New Zealand election 2011 electorate voting guide

Ah yes, I've done the hard work for you, it has taken hours, but I've gone through every electorate candidate list.  My test is simple, is there someone to positively endorse who is more freedom loving than the status quo? If so, vote for him or her.  If not, is there someone positively evil and anti-freedom worthy to oppose, if so vote for whoever will remove him or her. Remember, in most seats this is the vote that doesn't count much, but in a few it is critical as it is a lifeline to some minor parties, and it also helps replace someone on the party list

So...

Auckland Central – David Seymour - ACT

Having removed Judith Tizard swiftly, Nikki Kaye gets some serious kudos for lifting the standard of Parliament across several dimensions.  It looks like a two woman race between Kaye and the Labour list MP Jacinda Ardern.  Now given I endorsed Kaye last time, and Ardern is of the Helen Clark school of wanting to tell people what to do, it would seem an easy choice this time.  Yet, last time removing Judith Tizard was a purposeful mission, now Kaye looks more like the wily political operator than any real defender of freedom and property rights.  She’s supportive of the mega city, thinks the environment is the greatest gift given to New Zealand (people should leave then) and she wants to “help progress” the inner city rail loop and a tram line.  None of that helps reduce the size and influence of government.  As such, you can’t really vote for her for positive reasons other than to disappoint Ardern and the Labour Party.  In any case, Ardern is number 13 on the Labour list and Kaye is 33 on the National list, which means both are likely to be elected anyway.  As a result, I much prefer David Seymour, the ACT candidate.  He has a solid background in electrical engineering and pushing for less government through a think tank.  Help David Seymour get his deposit back by voting for him.

Bay of Plenty – abstain/spoil your ballot

Anthony Boyd Williams Ryall still has this seat in the bag. His 17,604 majority is fairly unassailable, but can you really vote for the Minister of Health who has little apparent interest in serious reform? He doesn’t need your vote. The Labour alternative has no chance and appears to be on the left and there is no ACT, ALCP or Libertarianz candidate.  Brian Carter of United Future has no profile on that party’s website.  Ray Dolman of NZ First is phobic about privatisation.  Peter Redman of the Conservatives is an ex. cop who wants to nationalise the foreshore and seabed and raise the drinking age (although abolishing ETS gets a tick).  Sharon Stevens of Mana is a hardened unionist.  Now you might think I’d say hold your nose and vote for Ryall, but really that wont do.  He is a shoo in, he has a high list position.  He doesn’t need your positive endorsement to keep being a senior Cabinet Minister in a government that confiscates property rights.

Forget about the electorate vote here, or spoil your ballot.

Botany – Jami-Lee Ross - National

Botany was Pansy Wong’s, until she misused her Parliamentary travel perks and so it is now Jami-Lee Ross. (I said Kenneth Wang from ACT last time).  I was damning of him for simply having been a professional politician with no private sector achievements.  Yet Motella noted his maiden speech quoted Thatcher and Reagan, and Whale Oil also noted him approvingly.  He did say “the problem with this approach and the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend. The problem with trying to spend your way towards closing the gap between rich and poor is that eventually we all collectively become poorer.” I was wrong about him, and to be fair his name is a little disconcerting.  He’s head and shoulders above most Nat MPs in my book and while ACT’s Lyn Murphy is a perfectly acceptable alternative, I think that given Ross has only been in Parliament for less than a year, it’s worth giving him a tick.

Christchurch Central – Toni Severin - ACT

Brendon Burns is the Labour MP, with a narrow majority.  As I said last time, he was Labour’s chief spin doctor in the Beehive, and was well up the Clark hierarchy.  Burns is once again ranked fairly low on the Labour list (number 29).  It’s easy to vote against him.  Yet the National candidate is, once again, Nicky Wagner, the list MP.  The debacle that has been the government’s handling of the earthquake is an absolute scandal.  No supporter of business and private property rights can vote for a National candidate in Christchurch Central, particularly one who is an MP in any case.   Whilst Burns was an evil spin doctor, what he did is nothing compared to how National has destroyed businesses and harmed the lives of the productive in this city. Luke Chandler, independent, has incoherent policies and has literacy issues, and so while Toni Severin of ACT is unremarkable and has little chance, she is your best option

Christchurch East – Michael Britnell – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Lianne Dalziel still has this one cornered, with National’s Aaron Gilmore having little chance. Although I endorsed him last time, the government’s response to the earthquake should have forced him to resign because of the gross violations of private property rights and as such, the principles of the National Party.  The only candidate you can trust to be pro-freedom, at least on one issue, is Michael Britnell of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.

Clutha Southland – Don Nicolson - ACT

Bill English is a shoo in, and really can you think of a good reason to vote for him?  Don Nicolson is number 3 on the ACT list, and has ending the ETS as a priority.  As a former Federated Farmers’ President, he will do nicely to send a message to Bill not to take the locals for granted.  Don’t be seduced by Tony Corbett of the unregistered New Zealand Sovereignty Party, he’s anti-privatisation.  Give Don Nicolson a positive endorsement.

Coromandel – Jay Fitton – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Sandra Goudie is retiring, so it is an open contest, although she had a majority of over 14,000 so it is likely to be Scott Simpson’s to lose.  He is inoffensive, but unimpressive.  Not a good reason to support Labour’s Hugh Kininmouth.  Crazy woman Catherine Delahunty is standing for the Greens, but she isn’t a threat.  Jay Fitton of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is at least standing for freedom on one issue.  Give him a tick to remind the Greens and National of the importance of that issue in this electorate at least.

Dunedin North – Guy McCallum - ACT

With Pete Hodgson’s retirement, Labour is putting forward David Clark for a seat that Hodgson won with a majority of just over 7,000.  Clark is a fairly predictable moderate leftwing Labour candidate, who lists “fairness” as his first issue – which actually means promoting wealth transfers, he is proud of helping create the ETS and likes the anti-nuclear policy.  Clark needs to win this seat to get elected, as he has a low list position.  The National candidate is list MP Michael Woodhouse.  Although his maiden speech was unremarkable, his speech on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill was forthright in supporting voluntary student union membership.  However, why vote for Woodhouse when ACT’s Guy McCallum is more convincing.  He is young, keen on reducing the size of government and government spending.   On top of that, Metiria Turei is standing for the Greens and any vote for Guy will annoy her.

Dunedin South – Joanne Hayes - National

Clare Curran is the MP, with nearly 6,500 vote majority.  As I said in 2008, she’s a vile little PR hack who is seeking to portray National as enemies of the people.  She has also played silly politics by campaigning for Auckland’s new trains to be made in Dunedin, even though the new Wellington trains, ordered when Labour was in power, are being made in South Korea.  It’s better to tick Joanne Hayes, the National candidate. Kimberly Hannah, the ACT candidate, doesn’t have enough information on her profile for me to give her a recommendation over Hates.  Hayes is unremarkable, but Curran deals in dirt and deserves to be made to worry a little.

East Coast – John Norvill – ACT (if you must vote)

Censorship enthusiast Anne Tolley holds this seat, with a majority of around 6,400.  She is no friend of freedom, as her support for a major crackdown on any material that discusses sexuality among young people demonstrated.   Moana Mackey, the Labour candidate, isn’t either as she is leftwing, she likes unions, compulsory Maori language and bleats on about the 1990s being a horrible time.  John Norvill, the ACT candidate, is a business owner, although he wears his religion on his sleeve and there is nothing on his profile about reducing the size of the state (he wants to “stop the rot” whatever that means).  On balance, if you have to, you might give him the benefit of the doubt, given a history of owning small businesses, but don’t feel guilty if you don’t vote for any of them.

East Coast Bays – abstain, spoil your ballot

Murray McCully is a shoo in, so doesn’t need your vote and frankly doesn’t deserve it either.  ACT candidate Toby Hutton has a three line profile which is completely uninspiring, so isn't deserving either. Labour candidate Vivienne Goldsmith is a teachers’ unionist so should be avoided.  Conservative Simonne Dyer is, well, conservative, and was once deputy leader of the Kiwi Party, not a friend of freedom.  McCully is not the worst Cabinet Minister, but I can’t positively endorse him.  He wont bring more freedom to government.

Epsom – abstain/spoil your ballot

Rodney Hide had a huge majority, nearly 12,900, when he won it last time, with an absolute majority.  This time you know the score.  National’s Paul Goldsmith at number 39 on the list, will probably get in on the list anyway.  He’s a historian and public affairs consultant, but rather inoffensive.  John Banks, well you all know his record of fiscal imprudence and social conservatism.   Independent candidate Matthew Goode has some merits, but these are cancelled out by his policies to ban mining, introduce some new taxes to replace others, ban guns, pay mothers a living wage and a belief in fighting global warming by penalising car use.   So you can’t avoid the obvious choice.  Do you tick Banks knowing he is the passport to getting Brash and Isaac elected, holding your nose? Or do you tick Goldsmith?  There is no good reason to tick Goldsmith and he doesn’t need it.  The question for you is can you live with yourself having endorsed John Banks for three years, knowing ACT depends on him, and his decidedly authoritarian views on personal freedom?  If you accept that ACT could get 2-3% of the vote and bring in Brash and Isaac, then you could justify voting for Banks, even though you’ll need to shower afterwards.  Yet I couldn’t do it.  I couldn’t vote for the man who as Mayor led an overspending council, who voted to keep criminalising consenting adult homosexuals, who has absolutely no interest in the idea that there are victimless crimes.  Consider this, do you honestly think John Banks, fan of Rob Muldoon, will vote for MORE freedom than John Key?  Really?  Now of course you're being told that the entire Key government depends on John Banks.  Think about this.  


