No Zac...you just don't get it.

I see that Zac Guildford has said that "staying sober for a year will be hard".

That comment shows that Guildford really does not accept that he has a problem with booze. He does not accept that he has no ability to handle alcohol and he does not accept that he has done anything wrong.
Of course this will be reinforced by the rugby community who see the actions of drunken rugby thugs as nothing more than "the boys letting off some steam".

Sure, the NZRU and the wider rugby leadership know the value of their brand, the NZRU employ highly paid PR wankers to make all the right noises when it comes to booze but the reality is that what Guilford did is not really seen as a big deal by those in rugby circles. The fact that a 60 something year old man was the victim of a gutless attack from this thug is of no concern.

The real problem here is that Guildford has not actually accepted that when it comes to booze he is a fuckwit, the fact that Guildford has said that he will stay off booze for a year (something he will not be able to do) shows that he still thinks he and alcohol have a future when that is clearly not the case.
It seems obvious to me that nobody inside rugby has told this idiot that he has a real problem, it also makes me doubt that he has received any counselling at all despite the press releases and bullshit from the NZRU's PR wankers.

If Guildford was genuine about overcoming his booze problem he would realise that he is one of the few people who simply cannot drink, until he has people inside rugby who tell him that and keep reinforcing that he and alcohol do not mix he will remain a danger to the public when he is drinking.

Hard Right ?

Over the last week or so I, like many others, have watched the POAL saga unfold. It is fairly clear that the union scum are losing the battle, the battle of the negotiating room and the battle for public sympathy.
It is not my intention to debate or discuss the POAL issue in this thread as I am quite happy to let others do so, and, as far as I am concerned the sooner the striking union scum are fired the better.

What I did want to address is the way that the left (and its sycophantic supporters) insist on branding anybody who supports POAL as being from the hard right.
Of course the left do this to try and silence or shame those who do not agree with them, however it does raise the interesting question of what constitutes a right winger (as apposed to the uber right wing gun loving and bible bashing morons)

I need to be clear, I have no time for the hard left and even less time for the hard right. The gun loving, religious fanatics from the hard right give every conservative a bad name, in most (or many) cases they are attracted to conservatism (or the right) simply to push their racist or religious beliefs.

This has got me thinking, I classify myself as somebody from the right, I passionately believe in personal responsibility but I also have no time for religion and no time at all for guns, if I had my way gun ownership would be severely restricted. Does this disqualify me as a 'true' right winger?....some would say so I guess.

I believe that in NZ everybody has the chance to succeed. While it is true that everybody is not born equal our society does give everybody the chance to better themselves and to do well in life. I never want to see this change, the socio economic status of ones parents should not stop anybody from getting ahead.

In my humble opinion there is a role for the state in day to day NZ life. The state should be there to pick up those who fall behind through no fault of their own, the state should be there to help those who become genuinely ill and can no longer work, the state (through ACC) should be there to cover injuries sustained through sport and recreation (this is vital if we really want to fight the growing obesity epidemic in NZ) as well as covering those who are injured in other non criminal ways.
I actually want the state (here read tax payer) to pay MORE to those who are ill and those who fall on hard times through no fault of their own.

Of course we cannot afford to pay the few genuinely ill, injured and unemployed more because we have a system that is being abused by the parasites and bludgers in our community.
If we had a government that was genuine in it's desire to see the benefit system cleaned up then we may eventually get to the stage where being on a benefit was not seen as something to be embarrassed about, one would hope that in time welfare would be seen as short term help for a few people to get over the temporary blip they have in their personal circumstances.

The reality is that as much as the hard left try and brand all those from the right as being heartless bastards it is clearly not the case, I want a generous benefit system, I want to look after those who cannot look after themselves (always with the proviso that their circumstances are not self inflicted) and I want to look after the ill.
The left could have all of this tomorrow if they were genuine in weeding out the thousands of parasites and bludgers who the left support in exchange for their vote every three years.

I also think that the state has no right to intervene in what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom, as long as it does not involve kids or animals then I could not care less what they do. I simply do not care if two blokes want to say they are married, nor could I care if two chicks want to claim the same, as Cameron Slater is so fond of saying "why should gay or lesbians be spared the horror of a mother in law".

I believe in the separation of church and state, it irks me no end that the days parliamentary proceedings start with a daily prayer, this should be removed as soon as possible.
I am dead keen on seeing all Kiwis treated equally, while I acknowledge the injustices of the past the treaty of Waitangi is a heavy weight around the neck of the nation, it is creating two classes of Kiwi and that cannot be good for the long term future of our nation.

So there you go, as far as I am concerned I am happy to classify myself as a right winger, I do not think I fit the 'baby eating' picture as painted by the lunatics on some left wing blogs and I sure as hell have compassion for those who fall on tough times. Where I have no compassion at all is when it comes to unions, parasites and bludgers.

Does this make me somebody from the far right?....no, in fact it proves that once again the left are nothing more than liars and cheats. The 'right' is made up of many types, some I cannot stand and some that I tolerate but by far the majority of self confessed right wingers that I have met are people with compassion, however, they are also people who are sick and tired of being ripped off by left wing governments and governments who continue to do nothing about the thousands of people fleecing the welfare system.

Lucia Maria.....One sick bitch.

I have no time for religion, in my opinion is should be mocked, confronted and derided at every possible opportunity. Religion is the cause of nearly all of this worlds problems yet for some reason masses of people (thankfully that number is decreasing) still choose to defy logic and believe in the sky fairy.

Of course that does not extend to mindless abuse of those who believe in God. If they choose to practise their stupid faith in their own home and do not seek to force me to change the way I live because of what is said in a work of fiction then we can get along fairly well.

However every once in a while I happen across a complete idiot, or somebody who is the epitome of evil. Lucia Maria from NZ conservative is an example of that evil, have a look at what she said today on the issue of contraception.

"Contraception should be outlawed. It turns women into sexual playthings that can
be discarded when something younger and prettier comes along. It takes away
women's power to withhold sex unless the man says "I do". And it allows men to
stay at a level of stunted development where they never have to grow
up.As for women needed an abortion or they will die? This situation is
very rare and someone like Rick would not be against treatment that would save
the woman's life."

This stupid bitch thinks that banning the pill or condoms is a good idea because of her own fucked up religious beliefs, hardly surprising given she is a Catholic (probably the most evil of religions).

Never mind that the Catholic church is an organisation that would rather see people die of AIDS than use condoms, never mind that Africa is ravaged by the disease yet the Catholic church still refuses to promote safe sex as a way of stopping the spread of the AIDS.

Never mind the atrocities the Catholic church has covered up over the years, never mind the way that the Vatican has harboured some of the worlds worst despots over the years or the way the Catholic church continues to close ranks as a way of shielding pedophile priests...oh no, this stupid bitch thinks that banning contraception is a good way of fixing the problems in the world today.

The evil outburst from the equally evil Lucia Maria is just another reason why I hate religion.

Update..... It only gets better, here is Lucia's reply to me over at NZ conservative re the question of contraception.

"I should add that some men get how harmful contraception is - unfortunately alot (sic)
think because they are men and being a man is a good thing, and men don't have
children, and contraception prevents children and therefore makes a woman like a
man when they have sex, that therefore contraception is good too. Very manly.
Weird how some men like manly women. You guys might want to check out my post on
the link between porn and homosexuality."

Do you think Lucia suffers from sexual repression much?

Mulholland Drive is Back

...and over here.

Mwahahahah!

A bloody retail tragedy.

Today I ventured out to Sylvia Park to do the last of my Christmas Shopping. I should state right at the start that I hate the Sylvia Park with a passion, it has no soul and seems to be on a fast slide toward scum status.

Anyway, the only reason I used to visit the place was because it had one of the best book shops I have found in Auckland, Borders was fantastic, it has a wide collection of reading on offer (for a NZ book shop) and pretty much everything you wanted would always be in stock.

Well....that is no more, Borders Sylvia Park is now a Whitcoulls branch and the place is now a complete and utter shit hole.
The collection of books on offer has been dramatically reduced (as confirmed by a staff member) what used to be rows and rows of books has been replaced by cheap shit that Whitcoulls seems to specialise in selling.

I asked for a particular book and was told by the staff member that they no longer stock that type of thing but she would be happy to order it, I declined her offer.

