Liberty Scott

Yes I do own water

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:38:00 +0000

and I don't mean buying a bottle of Evian.

If I have land, and collect water on that property, it is mine.

Just because the state treats the sea, rivers and lakes as owned by it and local authorities, doesn't mean that water can't be owned. It is ludicrous to claim otherwise.

Reticulated water costs money. It requires people to work, people to construct, lay, maintain and replace pipelines, dams, pumps and the electricity required to operate them. That isn't free.

There is no good reason why that can't be owned and operated by a private profit oriented company. In England they are, under tight regulation, but that water is owned, and you buy it.

Socialists may argue against this, ignoring the disaster of state ownership seen recently in Northern Ireland, or the crass incompetence that saw government fail to upgrade infrastructure over many decade in places from London to Dunedin (in England and Wales investment in infrastructure increased by 83% after privatisation).

Swedish analyst Fredrik Segerfeldt concluded that water privatisation can generate enormous benefits:

For example, before privatization in 1989, only 20 percent of urban dwellers the African nation of Guinea had access to safe drinking water; by 2001 70 percent did. The price of piped water increased from 15 cents per cubic meter to almost $1, but as Segerfeldt correctly notes, "before privatization the majority of Guineans had no access to mains water at all. They do now. And for these people, the cost of water has fallen drastically. The moral issue, then, is whether it was worth raising the price for the minority of people already connected before privatization in order to reach the 70 percent connected today."

he concludes by asking... "why anti-privatization activists do not expend as much energy on accusing governments of violating the rights of 1.1 billion people who do not have access to water as they do on trying to stop its commercialization".

However, the National Party has never been that good at selecting politicians who can argue principle over fear and scaremongering.

Torture is not as serious as rape

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:05:00 +0000

That's what the current sentencing of offenders against children appears to indicate.

Take this story from Stuff:

The young girl's plight came to national attention when police found her hiding in a cupboard in her West Auckland house on November 15, 2010. She was starving, dehydrated, bruised and was suffering from broken bones and anaemia from internal bleeding. A police statement released a month later made public the horrific details of her abuse - including prolonged beatings and having her toe nails ripped off. The girl had been in Child, Youth and Family (CYF) care most of her life after being taken away from her parents as a baby.

Her mother got 7.5 years with 5 year non-parole period as a sentence. Yet when she is released she can still breed, still default to getting custody of children, wont be banned from living with or working with children, wont be a registered offender who has to report where she lives.

You see a woman torturing a child is not as traumatic, it would appear, as a man molesting one. She was a sadist, she isn't fit to be near children and should be permanently denied access to children. However, she needed to sexually abuse the girl for things to be seen to be that serious. She's appealing her sentence of course.

How about the child's father?

The father also hit the child in a way that was ''unacceptable'' and deliberately concealed the situation from the child's school by keeping her at home when her injuries would have made it obvious that she was being physically abused.

So he knew it was wrong, covering things up to protect the sadistic monster of a mother and himself.

(his lawyer) said he was caught between trying to control his daughter's ''disturbing behaviour'' and getting through to his partner.

Astonishing. He couldn't actually figure out that this girl, of 9, being tortured by her mother, who had been sexually abused by a relative previously and who had spent most of her life not being loved, understood, listened to and helped, would behave in ways that are disturbing? This entity, called the "father" is barely fit to go to the toilet himself let alone be a parent.

Judge Gibson responded by saying that the girl had been subjected to ''the most appalling revictimisation'' due to the couple's contention that the abuse was a result of her ''difficult'' behaviour. ''You continued to blame the child for what happened to her and I utterly reject that,'' he said. In sentencing the man, Judge Gibson said he wanted to denounce his conduct, deter others, hold the man accountable, protect the community and send a clear message to people who stood by and did nothing to intervene. ''It is clear that your daughter is unable to understand why she was tortured, and that is the appropriate word for it. ''You didn't do your duty as a parent.''

No doubt this entity thinks he is a "big man", I'm sure he plays up being tough and staunch and every other faux "value" low lives like him posture about. Yet he faces only three years in prison, with two years non-parole. He to is not being denied future custody of children, not being denied the right to live with children. Who can doubt his dick will be out pumping kids into the next ego-less strumpet who thinks so little of herself she'll take him, and the evil entity who is the girl's mother will no doubt create another tragic child, so she can feel "complete".

Garth McVicar is right. The sentencing is insufficient, both deserved much more. She should have a sentence commensurate to the harm done.