Who fought the reforms of the 1980s? John Banks.  
Who didn't resign in sympathy with Ruth Richardson being demoted?  John Banks
Who pushed for a supercity as long ago as 2001?  John Banks


When National next pushes to increase search and surveillance powers, when National next ramps up the war on drugs, when National next moves to deny Christchurch downtown property owners the rights to enter their property and recover it, do you really think John Banks will be crying out for individual rights and property rights?  Do you really think he wont have the upper hand in the ACT caucus? John Banks and ACT have five days to prove me wrong and change my view.

Hamilton East – Garry Mallett - ACT

David Bennett is the National MP for this seat, with a respectable majority of 8,820, but he is likely to win again and has been unremarkable.  Labour candidate is the former Student Union President, the easy on the eye, but frightfully politically correct Sehai Orgad.  Former ACT President Garry Mallett is a perfectly respectable candidate to endorse, as an entrepreneur and a man who has supported ACT being about less government.  Give Garry a tick.

Hamilton West - Tim Wikiriwhi – Independent

National’s Tim Macindoe narrowly pushed Labour’s Martin Gallagher out of Parliament.   Yet he led Arts Waikato, and seems to be into environmentalism (Sustainable Business Network).   He’s not really worth endorsing, even though he is up against the awful Sue Moroney, who wants a subsidised passenger train service to Auckland (that would be slower than a bus), and wants to force “pay equity” and longer compulsory paid parental leave.  Moroney is number 10 on the Labour list so is a sure thing, Macindoe is 49 on the National list so may not make it if he loses here, but then that isn’t a real loss for those who believe in less government.  Yet there IS a candidate who does passionately believe in freedom and less government.   Although he has chosen not to stand for Libertarianz this time, he is still worthy of my support.  Vote for a man who has turned his life around, and who is passionate about what he does, and works very hard to get across his message.  He is his own man, true to himself through and through, and while you may not always agree with him, he deserves your vote – Vote Tim Wikiriwhi.  If he got in, Parliament wouldn't know what’s hit it.

Hauraki-Waikato - Nanaia Mahuta - Labour

Princess Mahuta won this narrowly last time, against Angeline Greensill for the Maori Party.  The hard leftwing Greensill has slid over to Mana, so Tau Bruce Mataki is representing the Maori Party.  Princess is no hero, but it makes sense to vote for her to keep Maori and Mana from having an overhang, and to keep a Labour list candidate out.

Helensville – Nick Kearney - ACT

John Key doesn’t need your vote, he is in on the list and with a majority of over 20,000 he is at no risk from Jeremy Greenbook-Held from Labour, who himself is quite pathetic (Whaleoil revealed that) and a great believer in more government spending.   I don’t have strong reasons to support Nick Kearney, the ACT candidate, but he deserves your vote more than the others and sends a small sign to John Key that he isn't the bearer of all Helensville votes on the right.

Hunua – Ian Cummings - ACT

The awful patronising prick Paul Hutchison (I am speaking from experience here) is the National MP with a majority of just over 15,800.   Young Labour candidate Richard Hills is predictable demanding higher incomes and hates privatisation, and then implies ACT is sexist, racist and homophobic, so he should just STFU.  Quite a few wacky candidates here, but you could do worse than vote for Ian Cummings from ACT.  He says “I strongly believe that people should be able to keep what they earn and to invest, save and meet their needs as they see fit. So, for the most part, the best thing government can do is to simply extract itself from its citizens’ lives to the fullest possible extent”.  That’s a man you can vote for.

Hutt South – Alex Speirs - ACT

Trevor Mallard doesn’t need your vote here, and why would you give it to him with his majority of 4,000 (and a high list position).  National is throwing up Paul Quinn again, who is a reasonably respectable National list MP, who at 54 may or may not make it through.   ACT candidate Alex Speirs says he “is a passionate advocate of freedom, both social and economic, and individual choice”. Speirs deserves your vote in his own right, but you could do worse than Quinn as a Nat MP.

Ikaroa-Rawhiti - Parekura Horomia - Labour

Parekura should hold this with his 7,540 majority.  The alternatives are Mana candidate Tawhai McClutchie and Maori candidate Na Raihania (no Derek Fox) and the rather odd Maurice Wairau.  Hold your nose and vote for the big man Parekura Horomia – he will be in anyway on the list, but this is about reducing the Maori and Mana Party potential overhangs.

Ilam – John Parsons - Labour

Gerry Brownlee will slide into this easily, with his majority of nearly 11,900.  He does not deserve your vote as he has been the Cabinet Minister responsible for the response to the Christchurch earthquake.  So while it would be easy to support ACT candidate Gareth Veale (number 20 on the list, not 3 as the ACT profile suggests) as he “describes himself as a classical liberal, believing in smaller effective government in all spheres of life - social and economic freedom”, Brownlee has been such a disgrace that it is worth considering voting for Labour candidate John Parsons to deprive Brownlee of his electorate (although he’ll be in on the list), National’s only Christchurch electorate (which is a reason given for his role in the earthquake reconstruction).   So do so, hold your nose and vote John Parsons to shrink Brownlee’s majority – he can’t be any worse, as Parsons has long been a businessman, and was once Dominion/Air New Zealand businessperson of the year

Invercargill - Shane Pleasance - Libertarianz

National MP Eric Roy should manage to keep Labour's Lesley Soper out of Parliament (she’s just another braindead unionist), and Roy is just one of the mediocre middle ground of National. So give Shane Pleasance your electorate vote, he’s the Libertarianz candidate, Director of the Southland Chamber of Commerce and he believes in Invercargill, freedom and personal responsibility.  He definitely deserves it.

Kaikoura – Ian Hayes - Libertarianz

National’s Colin King is comfortable here against Labour’s Liz Collyns with a majority of over 11,000.  However, Libertarianz give you an alternative.  Ian Hayes believes in freedom, so give him your vote in this safe National seat.

Mana - Richard Goode – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Labour’s Kris Faafoi took this in the by-election last year and Whaleoil revealed the rather appalling tactics that were used there.   Yet the awful “Pakeha owe Maori loads” public sector consultant/list MP Hekia Parata of National is simply vile - from personal experience. You wont get a colourblind state sector with her.  Richard Goode, standing for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is mild mannered and one of the most rational speakers on liberalising drug laws in New Zealand today.  He has decided not to stand for Libertarianz this year, but he is still libertarian. Vote for Goode.

Mangere – Claudette Hauiti - National

Labour's Sua Sio won this last time and has a fairly unassailable majority of over 7,000, but now Philip Field has been removed, there is no good reason to support Sio – who is singing the usual Labour song of promoting a Capital Gains Tax and more state intervention.   National is putting up Claudette Hauiti, a lesbian Maori businesswoman who used to be Labour affiliated.  Lindsay Mitchell rates her well, as she talks of less government and more personal responsibility.  So give Sio a bit of a wake up, by ticking Hauiti.  Casey Costello of ACT is an ex. Cop and ex. Police unionist, which isn’t enough for me to think she is more deserving.

Manukau East - Kanwal Bakshi – National or Jono MacFarlane ACT

Ross Robertson is one of the Labour MPs I dislike least, and he isn’t on the party list, which means if he wins, it helps keep the likes of Steve Chadwick out of Parliament. However, he is pretty much guaranteed to get elected with his majority of over 12,000. Kanwal Bakshi of National is a businessman who set up a voluntary organisation to help teenagers. Jono MacFarlane of ACT is a Christian Conservative who does not believe government is the solution.  Either man is worthy of your vote, I would lean towards Kanwal because he has a better chance of narrowing Labour’s majority, but don’t let Jono’s Christian background put you off him. 

Manurewa – David Peterson - ACT

With George Hawkins retiring, Labour is putting up Louisa Wall who needs to win here as she has no list position.  Hawkins had a majority of around 6,700, so Wall is likely to win.  She doesn’t deserve to though, she says “A measure of this leadership is how we distribute society's resources”, so your property is everyone’s in her book.  Given last election she talked about how she used to “advance the needs and aspirations of Maori working within public bureaucracies as a Maori specific representative”.  So, as a Maori lesbian, her identity matters for you.    Dr Cam Calder is National’s candidate, and a list MP at number 50 (which on current polling means he is probably ok) but he is no libertarian.  He has a health background, and is a Blue-Green.  He mentioned freedom once in his maiden speech, but has simply been a loyal lieutenant in the government, so really it makes little difference if he keeps Louisa Wall out or not.  ACT’s David Peterson is proudly libertarian, believes in Austrian school economics and says “I support letting peaceful people live their lives how they like, even if they're making personal choices radically different to those I would make as freedom is universally for all not just those I agree with”.  He deserves your vote.

Maungakiekie - Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga - National

This was a surprise win for National after Mark Gosche’s retirement in 2008, and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has a majority of nearly 2,000 in a seat Labour believes should be its own.

The vile Carol Beaumont of Labour is vying for this seat. She’s a proud unionist and thinks Labour has benefited democracy, and that asset sales will raise prices.  Although at 22 on the list, she has a good chance of getting in anyway.  Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has been a good local MP, and has a strong business background, and believes in lower taxes and less bureaucracy.  There are no other candidates that come close to this, so you can vote for him positively to try to keep the Marxist Beaumont out of Parliament.

Mount Albert – Steven Boyle - ACT

Helen Clark won this with a majority of over 10,000, and David Shearer took it for Labour again with a slightly lower majority in the 2009 by-election.  He doesn’t talk about his pro-mercenary background nowadays, preferring to focus on “social justice” (the euphemism for fiscal transfers).  Yet he voted against Voluntary Student Union membership and was sarcastic about it.   National is putting up Melissa Lee, list MP who is number 34 on the list (so is fairly certain to get elected).   She’s notable for being the first Korean woman to be an MP outside Korea, but also for her comments on crime, race and the new motorway.  She’s not exactly a great success, and there is no sign she is a great supporter of less government.  Steven Boyle is ACT’s candidate, he’s a civil engineer and more deserving than Lee.