Oh well, that is another NZ business that will not be getting my custom, I will now simply buy all my books on line, I refuse to support Whitcoulls.

So how do Labour win in 2014?

Now that Goff has done the first honorable thing in his life and fallen on his sword the Labour party finds itself needing another leader.

It seems that the front runners are the equally odious Parker and Cunliffe with the David Shearer as the outsider. There is talk of Grant Robertson making a run but I am not sure that NZ is ready to have an openly gay PM just yet.

As somebody who never wants to see another Labour government in my life I would be more than happy if Labour select Parker or Cunliffe as neither of these two will never be the PM of NZ, they simply will not resonate with the public.

For Labour to win in 2014 they need to appoint Shearer, he is a man the public will instantly bond with, he is untainted by the disastrous Klark era and a man who is (as yet) largely scandal free.

However, just appointing Shearer is not enough, it is time that Labour restructured itself from the ground up. No longer should the union movement have such a strangle hold on the party, no longer should head office have such a huge say in who the branches will select as their candidates and no longer should Labour be hamstrung by pandering to the various factions inside the party.

Labour can only become relevant to the people of NZ again if they revert to being the party of the working man (the party I should support)

The sexuality, race, gender and ethnicity of the candidate should not be a consideration, it is time that Labour started picking the best people for the electorate.

One only has to cast an eye across the back bench of the last Labour caucus to see the shocking lack of talent, a lot of those morons where there at the behest of the union movement but equally a lot of them were there simply because the Labour party wanted to appear politically correct.

The end result of all that PC bullshit was perhaps the most talentless caucus in the history of the Labour party.

So, for Labour to be relevant again the following things need to happen.

1. David Shearer must be appointed Leader.

2. Shearer then needs to use his honeymoon period (and he will have a long one) to take on the factions inside the party and to take on the union stranglehold. Shearer will face huge battles but if he hits the factions hard and hits them early he can come out of it with his power base intact.

3. Shearer needs to reorganise the Labour party from the ground up (something that Lange and Douglas government regret they did not do) more autonomy needs to be given to local branches and less importance on being politically correct.

4. Move all of the Klark era MP's to the back benches and encourage as many as possible of them to retire.

5. Make Labour an issues based party, stop the personal attacks that only energise the morons from the hard left but alienate the vast majority of the voting public. Demote any MP's who revert to type and start abusing other MP's. Labour needs to start acting like a government in waiting not a rabble of frothing morons drooling at the Nat's across the house.

Labour and Shearer need to couch every argument as being one of issues and how their policy will be better for the vast majority of Kiwis, they also must stop the small minded attacks on all "rich pricks" as this turns off as many voters as it wins.

6. Make it clear that while Labour is for the working man they have no truck with parasites and bludgers, make it clear that under a Labour government the genuinely ill and those genuinely in need will be well looked after but the long term parasites and DPB slappers will be expected to work for the money they receive from their fellow Kiwis. Labour must immediately start using the term working men/women in all of their press releases as a way of connecting with the public.

7. Labour must distance themselves from the strong hold the unions have on them, the public have already decided that unions are not relevant in today's work place, the public do not see the need to have unions involved in their lives and detest paying union dues to those that are largely corrupt.

8. Make a real effort to attract candidates who have some real life experience, fewer academics, less lawyers and more people from a business background.

9. Stop attacking John Key, Labour would be far better advised to go after those around Key (lets face it, it is a target rich environment) by attacking (in a factual not personal manner) those around Key they will chip away at the pillars that support Key and ensure that Key spends more time explaining why some of his ministers have stuffed up than being able to smile and wave.

10. Finally, and most importantly Labour and Shearer need to publicly draw a line under the Klark era government, they need to admit that the voters of NZ have now twice rejected social engineering and promise to be an opposition who will listen to what the people want.

If Shearer and Labour can do all this then they have a real chance of becoming the government in three years, they need to reconnect with the working people of NZ and they need to do it in a positive manner.

So....lets hope they appoint Cunliffe or Paker.

It's all over.... thanks for coming

When Dr Brash mentioned in the newspapers that he wished to take over the ACT Party I was one of few people that jumped up and down over the issue. I was 100% against the idea and I didn't hold back on telling my ACT friends that it was a stupid idea.

When he raised the idea that John Banks would possibly join him this was the absolute last straw - choosing Banksie to run and keep the 16,000 vote majority that Rodney worked extremely hard for was never ever going to happen.

Brash stated he would bring 15% of the country's voters to the party. He bought 1.07%. Three times as less votes the previous leader had in 2008 when they got 3.65%.

Today was the final nail in the coffin for the party known as ACT. John Banks is the sole MP "flying the flag" for ACT but who's own personal politics belong entirely within the National Party. I expect when John is appointed as Party Leader on Tuesday many people will or at least SHOULD resign from ACT immediately.

What happened to ACT that led to this complete annihilation. Quite simple. Narrow minded, short termist, selfish individuals who put themselves before the party.

The list of shame includes:

Heather Roy. Back stabbing, power crazed liar. Her constant plotting to oust Rodney and fibbing about bullying to the media started the rot in the eyes of the voters.
Add to that her mate Simon Ewing Jarvie for helping spread the poison.

Members of ACT on Campus for backing Dons coup attempt from the beginning. Several very prominent members of AOC refused to back the leader of the party and were publicly backing the change. Their strong performance for Epsom is hollow as now they are betrothed to John Banks... so either they resign now or they admit they are more conservative than liberal. AOC President Peter McCaffrey voted for Banks to be the Epsom candidate and publicly supported Brash while Hide was leader.

The ACT Board need to be sacked. Now. Purge baby purge. Gutless. They put Banks in. They failed to back the leader and allowed Brash to take over. Forget the obvious, their gambled FAILED. They need to resign this week.

There is no use blaming Sir Roger, he has never gotten along with his party leaders.

Hilary Calvert was the wrong MP at the wrong time although I'm baffled at what time should would ever be right for her. The fact that she buckled immediately when she had given her cast iron assurance she'd back the leader was pitiful.

Countless media types salivating over the turmoil in ACT caused by the above.

I didn't add David Garrett to the list, why should I? He told every single ACT MP including Heather Roy about his past and still was an MP. Heather lied when she said it was Rodney's secret.

So what now? Well I can imagine there will be much soul searching over the next few weeks, maybe longer for the slower ones, to realise that the party now answers to arch conservative John Banks, as I predicted. I said it will happen and I was shouted down. It's awful that I was right, but anybody with half a brain should of seen it coming.

It's most certainly the end of the road for the ACT Party that we know and probably sayonara for every one of my friends who worked for the party up until election day.

Either way, the voters of New Zealand did the right thing for ACT - pity I can't say the same for Winston Peters and his party.

But that isn't for me to say anymore. It's over and out for me. Thanks to you all for reading the blog that I have been working on for 6 years and 7 months, since May 2005. It has been good fun but now it's more of a chore not to mention that there is no political vehicle any more for my beliefs.

Thank you for reading. All the best. Be seeing you soon.

Clint Heine (26/11/11)

Lynx Advert Banned *insert sad face here*

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned the new Lynx adverts cause they are too degrading to women and had a whole 100 complaints against them... out of a population of over 60 million...

The ASA stated: "the adverts were degrading to women, sexually suggestive and inappropriate for public display because they could be seen by children. Some of the people who called into complain reported they had seen the poster displayed near schools."

Now let me tell you - these adverts I first saw in Dubai last month... YES.. Dubai. The very same Dubai that is apparently hard-line conservative and anti pornography and public displays of suggestion.

Are we saying that the ASA has responded too harshly on these adverts based on the wails of 100 people? 100 people! Is this taking people power too far? 100 people isn't even a drop on this overpopulated island!


You can see the rest of the banned pics here....

Election this Saturday....

Read all party policies here

Get live results from here and here

I hazard a guess that both Kiwiblog and Whale Oil will do live blogging as well.

Voted!

I made my way down on a chilly Saturday to NZ House to vote in the NZ election yesterday and it was over all a little too quickly for an election that means so much for a lot of people.

The people manning the voting booths tell me it was a pretty busy day as well - and I expect a lot of Greens would have mobilised their supporters as well, as they are hands down one of the best at getting their offshore voters out to vote. Sadly, despite a lot of initial hot air, ACT didn't bother whatsoever to do anything to get votes in London - and this is from a party desperate for every single vote.

