Socialism by stealth

This is the full list of recommendations from a report on child poverty commissioned by the Children's Commissioner and Barnardos. Take a deep breath before you read it;

Ensure that all children are enroled in Wellchild and a general practice service at birth.

Ensure children can get after-hours and weekend medical attention and prescriptions at all times, without cost.

Improve immunisation rates to match the best-performing OECD countries.

Progressively extend free medical visits to children of all ages in all areas.

Expand the stock of public, local authority and non-profit rental housing to ensure timely allocation to all families with children who meet the “severe” and “significant” housing-need criteria.

Further develop long term, collaborative commitments between central government, local government, communities and business, to programmes of infrastructure development and community renewal in low-income communities.

Substantially increase funding via the Discretionary Grants Scheme for establishment grants and running costs, to equalise access to and participation in early childhood care and education services across deciles.

Provide free early childhood care and education for at-risk children aged 18 months to three years from low-income households, taking account of the lessons from the forthcoming evaluation of the Family Start early childhood hubs pilot.

In the medium term, extend the age range and number of hours of free early childhood care and education entitlement.

Provide extra support and funding (in addition to decile funding) to lower-decile schools, linked to specific programmes and initiatives such as reading recovery
and professional development, with the objective of achieving equitable education outcomes.

Set targets for raising teenage parents’ school participation, qualifications and achievements to match average qualifications and achievements.

Raise the maximum payment rate for paid parental leave from its current level of under half of average adult full-time earnings to at least two-thirds of average full-time earnings, and extend the period of paid parental leave to six months (plus four weeks paternity leave) as a matter of priority, and subsequently to 12 months plus four weeks paternity leave.

Review the design and operation of the childcare subsidy with a view to making it easier and fairer to use, increasing take-up and ensuring adequacy.

Substantially increase funding to support the rapid development of affordable
out-of-school services and extended school services, giving priority to lower-income communities.

Fund out-of-school services through direct support to providers on the basis of hours of use, rather than through the Out of School Care and Recreation subsidy.

Restore the 30 percent part-time work abatement threshold for sole-parent beneficiaries to the real value it had when it was set in 1996.

Change the Housing New Zealand Corporation income-related rent formula to improve incentives for tenants to enter work or increase their hours of work.

Increase the minimum wage incrementally, as economic conditions allow.

Review the adequacy of core benefit rates, to ensure benefit assistance is sufficient to meet the needs of beneficiaries, especially those with dependent children.

As an immediate first step, increase benefit rates to match the effect of the Budget 2008 income tax reductions on earned income.

Review the mechanism for annual adjustments to benefit rates, and consider a mechanism, such as that used for New Zealand Superannuation, to ensure benefit rates maintain relativity with wages over time, as well as being adjusted for cost-of-living increases.

Restructure the family tax credit so as to reduce the number of rates and to provide relatively more assistance for young children.

Over time, phase out the in-work tax credit and raise the family tax credit, once the availability and affordability of childcare and out-of-school services in low-income areas and for low-income families have been expanded, making it easier for working parents to meet these work-related costs.

Progressively raise the threshold for family tax credit abatement to increase assistance to and reduce effective marginal tax rates for low- to middle-income working families.

Increase the maximum accommodation supplement payments so they reflect actual rental levels and establish a periodic review of maximum payments.

Develop better whole-of-government approaches to ensuring the repayment of government debt does not result in child poverty.

Pass on child support to custodial parents who are on benefits, and treat payments like any other earned income for the purposes of benefit abatement.

Remove the penalty on domestic purposes benefit beneficiaries who do not name liable parents.

Undertake a full review of the child support system, similar to the review in Australia, to ensure that it is fair, contributes appropriately to reducing child poverty and is responsive to the growth of shared parenting and blended families.

This is my list;

- Get rid of lifestyle welfare

- Cut taxes substantially

- Encourage adoption

- Financially incentivise use of long term contraceptives

- Teach children about actions, consequences and personal responsibility thus ending the victimhood and entitlement mentalities

The price tag on the first list would have to be in the billions of dollars.

My list would save us billions.

But more importantly my list is fair to all individuals; it does not rely on massively increased state-forced wealth redistribution which is driving away the productive and ambitious; and it gives children a much better chance of realising there own potential. The first list really is 'socialism by stealth' - stealth because it is attempted in the name of children and most people do not have the wits to realise what it is.

Using the F word in Parliament

Yesterday Sue Bradford used the full version of the F word in Parliament to emphasise and draw attention to the case she was highlighting.

I am less concerned about Sue Bradford's language in Parliament than the bias against Work and Income staff that triggered it. Bradford takes up the case of beneficiaries routinely but who speaks up for the Work and Income staff? In the year to July 2004 there were 864 reports of abusive behaviour by beneficiaries. Hundreds are banned from Work and Income offices at any given time. I am fairly sure many would also have been using the 'f' word but it doesn't prompt Bradford to go to bat for their case managers in Parliament. If listeners found the full word shocking and offensive they should give a thought to how staff feel when they are on the receiving end, which is more commonly the case.

Just who is responsible?

What is wrong with this country? Or at least some of the people trying to run it.

More than anybody else (except in rare cases) a child's safety is paramount to his mother or father. There is a bond between mother and child which triggers a physical feeling in a mother when she sees her child hurt. She is forever trying to keep one eye on the child and the other on the ball.

Yet there are legislators abroad who don't think this is enough. They know better that a child needs more than simply a safe environment for the short time his mother is exercising at the gym. They will make it incredibly difficult for gyms to continue to offer creches and parents with dependent young (often when a mother most feels the need) a chance to use them.

Something that has increasingly bugged me about reporting of this type - news about the passage of legislation - is that we don't get to find out who is responsible for such asinine lawmaking. Which committee is it? Who sits on it? What are their individual views? If we want people to be interested in and participate in the political process more should be made of which parties are involved in supporting and passing legislation that thwarts the wishes of business and parents.

Guest blogger

It is becoming increasingly difficult to find time to blog but my boy has responded to two matters that had also triggered a not dissimilar response in me. So I will let him speak.

My thoughts on current events

If you were watching 3 news last night you may have seen the story of the girl who’s bebo page got hacked and deleted. So at first I thought why is this in the news it actually happens all the time, in fact it’s happened to me. So I watched more on it and the story was amazing. The girls bebo page had been hacked and instead of shrugging it off (get this) she called the POLICE. Now you may think oh the police probably couldn’t care less, well they actually did care so now a woman is facing up to seven years in jail for hacking and deleting a social networking page. The thing that astonishes me about this is how it has been thrown out of proportion. This kind of thing probably happens at least once a day I would say, yet one 16 year old girl decides no I cant just make a new page (which I’m sure is what most people do and it isn’t very hard) I have to go to the police and use up their time and resources for a insignificant crime of hacking. Now after just reading the article on 3 news site I have picked something else up, the statement “for a teenager who’s LIFE REVOLVES AROUND A COMPUTER”. Really? Does your life revolve around a computer? It’s a pretty big thing to say and if it does maybe you need to get out more! (I know I’m not a prime example but really). Also this quote straight from the teenager "I felt angry and unhappy because there was a lot of personal things on there," WHY WOULD YOU PUT PERSONEL THINGS ON A SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE, everyone knows they can be very easily accessed by the public all you need is an account and If the page has no privacy settings well… and you would think there is enough coverage on the issue of social networking sites gone bad that people would get the point but obviously some tech savvy teenagers do not learn.
Now I’m going to move onto the point about how it wastes the polices time and resources. How much time have the police spent on tracking the perpetrator down? They have to go to the ISP then find the person who hacked the page then get an arrest warrant or something like that then go through court proceedings and all that crap. Now in that time they could have caught killers, but instead some girl decides no I cant just take one hour to make a new page (adding friends and such) I have to go to the police.
To be honest I don’t really think the girl realises how insignificant the crime is, and also how common it is. Stopping one 19 year old girl from hacking will hardly make the world a better place so I ask you, what is the point.


