us, to hell with them, we will ensure there is no Palestinian state”.

It's empty showboating, there is no State of Palestine yet, it’s absolutely right to refuse to engage in the nonsense of pretending there is one to recognise, even if you wish it existed. Peace on that sliver of land is a long way off, but it wont come from engaging in propagandist make-believe.

Voting in the 2025 local election: Wellington City Council Mayor and Eastern Ward, Wellington Regional Council - Wellington constituency

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 25 Sep 2025 09:49:00 +0000

This is half serious, half humourous, because let’s face it, a majority probably wont vote, and a fair number will vote for MORE council, MORE spending, MORE stopping people doing things they don’t like and MORE making people do things they want. A fair number of people look at candidates who use clichés like “sustainable”, “equitable” and “inclusive”, and go “oh yes more of that”.

NZ isn’t like the UK, where local elections happen every year (different councils) and most candidates are party political. Those elections are used by voters to send signals about central government, which is frankly nuts. There is next to no value in voting for candidates because you like the National-led government or you hate it, because by-and-large, it wont make much difference at all. Sure there are Labour, ACT and Greens candidates, which is useful if you know you like or don’t like the party, but unlike Parliament most people who are party aligned don’t caucus together or vote identically.

In short, judge them as individuals more than their labels.

For my sins, I’m in Eastern Ward, so I’ll run through the Mayor, the City Council Eastern Ward, the Regional Council Wellington Ward and finally the Maori Ward vote.

MAYOR

Let’s not elect Andrew Little. The failed unionist popinjay who is looking for a sinecure in the twilight of his political career doesn’t deserve to be Mayor of Wellington. He’ll be better than the nice but dim Tory Whanau, but so would most Councillors. He wont list making Ramallah a sister city as an “achievement”, but part of his campaign is about “making public transport cheaper” which is literally nothing to do with Wellington City Council. It is a Regional Council responsibility. So he’s a pontificating poseur. Wellington has a dearth of significant private businesses located in the CBD, and is suffering the closure of retail and hospitality as the city slowly decays. A man who’s spent his life fighting employers and private enterprise and oversaw the irrelevance of unions he came to lead is not the person to revitalise Wellington. The fact he led student unions, including of course opposing voluntary membership of student unions should consign him to the dustbin of history along with the Berlin Wall. Rank him second to last.

I’m ranking Josh Harford of the Aotearoa New Zealand Silly Hat Party first. He is one of the smartest people standing for Mayor, and his vision for optimism is a good one. Sure some might say he is a joke candidate (and he is far cleverer, more subversive and interesting that the nihilistic William Pennywize, and there are enough unfunny clowns about), and you might say I am chosing him because I know him (although he's not the only candidate I know). In all seriousness, if he got elected it would uplift the optimism and publicity for Wellington more than any other candidates combined. Imagine the headlines if Wellington elected a young man with a sense of humour, sense of drive, sound academic record and proven willingness to work well with people across political spectrums. Leftie journalists will highlight his ethnic minority heritage, which he does not and which does him credit. He is his own man, and really will revitalise the city.

Now we all know he isn’t sure thing, so who to rank after Harford? There are three other groups of candidates. Lefties, righties and the ones you will laugh at.

Alex Baker is the Green candidate without being branded “Green” and talks in slogans. His priorities are “affordability” (which means rates, rents, house prices and transport costs – but it’s unclear how he can keep all of these down), “jobs” and “sustainability”. He wants land value rates, which on its own is worth considering, but he also wants to “complete the Golden Mile” (which will slow down bus services by eliminating the ability of buses to pass) and focus on bike and bus lanes to get the city “moving”, although there is no evidence this will make any material difference. His focus on climate change action isn’t credible to control spending or promote business. His ambitions suggest he will spend more money. Rank him last.

Scott Caldwell is to left and on X is known as the Scoot Foundation. He’s pretty smart, keen on more intensive development and is a housing abundance supporter. That’s good in itself. He’s dreaming if he thinks central government will pay more rates, he’s also dreaming to push an underground rail link through reclaimed land. However, having someone so pro-housing construction and antithetical to heritage protection is worth supporting over others. Rank him above Little.