Needless to say, I had three votes, like we all did. My electorate vote was for the candidate I wanted to win, and as I live in Nelson, I made sure I didn't vote for Nick Smith or the Labour woman. And my party vote was well used.

As for the referendum, as I have heard stuff all about it from either side I did a little reading on the options and made my choices based on what I think is fair. MMP in my opinion delivers to us a parliament were 50% of MPs are unelected and I don't think that is fair. I want a proper debate on the voting system, I didn't vote to not change it as we should always question the way we vote. Shutting down debate is protecting ones own interests so you must always question it.

As I said, I'm quitting this blog after the election no matter the result is. I won't offer any comment on who is in or out nor am I interested in gloating or commiserating results either. All I will say is that I'll vote for the type of New Zealand I want to come home to - and that day is coming very soon.

We all know the result of the election, unless you believe the Horizon polls. However I implore people to not waste their votes on the Conservatives or give Winston the crook another chance. The last thing we want is these types of deluded people in Parliament.

WOW... mega fail from the selfish few

You have to see it to believe it!



(hat-tip James)

Wall Street Occupiers Crazy Demands

They demand.... about One Hundred Trillion Dollars to complete all their demands... say what?





So what they are pretty much saying is an end to capitalism and it to be replaced with a system that will oppress everybody in a similar way as the Soviet Union did - although I find it amusing that they have not mentioned in their demands what will happen to those to fight against these proposals.

Shooting?
Hanging?
Being sent to camps?

Good grief. If that are their proposals then they will be sitting there for a very long time. Generations even. Capitalism isn't going anywhere!

You can also view another list here which is also apparently unofficial...

FACEPALM

Okay, I am DONE with Don Brash.

Nice guy. Good policies. Political leadership FAIL.

Getting John Banks into ACT was quite possibly the dumbest move ever. But coming a close second is refusing to rule out serving a full term if you get elected.

Why would I vote for someone like that? Ever?!

I can't wait for this joke of a party to die so that the Right can start to rebuild its shattered credibility in New Zealand.

Is Russia more right wing than NZ?

With Russia finally being accepted into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) things are looking up for the country. Consumers will benefit immensely from the tariff drops that have been negotiated as European-made cars and trucks, furniture, clothes and all sorts of consumer goods and industrial machinery will be available at far lower prices than before.

I remember when tariffs were cut in NZ and the outrage from the left was hysterical. However every day families have benefitted immensely from having access to cheaper imports. Labour and Green MPs ignore this, but they are wealthy enough to pay extra for NZ made items. The same with Green taxes – they only serve to make flights, vehicles and household items exclusive to wealthy people. That’s why the ETS is a joke. That’s why when you buy an air ticket you find much of it goes in taxes. My latest flight to New York is only costing me £99 each way – but I’m being stung over £450 in taxes. How can families afford holidays when politicians are intent on killing the dream?

Part of the accession to the WTO involves the state privatising Government owned banks, wholesale, retail and franchise operations. Experts reckon selling these will bring in more investment, more economic certainty and confidence in the economy. Plus, no country can be truly free if the state is in control of assets, labour and the economy.

How come the Russians get it and we don’t?

How come countries that we used to laugh at in the 80’s like Poland and the former Czechoslovakia are now steamrolling ahead of NZ for several economic indicators – even despite the recession? They are embracing and enjoying the benefits of flat taxes and a winding back of Government intervention – I’ve seen this first hand.

What New Zealand needs is lower corporate taxes so that we can attract the likes of the tech giants and multinationals to our shores. Why do we sit on our hands as our head offices are all setting up in Aussie? Multinationals bring jobs and certainty – sneering at the wealth creators and attacking employers will bring ruin. Why is it that our trade unions can disable our entire economy and yet cannot be liable for the damages it causes?

The challenges facing New Zealand are clear. We need to be more competitive and we need to be attractive enough for people to want to come back. Too many Kiwis are selfish and envious – and want to punish those who pay more taxes. Too many Kiwis expect the Government to give them handouts. Working for Families is a left wing master-stroke – and should have been consigned to the bin as soon as Key won the election. Entrenching it is giving an entire generation of Kiwis the belief that Government is there to redistribute wealth.

Labour will not win the election, but they haven’t lost the war. Their ideology lives on within the National Party. Look at the polls. Many within National would rather go with the Greens than any other party. Many within National do not support asset sales.

This is why Keys second term needs to define the agenda better rather than trying to win a third term. Being in power for 6 or 9 years means squat, if you have not rolled back what the previous Govt did. Labour did – National should.

I'll be voting next week at the NZ High Commission for the party that recognises that hard work for more income is not a bad thing. I'll vote for a party that wants me to come home. I'll vote for a party that won't sneer at me or my friends if we choose to go on holidays to Hawaii. I'll vote for a party that doesn't sell my future by borrowing more to sustain a very unwell welfare state.

I'm confident my voting papers will have one or two options :)

Cats That Look Like David Cunliffe

Seems fair enough. This guy could be the leader of Labour before Christmas if his plans all work out. Although after his nasty sexist attack on Judith Collins last week, his odds have surely widened.



See more here

Overseas Votes from Wednesday November 9th

I rechecked my eligibility and have been informed that I am indeed allowed to vote in this year’s NZ general election which is great considering I have been offshore for 8 years. For those who do live offshore, we can vote as from tomorrow - November 9th. All information can be found here.
As I will be leaving this blog after this election and indeed all things political, I guess I should be blogging more often until then. With 16 more days to go it is set to be a very boring campaign highlighted by the fact that Labour still has not learned anything after their massive loss in 08. The arrogance and nasty attacks on the Government, and the feeling that they SHOULD be in Government has not eluded them.

National not only have this in the bank, they can sit back and ride upon the popularity of their leader for at least 3 more years without too much effort.

ACT look like they could be in danger but unlike every other election where the media guarantee they will lose Epsom or not make 5% - they face another danger – John Banks winning Epsom and forcing the party to be his bitch. For anybody who has supported ACT or voted for the party in the past, this is like swallowing the biggest, fattest, most disease ridden rat one could find. Never mind the quality of the other top 5 or 6 – which are in a class above every other party – Banks simply doesn’t fit into the party philosophy full stop. On that basis, you’ll see Helen Clark stand for National at the next election… he’s not compatible with ACT policy – it’s as simple as that.

Blair in his previous post has put together a pretty neat voting guide – so I don’t need to elaborate too much further on this. The MMP referendum doesn't really bother me - pisspoor campaign from both sides of the coin as far as I'm concerned. The left wanted MMP to stop the right and when they couldn't use MMP to bring hardline left wing policies many wanted STV... while establishment parties like Labour and National would not cry too much if FPP came back.

I will probably head down to the NZ High Commission sometime this week and make my special vote – I live in the Nelson electorate – so will do my part in voting against Nick Smith!

Bring on the election!

Blair Mulholland Makes Endorsements for the 2011 General Election

It's election time in New Zealand, so to continue a tradition I started three years ago, I am offering my endorsements for this go-around. I suspect my influence is slim to none, but I hope it makes for entertaining reading:


The Referendum
This is by far the most important part of the vote. Funnily enough, I think the best system would be a reformed MMP with half the list MPs, no double candidacies, and a Senate. But I don't think we will get that sort of reform if people vote for the status quo, which makes other alternatives more attractive. My view is that MMP encourages statism and government spending far more than FPP, which, because it is less democratic, ironically encourages more moral decision making. It means MPs in safe seats can afford to be bold and lead. And because the Right is smarter and more mature than the Left, and consequently coalesces around fewer parties and political organizations, FPP favours the Right, the more unified force. MMP rewards fractured politics and factions. So VOTE FOR CHANGE.


Party Vote
I've thought about this a long time and finally come to a conclusion: Stuff the lot of them.

I support Libertarianz policies, but without a Preferential Voting system for the party vote, a vote for them will make no difference. ACT are attractive with Brash, Isaacs and my good friend David Seymour, but because they are relying on Banks, even if they are successful the amateur hour mess that ACT has become will continue and in fact, become worse over the next three years, if that is possible. They need to disappear so something else can rise up in its place.