Let's look at some other sentences:

- 13 year sentence for stealing war medals.

- 17 year sentence for producing an illegal substance that other adults wanted to buy

- 8 year ban from owning a dog due to neglect ( no ban from having kids that you neglect though)

- 5 year nine month sentence for breaking and entering, robbing, tying up a 19yo woman and "indecently assaulting" her (which means kissing her on the lips when she did not consent)

- 6 years and four months for fraud

The core role of the state is to protect citizens from violence. In the case of parents who abuse their children, it is a particularly despicable crime for those who are entrusted to protect children do the opposite. Banning smacking didn't have an effect on these two. However, having sentences that effectively incarcerate such egregious sadists for the period of their greatest fecundity and fertility, would be a step forward, as would denying them ever being allowed to live with anyone under 16.

Meanwhile, wouldn't it also be a good start for the state to deny anyone convicted of serious violent offences ever being able to claim welfare?

Waitangi Day from a distance

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:11:00 +0000

Being a kiwi living in London, Waitangi Day is notable only because it is not hard to remember 6 February, although with the exception of a work colleague (Australian) mentioning it, it would be easy to forget it.

Despite the news, only reported in NZ, of the Waitangi weekend pub crawl (and only reported because one man complained about it), there is nothing to note it here. It's refreshing for me, in part because of the cringe of the usual annual show is largely invisible.

Waitangi Day has tended to be a time when mainstream politicians celebrate the purported partnership between the state and iwi (said to be Pakeha and Maori, a curiously romanticised albeit blatantly incorrect rendering of the situation). It is a time presented as a chance for more "understanding" and raises the Treaty of Waitangi in a way that meets the desires of many who see it as quasi-constitutional.

Meanwhile, it is a chance for protests. This time it is unsurprising that Hone Harawira's gang of Marxist ethno-nationalists have seen it as a chance to be rude and to make far from novel demands for the state to hand over property, power and money to those who his lot approve of.

Yet there is another view. It is one that treats New Zealanders as individuals. That doesn't mean must or should deny their ancestry, or claim whatever ethnic, national or other identity one wants. It is not, despite the squeals of racists like Hone Harawira, about being "anti-Maori". What it is, is about the state being colourblind. It embraces the Treaty of Waitangi for what it is. Not the creation of a distinction between the amorphous non-entity called "Maori" and the Crown, but the granting of individual rights and property rights to Maori residents, in exchange for ceding final authority to the state.

It is a view that means that Maori language and culture can thrive, if those who want it to do so make their own efforts to promote it, whether as individuals or through iwi authorities, or other non-governmental bodies. It is also the view that government doesn't promote culture either, but steps to one side not only from Maori, but everyone in areas where its role should not be as great as it currently is. It means using property rights, contracts, rule of law, societies, voluntary groups, relationships and choices to build and develop the communities, institutions, businesses, sports, art, culture, inventions, discoveries and everything else that is the creation of humanity.

Yet, even setting aside my vision of a smaller state, there is a valid view that today, in the 21st century, the state should not treat individuals or corporate bodies differently depending on their ancestry or the ancestry of those who own or control it.

It rejects the infantile claim that New Zealand is bicultural, when it is populated by people of multiple cultures (the "bicultural myth" was generated by Maori nationalists wanting to portray Maori as being separate from the state which represented "Pakeha" culture. Multiple cultures undermines the myth that Maori are also not represented by the state). Cultural is not homogeneous. It is not defined by ancestry, or ethnicity, or religion. It is multifaceted. In a world where people make connections across boundaries with modern communications technologies, people are themselves multicultural as they have relationships based on business, family, sports, arts and other interests. The cold monaural world of "identity politics", which more than a few Maori educators inculcate among their students, is quite simply inaccurate.

The neo-Marxist "identity politics" view means that anyone who "identifies" as Maori is, by definition, disadvantaged by the state and society. This is regardless of their personal wealth, education achievements, employment or own individual status. Maori are, in the world of the likes of Harawira, automatically oppressed. Daughters of lawyers and doctors, who are Maori, are deemed "disadvantaged" and deemed fit for affirmative action programmes, whereas sons of labourers or convicted violent criminals or cleaners, who are "Pakeha", are deemed to not be so deserving, as the state is presumed to be on "their side".

Identity politics have plagued much of the world for centuries. It isn't just Europe or countries once colonised by Europeans that have been damned by it.