Diane Calvert is a safe pair of hands and eyes on Council. She supports fiscal prudence and her Wellington Plan has a lot of merit. She wants to speed up consenting, focus on core services and maintaining assets and downscale the upgrade to Courtenay Place, and abandon the ludicrous Harbour Quays bus corridor proposal (which will worsen traffic and weaken the Golden Mile bus core). Sure, she’s no libertarian, no free-market liberal, but she’d be far more friendly towards revitalising the decaying private sector than Little. Rank her second or third.

Ray Chung’s entire campaign has been overshadowed by his ill-considered comments, from some time ago, about Tory Whanau. He's said a lot of things that get judged poorly in 2025, but the chap is 75. He’s committed to zero rates increases, which is ambitious, but a good goal, along with eliminating non-core activities. It’s difficult to disagree with that. Leftwing journalist from the Spinoff (!) Joel McManus did a hitjob on him which is hard to completely look past, and indicates he is unlikely to be the best choice for Mayor. He’s a useful Councillor as an antagonist to wasteful leftwing virtue signallers, but as Mayor he should be ranked below the better ones on the right. I’d put him above Little of course, but below Calvert and Tiefenbacher.

Rob Goulden has been around forever, but having been banned from Taxpayer Union events, it’s indicative that he too angry and combative. Arguably he’s on the right, but it’s not clear what he really wants and that’s not worth giving time to. There’s a lack of detail around prioritisation, cutting spending and scrutinising expenditure. I’d put him above Little, but only just.

Kelvin Hastie is another leftwing candidate whose weaknesses include being an arts promoter and venue operator, indicating he is likely to spend more on the arts. He talks of “sustainable growth” (any growth would be nice), and is committed to “affordable housing” without saying how. The Spinoff claims he wants to sell council housing to first home buyers, and supports the long-tunnel under Te Aro proposal (which isn’t happening and Council wouldn’t fund anyway). He has no chance, but rank him above Little.

Donald McDonald is well known because nobody really understands what he is promoting, bless him. Still he seems harmless enough.

William Pennywize isn’t funny.

Joan Shi seems fairly sound, focusing on core infrastructure and a business friendly environment, but also talk about “affordable public transport” (not up to the City Council). If she had a chance, I’d rank her reasonably, and certainly above Little, Goulden and Hastie, but not much depth here.

Karl Tiefenbacher has a solid record as an entrepreneur, and clearly has a chance as a centre-right candidate against Little. His support for faster consenting for housing, more scrutiny on the quality of cycle lane spending and constraining spending (and he understand the role of the City Council) makes him a strong contender. I’d rank him a strong third after Harford and Calvert.

CITY COUNCIL EASTERN WARD

Three councillors need to be elected here. Five are reasonable choices.

Ken Ah Kuoi: His name is dotted all over the ward, and is keen on fiscal prudence and focusing on “core services”, being part of the Independent Together team which is loosely affiliated. Fluent in Samoan as well. I’d rank him highly.

Alex Baker: See above. Don’t rank the Green in drag.

Chris Calvi-Freeman: He’s a bit of a leftie, but he knows transport policy well as a transport planner. He’d be an asset in Council and is pushing for the 2nd Mt Victoria Tunnel to have good facilities for al modes, which should not be controversial. He’s no ideologue on these matters, although his views on other subjects are less known. I’d rank him highly.

Trish Given: She’s a lot of a leftie. Promoting homes for all (how?), wants to future-proof the city against climate change (how?) and talks about a “fairer” city (which usually is coding for higher rates and more spending). Her website indicates she wants a very active council, so she’ll support much higher rates and spending. Don’t rank her.

Rob Goulden: See above. You might prefer him over the green/left, but that’s it.

Luke Kuggeleijn: The sole ACT candidate is a young man keen on avoiding wasteful spending, like the Golden Mile project. Standing for ACT in this ward full of lefties is brave in itself, so rank him highly, he’ll need it, and if he wins he'll be a breath of fresh air to shake this Council up into being more efficient and smaller.

