So what do you stand for?

The local elections are coming, and one local has possibly the most ridiculous billboard ever. The woman is called Leandra Bowen  and her punchline is

Advocating crime prevention

Now some of you might think I am being a little flippant - but I do not see any of the other candidates with an opposite response, e.g. advocating domestic violence, supporting theft and/or encouraging fraud. I would suggest that my little town has its fair share of other problems - a polluted lake, a dying CBD, a lack of job opportunities, crippling debt and no population growth. I think Ms. Bowen needs to get out more!

What is going on in the world?

The various uprisings around the globe have given me some uncomfortable thoughts, largely around the possibility that these could have been brought about by agencies outside those countries.

Looking closely at those countries, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and now Libya and Iran, could this be the case of another ‘Operation Cyclone’ but using peaceful protest as the catalyst. Another article questions the input of  Gene Sharp, especially by some regimes.


I truly hope that these are spontaneous events, but will wait for the Wiki leaks to prove otherwise!

What a wonderful world

After a summer break the blog is back; actually, I couldn’t be bothered. There were a few things I could have gone on about, such as the NZ government planning to sell off 49% of state owned assets – apparently so they can be owned by locals (correct me if I am wrong, but don’t they already belong to the country?)

So it comes as no surprise (well to me anyway) to read that the Conservative party receives over 50% of its funding from the city. That’s right, the bunch of tossers who got the world in mess through their corporate greed are filling the trough for the equally greedy Tory pigs to dine from.

For those outside New Zealand you may like to know our current prime minister was, guess what, a merchant banker.

What a messed up world we live in!

It's official - the government doesn't care!

The Hobbit, a book by JRR Tolkein or a defining moment when workers rights were sold down the river by John Key and his merry men?

There are always two sides to any story, the left and the right (unions and employers), those directly affected, those who the issue will have no effect, those who care, those who don't - and those in NZ and those outside.


In today's NZ Herald there  appeared this poll - and from the early results the majority seem to think it is wonderful that the PM has forfeited the rights of workers and plans to pass a change in labour laws in under 24 hours to appease a Hollywood media giant. Contrast this with yesterday's comment piece, where many, particularly those from overseas, could see that New Zealand, well maybe not all the country but the government, was being played by big business. As Brian Rudman put it,

Not so long ago, the rest of the country guffawed at Wellington planning to rename itself Wellywood.

Now the whole country seems to have taken leave of its senses, demanding we rename New Zealand "Hobbiton" and elevate the Gnome of the Wairarapa, Sir Peter Jackson, to be our Lord and Master. Have we no sense of shame, or of the ridiculous?

On Monday, Samuel Parnell, the father of the eight-hour day, would have turned in his grave at the way the day set aside in his memory was desecrated. Up and down the land, crowds marched and rallied to pledge to be servile to a Hollywood movie conglomerate.

The story has not escaped other news sources (ITN for example) - so globally the people of NZ are seen as Kowtowing to 'save' the production of a movie; The Guardian used the headline 'Picking up the Bilbo'

Key is quoted as saying yesterday

"We will be moving to ensure that New Zealand law in this area is settled to give producers like Warner Bros the confidence they need to produce their movies in New Zealand,"

So they require 'confidence', not money?

So why the change from his earlier stance?

“We'll have to make an assessment about whether we think a clarification in the law would assist economically. If we do, then we might make some changes,”

 So from a might to changing law in 24 hours. And as John Armstrong pointed out today

What kind of a country, however, sells its democratic soul for 30 pieces of silver?
The answer is a small one. And one where the economy shows little sign of recovery in the short term.