Those that reject this view blithely and cheaply throw the word "racist" at it. They think that for Maori to exist and be acknowledged, the state must treat Maori as a distinct entity, separate from the state and implicitly not represented by the state. The Maori seats help entrench that by implying that a Maori voter is somehow, peculiarly, not represented as well as a non-Maori voter.

Maori are separate from the state, as individuals themselves are. However, it is time that the tired view trotted out by the likes of Hone Harawira, Margaret Mutu, Metirei Turei and other nationalists is confronted for the poison that it is. It denies any need for the state to be colourblind, it demeans and diminishes the status and rights of all those who do not identify as Maori, and actually diminishes the individual rights of Maori by focusing on "rights" of corporate iwi entities, politicians and governmental entities.

There are three parties in Parliament that explicitly embrace the nationalist view of Maori relations with the state (Mana, Maori and Green), and three which appease it (Labour, National and United). Could there be a party that rejects this without being so blundering in its language that it can be interpreted as being denigrating to Maori?

French court punishes Google Maps - for being free

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:00:00 +0000

One of the many misrepresentations and distortions of libertarians is the belief that we all want to reduce everything to money, and for life and the world to be a collection of financial transactions. It is a core part of the post-modernist leftwing critique of capitalism and free market liberalism, yet it is one that has no basis whatsoever in libertarian or capitalist philosophy, politics or even discourse. Indeed it is Marxism that puts materialism about everything else. It is seen in the incessant collectivisation of people into classes, based on incomes or wealth. It was seen in the Soviet Union's ruthless pursuit of construction and production regardless of the cost to individual freedom or the environment. Almost every policy proposal from the left of the political spectrum involves spending more money or taking money from people to spend on what they want. For anti-capitalists the problem is invariably around there being "not enough money" for those they approve of and "too much money" owned or earned by those they don't. The Khmer Rouge abolished money, but by then it had completely enslaved almost the entire population of Cambodia (after executing many) and people were all meant to work for the love of each other (ignoring they had guns pointed at them, literally, the whole time, and were all on the brink of starvation).

Yet I know many in the left will claim wide support for charity, and quite a few people in charitable endeavours and who provide assistance, time and money for needy people don't do so for money. They do so out of genuine human benevolence for other people. They want to see people lifted out of poverty, they want to see children getting education, they want people to be cured of diseases. You see it is part of human nature to have some compassion for others. However, if you consider mainstream political discourse, the left would claim that it represents a charitable view of the world, compared to that of the "right" which is all about people being individuals who care nothing for others.

Objectivists don't hold to that view, for we believe that human benevolence is a rational pursuit of one's values. The most universal example is with families and close relationships. Given humans raise children, an activity that involves dedicating a significant amount of time, effort and money to providing for others, demonstrates that it is inherent to give a damn about others. Wider families and friendships see that happening informally, all the time. Human beings are mostly social, they enjoy the company of others and get pleasure from sharing, interacting and giving and getting from each other, voluntarily.

Libertarians reject the characterisation of capitalists and free-market advocates as wanting to atomise humanity, and have people who "don't care about the poor", or who always want people to exchange goods, services or indeed any form of interaction for money or some form of predatory gratification. Libertarians embrace one core principle - voluntary adult human interaction. Human beings should feel free to interact with each other as they see mutually fit, which can mean asking for help, or giving help. If people refuse, then that should be respected. For without the voluntary element, one is no longer being kind or benevolent, but is submission to force - a concept that is incompatible with benevolence.

So why have I gone on about this diatribe? Well companies often do not expect money for goods and services. They may offer free samples for promotion, or they may simply regard the provision of common goods, services or even space as complementary to what they do. Shopping malls are large privately owned common areas where people can spend considerable time with seating, warmth and bathroom facilities, for nothing. Google Maps is a service that is available for free online, and offers a basic level of mapping to anyone wishing to access it.

However it has come afoul of French competition law, which apparently treats a company offering a service for free as being negative. Competition law exists as a response to arguments that dominant businesses in a market can act in a way that prevents competition and is harmful to consumers. Setting aside that libertarians reject this argument, what is going on in France is not about consumers. It is about protectionism.

The French Commercial Court has decided that Google Maps offers "unfair competition" to a French cartography firm called Bottin Cartographes, and is fining Google US$600,000 for daring to offer Google Maps for free.

What has Google Maps done wrong? Has it stolen any intellectual property? No. What it is offering is the product of its own efforts, purchased, produced and accumulated through voluntary interaction.