Michelle McGuire: As with Ah Kuoi, she is with Independent Together with the focus on core spending and rates control. She has a private sector background. I’d rank her fairly highly.

Thomas G.P. Morgan: He has had nearly 30 years’ interest in local government, he uses his profile to talk about more… bus shelters. He has a lot of ideas, but I’m unsure that’s what is needed. I’m not ranking him highly.

Sam O’Brien: The Labour candidate is an urban planner, which is reason enough to rank him very lowly. He wants an affordable, accessible, resilient city, but clearly he wants to direct people’s property and businesses. He has a good chance of getting elected so rank him very low.

Jonny Osborne: A public servant standing for the Greens is enough to rank him the lowest. Like Andrew Little, he thinks he is standing for the regional council calling for “cheaper and reliable” public transport which is mostly regional not city council business. He’ll want more council and higher rates. Rank last.

Karl Tiefenbacher: See above, he’s worth a shot. Rank highly. He'll be an asset in Council.

WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL - WELLINGTON CONSTITUENCY

Five councillors to be elected here. It’s slim pickings. I can only get enthused about two, another three I might hold my nose and choose just to stop the hardened socialists.

Sarah Free: Was a Green City Councillor, now standing as an independent for the regional council. She’s not the worst option, being obviously a leftie she’ll back rates increases and more council spending and control. However, I’d rank her above the actual Green and Labour candidates. Middling ranking.

Glenda Hughes: She was a regional councillor before losing last time, and is trying again. Centre-right (former Nat), fiscally conservative, former cop and media minder, she’s safer with ratepayers’ money than the lefties. She should be one of the top five.

Alice Claire Hurdle: ACT’s candidate is the only one clearly offering a change of direction. Wanting less red tape on farms and businesses, and cost effective transport solutions, she will be valuable in constraining the ever expansionist regional council. Rank her first.

Tom James: This Labour candidate has as his top priority “faster, cheaper and more reliable” public transport, which is going to mean higher rates. For him “tackling climate change needs to be at the heart of our council’s work”, not core infrastructure or addressing key local issues. This makes him likely to hike rates, restrict development and virtue signal. Rank very lowly.

Tom Kay: Green in drag. He cares about our communities and environment, wants us safe from the impacts of climate change, with “cheaper, faster” buses. He will focus on protecting and restoring streams, rivers and wetlands, and reducing emissions. We don’t need an environmental scientist making the regional council a greater drag on development, and hiking rates. Rank lowly.

Mark Kelynack: It’s unclear really what he believes in, except much better public transport including a passenger reward scheme it seems. He seems practical, and the lack of ambition for the regional council doing more deserves a better ranking than the lefties. Maybe deserves to be in the top five.

Belinda McFadgen: Her career has been on environmental policymaking, science and law. She wants climate resilience, cost effective solutions and improving waterways. So she says she is evidence based, without the rhetoric of the lefties. She’s in the middling group, maybe above Sarah Free.

Henry Peach: Worst of the Green candidates, just say no.

Daran Ponter: The Regional Council chair and Labour candidate, he’s the Andrew Little of the regional council. This former public servant who was involved in the expansion of local government powers with the “power of general competence” wants more regional council rates, power and control. It’s telling that the second thing he lists is “lifting driver wages”, as if that delivers outcomes for bus customers or ratepayers. He’s a socialist who wants to end competitive tendering for public transport, lowering farebox recovery for public transport, and restoring wetlands. He is part of the problem of a regional council that is inflating rates and its role. Rank him very low.

Yadana Saw: Better of the Green candidates, but like all of the candidates (except Hurdle and Woolf) she is committed to hiking rates to increase pay above market rates at the council, and like Ponter talks of increasing public ownership of public transport, for ideological reasons (including the 18 new trains 90% funded by taxpayers through a central government she opposes). Just say no to her too.

Simon Woolf: By regional council standards he’s centre-right, but he’s really a centrist and quite sensible. Going to be much less keen on rates rises and ideological based expansion of the regional council’s functions. Rank him number two.