As I said before there are lots of sides to every story - lets examine those -

1. So the actors wanted more money? Well they actually wanted the same powers as every other worker, the opportunity to seek a collective agreement in terms of wages and contract conditions - nearly every other group in the country has this, be they doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen. The actors wanted the same deal and were vilified as 'corrupt' and 'uncaring'. So an overseas film company can dictate what rights employees in a sovereign nation - so if a New Zealand company want to runs their business in a uniquely 'Kiwi' way, they'd be encouraged to do so and the laws of that country changed to meet their needs?
2. The film was already a done deal? Well actually no; MGM is broke, the original director walked away and the project is well behind schedule.
3. It isn't about money? Warner's have stated that the budget was US$500 million; now two years ago that would = NZ$1 billion; with exchange rate movements that figure is nearer NZ$1.5 billion - New Zealand is no longer a cheap option (although our pay rates are far less). One bonus California has over NZ is the ability to use non-union labour, a great way of keeping costs down, and if you can achieve the same in New Zealand....
4. But the tourists won't come to New Zealand! Prove it - tourists came in their droves before The Lord of the Rings trilogy was filmed here and they will continue to come freely long after. Some come for scenery, some for adventure, many to see ex-pat family.
5. Everyone wants the movie here? Well not me if it means workers lose their rights!

Another slant could be added to this; this government has been openly challenging to unions, pro-employers and only too happy to court the popular vote on every occasion. If you had asked me yesterday i would have said this debacle could have been the National governments downfall, instead they may have played their joker and actually picked up support - but wait till the full picture come out.

The Nanny State?

Who needs remote control
From the Civic Hall
Push a button
Activate
You gotta work an' you're late

The words of Joe Strummer – in a recent blog I considered was NZ too democratic for its own good. Now, having had the chance to reflect on that, the outcomes of the local body elections and the political context of New Zealand (as we seeing Rortney Hide going toe to toe with the Maori Party over access to beaches), it would be good to discuss the concept of the ‘Nanny State’.

Returning to the lyrics of the song above – who exactly needs ‘control’? Do we leave ourselves open to be ‘controlled’, do our ‘leaders’ need to have ‘control’ in order to maintain their status and the general equilibrium of society (NB according to Thatcher there is no such thing as society, yet she was one of the most controlling politicians ever!)

 

There is a very interesting and understandable explanation of how politics became ‘left’ or ‘right’ here. What is less well defined is the concept of ‘nanny state’

It is interesting to see how it has been identified as a force for good; in my musings earlier this week I mentioned obesity, tobacco and other harmful things (gambling springs to mind). Anyway, is a government who has ‘controls’ to prevent harm coming to various members of its population actually a nanny state? Some examples

• Having speed limits on roads
• Increasing taxation on harmful substances
• Preventing children from being smacked
• Banning smoking in public places

All four have been contentious issues in New Zealand, generally within the last Labour led administration, and they are arguably one of the reason Labour were voted out. However, whilst exerting ‘control’ all four do exactly what governments are elected to do – to ensure the safety and well being of the population of the country.

Speed limits are there to ensure safety, reduce accidents, minimise wear and tear on roads and structures. Taxation on say Tobacco products increases revenue to assist in treating the ailments cause by that addiction, but also acts as a barrier to taking up smoking. Harming children is just bad – normalising violence is not good (in any case the right did not really explain what the repeal of section 59 was actually for). Same with banning smoking in bars – in prevents the exposure to smoke for those who want a smoke free environment.

None of these are nanny state. So why are the National government afraid to act on our obesity epidemic, our excessive drinking culture and most importantly, ignoring the evidence that drink driving kills? Thinking back to when I studied social policy, rather than taking a pluralist approach, the current government are only really interested in business; their view is self determination, do what suits you, minimise state intervention.

Looking at the second image all I can say is how irrational is that!! Is it time to tell the world about how irrational behaviour will, in the long run, cost the control more than just dollars and cents?

A Fairy Story from New Zealand

For all those who don't live in New Zealand let me tell you a story; all the facts in this are true, nothing has been made up.

Once upon a time there was a small country in the southern hemisphere; it had a centre left government that had reduced childhood poverty, banned corporal punishment of children, stopped smoking in bars, provided tax incentives to help families, decreased prescription charges and doctors fees, removed the interest from student loans and done many other nice things like increasing public sector salaries to decent levels.

Unfortunately the people of that land were upset by a few things. The indigenous people didn't like a law about beaches, a few people objected that they could no longer beat their children and many people thought another bunch could help them get richer. So it came to pass that one of the richest people in the country decided he would like to be in charge, but remember, behind any cheesy grin usually lurks a monster seeking to cause mayhem. The people had their chance to go for change, so they removed the centre left government, replacing it with a group of right wingers, backed by the indigenous people.