Mount Roskill – Jasmin Hewlett – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Phil Goff gained a majority of 6,400 last time, and I DID endorse him because I figured he’d pull Labour back from the Helengrad left, and he has – a little.    National list MP Jackie Blue is standing here, and at 46 on the list is reasonably likely to get elected.   However she is keen on the war on drugs, so you can’t give her support.  Pratima Nand is ACT’s candidate, but her profile shows no sign of an interest in less government.  Jasmin Hewlett of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party shows a passionate belief in addressing the injustice of peaceful people imprisoned for using cannabis.  She deserves your vote, especially to send a message to Jackie Blue.  Goff, after all, will be history in a few months.

Napier – John Ormond - ACT

Chris Tremain is the successful businessman who is now the local MP, a Nat, and his 9,000 vote majority in what was once a safe Labour seat is notable.  Labour list MP Stuart Nash is standing, and at number 27 is fairly comfortably in anyway.  Nash is not one of the worst Labour MPs, but then again Tremain as a local businessman has lots of “plans for Napier” which isn’t exactly consistent with less government.   John Ormond is ACT’s candidate is a strong opponent of ETS, so deserves your vote.  Tremain should be safe in any case at 22 on the list.

Nelson - Maryan Street - Labour

Maryan Street is one of Labour’s best and smartest candidates. Yes she is Labour left through and through, but she isn’t Nick Smith. Nick Smith is the most loathsome of National MPs, a little control freak, who doesn’t believe in private property rights, who embraces the RMA. Nick Smith is a major reason why National looks a lot like Labour.  So vote Street, because for all she is, she is better than Smith.  Smith has a majority of nearly 8,500, and ACT’s Paul Hufflett has no profile.  Smith is number 6 on National’s list and Street is number 7 on Labour’s so both are guaranteed in, but Smith deserves a bloodied nose for simply being completely uninterested in private property rights.  Hold your nose and tick Street, at least she is honest about what she stands for,  but if you can’t handle that, you can vote for the unknown Hufflett knowing it wont make a difference.

New Lynn - Tim Groser - National

Local MP Silent T is a vile nasty character, whose intelligence belies a cold instinct to love power and step on those who get in his way.  He has proven his vileness even more this time with his sexist comment about Judith Collins.  He has the knife out for Phil Goff assuming Labour loses in this election.  Silent T has a 4,000 vote majority, which isn’t unbeatable. National’s Tim Groser is a list MP at number 12, so is a shoo in, silent T at number 3 is as well.  Barbara Steinijans is the ACT candidate who strongly supports free markets and is critical of the welfare state.  You may choose to vote for her, but I’d prefer a vote for Groser, to give Silent T a kick where it hurts.  He is, after all, one of those vying to be a future leader, and his political career is worthy of cauterising.

New Plymouth – Jamie Dombroski – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Jonathan Young of National slipped past Harry Duynhoven in 2008, with a razor thin majority of 105.  Jonathan Young opposed allowing Easter shop trading, and as Venn Young’s son, he isn’t exactly a great friend of freedom.  ACT has stepped to one side to ensure Young fights Labour’s Andrew Little, a long standing unionist, but that's hardly consistent with more freedom and less government.  Little is number 15 on the Labour list, so is in anyway, Young is number 45 on National’s so is probably in too.  The only candidate supporting freedom is Jamie Dombroski of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, so give him a tick. 

North Shore – Don Brash - ACT

With Wayne Mapp’s retirement, National is putting forward Maggie Barry, who is unlikely to get elected on the list at number 57.  Barry has nothing serious to offer in terms of fighting for less government.  She doesn’t deserve your vote and is an insult to thinking voters who believe in less government.  Labour's Ben Clark writes on The Standard, which demonstrates a love of gutter politics, so should be ignored.   However, there is one candidate who deserves your vote above all other.  Don Brash winning North Shore would do two things, it would shake National from its complacency in selecting a celebrity over an achiever, but it would also mean ACT would have a presence in Parliament that is NOT reliant on Banks.   As much as Michael Murphy, the Libertarianz candidate is a fine chap and unrelenting defender of freedom, Brash deserves your vote here.  This is ACT’s last chance to be the party committed to individual freedom, and so is by far the most important electorate vote for freedom lovers.   Most of all, it would free ACT from being dependent on Epsom and indeed is a natural constituency for that party.  Vote Brash, remembering that many of you did in 2005 anyway.

Northcote - Peter Linton - Libertarianz

Dr Jonathan Coleman is the Nat MP. He’s a clever chap but at 16 on the list he’s in anyway and has a 9,300 or so majority, so is at no real risk. Pick Peter Linton of Libertarianz because he'll send a signal about belief in small government.  He’ll stir them up and be a strong advocate for your self defence and your right to decide on your health care and education.  You can vote for Peter positively.

Northland – Lynette Stewart - Labour

Hone Carter’s retired so Mike Sabin is National’s candidate.  Carter held the seat with a 10,000 vote majority, so Sabin should be in, but does he deserve it?  Well no.  His profile is impressive, but his big thing is drugs.  He has a long history in drug law enforcement and in reducing drug use.  Now I can empathise with wanting to reduce drug use, but none of what I saw indicated an interest in considering an alternative approach to criminalisation.  Sabin is no friend of freedom.  

Labour’s Lynette Stewart believes in the government “resetting the economic environment” to increase wages and jobs, without really knowing how, so she wont be any help.  At number 39 on the Labour list, she might make it anyway.  Sabin is 60 on the National list, so he needs to win Northland.  Barry Brill of ACT has a long history in politics, having once been a solid National MP, and is now an opponent of ETS.   Now Stewart may not be any help, but she is better than Sabin.  Parliament has enough people who are narrow minded about drug laws and who don’t have any time for hating drugs, but respecting the right of adults to choose what they put into their own bodies.  So, I’d advise a vote for Lynette Stewart purely to stop Sabin getting elected.  If you can’t stomach that, then Brill is certainly deserving of your vote.

Ohariu – Sean Fitzpatrick - Libertarianz

Ahh yes a very important seat. It’s simple. Dunne has to go. This man has voted to keep Labour in power for two terms and to grow bureaucracy, and now he is Minister of Revenue.  The one thing you can be sure of is he will support whatever government is in power.  He lost his socially liberal credentials years ago when he merged with the Christian Democrats, and how can you back the man whose greatest recent achievement is creating the Family Commission - a new bureaucracy?  Dunne’s majority last time was only 1,000, with Labour’s Charles Chauvel and National’s Katrina Shanks closely behind.   Yet you can't back Chauvel.    Chauvel is 11 on the Labour list and is a fairly typical centre-left MP, he isn't going to help shrink the state.  Shanks is ok, but been an uneventful Nat MP.  However, Libertarianz Deputy Leader Sean Fitzpatrick is far more interesting.  He runs a successful martial arts school in Wellington, and a more honest candidate you couldn’t find.  Eschew mediocrity and focus group driven candidates, and proudly give Fitzpatrick your vote.   Bear in mind a few will confuse him with someone else!

Otaki - Peter McCaffrey - ACT

National MP Nathan Guy won this off of Darren Hughes, but he is into Transmission Gully, his maiden speech used the word “free” once and he talked favourably about how important Nandor’s “Waste Minimisation Bill” is. You can’t seriously vote for this guy, and his 1354 majority makes him vulnerable.  Labour’s Peter Foster talks about people paying a `’fair share of tax” and “core state assets”, so is far too leftwing to deserve a tick.  Nathan Guy may be a bit vacant, but he’s not so evil to remove with such a character.  Peter McCaffrey of ACT led ACT on Campus Wellington, and was instrumental behind pushing for voluntary student union membership.  He soundly deserves your support.

Pakuranga – Chris Simmons - ACT

Maurice Williamson’s seat. Maurice is one of National’s better MPs, being an opponent of the awful move to the left of English in 2002, and supporting Brash in 2005. Key had stomped on Maurice, but then he found the “leaky homes” issue a bit of a challenge.  Maurice’s majority is nearly 14,000 and he is 19 on the list, so he will be in anyway and having been emasculated why bother? Vote Chris Simmons of ACT, just to put ACT ahead of the Greens, again.

Palmerston North – Leonie Hapeta - National

Labour candidate Iain Lees-Galloway holds this seat with a thin 1117 majority. This man is just vile, being anti-individualism and a unionist. Vote to keep him out, he is 37 on the list so may not make it if Labour does badly.  Leonie Hapeta is National’s candidate, she is unremarkable (mispelt “safety” on her website), but Lees-Galloway would be good to remove and one can always hope that any new talent for National will help, at 65 on the list she needs to win this seat to get elected.

Papakura – John Thompson - ACT

Judith Collins holds the seat with a majority of over 10,000.  Labour’s Jerome Mika is a unionist and not deserving.  Give John Thompson of ACT your vote, as Collins is number 7 on the list, and is at no risk of being removed, it will remind her a little that some people want less government than John Key offers.

Port Hills - Geoff Russell - ACT

Dyson is awful, and National is putting up David Carter, list MP to challenge her. Dyson is number 5 on the list anyway, Carter is 10, so both will be in anyway.  Dyson’s 3452 majority is likely to keep her safe, but this seat deserves a shake up.  Vote ACT’s Geoff Russell to make Carter think about those who want less government.

Rangitata – Tom Corbett - ACT

Jo Goodhew is the Nat MP, she has a majority of just over 8,000 and at 23 on the list is safe.  She described herself in her maiden speech as one who “juggle work and family, who scorn political correctness, who value self-reliance and believe that working hard should bring personal benefits, not increased taxation”. Not great, but not bad, yet of course she is part of the government.  I backed her last time, but this time give her a little clip around the ears, vote Tom Corbett of ACT.

Rangitikei – Hayden Fitzgerald - ACT

Simon Power is standing down, so National has put forward Ian McKelvie.  He ought to win easily, as he has been Mayor of Manawatu and has a 12,000 vote majority to inherit.  ACT’s Hayden Fitzgerald says he is a libertarian, so is a far better bet for freedom than the unremarkable McKelvie.