MAORI WARDS

Just say no. The last Maori ward city councillor won with only 872 votes. The lowest winning general ward city councillor had 2841 votes. It’s disproportionately unfair for there to be one councillor with so few votes having the same power as those with over three times as many. That’s without the more fundamental argument that it’s wrong to divide the electorate by ethnic identity, and treat that single councillor as the authentic voice of Maori in the city. Politicians talk about reducing division and working collaboratively. In a liberal democracy, voters are represented by whoever is elected by their constituents, including those who many voters disagree with. STV enables preferences to get the most preferred candidates elected. Maori voters included, and their preferences will be as varied as any other voters.

Local government elections 2025 for a libertarian

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 21 Sep 2025 01:40:00 +0000

Libertarians don’t like local government much, generally. While some aspire for maximum devolution, similar to Switzerland, so that most government power (outside defence, foreign affairs and border control) is at the more local level, that would require a transformational constitutional change. Switzerland works because its best and brightest get concentrated at the canton level, and also because the crazy only happens on a relatively small scale, so is easily purged from public policy. The culture of referenda means more engagement on issues by the public, but it also delivers a wide range of results. Conservative, liberal, free-market, socialist views all get some airing, but by and large Swiss politics is one of gradual evolution. None of this describes local politics in the Anglosphere, and especially not NZ.

Local government to many libertarians is an anathema, because a fair proportion of the people drawn to it tend to have one of two sets of philosophical positions:

• Socialism (government should spend more, do more, regulate more)

• Cronyism (local government should preserve, to protect the business, property and interests of the councillor).

Many in local government are well intentioned, but it does attract people who aspire to central government, but most of all a lot of busybodies (albeit Wellington is much better off with far-left wingnut Tamatha Paul being a backbench MP in Opposition, than a Wellington City Councillor).

Some of them brand themselves as such. Of course the Greens and Labour campaign, always thinking that local government should address poverty, “save the planet” and grow, spending more and taxing more (notwithstanding claims of prudence, none of them want to cut the role of local government). The ones who want local government to get involved in foreign affairs are the worst. Whether it be sister city junkets or "recognising "Palestine"" or declaring a city "nuclear free", it's absurd wasteful stuff.

However, the busybodies aren’t always branded. Tory Whanau pretended not to be a Green, and in Wellington this election, Alex Baker is the Green Mayoral candidate not branding himself as such.

It’s less common to find candidates and even less common to find councillors who want local government to do less.

Since the Clark Government granted local government the “power of general competence” (which the Key Government did not repeal, nor will the Luxon Government), councils have felt free to do more and more with ratepayers money. We can see the results in the areas that councils have had responsibility for. Nothing exemplifies this better than water.

The state of water infrastructure is, in much of the country, a debacle, and that has until recently been left entirely in the hands of local government. It’s local democracy in full effect, implementing what both the left, and conservative devolutionists want, and they have failed due to incompetence and ineptness.

We saw this a few decades ago when they owned monopoly local bus companies, which were characterised by ever declining services, ever increasing pay for drivers, and a starving of capital for new buses. We can be forever grateful that this was taken off them, along with responsibility for local electricity distribution and retail (which was facing the same dearth of investment as water), and indeed even milk supply. Many are too young to remember what an absolute joke of an airport Wellington had when it was run as a joint local-central government entity. Once corporatised and part-privatised, decades of arguments about who and how a new airport terminal was going to be funded and built evaporated.

In the planning and regulatory space we see it in housing. Left to their own devices, Councillors choose District Plans and apply the RMA to drastically constrain the supply of new housing. While some of it is NIMBYism, most of it is because the culture of local government institutionally and politically is to be a block to development. It's a culture of no, not of yes, and a culture of "not there" rather than "why not there?".

Had the RMA existed a century plus ago, the railway lines through our cities wouldn’t have been built, and neither would any motorways (although I’m not saying the Robert Moses approach was the right one either), and many airports wouldn’t have been built, but most importantly most of the current housing stock wouldn’t have been built either. The RMA handed local government a powerful tool on development and it chose to strangle it.