That leaves National, which I am still a member of. Have they done enough for a mallowpuff? No. They are increasing government spending, have shuffled the tax code around without reducing taxes, have not touched Working for Families or NZ Superannuation as they need to, streamlined the RMA instead of gutting it as they should, reduced our human rights through their law and order reforms, halted their mining initiatives, and introduced only the most tepid of welfare reforms. I never expect to get everything I want from a party I support, but I refuse to reward this degree of wetness. If I take Keith Holyoakes benchmark of only ever agreeing with 70% of what his party did, I think I would struggle to get to double digits. So no soup for National.

I have half-jokingly entertained the idea of voting Labour for the facetious view that "at least they are honest about being big-government socialists". I often wonder that, like an alcoholic, perhaps New Zealand needs to hit rock bottom before she finally considers real reform, and Labour would move to rock bottom a lot faster than National is now. I also think that despite being the Nasty Party, they still make a better opposition than the Greens or (God help us) NZ First. They need to be a strong opposition, much stronger than they are now. But no, I couldn't bring myself to do it. I bleed blue at the end of the day - I am a member of the National Party and no matter how awful this particular government is, I will not turn traitor on them.

That leaves me with nobody. National will still be the government, so it's not like it matters too much. LEAVE THE PARTY VOTE BALLOT BLANK.


Electorate Vote
A vast number of choices here, and my own particular take on the 70 races, with short notes:

Auckland Central: What did the financial and cultural heart of our largest city do to deserve such gee-whiz, thin-resumed candidates?! And no Liz Shaw after all? Even so, I have to go with my brother from another mother, ACT candidate David Seymour.

Bay of Plenty: Vote for Tony Ryall, since there's nobody else decent.

Botany: A no-brainer - Jami-Lee Ross, National's newest and finest MP.

Christchurch Central: Would be great to take this off the Left. Nicky Wagner.

Christchurch East: Is there anybody left living in this electorate?! Dodge the portaloos and go down to whatever makeshift tent they have set up there and vote for Aaron Gilmore.

Clutha-Southland: Don Nicholson. I endorsed the Labour candidate last time, but nobody is going to beat the awful Bill English. More's the pity.

Coromandel: Scott Simpson.

Dunedin North: Safe Labour, so vote Julian Crawford to legalise.

Dunedin South: Claire Curran is good entertainment value and she seems to be one of the few Labour MPs with a brain, so we may as well keep her on.

East Coast: Don't let Moana Mackey back in - support union-busting Anne Tolley.

East Coast Bays: I can't believe I am endorsing Murray McCully, but there ya go.

Epsom: Oh crap. Well it has to be Paul Goldsmith, doesn't it? Keep Banks out, and maybe we can save classical liberalism in New Zealand.

Hamilton: Tim MacIndoe and David Bennett in these marginal seats to keep them blue. Tim Wikiriwhi in H West if you can't stomach voting for the National guy.

Hauraki-Waikato: Angeline Greensill. Yes I know she's standing for Mana, but she's funny and she always sings waiata in her speeches. And there's nobody else. Give the Princess the boot.

Helensville: I suppose it's good form to support one's Leader, so John Key. It helps that Nick Kearney got personal with me on Kiwiblog a few times, so I don't have to be nice to him.

Hunua: Ian Cummings. I've never forgiven Paul Hutchinson for voting to ban smoking in bars.

Hutt South: Paul Quinn is kind of a douche, but so is Trevor Mallard, so best to have the former rather than the latter represent this seat.

Ikaroa-Rawhiti: Na Raihania. Get rid of Parekura the Hut.

Ilam: Gareth Veale. Don't vote for the authoritarian King Gerry.

Invercargill: All decent people, so why not give Shane Pleasance a tick?

Kaikoura: Ian Hayes.

Mana: I'm no great fan of a trougher like Hekia Parata, but it would be fun to win this seat off Labour, so vote for her.

Mangere: Casey Costello.

Manukau East: John Minto. Just kidding! Vote for Ross Robertson, one of the few decent Labour people, and we need to keep those in their caucus.

Manurewa: Louisa Wall. Help Labour learn to put Maori up in general seats instead of leaving them in the electoral ghetto.

Maungakiekie: Another no-brainer - vote for Sam Lotu-Iiga.

Mt Albert: David Shearer. Another talented and sensible Labour man who might help bring them back to the centre and to sensible policies.

Mt Roskill: Funnily enough I think Goff could be vulnerable here. Vote for Jackie Blue for that reason.

Napier: No endorsement here. I think Chris Tremain does a good job. I like Stuart Nash also. And ACT's John Ormond is a good bloke. You'd do well to vote for any of them.

Nelson: Vote for the far-left lesbian. It's important. We need to get rid of fifth-column MP Nick Smith at all costs. Maryann Street it is.

New Lynn: Tim Groser in this marginal.

New Plymouth: Jonathan Young to keep Andrew Little from having legitimacy. Of course, if he were Labour leader they would be out of power for a generation, so on the other hand...

North Shore: Anyone who votes for Maggie Barry over Don Brash is mad. Put Brash in.

Northcote: Keep Jonathan Coleman in this marginal.

Northland: Too many ex-cops in National already, so go for Barry Brill, the ACT guy.

Ohariu: Get rid of waste-of-oxygen Peter Dunne by voting for Charles Chauvel. Once Dunne is gone, National can take the seat in 2014.

Otaki: Nathan Guy never impressed me much, so Peter McCaffrey of ACT.

Pakuranga: Got to be one of my favourite Nats, Maurice Williamson. Plus, Chris Simmons is a douche.

Palmerston North: Let's turn Palmy blue! Vote Leonie Hapeta.

Papakura: Judith Collins really should be punished for turning into the Minister Representing the Police to the Public. I confess I never saw it coming. And John Thompson is a great bloke, so vote for him.

Port Hills: Supposedly marginal, but who cares about David Carter? Vote for Geoff Russell.

Rangitata: Jo Goodhew. Or Tom Corbett. Whatever.

Rangitikei: Ian McKelvie, or Hayden Fitzgerald.

Rimutaka: Jonathan Fletcher to win this marginal off Clark-the-even-younger.

Rodney: Gotta support my old committee - Mark Mitchell.

Rongotai: Chris Finlayson has not always said things I've liked as Attorney General, but you should vote for him.

Rotorua: Lacking any alternative, vote to keep "Boris" - Todd McLay.

Selwyn: Amy Adams.

Tamaki: Can't go too wrong here. I'm endorsing Stephen Berry, since Boscawen doesn't want to get back, and Simon O'Connor is going to win anyway.

Tamaki-Makaurau: This is a hard one, but on balance, I'd say Shane Jones. He'd make a good Labour leader.

Taranaki King Country: Ugh! Shane Ardern is the only serious option in a tiny field of four.

Taupo: Louise Upston seems to be doing a good job, so keep her in and keep Labour out.

Tauranga: Another no-brainer - Simon Bridges all the way.

Te Atatu: Give the very entertaining Tau Henare a shot.

Te Tai Hauauru: Tariana Turia supports welfare reform, so I support her.

Te Tai Tokerau: Hone must be stopped - vote for the excellent (and underrated by his own party) Kelvin Davis.

Te Tai Tonga: Katene has been pretty average - vote to legalise with Emma-Jane Mihaere Kingi!

Tukituki: Craig Foss if he promises to get rid of his gay ute.

Waikato: Kate Sutton. Nah, kidding again. Ugh, I don't know Robin Boom, but that'll have to do as I am no great fan of Tisch.

Waiariki: There's only three candidates and Te Ururoa Flavell is the least worst of them by the looks.

Waimakariri: Cosgrove is a good local MP, but he's a bit of a clown. I'd put Kate Wilkinson in there instead.

Wairarapa: John Hayes seems to be doing a good job, but he's going to win anyway, so vote for Libertarianz Leader Richard McGrath.

Waitakere: National's welfare reforms have been limp, but Paula Bennett is a reasonably good Minister and MP and should keep both her job and her seat.

Waitaki: No, I can't bring myself to support Jacqui Dean. Vote for ACT's Colin Nicholls.

Wellington Central: Well the National candidate seems almost as bad as the Labour one here, so vote for Regan Cutting (great name for a libertarian candidate in Wellington, don't you think?).