Now to a different topic, many of you may have heard of an after school TV show called sticky TV. Now they have a section called what would you do? It’s a run-of-the-mill “I have a problem and I’m too stupid to solve it myself please help me!” show, and its very politically correct as well. They have two people that tell their problems to them via vlog and I can’t stand either of them. Yesterday the girl was going on about how she went to her schools canteen/ tuck shop whatever you want to call it and “I was shocked, there was absolutely no healthy food at all there was only junk food and the drinks were full of sugar! Sticky TV please help me”, that is the exact words, and this really made me mad.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Obviously you are too stupid to realise that food isn’t being shoved down your throat by the SS and that in fact you have choice in the matter. Why are people so blind? It isn’t the 1940s and the SS and definitely not coming to your house and shoving pies and chips and coke down your throat, “guten tag, we are here to supervise the eating of the chips”, ha-ha that’s a funny thought. But really if you are so worried about there only being junk food then maybe you should just bring your own bloody lunch. It isn’t hard to make a sandwich or are you too blind to do that as well? Or wait… you’re afraid the SS are going to take you away if you try? No. plus wouldn’t it be cheaper too make your own sandwich? The canteen would charge ridiculously high prices because healthy food is always more expensive and also if the world was the way you wanted it the shop wouldn’t be in business. There is a perfect example at Wellington high school, the cafeteria started serving healthy food and because of that the students wouldn’t buy from there anymore which resulted in it closing down. The fact is people aren’t interested in paying **** loads for healthy food because they can buy something they prefer which is also cheaper. I cant understand these people, are they too stupid too realise how business’s work? These are the kind of people that will one day govern us and make the world a terrible place because of their upbringing which told them “children, healthy food is good and pies eat your spleen”.
IMO this girl needs to wake up and realise that you can say no and you can make a sandwich and take it too school and if you don’t like junk food there is no law forcing you to eat it. Maybe in her dreams Hitler is grand chancellor of New Zealand, the SS man the tuck shops and that gives her a reason for outcry but sorry to burst your bubble… the world is not like that.

Update; The young blogger has set up his own site

Sue the state?

Another case with unremarkable hallmarks. For as long as governments have been keeping records, child abuse has been shown to be linked with children who are ex-nuptial, and born to very young mothers who are more likely to be Maori or Pacific. Over fifty years they have thrown more and more resources at the problem only to incentivise and aggravate it.

When someone on welfare (and they almost always are) is convicted by the courts for child abuse is there a case for state to be held accountable for aiding and abetting the crime?

We need education vouchers here - now

ACT wants education vouchers made available in New Zealand. It will push this policy hard if it holds the balance of power after the election. And before the purists out there start attacking the policy again, I know it's not perfect, but it is a big step in the right direction and there are thousands of NZ parents right now breaking their backs (or hearts) over the state monopolising secondary education.

Here is an update on how the voucher system has changed education in Sweden;

Big Change for Welfarist Sweden: School Choice

By MALIN RISING
The Associated Press
Saturday, July 26, 2008; 11:31 AM

STOCKHOLM, Sweden -- Schools run by private enterprise? Free iPods and laptop computers to attract students?

It may sound out of place in Sweden, that paragon of taxpayer-funded cradle-to-grave welfare. But a sweeping reform of the school system has survived the critics and 16 years later is spreading and attracting interest abroad.

"I think most people, parents and children, appreciate the choice," said Bertil Ostberg, from the Ministry of Education. "You can decide what school you want to attend and that appeals to people."

Since the change was introduced in 1992 by a center-right government that briefly replaced the long-governing Social Democrats, the numbers have shot up. In 1992, 1.7 percent of high schoolers and 1 percent of elementary schoolchildren were privately educated. Now the figures are 17 percent and 9 percent.

In some ways the trend mirrors the rise of the voucher system in the U.S., with all its pros and cons. But while the percentage of children in U.S. private schools has dropped slightly in recent years, signs are that the trend in Sweden is growing.

Before the reform, most families depended on state-run schools following a uniform national curriculum. Now they can turn to the "friskolor," or "independent schools," which choose their own teaching methods and staff, and manage their own buildings.

They remain completely government-financed and are not allowed to charge tuition fees. The difference is that their government funding goes to private companies which then try to run the schools more cost-effectively and keep whatever taxpayer money they save.

Bure Equity, listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange, is the largest private school operator in Sweden and is expanding rapidly. In the first quarter of this year, net profit for its education portfolio rose 33 percent to $3 million.

Such profit-making troubles Swedes who don't think taxpayers should be enriching corporations.

The Social Democrats strongly opposed the change as anti-egalitarian, but when they were re-elected to power in 1994, they found it was so popular that they left it in place, though they imposed a lid on fees.

Barbro Lillkaas, a 40-year-old accountant, is considering putting her child in a private school, and has no problem with the profit motive.

"If you run a good operation then you make a profit. But you won't get any students if you are bad," she said. "You have to do a good job to get money; that is even more important for a private school."

"Why I do not vote National"

"...ACT is a classical liberal party. Liberals believe that it is the citizen who has the rights and obligations, not the collective....there is a public perception that ACT is sort of a more right-wing version of National; that National and ACT are in coalition, that we share a common approach. Not so, ACT has never been in coalition with National. ACT declined to join the Shipley National Government because we had significant differences with National's big spending, high-tax programme and failure to promote freedom...[in government] National voted against important bills ACT introduced...ACT's bills were opposing privilege and limiting the power of the state. National was preserving the status quo and avoiding alienating privileged groups, or was just rolled by officials against whom, having no basic principles, National's ministers are helpless to argue against....But public confusion about ACT and National is understandable. Both National and ACT oppose Labour's radical collectivist programme. ACT and National fought the re-nationalisation of ACC, the empowering of unions by the Employment Relations Act, the envy rate that the new rate of income tax represents....so voters and commentators assume ACT and National are similar parties. Not so. ACT is as I explained a classic liberal party. National is a conservative party. National so far as it has a programme supports the status quo, things as they are, and opposes change. So in opposition we find ourselves together resisting Labours proposals for change. ACT because they are bad policy, but National just because they are proposals for change...It was Hayek in his famous article 'Why I am not a Conservative'who pointed out the inadequacy of the conservative approach. Conservatism 'by its very nature, cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving'. ...There is a lot of criticism of Bill English and the current National MPs for failing to stand for anything. A great deal of criticism is unfair. When has the National Party ever stood for an alternative programme? National's record is to oppose whatever Labour proposes and then move leftward to adopt Labour's programme. National governments have got elected by promising to manage better whatever Labour has put in place...the history of the National Party is that it is just as willing to use the coercive powers of the state to impose its views on fellow citizens as any Labour government...the National party does not object to Labour's use of government power but that it is Helen Clark doing it...the liberal says there are clear limits to government power. We do not believe the state should do for citizens what citizens can and should do for themselves...while we in ACT oppose Labour's social engineering we do not agree with the social conservatives in Parliament who also want to impose their view on society...the liberal does not fear new ideas. We liberals have great faith in the power of ideas..."