Rimutaka – Alwyn Courtenay - ACT

Labour’s Chris Hipkins barely won this seat in 2008 with a majority of only 753.  National has chosen Jonathan Fletcher as candidate, with no list position, so he needs to be considered.  He says “At the age of 20, a visit to the United Nations inspired me with the vision that I could contribute to our country through politics.”  Hmm, not promising, especially since he has absolutely nothing on his campaign website saying what he stands for and what he wants to achieve.  I can’t endorse an open book, because someone else will write what he will do and think.  Especially given Hipkins is 30 on the Labour list so likely to get in anyway.  Annoy Fletcher by voting for Alwyn Courtenay of ACT.

Rodney – Beth Houlbrooke - ACT

Lockwood Smith is retiring, but he leaves a 15635 majority for National candidate Mark Mitchell who has a long career in the Police, as a hostage negotiator and built a business from scratch.  He will almost certainly win, but a better bet for freedom is Beth Houlbrooke from ACT.

Rongotai – Joel Latimer - ACT

Annette King is hardly threatened by Chris Finlayson, with a 9,000 vote majority and being number 2 on the list, although he is one of the better Nat candidates, that isn’t a high threshold to cross.  Vote ACT’s Joel Latimer, as the best option to make a small stand for less government.

Rotorua – Abstain, spoil your ballot

Todd McClay is the National MP with a 5,000 vote majority and he is no friend of free markets and small government.  The empty headed Steve Chadwick is running for Labour so no better.   You really can’t do anything here, so abstain or spoil your ballot.  McClay isn’t worth saving.

Selwyn – Jo McLean - Labour

Amy Adams of National is the MP with a majority of around 11,000.   However, she has been supportive of the response to the Christchurch earthquake.  Labour’s Jo McLean has no chance of being elected, she is not on the list, Adams is 28 on the Nat list so is likely to be elected anyway.  Tick McLean to give Adams a bit of a fright, but if you can’t, just abstain or spoil your ballot.

Tamaki – Stephen Berry -  Independent

Sadly Allan Peachey passed away recently, so National selected Simon O’Connor to succeed him.  However, one candidate stands out above the others.  Stephen Berry is a libertarian and fighting tooth and nail for freedom in this electorate. This is one candidate you can soundly tick for and know he believes in less government.

Tamaki-Makaurau - Pita Sharples - Maori Party

Pita Sharples is the MP with a majority of nearly 8,000.  Shane Jones is Labour’s challenge, and although he is a list MP who will be in at number 18, he is really just a professional bureaucrat.  For all his faults, Sharples is the only Maori Party MP worth supporting.   It’s a tough call.  After all, eliminating the Maori Party removes a barrier to eliminating the Maori seats, but Sharples will probably make this his last term.  He’s a better man than Shane Jones, so he should – just, deserve support.

Taranaki-King Country – Shane Ardern - National

Shane Ardern, yawn. Yep, what a star.  A majority of over 15,000 so he is a sure thing, and is 27 on the list.   Labour’s Rick Barker is having a shot, but doesn’t deserve your vote, as he is number 25 on the list so fairly secure.  You could vote Victoria Rogers of United Future, but there is no good reason to do so.  Tick Ardern because he is inoffensive and because he will be in anyway, and is likely to question ETS at caucus.

Taupo – Roseanne Jollands - ACT

Louise Upston is the MP, with a majority of around 6,400.  The quote attributed to her “The police are good. The criminals are bad. It's that simple” doesn’t bode well for freedom.  Labour’s Frances Campbell isn’t worth your vote on freedom grounds.  ACT’s Roseanne Jollands would give Upston a small message, but her profile is hardly inspiring either.

Tauranga - Simon Bridges - National

Simon Bridges helped keep Winston out in 2008 and gained a majority of over 11,000.  You could consider Kath McCabe from ACT, but she is an environmental lawyer.  Could you trust her to replace the RMA with private property rights?  I’d give Bridges another go, just because he deserves it for having helped keep out Winston.

Te Atatu - Tau Henare - National

Labour is putting Phil Twyford up to replace Chris Carter.  Twyford is a scaremongering socialist who reminds me somewhat of Sue Kedgley.   At 33 on the Labour list he is likely to get in anyway.  I’m going to endorse Tau Henare, if only because Twyford needs to be avoided.  Henare gives the Nats a bit of a shake up, which is actually worth something.

Te Tai Hauauru – Soraya Peke Mason - Labour

You can’t vote for Tariana Turia, she’s mad as can be. Tick Soraya Peke Mason of Labour, to remove her, and replace a Labour list candidate whilst reducing the overhang caused by the Maori Party winning more seats than it is entitled to get with party votes.

Te Tai Tokerau – Kelvin Davis - Labour

The loathsome Marxist Hone Harawira doesn’t deserve your vote.  Tick Kelvin Davis of Labour, he is the best bet to remove him, and at 23 on Labour’s list, you wont feel guilty about voting for him, as he is in anyway.  However, removing the Mana Party is a worthy mission like removing a cancerous growth on liberty.

Te Tai Tonga – Rino Tirikatene - Labour

Removing Maori Party MPs will remove the overhang and reduce a barrier to eliminating the Maori seats.  Vote Rino Tirikatene for a Labour MP who replaces someone from the list (who is typically worse) and to send these seats back to a party that thinks wider than race based policies.

Tukituki – Romana Manning – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Yes well Craig Foss is the Nat MP, with a majority of 7800.  He is also unremarkable. ACT’s Robert Burnside doesn’t have a profile that mentions freedom in any form, so how can he be endorsed.  Vote Romana Manning of ALCP, as you know what she thinks on one issue, and she wears a Police outfit on her profile - which is intriguing.

Waiariki – Louis Te Kani - Labour

Remove the Maori Party’s Te Ururoa Flavell by voting Louis Te Kani of Labour.  Bear in mind that this is also about rejecting the evil cheerleader of 9/11, Annette Sykes.  Again, returning this to Labour replaces a Labour list MP and helps eliminate the overhang.

Waikato – Robin Boom - ACT

Lindsay Tisch hasn’t been a star but with a majority of nearly 13,000 has this covered.  Kate Sutton isn’t the worst Labour candidate, but at number 35, she might be in on the list, so don’t give her a second thought. Robin Boom of ACT rejects the ETS and Tisch needs that message, so give him a tick for that, though not much else.

Waimakariri - Clayton Cosgrove - Labour

Keeping Clayton Cosgrove around will annoy the Labour left and Kate Wilkinson of National doesn’t deserve to win because of National’s performance over the earthquake (and is number 19 on the list so will be in anyway).  Tick Cosgrove as a protest against National in Christchurch and because he is a moderating influence in the Labour caucus.

Wairarapa - Richard McGrath - Libertarianz

Vote for NZ’s most freedom loving GP – Dr Richard McGrath for Libertarianz. He’s a fine man, and has a good profile in the electorate.  You don’t need to think twice about this.   National’s John Hayes will probably win given his comfortable majority of around 6,700, but I strongly endorse McGrath politically and personally as the one candidate of all I most would like to see elected, across the country.  He would shake up healthcare, the war on drugs and would always take a balanced and measured approach, that adds up to whether any government measure reduces freedom and individual rights or increases it.  Vote McGrath with pride.

Waitakere – Peter Osborne - Libertarianz

Paula Bennett of National has a tiny majority here of 632, and faces a real challenge from Carmel Sepuloni of Labour.  Bennett is number 14 on the list though, so she isn’t going to be out.  Sepuloni is 24 on the Labour list, so is also likely to be in as well.  However, you have a real freedom loving candidate here, Peter Osborne of Libertarianz deserves your vote more than Bennett.  After all, it’s not like either the major candidates face getting ejected.

Waitaki – Colin Nicholls - ACT

Jacqui Dean is the current MP and an enemy of freedom, voting against her is like voting against Jim Anderton.  She wanted to ban party pills and is a Blue Green.  Labour’s Barry Monks has NO profile on the party website, so I can't even start to consider him.  Jacqui Dean’s 11000 majority is unassailable, even with her number 41 list placing which is likely to be good enough.  ACT’s Colin Nicholls supports lower taxes, abolishing ETS, one law for all and privatisation.  That is the best deal you can get here, and better than Dean.

Wellington Central – Reagan Cutting - Libertarianz

Labour’s Grant Robertson has a majority of 1904 here, so National has a chance here with Paul Foster-Bell (his number 56 list placing is too low to be likely).  Yet while he claims to be classically liberal, he also claims to be a Blue Green.  Stephen Whittington of ACT is quite the libertarian candidate, but why vote for him when you can choose the real thing with Reagan Cutting.   After all it is better for him to beat the Alliance, Conservative Party and NZ First and show that Wellington Central isn't just bureaucrats voting to feather their nests.

West Coast-Tasman – Steven Wilkinson – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Chris Auchinvole is the Nat MP who ousted Damien O’Connor and gained a narrow 971 majority.  O’Connor is standing for the seat only, not the list.  He is better than any on the Labour list.  However, O’Connor is not exactly a freedom fighter, so no point ousting Auchinvole for O’Connor.  Auchinvole has list position 43 so is probably safe anyway.  You might consider Allan Birchfield of ACT, who is anti RMA but he thinks there is a carbon tax.  So on that basis, better choosing Steven Wilkinson of the ALCP for the obvious reason.

Whanganui - Alan Davidson - ACT

Chester Borrows is the Nat MP here, he thinks all children are ours and like Sue Bradford says “I want to live in a country that claims all children as their own and accepts the glory and the responsibility of that”. The Labour candidate isn’t worth ticking, as he was grateful for the welfare state even though he is decidedly middle class.  He also volunteered for John Kerry’s Presidential campaign!  ACT is standing Alan Davidson again, a man who strongly believes in personal freedom, so give him a tick.