Is it harming consumers? No. Quite the opposite, they are getting a useful resource for free. They are benefiting from a large company offering a service they need not pay for.

The problem for the French is that Google Maps is undermining another business, a French business (this sort of economic nationalism is of course, racism practiced by socialists). A business that rather than change what it does, focusing on value added or targeting specific markets, declares it has some high profile customers (Louis Vuitton), as if that makes it special. So it should be protected from another business that offers its own maps for free.

This, is the French model of "compassionate "capitalism, unlike what they call "Anglo-Saxon" capitalism. It is sometimes pointed out by socialists who see France as some sort of halfway model between free market capitalism and socialism, but this court case reveals it for what it really is.

French competition law is not about consumers. They lose out. Indeed France has long been one of the last EU Member States to open up its traditional monopolies to any form of legal competition at all, such as electricity, postal services and bus services. That ignores the rampant protectionism of the agricultural sector, because French consumers can't be trusted to pay more for French produce (as they are expected to do). So in France, this "socialist capitalism" actually means the ordinary citizen loses out, no free service.

French "capitalism" is about protecting old established businesses. It is about entrenching a corporatist view that says it is more important that an existing business keeps doing what it is doing, making money from consumers that have little choice, and keeps people employed in that old business.

It ignores the fact that if consumers had a choice, they may spend their money on something else, on something they want that isn't free, on a business that does have to compete for their money and which employs people. A business (and employees) that suffer because of the protectionism of Bottin Cartographes. It ignores that someone may set up a business or grow a business because a free map facilitates something innovative or affordable that was not when one had to buy a map from Bottin Cartographes. Finally, it ignores that the people working for Bottin Cartographes might actually be innovative enough to diversify, specialise and generate more value by being different.

So in France, the country that rejects free market capitalism, when something is offered for no money it is offensive to the law. It is offensive to me too.

The people of France may now get Google Maps blocked, sadly. Whereas I think the right response to Bottin Cartographes is to boycott it. Let this stinking little protectionism business, which uses courts rather than good products people want to pay for, not get money from those of us who do have a choice.

Why should anyone, regardless of whether they are free market capitalists, or anti-capitalists want the law to step in and stop a business giving away its goods and services for nothing? After all, it is not you paying for it, and you do not have to take what is offered?

Syria's bloodshed is the legacy of anti-Western isolationists

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:52:00 +0000

Children shot dead by snipers.

The stories out of Syria has resulted in growing pressure and concern from many countries, anxious that the "international community" is sitting by whilst Syria's government kills its own citizens, who simply want to be free.

None of this is a surprise to Syria watchers. Hafez Assad established a brutal dictatorship when he took power, and showed little hesitancy in engaging in torture, summary executions and massacres of civilians to maintain his personality cult driven regime. The Ba'athist regime established a feared secret police force and knew how quickly it could bully thousands of Syrians to turn out to maniacal rallies to boost the ego of this mediocre bullying pilot. Like North Korea, he passed it on to his son, so Bashar Assad today has the dubious honour of leading one of the world's two hereditary non-monarchical dictatorships.

The Assad regime has always had warm relations with Russia and the Soviet Union before it. Even today, Russia maintains a naval base in Syria (at Tartus) - the only non-CIS country to still have one. Syria's armed forces are Soviet/Russian supplied overwhelmingly. There is evidence of Syria having both chemical and biological weapons.

You'll notice a deafening silence about Syria from one usual set of protestors - the so-called "peace" movement, "anti-war" protestors and the usual group of anti-American, anti-Western supporters of any victims of Western military action. You don't see them protesting outside Syrian embassies, you don't see rallies outside Russian embassies, or burning Russian flags. You see no marches organised for the people of Syria. Some of them may say that there is no "war". I bet a few Syrians would disagree.

You see there is a war, it is worse than a trans-border war, because then there is someone to fight for you. This is a state turning on its citizens, turning on the people it exists to protect. However, the so-called "peace movement" has never really cared about how states treat citizens, having had significant support from the Soviet Union.

You see for them Syria doesn't have the usual list of bogeymen behind it. It was never supported by the US or any Western powers. It hasn't had any military intervention from the West either. It is led by a dictator who has a Marxist pedigree. All awfully inconvenient when you want to pursue your world view that so much that is evil in the world emanates from foreign policy in Washington, London, Tel Aviv or Brussels (NATO).

