Liberty Scott

Kim Jong Il's economic legacy

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:51:00 +0000

Let's test two of the great theories as to why North Korea is in poverty:

1. North Korea has really only suffered since the end of the Cold War saw it lose markets and cheap oil.

2. North Korea has also really only suffered due to the introduction of UN sanctions on trade with the country due to its nuclear programme.

Nonsense. The effect of the end of the Cold War was to make things worse, but the relative decline is inbuilt in the system of rigid state socialism.

Look at this, from the Washington Post:

Source: Washington Post

Stagnation has been the norm in North Korea for 40 years. The gap between rich and poor has been a gap between South Korea and North Korea. From 1972 to 1987 South Korea was under the rule of a military led dictatorship and subsequently transitioned to a vibrant and very open liberal democracy. However, South Korea's dictatorship allowed far more economic and personal freedom than North Korea. Today the average South Korean has 20 times the income of the average North Korean, with freedoms and a way of life as distant from North Koreans as New Zealand does to Haiti.

As the Washington Post notes. East Germany had one-third of the per capita income of West Germany at the time of reunification. North Korea has one-twentieth.

By contrast, South Korea is a pinup example of roaring success in economic development. From 1953 when after the Korean War it had per capita income akin to that of Bangladesh, it is today effectively a developed country.

Do we really need any more case studies of capitalism vs. socialism?

Kim Jong Il - A life of terror

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:34:00 +0000

It is difficult to exaggerate the absolute vileness of what Kim Jong Il presided over since the death of his megalomaniac father Kim Il Sung, he is perhaps only exceeded by Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Mao in sheer numbers of those murdered, but the whole superstructure of the regime is such a layer upon layer of fiction that is defies easy understanding. Almost everything about him and his regime was a lie, the reality evasion was on such a scale that millions died of mass starvation, hundreds of thousands lived and died in prison camps, including young children and the rest of the population lived under an ever present terror of facing oblivion due either to failure of the totalitarian state to deliver food and shelter, or because it would take them away.

Kim Jong Il was born in 1941 in the USSR by his father, a small scale anti-Japanese guerilla leader who fled Korea with his wife Kim Jong Suk after a number of small successes in repelling Japanese imperialism and its cruel rule of Korea. In the USSR Kim Il Sung learned of Marxism-Leninism and was impressed by the order and discipline imposed by Stalin. Kim Jong Il would have been an insignificant small boy if his father hadn't been hand picked by the Red Army and Stalin's regime to be Moscow's plant in Korea. He was brought along whilst the Red Army marched into the northern half of Korea at the end of World War 2. Kim Il Sung had Soviet advisors and military assistance, as he set up a Korean communist party with Soviet alignment, which initially worked with and then purged and destroyed the indigenous Korean communist movement. His ruthlessness, friendliness to Moscow and youthful charisma saw Kim Il Sung picked to lead the new state set up by Moscow to rival the UN/US backed Republic of Korea established in the south. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was born, and Kim Jong Il was 7 years old.

Kim Jong Il faced several childhood issues. One was death of his younger brother to drowning, another was death of his mother in 1949 - allegedly exacerbated when she found out about Kim Il Sung's serial adultery (the "Great Leader" title not quite appearing yet though), and then the Korean War causing Kim Il Sung to evacuate with his children and new wife to be Kim Song Ae.

The world heard absolutely nothing of Kim Jong Il till 1973. By then he had completed school and university, and was being groomed to be the successor. Kim Jong Il had by then gained a penchant for expensive liquor, fast cars, young pretty women (he used his father's pleasure troops to recruit pretty young girls from age 13 to be trained to please him once they reached around age 15-16, in large numbers), guns and movies. He lived the high life, drinking heavily (Hennessy especially), smoking and partying. He never flew, and would happily arrange execution of those who displeased him. His movie fetish became legendary. He led establishment of a major film studio in Pyongyang, with multiple sets for different eras and countries. He arranged kidnapping of actors, chefs and directors of Korean descent from south Korea and Japan, he also arranged for prostitutes to be brought in from various countries including Sweden. It is notable his father died at age 82, but he couldn't manage past 70.

Yes, 70. He is 70, not 69.

Between 1973 and 1980 he was referred to publicly in all media and books as "the Party Center" as he led day to day administrative business for his father. In that exercise he successfully led various purges and ensured only loyal followers progressed to support him and his father, he also helped spear the unprecedented personality cult around his father, which after 1980 was duplicated for him personally. The personality cult saw the glorification of a vacuous national ideology called "Juche", the constructions of statues and monuments across the country, and the completion of the cultural revolution that meant virtually all songs, films, books and art were focused on glorifying Kim Il Sung, the party, the state, Juche and all that was done by them. Everything good was because of his father and later himself. Everything that went wrong was due to the US imperialists, the south Korean puppet clique and the Japanese.

By the 1980s, Kim Jong Il had become the Dear Leader to his father the Great Leader and both operated as a pair. Yet Kim Jong Il's high squeaky voice meant he was largely a recluse, living the high life, whilst ordering stories and tales to be written about his exploits. Like his father it is claimed he gave "on the spot guidance" to hundreds of sites across the country. What he did was perpetuate a system that create possibly the biggest and longest lasting prison state in history.

North Koreans have largely lived planned lives. There is no private ownership of land, or indeed anything other than personal possessions. Regular re-issuing of currency destroys savings.

Overseas travel was strictly prohibited, as was travel from one's own town or village. Internal passports strictly regulated where anyone could travel, and life beyond one's home town was available only to few.

News media was strictly under total state control. All media reported to the people how lucky they were to live in the country and that people worldwide envied them. They were told that South Korea was a state of slaves where Americans raped girls and kept Koreans as servants and mistreated them, starving them. They were told everywhere else in the world was full of crime, starvation, war and deprivation. Satellite TV was unavailable. Foreign broadcasts were unavailable. Radios were banned except for locally made devices with no tuning dial so that only local signals could be picked up. The life in North Korea in the 1980s was hermetically sealed from the world. Foreign popular culture was unknown. Elvis Presley, Mickey Mouse, the Beatles and almost any movies, songs, fashions and brand from elsewhere were unknown, except to the elite.

Every day was planned. Jobs included political education every day, people were constantly told to work harder and longer and never complain, be grateful and be frugal. Every week every adult would go to criticism sessions where they must confess their own limitations and then accuse others of the same. Every week one would fear being made a scapegoat. Photos of both Kims were mandatory in every home, office, school classroom and public transport vehicle. They had to be kept in perfect clean condition or punishment would be meted out. Destroying newspapers with their images on them was forbidden. All children were taken from their parents several hours a day into creches to learn their first words "Kim Il Sung (and latterly Kim Jong Il) is your father". Children taught to owe everything to the Kims, and to put loyalty to them above their parents and friends. Taught to be snitches for the leaders. Taught to be part of the Police State. Red Guards from their young teens, loyalty to leader and party first, and they would be rewarded if they reported on relatives and friends who were disloyal.

Kim Jong Il was a part of that and changed nothing when his father died. When Soviet oil and aid ceased to flow, the economy was not reformed. It remained centrally controlled and managed, entrepreneurship remained illegal, no freedoms were granted. As a result, he continued to maintain a policy of terror. Individuals feared that if they were found to be disloyal, they and all their relatives would be imprisoned in gulags - slave labour camps where they would work 16 hour days, 7 days a week, eating next to nothing. Children from babies up would be included. Abuse, sadism and torture are rife - reports have also come out of chemical and biological weapons tests being applied to some inmates.

Even outside the gulag system the mass starvation of the late 1990s was due entirely to the failure of the entire economic system to be productive and let people respond to demand, supply and reason. Adopting "non-juche" farming techniques was forbidden, so millions starved, desperately trying to eat wildlife, bark, soil, weeds, whilst propaganda signs urged them to "only eat two meals a day". Kim Jong Il ate lobster, drank liquors and remained obese.

He could have reformed his country, what he did was next to nothing. The biggest revolution has been the introduction of a mobile phone network that pre-selected elite can use, but which is effectively allowing people to network without easy state surveillance. He has also seen, informally, the borders become more porous, as corruption and awareness of the outside world has spread among the more privileged classes, especially as technology has slipped into the country, with very cheap CD and DVD players, and CDs, DVDs from south Korea via Chinese sources. He stopped a military coup by raising the status of the military into the most powerful force in the country, essentially usurping the party.

North Korea today is a military state led by a personality cult family. Its main businesses are arms, narcotics, counterfeit currency and minerals. Kim Jong Il visited China several times and China showed him the results of its dramatic reforms, but he was unmoved - believing that it was too risky to allow Koreans to set up their own businesses and interact freely. The result is a dark, polluted, cold, state of terror, horror, starvation and fear.

Unlike official propaganda, and the parroted propaganda from Pyongyang's useful idiots in the Korean Friendship Association, who stick their deluded evil tongues up their figurative fundament of Kim Jong Il, he will be remembered as a short inadequate playboy murdering tyrant whose policies and approaches resulted in the deaths of millions, and suffering of tens of millions.

What is left is a country with exhausted broken infrastructure, an enormous military armed with weapons of mass destruction, unproductive agriculture, massive untapped mineral resources, a police state and a people whose lives have been wasted through ideological education and decades of lies and terror.

Reforming, modernising, freeing and re-educating this country is a monumental task. Consider fixing East Germany to be like helping an overweight smoker to become fit and normal size, fixing North Korea is like helping a senile centenarian become an Olympic athlete with a Ph. D.

Kim Jong Il's death facts and sources UPDATES

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:22:00 +0000

I was driving near Taupo when I heard the news about Kim Jong Il's sudden death, and missed turning off. Perversely you might think, I have a relationship with the DPRK, given it is the most totalitarian regime the world has ever seen - and know people there. I studied it extensively in the 1990s and travelled there. I am overwhelmingly joyous about his passing, but am thinking a lot about those who I know are there and who are looking for reform to come, knowing there must be change. However, I am going to be driven nuts by reporters who are going to get a lot wrong about the place.

Let's get some points clear:

1. Kim Jong Il was 70 NOT 69. He was actually born in 1941 in the Soviet Union, not 1942 on "sacred" Mt. Paektu whilst his father was leading the liberation from the Japanese. The 1942 birth year is a fabrication which appeared in the 1970s in publications. The sole reason was to match his father, Kim Il Sung's, birth year of 1912. So when Kim Il Sung turned 60, Kim Jong Il turned 30 etc etc. The point of his birth in the USSR (near Khabarovsk I believe) is that Kim Il Sung had fled to the country due to the Japanese takeover, along with his mother Kim Jong Suk (who died in 1949 under circumstances that have multiple versions).

2. Kim Jong Un is expected to succeed him, but reality is likely to be quite different. There is a significant power struggle about to happen (there was one when Kim Il Sung died as his second wife, Kim Song Ae sought to overthrow Kim Jong Il), and the list of members of the National Funeral Committee is very significant (see article here). Kim Jong Un leads the list, number two is the rather elderly Chairman of the Supreme People's Assembly Kim Yong Nam, Choe Yong Rim is third, and is Prime Minister and an ally of Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un. Those two are close allies and expected to ensure Kim Jong Un leads. Ri Yong Ho is number four, and is effectively now de-jure head of the military as a whole, and his ability to ensure loyalty to Kim Jong Un is likely to be critical. At 69 he is not too old to achieve that, but his name will be one to watch. Kim Yong-Chun is alongside him and may be expected to be a challenger as head of the army.

3. Kim Jong Il's closest living relative is his sister Kim Kyong Hui, the most powerful woman in the country. She may well seek to shadow Kim Jong Un because she is sole remaining issue of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Suk. Kim Jong Il's half sibling Kim Pyong Il is not listed in the funeral committee, and was reportedly in Pyongyang earlier year because his mother- Kim Il Sung's second wife Kim Son Ae, is terminally ill. He may seek to challenge Kim Jong Un, but has not be around in the country sufficiently to do so. Kim Pyong Il and Kim Kyong Hui are the two people best placed to mount a civilian challenge of the leadership.

4. North Korea is not as isolated as it once was. The elite have mobile phones and are extensively aware of life in the outside world, with DVDs, CDs and other material circulating among the ruling classes. Yet, the mass of the population do not have a clue, and may think the world is mourning with them. They haven't the slightest clue of the wealth prosperity and freedom of South Korea. Internet access is not available to anyone except a tiny elite, satellite TV is only available to that elite and in three hotels in Pyongyang, and it is a crime to own a radio that can receive foreign broadcasts.

5. He died TWO DAYS AGO, which is astonishing. It is telling that so much time passed compared to news of the death of his father. Kim Jong Un will have sought to ensure he was not directly threatened. However, it will be far more interesting in coming months.

The latest report is that the country is under curfew, under actual visible martial law.

If you want the most useful coverage of events then you will find it hard to beat the following sites:

- Daily NK - Providing the most regular, up to date and informed coverage of events. In English, but originally Korean. If you use any single source to follow events in coming weeks, use this.

- North Korea Econ Watch - Russian academic Andrei Lankov's excellent blog on events in the DPRK, with many sources of those who do business, travel and visit there. Lankov is one of the world's leading DPRK watchers, with some fluency in Korean, as well as English and Russian, and a long history of visiting the place over many years.

- North Korea Leadership Watch - Self explanatory blog by Michael Madden, includes a great Kim Jong Il family tree

North Korea's own state monopoly news agency (no others allowed, absolutely no free speech or independent media or publishing of any kind) the Korean Central News Agency is here in English.

North Korea's international radio station, Voice of Korea in English

More will be added in coming days

UPDATE 1: No foreign delegations allowed to Kim Jong Il funeral or for mourning. Big questions regarding existing Western tour groups in the country.

UPDATE 2: TV3's Nightline coverage (New Zealand) is sloppy. First, Kim Jong Il has NOT been the "Dear Leader" for over 10 years, but rather "Leader". Secondly, the "military first" policy (Songun) is not "60 years old". It dates from 1995 although is claimed to have arisen in 1961.

UPDATE 3: Daily NK is clearly managing to get unofficial reports from the DPRK presumably through a mix of sources. Markets closed, night curfews, people prohibited for being outside. Particular issues in the town of Musan.

Norway's butter shortage and "food security"

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:04:00 +0000

This SHOULD be a no-brainer.

Norway has adopted the similar kind of nationalist/socialist environmentalist claptrap supported by the Greens. The idea that trade and agricultural policy should be focused on local supply and "food sovereignty", which of course is just another word for protectionism and rent seeking by farmers.

Norwegian farmers get a lot of that. Around NZ$400 million a year to Norwegian dairy farmers in price, income and other subsidies. For that they can't even produce enough to meet domestic demand. To top that off there is a 29% tariff on imported butter, so Norway already prices imported butter away from its market.

Yet that's not all. You might fairly assume subsidising dairy farmers might mean there is more production than would otherwise be the case, and that the lack of demand shouldn't mean that tariffs get in the way of imports. You're right. Norway also restricts imports to a quota. Only 575 tonnes of butter can be imported under its quota with a tariff of 60% on that.

You see the 29% tariff is actually the general tariff it applies, which is meaningless because of the quota. If there was no quota, the tariff would be 29%, but in actual fact Norway restricts imports of butter and then taxes it.

If there were New Zealand journalists worth their oxygen they would be off to Norway with the Minister of Foreign Trade suggesting a free trade agreement between NZ and Norway to include dairy products (which Norway wont accept, but the media there might raise questions about its ridiculous agricultural trade policies).