Whangarei - Helen Hughes - Libertarianz

Phil Heatley is another shoo in here, so you can safely vote for someone who does passionately believe in individual freedom. Vote Helen Hughes for Libertarianz, with pride. She’s more charismatic and better looking than Heatley any day, and she'll mean more for freedom than he ever will.

Wigram – Geoff McTague – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Jim Anderton is retiring and his party is gone, so Labour expects to win this with Megan Woods, a former Andertonian.  It might be tempting to vote for National’s Sam Collins, but this is Christchurch and he is supportive of what the government has done.  You can’t endorse this.  Geoff McTague of the ALCP is your only choice for freedom.

It total this adds up to:


26 ACT
8 Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
2 Independents
11 Labour
8 Libertarianz
9 National 
1 Maori Party
4 Abstain

P.S.  If any candidate thinks I have unfairly ignored her or him, then feel free to plead your case for being a positive vote for more freedom and less government.  Social creditors, xenophobes and believers in theocracy need not apply.

New Zealand election 2011 - party vote options

Whilst I traditionally write about the political parties and their relative interest in freedom, that might read a bit like a cracked record.  It's obvious Libertarianz is the party most committed to individual liberty, private property rights and economic liberty, setting aside that the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party would leave everything the way it is, except for legalising cannabis.  If freedom matters to you, your vote will really only be a debate between whether you support Libertarianz or ACT (or ALCP if cannabis is all you care about), which is a matter of whether you support a pure vision of individual freedom or a diluted vision, which has a reasonable chance of getting MPs elected.

That decision is one for another post.  For now, I want to quickly go through the parties that are standing lists, with a summary of my view on what they all mean, and their chances, in alphabetical order:

ACT - Most have forgotten that ACT stands for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, and I suspect most forget ACT was spawned by defectors from the Labour Party.  As much as the angry left might seek to ex.communicate them all, the simple fact is that Roger Douglas convinced more than David Lange and Richard Prebble of the wisdom of free market reforms.  Stan Rodger, Koro Wetere and yes Phil Goff, along with David Caygill, Michael Bassett and Bill Jefferies all bought into it.  Helen Clark willingly entered Cabinet and supported the reforms at the time.   Since then, ACT has picked up political refugees from National and most recently has been remodelled after a coup against Rodney Hide. 

The decidedly mostly libertarian Don Brash (his remarks on cannabis are notable) faces tension from the more conservative wing of the party in a final dash to make a real difference, given that the past three years have been disappointing (indeed was the greatest achievement voluntary membership of student unions?).   A party vote for ACT is, first and foremost, a vote for Don Brash to help keep the Nats from going backwards (John Banks is not first on the list, but rather fourth), with Catherine Isaac deservedly in second place (notwithstanding the late Roger Kerr's passing), and Federated Farmers' ex.leader Don Nicolson in third.   ACT is finally with a leader who is unafraid to talk publicly about personal freedom (and with considerable personal integrity). An honourable vote for the freedom lover, if you can hold your nose regarding John Banks and the odd policy about Fiji.   My prediction is ACT will scrape through, with three seats, one being Banks.

Alliance - Oh how the mighty have long fallen, and the true believers keep the faith.  Again, I am sure few remember the Alliance was a merger between Jim Anderton's New Labour Party, the Greens, the Democrats (followers of the wacky "Social Credit" faith) and the "original Maori party" Mana Motuhake.  The so-called "Liberal Party" of the erstwhile Gilbert Myles also joined in.  Of course it was the Jim Anderton party, and in 1993 Jim won his seat, along with Maori radical Sandra Lee, and the party gained its highest ever support that year - when those who voted Alliance knew it wouldn't mean the party getting into a position of power with 18.2% of the vote in a First Past the Post election.   The Alliance dropped to 10.1% in 1996 under MMP with 13 seats (including such intellectual giants as Pam Corkery, Liz Gordon and Alamein Kopu), in 1999 it dropped to around 7.7% and 10 seats having lost the Greens in the first divorce - but gaining coalition with Labour.   However, then the solidly socialist ideals proved too much.  In 2002, there was a second divorce, with Jim Anderton setting up his own personality cult party taking his seat with him, leaving the Alliance to the power crazed Laila Harre (that's another story) who failed to get the workers excited enough to do more than steal her billboards, with only 1.3% of the vote.  2005 and 2008 have been disasters. 

The Alliance faces too much competition on the left, with the Greens and now the Mana Maori Party both likely to get elected, why vote Alliance if you're a socialist, unless you're neither a radical environmentalist nor a Maori ultra-nationalist?  Still there is buckets of force and state violence in the manifesto, with much more tax, renationalisation of Telecom, airports and power companies, bans on any serious foreign investment, compulsory wage rises to match inflation and masses of new regulation and massive expansion of welfare.  Hilarious to think people believe this.  However, with the competition it faces, I predict the Alliance will have its worst ever showing and wont manage 1,000 votes this time.  The party list and leadership says it all really.

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party - Michael Appleby perenially standing for legalising cannabis.  No other policies.  Yes, it is one I agree with, so yes if for you freedom just means legalising cannabis, then tick the leaf.  Honourable mention to Richard Goode, number 9 on the list, former Libertarianz candidate and a principled man.  However, the ALCP peaked in 1996 with 1.66% of the vote, since then the Greens have cannibalised the cannabis liberalisation vote, although there was a minor gain in 2008 given the departure of Nandor Tanczos.  As sympathetic as I am to the single issue, I think having MPs who will spend three years on one issue as a waste, and I'm unconvinced that there is any point voting ALCP.  I expect ALCP might pick up a few more votes this time, given Labour has little chance of being in government and the Greens are ignoring the cannabis vote, but the impact will be zero. Yet if ALCP members joined ACT or Libertarianz? (but then they would have to reject the welfare state)

Conservative Party - Effectively the successor to the Christian Heritage Party, Family Party and the Kiwi Party, without the disconcerting branding (and hypocritical leader).  Besides the second party with a Kevin Campbell as candidate (the Alliance has one), and the unremarkable ex. United Future MP Larry Baldock on the list, it has not much of note.  To be fair, I agree with some of what it says, some useful points on welfare and law and order, and there is a distinct lack of much to do with religion, abortion and sex.  However, the war on drugs is on as far as this lot is concerned.  On top of that, Colin Craig's intellectually lazy press release in response to independent candidate Stephen Berry says a lot - a new bunch of control freaks who want to criminalise alcohol consumption.  There is nothing new here.   The law and order emphasis already sits with ACT, along with being tough on welfare and repealing ETS.  What's left is smacking kids and toughening the law on alcohol.  Given the Kiwi Party gained 12,000 or so votes last time, this party may well get quite a few votes, but it wont come near getting a seat in Parliament.  Frankly, unless telling people what to do with their lives is your thing, I can't really see the point of voting Conservative.  I estimate it will pull in about 10,000 votes though as it reaches through churches and with a lot of money to spend on electioneering (and because there are easily that many frustrated busybodies around).

Democrats for Social Credit - Not to be confused with fascists for Social Credit of course.  It is an oddity that New Zealand has sustained a movement based on the bizarre ravings of the vaguely anti-semitic Major Douglas (if you haven't heard of them, don't worry, he only got a following in parts of New Zealand and Canada).  If you study the "A+B theorem" long enough you will go mad.   So are the policies of this lot.  It include some heavy handed xenophobia (foreign investors beware, except this lot have no chance), and yes it is funny money.  You'd have to believe in conspiracies to think this all makes sense and that the only reason it doesn't happen is that there are forces out there stopping it.  It's an embarrassment of New Zealand's political history that doesn't die and was only sustained because nobody else could be bothered sustaining a third party during the hey day of First Past the Post, other than these "true believers".   Ironically, the global financial crisis will have given this lot some backbone, so expect another 1,000 votes or so to be thrown at this, truly one of the religious based parties.  If you encounter one of this lot, try debating and see how far you get before he or she resorts to conspiracy based arguments.

Green Party - The most successful big government, pro-state violence party, which is getting a boost as leftwing statist voters abandon Labour and go for what they really want.  The Greens benefit from a friendly cuddly brand that suggests panda bears, trees, clean air and oceans, whereas behind that is a rampant series of policies designed to tax and regulate, including state supervision of whether newspapers are acting "in the public interest".  If that doesn't send a chill down the spine of any human rights advocate or believer in freedom, what does?  The Greens have advocated nationalisation of children as promoted by neo-Stalinist Cindy Kiro ("cradle to grave monitoring of people"), includes the obnoxious prick Russel Norman, the woolly headed lunatic Catherine Delahunty and with Marxist Keith Locke and control freak Sue Kedgley retiring, adds new lovers of big government such as Eugenie Sage (environmental radical), Sue Bradford acolyte Jan Logie, anti-American Steffan Browning, unionist Denise Roche and spin advisor Holly Walker.  Not a long list of achievers, but certainly a bunch to support the Marxist "we know best" policies the Greens promote.   I suspect the Greens might pull off around 8% of the vote this time, a record amount, but will only do better if they aren't seriously confronted and Mana doesn't siphon off votes on the left (along with ALCP now the Greens are quiet on cannabis).  It will largely depend on how much of a free ride they get from a docile sympathetic media.  There is nothing honourable about voting Green, unless you get a thrill out of pushing other people around and feeling self-satisfied.

Labour Party - The government in waiting, which will still be waiting.  A solidly centre left-wing party, believing in government providing solutions, led by a man who isn't too unsympathetic about ACT, but who has hoisted himself to a career that he probably suspects, has reached its nadir.  Andrew Little, an annoying little leftwing unionist, is the highest placed non-MP on the list.  Labour may claim to be more frugal, but is trying to sell capital gains tax, which will be one of its downfalls.  Still, it has a chance of governing, if a coalition of perhaps the Greens, Maori Party, NZ First (!), Mana and Peter Dunne might be cobbled together.  Labour is partly dependent on unionised civil servants and on welfare beneficiaries who want to keep the tap.  It does have an honourable history of reform.  Let's be honest, Labour makes more reform than National when in power.  However, only in 1984-1990 did it largely do any good on that front, and the results were mixed.   Labour has a large tribal vote, by that I mean hundreds of thousands who vote Labour because it's in the family and because they think the alternative means National - a party they instinctively think is "for the rich" and "against them".  If only many of them started to realise that the only person they can rely on is not a politician, and certainly not a political party that says it will "do things for them", but themselves.  Yet, I think Labour will be lucky to reach 30% this time round, although Helen Clark survived getting 28.2% in 1996, Phil Goff must know his role is almost certainly to be the fall guy.