West Coast Tasman: It wouldn't be too bad if Damian O'Connor got back in, so I won't shore up Auchinvole here. Vote Steven Wilkinson to legalise.

Whanganui: Ugh, I can't support Borrows. I'd like to see how Mastermind does. Let's give Hamish McDouall a crack.

Whangarei: Another poacher turned gamekeeper in this seat - Heatley is just limp as a Housing Minister. Protest by voting Helen Hughes.

Wigram: ...and last one... you know, I don't give a shit, this Economic Euthenics guy looks interesting. Tubby Hansen. Vote for that guy. Yeah.

So happy voting folks, and remember: New Zealanders will always get the government they deserve.

RIP Roger Kerr

Having been offshore for over 8 years now I haven't had the pleasure of spending as much time with Roger as many of my friends have. It's a sign of his ability to articulate excellent ideas consistently without going into the gutter - that explains the huge outpouring of tributes to the man from across the political divide.

A massive loss to the political debate in New Zealand that I hope will be never forgotten. Another man gone too soon, too early, too young.

Cactus Kate sums it up beautifully.

Also good posts from Kiwiblog, Liberty Scott and Lindsay Mitchell

The best of Jeremy Kyle

In all seriousness, I am quite glad I am not at home watching this show :)

David Parker - Partner Stealing, Lie Spreading, Fraudster

Kiwiblog cleverly allowed Labour MP David Parker a chance to hang himself in public with a post about the electorate in Epsom. Unfortunately Farrar forgot to add the "humour" tag or add a disclaimer about the inaccuracies in the piece.

I expect lawsuits will follow, in fact I hope the Sensible Sentencing Trust does attempt to sue him for the lies in this article.

But I digress, lets look at the lie and then break it down.

Some are also aware Act knew this when they took a large donation from the misnamed Sensible Sentencing Trust and made Garrett Act’s law and order spokesperson.

Complete lies.

Immediately ACT Party Secretary at the time Nick Kearney responded:

This is a lie. I was Party Secretary at this time and was responsible for submitting the party’s donation returns. There was never a donation from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. This lie is perpetuated by Labour consistently as if to say ACT sold that #5 slot of David Garrett to the SST. It is a barefaced lie

The MP in question, David Garrett then replied:

I confirm Nick’s statement that to the best of my knowledge niether SST nor McVicar has EVER given ANY political party a cent, Including ACT. The approach to have me stand for ACT came from Rodney Hide – not McVicar – after the latter said he would not stand for any political party, and Rodney asked if there was anyone else in the organization who knew his onions on law and order issues and could make a speech.

And then the SST replied as well:

I can confirm that from the other side – the Trust cannot and does not make large donations – it does not have that sort of money, and never has. The Trust can accept large donations however

David Parker has outright lied here.

We must remember what type of person David Parker is too. Forced to step down from his portfolios for filing fraudulent returns. He not once sued or attempted to sue Ian Wishart for his claims against him either.

This makes it clear that David Parker has some illegal secrets hidden under his bed.... but he isn't too shy to show off the fact that in his bed he has got the long time partner of iconic NZ musician Chris Knox, himself incapacitated after a stroke. He stole his partner of over 18 years from under his nose while he was lying in bed needing care and support from her.

Parker tried and failed to win the nomination at Dunedin North after a brutal and bloody battle with supporters and party HQ and ran up to Auckland to run in Epsom, a seat he can't possibly win - hence the need to tell lies about his opponents.

David Parker has leadership aspirations. But how can you trust somebody that you can't leave along in your own house in case he steals your money and your wife?

Gaddafi - the front pages of the papers today

When it comes to headlines - once again the British papers show they are world beaters.

First up is the Daily Mail


Then the Independent:


and finally the Sun really puts the boot in, but does capture the anger of so many. Who would have thought Gaddafi would die before Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, the alleged mastermind behind the Lockerbie tragedy?


The Guardian also was nice enough to allow embedded videos of their footage of the capture:

Who would of known what he would have said if he went to court. It seems he didn't have any chance of surviving his capture and I wonder what sort of Government we will have in Libya now? Time will tell but it is encouraging that many of the most brutal men in our time are being bought to justice lately. Hopefully Mugabe is next!

The 2011 Prime Moneywaster what a difference 5 years makes!

Do you remember this advert by National in 2005? Very effective then and quite appropriate today as well.



It didn't allow embedding so you can watch it again here.

The advert was very specific on how much more taxpayers were paying for under a Labour Govt: Higher petrol levies, taxes on "bevies" , Speed Camera fines and higher taxes... and yet we have today, courtesy of the National Govt:

- Petrol levies = Up including that awful ETS.
- Tax on bevies = exise increases as well as the GST increase at least. Not to mention big tobacco exise tax hikes
- Speed camera/patrols revenue gathering = "Speed camera tickets nearly double"

- Higher taxation = Yes with GST.

National isn't proposing wholesale changes to any of Labours policies either. Interest will remain off student loans, Working for Families isn't under threat and they are not going to sell that giant millstone around our necks - NZ Rail.

They cast concerns at the ACT Party changing their lineup at the election and yet we have the National Party doing a U turn on all their policies and principles in 5 years. It's going to be a long 3 more years after this election if we don't see some spine coming from John Key and his party.

Bloody Gadhafi!

Gadhafi died from his wounds, his condition is described as "satisfactory"

Anti Capitalist Protest Fail

Oh dear



(stolen from Twitter)

Isaac is back!

Older readers, if I have any remaining, will remember the programme the Love Boat. Oh it was a happy place to be – led by a smiling captain with a few silly characters muddling about in semi comedic or dramatic situations getting from one destination to another. One thing that kept them all together was the calming influence of Isaac the level headed barman – whose quips and banter were all served up with generous servings of liquor and commonsense.

I draw comparisons to the ACT Party, a party I have sailed with since 1996. They have also had its good and bad characters on board all sailing through good and not so good situations. Thankfully the party yesterday finally announced that the level headed person who will pull it all together is another Isaac, Catherine Isaac that is – who will bring commonsense and credibility at a time when the triennial media vultures start circling starboard, not to mention the leftie and Nat bloggers who predict the demise of the party.

I remember Catherine when she was running to be party President. I remember in my capacity as Prebble’s Rebels president,(later known as ACT on Campus) being pressured quite heavily to not vote for her or show support for her “side” in favour of voting for John Ormond as ACT President. As I was Dunedin based and had been far away from the internal quibbles – I was exposed for the first time the factional politics from within the party. Either way, I had no problem with either Presidential candidate and I don’t actually recall who I voted for, if I did.

Catherine did win and she created the “Liberal Project” for ACT. Like Cactus Kate said on her blog – I wasn’t too enamoured by it whatsoever. But that was because I am not excited by long fireside chats about philosophy, which is as sexy as Catherine Delahunty and as vote friendly as being a fox hunter at a PETA rally. Nevertheless, my objectives at university were to pass my papers and get laid as often as I could – being an ideologue didn’t feature anywhere near this list. And today, unfortunately, liberalism is a dirty word to many within the ACT Party especially to the Epsom candidate.

Catherine however has a glittering business background that simply puts her peers on other party lists to shame. She knows what she is talking about, just as much as Dr Don knows a thing or two about the economy and Don from Fed Farmers knows about farmers. She is a wise head that will hopefully prevent the media from making up coup attempts and disaster headlines leading up to the election. You’d think that anyway!

Sure it was a badly kept secret, but Catherine is an excellent candidate for the party and has the experience to be an asset to Parliament. I wish her well in the campaign. I am sure that over the campaign we'll hear much whining from failed Radio New Zealand guest blog reader, Martyn Bradbury cry a lot about this candidate, like he did when Cactus was going to run - but as most of New Zealand knows already, anything Martyn thinks is a bad idea must be a damn good idea!

Bring on the campaign!

The Race for the Presidency: Republican Nominees - Blair Mulholland

I've been meaning to write about the Republican nomination for US President for quite some time. However, the field, and the game, has been changing on an almost daily basis, such that any commentary prior may have been a word spoken too soon. The biggest issue was whether Palin and/or Christie would get in. Since they have now declared that they are out, I feel a bit freer to assess things.