There is no need for any country to have a "butter shortage". After all there isn't a sock shortage or a TV shortage or a light bulb shortage is there?

What the lobbyists wont tell you about the Kyoto Protocol

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:25:00 +0000

There are three types of countries that signed up to the Kyoto Protocol (the US is outside and now Canada is too):

- Annex 1 countries: Those that commit to reducing their emissions, covering both "industrialised countries" and "countries in transition". New Zealand and the UK are in this category, along with all other EU Member States, Russia, Japan and others. Total of 41. So they all bear the costs of reducing activities that reduce emissions, or must buy emissions allowances, or mitigate their emissions.

- Annex 2 countries: A subset of Annex 1 countries that also include New Zealand and the UK. They not only are obliged to reduce emissions, but their taxpayers are required to subsidise the likes of others to reduce emissions. This includes the "rich" EU Member States, i.e. Greece and Portugal, not Poland and Slovenia.

- Developing countries: That is everyone else. They are not obliged to reduce emissions at all, unless Annex 2 countries pay for them to adopt new technologies to allow it. They can "volunteer" to become Annex 1 countries when they have developed.

The environmental movements don't challenge this. Yet let's look at who is in the category of developing countries. These are countries the New Zealand government, both the Clark and now the Key governments, have committed to helping subsidise to gain new technologies.

Qatar - Which has 6.8 times the per capita emissions of New Zealand and 6.2 times that of the UK, with per capita GDP (Purchasing Power Parity basis) 2.5 times that of the UK and 3.3 times that of New Zealand. Bear in mind Qatar basically earns virtually all of its income from exporting oil, so it can earn money from "selling CO2 emission" then emit as much as it likes, and get money from poorer countries to buy new technologies. Nice.

UAE - Has 4.4 times the per capita emissions of the UK, 4.5 times the per capita emission of New Zealand, with per capita GDP 1.4 times that of the UK and 1.8 times that of New Zealand. A similar economy to Qatar.

Bahrain, Brunei, Kuwait all have higher per capita emissions that the UK and NZ, and all but Bahrain have higher per capita GDP. All richer more polluting economies, all making money from selling CO2 emitting energy, all expected to do nothing, all entitled to get taxes from NZ and British taxpayers to dabble in being more environmentally friendly. Nice that.

China, Brazil and India of course are all classed as developing countries being poorer per capita, despite having significant foreign exchange surpluses and rapidly growing emissions. You might ask quite why China is owed subsidies from Western taxpayers when it sits on a growing mountain of money it earns from exporting to those people.

A few other countries are classed as "developing" and deserving of subsidies, and able to emit all they wish, yet have HIGHER per capita incomes than New Zealand, such as Singapore, the Bahamas and Israel.

You might ask yourself quite why these little details are seen as acceptable by a government claiming to be looking after your interests. Why you might have to pay more, whilst the descendants of oil sheikhs and Chinese millionaires need not face anything, and your taxes might even subsidise their dabbling in green technologies.

You might even wonder why nobody asked any of the major political parties those questions.

What's going on in the EU? Part One - What's good

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 23:06:00 +0000

Finally, the UK government's rejection of a pan-EU treaty to create effectively an EU megastate, has started debate, albeit with many European politicians pointing fingers at British PM David Cameron for not playing ball.

Quite right, it is about time.

The tensions and politics around the EU are complex, so do try to resist the inevitable efforts of journalists across the political spectrum to over-generalise about what is right and wrong about the EU. It isn't all bad and certainly isn't all good. The Euro is not the key source of the problems facing the southern European states, but the EU is also not the source of peace in Europe since World War 2. The EU does have several very good features that have promoted freedom and prosperity in Europe since the 1950s, but it also has carried some that have done the opposite.

What the terrible twosome of Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy are trying to do is paper over the tensions created by a union and project that has positively protected those governments which have embarked on decades of deficit spending. It is seeking to combine the political goals of both Germany and France in a new EU - one that does not fundamentally accommodate the economic policies of many EU Member States and which replaces the flawed, limited but still real democratic accountability of Member States with an EU/EC/Council of Ministers led accountability.

In the next few articles I hope to present a step by step explanation of the EU - the good, the bad and the ugly, and present an alternative for the UK, and any other EU Member State that doesn't want to be part of a pact of central control, with socialism running right through it.

To outsiders the EU can look quite marvellous. After all, if you produce goods in one part of the EU you can sell it anywhere else, with no customs barriers, tariffs or import restrictions. Well, except for alcohol, tobacco, audio-visual services, literature subject to censorship, oh and quite a few services. Free trade within Europe has promoted prosperity since the internal barriers to trade started tumbling down in the 1960s, and most recently the massive expansion from 15 to 27 Member by incorporating all of the former Eastern Bloc states, plus Slovenia and three former occupied Soviet Republics, has done wonders to improve competitiveness, create new markets and spur growth. No Eurosceptics I know of want that to change, except the far left in the union movement and the British National Party.

Free movement of people has produced similar benefits, albeit with greater controversy. Citizens of any one EU Member State can live and work in any other, creating a massive labour market and massive education market as people live, work, learn wherever they choose. The controversy has been that this has allowed many from lower income Member States to work in higher income ones undercutting local labour. For overpriced builders and plumbers in the UK, the arrival of hard working enthusiastic Poles has not been good for them, but it has been good for the Poles and their customers.

Thirdly, with these measures have come the means for the European Commission to force countries to abide by rules to ensure open borders and competition between countries remains so. Domestic markets in services such as telecommunications, bus services, banking, electricity, insurance, supermarkets, postal services, airlines and the like have been required to be opened up to create a single European market. Low cost airlines would not have succeeded in Europe had the likes of Ryanair and Air Berlin not been able to open bases in other countries and fly from wherever to wherever in the EU in competition with national carriers. Attempts to subsidise, regulate or otherwise interfere with some sectors have faced European Court action.

If it all stopped there, then I'd be very happy with the EU. Breaking down barriers and markets, enforcing deregulation and even stopping national governments from offering subsidies to protect domestic businesses (but not if the subsidies are available to any EU businesses) is a good thing. To be fair, efforts in some of the newer Member States to tackle corruption, organised crime and the like in those countries at government levels have also been positive (although Bulgaria is hardly a model of government without links to organised crime).

The thing is that you don't have to be in the EU to get most of that. Three European countries are not in the EU, but have free trade and free movement of people with it. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland all have almost the same freedoms with the EU and each other, as Member States of the EU. Their own domestic reasons for rejecting EU Membership are unimportant (protect fisheries from subsidised EU competition, protect oil incomes from funding EU transfers to poor countries, protect national sovereignty and independence), but notable for being inconvenient to EUphiles. The European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) which paralleled the EU, has provided a treaty bound mechanism to enjoy freedoms within Europe without the bureaucracy or the commitment to fund he EU. Remember that, because it is important. There is an alternative to the EU to get most of the benefits of the EU.

The downside of all of this comes with certain obligations which I will write about later. These are:

- Welfare tourism. Don't like the housing, health care, education or welfare benefits in your own country within the EU? Move to another EU Member State and enjoy all it has to offer, without having had to pay for it.

- Fortress Europe. Try getting goods or services into the EU from outside the EU/EFTA area. Tariffs, import controls and other mechanisms means the EU has raised walls around itself as much as it has destroyed them internally.

- Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies. Call it, how to sustain the grossly inefficient farming practices of France and Spain (and fishing practices of Spain) using British, Dutch and German taxes, whilst impoverishing farmers from poorer countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Australia/NZ. Nothing quite like having European taxpayers subsidising the properties of the British Royal Family though, especially when it is so unaffordable that farmers in the newer Member States are only offered one-third of the equivalent subsidies of those in the West. There ARE walls within Europe, including the one that means a Greek farmer doing the same as a Bulgarian farmer gets three times the subsidies of the Bulgarian one.

- EU common regulatory framework. The number of laws Member States must pass to meet EU wide obligations on everything from labour laws to protecting "human rights" (which are not all bad to be fair). Micro-managing domestic legislation to iron everyone flat.

- Joining the EURO. Other than Denmark and the UK, other Member States joined or are committed to joining the EURO. That's a whole other story, for although it is much maligned, it is more a problem for being a transnational fiat currency than being a single currency. Think of why Greece felt it could borrow endlessly from a high value low interest rate currency that was largely supported by German economic productivity.

- EU vanity megaprojects. The EU has pursued more than a few large scale multi-billion Euro vanity projects to put Europe on a level with the US and other very large economies. These have all proven to be wealth destroying political projects driven mostly by the Franco/Latin bloc of countries seeking to outdo the US.

- EU wealth transfers. The massive set of subsidies, funds and loans from richer EU Member States to poorer ones, to lift them up to wider EU income levels without actually making them be more productive ~~and to buy subservience from relatively low tax, open, ex. communist bloc countries to accept the socialism promoted by France and Germany~~.

- EU arrogance. Time and time again the European Commission and those pushing the EU project have implicitly recognised they could never get consent for the project from voters directly, so have resisted referenda or even making the European Commission or Council accountable to the European Parliament (which cannot actually initiate new laws itself). If voters say no, the EU expects them to try again and give the right answer. The entire project reeks of bureaucratic insistence of its own superiority over its subjects. Those who reject what it wants are wrong and must be made to submit. Worst, those who reject the EU are painted as wanting out of everything, as being nationalistic, narrow minded, parochial, even risking war and conflict.

In a later article I will also write about why things are the way they are, and what national interests and drivers motivate the biggest players, but also why it should be possible for the far more numerous others to get things to change, if they weren't all being bribed implicitly by the system that will ultimately harm their interests.

Know someone with a dog that wont leave your leg alone?

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:00:00 +0000

After a week or so of unbridled seriousness, some humour - except this item exists.

The perfect present has arrived.

If you are easily offended by sexual material don't click and don't read on. This isn't suitable for children, or those who prefer the mating habits of animals

See here.

Not a present you want in view of house guests, children, or anyone excessively sensitive.

Not a present you want kept outside so any Tom, Dick or Rover can treat it as the town bike.

Not a present for someone who wont wash the "pink hole".

Not a present for someone who thinks such gifts for pets are a mark of the decline of civilisation.

Wait for the first owner to paint eyes and a smile on the toy, or dress it and wonder why it is no longer interesting to a real dog.

Wait for the first dog to tweet that Snoopy doesn't look how he does in cartoons.

Wait for the first comedian to use it as a prop in stand up.

Wait for the first animal rights activist to claim that castration of dogs should be banned, as they can be given one of these.

Wait for the first animal rights activist who will claim that anyone whose dog (not bitch) doesn't have a partner and doesn't have one of these, is having his rights infringed.

Wait for the first A & E centre or fire brigade call from the jackass who decided to have a go himself and got stuck.

Wait for the first images of someone actually doing that seeping its way online, as someone will somehow feel proud of what he did, in multiple positions.

Wait for the feminist animal rights activist who demands an equivalent toy for bitches.

Wait for the feminist animal rights activist who demands to know why there is only one hole.

Wait for the gay animal rights activist who demands that toys get made for gay dogs too.

Wait for the African-American rights activist who wants to know why the white poodle is humping the big black toy.

Wait for the post-graduate thesis paper written on why the manufacturer wisely chose the smaller toy to be white and the larger one is black, and how that reflects changes in capitalism's recognition of the sensitivities created among African-American communities over structural inequalities, perceptions of subjugation, racism, sexual stereotyping, and sexist portrayals of black women.

Wait for the cat lovers who laugh that anyone thinking of making one for cats has never encountered a cat.

Does tax evasion cost New Zealand?

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:00:00 +0000

The Press reports on research by an outfit called the International Tax Justice Network claiming that tax evasion costs the New Zealand Government more than NZ$7 billion a year in lost tax.

Let's be clear, the Government isn't New Zealand and so the loss is not akin to everyone suffering.

It's a very simplistic view to presume that somehow this is lost sales, stolen money or anything of the sort, or that behaviour wouldn't change if people paid tax on the transactions listed. Indeed it is quite false.

For a start, some cash jobs simply wouldn't be done if they were subject to tax. The value generated from it wouldn't happen, and the consumer would spend the money on something else or save it, which may or may not generate tax. In other words, tax changes behaviour and so the so-called "black" economy would be smaller if it was subject to tax. That NZ$20 billion "shadow" economy would be less and so there would be less wealth overall.

When PWC tax partner Geof Nightingale says "If we could tax that shadow economy, we would either have more roads or hospitals or get out of deficit faster" he's quite wrong. For a start, he presumes the shadow economy wouldn't shrink significantly if it was taxed.

Secondly, it is a bold assumption to presume government would spend the money better than the people trading the goods and services. Even if you go beyond unlimited free air travel for MPs into buying up an unprofitable railway, funding radio stations you don't listen to, paying welfare benefits to convicted murderers and subsidising businesses, government spending is far from frugal or careful enough to presume that people are not better off because they are paying less tax. Certainly if the businessmen doing cash jobs buys things from my shop (even if I pay tax), I am better off, as are the businesses who sold me those goods, and the employees of those businesses and so on. How does Nightingale know what is best for them? That sets aside the detail that roads are paid for by what are effectively user charges on motorists (try getting out of paying fuel tax, although RUC is easier to evade). He could have said more cultural advisors, more planners, more policy wonks, more NZ On Air funded TV programmes, more overseas travel for bureaucrats and politicians, more assistance for hand-picked businesses, more welfare benefits so people subscribe to Sky TV more. Why is that good?

Yet he then says "We anecdotally hear there's quite a lot of cash business going on in Christchurch these days". You don't say? So after the government basically told businesses down town "it's not your property now, you can't go near it" and "oops we demolished your building, forget to tell you or ask you", do you really think people in Christchurch have respect for paying taxes whilst they engage in voluntary productive exchange of goods and services? Leave these people alone, they haven't hurt you and they are trying to rebuild their lives and businesses, businesses that create wealth, not take wealth.

In a low tax, small government New Zealand, Geof Nightingale may have to get another job, for at the most, taxation would be very low, very simple and as such few would seek to evade it, because it wouldn't be confiscating a sizeable part of your income. It wouldn't be worth it for most businesses to bother hiring the likes of him.

Finally, it's important to point out to the IRD spokesman who said "our hidden economy and property transaction areas were showing a return on investment of $5.70 for every dollar invested" that this isn't an economic return. It is just that for every dollar spent on a tax snoop (consider the psychology behind someone who chooses to spy on productive peaceful people to find out if they are coughing up "their share" to the state) the snoops recover $5.70 from the people they catch - catch not actually initially force or fraud on anyone, except of course defrauding the state - a state that will happily take taxes all its life from people and if you die before the age of national superannuation, not give your estate anything for your troubles. A state that will promise one thing, and then deliver something else. A state which when it fails to answer your 111 call, or fails to investigate the crime you're a victim of, or fails to get you healthcare when you need it, isn't accountable and wont pay you a refund.

No. Every dollar IRD takes is a dollar that otherwise would have been spent on a good or service someone wanted, or invested to make more dollars, or donated to help someone or something as a charity. Because fundamentally, the difference between the money received by those in the cash economy and the money received by the state, is that in the former case, the person getting paid ASKED and couldn't use violence to demand anyone pay for whatever goods or services he offered.

When the state is small, and tax is low, the size of the so-called "black" economy shrinks (excluding the other "black" economy of banned goods or services) as evasion isn't worth it, simply because people have more of their own money. That money isn't a loss to New Zealand, because it is part of GDP and because it circulates between consenting adults trading value freely. The only concern comes from the government bemoaning that it hasn't got its slice of a cake that it had little to do with baking in the first place.