Cheesy Grin Man

So cheesy grin man sorts out his cabinet to government; first thing he does is he give a little man with a big attitude the job of being in charge of local government. The little man made a big decision and decided to scrap five elected local authorities and make them all into one (meanwhile the job of recruiting the most important jobs is given to the company owned by the former president of the party the cheesy grin man is the leader - must be just coincidence).

the little man with the big attitude

The little man with the big attitude also wants to come down hard on MP's abusing their privileges; very admirable I hear you say, well it would be, except the little man with the big attitude then was found to have spent $30000 taking his girlfriend to Europe and Hawaii at the tax payers expense. Naughty little man with the big attitude!!

Then another buddy of the government, a bit like a leprechaun this one; he thought it would be fun to skip a meeting at the European Union (that he had been paid to go to) and take his family on a day trip to Paris!!




In the mean time another of cheesy grin man's pals was given the job of minister of internal affairs; the pleasant man (pictured right) did a splendid job. He flew to India using his diplomatic passport and he spent his time (and the tax payers money) have lots and lots of meetings doing business on behalf of his aerospace business - naughty minister!! He later resigned after it was revealed he was he had been ever so suggestive and inappropriate to a Korean lady. Interestingly this man previously held the parliamentary seat held by the little man with the big attitude, but cheesy grin man encourage all the voters in that seat to vote for the little man with the big attitude  as this would help the nasty party get into government.

Mrs. Teacher Hater

Another friend of cheesy grin man, we'll call her  Mrs. Teacher hater, was put in charge of education. This nice lady removed much of the adult education funding; she also cut lots and lots of dollars from early education, as the previous people in charge had spent far too much money. Mrs. Teacher hater also told teachers, principals and board of trustees they had to do tests, which despite all the people in big universities telling her they don't work, Mrs. Teacher hater insisted they do them or be removed from their jobs. Scary Mrs. Teacher hater. To fund all the special tests Mrs. Teacher hater removed all the professional development money for teachers and used the $36 million to fund the tests that all the research has told her will not work; clever Mrs. Teacher hater.

The nice treasury minister (who had previously been found out for double dipping his housing allowance, claiming for a home in  his constituency that he rarely stayed in) decided the people had it too good, so thought he would raise the taxes on EVERYTHING that people buy by 2.5%. Unfortunately a finance company collapsed, so the nice minister gave all the rich investors all their money back and all their projected earning - kind treasury minister looking after his rich friends.

A friend of the little man with the big attitude, an identity thief with a history of violence, brought in a law that meant people who committed a third offense could be given a life sentence. Unfortunately the identity thief with a history of violence had a little history of his own; this individual had done a very bad thing and acquired a false passport fraudulently (using the identity of a dead child), then when found out lied under oath to a judge, not revealing he had a conviction for assault - naughty identity thief with a history of violence!!

the identity thief with a history of violence

So, the  little man with the big attitude had to do something, but neither him, nor cheesy grin man really thought it was that bad; eventually, after much media pressure the identity thief with a history of violence resigned from parliament.

The little man with the big attitude replaced him with a lady, surely a much better choice. This lady is far better, she's the lady who owns the property that is a brothel.





I would like to wish lady who owns the property that is a brothel all the best in working in the pantomime that is the current National government of New Zealand. You could NOT script more of a wacky tale.

Spoilt for choice?

It is rapidly approaching that time again, the local council elections. They come around as quick as the rates demand - far too quickly! Unlike the UK the local elections are not, well in any transparent way, party political. I haven't figured why this is. The candidates are a pretty rag tag selection (even if I say so myself), This time we have not one but two used car dealers, which is a bit of a worry - aren't they as untrustworthy as real estate agents?

Until recently Rotorua had a ward based system, where the councilors represented specific sections of the community; with this you knew what you got, and frankly I was happy with my three. At least two were locally born and bred and they stood up for us, something that could not be said for a certain town based lady and the current mayor, both of whom attempted to place a youth justice detention centre (it wasn't a prison, honest, and they only put murderers there whilst they are on bail). Anyway, that's gone - now we have a pick and mix scenario; will some of those standing truly represent my community?