So what do we face in 2025? Some candidates campaign for sticking to core spending and keeping rates under control, but plenty also push a series of cause celebres. Some want to “save the planet” by making driving less attractive because of “climate change”, even though it will make no measurable difference. Some want to ease poverty by… taxing property owners more and restricting house building. Some of course are “opposed to privatisation” because they are brain-addled socialist morons who think you’re all better off being forced to share in the ownership of some “asset” that, by and large, can’t be managed well by council at all (or is in a structure that doesn’t allow such management, like an airport or port).

Most candidates are “passionate about the community”, so much they want to pass bylaws on it, control development and decide how much to take from the community by force through rates, to spend on what it thinks is important. More than a few think my money should be spent on promoting arts and culture I don’t consume or want.

It’s worse at the regional council level. Candidate Tom James (Labour of course) says “For me, tackling climate change needs to be at the heart of our council’s work”. Really? How will we measure your success in doing that? Should you be punished if global temperatures keep rising? Candidate Tom Kay also say he wants to be “reducing emissions to slow climate change”. How deluded are these people?

Current regional council chair Daran Ponter says “I am committed to active community engagement, a vibrant Wellington , and supporting a thriving economy”. Really? Have you done that? How much are you making it thrive now? Like him, Green candidate Yadana Saw talks about having “helped fund” 18 new trains, which are in fact 90% funded by taxpayers through central government. She didn’t fund anything, she made ratepayers fund a sliver of it.

Even the highest profile candidate of the lot in Wellington, failed former Labour leader Andrew Little, campaigns on controlling public transport fares as Mayor – a function that is completely outside the purview of Wellington City Council.

So much is just pure charlatanism. Finger-wagging showboating by people you wouldn't trust to run you a bath, let alone run infrastructure competently (and of course they don't).

So what’s left? Well my first preference for Mayor will be going for a young man with ideas. Josh Harford. On a day like today, his policy of erecting large sails at the ends of Wellington to redirect wind to Upper Hutt “where it belongs” makes more sense than a busybody popinjay like Little. His mandate for optimism is well founded, but more generally the “Aotearoa New Zealand Silly Hat Party” has at its core the intellectual and cultural foundations of a good democracy. Not taking itself too seriously.

Josh wont be raising rates, he wont be telling people what to do, and best of all he doesn’t use the anti-concepts of 21st century post-modernist corporate, public relations double-speak that bastardises the relationship between reality and the public. He doesn’t talk about a city that is:

- Vibrant (it’s on a Faultline!)

- Inclusive (except for people who disagree with them)

- Innovative (like Council ever is!)

- Accountable (nobody is really held accountable for wasting money)

- Affordable (nobody is cutting rates)

- Collaborative (stop conspiring to spend more of my money)

So until New Zealand elects a central government to put the shackles on local government property (more than the removal of the four “well-beings” which frankly does little to achieve this), vote for whoever talks least about trying to do more, spend more and especially save the planet.

I might be bothered writing a voting guide for Wellington Eastern Ward, once I've worked how who to hold my nose and vote for!

Te Pati Maori's populism veers towards danger

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Mon, 08 Sep 2025 01:06:00 +0000

When Te Tai Tonga MP Takuta Ferris complained about non-white immigrants campaigning for Labour "against Maori", was he saying the quiet bit out loud, or was he just being a racist moron?

To their credit, Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi disavowed it, but they should know that their own rhetoric about “superior genes”, and Oriini Kaipara’s celebration of the proportionality of her Maori heritage is going to lead towards this. It isn’t the exclusionary racist blood and soil nationalism of the actual far-right, but none of this would be uncomfortable in a far-right ethno-nationalist party.

TPM did once state that it wanted to curb immigration until the supply of housing met demand, but later withdrew that policy.

The win by Te Pati Maori (TPM) of the Tamaki Makaurau by-election is hardly surprising, although that success is tempered by a low turnout, it reflect TPM’s underlying strength. Its populism. It's that populism that can lead into trouble for TPM, but also lead it towards nurturing dangerous narratives among its members and supporters.