Of course the Assad clan have always been murdering their citizens. It's not new. Its willingness to invade Lebanon and run it as a client state has rarely achieved the opprobrium layered at Israel. Syria, you see, has always been off the radar as it hasn't been led by anyone that has ever been supported by the West. Not worth the effort protesting about from the point of view of the anti-Western protest movement.

Since the end of the Cold War, there have been interventions, for humanitarian purposes, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Haiti and Libya. The interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan had humanitarian outcomes, but were primarily motivated by the desire to remove aggressive dictatorships.

However, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been costly, in money and lives, to those who participated. It is inconceivable that any such actions would be repeated today. The Libyan intervention only occurred because of determination by British and French governments to use air power alone to support the fall of Gaddafi, in part due to past guilt about the brief period of rapprochement that saw some appalling capitulations to that regime.

So "doing nothing" and certainly doing nothing unilaterally is consistent with the view of the leftwing so-called "peace movement".

President Obama opposed the war on Iraq and is keen to extricate the US from Afghanistan. He is keen not to intervene in other countries, and indeed foreign policy has largely been left to the State Department. European leaders gained little glory from Libya, and are far too solipsistic about their economic crisis to feel able to extend their power to Syria. So attempts are made to use the UN Security Council to get consensus over sanctions - which of course will fail because Russia regards Syria, a country it taught to murder, monitor and maim, as an ally.

So anyone who sits by and gets angry and upset at why nobody does anything to protect Syrian civilians should take comfort - it is exactly the foreign policy of the radical left. The Green parties in various countries, the backbone of the "Occupy" movement, the hard left of the Democratic Party of the USA, the so-called "peace" movement all support this strategy, as indeed does Republican Presidential contender, Ron Paul. Governments should sit by and do nothing.

Does it mean that nothing should be done? No. Russia's support for the Assad regime is reprehensible and there should be loud and vocal protests against Russia and against Syria's government representatives elsewhere. It should be legal for mercenaries to go to Syria and fight against the regime, but anti-mercenary legislation in New Zealand banned that. You can thank the Greens and Labour for that. The action against Syria should be privately led, by those who are willing to pay, supply or fight on behalf of opponents of the regime.

However, as despicable as the Assad regime is, I would not agree on an intervention by NATO or other forces without a clear strategy to replace his regime. There is no appetite to do that.

Regardless, the conflict in Syria today has many dimensions. It is Shi'ite vs Shi'a, Islamists vs secularists and Christians, it is a potential mess. It is difficult to see how any intervention beyond economic sanctions and supporting any secularist opposition, and supporting broadcasts towards the country, could be useful without exacerbating the situation.

So while you witness the Assad hereditary dictatorship mow down men, women and children, and get upset about it, remember those who remained silent throughout the life of this murderous family's rule of Syria. Note those who loudly proclaimed for the people of Iraq, after US intervention, but remain silent today. Note those same people supported stopping you or anyone being mercenaries to fight for the opposition in Syria. Note that they would, if consistent, loudly reject any measures by foreign governments to stop the Syrian government.

As Syrians fight to be free, note those supporting the government that oppresses them. For they are based in Moscow and Tehran. Given governments wont act without a UN Security Council resolution (which wont come because Moscow will veto it), you will see what happens when a state turns on its citizens and nobody provides those citizens with a means to retaliate.

The only moral response is for those, who know what they are doing, to conscientiously support forces of freedom, secularism and who oppose sectarianism in Syria against Assad.

There is no simple solution to Syria. It might be that the previously inert Arab League may be able to exercise extraordinary pressure on Assad to step down and establish a transition to a new regime. However, in the meantime more lives will be lost. That is the price paid by people who face down a 40 year old Marxist personality cult laden dictatorship in an environment where no government dare try or even know how to use force to protect them.

Envy, lies and the gutter of politics

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:00:00 +0000

If you want to know what Ayn Rand meant when she described the "drooling beast" in The Fountainhead, one need only look at the events of the past few days in the UK. For in those days the Labour Party, Liberal Democratic Party and much of the media circled on the government appointed chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) - Stephen Hester - whilst he was out of the country on holiday - because of reports he was to receive a bonus of just under £1 million in shares.