Firstly let me say how disappointed/pissed off I am that Palin is not running. She would have been by far the best candidate. She was solid on all the issues, has a relatively stable personal life, is a great debater and public speaker, has executive experience, and is easily the most charismatic figure in American politics since Bill Clinton. None of the current declared candidates share all those qualities, and when you want to win the game against hard opposition, you send in your best batsman. Whatever anybody says, and whatever her polling negatives, that was Palin. But, like a typical woman, she teased and flashed us for months on end, promising so much, only to spurn us at the last minute and leave us with our hard-ons in our hands. I think it was the wrong decision for her. She has now proven everything that her detractors have said about her - that she is a quitter, that she is lazy, that she is a narcissist, that she is only in it for the money and the celebrity. She has lost a great deal of respect, and not just from me. She didn't even have to run to win. Reagan only got there on his third try. Even a losing run would not have diminished her if, like Huckabee last time around, she ran a decent campaign with no fuckups - she is only 47 and would be well primed for another go in 2016 or 2020. I hope she does eventually have a go. What she should be aiming for now is the Secretary of Energy position in any future Republican administration, or to replace McCain in the Senate in Arizona - that's the only way she is going to remain relevant that far down the track.

Anyhoo, to the people who would be President, in order of worst to best:


1) Former Pennsylvania Sentator Rick Santorum

Santorum makes me want to vomit. He is a nerdy, geeky little twerp who has done nothing but work in politics his entire life. He spends his debating time trying to "out-conservative" all the other candidates and thinks that the way to the nomination lies in being as hardcore on abortion and gay marriage as is humanly possible, when all most people care about is jobs and whether they can make rent next month. It's embarrassing. And he lost his Senate seat so badly in 2006 that it is amazing anybody takes him seriously. When Palin labeled him a "knuckle-dragging neanderthal", she was spot-on, which makes his recent desperate pleas for her to endorse him even more pathetic.

How apt also that "Santorum" is now urban slang for the mix of lube, semen and faeces that results from anal sex. Well deserved.

I would vote for Obama over Santorum (can there be a worse insult?). Just piss off and die, Rick. I think he may do the former at least very soon.


2) Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann

I never understood why Bachmann got so much initial publicity, and the comparisons with Palin were even more bizarre, since there's nothing much in common there other than they both have a vagina. Yes, she debates well. Yes, she is a solid conservative who is on the right side of all the issues. Also, she's purrty. But... well... she's never done anything. She's never run anything other than a household. She has no real legislative accomplishments other than rescinding the ban on incandescent lightbulbs, which, while laudable, doesn't make her Presidential material. Also, what with her fostering 23 children and all, she's clearly a compassionate person, but why can't she get that to come across? She sounds like a fembot when she talks about policy. When she talked about abortion in one debate I was reminded of Mike Dukakis's staunch answer to a question on the death penalty in 1988. There was no compassion or feeling there - only the doctrinaire line. It's odd for somebody who was a Democrat in the '70s and campaigned for Jimmy Carter. And her fundamentalism on gay marriage, and her insistence on making it an issue, is a huge turnoff.

I'd probably vote for Bachmann over Obama, but I wouldn't expect her to be any more competent. There is a massive difference between Opposition and Government, and Bachmann won't make the crossing.


3) Former Utah Governor and US Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman

Jon Huntsman made the great mistake of being the "establishment moderate Republican" candidate in an electoral cycle where that position is absolute poison to any GOP voter with half a brain. Any other year he would be a top three contender. Not this time. Which is a shame, because, like Howard Dean in 2003, he's actually not that bad.

He was a reasonable Governor of Utah - the most solidly Republican state in the Union. He's also the only candidate with any decent foreign policy credentials - he's been Ambassador to China - and foreign policy is the GOP Achilles Heel right now. But you get the feeling he's not running because his heart's in it and he has fire in his belly. You get the impression he's running because the Bush family and the East Coast GOP asked him to. And once you have Rush Limbaugh asking "hey Jon, who are your friends?", it's all over. He is now labeled the "establishment" candidate when the Tea Party wants anything but. To compound things, he campaigns according to his masters' bidding, and like he is trying to get Democrats to vote for him. His campaign spokesman insulted the the other candidates as being "anti-science" and he came out saying he believes in anthropogenic global warming, when most GOP voters are GOP voters precisely because they know AGW is bollocks. FAIL.

OTOH, his economic policy release was excellent, and was all but cribbed by Herman Cain later on. I don't know who Huntsman's campaign manager is, but they are a dumbarse. Oh well. US political campaigns weed out weaklings like no other system on earth, and Huntsman is a weakling. I wouldn't be unhappy if he took the VP slot on anybody else's ticket, but he's not the guy, and shows no signs of troubling the field despite his official support.


4) Texas Representative Ron Paul

I like Ron Paul, but even if I had a casting vote in the Electoral College, I wouldn't make him President.

The reason was summed up in a blog comment I recently saw: "Ron Paul is spot-on 90% of the time, and dead-wrong the other 10%. Unfortunately, the 10% is what's going to get us all killed." It's true. I applaud Ron Paul for being the sole true libertarian voice in Congress, and if he were President, surely we would get sweeping domestic reform like no other candidate would give us. But Paul's problem is that his foreign policy is just awful. He has this naive view that if America just ignored the rest of the world, then the rest of the world would ignore America. Unfortunately, that is not the case. If 9/11 proved anything, it's that no matter how much I care, people are still arseholes. And unless America engages militarily with those who would destroy freedom around the world, you are going to get to the point where there are too many wolves at your door. There is no wisdom in saying, oh, there are only a few wolves, and we can ignore them. If you don't shoot the bastards, they breed, and before you know it there are too many of them and they are causing you a world of shit. Ron Paul, unlike most GOP voters, does not understand this. So whatever wonderful libertarian ideas he has, unless you have a big freaking army all around the world to defend them, they count for nothing.

What is interesting about Paul, however, is his level of support now versus 2008. He is averaging about 12% now, unthinkable four years ago. Back then his ideas were extreme, now many of them are core Tea Party values. He is having an effect, and for that reason alone his run is valuable. No, he should not be President. No, he will not be President. But we should all thank God, or Gault, or whatever, for Ron Paul.


5) Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson

Johnson really has been shut down. He's basically a young Ron Paul, with executive experience, and slightly more sane. I can't for the life of me understand why the media have refused to give him oxygen. It's almost like a conspiracy, especially when you consider the airtime given to Huntsman, who was also Governor of a medium-sized Western state.

He's been pigeonholed as "the drug guy", which hasn't helped him. I think also that when you run for President, you either need to be Sarah Palin ie. too big to give a fuck what the Party thinks, or a brown-noser with your compatriots on a nationwide basis. This is easy if you are in Congress - a Governor has a harder job. You have to make a name for yourself, or you have to network. Johnson has done neither, and that has been his downfall. Nobody knows who he is, and nobody cares. He is getting a libertarian rump of support, and that's it. I don't really see how he can get in the game. Which is a shame, because he is probably closer to my own views on policy than any other declared candidate.


6) Texas Governor Rick Perry

With hindsight, Rick Perry was always going to have problems. He has been in politics his whole life, had very easy elections facing rather inept opponents throughout, and been stuck in a job with almost no power other than to veto whatever the Texas Legislature bothers to come up with in its short three month sessions every two years. In political terms this has made him fat and lazy. Yes, W was also Governor of Texas, but at least he had a Democratic legislature and had to provide some actual leadership. Perry has never had to worry about that.

In politics, you identify your Achilles Heel straight away, and you knock that weasel on the head. With Palin it was quitting her Governorship. With Romney it's his healthcare plan. Perry failed to identify just how pissed off America was with illegal immigration, and that whatever he needed to do to court the considerable number of Hispanic voters in Texas was just not going to fly in Iowa or South Carolina. He made the fatal mistake of doubling down and defending his decision to fund children of illegals into college, and voters who had previously thought he was their conservative saviour turned off in droves. The political commentariat have all been saying that Perry can come back, but there is no coming back on such a basic Tea Party/conservative staple like immigration. Voters don't forget something that major.

As Perry said himself, he came in late and suddenly became the pinata which everyone took to with big sticks. Bachmann roasted him on his compulsory vaccines for teenage girls, and that hurt him. Voters have detected an inconsistency in his positions, and there is some part of us which can never forgive a man who supported Al Gore once, even if it was back in the '80s.