Pay for our pensions, but don't expect to afford your own

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:40:00 +0000

That's the fundamental cry of the public sector unions which are going on strike today in the UK. Around 2 million are going on strike, which most attention given to border control staff who by going on industrial action will see massive queues at airports as people arrive from international flights.

The people going on strike are opposing having the age at which they receive their employer (read state, read taxpayer funded) pension increased to match the actual age at which people get the state pension, they are opposing having to contribute more and opposing a shift from final salary pensions (you know, the type you could only dream of in the private sector) to average wage pensions.

I like Old Holborn's proposed message to the strikers seen below:

People whose incomes and employment are dependent on the private sector generating wealth, hiring employees and paying taxes to pay for them, are wanting these same people to continue to carry the burden of paying the ungrateful sods pensions that none of the rest of us could ever dream of. Yes, some are upset that they perform useful jobs (in schools and hospitals) and were "promised" final salary pensions when given them by previous governments. Well here's the news, government promises are worthless - they are promising to spend money that isn't theirs, that they don't have and to pass on the bill to someone else and blame them when they can't deliver (let's call that the Labour Party). Make your own plans for retirement, don't trust politicians to make them for you.

Sadly it was the unions' lackeys in power - the Labour Party - that sold their members this unaffordable, unfunded pup, that they relied upon for their careers, and now face losing because it can't be afforded.

So the anger from the strikers shouldn't be directed at the government, it should be directed at their unions and the Labour Party - they were promised something that couldn't be delivered or afforded, and which demanded taxpayers pay for something they themselves could never get.

The enormous lie perpetuated by the unions is to pretend the UK didn't have a budget deficit or substantial public debt before the financial crisis - it did. The unions pretend the spending cuts are to "pay for the banks". They are not, they are to get current spending balanced, and the banks haven't been funded by the state since Gordon Brown bailed out three of them only, two years ago. Bank bailouts aren't happening every year.

The public finances in the UK are dire. The UK's public debt is set to reach 94% of GDP in 2014-15, worse than Germany, France or the Eurozone average, only being better than Italy and Greece - no great achievement. Public debt is set to increase by a total of £520 billion in the life of this government. Debt isn't being cut, the growth of it is being slowed. The total extent of government spending cuts in the life of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition will only be 3.4% in real terms (after inflation) between 2010 and 2015. Another 1.9% of cuts are forecast for the two subsequent years. Hardly brutal, hardly radical. Only then will be UK budget actually be in balance.

Those striking are following the propaganda of those who want government to borrow more and more, and hope they aren't around when Britain has a sovereign debt crisis ala Greece or Italy, either that or they want to tax the "rich", which presumes they'll hang around for the privilege. I doubt most would, and they would take their businesses and the jobs with them.

If the private sector said "sod it" and went on strike, and stopped working, stopped running businesses and stopped paying taxes, then this lot would truly be stuffed. That's why the government should sit quietly, make sure people know that to give them what they want, there would have to be more borrowing (raising interest rates), more taxes or less spending elsewhere. The unions don't say what option they want - let's call them out on this, and say no.

Piggies in the trough

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:21:00 +0000

Stuff reports "Goodie bags containing iPads and smartphones and instructions on how to maximise your free air travel and accommodation perks – it must be induction day for Parliament's new MPs. Goodie bags containing iPads and smartphones and instructions on how to maximise your free air travel and accommodation perks – it must be induction day for Parliament's new MPs... Posters hanging in booths outlined their new perks – "unlimited domestic travel", exclaimed one".

All of the new MPs, National, Labour, Greens, NZ First, to a man and woman, soaked it up, took what they were "entitled to", at your expense. I bet John Banks will too.

None of those talked to expressed disgust and remorse, including those who claim to speak on behalf of the poor. None showed interest in limiting their domestic air travel to trips to and from their constituency.

Yet most of you voted for them, so really you only have yourselves to blame right?

Where to from here for those of us who believe in freedom?

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:00:00 +0000

ACT, Libertarianz, Freedom Party, Liberal Party, whatever name there is for the future of those at the libertarian/freedom oriented end of the political spectrum is not important right now. What is important is that those of us who share some fairly core values and principles agree to sit down and talk. The options that have been taken up till now have been somewhat spent. ACT has long been the pragmatic option, but until 2008 was never part of government. In government, many (including myself) believe it under-delivered, and certainly the strategy taken by the leadership the past few months has been an abject failure. I wont repeat my previous views on this, but needless to say ACT as a liberal force for more freedom and less government cannot limp along simply led by John Banks to the next election. I suspect even he realises that the status quo isn't sustainable.

To be fair to Libertarianz, every election since the 2002 administrative debacle has been an improvement, both in campaigning style and result. Yet without getting virtually any media attention or having enough money to buy advertising, it struggles to get heard. Even when it had its peak in 1999, it was due to Lindsay Perigo’s leadership and presence on a nationwide radio station. Yet this end of the political spectrum has been sadly filled with the sorts of chasms and arguments that are not entirely dissimilar from that of the far left. It occasionally has been a little like the Trotskyites vs. the Stalinists vs. the Maoists. ACT has blamed Libertarianz for being too purist, Libertarianz has blamed ACT for being soft sellouts and others have said that Christians have felt excluded, along with non-objectivists, or even those who are conservatives in their personal life and have conservative values, but don't believe the state should impose them. Bear in mind I’m an objectivist libertarian and Libertarianz member who has voted Libertarianz four times and ACT twice since MMP came along.

The bare faced truth that needs to be admitted is that there is a difference between seeking to win Parliamentary representation and influence, and to be a lobby group that seeks to influence more widely than that. Those on the left, including the environmentalists are expert in doing this, having set up a number of moderate to high profile lobby groups that focus on specific issues. Those of us who want less government, need to do more organising, less in-fighting and recognise the difference between running a successful political party, lobbying on issues and being movements of populism or philosophy.

I agree with Peter Cresswell that those of us who are freedom lovers need to start talking. So I suggest there be a conference of some sort in that light.

The default invitees being senior members of ACT and Libertarianz, and others specifically invited by people from both parties (who may come from National or elsewhere inside or outside politics). It should be a session to think, not necessarily to decide what to do, but to spend time to chew the fat and provide the catalyst to do more thinking, before acting. It shouldn't be a session to grandstand or for publicity seekers, but a serious closed conference. It wont be to make final decisions, but to make substantive progress on what to do next. It should form the basis to produce proposals for discussions with existing party members, and to reach a conclusion within a year.

The agenda should be as follows:

- Introductions ;

- What sort of objectives should exist for a political party of freedom;

o Principles and values;

o Political goals

- Understanding philosophy (where do our principles and values come from ((intention to understand, not debate, how different people came to the freedom/liberal/libertarian end of the spectrum));

- Key policies and issues (identifying policies that unite us, and those that divide us. Not looking for detailed discussion about tax rates, but to establish common ground and to understand clearly the issues that cause some of us problems and finding a way to address, discuss them);

- What’s right about ACT and Libertarianz, and what is wrong;

- What a successful party of freedom would look like, campaign like, and focus on;

- What to avoid (Open, frank and honest discussion about what a future party should avoid);

- Options (revitalising ACT, strengthening Libertarianz, starting from scratch, rebranding and merging) with the objective of narrowing down preferences to two;and

- Next steps (widening discussion with respective parties, another meeting to create concrete proposals).

This should happen next year, around mid-year (so people will want to stay inside). It should be good willed, good natured and well disciplined. It shouldn’t just be a meeting of suits, or a meeting of loud mouthed angry ranters, but a meeting of good people, with good intentions, who have by and large, shared values, but haven’t been talking from first principles and objectives with each other. Bear in mind also that what may finally come could be a two pronged strategy - one involving a political party, another involving a think tank/lobby group (or two?).

The most important thing of all, for everyone, will be to listen.

In advance of that, those of us in ACT, Libertarianz, and indeed freedom oriented members of National, ALCP (and others if they find themselves in a less conventional political home) should sit down and talk amongst ourselves, and with each other. It is time to rise above the morass of noise, detail and personality clashes. Nothing should be in or out, but it should be obvious that unless there is a consistent belief in there being less government and more freedom, then we will get nowhere.

It’s time to not be too solipsistic and realise that this election less than 1.5% of the public voted for parties that expressly espouse less government. Many of us have been doing this for some years, but we also have eager, hard working and enthusiastic young people who reject the mainstream view that the answer to any problem is automatically that the government should do more. Let’s do it for them, do it for us, do it for the country we want New Zealand to be - I believe that at the very least it means free, prosperous, optimistic, where people are judged not by their ancestry, sex or background, but by their deeds and words. A country where being a tall poppy is not something to sneer at, but something to celebrate and aspire to.

The conservative right has got its act together, and has built a highly credible platform that could cross the 5% threshold in 2014.

We must do the same, but better.

Who’s with me?

P.S. The reports that John Banks is talking to the Conservative Party to consider some sort of relationship, simply exemplifies the fact that ACT is finished. LET Banks take whatever is left of ACT with him, let him go. He'll never win Epsom under that banner. I'd don't need to say the three word phrase that starts with "told", but I am SO glad I did not vote ACT to be represented by Banks. It isn't schadenfreude at all, it's just frustration when this whole debacle is res ipsa loquitur.

New Zealand election 2011 - Verdict 2 - how I'd advise the parties

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:00:00 +0000

My pre-election review of the parties set out what I thought of them and where they are placed, now I have reviewed them one by one according to what I'd advised them strictly politically, rather than philosophically. After all, I'd be telling all but one of them to pack it in if I was being true to myself. So I'll give them a score for result.

ACT: Game virtually over. Epic fail. Loss of three quarters of your vote, which would have looked worse had turnout been better. You couldn't even get Don Brash to outpoll the Green candidate in North Shore, not that you tried. Some will blame Don Brash for this, even Lindsay Perigo, others will blame John Banks and all those who resisted that strategy. You know what I think, but bickering wont be helpful, digging deep into why a party that once got 7% now has 1% of the vote will be critical. The campaign was abysmal, you couldn't control the fallout from the "cup of tea" meeting which the left were feral on (yes it has become more occupied by conspiracy theory baiting hate mongerers) and John Banks stopped you being liberal. You now have two issues. The first one is what John Banks extracts for his support of National. Even Peter Dunne extracted maintaining his Families Commission and building Transmission Gully, what will ACT get? If John Banks is just going to be another National MP then you have to wonder why you bothered? There needs to be a new strategy, one that is consistently about less government, lower taxes, private property rights, choice in public services and rejecting Nanny State solutions to every problem. John Banks is not the man to lead this. I'll write more about my ideas later, but for now you need to be open, honest and discover what went wrong, and be aware how you can't rebuild based on John Banks, unless he can, chameleon like, be quite different from his past. Time for some honest self-reflection to determine a new strategy for the libertarian/free market right. Score 1/10 Future prospects bleak

Alliance: For a brand that once commanded nearly 20% of the vote, you must now consider packing it in. From 1909 votes in 2008 to 1069 this time, the future is not bright. Unless you want to be a Dunedin based Marxist ginger group, you know your policies and philosophy are represented much more clearly and successfully in the Greens and Mana Party. Hard left supporters know they can vote for either of those and make a difference. I know far leftwing organisations struggle to acknowledge they are little more than a social club for people wishing people thought like them, if that's ok to you, then fine. However, with the exception of Wigram and Dunedin (the former because some probably still think Jim Anderton leads you, the latter being family and friends), you have virtually no support and its been in free fall decline since 1993 without exception. Consider this, what are you an Alliance of? The Greens are gone, Mana Motuhake has been usurped by the Maori and Mana parties, the Social Creditors are gone, the Liberals were never really there and Labour is closer now to New Labour than at any time since New Labour was formed. Yet its quaint that you bother, so keep the red flag flying, especially if you think the Greens going centrist mean they are revisionist capitalist roaders. Although I am convinced your lives could be better spent in other ways. Score 1/10 Future prospects irrelevance

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party: Once a party that gained well over 1% of the vote, it was a place people who wouldn't usually vote could cast a vote for something they cared about. However, you seem to have reached your base, which remarkably is 9516 votes, one vote more than 2008 (although you will get a few on specials). Yet whilst you have once hoped to get 5% you have to realise by now that most people don't vote on one issue. I wondered if the departure of Nandor Tanczos from the Greens would have driven more your way, but it appears to have had little effect. I expect many of those who support your issue vote Green, but there are more than a few who are on the liberal right, voting National, ACT and Libertarianz. You are more likely to be effective as a lobby group, with NORML, but that has been less than stunning in its success. Unless you can highlight how grossly unfair the law is and get media attention for that, you're unlikely to provoke enough outrage to get enough votes on this issue. So I think you need another strategy. I think you need to seek the views of candidates of all parties on this issue and promote people supporting candidates (and parties) that share your view. All Libertarianz and a few ACT candidates agree with you, but you need to shift the image of this issue from being bucolic stoners wanting to light up, to being about failed policies, reducing demands on the taxpayer and shifting police effort from cannabis to real crime. There is no majority who will support endorsing cannabis, but you may be able to get support for those who say the status quo has failed, that it hands the product to the criminal gangs and has failed to reduce usage. Many of you are not libertarians, have no time for free market liberals, but we actually are your greatest allies - for whilst you can convince Green party supporters, only people on the right can convince conservatives or sceptics that there is a better way to deal with drugs issues than throwing users in prison. Reach out to those you might otherwise disagree with, and you may get more results. Score 4/10 Future prospects treading water

Conservative Party: This has been a great start for those on the conservative right. Colin Craig's effort has been well rewarded with a platform to build upon for next time. The history of conservative minor parties has been poor, with the failure of the Christian Coalition to cross the threshold (I am sure many of its supporters, in retrospect, will say thankfully given the entity who led it), United Future's dabble with it, the Kiwi Party and the Family Party. Your biggest competition is NZ First, but you do have several prospects for growth. Peter Dunne took the Outdoor Recreation Party under his wing, which could do well to take back, since United Future's vote is ever shrinking. NZ First is an obvious target, since it represents 21st century Muldoonism, but you have a fresher look, less personality cult and should, naturally, be able to fight on immigration, crime and one law for all. Your hardest battle is a media keen to paint you as Graham Capill Mk. II or Brian Tamaki Mk. II. The less you say about religion the better, the more you say about values, principles and policies, and have people who have good CVs standing for you, the better as well. Bear in mind the media is looking for bigotry about homosexuality and hypocrisy about sex and money, if only because Capill's hypocrisy was breathtaking, and Brian Tamaki's predation of the poor and ignorant is repulsive. Your medium term goal must to be National's next coalition partner, but you must also seek to court Pasifika and Maori votes. Many of them are naturally conservative, and NZ First supporters. To get further, you need to work hard, everywhere, and find more platforms for your views and call out National whenever you can where it matters, and call out NZ First and Winston Peters. By the way, you also need to ask that opinion polls include you too. You haven't come close to reaching your ceiling yet, but be aware of the mistakes of those before you, New Zealand is not as socially conservative as you may hope and indeed it is that matter that is perhaps the biggest impediment to the Republican Party winning office in the US. Score 7/10 Future prospects promising