So, character assassination time - who to vote for, and of course who not to! I am of course fully aware that by expressing my opinions I could influence people the other way - so what, that's democracy, aye?

NB the names have been removed to protect the innocent and also prevent liable action.

Let's start with the mayor - pretty obvious here. The current mayor is pleasant enough, I've enjoyed many a pleasant chin wag with him, but has he really achieved a great deal? The cynic (that's me) has a feeling he got reelected on the strength of feeling following the abhorrent events surrounding Nia Glassie. He hasn't done anything wrong, but then again he hasn't really done much else. Next is the local hill billy from up the Mamaku's. This deluded old fellow is frequently in the letters page of the Daily Post, raving about how bad Maori are, scathing of treaty settlements and generally being tedious. Last time he polled around 1000 votes, this time I predict less, as most of his voters will, well to put it simply, have curled up their toes. The last contender is one of our North Ward, who now lives in town. Judging by the placement of his banners he has the Maori vote (the current mayors posters seem to be on the white, middle class, business owners properties). Will he get in - an outside bet I'd say; people here seem 'conservative' to say the least.

The councilors also feature a pretty eclectic bunch - there are one or two that I feel are very credible, but several that are very dubious. There is one lady with clear links to the Sensible Sentencing Trust (her husband is also standing for regional council) - having seen the furore re. ACT earlier today they can forget my vote. So can the woman who wanted the Kaharoa Prison - nasty piece of work that one is!! Then there is the candidate with the big hotel near government gardens, the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce and numerous other business types, generally with grey hair and white skin (not being racist, just demonstrating the stereotype) - maybe the blue of their posters indicates a slight alegiance to a certain political party? These are balanced with the older, Maori, female, usually pretty affluent (again generalising) contenders. Anyway, the link is above you can have a good time looking at their plans. Where are ones with a scarlet tinge to their posters?

I know who I am voting for; I know who shares my interests and I know who has helped my community, that's what matters to me. In any case, I still believe we are over governed, over administered and it ain't getting any better - my views are well documented!

New Zealand - too democratic for its own good?

For the last nine years I have lived in Aotearoa, the land of the long white cloud, which coincidentally seems to be the land of the elected officials.

To put things into perspective lets look at the numbers; in New Zealand there were (according to the official stats) 2,344,566 votes cast, resulting in 122 MP's; that works out to just over 19000 voters per MP. Across the ditch in Aussie their 2007 election had 12,419,863 for 150 seats = 83000 voters per MP (OK they also have state governments, but hold fire, there's more!) In the UK, the mother of all parliaments, there are 650 MP's voted in by 29,691,780 voters, which works out to over 45000 voters per MP. So on a pro-rata basis NZ really only requires around 60 MP's!

The we go to the next level the regional councils - one of the great enigma's of the NZ democracy. There are 16 of these, and conveniently these don't match the boundaries of the 20 (once upon a time there were 21) district health boards (DHB's).

The regional councils have responsibility for a number of other functions under other statutes

• flood and river control under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941,
• reserves vested in regional councils under the Reserves Act 1977,
• civil defence under the Civil Defence Act 1990,
• regional pest management under the Biosecurity Act 1993,
• harbour and water navigation under the Maritime Transport Act 1994,
• hazardous waste under the HSNO Act 1996, and,
• public transport planning under the Land Transport Act 1998.

Regional councils were also given responsibilities for the supervision of the safety of dams in the Building Act 2004.

But for a country with a sparse a population as New Zealand do we need 16, each with a dozen or so elected (and paid) officials?

Then there are the aforementioned DHB's - 20, each with a half dozen elected people, most with limited knowledge of the contemporary health service, but with lots and lots of axes to grind.

We haven't even got to the local councils - there are 73 of those, each with a plethora of elected officials. Then there is the education sector; every school (except those in statutory management for non-compliance) has an elected board of trustees.

So, as a proportion of the population there must be a sizable number of people who are some kind of elected official. Successive governments have spoken about improving efficiency; maybe we need to be efficient and get rid of many of these elected roles?