He wouldn't be a bad nominee, and I think he could win. But he has campaigned badly so far, and his lackadaisical attitude to politics may have got him by in the past, but it won't now. For Perry to be the nominee, he would have to run a kickarse campaign from now on, and Romney and Cain would have to start doing very badly. I think the odds on that are low.


7) Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

Despite whatever you read about how different the two are - there really is not much wiggle room between Rick Romney and Mitt Perry. They're both basically slick, smooth-talking politicians with good hair. The only real difference is the states they ran. Romney's is the second most Democratic in the nation after Vermont. And they have both run their states according to what they thought their voters wanted. Now they are both paying for it.

Romney's big problem is his healthcare initiatives in Massachusetts. There are two reasons that this millstone around his neck has not sunk him yet. One is that people realise that Massachusetts is a terrible place filled with horrible communists like Barney Frank. They can forgive a GOP man for doing what he needed to do to keep his job. It's a lot harder to forgive Perry for prevaricating in a hardcore GOP place like Texas. The other is that Romney's voters are not Tea Party. He has cornered the moderate GOP vote - around 20%, the silent minority who don't like socialism, but who like their medicare and their social security and don't think we need to go nuts the other way either. This may be enough to make him the nominee. And there is a widespread consensus that, while Romney is not an ideal nominee, he would be "okay". He is a bit of a weasel, but people think he would be a conservative enough President to be adequate for the job.

There are bad portents to making him the nominee however. No President has ever been elected without winning his home state. If Romney won Michigan, which is possible, he could make that claim, but he is certainly never going to carry the state which gave us John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Mike Dukakis. I think he can beat Obama, possibly. But his lack of charisma is going to make that hard against "The One". I certainly can't see him besting Obama in a debate. He would be a troubling nominee and right now I'd find it hard to come up with a strategy to get him to the finish.

That said, if I was a betting man (or I had any money to bet with), I'd put a crisp Benjamin (or Rutherford) on Romney. Nobody really wants him to be the nominee, but, y'know, oh well, he'd be alright, I suppose...


8) Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich

I really thought Newt would be a playa, playas. I really did. He had the easiest, simplest sales pitch of any of the prospective nominees and the time was right. All he had to do was say "I balanced the budget when I was Speaker, and I can do it again". But he then proceeded to have the worst first week of a campaign I have ever seen, and has yet to properly recover since. He smacked down Paul Ryan's alternative budget right at the time when the Tea Party were swooning over both him and it, and that was it right there. EPIC FAIL. Also, so many Tea Party people have never forgiven Newt for his tentative endorsement of AGW theories, and for appearing in a TV commercial with... *gasp* Nancy Pelosi! The Paul Ryan faux pas just confirmed their suspicions, and the phone calls have not been returned ever since.

However, Gingrich has learned from that, been solid since then, and has slowly moved up. He now hovers in the high single figures, which is better than Bachmann, it has to be said. Will he move up further? Anything is possible. He is easily the smartest and sharpest mind in the race - he has leadership qualities, charisma and a daring that is sorely lacking in politics today, though maybe too much. The unmentioned problem is his moral character. He has cheated on two marriages to get to his current wife. To date, Ronald Reagan has been the only divorced President. GOP voters get queasy about such things. Rightly or wrongly, he is also seen as a figure of the past by many conservatives and Tea Partiers, and unsuited to modern requirements.

Personally I am not sure Gingrich has the right temperament to be President, but he would be a great VP. There is a slim chance he could yet come through - he certainly has the credentials and track record. But I wouldn't bet on it.


9) Talkback Radio Host and Former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain

I was delighted to see Herman Cain race to the top of recent polls following Perry's implosion. He really is a top quality candidate. Yes, if he was white and a talkback host and former CEO with no political experience, we'd probably be talking about him in the same breath as Gary Johnson. But that's not an issue, because Cain has risen to the occasion, and deserves his frontrunner status. He is a highly charismatic, likeable figure who debates well and speaks well. He is working this race like he was born to do it. And while it's easy to do if you have no record, he ticks all the conservative Tea Party boxes on policy. His 9/9/9 economic policy sounds like something ACT should be pushing in New Zealand.

Personally I had always thought Cain was the best of a rather mediocre bunch, but always thought he should have run for Governor of Georgia first. Well now he's bad and he's nationwide. He is taking the place that Palin may have in an alternate universe, and now that she is out for sure, he will consolidate. Unfortunately, he is likely to draw even more of the same vitriol that Palin did, and one only has to look at Clarence Thomas to see the sort of high tech lynching that racist Democrats engage in once one of "their" Negroes heads off the plantation. But no matter - Mr Cain has immaculate composure, and dealt swiftly to a racist interviewer on MSNBC recently. The lynching will not work.

Cain's campaign has sent the commentariat into a tailspin. Their shock has turned to assertions that Cain is a flash in the pan and that once Perry revitalises his campaign, Cain will recede. They see Cain as a substitute. One even suggested the Cain support was a "protest vote". Such commentary insults the intelligence of voters. If Cain's vote recedes, it will be because Cain messes up, and for no other reason. Perry is not coming back in a hurry, for reasons I have already detailed. Cain's frontrunner status is here to stay, - he has been adjudged by voters as the best not-Romney, and he may yet even get the nomination. Can you imagine how many heads will explode?!

I hope Cain wins. If he does, he will wipe the floor with Obama. Yes, his lack of political experience is a huge drawback, and makes him a risky nominee - indeed, a risky President. But one just has to look at seasoned politicians like Perry to know that experience does not always translate into sound campaigning, and Cain has made very few missteps so far. As for whether he is fit for the Presidency, well, I think our second black President would be a vast improvement on our first. He knows how to run a company and turn it around, which is something, although nothing like running a government to be sure. However, any gaps in foreign policy and political savvy he possesses can be well covered by a good VP nominee. Condi Rice would be ideal, surely? An all Afro ticket: Can you imagine the horror of the Left? I want to see it happen for that reason alone!

So that's the field. I like Johnson, will settle for Romney, but hope Cain wins, and hope Gingrich gets his mojo back. Whoever wins, Obama is going to have the fight of his life on his hands.

VSM - 15 years of fighting and the challenges ahead

At long last the ridiculousness is over. The end of compulsory student unionism has finally come and students will have the freedom to decide at enrolment if they will or will not become a part of the student union.

For most people, the concept of freedom of association is taken for granted, we are not forced to go to church and we are not forced to join clubs or political organisations. The Labour Party, when making the Law Society voluntary in 2007 was very clear about it. Clayton Cosgrove said: ‘We haven't had compulsory unionism for 20 years. Why should I as a politician tell you or anybody else what you should belong to?... If you want to join the footy club, the workingmen's club, the institute - go for it. It's your choice and you should have that right.’ There were no protests on the streets or in the courtrooms by lawyers as they saw this as a good move and they moved on. The fact that students for too long were forced to join something akin to the legal status as a bowling club has been a blight on our own bill of rights allowing freedom of association.

But that’s beside the point – most students actually don’t give a toss either way. They have been caught in the middle between the student unions and the National and ACT Party campus groups and will wonder what all the fuss was about. I would tend to agree that students apathy on this is fair, after all, you go to University to get your degree and get a job. It isn’t a lifestyle choice. But for me the campaign was more than a brief fight with a few student activists, it was much more than that.

We know that NZUSA (the NZ Union of Students Associations) have spent untold amounts of money on this. We know this because the SOS (Save our Students) campaign was well resourced earlier this year. The HQ of NZUSA managed to send their famous “flying squads” of activists in to fight moves by university unions to pull out of NZUSA and the amount of times that David Do popped up on screens and online during the campaign was more regular than most politicians. Campus ACT and the Young Nats don’t have millions of dollars of funds to fight their campaign. When I ran VSM campaigns at Otago in 1999, our budget was $90, which we dipped into our own pockets for. OUSA spent no less than $35,000 not including what was used via student media like the radio and newspapers that pounded the anti freedom message to the students every day/week. Since then I understand campaigns have still been run on the cheap – ironically the “right wing” side is the far poorer of the two.