Democrats for Social Credit: No doubt some of you think there has been a media conspiracy organised by banks, sharemarkets, multinational corporations and the like in cahoots with John Key to deny the truth of Major Douglas's amazing discovery, and if only the public knew what you knew, they'd never look back. You're probably hoping that there is global financial meltdown and the fiat fractional reserve currencies you despise go with it. While the Alliance may be a social club, I don't doubt you are. Any of you, any at all, need to get out and have some open, listening focused conversations with economists on your own (not with other believers who will tell you that they don't understand or they do and they wont admit it because they are part of the conspiracy) and find out why not even the Occupy movement, Anti-Capitalist movements or others embrace Social Credit. Don't be embarrassed when you find out, just move on. Yet I know many of you will be celebrating how you got over 200 more votes this time, no doubt fuelled by campaigning in a few spots, but no. There is no future in this movement. If you want to focus on monetary policy then look elsewhere, read Detlev Schlichter's book "Paper Money Collapse". His answer is not social credit, but commodity backed money. Throw away Major Douglas's work, start again, but if you want to build a political party on it then think hard. Score 4/10 Future prospects fading away

Green Party: Around 54,000 more votes and 4 (maybe 5) new MPs, you'll be pretty stoked with that result. However, bear in mind that it is in part due to Labour's lack of inspiration and the value of your brand that you did well. Think yourself lucky too that you're not in government where you can easily get tainted by having to prove your policies in action and sell out others in coalition. Still you can't be unhappy with a focus on simple messages and being positive. You are going to have National talk to you, because it wants to lure you to the centre. This is where you have to choose. Do you aim to be a bigger centrist party that straddles the two major ones, or do you want to remain with your hard left roots? Hard left roots will mean you scorn the Nats, have agreements to discuss on legislation case by case and that is it. Centrist means you form an agreement on one or more policy areas to work on. Big wins for you could be energy or transport, the Nats will be more likely to offer you conservation or to help on poverty issues, if you can give up asking for more welfare money. Being seen to please your supporters with National will be valuable, but you can't offer confidence and supply to the Nats without risking Labour saying a vote for Green is a vote for National. If you can keep your identity clear and find an area to work with the Nats, then you can play being centrist on that policy area while remaining left elsewhere. Bear in mind your biggest electoral competition is Labour. Score 9/10 Future prospects growing influence with National, Labour's inevitable future partner

Labour Party: Quarter of a million voters abandoned you this time, less than half of them went to the Greens and NZ First, the majority stayed home. The focus on asset sales wasn't inspirational enough to anyone but the faithful, the simple point is you don't yet look like a government in waiting. You have lost the party vote in most electorates and have little presence in Auckland or the provinces, and your rump in Wellington and Dunedin is not enough. Capital Gains Tax was a loser as was your policy detail overall. Not enough clear simple messages on things people care about. The Greens got an easy ride from the media, but also exploited their brand and were optimistic and issue focused. You needed to argue party vote Labour was the only way to change the government, and chip away at a few of the Green policies that would scare the mainstream, like attitudes to the Treaty of Waitangi and the hectoring desire to tell people what to do. However, you're probably confused moreso about NZ First. Wakeup. New Zealand is not seen by unionists and academics, but lots of hard working ordinary people who eschew the politically correct measured language used by you. Winston plays them easily and you need to bring them home, by having them not feel alienated by you. Have a leadership battle, make it a time for self-reflection and be careful to pick people who your provincial hard working core might relate to. Meanwhile, bear in mind the next three years could be very hard for any government, be grateful it isn't you and be ready to be there if it gets so bad, you're a shoo in by default. You also need to work on Maori voters. You might be winning the party vote, but you need to combat the Mana Party's radicalism and the Maori Party supporting National in consecutive elections. Score 2/10 Future prospects the only way is up, but it depends on the new leader and the economy for now

Libertarianz: Nearly 300 more votes than last time is proportionately not a bad result, but Libertarianz still faces a series of very difficult barriers. The wasted vote syndrome (especially with ACT's presence offering a watered down alternative), almost complete absence of media exposure and the inherent fear of radicalism by so many. A party with good people that was once beset with infighting and being its own worst enemy by its lack of willingness to be more measured in its use of language and more focused and optimistic. This campaign was actually quite good for what it was worth and the demons of the past are largely behind it, but with 1400 party votes it is still the "members plus family, friends and a handful" club. Noticeably, in electorates the candidates typically do far far better than the party vote. I will write about this later, but I believe Libertarianz and the liberal wing of ACT need to sit down and talk, and determine how to move forward. There is a bigger constituency for having less government and to pull the Nats towards their principles. However, those who think that way have been unwilling to throw away their votes on a party that rarely appears in the polls, and have gone elsewhere with their votes. Spend a weekend talking about objectives and options, and look to rebuild, merge, create something new or dissolve. The Conservative Party shows how a clear philosophy, consistent team (and some money) can achieve results. We can do so as well. However, it is not a time to gloat, point score or be closed minded or to reject those who are less ambitious. Think Gramsci. The left didn't succeed by insisting on a communist party as the source of all its efforts. Score 5/10 Future prospects if it can bring on board some of ACT, be open minded and inclusive, a chance for a step change rather than a step forward.

Mana: Given you'll see me as part of the Pakeha colonial conspiracy of capitalists, you will think I'm out to get you with this. However, you've done ok to get 1%, but you must have hoped you'd pick up Annette Sykes's seat and some more votes. You've bruised the Maori Party and created solidly leftwing credentials beyond the Maori vote. You can point at the Maori Party doing deals with National and be comfortable on your patch, and you can blame Labour for not embracing the poor as much as you want. Obviously you have a core now and you can build on it, but it need to be more than Hone and needs to woo Maori Party members and supporters more and more. You know you'll only have real effects when Labour needs you to govern, but you know Labour has some sympathisers within. At a time of global economic crisis you can always play the anti-capitalist card louder than any others and grab the hard-left vote consistently, bearing in mind if the Greens move further to the centre, you'll pick up some of them too. Your cleverest move is to look wider than a Maori party, but to avoid some of the more outrageous comments of some of your leading candidates being held against you, and to avoid being seen as a one man band. Score 6/10 Future prospects Disturbingly bright if it can nurture the Maori nationalist ideology that has been getting pushed through some educational institutions. Labour's possible coalition partner that might push the Maori Party into oblivion.

Maori Party: Lost more than half of your vote, two thirds seem to have gone to Mana, the rest to Labour or didn't turn out. Hone has taken your radical wing, which is a positive for you in terms of future relations with the major parties, but you need to keep focusing on policy and seeking to be different. Supporting National again is pragmatic and may get you some wins, but they must be sold to your voters many of whom wont want the idea that it is you keeping National in power. National didn't need you last time, but this time is almost certainly will. Unlike most minor parties, you can be presented as being focused on serving the interests of your voters rather than a philosophy. Bear in mind you need to convince voters you'll support Labour if it will deliver for Maori, or National if it will. Take on Hone when he preaches separatism and expresses outrageous and divisive views, and always be optimistic and forward looking. Yet remember your core is the Maori seats and you need to have candidates who will inspire against strong challenges from Labour and Mana. You need Tu Tangata candidates in their own right that can position you against being part of the larger Labour party and against the divisive Mana Party. Score 3/10 Future prospects Hard work not being seen as National's patsy, and also fighting radical attacks from Mana.

National: You'll all be gloating, but don't be too smug. You have 50,000 less votes than before and was only really saved by mass defection of ACT voters to National. You now need not only ACT and United Future but also the Maori Party. Imagine if you needed NZ First. Now you need to focus on message and communicating to more ordinary people. Labour is in disarray for now, but will be back. You lost 1-2 seats to the Conservative Party, so you might think about how to appeal to some of the issues of that party. However, in an MMP world you need coalition partners, you may prefer to leave some room for them to flourish. Prove the part-privatisation is no big deal. Do a deal with the Greens on conservation and energy efficiency, but be ready to attack the Greens when they are so obviously hysterical or quite separatist on Maori matters. It's up to you, if you don't attack the Greens, nobody will. The left attacked you through attacking ACT. You doing the same hurts Labour, don't expect you can woo the Greens to the centre, because you wont - it is fundamentally a leftwing party, not an environmentalist party. Winston will make a lot of noise, but you have little choice but to ignore him as he scrambles for issues, but bear in mind it is your voters he is after. You can't cover all his conspiracies and stories, but you can say a vote for him is a vote for the Labour party. Finally, your success is in part due to being seen to be competent with the economy. The more waste and failure that can be found, the more you play into the hands of your opponents. Score 8/10 Future prospects Reasonably good if the economy holds up, but a third term will depend even more on coalition partners and wooing back voters from NZ First.

NZ First: Yes yes, bugger the pollsters. Don't be too smug, there is the issue of your constitution and the rules. I'd worry about that first if I was you. You might not have your Dear Leader anymore. Otherwise, do you really think there is a future in this personality cult? I know for some of you this is the best job ever, but it wont last. You'll be widely laughed at for three years. Have you figured out what life is like after Winston? No? It's called oblivion. Your success depends on Labour remaining incapable of winning an election, but since you don't want to go with National ever again, you're rather trapped in no man's land, which is where Winston likes it I think. However, surely you have something better to do than remain an Opposition minor MP for three years don't you? Yes you can grow by playing the one law for all card, the bash an immigrant card and reintroduction of capital punishment as well, but is that really you? Score 9/10 Future prospects Up to the Dear Leader baiting people's prejudices and the media going on about him.

United Future: Oh dear Peter it is down to you more and more. Come on, you know it's going to be like Jim Anderton's Progressive Party, it will go when you retire. Unless you get leverage on any wider issue than Transmission Gully or the Families Commission, you'll be stuck in the middle with nothing interesting to offer. Pray you get a chance at another worm and get seen as moderate and sensible again, otherwise sit tight and focus on Ohariu, Score 4/10 Future prospects Comfortable retirement, but oblivion for the party

New Zealand election 2011 - Verdict 1

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 10:41:00 +0000

Whilst National is savouring victory and Labour nursing its wounds, far too many commentators still think in First Past the Post terms. It looks like a landslide, yet it is not. National is barely able to pull together a government, and if special votes go to the Greens (as overseas Kiwis disproportionately like voting for an image that they don't need to pay for), the Nats could face needing the Maori Party.

National gained two seats, but ACT lost four. This isn't a great victory, it is in fact a bleeding of support to the left, with the winners being the Greens and New Zealand First. National's gain is mostly due to ACT supporters abandoning what they perceived as a sinking ship that may not make it. National gained precious little from Labour, and lost more to the Conservative Party, easily costing it 3-4 seats (and the Conservative Party ate in a little to United Future, much more and Peter Dunne would be an overhang MP).

So the truth is not that plain. It is quite likely National faces government needing the Maori Party on confidence and supply, and that is a party that also has not had a good election. It lost two seats, with Labour picking them up, but with the votes going to the Mana Party. That is in part because Hone Harawira has taken the radical Maori nationalist/socialist vote, but also because of perceptions that the Maori Party is too close to National. Let's be clear, there is no prospect for a credible government that is not National-led at this point. It is difficult to envisage the mess that Labour-Greens-NZ First-Mana-Maori would look like as it too would also need Peter Dunne.

So expect the Maori Party to demand more, even though by numbers, it ought to be able to demand less. However, that is what MMP brings up, the leading party by miles is now more than ever needing support by a party that had its support halve.

So those hoping for "steady as she goes" may find it isn't quite so steady, and that Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia will be seeking a bigger pound of flesh for their constituents. Yet don't think National isn't aware of what it must do in the next three years. A key long term strategy of National is (or logically should be) to woo Maori voters. The demographics of the country are such that this is critical and the Maori Party is one vehicle that the National Party hopes to do this through. No longer are Maori votes balkanised in four seats, but are nationwide in every electorate through the party vote - although it is notable that the Maori Party still gets more support concentrated in Maori seats than in the party vote overall.

National will also look to do a deal with the Greens. The obvious areas for this could be energy, conservation or transport. So expect that you might have higher power prices, that mining on conservation land stops or suddenly a motorway is stopped for an underground rail loop. Pulling the Greens away from Labour has to be a core strategy for National, but the Greens will be wary about that going too far, given that it will instantly scare off many of their supporters.

The Labour Party will feel hurt, but it need not be too concerned. It is 6% higher than National was in 2002, and it is obvious where its support went. Its loss of support roughly matches the gains of the Greens and NZ First, in short Labour needs to improve its marketing and focus, but also cater for its base of "working class" voters. NZ First's support comes from those who see National as a party of suits, but Labour a party of academics, teachers and politically correct liberals. These are the people that want a hardline on crime and have little time for singling out initiatives for Maori or other groups.

MMP was strongly supported by left wing political activists and supporters because they knew it would deliver for them, at least in stopping any further liberalisation of the economy. It has done so, in spades. In 1996 it meant National had to embrace Winston Peters and his agenda of halting asset sales, which gave Labour time to reconcile its differences with the left embodied by Jim Anderton, so that in 1999 a thoroughly tired and discredited National and NZ First gave way to a Labour-Alliance coalition, with the Greens scraping through. This led to three terms of leftwing Labour government, with the Alliance replaced with the Greens to the left of Labour, although Labour preferred to embrace the floating centre which went to NZ First and United Future at different times to fully embracing the Greens and spooking floating voters to National. In 2008 National could have had a term of free market reformist government with ACT, but knew it needed a wider base over time so embraced the Maori Party. Now it needs the Maori Party, and is to court the Greens. National's true home as the natural party of government and being inherently conservative (as in do not much) is where it is. Labour need only wait until enough voters are seeking change, and have a leader who can sell it, for NZ First and Green voters to "return home", and quite possible wipe out the Maori Party.

For those who embrace centrist politics, the next three years will be a celebration. It wont be radical, it wont see the size of the state grow or get cut, and taxes wont change overall. The left's hysteria about partial privatisation will be shown up for what it is when it happens, as nobody will notice much difference. There was nothing else they could attack National for, as no other policies were much different.

Indeed, the Greens, NZ First and Labour must quietly fear that if National can "get away" with part-privatisation, that the bogey of this issue - whipped up by economic illiteracy, fact absent legends about past privatisations and old fashioned xenophobia - will have been neutered somewhat.

The future of left-wing politics may be seen in whipping up fear of the current economic uncertainty and some class warfare - which can be seen in some blogs (e.g. Tumeke, the Standard) and the rhetoric of the Greens and Mana. The Greens barely campaigned at all on environmental issues, as the brand Green already delivered that as a presumption. However, while left-wing activists are always disappointed that the people they claim to speak about rarely are motivated or interested enough to vote for them, it remains that they have the upper ground when it comes to rhetoric, political discourse and media attention. Consider the attention Winston Peters (who I consider left-wing as he is Muldoonist left-wing) and Hone Harawira got from the media compared to Colin Craig of the Conservatives, or the attention any ACT slogans or policies got.

The Gramscian approach to political philosophy, seen in media and inculcated somewhat in the education system, has worked, for the commentators and as default position for many. The only reason it doesn't deliver a solidly leftwing government is that the "masses" are apathetic, indeed it has almost always been that socialists are disappointed that the people who they claim to be motivated about are themselves people lacking motivation for anything more than instant gratification - which is, in one part, why they are in the circumstances they are in.