A witch-hunt of envy, hatred and smearing appeared, as MP after MP called on the government to intervene in the decision of the board of the company to breach his employment contract. They sniffed blood, goaded on by the leftwing press and media, with the extreme leftwing "Occupy" movement displaying its usual ineptness of analysis by blaming RBS for the budget deficit. It ended when Mr. Hester returned home from holidays to find his image and name all over the media, and him feeling like a pariah, understandably, and deciding to refuse it for the sake of a quiet life. The braying left cheer on a small victory, but their true colours are shown not for their stupidity, but their clever, fact-evading, power-hungry bating of class warfare and old fashioned envy in their pursuit of populism.

In 2008, the British Labour Government decided to rescue the RBS, which was weighed down under debts and investments that were going to cause it to go to the wall. The reason to save it was not to protect depositors, for a deposit guarantee system already existed to ensure anyone with less than £75,000 in deposits had them protected. No, it was because Gordon Brown wanted to save the jobs, investors and the debtors to the bank, and he feared that letting it fall was worse than saving it. So he did, by the government pouring in billions of pounds it didn't have, to essentially buy a majority stake in the bank.

That stake was put into an arms-length company so it would be run as a commercial enterprise, and Stephen Hester, previously chief executive of British Land (and having had a successful banking career before then), was appointed CEO with a salary of around £1 million, with bonuses if he successfully turned the company around.

The ownership of RBS and the appointment of Hester had all been by the Brown government. Until this year, his salary and indeed his previous bonuses - under government ownership - had not been a political football. This year it has been, and it is all because of a new fever of class envy, stoked hypocritically by Ed Miliband and the vampiric Labour Party, keen to lie, smear and hound for the sake of cheap headlines and gutter press coverage.

RBS has been turned around, in terms of its balance sheet. It is now profitable, whereas it had lost billions when he had joined. In other words, Stephen Hester has been responsible for leading the bank into a state where it financially self sufficient. Through his leadership, taxpayers have been saved many more billions of pounds - which helps put his £1 million salary in perspective, and indeed the around £960,000 bonus - in shares - that would only be available in a year's time. Particularly when you consider that the salary and bonus are subject to 50% tax.

Yet when it came out that he was likely to get this bonus, out came the wolves. What easier way to stire up anger and envy than to point out to the lumpen proletariat half truths and distortions.

So what were these half truths?

- "Why get a bonus for leading a bank that needed bailing out"? The fact that he was appointed BY the Labour Government AFTER the bailout to rescue it was blanked out. You see the standard leftwing view is that they are all guilty - bankers are, after all, the scapegoats for everything.

- "This comes straight from the poor who are suffering from the cuts". Unadulterated nonsense. It comes from a bank that is making a profit. Taxpayer money is only from the investment, which of course was a decision by the government of the day.

- "The bank hasn't delivered on lending to small businesses". Well yes, maybe it hasn't loaned as much as politicians wanted it to, but hang on. Wasn't the fact that it had overstretched itself a primary reason why it was thought of as needing bailing out in the first place? Do you want a bank that lends prudently, is profitable and safe, or do you want a risk-taking bank that might get burnt? For financially illiterate (and power and attention seeking) politicians this contradiction is ignored and willfully evaded.

- "The share price is lower than when it was bailed out". Yes it is. However, this is common across the banking sector and reflects two trends that are outside Stephen Hester's control. One is the announcement of new heavy handed regulation that imposes significant costs on the banking sector (which politicians approve of) and the Eurozone crisis, which was caused by the sorts of overspending practices the Labour Party speaks with a forked tongue about (cuts are bad, except we know we need to do them, but wont say how, but the Tories must be doing bad cuts).

- "The government as major shareholder can "do something"". Well yes, it could, it could sack the board and override its decisions. However, if you were a private shareholder of the bank would you keep your investment in such a politicised bank? What else would politicians do to it? Forget that Labour happily let Hester get his salary and bonuses after he joined, it's just decided in 2012 to pursue him. Government interference in a board of a bank set up specifically to run commercially so it could be privatised would be contrary to how it had been set up.

- "It was because of people like him that we now have a deficit crisis". No it's not. The budgetary crisis in the Eurozone, US and elsewhere is because of statist politicians addicted to spending money they aren't collecting in taxes. This enormous lie is becoming part of the leftwing storyline about the crisis, and needs to be confronted head on as often as possible.

What was left out?

- The success in turning around the financial results of the bank, and the scale of it. What nasty little vindictive Labour MP could turn around a paper stand let alone an enormous bank? Bear in mind these are people who gleefully supported Gordon Brown selling gold when it was the depths of its price and voted for ever increasing budget deficits. The ignorance is palpable.