The past 15 years for me have not been that easy. When I came to Otago in 1997 I asked an innocent question about my membership and was told where to go – in the student paper – and made to look a fool. Critic never allowed me to have any letter in its pages that were not accompanied by a rebuttal that they would seek. The Otago Polytechnic ran a 3 page rebuttal to my one page discussion on VSM and attacked me rather than the topic. Left wingers cry about the evils of corporate media and yet at a student level they were practising the worst of the worst forms of hypocrisy. However people joined the campaign alongside me and I was acquainted with people like Kiwiblogs’ David Farrar who’s earlier submission on the bill was our bible – which was a huge brick of a document we could reference from to counter any compulsionists argument. I ran for OUSA in ’97 and was about 50 votes off from making it in – on a VSM ticket. This was despite student media and OUSA exec making life very difficult for me at every candidate speaking event – to a point that after a socialist worker threw a chair at me I was told I was probably best to not ever attend any further campaign events.

I was assaulted on campus in 1998 by members of the international socialists for handing out VSM leaflets. This also led to them, and the campus chaplain at the time, burning the leaflets in front of me while I was held against a wall being screamed at. At clubs and societies day I stood up to dozens of threatening OUSA types who called me every name under the sun. I am not tall and most certainly not physically imposing. I have to admit this was pretty frightening and I was always relieved to have the backing of other Campus ACT (known then as Prebble’s Rebels) and sometimes Young Nats around to lend a hand. While I was also Otago (and NZ President) of Prebble’s Rebels – I was also through the years, spokesman for Student Choice that allowed me the pleasure of engaging with students who were not of the right wing variety, but who wanted VSM and also to have a debate about it with the student unions. Not once would OUSA accept a debate against us – despite my limited ability in debates!! The Young Nats at Otago were toothless and supported OUSA through fear of being at the end of the hate campaign.

The bullying campaign continued in 1999 when OUSA ran a paid campaign to fight the VSM “referendum”. My brother sustained some absolutely awful verbal harassment on campus and OUSA members alluded in Critic that I was engaged in sexual crimes with drunken students at my local student pub. Not one apology from Critic was ever made.

When OUSA “won” the referendum the student paper continued to run character assassination pieces ridiculing everything we did. It led to some members of the Rebels choosing to quit in fear. Many attempted to leave OUSA at that time but were unsuccessful. In 2000 my confidence was at an all time low. OUSA continued to ignore the fact that they were disengaged with students and kept on with their petty personal attacks. I relinquished most of my political roles in 01 and tried to become an ordinary student in order to complete my degree, which I did easily and graduated in 2002. I’m not too proud to admit that this campaign for VSM has taken a toll on my confidence immensely, to a point that I was pretty afraid of what would ever come up in student magazines or sometimes when walking through campus days or nights. Many of these people are still students or are in trade unions today still attacking the free rights of individuals. When I left Otago I read some horror stories of the treatment of people like the Flanagans who stood up to OUSA and compulsion, and I am sure they have some stories that make my experiences sound pretty lame!

If OUSA and other unions had listened from the beginning and made compromises about it, I would have not had fought against this as much as I have. I support freedom of association 100% but if in my first year as a fresh faced union paying student was given a fairer run, I would have been only too happy to listen to other ideas. NZUSA and their member unions deserve everything they get. They have money, they have assets, power and arrogance. VSM really shouldn’t have been an issue if unions had collectively dealt with it years ago. Students are a mass market, students want stuff and they consume. Businesses know students make them money – ask any bar within 1 km of a campus. Why then did student unions do NOTHING about protecting their unions until after the Labour filibuster ended? If you see student politicians crying in the media about being hard up or “distraught” over low membership numbers DON’T blame VSM, blame them and their predecessors who deliberately ignored members when given the chance to. How on earth can these unions happily accept the fact that no more than 10% of their members ever vote at elections? How can they be happy to see quorums fail at almost every opportunity? These unions need shaking up and to be accountable.

Don’t blame freedom of association if services struggle at first. The law is different than the Aussie one but the lesson from Aussie is plain – students in the 21st century don’t see collectivisation as important as the union dinosaurs. Student unions have ploughed millions into failure and unaccountability. If they were businesses they would have gone bust within a year or two and yet they think it’s ok to keep funding them because they believe students must own radio stations or have building contracts. (and funding them compulsory in order to get a degree!)

Give the students out there some credit, if they want to join the union then they will. If students don’t see the value, or wish to join their faculty association then let them do so. Students will naturally advocate and organise themselves one way or another – how else did OUSA or NZUSA come about?

I have a sense of calm after today's vote. I won’t be screaming in joy over this despite its importance. It makes me sad that so many people thought it was acceptable to force others to be part of a collective and to treat others badly if they chose to stand against it. I thought that part of our history was over. I am grateful that so many people got involved in changing the law and am glad that on the final day we saw Nats actually get stuck into the law… eventually. Pity many of them were not doing that as voraciously beforehand as much as ACT MPs have been since 1996.

I will support the student unions plight to get members in 2012 and onwards if they honestly want to represent their members and be mature about the voluntary responsibilities they carry. VSM was never about killing students unions or the “voice” that we hear so much about, but is a myth – as nobody can represent all students voices. The VSM movement will make student unions stronger as they can honestly say they represent every one of their members. It’s a challenge that would have been so much easier if student politicians really gave a stuff about their members today and in the past.

Bring on 2012.

Dope - Turning wowsers into idiots

The ACT Party has always had a lenient approach to drug and drug crime. Members of ACT on Campus used to regularly attend J-Day around the country and our very liberal ex leader always gave the same answer when asked by students whether or not he believed in tougher crimes on weed smokers. Indeed when it came to drug policy, ACT under the leadership of Rodney had a credible policy. It was one policy that many of the Greens and Libertarians could relate with ACT on.

Brash announced over the weekend that he too is uncomfortable with our drug laws and it was picked up with much mirth by the assembled repeaters and spread around the news desks by breathlessly excited media folk who needed an excuse to shit on ACT again.
The difference is that with Brash, nobody is really sure exactly how much he subscribes to ACT philosophy considering he was a hairs width away from being the National Party PM. Worse still, the man given the role to run for Epsom, well known conservative John Banks – is completely against the idea of softening laws on weed smoking. Of course he is, he was Mr Law and Order when he was the NATIONAL minister for the Police! John Key has gone along the loony path by suggesting that if it became legal kids will all smoke it before going to school – so we shouldn’t be surprised why the Nats are light years away from being a real political movement for personal responsibility and free choice.

The response from the conservatives and nanny statists were of course predictable. Their spluttering disgust over the idea that a person shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy a puff in their own private residence must have ruined their Friday night at the pub. People are happy to pour litres of DB or Lion owned fermented water into their bodies and then ignore the news stories of NZs shameful statistics on drunk driving and alcohol related domestic abuse – all because of ill informed attitudes of exactly what marijuana actually does. Nobody died from smoking weed no matter how often you’ll hear horror stories from preachy do-gooders. They say it leads to harder drugs – MPs have made that decision for you already. They banned party pills – leading to dangerous sub-varieties of pills becoming available. They gave criminal gangs free reign over the control and distribution of drugs so that whenever you want to have a puff, you’re directly funding criminal activity.

How many of these wowsers have tried marijuana? What about the journos who have used the speech to pound ACT into the ground again? I bet many have skeletons in their closet that would be worth sharing. This blog is offshore so I’ll publish any emailed to me.

Dr Don needs to pull his incoming caucus and candidates into line over this. This is what defines ACT from all the other parties. Free will is not a dirty word. John Banks needs to remember that the meal ticket that he is standing on is a liberal party and it comes with responsibility. The ACT President needs to be reminded that he is the President of the ACT Party not National. His comments opposing the comments by Brash were extremely unhelpful and put him in the Tory camp of a Liberal Party.

So what now for Brash and the last remaining liberals in ACTs “electable” list for the election? Who knows? The media seem intent on wanting ACT to stop existing, the candidates are dropping like flies and as far as I know, there doesn’t seem to be any urgency from anybody about what to do next. Brash needs to stamp his authority and do it quickly – muzzle Banks and rally the membership or indeed the party will be goneburgers in November.

PS – I said it all along that John Banks was of the biggest mistakes ACT has ever made. His pure hatred for everything ACT stands for is already killing the brand. He should have never been allowed to stand for ACT, most certainly not for Epsom. I fear that if he does win Epsom, it won’t be for ACT. It will be for Banks. If ACT is dependent on Banks then the ACT Party as we know it is dead.