Yet the free market libertarian "right" has little hope at the moment too. National barely talks the talk on personal responsibility and less government interference in people's lives. It isn't in its blood, and unless Labour takes a swing to the left, National will see little traction in talking about freedom. ACT had so much noise around it about Epsom, John Banks and the recording, that it couldn't get off the block on it. Moreover, the media and most commentators only have a couple of reference points for talking about less government - Rogernomics and the USA. It is an uphill battle, but despite the hysteria of the far left, this government wont be "selling all our assets", operating for the "interests of bankers and the rich" or seeking to take money from the poor - they only wish it was, for without the legend of the right the left doesn't have a scapegoat or bogeyman to point to, so that voters can trust their vision.

Curiously, Maori voters are now split three ways. A significant proportion of those in the Maori seats now support a radical separatist and neo-Marxist vision for New Zealand that would divide the country. The rest support engagement in the current political system. Mana's 1% seems insignificant, yet the question is what it bodes for the future.

Most New Zealanders wont be too upset about the election. Those on the left will be disappointed, yet the Greens will still be partying as they will think they are pushing Labour over a bit. The NZ First faction is small, but it will be thinking they have cocked a snook at the media - when the media delivered for them. However, the left does have a solid bloc of support of around 45% that it can tap and the fact National plays on the turf of the left in terms of rhetoric, objectives and debate shows that things have not changed that much.

The conservative right will be happy, as Colin Craig has set aside the demons of the Kiwi Party, Family Party, Christian Heritage, Christian Democrats et.al to form a single conservative right wing party of some standing. Indeed it did better than ACT, Maori and Mana combined in terms of party votes. Targeting NZ First voters may be fertile ground to help cross the 5% threshold, as will aiming at a single constituency (although Rodney looks promising it may need to be somewhere else). National may want to quietly encourage this.

The liberal right of course are not happy. ACT is finished and most of those who believe in less government ticked the boxes for National. Hopefully those of a conservative persuasion in ACT will go to their logical new home (as above), and those of us who are libertarian need to sit down and figure out where to go to from here.

It isn't a significant election as it does, as I said before, look like a pattern whereby when the likely result is predictable, the vote for the second party dissipates to the minor parties. National had this happen, with United Future and ACT doing well in 2002. Now it is Labour's turn with the Greens and NZ First. Yet the balance is still fairly slim between the centre-right and centre-left, so you might pardon for not getting too excited.

Round up of NZ electorates, electorate and party votes

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:30:00 +0000

Electorates below with my recommendations highlighted, as you can see I didn't get what I wanted by and large :)

Auckland Central - 107 for ACT's David Seymour. Sad he didn't beat the Conservative candidate, and ACT's vote collapsed in this seat. Notable that Nikki Kaye's personal vote is better than National's party vote and Green voters couldn't stomach voting for Jacinda Ardern. Men were all the bottom candidates in Auckland Central. Greens did almost as well as Labour in the party vote here. NZ First outdid ACT here, who knew? National solid on party vote though. Labour will be disappointed here.

Bay of Plenty - Tony Ryall romps in. I said spoil your ballot or abstain, 843 of you did for electorate votes, beating Mana and United Future. NZ First came a close third in party vote, 200 behind Labour. National country through and through and no surprise.

Botany - Incumbent Jami-Lee Ross romps in. Conservatives third on electorate vote with Paul Young, but not well on party vote. ACT's Lyn Murphy well behind and poor ACT result. Again NZ First third in party vote, but Nats miles ahead of Labour. Never really going to be any other way.

Christchurch Central - Dead heat - ACT's Toni Severin denies this seat from the Nats on the night. National well ahead on party vote. Labour will wonder what went wrong.

Christchurch East - Lianne Dalziel is safe here. ALCP's Michael Britnell scored 208 votes. Yet National is thousands ahead of Labour on the party vote. Labour's remaining Christchurch stronghold.

Clutha-Southland - Bill English owns this seat with over two thirds of the vote. ACT's Don Nicolson in fourth on 748 is miles out. National's party vote nearly matches this, but Greens have surprisingly strong third place following. Never really in doubt.

Coromandel - National's Scott Simpson romps in with a big majority, whilst Labour's Hugh Keninmouth has Catherine Delahunty right up against him in 2nd and 3rd respectively. Jay Fitton ALCP got 400 votes. National far ahead on party vote too, but NZ First beats the Greens on party vote. Greens must wonder what they lost since the days Jeanette Fitzsimons had this seat.

Dunedin North - Labour's David Clark is comfortably elected as part of the new intake. Nats 2nd, Metiria Turei a strong third. ACT's Guy McCallum last on 133. Labour actually won the party vote here by around 600 votes, with Greens a very strong third. Labour expected to win here.

Dunedin South - Labour's Clare Curran is safe here, sadly National's Joanne Hayes was nearly 3,900 behind. Yet National was 1,500 ahead on the party vote, with NZ First a strong fourth. Labour also expected to hold this.

East Coast - Ann Tolley is comfortable here with a majority of over 4,000, even if the Green votes had gone to Moana Mackey, it wouldn't have been enough. ACT's John Norvill got only 135 votes. National has more than double Labour's party vote, while NZ First is not far behind the Greens. Labour would have hoped to make inroads, but looks fanciful now.

East Coast Bays - Murray McCully has an almost 2-1 lead over all others combined. 836 of you were informal electorate votes. National's party vote matches that of McCully. Conservative Party came a strong fifth place here. National heartland, anyone here remember Gary Knapp?

Epsom - John Banks has this one with enough of a majority you wonder about the fuss in the media, it is clear that Labour and Green voters could have taken it from him had they voted National. Yet they couldn't bring themselves to do that. Mad bint Penny Bright has 106 followers! 363 were informal electorate votes. National's party vote is dominant with almost two-thirds, but the Greens are a close third behind Labour, yet John Banks so uninspired ACT party votes that it was behind New Zealand First in a seat where ACT used to come third. John Key relieved.

Hamilton East - National's David Bennett has a 7000+ majority. ACT's Garry Mallett got 208 votes. Party vote is National's as well. Greens a reasonable third. Labour once would have hoped to win this.

Hamilton West - National's Tim Macindoe has a 4000 or so majority, with NZ First's Bill Gudgeon (former MP) coming third. Independent Tim Wikiriwhi got 101 votes, second to last. National's party vote was well ahead of the others, with Greens and NZ First in close running in 3rd and 4th. Labour wanted to do well here.

Helensville - John Key has more than two-thirds of the vote here. ACT's Nick Kearney got 161 votes. National's party vote was nearly as good as his electorate vote, with Labour, Greens and NZ First very far behind. Never in doubt.

Hunua - National's Paul Hutchison also grabs about two-thirds of the vote. ACT's Ian Cummings has a not bad 398 votes, and is 2 places short of being last. Party vote again is National's, but NZ First is in third place ahead of the Greens. Also never in doubt.

Hutt South - Trevor Mallard keeps his seat with a good margin of 4000. ACT's Alex Speirs only gets 157 votes. Green's Holly Walker a credible third. Yet again, National ahead on party vote by nearly 2,000. Greens a strong third and NZ First a reasonable fourth. Labour heartland but the Nats hoped to make some inroads.

Ilam - Gerry Brownlee has a whopping majority of nearly 12,000. Labour's John Parsons a distant second, even the strong vote for the Green Kennedy Graham would only have halved that gap had Parsons got it. National's party vote is equally strong, with the Greens in third (yet more electorate than party votes) and NZ First fourth. Never really in doubt.

Invercargill - Eric Roy has a nearly 6,000 vote majority here against soporific Soper. Libertarianz's Shane Pleasance gains a credible 122 votes. National only gets half of the party vote here, but Labour is well behind as the Greens and NZ First have half Labour's vote again. Once Labour country, but looks distant now.

Kaikoura - National's Colin King has an over 10,000 majority here, with the Greens in as strong third place on electorate vote. Libertarianz's Ian Hayes gained 115 votes. National's party vote is equally strong, well ahead of Labour, which has the Greens on a strong third, followed by New Zealand First. Once was tighter, but again looks distant now.

Mana - Labour's Kris Faafoi managed to hang on fairly comfortably with a majority of around 1,800 over hectoring Hekia Parata. ALCP's Richard Goode did well to get 277 votes ahead of ACT's Michael Warren on 159. Yet National won the party vote in what ought to be solid Labour territory with a margin of around 1000 votes. The Greens are a strong third. Should be Labour heartland, but isn't anymore.

Mangere - Sua Sio of Labour has easily nearly three quarters of the vote here with one of Labour's few real heartland seats left. National's Claudette Hauiti had no chance and no other candidates got over 1000 votes. A rare seat where Labour won the party vote by a very large margin, but NZ First is third well ahead of the Greens. For every National party vote here, Labour got five. Solid Labour heartland.

Manukau East - Labour's Ross Robertson also owns this seat with 3 votes to every 1 cast for all others. National's Kanwal Bakshi was the only candidate to get over 1,000 (with over 3,000). ACT's Jono MacFarlane got 218 votes, sadly not beating communist John Minto's 402 votes for Mana. Minto was beaten by NZ First's Asenati Taylor here who got more than double the vote he did. Like Mangere, Labour took most of the party vote here, with National getting 1 vote for every 3 of Labour's. New Zealand First third in party vote with Greens a distant fourth. Minto's personal vote beat the Mana Party vote which in this low decile electorate was trounced by the Conservative Party and only 60 more than ACT. Also solid Labour heartland.

Manurewa - Labour's Louisa Wall has done well here with a majority of around 7,000 ahead of National's Cam Calder. ACT's David Peterson got 161 votes. NZ First candidate John Hall came third. Labour also won the party vote here, with over double National's vote. New Zealand First had more than double the Green Party vote here which was markedly poor, being only a few hundred about the Conservatives. Solidly Labour, once Roger Douglas territory ironically.

Maungakiekie - Peseta Lotu-Iiga of National has a reasonable majority of around 2700 ahead of Labour's awful Carol Beaumont, but she can't blame the Green candidate Tom Land for that, as his votes wouldn't have been enough. National has done well to lead in the party vote here by around 2000 with the Greens and NZ First in third and fourth respectively. Once was Mark Gosche's heartland but boundary changes and demographics have taken it off Labour.

Mt Albert - Helen Clark's old seat is David Shearer's through and through with a whopping majority of around 9,000 votes. Melissa Lee is well behind and shouldn't stand here again. Steven Boyle of ACT gained 362 votes. The reason why Lee shouldn't stand? Party vote for National was only 100 behind Labour in a core Labour seat. Greens a strong third and NZ First fourth. Helen Clark made this Labour country, but for how long?

Mt Roskill - Labour Leader Phil Goff has a decent majority here of over 6,000 over National's Jackie Blue. Green candidate Julie Anne Genter a distant third. ALCP's Jasmin Hewlett a reasonable 124 beating the United Future candidate. However, even Phil barely saw Labour win the party vote here with only 800 votes ahead of National. NZ First came a strong fourth here. Labour country that is eroding away.

Napier - For a seat that was Labour through and through, National's Chris Tremain has a steady 3,300+ majority now over Stuart Nash. Greens a distant third and ACT's John Ormond with 144 votes. National romped in on the party vote here with more than 6,000 ahead of Labour, the Greens third, but with NZ First and Conservative Parties both doing rather well here. Labour needs to win seats like this to get any chance of government.

Nelson - Nick Smith has a majority of around 6,600 here, which is comfortable but not like that of many of his colleagues. Labour's Maryan Street has no rivals for second place here, with Greens a distant third. National leads by 6,000 party votes, indicating Nick Smith might have electorate votes from Green Party voters as he does better than National. Greens are a strong third here, with NZ First fourth. Actually Labour country, but Smith has made it his.

New Lynn - David Cunliffe manages around half of the vote here, with a majority of 4400 over National's Tim Groser. Greens a distant third. Yet it is party vote National here by over 1,000 votes, as the Greens have a strong third place and NZ First fourth. Cunliffe gets electorate votes from Green and NZ First supporters it would seem. More marginal than it looks, but Cunliffe never really threatened.

New Plymouth - National's Jonathan Young has secured a solid 4000 strong majority here over Labour's Andrew Little. ALCP's Jamie Dombroski gained 392 votes ahead of independent Rusty Kane. National's party vote was more than double that of Labour, indicating this is a solid National seat now. Greens a comfortable third, with NZ First the only other notable result. National country as it once was, Duynhoven was Labour's bullwark here till he was pushed out before.

North Shore - National's Maggie Barry beamed in with a 13,000 plus majority, over Labour's Ben Clark and it's a disgrace that ACT couldn't give Don Brash at a higher profile for the electorate vote to beat the Green candidate Pieter Watson. Don Brash only gained 1129 votes in fourth place, better than the party vote at only 653 in a seat where ACT has been third. National took 2 out of 3 party votes, with Labour getting 1 vote for National's four, the Greens third, NZ First fourth and Conservatives fifth. Yes in a seat that should be ACT heartland, ACT is more than a 100 votes behind the previously unknown Conservative Party. National heartland.

Northcote - National's Jonathan Coleman has a good 8,500 majority here over Labour's glamour puss Paula Gillon. Libertarianz candidate Peter Linton gained 60 votes. National took over half of the party vote here with the Greens a strong third and NZ First fourth. Almost as National heartland as North Shore.

Northland - National's new drug czar Mike Sabin has a majority of over 10,000 now, with Labour's Lynette Stewart far behind. Green and Conservative candidates both did rather well. National took half of the party vote, with nearly 3 votes for every Labour one. Greens closely followed by NZ First in the party vote, with the Conservative Party getting half of the NZ First party vote. National heartland as this is where non-Maori Northland votes.

Ohariu - Peter Dunne is still not down and out, with his majority having grown from 1000 to 1600 or so, it appears National voters chose him over local candidate Katrina Shanks. Labour's Charles Chauvel nearly double the vote of National's Katrina Shanks. However curiously, if the voters for the Green candidate Gareth Hughes had voted for Chauvel, Dunne would be gone (but if he had Shanks's votes he'd be back if we play that game). Good friend Sean Fitzpatrick of the Libertarianz gained 96 votes. Party vote here is National's by a margin of 8,000 over Labour. Greens getting 4,000 less than Labour. NZ First did surprisingly well with 1341 party votes. United Future a distant fifth with 615 party votes narrowly beating the Conservative accent. Dunne's personal fiefdom, but is historically National territory.

Otaki - National's Nathan Guy has a comfortable 5000 or so votes ahead of Peter Foster of Labour. Green and NZ First candidates making a small mention. In the party vote it is solidly Nat by over 6000 votes. NZ First strong here only a few hundred behind the Greens, with the Conservative Party making a good showing too. ACT's Peter McCaffrey gained 99 electorate votes. This should be a marginal, but isn't looking it anymore.

Pakuranga - Never any doubt that Maurice Williamson would romp in here with a majority of over 12000. ACT's Chris Simmons isn't a dent with 743 votes. Hard to believe this was once a Social Credit seat. Party vote is National with well over half. Greens and NZ First vying for third place here behind Labour. A seat that was once good for ACT collapses to 539 party votes.

Palmerston North - Iain Lees-Galloway the socialist comfortably takes this for Labour with a majority of around 3000 over National's Leonie Hapeta. Yet again National wins the party vote with more than 3,000 over Labour, Greens a distant third and NZ First fourth. National hoped to pick this up, but does a Maori woman's name sadly put some off?

Papakura - Judith Collins in here with a majority of over 9000. Curiously obscure ex MP Brent Catchpole came third here with 1589 votes, beating the Green candidate Caroline Conroy. ACT's John Thompson gained 195 votes. National has well over half of the party vote here, more than 2 votes for every 1 Labour got. NZ First a decent third here, 1,000 party votes over the Greens. Solidly National territory where once Labour managed to do well.