Libertarianz - Still surviving, still declaring the unabashed belief in the freedom of the individual, private property rights and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and private property.  I need not say more, as I've been a member for 13 or so years.  Still the only choice for those who believe in much much smaller government, so government exists to protect people from the initiation of force, not being the chief perpetrator.  Libertarianz face the challenge of ACT led by Don Brash, but the opportunity presented by National looking like a sure thing is for freedom lovers to see they can vote for what they really want.  Indeed, ACT voters who can't stomach John Banks have a natural home in Libertarianz.   Of course I'd like Libertarianz to get 12,000 votes, a 10 fold improvement on 2008 - it would only take a small fraction of past ACT voters to give the tick to freedom.  However, I suspect the actual result will be closer to 1,200 than 12,000.   And no, it is NOT a wasted vote to vote for what you believe in.

Mana - The new far-left party, making the Greens look centrist and the Maori Party look not so racist.  This is Maori nationalist socialism, with massive state transfers from the successful to the not so successful, serious controls on tobacco and alcohol, and if you claim Maori ancestry, expect the state to smile upon you more than others.  It has Annette Sykes, who once noted a risk of terrorism in the quest for Maori sovereignty, although she reassured Maurice Williamson she didn't support such action.  The same woman who said she cheered when she saw the news about 9-11.  Hone Harawira himself once said "Our fight for a better world will only be won . . . when the white man comes home", and who cheered Osama Bin Laden as a "freedom fighter".  This is truly the vile party, the party that isn't just about state violence, but sympathises with those who have used terrorism and has candidates that no only have cheered mass murder, but also empathise with Islamist misogynistic totalitarians.   He said ACT policies are like that of Hitler.  This is the politics of the gutter.  Hone Harawira will no doubt get elected though, but will there be enough votes to get a second candidate?  I think probably not, and if the media did its job thoroughly enough, it would treat this party as what it is - the Zanu PF of New Zealand.  Mana makes the Greens look honourable, which quite frankly in comparison, they are.  A case for abolishing the Maori seats if ever there was one, but that would be painted as being like the Holocaust.

Maori Party - No party list seats going to be won here, but it wont win back Hone's seat and will probably lose another.  National's other partner in government, that wont tolerate talk of colourblind government, but which only exists because of the Maori seats.  Is a party for Maori a racist party? Well it is a nationalist party, and a party that is driven by what it sees as the interests of one race, one nationality, by definition.  Not exactly a friend of freedom.  Essentially a breakaway from Labour that is more focused on pragmatism than political tribalism, but as such will probably suffer from having supported National and the loss of its radical wing to Mana.  3 seats with less than 2% of the vote.

National - If you're happy and you know it, tick National.  So if you don't like change and you thoroughly approve of the confiscation of private property and the grotesque mismanagement of Christchurch since the earthquake, then tick National.  Frankly if you claim to be pro-business, pro-property rights and believe in small government and vote National you're a fucking hypocrite or a fool.  I am convinced this debacle is mostly due to Ministers taking the advice of officials and letting council and central government bureaucrats do as they see fit.   It's a disgrace and is destroying downtown Christchurch.  Don't vote National if you believe in property rights, don't vote National if you are in any city and fear what government will do in an earthquake or volcanic eruption or any other major disaster.   The proof is clear - government will run roughshod over those who fund it.

NZ First - The "Asians are coming" party (with an Asian candidate just to "prove you wrong"), which so disgraced itself in 1996-1998 with politicians who were people so inept they sought and enjoyed the baubles of office, and then again in 2005 when Winston didn't want baubles, then became Minister of Foreign Affairs.  By natural attrition, NZ First will probably grab 3% of the vote this time as the slippery short arse Winston proclaims how "unfair" the media is.  Tired populism without the real commitment or modern campaigning skill to really get there again.

United Future - Peter Dunne might scrape through again, having survived common sense, religious conservatism and supporting Labour and National in government, but it's going to be touch and go whether the party vote drops so far that he is an overhang MP.  Nothing to see here because Dunne will go whatever way the wind blows, so voting United Future means you don't care whether Labour or National is leading a government, and you don't mind either so much you want to change them, which means you don't really have strong views on anything, except maybe Transmission Gully, drugs and the creation of the "award winning" Families Commission (oh and outdoor recreation, lots of policies on that).

So that's it, the full spectrum from authoritarian racists to freedom lovers, and all sorts of blends in between.  Don't vote National, it doesn't deserve it.  Don't vote Labour, you're better than that.  Don't vote for lunatics (Social Credit), control freaks (most of the above) or those seeking to pander to the worst in you (Mana, NZ First).  A party vote should express your political philosophy, what do you want government to do.  If the status quo is National, you have a lot of choices for government to do more, and it would appear only three to do less. 

Asset sales bad, asset purchases good?

A simple, impertinent question, to ask all those on the left of the political spectrum in New Zealand.  Labour, the Greens, Mana, NZ First (socialism can be nationalist) and the Maori Party.

You are all trying to scaremonger, use barely shrouded xenophobia to frighten the average voter into being opposed to the government selling assets.  The first thing you all emphasise is that "foreigners" will take over, with the implication that foreigners will be out to rip off consumers.  Even in competitive sectors (like electricity, which has five suppliers, or aviation where Air NZ ran 100% private for 12 years, including 4 years under a Labour government).  The implication being the foreigners are devils, unlike the benign, beloved New Zealand government.

The second thing you do is contradict yourself.  Whilst you imply that the assets you want to keep provide cheaper services (and goods if you include Solid Energy) than they would if owned by foreign devils, you then say the government will be losing out on lucrative revenue.   Hold on.  This lucrative revenue comes from the consumers you don't want ripped off.   Are you implying the government could make more money from consumers that it does now from these assets (given you think the government making money from selling goods and services is a good thing), or that taxpayers (the people who effectively carry the liabilities, but don't directly carry the benefits) are getting a lower rate of return than they would have done, had you simply gone out and bought them shares on the stockmarket on their behalf (or better yet, let them invest the money themselves)?

However, your biggest contradiction is in your attitude to the two sides of the government asset ledger.  The government buying assets has considerable costs.   

Labour bought Kiwirail at a price well in excess of its market value, and subsequently Labour and National have spent over NZ$750 million - which is greater than the purchase price itself, in buying more "assets" for the business.  This is money that has come from borrowing, it is money from taxpayers pockets, and is money that is almost certainly never going to be recovered ever from them.  The main beneficiaries of this are the foreign (devils they are not now) businesses who manufacture these assets (don't even start claiming you can make tiny short runs of trains in New Zealand when mass production of cars is grotesquely inefficient on the scale of a country this side), and the small number of New Zealand businesses that benefit from rail freight being effectively subsidised (Fonterra, forestry companies, Solid Energy, freight forwarders, shipping companies).  Why is this good?  Don't use words like "strategic", "environment", "future-proofing", use financial measures, like you use for asset sales.   Why can't you?   Why don't you consider the enormous transaction costs of that purchase, and the Air New Zealand transaction? 

Beyond that obvious example, there is Kiwibank, Air New Zealand and indeed any capital expenditure by the state in any sector.   You don't seem to care when the state increases its pool of "assets" (regardless of whether they raise revenue, most don't), you don't care whether consumers get a good deal from those assets or their owners,  you don't care whether taxpayers make money from them.   

In other words, you don't apply the same standard to asset purchases as you seek to apply to asset sales.

Is that because you are all really full-blown socialists who believe in public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and like the growth of government ownership of the economy?  (surely you don't all think like that?)  

Or is it because you are conveniently using this rather modest policy (yes National doesn't have many that are easy to argue or communicate), one that in almost every OECD country would be considered relatively benign and inconsequential by the political mainstream (far-left and far-right excluded), to bait the rather deep seated xenophobia and "tall poppy" suspicion of quite a few New Zealanders, who are inately suspicious of foreign business people, and subscribe to the Muldoonist paternalistic feeling that you can't really trust business people to "see you right"?

You want to frighten people into thinking that foreigners will rip them off, will "asset strip" these "great assets" and the country will be "worse off" because people like you don't control them and don't spend the money raised by them.  You like them to believe you are better at spending their money than they are, and that you're a kinder gentler business person than they are.

In other words, aren't you all just playing the Winston Peters card?

New Zealand electoral system referendum 2011

I have to admit I have had some difficulties deciding what to do about this one. This will be my second electoral referendum this year, having voted for the UK electoral referendum, which was a straight choice between FPP and a form of PV (FPP won overwhelmingly).

In the 1992 referendum I voted for no change, but also voted for the Preferential Voting system for change. Why? Well having experienced eight solid years of reformist free market governments, I was pretty happy with first past the post. I also saw the minor parties that were heaving in the polls being what they were. A xenophobic personality cult called NZ First and a lying mass of Marxist reality evaders called the Alliance. I also saw the Christian Heritage Party as the only other one sitting on the sidelines and wanted to avoid Graham Capill like (well you fill the gap). FPP looked like it delivered strong stable government, and MMP was backed by everyone who opposed less government, by those who opposed reforms largely now taken for granted. Preferential Voting was the “least worse” option, and after all it could be argued that a representative electoral system ought to have every MP gaining at least 50% of the vote. 