- Half of the bonus goes to the Treasury in tax. Without the bonus the Treasury is not better off.

The government did badly out of this, politically, because it noted that his bonus was half that of last year's and because it insisted that interference would be more damaging (and it would have been). It wasn't helped that the Chairman decided to forgo his £1.4 million bonus, but more appallingly this was all going on whilst Stephen Hester was on holiday overseas - so was unaware of the campaign of aggressive envy going on back in the UK.

So he has decided now to forgo his bonus, because he feels like a pariah. What he has learned is that this is the price you pay for politicians selecting you, in good faith, to do a job, and do it well. The same politicians who backed him to the hilt when they approved of his selection and his employment contract, are now baying for his blood, like the nasty, power hungry vindictive hypocrites that they are.

He could have told them to stick their job and that as far he is concerned they can go to hell, as he could walk into a job elsewhere with ease and without the hassle of petty little MPs surrounding him like hyenas.

As Allister Heath of City AM said today, "nationalising RBS was a monumental error; no bank must ever (be) bailed out again", but the real problem is that the bailout has changed the cultural and philosophical debate around capitalism and the role of the state.

In 2012 that debate will be central to politics. At the moment it is characterised by the largely ignorant opposing capitalism but largely clueless about what else to do, but also an almost equally inept business sector incapable of arguing the moral as well as the empirical case for capitalism.

What the Stephen Hester bonus issue has shown is that politicians on the left are sinking their teeth into the old Marxist rhetoric of class and envy, with much of the press and media keen to ride on the back of it all. By contrast, the politicians on the right are almost entirely incompetent and incapable of responding with anything other than some quiet arguments about practicality.

This year there needs to be a sound, loud, confident and intelligent fight for capitalism, or these sorts of mindless attacks will come again and again.

By the way, you're no more likely to find intelligent and consistent moral defences of capitalism at Davos than you are in Pyongyang.

New Zealand - far away without a care in the world

noreply@blogger.com (libertyscott) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:25:00 +0000

Having recently returned from a couple of weeks in NZ - almost entirely to see family and to get away from it all, I thought I'd start 2012 on the blog with a post about my observations as someone who has spent the last six year living abroad. I've learned how much there is to appreciate in NZ, but also how much there is to bemoan. It is something that can only really be understood once you have got used to how things work elsewhere, and what your expectations are around all sorts of everyday activities.

Whilst I was in NZ, the Eurozone crisis ticked over, Kim Jong Il died and Christmas happened. However, the one thing you learn about being in NZ is that it is almost impossible to rely on the domestic media to know what is going on in the world, unless it is big. Even then, you can rely on it to get things wrong - perpetually.

In NZ the economy appears to be ticking over nicely (no I didn't visit Christchurch) and there appears to be a level of optimism that is absent in Europe. It can't all be the weather, as that was a bit patchy while I was there. I put it down to naive lack of awareness of the stagnation in Europe and malaise in the United States. Those I talked to about it appeared curious, but unaware of how it impacts New Zealand. The real impacts are seen in how many more Japanese and Chinese tourists there appeared to be, relative to European and North American tourists, compared to previous years.

The absurdly high New Zealand dollar is a crippler for tourists. It was rare to ever think anything in NZ is cheap or good value. The rip off prices for tourists seem absolutely ridiculous now. Yes there are many items you can only buy in NZ that are quite unique and nice to look at, but they are not made by luxury brands in Italy, and they are not that special that foreign tourists are willing to fork out huge sums to buy them. Asian tourists come to Europe for the European experience and will buy one or two luxury items while there, and a few items to remember it by. NZ is not quite in the same league for shopping, what it has is scenery.

So anyway, what are the pluses and minuses I saw from NZ:

Pluses:

- Space! You have LOADS of it, so much you don't appreciate it. Why would ANY cities ever consider urban growth limits or intensification when you can offer so much living space to residents. You do not appreciate how quiet and peaceful NZ is until you have spent lots of time in countries where you are never far away from towns or villages.

- Friendly service. Service in the UK is variable, but rarely are retailers particularly friendly and helpful. In NZ almost all were, including staff at food establishments that do not expect tips. I nearly weeped with the standard of service I got at times, it was helpful without the "I'm obliged to try to sell you more" attitude that training foists upon some in Europe.

- Supermarket packers. Yes I know I mean New World, but it is brilliant to have someone pack your groceries. Ignore those infuriating self serve devices which have infected British supermarkets. Far better to get a minimum wage teenager or grateful retiree to happily pack things for you.