Port Hills - Ruth Dyson wins comfortably here with a majority of nearly 3,000 over National's David Carter, as this seat is partly about Lyttelton. ACT's Geoff Russell gained 152 votes. Yet National romps in on the party vote with over 4500 more than Labour. Very strong Green showing with 5591 party votes. NZ First a credible f.ourth. Labour would have hoped to win better here, but it shows the Greens have eaten in heavily into traditional Labour voting territory.

Rangitata - National's Jo Goodhew has over half the vote here with over 6,000 votes ahead of Labour's Julian Blanchard. ACT's Tom Corbett gained 280 votes. National rules on the party vote too, being double that of Labour. Greens and NZ First distant third and fourth. National heartland.

Rangitikei - National's Ian McElvie took this from Simon Power easily with a majority of over 8700. Greens third but Conservative candidate Ian Robertson achieved a credible fourth. ACT's Hayden Fitzgerald managed 251 votes. Again who remembers this was once Social Credit country, it seems 26 do who voted Democrats for Social Credit. National heartland.

Rimutaka - Labour's Chris Hipkins hangs on comfortably here with a majority of just over 3000. ACT's Alwyn Courtenay gained 221 votes. Yet National won on party votes nearly 4000 ahead of Labour, indicating Hipkins wins National voters over (oddly). Greens third and NZ First fourth. Should be Labour territory, but is almost marginal.

Rodney - Lockwood Smith's majority effectively handed over most of it to Mark Mitchell of National with just over 11000 as the majority. However, the majority is not over Labour, but Conservative leader Colin Craig who won a staggering 7569 votes. Surely a target for Conservatives next time, and perhaps the next Epsom? Will John Key consider whether a deal might be done here? Beth Houlbrooke of ACT gained 180 votes. You can guess the party vote, National gained five times the vote of Labour. However, while Labour got 4639 party votes, it is followed by Greens on 2847, NZ First on 2492 and Conservatives on 2308. This remains National heartland, but is top contender for the Conservative Party to focus efforts on breaking into Parliament, but it would be hard effort to make up an 11,000 vote gap against an ex. cop!

Rongotai - Annette King is very safe here with a majority of around 8,000 votes. Think of the old Island Bay seat which was safe Labour merged with Miramar which was typically marginal. Russel Norman did well to get nearly 6,000 votes here. ACT's Joel Latimir gained 141 votes. Still Labour only barely scrapes above National in the party vote, with a gap of just over 160 votes. The Greens have a huge 7,300 votes and NZ First fourth. Should be safe Labour, and loyalty to Annette is what keeps it that way for the electorate vote.

Rotorua - Todd McClay has a majority of nearly 6900 over Steve Chadwick, with NZ First candidate Fletcher Tabuteau a strong third. 784 informal electorate votes. Party vote was almost 50% for National, but with Labour well behind and New Zealand First in third with 3123 ahead of the Greens fourth on 2391. This ought to be a more marginal seat, but Labour needs to stop recycling Steve Chadwick to have a chance here.

Selwyn - Amy Adams has a massive majority of nearly 18000 here take 2 out of 3 votes. Labour's Jo McLean couldn't even get 1 vote for every 5 of Adams, but the Green candidate Eugenie Sage was on her toes 1700 votes behind. Party vote solidly National too, almost as good as electorate vote. Labour gaining 1 for ever 4 cast for National. Greens a strong 3690 and New Zealand First in third. National heartland, once Ruth Richardson country.

Tamaki - Simon O'Connor has wrapped this up with a majority of over 16000 again taking 2 out of 3 votes. Independent Stephen Berry gained 139 votes. National's party vote was almost as much, 4x that of Labour, with the Greens getting half that of Labour and New Zealand First half that of the Greens. Rob Muldoon's former seat with different boundaries, he'd be happy with that result. Safe National territory.

Taranaki-King Country - National's Shane Ardern with a 14000 vote majority commanding this seat. Labour's Rick Barker without a show in hell of getting this. Party vote about as commanding. National has 4x the Labour vote. The Greens half that of Labour, but New Zealand First only a couple of hundred behind Greens. Once an ACT stronghold but now pathetically getting 427 votes. Solid National country, which was once Jim Bolger's seat in another form.

Taupo - National's Louise Upston carries a 13,000 majority here over Labour, Greens a distant third a few votes behind NZ First ex. MP Edwin Perry. Roseanne Jollands of ACT gained 168 votes. Well over half of the party vote to National, but NZ First is third here with 350 votes ahead of the Greens. Conservative Party gets over 1000 here too. Solidly National.

Tauranga - No real threat to National's Simon Bridges with a majority of around 15,800, but that's a majority over New Zealand First's Brendan Horan who is inheriting Winston voters (some of whom may see NZ First and assume its Winston) and his former viewing enthusiasts. He's more than 100 ahead of Labour's Deborah Mahuta-Coyle. Greens in fourth with half the Labour vote, and ex. United Future MP Larry Baldcock with 1405. More than half the party vote to National, but this is Winston country. NZ First came second with less than 1 vote for every 3 of National. Labour is a couple of hundred behind. Greens in fourth with 2000 less than Labour and the Conservatives half that of the Greens. It ought to be National's but Winston Peters casts a long shadow and still a big influence.

Te Atatu - Labour's Phil Twyford romped in here with a majority of over 4600 against National's Tau Henare. Others were hardly in the race. Yet again National won the party vote with over 1000 more than Labour. New Zealand First third here with 11 votes more than the Greens. Phil Twyford gets 4000 more votes than his party here, but you'd expect this to be a Labour seat.

Tukituki - Craig Foss is 9000 ahead of Labour here, with a minor showing for Green and Conservative candidates. Romana Manning of ALCP did well to beat ACT's Robert Burnside with 312 votes over 235. National gets slightly over half the party vote and Labour with less than half that of National's. Greens a fairly strong third with around 3000 votes followed by NZ First. Again safe National country here even though it includes Hastings.

Waikato - National's Lindsay Tisch is in command with nearly 13000 votes ahead of Labour's promising Kate Sutton. ACT's Robin Boom gained 289 votes. National had well over half of the party vote, more than 4x that of Labour, but with NZ First only 2000 votes behind. Greens fourth and Conservatives fifth. Solid National territory.

Waimakariri - National's Kate Wilkinson barely slips past Labour's Clayton Cosgrove in a seat where the Green candidate had over 1000 votes in third. National again got more than half of the party vote here, more than twice that of Labour with Greens in third. This ought to be Labour country, but this is lost and Labour unlikely to get a candidate again like Cosgrove to pick up this missed seat.

Wairarapa - Nearly 6700 majority for National's John Hayes ahead of Labour's Michael Bott with respectable showings for Green and Conservative candidates. Best Libertarianz candidate result with leader Dr. Richard McGrath getting 621 votes. Over half of the party vote went National, more than double that of Labour with Greens third followed closely by NZ First. Should be marginal when things are tighter.

Waitakere - National's Paula Bennett just barely held this with 349 on the night, over Labour's Carmel Sepuloni - so it will be one for the specials. Yet here is where strategic voting fails, with the Green candidate having 1582 votes. Sue Bradford came second last with only 266 votes only beating Libertarianz candidate Peter Osborne on 48. National led on the party vote but only 1300 ahead of Labour. Greens 2796 and NZ First fourth on 1811. Labour should have had this in the bag, but no.

Waitaki - Jacqui Dean has two thirds of the electorate vote ahead of Labour's Barry Monks. Colin Nicholls of ACT got 182 votes. National commands on the party vote with a clear majority and over 2.5 x of the vote. Greens with 4000 or so. Should be solid National country.

Wellington Central - Labour's Grant Robertson has this seat comfortably with a majority of over 5000 over National's Paul Foster-Bell. Green James Shaw had 3821 a drop since Sue Kedgley retired. Libertarianz candidate Reagan Cutting gained 53 votes. Yet National was well ahead on party vote, 50% more than Labour, but the Greens are 12 votes behind Labour. Will the Greens beat Labour here after specials? NZ First a distant fourth, but remember when ACT held this seat? This should be a National seat in the current environment, but National needs a better candidate here.

West Coast-Tasman - Labour's Damien O'Connor provides a rare win for Labour with a credible majority of over 2200. Steven Wilkinson of ALCP got 395 votes. Yet this is also party vote National territory with nearly 6000 votes more than Labour. Greens a credible 4000 or so. This ought to be heartland Labour, it's a sign of how out of touch with provincial NZ Labour is.

Whanganui - Chester Borrows has a reasonable majority of around 4800 over Labour, which seems a distant second. Alan Davidson of ACT gained 141 votes. National leads with party vote, 6000 ahead of Labour. NZ First is third here with 2879 a couple of hundred ahead of the Greens. This ought to be one of the closer races, but needs a fair effort for Labour to make inroads.

Whangarei - Phil Heatley has an over 11600 majority here in John Banks's old seat (in a way), Greens a distant third. Libertarianz candidate Helen Hughes gained 93 votes. Just over half the party vote went to National, with nearly 10,000 votes ahead of Labour, which itself has nearly double the vote of the Greens. NZ First being just behind the Greens. Should be a National stronghold.

Wigram - Labour's Megan Wood takes Jim Anderton's old seat with a modest 1500 vote majority over National's Sam Collins. Alliance's Kevin Campbell has the best result for the bottom ranked party coming fourth, probably because Jim Anderton has some lost followers. Geoff McTague of ALCP gained 269 votes. Yet National led here in party vote too, 4000 votes ahead of Labour, with Greens a distant third. Ought to be fairly safe Labour, still some work to be done for that.

Hauraki- Waikato - Princess Mahuta safe as can be here with over 5300 votes, but it was Mana's Angeline Greensill who she beat, with Labour's candidate 800 behind her. Yet while Labour won the party vote here, the parties that are 2nd to 6th are within a range of 600 votes in the following order. Maori, Mana, NZ First, Green and National. Obviously Labour's safe territory, but the Greens have broken in on party vote here, something they never managed to do.

Ikaroa-Rawhiti - Parekura Horomia is safe here with a majority of over 5900 over the Maori Party candidate. Again Labour commands the party vote, with 5500 over the Maori Party, Mana 3rd with 900 less than the Maori Party and the Greens almost as much as Mana. Again safe Labour territory.

Tamaki-Makaurau - Pita Sharples just scraped in here with a majority of over 700 over Shane Jones. Labour led the party vote, with the Maori Party with half that of Labour, yet Mana is only 170 or so votes behind. NZ First in fourth. Maori Party loyalty based on Sharples, but this is still Labour's seat in the long run.

Te Tai Hauauru - Tariana Turia is safe here with a majority of 2760 over Labour's Soraya Peke Mason. Labour well ahead on party vote, with Maori Party on half the vote of Labour and the Greens curiously third. Again this vote is about Tariana, but the Greens will be very pleased to have come third here.

Te Tai Tokerau - Hone Harawira slipped in with a majority of 874 over Labour's Kelvin Davis. However while Labour led the party vote, Mana came a strong second only 1700 votes behind with Maori Party a distant third. Hone's territory for now, but not insurmountable.

Te Tai Tonga - Labour's Rino Tirikatene beaten Maori Party's Rahui Katene with a comfortable 1445 votes. Labour led in party vote, but the Greens came second with half of the Labour vote, and National in third. Maori Party and Mana both behind National. Not like the other Maori seats at all, are Maori and Mana too North Island?

Waiariki - Maori Party's Te Ururoa Flavell comfortably beat Annette Sykes by 1820, with Labour a distant third with Louis Te Kani. Labour led the party vote, but Maori second with 2200 less, closely followed by Mana. Definitely not a Labour stronghold anymore.

Libz overall party votes

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:18:00 +0000

Top results Wairarapa and Ohariu, well done Richard McGrath Leader and Sean Fitzpatrick Deputy Leader. To be the biggest psephological nerd in the country look below. Don't laugh

Auckland Central - 23 ahead of Alliance and Socred, but down on 27 in 2008

Bay of Plenty - 23 ahead of Alliance and Socred, but down on 25 in 2008

Botany - 13 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 10 in 2008

Christchurch Central - 18 ahead of Socred, down from 21 in 2008

Christchurch East - 16, up from 14 in 2008

Clutha-Southland - 23 ahead of Alliance, up from 16 in 2008

Coromandel - 18 ahead of Alliance, up from 13 in 2008

Dunedin North - 18, up from 9 in 2008

Dunedin South - 14, down from 15 in 2008

East Coast - 9 ahead of Alliance, down from 13 in 2008

East Coast Bays - 21 ahead of Alliance and Socred, down from 25 in 2008

Epsom - 29 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 19 in 2008

Hamilton East - 22 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 21 in 2008

Hamilton West - 26 ahead of Alliance, down from 31 in 2008

Helensville - 16 ahead of Alliance and Socred, down from 21 in 2008

Hunua - 23 ahead of Alliance, up from 10 in 2008

Hutt South - 19 ahead of Socred, down from 36 in 2008

Ilam - 26 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 21 in 2008

Invercargill - 32 ahead of Alliance, up from 21 in 2008

Kaikoura - 22 ahead of Alliance, up from 6 in 2008

Mana - 17 ahead of Alliance and Socred, same as 2008

Mangere - 3 ahead of Socred, down from 6 in 2008

Manukau East - 7, up from 6 in 2008

Manurewa - 13 ahead of Socred, up from 7 in 2008

Maungakiekie - 24 ahead of Socred and Alliance, down from 30 in 2008

Mt Albert - 23 ahead of Socred and Alliance, up from 16 in 2008

Mt Roskill - 11 ahead of Socred and Alliance, up from 8 in 2008

Napier - 14 ahead of Socred, same as 2008

Nelson - 17 ahead of Alliance, up from 12 in 2008

New Lynn - 21 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 14 in 2008

New Plymouth - 29 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 27 in 2008

North Shore - 31 ahead of Alliance and Socred, down from 33 in 2008

Northcote - 32 ahead of Alliance and Socred, down from 37 in 2008

Northland - 23 ahead of Alliance, down from 25 in 2008

Ohariu - 45 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 20 in 2008

Otaki - 17 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 12 in 2008

Pakuranga - 8 ahead of Socred, down from 13 in 2008

Palmerston North - 17 ahead of Socred, up from 16 in 2008

Papakura - 21 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 8 in 2008

Port Hills - 16, down from 17 in 2008

Rangitata - 19 ahead of Socred, up from 8 in 2008

Rangitikei - 19 ahead of Alliance, down from 22 in 2008

Rimutaka - 22 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 13 in 2008

Rodney - 14 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 11 in 2008

Rongotai - 26 ahead of Alliance and Socred, down from 34 in 2008

Rotorua - 16 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 15 in 2008

Selwyn - 9, up from 8 in 2008

Tamaki - 22 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 20 in 2008

Taranaki- King Country- 19, up from 16 in 2008

Taupo - 20 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 13 in 2008

Tauranga - 17 ahead of Alliance, down from 21 in 2008

Te Atatu - 12, up from 8 in 2008

Tukituki - 18 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 10 in 2008

Waikato - 26 ahead of Alliance, up from 15 in 2008

Waimakariri - 11, up from 7 in 2008

Wairarapa - 85 ahead of Alliance, Socred and Mana, up from 61 in 2008

Waitakere - 27 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 14 in 2008

Waitaki - 25 ahead of Alliance, up from 15 in 2008

Wellington Central - 31 ahead of Alliance and Socred, down from 48 in 2008

West Coast-Tasman - 25 ahead of Alliance, up from 20 in 2008

Whanganui - 21 ahead of Alliance, up from 18 in 2008

Whangarei - 30 ahead of Alliance, up from 18 in 2008

Wigram - 31 ahead of Socred, up from 22 in 2008

Hauraki-Waikato - 22 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 7 in 2008

Ikaroa-Rawhiti - 8 ahead of Alliance and Socred, up from 4 in 2008

Tamaki-Makaurau - 3 ahead of Alliance, up from 2 in 2008

Te Tai Hauauru - 3 ahead of Alliance, up from 1 in 2008

Te Tai Tokerau - 14 ahead of Alliance, Socred and United Future, up from 5 in 2008

Te Tai Tonga - 3, down from 4 in 2008

Waiariki - 2 ahead of Socred, down from 4 in 2008

New Zealand election live blogging 1055GMT

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:31:00 +0000

Party vote summaries... in a Parliament of 121

Parties in Parliament

National rise from 44.93% in 2008 to 47.99% tonight 2 seat gain overall to 60. Pleasing but disappointing compared to the polls.