Well he said it better than I could. Who was he?

Avoiding the real issue

This is a post from Whale Oil Beef Hooked;

Here is another photo of some protestors at the National Party Conference. They are ACT supporters protesting because National isn’t rightwing enough.

So you walk down the street and you have ACT supporters protesting that National isn’t right wing enough and Labour supporters protesting that National is too right wing.

Numpties the lot of them.

Have those ACT-oids considered that National has in fact done them a favour by moving to the centre and giving them breathing room. The latest Roy Morgan Poll sould suggest that this is the case.

And here was me thinking that ACT supporters were supposed to be smart. Let me tell you it isn’t smart to piss off your potential coalition partners, it isn’t smart to criticise National for making room after they almost nailed your ass in the last election because of the move to the right.

Contrast that with the Maori party who go home each week and get on with being effective advocates for their constituency that elected them instead of poking borax at your mates.
.
For starters, Whale Oil, the Nats are not my 'mates'. I came from a Labour background but realised, somewhere along the way, that the state was making every problem it touched worse. Sometimes not immediately, but always in the long run.

So I rejected leftist ideology. Now, to my deep dismay, National are picking up most of what Labour has delivered during the last 9 years. Fundamentally the party has given no indication it understands or will do anything about what are the root causes of the dysfunction that deepens and widens in this country.

I'm not interested in licking National's bootstraps for political gain. Then I would be guilty of doing exactly what they have done in respect of Labour.

Our group was pointing out was that National have sold out on their stated principles of individual freedom, private enterprise and competition, and personal responsibility. The Nats and their supporters do not have an adequate response to this criticism so instead they turn the issue into one about political expediency, and those dumb 'ACT-oids' not staying in their place wagging their tails in gratitude.

Frankly I do not know how they have the gall to don the mantle of intellectual and moral superiority when NZ has never before witnessed so many political flip-flops and contradictions over such a short space of time.

And what better way to communicate to the public that ACT is very different from National than to protest at their conference?

Strange goings-on

Yesterday three ACT candidates and other supporters protested outside the National Conference in Wellington. Our problem? National = Labour. What happened to National's principles? We made a lot of noise, in part because we were competing with young Labour, protesting asset sales (well, there wasn't much else left was there?)

I think it was Peter McAffrey who made the astute observation that the situation was quite comical.

Outside is Young Labour pretending to be Nats - dressed in suits and wearing fake National rosettes - holding a asset auction...

....while inside is National pretending to be Labour to win enough votes to win the election.

It was a bizarre experience.

Labour - "Making a difference"

Here is a sublime example of Labour spin.

According to the Minister of Social Development Ruth Dyson;

“The number of people receiving the Sickness Benefit in March this year is 45,676; the lowest since July 2005, proving that our new approach is making a real difference."

In the years from 1997 - 2005 the average annual number of transfers from an sickness benefit to an invalid benefit was 4,910.(PQ 5886: 2005)

In the 12 months to June 2008 the figure was 8,328. (PQ 6614,15,18: 2008)

Yes. The 'new approach' is certainly making a difference.

Families Commission misleads

According to the latest Families Commission research, The Kiwi Nest,

"The Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) was introduced in 1973, and has given single parents an income if they are not working while bringing up their children. The DPB has largely been claimed by mothers with dependent children who have left a marriage or de facto relationship, or who are widows. Single-parent families resulting from ex-nuptial births and/or teenage pregnancies have been, and remain, a small proportion of single-parent beneficiaries."

This statement is ambiguous and inaccurate.

Between 72 and 74 percent of single parent families with dependent children rely on a welfare benefit of some sort.

At September 2006 107,628 single parents relied on welfare, with the majority - 88 percent - receiving the DPB.

At least 37, 609 - or 36 percent - first received a benefit under the age of twenty years. (The actual number is likely to be significantly higher, but Ministry records only date back to 1 January, 1993). This suggests that a sizeable - certainly not 'small' - percentage of single parent families' benefit dependence originated with a teenage pregnancy.

The ex-nuptial birth rate in New Zealand is high at 47 percent of all births. Some of these births are to de facto couples. The research claims, "The DPB has largely been claimed by mothers with dependent children who have left a marriage or de facto relationship," then contradicts that with. "Single-parent families resulting from ex-nuptial births and/or teenage pregnancies have been, and remain, a small proportion of single-parent beneficiaries."

At April 2004, of those people with dependent children receiving the DPB , just under a quarter described their current status as 'separated from de facto' ; 35 percent were 'separated or divorced'; the largest group, at 40 percent, were 'single' (open to interpretation) and only 0.4 percent were widows. (Of course the term 'separated' is also troublesome. It may describe a parting of ways after conception or a parting of ways after many years.)

However, according to the Ministry of Social Development, "The proportion of babies under one year living with a sole mother increased from 13 percent in 1986 to 19 percent in 1991 but has changed little over the last decade, standing at 20 percent in 2001. Among Maori babies under one year, the proportion living with a sole mother increased sharply from 29 percent in 1986 to 40 percent in 1991, but fell slightly to 37 percent in 2001."

Again this suggests that births to females who are 'single' rather than 'separated' make up a substantial percentage of single-parent beneficiaries and explains, in part, why Maori are over-represented in terms of DPB dependence.

The use of the words 'largely' and 'small' by the Families Commission researchers is therefore misleading. This is typical of the Families Commission climate of moral relativism. No particular family form is favoured (no doubt a huge disappointment to their creator, the conservative Peter Dunne). Dependence on welfare is approached sympathetically and any suggestion that teenage pregnancy and single child-bearing is problematic is avoided, if not actively deflected.

If Families Commissioner, Rajen Prasad was taken to the poorest neighbourhoods in New Zealand, where schools are filled with deprived and fatherless children, could he look the principal and teachers in the eye and say that the make-up of the family doesn't matter? I very much doubt it.

So let's have some plain speaking about choice and responsibility. If you cannot afford to raise children, don't set about having them. And to the Families Commission, stop making excuses for people who do.

What to do?

My usual modus operandi is ration and reason in all matters (excepting animals and alcohol). Hence when it comes to the All Blacks I do not get caught up in nationalistic fervour.

Last week I backed Australia to win because I fully expected them to with Robbie Deans behind them. Unfortunately the useless All Blacks not only lost, but lost by too much for me to collect.

So what to do today? The Wallabies again I think. But I'll stick with my original bet. By 12 points or less. Oh good. Last week they were paying $3.30. Now the dividend is up to $3.65

Here's hoping I don't end up barracking for the All Blacks to pull it back in the last minutes because they are trailing by too much.

And if I lose my bet the consolation is the All Blacks will have won. Which will make lots of other people happy and I like to see New Zealanders happy. A utilitarian outcome.