Most of the media has too much unconscious bias in favour of the Maori national renaissance that it, by and large, neglects to see what a key part of TPM's success comes from. Populist rhetoric, policies and behaviour that promotes a strong emotional response from Maori, especially it would seem, rangatahi wahine. The decision to get Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke to lead the haka in Parliament was entirely strategic. It made her world famous (I even caught it being mentioned, approvingly, on the Gutfeld! show on Fox News - which is, by and large, MAGA central for US evening talk shows), which for TPM lifted them up for a new generation.

The term populist politics is almost universally used as a pejorative, because it largely plays to gut instincts and emotions, rather than a depth of thinking and reflection. Populism tends to thrive on an "us against them" narrative, which TPM hones very effectively. So much more rhetoric from TPM, from statements to their attire in Parliament is about differentiation, and as much as it may irritate some older people, especially non-Maori, that's the point. It's very easy to accuse National and Labour for being parties that bend to the wind and are weak on principles, but TPM isn't scared of being controversial. It thrives on it, because it literally doesn't care what the majority think.

It starts by its claim of being unashamedly Maori, but it drifts further into claiming it is the most authentically Maori (because it doesn't need to accommodate the "colonialists", like Labour).

Populism is all about a simple framing of what is wrong, and a simple framing of how to fix it. We’ve seen this before, as NZ First was built on it. The clue is in the name. NZ First had at its core anger at what was seen as a “betrayal” of the country ("us") by “them” – being the Lange/Douglas and Bolger/Richardson Labour and National governments. Betrayal to foreign investors and concern over immigration, essentially a xenophobic fear that foreigners who own businesses or foreigners that move to NZ are only in it for themselves and not for "ordinary New Zealanders".

NZ First was a response to a belief that neither major party put New Zealand first, and “sold out” the country to foreign investors, who bought privatised state businesses, and were “buying up land”. Furthermore, new immigration, particularly from Asia was “alienating” the local population, including Maori. After all, the 1996 General Election saw NZ First win a clean sweep of the Maori seats. It was a brief time when the dominant policy narrative was on free-market economics (although this had only minor impact on social policy areas like health and education), and NZ First could cater to this disenchantment differently from how the hard-left Alliance did (which was essentially the socialist wing of Labour having broken away).

Of course what NZ First did in the 1990s was scaremonger about immigrants. TPM isn't too far away from doing the same thing, as fear of immigration resonates with Maori who see it as another wave of newcomers that dilute their proportion of the population. Those immigrants tend to be wealthier than average Maori, more highly educated, and have children that do better than the local population at school and university. They also are less likely to be engaged with the criminal justice system. In short, because many immigrants are successful, well-behaved and peaceful, they feed narratives among some as to "why don't Maori do the same?". At its worst this antipathy towards immigrants is seen in violent crime and abuse towards them, and there are plenty of anecdotes of migrants facing racial abuse from Maori as much as other New Zealanders. Ferris's outburst last week hardly negates that.

In Scotland, the Scottish National Party (SNP) was built on the belief that Scotland could be independent from the UK and be better off, but it did nurture unabashed Anglophobia. Furthermore, it also promoted the idea that not supporting the SNP was traitorous to Scotland. Of course, the SNP was undone by actually having power and performing poorly, as there is only so much patience for constantly scapegoating Westminster as the source of your ills, when you get significant power to make your own decisions about what you do with your budgets. TPM almost certainly wont face that sort of scrutiny, which makes its own rhetoric potentially more dangerous. TPM knows that without radical and unlikely constitutional change, it will never lead a government at all. It can always blame the failures to meet the expectations of its voters on the "colonialists".

As much as TPM wants to be seen as inclusive and welcoming of all, its core belief system can easily be interpreted as highly divisive and hierarchical.

Four years ago Debbie Ngarewa-Packer wrote in the NZ Herald outlining the party's division of New Zealanders into three groups:

- Tangata Whenua (us);

- Tangata Tiriti (supporters of "us");

- Everyone else (racists).