Labour drop from 33.99% to 27.13% tonight 9 seat loss to 34. Gutting result, but could have been worse, nothing as bad as National's 2002 result of less than 21%

Greens rise from 6.72% to 10.62% tonight 4 seat gain to 13. Very pleasing for the Greens, would have liked more, but will now influence legislation substantially in select committees.

New Zealand first rise from 4.07% to 6.81% tonight. Re-enters Parliament with 8 MPs. The comeback King, Winston Peters. Written off constantly by a media which by mentioning him gave him electoral oxygen.

Maori Party drop from 2.39% to 1.35% tonight. 2 seat loss to 3. Has to be wary of seeing to support National too much, Maori vote dissipating to Mana and Labour.

ACT drop from 3.65% to 1.07% tonight. 4 seat loss to 1. Devastating for ACT, much soul searching needed now. ACT Board will need to decide whether Banks will lead or not.

Mana, first time standing. 1% retain single seat won in previous by-election. Radical Maori separatist and Marxist vote now has a clear home.

United Future drop from 0.87% to 0.61% single seat retained. One time significant coalition partner for Labour continuing to be a one man band in Ohariu.

Conclusion? National will govern with United Future and ACT with a small majority, but will enter into confidence and supply agreement with Maori Party.

Parties outside Parliament

Conservative Party, first time standing. 2.76%. Very credible result, must try to win NZ First voters over to try to cross the 5% threshold or spend up large in one seat.

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party Small gain from 0.41% to 0.48%. Treading water with core supporters

Democrats for Social Credit small gain from 0.05% to 0.07%. Clearly attracted a few more with the global financial crisis

Libertarianz small gain from 0.05% to 0.07%. Did Banks turn some ACT voters towards Libz?

Alliance drop from 0.08% to 0.05%. Far left voter bled to Mana and the Greens

Election 2011 - Live blogging - Libertarians results

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:01:00 +0000

Hamilton West - Tim Wikiriwhi (independent) 101 votes, 2nd last. 100% votes counted. Libertarianz 26 ahead of Alliance

Invercargill - Shane Pleasance 122 votes, last. 100% votes counted. Libertarianz 32 votes, ahead of Alliance

Kaikoura - Ian Hayes 115 votes, last. 100% votes counted. Libertarianz 22 votes, ahead of Alliance

Mana - Richard Goode (ALCP) 272 votes, 2nd last (ahead of ACT). 98.1% votes counted. Libertarianz 17 ahead of Alliance and Socred. (ALCP 128 votes above Libz, Alliance, Socred)

Northcote - Peter Linton 60 votes, last. 100% votes counted. Libertarianz 32 votes ahead of Alliance and Socred

Ohariu- Sean Fitzpatrick 96 votes.. 100% votes counted. Libertarianz 45 votes ahead of Alliance and Socred

Tamaki - Stephen Berry (independent) 139 votes. 100% votes counted. 22 votes ahead of Alliance and Socred

Wairarapa - Richard McGrath (Party Leader) 621 votes! ahead of ACT. 100% votes counted. 85 votes ahead of Alliance, Socred and Mana

Waitakere - Peter Osborne 44 votes. 98.1% votes counted. 25 votes ahead of Alliance and Socred

Wellington Central - Reagan Cutting 53 votes. 100% votes counted. 9th place (4th from bottom). 31 votes ahead of Alliance and Socred

Whangarei - Helen Hughes 93 votes. 100% votes counted. 30 votes ahead of Alliance.

Total party vote 1402, 30 short of Socred. Improvement on 1176 in 2008.

New Zealand election live blogging 0945GMT

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:32:00 +0000

So the Nats will need Peter Dunne and John Banks to govern, that's fairly easy. Dunne will want nothing other than his bureaucracy isn't closed, Banks will want what exactly?

The Nats will negotiate an agreement with the Maori Party just to be sure, but beyond that it is insurance for the future. The Maori Party would be critical in the following election, but its relationship with National has been costly in losing votes and two seats.

The Greens have their best ever result, as Labour voters went to the left, the Greens campaigned very cleverly and the media was complicit in giving them an easy ride.

NZ First re-emerges as the media Winston hates gave him the oxygen of publicity by treating him as an outcast, playing into his hands.

Both the Greens and NZ First will bring new barely competent nobodies to Parliament, none of whom will face having to prove themselves in government.

ACT is virtually finished - the Banks strategy failed, miserably. Don Brash could have campaigned much better, but this was a disaster because the Banks strategy split its support base and saw a massive distraction in Epsom.

The Mana Party is Hone, but he took votes from the Maori Party and so has reduced the overhang to one, helping the Nats.

Three more years of the same, with new conservative National MPs, and the middle muddle ground of mediocrity winning the day. The victories are with boring no change National, radical Greens and the bigoted xenophobic populist NZ First.

Oh and you've kept MMP, the left will be thrilled, for despite all of the above, over 45% of the vote was for much more government.

The real fight for hearts and minds is far from won.

New Zealand election live blogging 0900GMT

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:30:00 +0000

A pattern has emerged in New Zealand elections.

If voters perceive a foregone conclusion for the major parties, voters for the second placed party desert it for others. The Greens and NZ First have taken the soft headed voters on the left and the bigoted working class voters on the right. Both will get hit when Labour improves next time.

Yet Labour hasn't experienced the rout that National did in 2002, not by a mile. This result is akin to 1996, but it wont be enough to save Phil Goff

Largest silent winner is the Conservative Party, a credible 2.8% of the vote but no seats

ACT faces immediate infighting, John Banks wont be made leader although he'll expect to be. That will kill the party

United Future is slowly dying, but Peter Dunne is hanging on.

Mana Party might just be Hone, it would be a travesty if Annette Sykes has a platform for her vileness.

However, the biggest joke has to be how MMP has delivered 13 Green MPs and 9 NZ First MPs.

National may lose West-Coast Tasman to Labour, but pick up two Christchurch seats.

Yet a small note of victory for Libertarianz, an increase in party votes.

New Zealand election live blogging (Libertarians results)

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:05:00 +0000

Hamilton West - Tim Wikiriwhi (independent) 38 votes, second last. Libertarianz (which he wasn't fighting for directly) with 10 votes, double that of the Alliance

Invercargill - Shane Pleasance a credible 95 votes, last. Libertarianz 25 votes neck and neck with the Alliance

Kaikoura - Ian Hayes 50 votes, last, Libertarianz 12 ahead of the Alliance

Mana - Richard Goode (ALCP) 103 votes ahead of ACT. Libertarianz 5 ahead of Alliance and Socred

North Shore - Michael Murphy 40 votes, last. Libertarianz 13 votes, ahead of Alliance and Socred

Northcote - Peter Linton 25 votes, last. Libertarianz 14 votes ahead of Alliance and Socred

Ohariu - Sean Fitzpatrick 48 votes, last. Libertarianz 26 votes, ahead of Alliance, Socred and Mana

Tamaki - Stephen Berry (independent) 57 votes, last. Libertarianz 2 votes ahead of Socred (!)

Wairarapa - Richard McGrath 402 votes, ahead of ACT. Libertarianz 65 votes ahead of Alliance, Socred and Mana

Waitakere - Peter Osborne 8 votes, last. Libertarianz 3 votes, ahead Alliance , Scored

Wellington Central - Reagan Cutting 16 votes 2nd last equal. Libertarianz 6 votes, ahead of Socred

Whangarei - Helen Hughes 47 votes, last. Libertarianz 13 votes, ahead of Alliance

overall? 816 votes with 60% counted, definitely an improvement on 2008

New Zealand election live blogging 0800GMT

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 07:53:00 +0000

National looking like its dream result, but it is early. Reminds me of 2005, when it looked good, but slid behind when big Auckland booths were counted.

Labour will be searching for a new leader. However picking up Te Tai Tonga reduces the overhang by one, which is good for National

Greens will be pleased they'll have a big caucus

NZ First looks like sliding in, but it is early to say. Blame the media for loving him for controversy.

Conservatives a credible 2.7%

Maori Party has lost around 40% of its party vote to Mana

Key issue will be whether Mana gets enough party votes to justify a second seat - let's hope Annette Sykes is kept out, she is well behind in Waiariki

Peter Dunne and John Bank both look like they have Ohariu and Epsom respectively, but early for both

50% of Wairarapa counted and Richard McGrath has pulled in more electorate votes than the ACT candidate with 298 votes and 48 party votes - between Maori and Mana

New Zealand election - live 0745 GMT

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 07:43:00 +0000

So I have finally woken up. TVNZ and RNZ both coming through strong.

This looks like Labour's 2002, 25% is dire, almost as bad as National in 2002.

NZ First re-emerges, blame the media for giving him the auction of publicity. As David Farrar has said, why didn't the Conservative Party get the same?

Big focus is the Maori seats with our separatist racist candidate Hone looking like taking his seat, if so he may be on the cusp of bringing in the 9/11 cheerleader Annette Sykes.

Coromandel has Catherine moonbeam Delahunty third, ouch for Labour.

Peter Dunne must be worried in Ohariu

Long list of Labour seats at risk, Palmerston North very narrow for Labour

New Zealand election live blogging

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:00:00 +0000

Having written my guides to voting (they are the most popular posts), and noting Not PC's excellent rival guide, the time for politicking is over. A few million people will be making some ticks to choose people to govern them. I did my special vote days ago at the New Zealand High Commission at Haymarket, London.

I will be blogging and tweeting live about the election when results start appearing - as I listen/watch NZ media from London.

I secretly like psephology so I will find it a fun way to spend a chilly Saturday morning in London. I can combine it with having a drink everytime someone I like wins, and be sure I will remain sober the rest of the day. Politics at election time is extremely hard work for those who do it, but don't empathise with them. Bob Jones once wrote how he refused to talk at a "leadership forum" for young people, on the grounds that the last thing he wanted to encourage was people to lead others, and that New Zealand's problems at the time (early 1980s) were in large part due to a man who epitomised that. Politicians have been working hard to gain power. Most of you work hard to earn a crust. I know which group I have more time for.

Yet, despite what you might think of any of the parties and politicians, today there are thousands of Syrians fighting with their lives, many in prison, some being tortured, trying to evict a 41 year old hereditary one-party dictatorship. Too many take for granted their right to live their lives in relative peace and freedom the way they wish. Saturday is your chance to say whether you agree with the current lot or want the government to do more or less, in different shades and you don't face the army aiming guns at you for your views (or the secret police rounding you up to a rally to cheer the thugs on).

I spent a week in a totalitarian state last year (no, not China), seeing and meeting people who all lived in constant fear of saying the wrong thing or doing the wrong thing - value the freedom you have, for only when you don't have it, do you realise how precious it really is.

You don't have to vote if you don't know what party to choose

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 03:00:00 +0000

It is typical for politicians and political activists to make general calls for everyone to make sure that they vote, and that democracy was fought for by our forefathers etc etc, so it is really important everyone votes.

I disagree.

New Zealand has a political freedom Australians don’t have. It’s not compulsory to vote. This in itself is quite precious. I have already indicated that there are several electorates where I don’t think there is a single candidate standing who either supports my point of view or is even better than the worst ones on the ballot paper. I don’t subscribe to the “don’t vote, it only encourages the bastards” view entirely, but in some cases it is true. It would be telling if the turnout in some electorates was so low (e.g. Nelson) that the mandate for the winning candidate would be questionable.

You see I don’t have a high regard for democracy per se (although I support it as a way of choosing politicians), I don’t value your vote if you are opposed to what I support. Obviously if you want to vote Libertarianz, ACT (excluding candidates who are anti-freedom) or Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, then get off your arses and do so. Freedom isn’t free you know. However, the rest of you I'm indifferent about who you vote for. I didn't notice much difference with John Key replacing Helen Clark, except Helen Clark actually believed in telling us all what to do.

If you disagree with me, I don’t want you to turn out to tick Labour, Greens, Mana, Maori or whatever else that endorses initiating more force against me and other New Zealanders, spending more of my money or borrowing more in my name. If you wondering whether to bother going out to vote for one of those parties then don’t bother getting dressed, just lie in bed. In fact, make sure you drink very very heavily on Friday night, have a great time. Alcohol will improve your judgment. In fact by lying in bed and being unproductive you’ll be endorsing in your own way the philosophy of the parties on the left, who celebrate the actions of those who are least active, least productive and least successful, whilst demanding the greatest effort, time, money and dedication from the most able, active and successful. That's why the fact 200,000 of you can't be arsed to be enrolled, doesn't bother me, their opinions don't interest me, since they are uninterested.

So if you don’t know whether to bother voting and if you’d bother you’d vote for any party other than Libertarianz, ACT or the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, then stop stressing. Don’t vote. That leaves two categories of voters left. The completely apathetic (those who are uninterested) and those who want to vote, but have absolutely no idea who to vote for.

To the apathetic, by whom I mean those who don’t care about what happens, not those who are philosophically anarchists and reject elected democracy. I presume you’re going to leave your home sometime today. Think a little about this. Around 40% of all of the activities in New Zealand are undertaken by government. You pay for that. Your income and everything you buy helps to pay for it. Government tells you what to do and what you shouldn’t do, and you apparently don’t give a damn what it does to you or anyone else. Maybe the government does a lot for you, maybe it houses you, provides you money to feed and clothe you, maybe it pays for your kids’ education, maybe it pays for when you go into A&E after you’ve had a silly accident. If you don’t give a damn, then maybe you are the sort of person for whom some politicians dream of – the person who wants to be looked after, told what to do, told what to think, paid other people’s money and to be entirely reliant on others. Like a child, free to play and indulge your whims, whilst other people parent you – except your parent is the government. If that is you, you’re pathetic. You can’t be bothered to even choose the party who will be your new surrogate parents and rule makers. You don’t care what happens to all those services you depend upon. You may as well not have grown up. You don’t deserve to be a parent because you can’t even look after yourself. You don’t deserve a driving licence because you can’t be trusted to know where to go, or to make decisions on your own. In fact, why doesn’t someone else do your shopping? Does that get your attention?

Well if you disagree with me. If you insist I have painted you wrong, then prove me wrong. Vote for a party that doesn’t believe adults should be dependent on the state, which believes that adults can run their own lives, keep the proceeds of their labours and efforts, and deal with others on the basis of voluntary interaction. Prove to yourself, your kids and others that you don’t want to be seen as needing looked after in some patronising way by John Key, Phil Goff or the Norman Turei Group.