- Well maintained roads. I know why this is, and why it isn't like that in the UK and the US. The more you keep politics out of decisions on road funding, the more that roads keep well maintained over everything else. That includes signs, lines and lighting. It is an absolute delight driving around New Zealand.

- Seafood. Seriously wonderful fish is available across NZ, even if at times it is a bit pricey. However, you can't go past freshly cooked deep fried hoki or terakihi for fish and chips. Most British establishments absolutely wreck it by cooking cod in bulk so the top layer are dried out under heat lamps and the bottom drenched in fat.

- Bread. Lighter, without the texture of freeze wrapped cardboard that much British mass produced bread has. Almost all of it in NZ is far far more delicious than much of that which passes as bread in the UK.

- Ice cream. Yes there are wonderful ice creams in Europe, but premium NZ ones are simply delightful. I know Kapiti ice cream is Fonterra owned, but that hasn't done away with absolutely fantastic flavours.

- Scenery. I only drove in the North Island and I have seen a lot of NZ over the years, but the one thing NZ has to offer over the UK and indeed many other countries is diverse scenery over short distances. Driving in the UK is almost always tedious, with straight roads, few hills and little interesting scenery until you get quite remote into Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Yorkshire, Wales and the Highlands. Natural beauty with very few others to share it with is rather special.

- Rewarewa honey. Beats Manuka. It's truly heavenly.

Minuses

- Braindead television news. I once thought it couldn't get worse, but it has. Stop telling people what to think about a story by slanting how you describe events a certain way. Yes, you love disasters, celebrities and sport because your tiny minds can easily grasp the concept of good vs bad, you can't grasp politics or world affairs because your frame of reference is adolescent. Seriously, NZ would be better off if TVNZ, TV3 and Prime all abandoned national news and broadcast infomercials instead, you would all be better informed.

- Nanny State on alcohol. Why the hell can't I buy spirits or liquours from supermarkets? Grow up New Zealand. Yes there are some who have major alcohol problems. Funnily enough you don't have less of this problem than countries which sell the lot at a multiple of outlets. Beyond that, stop taxing it to buggery. Yes it is cheaper to buy NZ wine in the UK, figure that one out.

- Media mispronunciation. Are there no people who can enunciate words? TV in particular, but also some radio is full of cringeworthy butchers of the English language, and even worse butchers of foreign place names and personal names. Who told you Kim Jong Il is pronounced Kim Yong Il?

- Fruit juice. Largely non existent in NZ, as most of the market is occupied by reconstituted fructose laden concentrate. Freshly squeezed proper juices tend only to be orange, rare is apple available as a proper juice. I know it is price, but there is no point drinking the cheap stuff.

- Yoghurt. The lack of variety and with premium varieties resembliny desserts rather than actual yoghurt you want to eat, is rather dire. What's wrong with rhubarb and vanilla, what about blueberry, what about boysenberry and blackberry? Why so much damned sugar in it?

- The accent. Yes I've become a snob. It's bloody awful. If you have aspiration, try to de-nasalise yourself, otherwise it really can make one sound like you're a friendly naive idiot. The PM leads the annoying accent stakes, but that may well be deliberate!

- Rip off New Zealand. How funny for the Honey Hive to be the most expensive place to sell its goods. The pricing of "official outlets" and tourist spots is a serious rip off, when it proves not that hard to find the same products in other stores for 25-30% cheaper. Yes I know it feels great targeting Johnny Foreigner because you think he's rich, but he's also not stupid.

Oddities:

- So many travel agents? Hasn't the internet been discovered yet?

- Retailer websites with no useful information. Why doesn't anyone put their products and prices online? Why doesn't anyone offer to sell things online? This is domestic websites, there should be no international bandwidth issues. It is almost impossible to go online "window" shopping to see who sells what at what prices.

- Ancient cars everywhere. The Cuba of the South Pacific. Mitsubishi Sigmas, Ford Anglias, Holden Kingswoods, Ford Falcons (XC, XD, XE), Holden Commodores, Ford Lasers, Mazda 323s, Ford Telstars, Ford Cortinas. Seriously, someone should organise tours for UK car enthusiasts to have a look around.

- Mr Ed on the Te Reo Channel. Accidentally found this one, found it hard to stop laughing when I saw Mr. Ed on the phone saying "Kia Ora Wilbur". Something inspired about doing that.

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.