Australian benefit statistics

Yesterday an anonymous (but not new) critical commentor refused to accept that there are more beneficiaries in Australia per capita than in New Zealand.

I really don't like being called a liar; having statistics I provide or refer to described as "fake". Occasionally I will make a mistake and if I realise I have done so, will correct it.

Here are the Australian statistics at June 2007;

Disability support pension 714,156
Mature age allowance 5,032
Newstart allowance 417,793
Parenting payment (single) 395,495
Sickness allowance 7,624
Widows 40,247

Total 1,580,347

(The total goes higher when Youth Allowance recipients aged 18,19,and 20 years are added but I don't have the specific figure. Parenting payments for partnered people and partner allowances are also available - 190,415 - but not included as we don't have equivalents.)

These are all means-tested working-age income support payments.

Our equivalent total at June 2007 was 261,009.

To calculate a per capita comparison multiply our total by a factor of 5.0063 which reproduces 1,306,689.

Well under the actual Australian total.

Hence my original claim that per capita Australia has more beneficiaries than NZ.

'Cueing' for the converted

In a faith-based unit, and on a Sunday to boot.

"Girl"

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

The subject of that sentence now lives with us. The dog that is.

Like the last canine object of my deep affection, she is a failed farm dog. A long-coated Huntaway of 15 months, her days on the farm were severely numbered when she refused to work by herself. She is quite emaciated at the moment, very timid, very quiet and intelligent. She has quickly figured out which side her bread is buttered on and doesn't arise from her blanketed bed until it is daylight. On a leash she is quite diffident and walks sedately a couple of paces behind. She cannot see cats it would appear although they can see her and have started to dance about in her view trying to get some sort of reaction. To no avail.

She has the head of a retriever with very soft fur, long well-muscled legs which are too big for her bony hips and torso. Her front legs are quite bandy which is probably down to a vitamin deficiency as a pup. Her name is "Girl". Yes, that's all.

Never having lived indoors there were a couple of unfortunate accidents the first day, worsened by the fact I overfed her because she is perpetually hungry. But day two passed without mishap as she learns that treats await those who try. Perhaps that's what she was waiting for on the farm.

Here she is after a bath to remove the cow muck accumulated over her short life, in between the toes, up the inner legs and matted in her beard. Some of the mess had to be cut away but she is very obliging. What a honey.

Patricia Bartlett lives on

The proposed brothel for Dannevirke is back in the news.

I originally blogged my intrigue they were offering males and suggested they should have named themselves "Danneboys" but this has all gone beyond a laughing matter, I'll have you know.

Tempers flared as businesspeople, property owners and worried parents all spoke of their moral outrage at having a commercial sex premises open shop in the old Public Trust building.

"We have the right to say what happens in our community, we have the right to say what happens in our town," Mr Taylor said. "We have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for our young ones. The standards we walk past are the standards we accept, and if we turn a blind eye to this, then what is going to happen next?"

The brothel would just bring trouble and crime, Mr Taylor said.

"They are offering a gay service as well. Most paedophiles are homosexuals, and you know we don't want to bring that here.

"There were some good men in that building many years ago, men of integrity and expertise. Those men would just about be turning in their graves."

Dannevirke resident Mike Long said it only took the people of Carterton 18 months to drive a brothel out of business in their town.

"It comes down to one thing - money. I think we should name and shame the people that are using the business, then let their partners know."

Gill Allardice, a Dannevirke resident for 30 years, said she would be happy to wait outside the front door and take a personal note of all patrons.

"I will sit outside and do my knitting if I have to." She had already organised a petition and written letters to the New Zealand Rugby Union, demanding its response to the brothel's planned All Blacks- themed bedroom.

After the meeting, she said the idea of a bordello was sleazy and vulgar.

"I've always been a feminist, and it's demeaning to women. We have benefits in New Zealand, you don't have to sell yourself to make money.


Classic Kiwi conservative, socialist, bludger.

She doesn't care if people "make money" off the taxpayer-funded benefit system, but she would deny a voluntary exchange of service for a fee because it offends her. Stick to your knitting Mrs Allardice, preferably at home.

"The bland leading the bland"

I read almost everything Colin James writes. What I most admire about his work is his ability to step back and grasp the bigger picture. But today what I really really like is this witticism. What a great way to start the day. He described National as ...

... the bland leading the bland.

Perfect.

But here is the key passage I always look for;

The economy is seriously unbalanced. Rebalancing will be painful. We have only just started. Large tax cuts might ease households' pain but will not make it go away. National's acceptance of most Labour programmes adds to the difficulty of dealing with the pain, let alone generating economic step-change.

National is trying to do the impossible. Be all things to all people and grow the economy.

Key may be attempting to reduce economic uncertainty for voters. When facing the facts, as James describes them, he succeeds only in creating misgiving in me.

It isn't colonisation causing Maori violence

Significant.

This just-published paper examines the incidence of intimate partner violence (IPV).

The over-representation of Maori is examined. The authors looked at three theories;

1/ That Maori are more likely to be economically deprived and this goes hand-in-hand with increased risk of IPV

2/ That Maori have greater exposure to childhood violence so a intergenerational influence is at work

3/ Colonisation has torn Maori away from cultural roots and identity

They tested each and found that while the first two held some validity the last held none.

A final explanation that requires discussion concerns the extent to which the observable ethnic asymmetry in IPV relates to Māori cultural identity, as is proposed by the systemic theory of colonisation. This explanation to account for the over-representation of Māori in IPV was not supported by the data. In particular, a preliminary analysis of the bivariate relationships between cultural identity and IPV showed similar rates of both victimisation and perpetration among those identifying as sole Māori and those with a Māori/other identity. Had strength of cultural identity, including level of affiliation to cultural domains, played an explanatory role in understanding ethnic differences in IPV, one would have expected to see a gradient in which rates of violence varied with degree of Māori identity, but this was not the case.

This is quite earth-shattering for those Maori who strongly assert that bringing people back in touch with their cultural identity will put them on the straight and narrow so-to-speak. Rehab programmes through to separatist Maori education should all be viewed with a new degree of scepticism as to whether they will deliver what is promised.

Certainly reducing socio-economic hardship and inter-generational welfare dependence look more promising as methods of reducing IPV.

Communism by capitulation

One expects that sometimes in life, as in politics, some compromise is called for. Right from childhood we are consciously or sub-consciously negotiating outcomes. If we are unable to do this we are in for a fairly solitary ride. But the advice I most adhere to, especially when it comes to raising children, is the somewhat hackneyed 'don't sweat the small stuff'. But hold your ground on what really matters to you.

Right now in New Zealand Working For Families is not the small stuff. John Key clearly didn't think it was in 2004;

Mr Key predicted the new system would have "huge behavioural outcomes" and he was concerned that employers would find workers refusing to do overtime or weekend work.

The effect of the Budget had been to push the disincentive far into middle New Zealand, he said.

"They've got the vast majority of people now trapped in a one-size-fits-all. We all pay one rate - it's communism by stealth.

"It didn't work very well for Eastern Europe and it won't work very well for New Zealand."

Four years later;

Key says he acknowledges that Working for Families payments are an important part of the income for many families.

"These are families with mums and dads who are working long hours, trying to get by on a modest wage in the absence of tax cuts under this Labour Government. We don't want to make life more difficult for them."