Forget the electorate vote if you can’t decide, but vote Libertarianz.

To those who don’t know who to vote for, then ask yourself this. In your day to day life do you feel like you’re competent enough to decide how to spend your own money, how to live your life, who to interact with, on what terms and to choose who you help, who you ask for help from and what to put into your body? Do you like politicians borrowing money on your behalf to pay for things you didn’t ask for? Do you like politicians deeming certain groups or companies to have extra privileges in consultation, or in getting taxpayers’ money? Do you think your life is better off with politicians doing more for you and asking more of you, than if they did less and expected less from you in return? Do you believe you own your life and you find most politicians to be patronising, insulting, lying and concealing bastards?

If so, there are three parties on the ballot in this election for the party vote that believe in less government. If all that matters to you is legalising cannabis, then the choice is obvious. If it is about more, then you have two choices. Each has an advantage and a disadvantage.

Vote Libertarianz if you want to support a principled and consistent stand for less government, more freedom across all spheres of life, and to advocate less taxation, less regulation, the right to private property, the right to self defence, a small racially colourblind government, and to support all adult interaction becoming voluntary. However, voting Libertarianz has one obvious disadvantage. We all know that given current polling, there is very little chance Libertarianz votes will result in a Libertarianz MP getting elected. As a result, many libertarians will vote for the alternative. ACT.

The sole advantage of ACT is that it has a reasonable chance of electing MPs, although it is dependent on the very not libertarian John Banks being elected in Epsom. Herein lies the disadvantage. You can vote for ACT on the basis of supporting Don Brash and his own, personal, belief in more freedom and less government, and because some of the ACT list also endorse this. However, you will do so knowing ACT is not as consistent in its policies as Libertarianz and it carries John Banks with it, knowing he is the key to ACT being in Parliament. Up to you if you think John Banks will be a reliable carrier of the banner of less government, more freedom and fiscal prudence. I don't, but others whose views I give credence to think it is a price worth taking a risk for. So that’s it.

Vote Libertarianz, ACT or ALCP for your party vote, knowing full well one of those parties has the strongest chance of getting elected, but the price of that is its dependence on a socially conservative fiscally profligate ex. National Party MP. My own distant hope is Don Brash suddenly picks up North Shore, rendering the Epsom silliness redundant.

If you’re not voting for any of them, then maybe get drunk this Friday night and stay in bed all day Saturday. You’ll be doing millions of New Zealanders the world of good in your own small way.

I don't believe people should be forced to vote, or feel they have to vote, when they don't have a clue what to do, or what it is all about. They have that right, and frankly such people are less of a threat to me and others than the enthusiastic handmaidens of the statists who are hustling hundreds of thousands in fervent joy to vote for people who will tell them what to do. Airheads who don't vote are a lot safer than airheads who do.

Why do the Greens get such an easy ride? Part Two - 50 questions that should have been asked of the Greens

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:16:00 +0000

As I wrote previously, it appears the Greens are having a media honeymoon. However, is this justified? Do the Greens not have policies that could be seen as controversial? Do their MPs not make statements that deserve further scrutiny?

Well I have composed a long list of questions I think journalists should ask, and more importantly questions YOU should ask your local Green candidate, especially if you are thinking about voting Green. You may wonder if the Greens are quite so cuddly and inoffensive as the media makes them out to be.

So here it is - 50 questions to ask the Green Party (and one light-hearted one at the end)

My only other question is, why hasn't anyone else been asking them?...

Does your Treaty of Waitangi policy that “All claimants to have the opportunity to have their land and resources returned to them” include claims of private land? If not, why is that not clear?

Do the Greens still believe Sue Kedgley’s claim that it is wrong to “shift responsibility for health and improving diets from the state to society and to convince people that public health is all about personal responsibility"? If so, how do see the state leading responsibility for people changing their diets, how would the state adequately replace personal responsibility?

What are “all reasonable steps to prevent immigration numbers and the sale of land to rich immigrants from having an adverse impact on Aotearoa/NZ and its Taonga.”? How can they have an adverse impact? What is a rich immigrant? What will an immigrant do to land than a locally born New Zealander wouldn't?

How does the Green Party plan to implement its policy to ”Minimise exposure to electromagnetic radiation especially for children and pregnant women”? How many TV and radio stations would you shut down? Will you want to close wifi networks at schools and home? Will you demand children and pregnant women not use laptops, TVs or any other electrical appliance? Will you demand all homes with children and pregnant women to be outside mobile phone coverage? Does the party understand how pervasive EMR is and has been for decades? Does it understand that visible light is electromagnetic radication, and if not, how can anyone trust the Greens on science in other fields?

Do the Greens still believe it is ok to frighten people about non-ionising radiation from mobile phone towers, despite the complete absence of evidence about negative health effects? Is it appropriate for the leader of a major political party to engage in name calling when someone calls him out on not scaremongering Radio NZ transmitter sites, which emit more of the same type of radiation and have done so for decades?

Do the Greens still believe there is a media conspiracy against them on this issue because telcos advertise in the media? What evidence do they have of this? Could it just be that your science is extremely flimsy and the media refuses to engage with such ignorance?

Do the Greens trust potatoes still, or do they stand by Jeanette Fitzsimon’s press release of 1999 that it was then "the last Xmas when you could trust potatoes"? Wasn’t all of the fuss over genetic engineering in 2002 just scaremongering? How many people have been killed, hurt or harmed by genetic engineering anywhere in the world?

What do the Greens mean about “Recognise ancestral land ownership in rural areas” for Maori? Why shouldn’t private land owners in rural areas be worried? What will you stop them doing? What isn't recognised now?

What did Catherine Delahunty mean when she said that the Pakeha nation is "racist"? Does she stand by her use of the term “genocidal spindoctors” to describe National Party speechwriters in 2005? Does she stand by her hope that Maori will be the largest cultural grouping in New Zealand by the late 21^st century? Is this also Green policy? Why is it that other parties don't care about the ethnic composition of the country?

When Catherine Delahunty said “We have plenty of beaten women; gutted communities and whanau living in state housing that have never had proper electricity or water supplies. But lots of Pakeha are drinking wine and surfing, and they say so loudly without saying a word, would you please shut up about the connection between racism and poverty” is she blaming Pakeha for Maori women being beaten up? Why are Pakeha who drink wine and surf to blame for beaten women?

Do the Greens agree with Catherine Delahunty when she describes Pakeha as having "colonial privilege" even if they were born in New Zealand? At what point can Pakeha be described by Catherine Delahunty as being equal to Maori as New Zealand citizens with equal rights, if ever? Do you think Pakeha voters of the Greens know that you believe that?

Do the Greens agree with Kennedy Graham when he said “The political rights we enjoy today are to be calibrated by the responsibility we carry for tomorrow.”? What political rights does he think should be “calibrated” and what does he mean by that? When he said “Individual freedoms are no longer unlicensed, but henceforth subordinate to the twin principles of survival and sustainable living”, what freedoms do the Greens want to “licence”? What individual freedoms must be subordinate?

Don’t the Greens think Kennedy Graham flying to London to discuss climate change at taxpayers’ expense is remarkably hypocritical? How many more long haul flights will Green MPs seek to undertake to support fighting climate change and why?

Does the Green Party still share the view of Sue Kedgley that “We need to challenge the doctrine of free trade and accept that people's right to food, to be free from hunger, must have priority over an ideological fixation on allowing market forces to prevail at all costs” so abandoning New Zealand’s long standing bi-partisan trade policy goal of opening up markets to its agricultural products? Does it share her view supporting the official French policy to effectively continue the EU’s highly subsidised highly protectionist Common Agricultural Policy? Does it believe that free trade actually really means highly subsidising exports? If so, why? What future do the Greens see in New Zealand's farming sector if farmers face a world that is protectionist, subsidised and engaging in "food sovereignty" policies?

Why is it good value for taxpayers to have spent $1.3 billion on a railway that private companies would only have paid a quarter of that for? Why do you think the private sector hasn't bothered investing in it, despite you being convinced of "peak oil" and that the end of mass use of the private car and road transport is nigh?

Do the Greens still think that it was appropriate to blame the Brisbane floods on climate change linked to the coal exported from Queensland, as if Queensland was getting its just desserts?

How do the Greens think that making membership of student unions voluntary “takes away choices”? Isn’t it the exact opposite? Would you think differently of student unions if they had been hot beds of free market capitalist and pro-entrepreneurial activism? Doesn't this make you claims about believing in human rights superficial?

The Greens want to force electricity companies to generate a proportion of their power from expensive renewable sources. In the UK a similar policy is estimated to be putting up prices by an average of 50% in real terms by 2020, with a fully privatised sector. How much will this policy of renewables put up power prices to New Zealanders?

When Metiria Turei says “We need to get smokes out of our homes and out of our shops” what will you do to achieve this? Do you really want to stop the sale of tobacco products altogether? Why don’t you have the same attitude towards marijuana? Why don’t you think tobacco smokers should be left alone?

Do the Greens still believe Don Brash wants to smash Maori culture and force women to be subservient? Do you have any evidence for such exagerrated claims?

How will the Greens “Support equitable access for Māori to secure employment and decent wages”? How do Maori not have equitable access? Who is stopping them?

Do you think Maori can be racist? Why do you think people of Maori descent should be given different political structures from those of other citizens? Why do you think this should be constitutionally entrenched? Why should the accident of your birth determine how the state interacts with or consults with you?

How does offering Maori the same democratic rights as all other citizens shut them out of participation?

What examples do the Greens have of “unnecessary production and consumption”, and how do they propose to curb them? Will this mean banning the production and sale of certain goods? If so, what ones?

What products will be banned when the Greens implement their policy to “Require domestic and imported products to be durable and recyclable”? Does this mean every producer of goods that are neither will be regulated out of business? Does this mean no New Zealander could import a product that is neither durable nor recyclable? Doesn't this ban anything perishable?

What exactly is "hugely harmful" to the public in private companies being contracted by local government to manage water services? Where in the world has this proven to be the case?

Does the Green party still believe all of the Cuban government’s claims that its health care system is fantastic? Is it in the habit of believing the official reports of one party states that imprison political dissidents as mental patients? Why is Cuba exempt from the sort of scrutiny on human rights that the Greens apply to China or Burma?

Why do the Greens think parental choice of schools is a myth? Why do they think the state always knows what’s best in education?

When you want to “Ensure all new houses and buildings fully comply with disability access requirements unless specifically exempted.” Will this mean anyone building a house on a hill about a road having to build a ramp or lift unless they get a special exemption from a bureaucracy? Wont this make it prohibitively expensive to build homes anywhere that isn't on flat land adjacent to a road? Wont this just increase the price of homes and reduce the supply?

When the Greens want to regulate broadcasting and the press with an authority that will “have the power to impose appropriate sanctions against media outlets in cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that it has exhibited wilful or negligent abuse of power and by doing so has either visited material harm on another party or pursued its own self-interest at the expense of the public interest.”, what examples of the media pursuing its own self interest do they have in mind? Doesn’t this mean introducing newspaper censorship in New Zealand for the first time in decades?

Why do the Greens fear foreign investment? Do you share this fear of New Zealanders owning land and businesses in other countries, if not why not? Why do you want to welcome refugees and migrants from all and sundry, but if anyone from another country wants to own a business, you treat them like the devil?

More specifically, what was the security threat posed by a Canadian company buying a New Zealand airport? Should the British government be fearful that New Zealand company Infratil owns Prestwick Airport near Glasgow for the same reasons?

The Greens repeatedly criticise the trade choices made by New Zealanders in such banal terms as “swapping water with China”. What exports do the Greens want stopped? What imports do they want stopped? Why do they think they know best what people should sell and buy?

Does the party’s support for taxpayer funding of the voluntary sector not make it the state sector? Why should taxpayers be forced to support political advocacy groups?

What are the implications of “Requiring the inclusion of environmental science and ethics in all study programs.” involving science education? Why is this relevant to physics for example?

What does “Support legislation that increases the reliability of the Internet” mean? How do the Greens propose improving the reliability of a disaggregated global network by a law passed in New Zealand? Can you pass laws to fix most problems?

Why do the Greens think that if central government doesn’t tell primary schools how to teach arts,science, technology, or physical education, that the schools are incapable ofknowing what or how to teach? Does only the Ministry of Education know how to write a curriculum?

How many other traffic laws do the Greens endorse breaking besides walking on a motorway?

Do the Greens still stand by the view of Sue Kedgley that heavy freight be forced to go by rail? Do the Greens still believe it is ok for their MPs to make speeches that are full of errors, hyperboles and misrepresentations?

Does Russel Norman still think that if customers of a shop want plastic bags, the shop shouldn’t offer them? How is that democratic decision making?

Does Russel Norman stick to his belief that the London riots were caused by poverty, not opportunistic criminals seeking designer goods and electronics?

Do the Greens support the view of their blogger “Toad” that democracy doesn’t have to be secular, or liberal, and that it’s “ok” if democracies start a war if the people support it? In which case, would the Greens support a Christian theocratic state that sent troops to Iran if it was democratically elected?

If the Greens think there should be fruit in schools, why don’t they set up a charity to raise money for it? In fact, why don’t they ever advocate people raise money themselves voluntarily rather than make taxpayers pay?

When you expect that “significant time for environmental education” will be included in the teacher training curriculum, what should be excluded from the curriculum to allow for this?

Why do you think small business owners should be criminalised because they want to open on a religiously based public holiday? How do owner-operator shops with no employees exploit people by merely opening their shops for people to choose to enter?

Why is it that a New Zealand Government following the US when a Republican is a President is “imperialism” but when a Democrat is a President, New Zealand should follow the US which is “leading the way”? Isn't it just about what policies you like and dislike?

Why do you dismiss electric cars so flippantly, but treat electric trains as being the saviour to all of Auckland’s transport problems? What proportion of trips in Auckland do you expect will be by train by 2014?

Do the Greens still support a Hamilton-Auckland train service, even though it would be slower than a bus, lose money and the local authorities wont pay for it?

What’s Green about banning foreign ships that happen to be going from port to port within New Zealand as part of an international voyage, from selling empty space to carry cargo around New Zealand –when the ships would still be sailing regardless? Isn't that policy just about pleasing militant maritime unions?

The Greens paint a picture of the environment getting worse,and Russel Norman selectively quotes the Environment 2007 report from the Ministry for the Environment to support stopping road building, even though the report does not say that and provides plenty of facts that are inconvenient such as “Home heating is the main cause of air pollution in populated areas in the winter” yet the Greens beat up on cars and trucks. The report also said “Levels of PM10 particulates at roadside locations in Auckland appear to have fallen over the past 10 years”. Why does a party that purports to be about the environment ignore good news about it?

Do any of you laugh at Catherine Delahunty’s tweets too? Like “Despite the pretty words and new clothes am hoping new puppy at white house will stop killing afghanis and funding Israel wars on Palestine"?

So ask yourself if the Greens DO get around 10% of the vote on Saturday, how much they might have got if a few of those questions had been asked over the campaign, or the past few years, and why the mainstream media seems to have its tongue up the Green Party's proverbial. Moreover, ask yourself why the National Party hasn't been doing that - is it because it has seen this party as a partner? If you're planning to vote National, how will you feel if that is exactly what happens?

P.S. Go here, register instantly and tick an up for this post if you like what you see, it seems the obvious people have been doing the opposite (and I have inspired over 100 comments there).