For her, that essentially say that unless you embrace the TPM view of the world, you are an outsider. She says that Tangata Tiriti are "comfortable loudly declaring they’re recovering racists, and they teach anti-racism, extremely secure in knowing their place side by side with tangata whenua ushering in a new Aotearoa.... Tangata tiriti accept and appreciate the reason they live in Aotearoa is because the Tiriti gives them citizenship and mana equal to tangata whenua... Tangata Tiriti are people of the covenant that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. When you find a tangata tiriti that has a heart for the covenant it’s like meeting a long lost friend, the kind you know our tupuna fought to help treasure and protect. They want to make the burden light, hold up their side of the promise, clean up their own mess. They don’t want to lead our space they want to own their own, removing barriers of discrimination and clear the way to let us through, so we can live united in peace."

This is extraordinary stuff. Tangata Tiriti are original sinners who have to recover from their sin of racism and to "clean up their own mess". They only get the right to live in Aotearoa because their citizenship comes from Te Tiriti, not birth-right nor citizenship granted by a liberal democracy. Te Tiriti is like a Biblical text that grants "peace", what happens if you dare disagree?

Tangata Whenua can't be racist, presumably, which gives Takuta Ferris some reason to think he could say what he said.

Ngarewa-Packer, whether she knew it or not, was singing from the populist nationalist playbook. There are Maori (“us”), there are those who embrace our political-philosophical-cultural opinion (“Pakeha allies”) and the enemy. It’s a hierarchy that elevates its voters, as the indigenous people who are simultaneously superior to all others in Aotearoa, but also oppressed and marginalised. The scapegoat is the “colonialist” state.

TPM doesn’t really care about immigrants being upset with it, because its base isn’t keen on immigrants. TPM also doesn’t care too much about non-Maori being upset with it, not least because it sees Pakeha opponents as simply anti-Maori racists (seeing those that ridicule or denigrate Te Reo and claiming Maori just abuse their kids and waste their lives on benefits as being what many Pakeha “really think”) that fuel its base. It ought to care about calling those Maori who don’t support it “not really Maori”. That smacks of the Orwellian nonsense of Marxist-Leninists who claim that workers who don’t support the “workers’ party” are actually traitors to their class. The idea that Maori who are not with TPM aren’t really Maori is toxic nationalist racism. It resembles the nonsense concept of Third World Democracy which formed the basis for the one-party states of many post-colonial African states being dictatorships.

Clearly TPM's populism is working for it.

However, as much as Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer want to promote an image of inclusion and simply wanting Maori to manage their own affairs (which is entirely consistent with a genuine libertarian view of humanity), it's difficult to reconcile that with populism driven by nationalism which by definition deems them and their supporters as special, and others as redeemable sinners (and redeemable only if they concede to the TPM world view).

When TPM President John Tamihere tells Maori that they are living under a government "worse than Nazi Germany", he is feeding not just fear, but hatred and a justification to use all means necessary to overthrow the government. Of course no sane person could possibly equate the government to the Nazis, unless it was to rabble rouse and generate passion and anger. After all if you are fighting Nazis, is anything out of bounds?

This is not isolated rhetoric. Claiming the government is "pure evil" is akin to this, along with claiming the government is "erasing our future". This is absolutist eliminationist rhetoric which is alongside the claims of far-right white supremacists of the "Great Replacement Theory" that there is a programme to wipe out people of European ancestry.

Liberal democracies thrive when people with differences of opinions on how to address contemporary problems debate with some respect and acknowledgement that all are entitled to their views and expression of those views. They don't thrive when politicians seek to balkanise the population into a battle between "us" and "them", no matter what historic injustices have occurred by past generations. Particularly when they push a narrative that paints opponents as evil people who want to wipe their supporters out.

TPM leaders may think that all it does is change how people vote, but if it bleeds into changing how people interact in daily life, including giving succour to those who think they can commit or threaten violence against opponents, then it is dangerous divisive rhetoric that is every bit as racist and unhinged as any far-right ultra-nationalist movement. TPM isn't there yet, but the danger that it emboldens such thinking is very real.

The by-election without much choice

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 31 Aug 2025 23:29:00 +0000

It's hard to get too much enthusiasm for the Tamaki Makaurau by-election. The Maori roll and seats have become more politicised than ever before, as they are no longer an exercise in ensuring a core level of Maori representation in Parliament, but rather an expression of Maori nationalism. It used to be that the Maori seats would attract candidates from across the political spectrum, but no more. Of course Parliament now has 33 Maori MPs, most not being from the Maori seats, because Maori participation and representation for many is not exceptional. All parties in Parliament have Maori MPs. The case for the Maori seats to ensure representation is weak, it is particularly so with MMP, as Maori voters (as all other voters) have the same impact in determining the proportionality of MPs in Parliament.