Communism by capitulation perhaps.

National - in breach of its stated values, yet again

National now endorses Working For Families.

Here are some reasons that I posted earlier in the year why they should not. After each reason I have listed one of National's stated values that is breached.

1/ Redistribution always involves privilege for one and punishment for another with the government deciding who is the winner and who is the loser. It accords too much power to the state.

• Equal citizenship and equal opportunity

2/ The dead-weight cost of redistributing money is utter waste.

• Limited government

3/ When people receive money without commensurate effort they work less. That is bad for productivity.

• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement

4/ As an attempt to boost fertility rates redistribution to families with children has not been successful. Note some of the most 'family-friendly' European countries have low fertility rates. The US has the highest in the OECD.

• Individual freedom and choice

5/ WFF has created very high effective marginal tax rates. In fact some people are no better off if they boost their income through advancement or longer hours, as they move into the top tax rate bracket and lose WFF benefits. WFF dulls ambition.

• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement

6/ WFF is the hallmark of Labour governments. It is all the old schemes dressed up in new clothes. These schemes have never achieved their stated goals.

• Personal responsibility

7/ Redistribution creates resentment amongst those who are not beneficiaries. In this case young, childless people. It contributes to their motivation to leave New Zealand.

• Equal citizenship and equal opportunity

8/ With WFF being used as a voting bribe, the cost of promoting it has been enormous including ridiculous expenses like megabucks to commission a musical theme.

• Limited government

9/ WFF acts as a subsidy to employers. The wrong people (not those targeted) end up benefiting.

• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement

Of course with a little imagination each of National's stated values could be applied to each point.

Look. It is simple. Let everybody keep more of their own money. Let individuals take responsibility for their own decisions. The flow-on will be far more beneficial than any government attempts to grand plan society.

Rodney Hide's appraisal is worth repeating;

Act leader Rodney Hide said National's move emphasised there was nothing between the two big parties.

"It's consistent with their strategy," he said. "They agree now with everything Labour has done, and the only thing they disagree on is who should be Prime Minister."

Clear difference; clear choice

The National Party has moved to defuse fears it will dismantle the Working for Families scheme if it wins the election.

Party leader John Key told this morning's TV One Agenda programme he is planning no changes to the system. He says a careful look at the way the scheme functions has shown it is not worthwhile changing it.

Mr Key says it is important to offer people certainty during tough economic times.


_______________________________________________

Sir Roger Douglas delivered [ACT's plan], listing renting hospital wards out to doctors and nurses to do "Mrs Tamati's hip operation," greater privatisation of education, hauling back tax rates, topping up poor people's incomes through tax system and getting rid of Working for Families and slashing government spending by 10 per cent.

He launched into Michael Cullen's treasured Working for Families scheme, which he said was "the very worst type of policy."

The phoney war

A friend recently remarked to me that her dealer was on home detention. That's nice. Wouldn't want to see people who are perpetrating victimless crimes locked up in prison. And the dealer has found a lucrative job he can do from home.

I was reminded of this tidbit by new figures for home detention. There has been a 60 percent increase in people serving such a sentence since judges were allowed to impose one.

In 2007-08, 2677 people were on home detention sentences or orders, up from 1672 on home detention orders in 2005-06, a 60 per cent increase.

It occurs to me this may largely be another (new) aspect of the state's farcical war on drugs. Still I would rather live in a country that puts up a show of fighting soft drugs than one that actually brings all it legal might down on the activity.

Happy campers

Oh Golly. This is exciting. When did a political party last have a policy to create "new, affordable" campsites? Thank you National. That's high on my list of priorities for something a government should be focusing on.

UK tackles incapacity problem

While on the subject of incapacity benefits, the United Kingdom has the same problem. Here is their proposal for reform. Don't get too excited;

Incapacity benefits

From October 2008, the Employment and Support Allowance will replace Incapacity Benefit and Income Support claimed on the grounds of incapacity for new customers. The new system will consider what an individual is capable of, and what help they need to manage their condition and return to work.

A new test, the Work Capability Assessment, will be introduced in October 2008 alongside the new Employment and Support Allowance and will be applied to all those people claiming the new allowance. The new test is more robust, accurate and fairer. It will replace the current Personal Capability Assessment, which is weighted more towards a person’s physical disability and bases itself around assessing people’s incapability for work.

The Work Capability Assessment will look at people’s physical and mental ability, including conditions such as learning disabilities and other similar conditions. It will assess what an individual can do - rather than can’t do. Individuals with health conditions or disabilities will be given support and employment advice to enable them to return to work where possible. People whose condition causes very severe limitation of their ability, who are not able to engage in any work-related activity, will get a higer rate of benefit. They will still be able to volunteer to get support and employment advice if they want to.

This measure is part of The Welfare Reform Act 2007.


Now contrast this to what New Zealand has been doing. Here's a release from over three years ago;

Trials of a new work-focussed service for all beneficiaries will begin in 12 locations across the country next month as part of the government's reform of the welfare system, Social Development and Employment Minister Steve Maharey said...

"Rather than categorising people on the basis of why they are unable to work, the service will focus on what support people need to help them move into work, regardless of their benefit type."

Not much changes, the numbers keep rising.

The UK is simply embarking on an elaborate relabelling process. Still, people wanting to hold onto their public service jobs (and consultants) have to be seen to be doing something.

Six more CYFS offices to open

Here's some good news for fans of big government.

Six new CYF offices are to open across the greater Auckland area.

The first opened on Wednesday in Clendon.

Now why does the name Clendon seem familiar to me.

Ah yes. Because there are 1,616 people on the DPB using the WINZ Clendon service centre. And the number has risen over the past 5 years. Where DPB populations are concentrated, social problems are most prevalent. On that basis I should be able to predict where the next offices will open. Try Mangere, Manurewa, Otara, Papakura, Waitakare and Manukau, if they haven't already got one.

It's the old story of some government intervention leads to more government intervention. In their attempts to meet need, they create it. There is a massive problem of children in need of better parenting. The majority of them will live in homes where nobody works and nobody teaches them constructive values. What a bind this country has got itself in.

Another big rise in the invalid's benefit

The numbers on the invalid's benefit have increased by seven percent in the year to June 2008. In the previous year they had climbed 3 percent. The most common incapacity continues to be psychological or psychiatric conditions at 28.1 percent (up from 26.7 in 2004.)

Sickness benefit numbers dropped by 4 percent but the net gain over the two benefits was 4,000. The sickness benefit has the same most common complaint as the invalid's benefit with 39 percent (up from 35.1 in 2004) of claimants in this category.

As I have blogged before the DPB has stalled. No surprises there. In the year to June 2008 the total is down by ..... 27. I wonder how much by way have resources has gone into achieving that stunning result.

But I better mention the unemployment benefit, down by 5,000.

I calculate this to be an overall drop of 1,000 but the remaining factsheet - all main benefits - insists the drop is 3,000 so there must be some movement in the more minor benefits like widow's or emergency benefits.

DPB 96,440
IB 82,879
SB 46,271
UB 17,710
All main benefits 258,317

At this rate we are on track to return to the kind of numbers common in the sixties and seventies by 2087.