Much has happened since then, but I am hoping that simply writing this post will clarify my own thinking, as I have not yet decided how to vote. Given I studied electoral systems as part of one of my degrees, I think I have a fair background on all of the options, so here goes. 

The first point to remember is that electoral systems are about counting heads, not what is in them. Some people, across the political spectrum, laud democracy as something rather special, when it is, as Winston Churchill once said, the worst form of government ever devised – except for all of the others ever tried over history. The reason for that should be obvious. There is nothing inherently good, right, whether pragmatically or morally, about what the “majority think”. After all, if you accept that the bulk of the population has average intelligence and abilities, then the majority involves pandering to average people. Indeed, it also means that the most successful, able and intelligent (not always the same) are valued as much as the least successful, able and most dim-witted. It doesn’t take too much to figure out that untrammelled democracy can mean the majority vote to oppress the minority and take from them. 

A simple view is it is like three wolves and a sheep voting for what they’ll have for dinner, but if you look at most politicians, most of what they promise during elections is to take from someone to give to another, although they are usually astute enough to focus on the giving, and ignore the taking. If governments can just spent and borrow and pass the bill to the next lot, then inevitably someone will have to make tough decisions. Greece and Italy are examples today of democracy failing, because people voted for politicians who gave them what was unaffordable. Now they don’t want to vote for politicians to make them face reality. Democracy isn’t good at getting politicians to make difficult decisions, or rather decisions that involve not giving people bribes. Mencken said elections are an advance auction of stolen goods. He was right. Imagine if Churchill had asked the British public if they were willing to go to war against Germany. 

So I take a dim view of democracy anyway, in part because I know my opinion has a higher value than anyone else’s. If you don’t think the same way about yours, then you’re probably right as well. I simply don’t accept that my opinion can be reduced to it being counted the same as some half-brain dead nitwit who votes for John Key because “he’s pretty cool”, or who votes for Winston Peters because “she doesn’t like the Asianisation of the country”.

However, democracy DOES have a useful role – which is to remove governments. It is a limit on government because ultimately it offers one control on what governments do, by giving voters the chance to boot them out. In fact, if you look at recent elections, it is clear that 1999, 1990 and 1984 elections were exactly about that. Politicians and activists about electoral systems are almost always driven by their partisan views. The left love MMP because of the success of the Greens and the various Maori parties, the right don’t because it has seen the likes of NZ First emerge, and because ACT has done badly (and the conservative right has failed miserably too). So ignore them all, they are self interested wanting whatever system helps them gain power or blackmail power or whatever.

I have a different approach. To be honest, it is not something I get enthused about, beyond the basics of how the systems deliver different outcomes for the same votes, but also encourage different behaviour. Yet it is a chance to shake things up a little, so what is it I want from an electoral system?

I’d like an electoral system to enable individuals to be removed from Parliament, and MMP isn’t very good at that, because of party lists. Look also at what MMP does to electorate votes. In most seats, they are now considered irrelevant. However, in Epsom, Ohariu and the Maori seats, they are critical. Indeed they allow for an overhang for the Maori Party that over represents its support. Now supporters of MMP will say that these can be dealt with by tweaking it - such as removing the electorate threshold to let party votes count, or abolishing the Maori seats, but these aren't on offer. 

So I will vote to change the system, but what to?

First Past the Post is easy, but it does create constituencies where MPs win with a minority of the vote, and others where they are so dominant that it renders the voting by others to be irrelevant. Electorate boundaries are artificial constructs anyway, so FPP is far from satisfactory. Why should your vote be less valued because you are on one side of the road and not the other? It would make the National Party comfortable, but why is that a good thing?  FPP did bring Muldoon and brought decades of stagnant do nothing government.  It also brought Social Credit as the stubborn third party of weirdness.  However, FPP most of all means that a lot of people who got a minority of votes get power.  No, I'd rather not support that.

Preferential voting does away with the minority voting for a representative, and it also means every vote counts. You can choose someone who doesn’t win, but then rank your options. This has some appeal, but even at best I can’t see me ranking more than 3. Again though, it becomes a matter of electorate boundaries as to whether this works. Yet it would deal to the Epsom, Ohariu, etc problem. In Epsom, those who don’t support John Banks wouldn’t have to vote for the National candidate, but could vote for the candidate they prefer. Similarly those who would prefer the National candidate but would rank Banks second, could do so as well. Ohariu has a similar scenario. Maybe National voters would rank Peter Dunne second and keep him elected, or maybe most Ohariu voters don’t want him and would rank 1st and 2nd those who oppose him. Tauranga could have got rid of Winston Peters quicker as well. So you see, there is some appeal in this option. 

Supplementary Member is a watered down version of MMP, so on the face of it less list seats, but all this does is reduce the effect of the smaller parties. The main advantage I see is that the list seats will reflect party votes, but this wont be affected by the electorate seat wins. Electorates suddenly become important again, and it gets rid of the “win an electorate, get some party seats as well” distortion that exists now. ACT, NZ First and others would apparently need to get 3% of the party vote to get a seat, but as Parliament would be dominated by FPP seats, it would make only a small difference. 

STV gives you multiple member constituencies, but rather big ones. Some will baulk at huge constituencies, but frankly I couldn’t care less. It will make constituencies a little less partisan and parochial, but also means people can call upon multiple MPs to “help them out” (something I haven’t really understood, because I largely wouldn’t trust an MP to fix anything for anyone in a way that would appear to be neutral). It will mean that all MPs are actually accountable to voters directly. Party lists will not predetermine who gets elected, but voters will. What that really means is voters can remove them as well. STV means voters can rank candidates in preference, just like PV, or can just vote for the party’s list of candidates for a constituency. Candidates who get a majority of votes get elected, just like PV, whereas the remainder get elected based on preferences. In conclusion, I believe STV would be worth voting for. It makes all MPs people elected directly, even if from preferences, rather than MPs selected from lists developed by parties. In other words, voters can remove those they don’t like. It makes electorates important again, but greatly increases their size so that parochialism becomes less important. 

There is one test I haven’t applied. Would it get more Libertarianz candidates elected? Well actually no. I am certain FPP and PV would not help that. SM might, because the threshold for a seat would be only around 3% compared to 5% today. STV I don’t believe would make any real difference to MMP on that front. However, I believe the advantages of STV, more generically, outweigh MMP enough to make it worthwhile of some attention.

Finally, what about the concern of coalitions vs one party government? Frankly I don't care that much. One party government can achieve good or bad, coalitions can as well. What matters is who gets elected. Yes MMP and STV both give the Greens a better chance than SM, PV and FPP, but they do the same to ACT and Libertarianz. I'm not sufficiently enamoured by the two big parties to want to trust them with one party government, besides would Helen Clark have acted any differently had she not been in coalition? I doubt it. So I'm going to say vote for change and vote for STV. If you want preferences, then an honourable second choice would be PV, as it would give constituents a bigger chance to remove MPs they don't like than either MMP or FPP. I'd rank SM in third place, as a way of reducing the threshold for small parties, though it also reduces their influence. Finally, I rank FPP last. I simply don't believe returning to two party politics would help advance freedom any more.

Refurbishment

It's been six years since I started blogging, and since I've been getting older, wiser and less angry, I decided it was time for a refresh.  So I've brightened it up and gone through my links and deleted the ones that don't work and relegated those that haven't been updated for ages.  I'm going to add some new ones and new categories, since I am now almost as much British as I am Kiwi. 

oh and in the meantime, it's time to get serious about the New Zealand election, because far too many don't realise that their little chance to have their say, can be an expression of what they really think, not just a choice between two devils.

ACT should push Brash for North Shore

I've said before that ACT under Don Brash could be very promising, but policies to date have been disappointing.

However, let's look at the bizarre spectacle the whole National-ACT scene is as of late.

ACT came from the Backbone Club, a branch of the Labour Party upset that Roger Douglas had been hounded to the boondocks, and had Douglas's book "Unfinished Business" as its bible.  Douglas proposed abolishing income tax, replacing it with GST and a host of compulsory insurance policies for pensions, health care and education.

ACT didn't have a natural leader, until Richard Prebble lost his seat in 1993 to radical Alliance MP Sandra Lee.  ACT by then had started attracting National Party interest after Jim Bolger unceremoniously knifed Ruth Richardson in the back (Bolger after all, having once been an acolyte of Muldoon).  As we fast forward to 2002, John Key entered Parliament at a time when National, under Bill English, had its worse ever election result.  Less than 21% of the vote, and only 27 seats.   Don Brash also entered Parliament at that election, as a list candidate and became Opposition Finance Spokesman.   Of course, just over a year after the appalling result in 2002, Brash went on to lead the National Party, remember that?  Suddenly, National had policies to cut taxes, to remove race as a factor in government and to reduce welfare dependency.   These policies helped rescue National by boosting the vote to 39%, yet most of that swing was from minor parties - by taking some policies from ACT and NZ First (and making the Nats electable so eviscerating United Future), Brash had moved National to have some policies of principle.

Yet a series of gaffes and the media obsession with Nicky Hager's belief that Brash should have told the Exclusive Brethren not to embark on a campaign that was anti-Green Party, saw him ultimately fall on his sword.  National then backtracked on abolishing the Maori seats, and started moving to the centre, whilst ACT had been reduced to a rump under Rodney Hide.

The 2008 election saw the Nats finally get the swing needed to be the largest party, and with confidence and supply agreements with the Maori Party and ACT - created a moderate centre-right government, by and large not touching most policies Labour had implemented.   ACT had done better than expected, but being in government would take its toll.

ACT started to implode for a number of reasons.  Rodney Hide no longer seemed to be the man fighting for less government and lower taxes, but the face of mega-local government in Auckland.  David Garrett proved to be a walking embarrassment and so Hide was rolled, for Brash.

So John Key and Don Brash, once Parliamentary colleagues, both leaders of the same party, now face an election fighting for the same votes.   However, why is John Banks there?   Who knows - especially with the possibility it will be only him or him and Don Brash forming the ACT caucus after the election...