As the by-election is for the electorate MP (of course) the range of choice is much more limited than at the General Election when voters enrolled in the electorate can pick any of the registered parties for the list vote. In 2023 this made a bit of a difference.

The media have portrayed the election as a two-horse race, which is realistic given the General Election, but in 2023 plenty of voters chose other parties for the party vote. Over a quarter chose other parties.

Tamaki Makaurau voters picked Labour for the list vote at 42.8%, even though the late Takutai Tarsh Kemp won the seat by 42 votes. Te Pati Maori only received 29.8% of the party vote.

The Greens came third with 11.9%, National fourth with 4.7% and NZ First fifth with 3.4%. Add in ACT getting 0.9% and there are 9% of voters in 2023 that voted for the current governing parties. It's hard to say they have much of a choice this time.

Hannah Tamaki ran last time and will have a limited following. Sherry-Lee Matene is little known and Kelvyn Alp, who was charged with distributing an objectionable publication (being a recording of the Christchurch mosque attack) is best not mentioned at all.

So what we actually have is a spectre of Peeni Henare, Labour list MP, trying to win "his" seat back by pandering to the far-left student activist nationalist rhetoric touted by the rather clueless Marxist nationalist Oriini Kaipara (who claimed that TPM was "repealing" legislation and wanted to look on her phone to find the party's contributions to Maori).

Henare said "We are faced by the worst government this world – and this country – has seen in a long time" like a slobbering idiot who blanks out the Nazis, Khmer Rouge and the Taliban and countless other examples.

Kaipara and Henare both want "Iwi-led" supermarkets which of course is possible now, but they are both economically illiterate.

However, most of all, both major candidates hold a view of the country, economy and Maori that is led by a philosophy of nationalist Marxist collectivism with a stronger state. They offer nothing to Maori who are entrepreneurs, who don't want to be tethered to the State or Iwi to govern them and their choices, and certainly nothing to Maori who don't want to give succour to Hamas, or who don't want to be a part of the tankie collective of haters of Israel, Western liberal democracy and capitalism, by giving a free pass to Iran, China, North Korea and Russia, and any groups engaging in "liberation" (totalitarian terror movements).

I am betting Kaipara will win, because the Greens, who are ideological allies of TPM, are not standing the candidate, and Peeni Henare is inauthentic. Unfortunately, the vast majority of voters on the Maori roll want more Government, they want more cultural nationalist chest beating, and really have little interest (or concern) about the Marxist anti-capitalist, anti-Western authoritarian cheerleading that TPM undertake.

That's because, whether you like it or not, a key indicator for many Maori is pride is who they are according to their ancestors, culture and the use of Te Reo. There is a clash of cultural views on this, and as obnoxious as TPM can be on some issues (which resemble "blood and soil" views of nationalism and a willingness to judge those who disagree with them as needing to emigrate or not being "real Maori"), what it does is demonstrate a cultural pride that works just as much as ultranationalists gain support in other countries.

TPM is not a party of ultranationalism, it's a party of socialist nationalism (and no I don't mean THAT), akin to the Scottish National Party, and it makes Maori feel good about themselves for what they are, not who they are. It constantly rabble rouses Maori into thinking they are being oppressed, silenced and suffering (worse than the Nazis according to TPM President John Tamihere - a grifting shape shifting used car salesman type if ever there was one), all because of a conspiracy of Pakeha white supremacism.

TPM also know they will never ever ever be in a position to be in power to prove that is wrong (unlike the Scottish National Party which has spend much of its political capital in being incompetent and corrupt).

So on we go. I hope Henare wins, as it denies TPM one more seat and reduces the overhand in Parliament by one seat, not because he is deserving. From the looks of it, none of them are deserving, but the winner at the very least gets to say she (or he) isn't the fascist candidate.