Smokers are a cash cow 2

Not PC was wondering about whether smokers paid their way. More than.

Current tobacco tax revenues amount to approximately $1 billion per year, and have been at that level for some years. This is just under 2 percent of total tax revenues.

- Of the approximate $1.6 billion per year retail spending on tobacco products, approximately 70 percent is tax revenue, including GST as well as tobacco excises.

- Thus, the average amount spent by New Zealand’s 750,000 smokers is approximately $2,135 each per year and approximately $1,500 is tax revenue.

NZ Medical Association, Tobacco Taxation In New Zealand, November 2007

The cost of smoking-related health care to the New Zealand taxpayer is about $250 million.

The Cancer Society, Cancer Society of New Zealand Inc September 2004

(BTW I just buried my dog in the garden. She had a invasive, inoperable tumour. She never smoke or drank, ate well and exercised every day. RIP dear Griffy.)

No 'contest of ideas'

Can I be bothered blogging about National's housing policy? The most noteworthy aspect is its similarity to Labour's - again. They will return tenants right to purchase their state home but if this happens the state home stock will be replaced.

"We won't be running down the state housing stock. We acknowledge that we need it."

Mr Heatley said the party would now keep Labour's policy of fixing state house rents at only 25 per cent of the tenants' incomes except for tenants on high incomes.

He promised to keep the accommodation supplement.

He also promised to keep Labour's Housing Innovation Fund, which provides $12 million a year in capital for community groups providing shared-equity and other subsidised housing to low-income people.

What is the point of this election? The Dominion Post comments in its editorial today, on the matter of the closing poll gap between National and Labour,

What this poll and others taken around the same time do show is that there will not be a walkover. This is healthy. Democracy thrives on the contest of ideas, policies and personalities, not on forgone conclusions.

Except there is no contest of ideas. "What this poll" actually shows is that we are not living in a 'thriving' democracy. A thriving democracy would be one that is flourishing, prospering and growing rich. We are living in a tired, cynical, paralysed democracy that is deeply dissatisfied with the status quo but too scared to change it.

Questions about meningococcal vaccine campaign

I am one of the hundreds of thousands of parents who reluctantly acquiesced to the request that my children be given the meningococcal vaccine. It now emerges that the immunity is reasonably shortlived.

Here is the official advice referred to in today's media articles;

Data from the MeNZB™ trials have shown that the detectable duration of immunity post-vaccination is measured in months rather than years.

1/ How many parents would have complied if they had known the immunity was short-lived?

2/ How are the parents of those children who experienced bad reactions to the vaccine now feeling?

3/ Was the $200 million campaign considered a one-off?

4/ Where has this site - www.immunise.moh.govt.nz - gone?

5/ How does one weigh up the risks against benefits when the real benefit is not known?

6/ Do any other parents out there recall being told that the vaccine was short-lived?

7/ How does the Ministry of Health propose to ensure all parents remain vigilant because their children may not have functional immunity? Another multi-million dollar information campaign?

Update; Today's NZ Herald editorial sums up the situation well.

Comparing homicide rates

This is from an Economist article about how violent the UK has become, in which we get a mention.

England and Wales are not unusually murderous (see chart). The homicide rate is higher than anywhere in western Europe except Finland, Belgium and indeed France (though Britain edges ahead of France when Scotland and Northern Ireland are included). But Britain looks gentle next to former colonies such as Canada, New Zealand and especially America. And it compares favourably with the EU average, thanks to the new eastern European states: in Latvia and Lithuania homicide is five times as common as it is in Britain.



In 2004 New Zealand had 2.1 homicides per 100,000

(The only comparable NZ figure for attacks and threats I can find comes from 1992 at 5.7 per 100)

Don't get sick here

Here are some interesting health statistics from the OECD databank;

In 2006 New Zealand had 2.3 practising physicians per 1,000 population. That ranks us 18th out of 24 countries. Behind us are Korea, Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Poland, Japan.

In 2004 there were 13,832 hospital discharges per 100,000 population also ranking us 18th - this time out of 27 countries. Well maybe that's because we are healthier?

Perhaps not. For example where we don't want to rank more highly is in malignant neoplasms. In 2005 there were 172.9 per 100,000 population making us the 8th highest out of 24 countries.

None of it is very encouraging. Relatively speaking, this is not a good country to get sick in.

I have said it before but will say it again. We are now relatively poor. It is not a coincidence that the first two rankings equate roughly to our GDP per capita ranking.

Wasted taxpayer money

Rodney Hide interview on Agenda.

It's straight and it's honest.

GUYON Which government departments do you want to close?

RODNEY Oh, which ones do you want to keep. We've had a massive expansion in size of the State, we've seen government expenditure grow in the last ten years by 80%.

GUYON Okay, two government departments.

RODNEY Oh well how about Women's Affairs, Pacific Island Affairs, Youth Affairs, the Families Commission and I've hardly started. We have government departments.

GUYON They should all be closed down?

RODNEY I think so what use do they do?

Sunday sketching

Spent some of today minding the Farsite Gallery in Petone. They are currently showing works of Eastbourne artists, myself included, so we take turns sharing the minding at the weekends.To occupy myself I had some pastels at hand. However I had no suitable paper to draw on. But I found some brightish blue card in the storeroom and based the following sketch on a photo of Daisy. Passersby are often drawn in by someone working and they are also frequently pet owners out exercising their hounds. The result was a larger-than-life elongated landscape with lots of blue to the left (not caught on camera here.)

Leading the way..... in economic suicide

The Australian Labour-proposed emissions trading scheme is insane.

Basically government places a huge tax on an industry (let's call it $1,000,000).

It then gives up to $300,000 back to said industry as an incentive not to move to a country where it won't be taxed $1,000,000.

It gives up to $300,000 to researchers trying to find better ways of not producing carbon emissions.

And it gives the rest to struggling households who have been charged far more by the industry trying to survive after losing $1,000,000 of it's previous profit to the government.

Do you think the industry is going to stay? I don't.

Do you think that the middle and upper income earners will be 'reimbursed' for extra household costs when the low income group is swelling in its ranks as job losses snowball? I don't.

And what will the spin-off for New Zealand be, given Australia is our biggest export market?

As the Wall St Journal comments today;

If the government-directed breakdown of free-market price signals sounds like creeping socialism, it is....the ultimate cost in terms of jobs and growth is unknowable.

Hot off the press

Check out the graphs below and understand why many New Zealanders get very frustrated about people being described as living 'in deprivation' in this country.





People living in the most deprived areas are the heaviest smokers, drinkers and eaters. The just-published New Zealand Health Survey proves it. Another fine example of how leftists have inverted the meaning of words.

ACT on ACC

Rodney Hide talks about ACC with Justin du Fresne on NewstalkZB (starts at 33.33).

Rodney makes the point (more than once) that it is the way ACC is funded that lays it open to abuse. "The incentives are all wrong. We have produced a nation of cheats and crooks."

He says change the system. The principles are wrong. Contributions should be made in our name, into a personalised account, then when we claim, we run down our own money. We can only rip ourselves off. That is what should have been done at the outset of ACC.

This prompted a call from someone asking why it is National is such a useless opposition and it is left to the likes of Rodney Hide or Ron Mark to say what the majority of us are thinking.

And no. It wasn't me.

Child support debt is just a symptom

Given it is National's policy to "intelligently intervene" in the economic and social lives of New Zealanders, I wonder what they will do about child support?

National MP Judith Collins, a long-time critic of the Government's failure to target payment dodgers, was unimpressed.

"This is a government that is happy to nab at the border, people with outstanding parking fines and speeding tickets, but turns a blind eye to the billion-dollar-plus problem of burgeoning child support debt. That's appalling."

More cracking down? More surveillance? More prosecutions?

The problem with the child support system is that it is inherently unfair and biased towards the custodial parent, usually the mother. What is financially required (and taken from the non-custodial parent) is not based on the costs of raising the child but on what the non-custodial parent earns.

But the child support system is only a spin-off from the DPB system. If there was no DPB, which acts as an incentive to become a single parent, there would be nowhere near the current number of liable parents - 157,858.

As I have argued many times, the state can't have it both ways. Not morally anyway. It can't replace the father and then expect him to pay the bills. Hence the growing mess this area has become.

Yes. As a general rule fathers should support their children. But they need to know that the child is biologically theirs (not currently possible if the mother resists) and the state has to stop putting up cash rewards to the prospective single mother.

Yes. It used to be difficult for mothers to chase support through the court system and fathers ran the risk of jail for non-support. But these are different times. Avoiding becoming pregnant and giving birth is straight forward. And in respect of relationship breakdowns women are much, much better equipped to handle being a breadwinner and men are much, much better equipped for sharing parenting.

Ultimately people have to work out their own problems. That's life. It's part of the process. If we won't accept that then we will continue on down this all-too-familiar road on which the state tries to sort every personal problem and leaves far bigger ones behind in its wake.

Making stuff up

This is the kind of journalism I really object to;

Every week in Palmerston North, more than 200 children cower in their rooms knowing the grown-ups in the house are fighting.

It's stated as fact. So how is this known?

Child advocate Rachel Smithers says police attend more than 70,000 family violence incidents throughout New Zealand each year, while more than an estimated four times as many go unreported.

Based on the figure of 400,000 incidents a year in New Zealand, there are 175 to 200 incidents in Palmerston North alone each week.

How did she arrive at 400,000?

Never mind. Palmerston North has 1.9 percent of New Zealand's population. So using the figure of 400,000 they have 7,600 family violence incidents. That's 146 per week. But it's still an estimation.

If the reported figure was used - 70,000 - we would be down to 26 incidents.

In two out of three cases, the adults think the children don't know and aren't affected.

But they're wrong.

What's that based on? Have the children been interviewed? No, but...

One Australian study has shown that only one in three abused parents realise their children know what's going on, when in fact, they all do, and they all want it to stop.

Ignoring what this sentence actually says (which is nonsensical) and what the journalist intended it to say, it is not OK to extrapolate the findings in one setting as fact in another.

And the following isn't the journalist's problem but highlights the silliness of some of these 'counsellors'.

Ms Smithers says while many agencies offer help to abused victims, and to the abusers, her role is making people think about how the children are affected.

There were almost always children affected when adults were violent, she says, even in cases like the alleged Tony Veitch incident.

"There will be children who really admire him, and now they are hearing that he hurt a woman."

So now even more of Palmie's children are victims of violence. Fallen role models. What a tragedy.

Now, to be fair, there is every chance that many children in Palmerston North are frightened by parents/caregivers who are violent. Probably more than the police have had dealings with. Victimisation surveys show that violence in the home is amongst the least reported crimes. By all means say so and make your own estimations but don't write them up as statements of fact.

"Intelligent intervention"

"What she said" - in case I need to say it again...


Only last week I blogged about the $1 billion Dear Leader has spent on the arts, heritage and culture;

It's pretty damn disgusting when there are people unable to access life-saving surgery and pharmaceuticals, schools that are in a state of disrepair, businesses being broken by increasing taxes.

Now Chris Finlayson has revealed National's policy;

The National Party's Arts, Culture and Heritage policy, announced today, confirms that National will maintain current levels of arts funding, should it be in the position to form a government following the 2008 election.

But wait! There's a difference!

National's approach is for intelligent intervention rather than constant interference.

That has got to be THE catch phrase of the campaign. Apply it to any sphere of government spending. That is what National voters are going to vote for. You thought Labour was arrogant. Hah. The next generation we-know-best government is on its way.

I love it

I've just enjoyed a really good belly laugh.

ACT Party leader Rodney Hide says his bright yellow jacket is stylish and he will continue to wear it throughout the election campaign despite it being lambasted as a fashion disaster.

The Newmarket Business Association has asked Mr Hide not to wear the canary-coloured garment which bears the ACT Party logo. Spokesman Cameron Brewer says it is an "intolerable sight" and does not help promote Newmarket as New Zealand's fashion capital.

"For sure we see the occasional fashion faux pas around the place, but this is completely unacceptable from someone in a leadership role. To be getting around in a crass canary campaign coat is simply offensive to Newmarket, particularly during school holidays."

Mr Hide says it is not the first time someone has told him to put the jacket back in the closet. He says Helen Clark has also tried to shut him down because the jacket has not been authorised under the Electoral Finance Act.

Cameron Brewer really said that? "Offensive .... particularly during the school holidays"!!!

I didn't think there was anything left is this country that could be offensive. Certainly not a politician whose ditched his me-too suit for something a little more colourful and fun.

Oh, it gets worse,

"What kind of message does this send out to our young people? It implies that when you're in position of power you can wear whatever you want no matter how inappropriate or horrid a garment may be. It's not right and so we're taking a stand," says Cameron Brewer.

Good God Cameron. Get a grip. This is the Liberal Party. Nothing demonstrates better how illiberal too many people have become when a man can't step out in whatever the hell colour he likes and not get flogged for it. You got to love Rodney's chutzpah.

Rampant research

How quickly complacency and abandon with taxpayer's money set in. This isn't big biccies but the percentage increase is.

Please note that as part of business-as-usual activities the Families Commission holds annual staff planning days. The total cost for each planning day including venue hire, food, travel, accommodation, facilities and miscellaneous costs is $2,363 in 2005; $8422 in 2006 and $14,194 in 2007.

The Families Commission now has 40 full-time staff. It is primarily a research unit on top of the massive research unit of the Ministry of Social Development. Yesterday I put up the stats showing the effect of rampant government. One reason - rampant research.

Knowledge, knowledge everywhere and not a drop of use. Could it be privatised? Not a chance. Nobody would willingly pay for what they produce. Get rid of it.

Ugly picture

I should be using my brushes to make prettier pictures than this disgusting representation. Government is rampant.




(data source NZ Income Survey)

The huge income gap

New Zealand would slot into this table between Portugal and Spain.

Note where Australia is.

The latest average weekly income for people in paid employment I can source for NZ is June 2007. NZ $670 per week. (Table 5).

In February 2008 Australians were earning NZ $1,127 per week.

The gap is huge. That's why we need a real and workable plan to bridge it. If you haven't already had a look at ACT's you should.

Being a candidate

Husband well-meaningly brought home a book from the library entitled "How to win an election". (Join the National Party, I immediately thought, but as that is never going to happen I better see what this book has to say.)

It is written in the UK context so the FPP scenario, not quite the reality of being in a minority party where one individual can fill more than one role. For instance Paul Richards, the author, identifies the nine "tribes" involved in an election; voters, candidates, pollsters, policy wonks, activists, spin doctors, journalists, pundits and fixers. In the broadest sense, at least 5 or 6 of these can apply to me.

But I was most interested in what he had to say about candidates and although it is depressing it only confirms what I believe.

"Modern politics is a tough, unfair, exhausting and grubby pursuit....the pressures are enormous, the hours exhausting, the reward little and the thanks non-existent. The incidence of divorce, alcohol abuse and mental illness is high...if you put yourself forward for an election, the first thing to disappear is your private life...if your political career rises above the very lowest of the rungs on the ladder, the truth will out.....It was Aristotle who suggested that democracy would only work if everyone who wanted to stand for office was immediately disqualified, and maybe he had a point."

Which is exactly the point I made when I briefly addressed the audience at our national conference earlier this year. I don't want to be an MP. We should be suspicious of people who so desperately do. I am only running because I have no choice. Someone has to control the control freaks. Someone has to try and neutralise the nannies, the regulators and social engineers. As I seem unable to shut up about how much bad ideas have hurt this country, I also seem to be duty bound to take it a step further.

But I confess to being a very poor specimen by this book's standards;

"In an election the candidate is the lynchpin. They must be unfailingly cheerful. They must never lose their tempers, or raise their voices...never tired or grumpy....never let their feelings show. Candidates must possess super-human reserves of happiness, energy, gratitude, interest in others and gregariousness."

Unfortunately, the day I stop being angry is the day I stop doing this. But I add the proviso that the day I lose my sense of humour is also the day everyone else should tell me to stop doing it.

Aussies must love it

You gotta laugh. The Lefties go on about not sending money offshore but they look the other way when it comes to gambling. Government keeps a firm grip on gambling here whereas in Australia there is a good look in for private bookmakers.

Still Centrebet is government-owned which begs the question, why doesn't our TAB run a book on the NZ election?

I imagine that Clark would be pretty unhappy with headlines like "TAB odds plummet on Labour victory."

If you want to put a bet on Clark losing the next election, you can't do it here.

But if you are happy sending your money to Australia, you can get $1-30 on her losing at the moment. It's not bad money really. And the Aussies must love taking it off us. They aren't afraid to bet on their own elections but we are. What a joke.

Policing Child Pornography

The Department of Internal Affairs seems to have morphed into Department of Policing Child Pornography. Here's yet another press release from them today celebrating a successful prosecution. Do they do anything else? I checked out their recent press releases and found that 10 of the last 14 have been about this particular subject.

So I went back to the same months in 2004 and found quite a different emphasis or variation of press releases.

The department increasingly seems to be the morals police. And I don't really understand why this department is responsible for what is surely a matter of law and order?

My children are racists...

...using this criteria.

More from the UK thought-police.

Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists by a Government-sponsored agency.

The National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

Unwanted pregnancies

Here is a potential minefield. Police are considering whether to charge a heavily pregnant woman for drinking a good deal of alcohol.

There is no law I am aware of that they can use. But it wouldn't surprise me if government doesn't some time soon try to introduce one because there is a big and probably growing problem here. If a woman cannot look after her baby in the womb what chance she will outside of it?

But how would one draft and enforce such a law. The most dangerous time for ingestion of alcohol is in the first trimester when the foetus is forming. During this period many people are unaware they are pregnant so certainly nobody else would know. In which case could people be prosecuted retrospectively?

Then there would be a great deal of arguing over safe levels of consumption. One glass of wine is a different story to one carton.

Can you imagine the kind of 'narking' , with or without genuine cause, that would go on?

What would the punishment be? Earlier this week Work and Income admitted they cannot force beneficiaries to undergo treatment for alcoholism. I suppose the courts can, but on pain of what? Certainly not losing one's benefit. And yes I am picking that many of these sorts of cases would involve beneficiaries. The threat of losing or not getting back custody of imminent birth child and any other children? Unfortunately the damage is already done. And that's what really worries me.

I forsee a future where adoption will once again become a more popular and acceptable option for unwanted (this one is) children but many will be starting life with significant health and developmental problems due to being carried by mothers who have high and daily intake of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. In which case these potential mothers should be financially incentivised to use long-term contraceptives, injections or implants or, if they already have children and are happy to, have an immediate tubal ligation. There are youngish mothers who would be happy to be free from pregnancy risk but medical wisdom says rationed operations should go to older women. Wrong.

Prevention can work. More laws and futile attempts to police them will not.

The state of politics

I am not given to pinching things from other people's blogs but this is irresistable.

(Hat-tip NotPC)

Rodney Hide spoke to the ACT Wellington conference at the weekend. He can say it for me;

There's no difference in policy between National and Labour. But if we keep doing the same old thing, we will keep getting the same old result. It doesn't matter who's administering the policy; it's the policy that counts first and foremost. It's policies that will determine our standard of living in the future, and determine whether New Zealanders choose to return to New Zealand or stay away. Labour's policies are bad for our country, bad for Kiwi families, and they will be equally bad policies under a National-led Government....

... John Key's aim is to win votes off Helen Clark. He will stick to her policies but be a new, fresh face.

It's clearly working: National is riding high in the polls. National's "no policy" policy is good for National – but it's bad for the country. National is providing no debate about the country's direction, what our goals should be, and what we need to achieve them. That job has been left to ACT.

ACT has plenty of policy – but is low in the polls. Let's hope that's not a lesson for politics in the future.

So far, National has released 16 policies. The latest is a commitment from John Key to re-arrange and re-prioritise sports funding. Now, I'm sure SPARC could do with its funding re-arranged and re-prioritised - but it's not the most pressing problem confronting the country. It's not going to change the opportunities and standard of living for New Zealanders – unless you're a SPARC staffer. It's not going to lift our country's performance or bring our kids home faster.

Yet our next Prime Minister devoted an entire speech to it. We're heading into the election with no policy debate or policy difference between the two old Parties.

Births and deaths

There is something different about this graph.

It represents births and deaths.

But births and deaths of what?

When you look more closely the trend is very telling and quite disturbing.

The 'compassionate' society

Ahh. More results of the 'compassionate' society or what Russel Norman would inaccurately describe as Mickey Savage's applied christianity. Over 5,000 people on benefits because they are drug dependent. Bear in mind there will be many, many more people also on benefits for this reason but it is not listed as the primary cause. They might appear under depression for instance.

In earlier times, before we were a 'compassionate' society, when benefits were available but strictly monitored, such rules applied.

Rule (3) (dispensed with after 1965); Applicant must be of good moral character and sober habits

Rule (2) (dispensed with after 1969); That incapacity for work was not self-induced or in anyway brought about with a view to qualifying for an invalid's benefit.

By the way, in 1965 there was a grand total of 8,744 people on an invalid or sickness benefit.

Now I am no wowser. I like a drink as much as the next person. But I am totally opposed to the idea that one person is forced by the state to pay for his neighbour's over-indulgence. Fine if he wants to but that's not what's happening here.

Question

Why just small businesses?

If the idea is right, it will be just as right for a 21 worker business as a 19 worker business.

What a wonderful shot and amazing story of recovery.

Why they go

A letter from the Dominion Post today. Miss you Tina.