Don Brash on the campaign launch said there were nine policy areas ACT is looking to work on, but does this look any better?

- Pass Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill and Regulatory Standards Bill - This would ensure government spending doesn't rise faster than GDP (and indeed would be slower) and help stymy growth in regulation.  Far better than nothing.
- Reduce government spending relative to the size of the economy to enable radical tax reduction, and a lower exchange rate - The simple point that National is spending more than Labour as a proportion of GDP should cause many National voters to think twice about ticking National for the Party vote.   Brash is suggesting company tax reduced to 12.5% and the top income tax rate to 25%.   Both would make a worthwhile difference to the economy.
- Radically reduce bureaucracy - Brash suggests radical reform to the RMA and Local Government Act, whereas National tinkered with the RMA and the Local Government Act wasn't touched.  He also mentioned amending the Bill of Rights Act to include private property rights "possibly".  Not really enough of a commitment for the Nats to care.
- End ETS - New Zealand rightfully shouldn't cripple itself to save the world, when so many others refuse to do so.   
- Give parents effective control over their children’s education - Bulk funding in effect, with more autonomy for state schools.   Still ridiculously limp wristed compared to Ruth Richardson's 1987 National election policy for education, which was essentially replicating Sweden's successful experiment in vouchers.   Let anyone set up a school and let parents take their taxes back and pay for that school.
-  Promote a multi-party consensus on changes to New Zealand Superannuation - The worst thing about a consensus is that the strongest thing that can usually be agreed is fairly weak.   This is virtually worthless, whereas while I did not agree with compulsory superannuation, it had the merit of granting property rights in a retirement income - something that doesn't exist now, and particularly disadvantages the heirs of those who die before retirement.
- Promote a safer, more secure, society - Supporting the right to self defence is important, and so should be seen as a positive move.
- Push for equal legal status for all New Zealanders, irrespective of race  - Enough said, it should be obvious, except of course to the Greens and Maori Party, who think this is racist.
- Re-establish a constructive relationship with Fiji - Sorry?  No.  This obvious pander to the local Fijian vote is absurd.

Yet while that looks mixed, Brash comes out with gems like this rural policy announcement saying "ACT will overhaul the RMA and reinstate the right for property owners to use their land as they see fit, subject to respecting the rights of others. "  Beautiful stuff for those of us who believe in property rights, but is it a case of the policy being right when Lindsay Perigo is drafting the press releases?

For me ACT should keep things simple. 

It should be about property rights - which means not only the RMA, but about businesses doing as they see fit, about lower taxes and about the right to self defence.

It should be about moving public services into the hands of consumers and suppliers.  So that people can take their taxpayer funding of education to new schools and educational institutions set up freely.  The same with healthcare and pensions.

It should be about personal rights.  That means property rights, but also recognising that people should feel free to live their lives as they see fit,  and that less government promotes more personal responsibility.  It also means treating laws on personal matters, like drug use, tobacco and alcohol, as being up to adults.   ACT should, at least, support medicinal use of cannabis, and taking a radical look at drug laws and whether they are working.

Finally it should be one law for all.  That does not mean denying people national identity, or acknowledging Maori as indigenous people, but it does mean the state is colourblind. 

ACT is relying on John Banks, a man who I don't believe has any real belief in any of those concepts.   It should rely on Don Brash.

Don Brash is standing in North Shore, against no other than Maggie Barry.   It doesn't take two seconds to figure out which of those two is the one with intellect and the one to be more effective for North Shore. 

ACT should be pushing Brash for North Shore.  With Wayne Mapp's retirement, North Shore would be far better represented by a man who would be Party Leader and also be elected in his own right as an MP - by Don Brash.

Then ACT wouldn't be relying on John Banks.

Forget nine points, stick to four:
- It's your life
- It's your property
- One law for all
- Services for the public, not the public service.

and Brash for North Shore. 

It's too late to remove Banks and it would look awful to do so at this stage, but the show should be the Don Brash show.   Besides, does New Zealand need someone in Parliament whose main contribution in recent years has been to warm the hearts of pensioners who like gardening?

The failings of unconstrained liberal democracy

There is literally no excuse for newspapers and news broadcasters not to be filled to the brim with substantive global news.  However, as there is always trivia about celebrities, sports and the fetish for disaster porn, these will always come first, yet 2011 is becoming one of those years that may go down in history as marking a turning point.   It is a time when critical decisions are needed by elected politicians, most of whom are not really up to the job.   The difficulty comes from the nature of liberal democracy.

It takes a certain type of person to stand for elected office.  At best they are well educated, have benign intent (in their eyes), are willing to take advice, and will carefully weigh up the options before choosing policies that appear to generate more good than harm.   In fact, that's what voters by and large expect.

What people get is something else.  Despite the ravings of tabloid media and talkback radio, political office in and of itself doesn't pay well for the hours that politicians are expected to put in.  That is, if you're professional or entrepreneurial.  However, if you're Georgina Beyer, Ken Livingstone, Alamein Kopu, George Osborne, Jack Elder, Diane Abbott, Danny Alexander or Jami-Lee Ross (yes go read up on them to see what genius is behind them), then this is the pinnacle.  You're unlikely to be earning that much doing anything else.  If you want more, you need to be at best planning your future career (consider Simon Power), or to be corrupt.

Your first and biggest concern as a politician is getting elected, which means telling people what you think they want to hear.  It is an exercise in marketing, and to be fair most voters are either loyal customers of a single party (and so uninterested in results, but act tribally), or make the decision based on hunches and feelings, or single policies that tap their emotions.   The number of voters who thing of the long term, and use any combination of economic or scientific analysis (even flawed) to decide who to vote for is insignificant, and engaging with those who do, one on one, is a waste of any politician's time.   Avoiding conflict and avoiding difficult decisions is what they do, because to do so means upsetting people, and those are people you need for support.  

The Eurozone crisis is entirely because of that factor.  Politicians in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and other European countries promised voters a lot of "free" things, whether it be healthcare, education, pensions, welfare, housing, or at least lots of cheap things.  They offered more, year in year out, they promised more, spent more money, didn't ask for it in taxes, and simply borrowed.  There were banks that were willing to loan because it was governments borrowing - Eurozone governments - the risk was perceived to be minimal, so they ignored it.

The politicians offered something for nothing, the voters took it and the bankers loaned to the politicians, in a cycle of delusion that is now breaking apart - because the bankers have finally figured it out.

It isn't confined to the Eurozone either.  The US is finally facing the same hiccup, the UK became close to it, all because for year in year out, governments overspent.

Some on the left will glibly blame it all on "capitalism" and "the banks".   Uncontrolled growth in government spending is about as capitalist as Che Guevara.  The blame banks get is for lending to governments in the first place, although you can be sure if they did not, that they'd be blamed for being "obstructive" and not "socially minded", although there are quite a few countries that find it difficult to borrow on international markets.

Certainly the bank bailouts tipped many government finances over the edge in terms of sheer debt load, particularly Ireland.   However, the counter-factual is rarely argued.  If banks were not bailed out, and they were allowed to collapse, and people faced their businesses, properties and deposits being lost, then would that have been preferable?  I'd argue that yes, there should have been a process for the orderly collapse of banks.  However, neither Bush nor Obama, nor Brown, nor Sarkozy nor Merkel, wanted to contemplate that.   

The arguments about debt claim it is all about the banks, but a cursory look at public debt before the financial crisis shows that is simply untrue.  Greece, Italy, the UK and the United States all had growing public debt burdens, the bank bailouts made it worse, but had the public finances for any of those countries been in a far better state - the current crisis would simply not exist.

So now there is the spectre of Western European governments asking a one-party state - the People's Republic of China - to "invest" in lending to their spendthrift governments.   The idea that the Communist Party of China (which, by the way, runs an economy that has a smaller state sector than most Western countries) will take lessons or instructions that suggest liberal democracy has anything to teach it, is laughable.

The one lesson unconstrained liberal democracy is teaching the rest of the world is that in democracies voters are short term thinkers, politicians are driven by popularity and placating whatever rent seekers are the loudest - and the result is the same as if you had a teenager with a credit card seeking to be popular with his or her friends. 

In other words, Europe and the United States are telling the dictatorships in China, Russia, the Middle East, Asia and Africa that their way, is the path to economic ruin. 

Even those who were elected on the basis of dealing with this are largely impotent for they face the opposition from the rent seekers who benefit from the borrowing state.   The Tea Party Republicans in the US who were voted in on a platform of smaller government and less tax, are finding it rather difficult to cut spending.

The political landscape of liberal democracies has evolved to be dominated by the middle ground, that which Tony Blair called "the third way", or which Bill Clinton embraced.  It is naturally "conservative" in that it isn't dominated by radical reform, but is fundamentally corporatist.  It tinkers with the free market, meddles with business, regulates and taxes and tries to manipulate the economy, whilst maintaining a dominant public sector role in areas such as education, health and retirement incomes.  It is neither old left, nor free market "right".   It did require economic growth to keep tax revenues up to sustain budget deficits, and for the Eurozone, for cheap credit to remain on tap, forever.  The brief interlude of budget surpluses in the US in the late 1990s were quickly eaten up by the post 9/11 hit to economic growth, and then devoured as Bush spent up on wars, and everything else as well!

The problem with this model is that it was incapable of responding to the financial crisis, which it begat because at the heart of this model was belief that centrally managed fiat banking could deal to "boom and bust", and because in the US the tinkering was on a grand scale with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the state owned mortgage guarantor, whilst banks were required to lend to those who would not otherwise be able to borrow.   When this corporatist approach unwound because of the property bubble IT begat, and banks faced collapse, the "middle way" suddenly bolted to the left.  Bureaucrats and politicians decided doing something was necessary, so they printed and borrowed. 

The choice was to be Keynesian - or not.  To be Keynesian, was to spend borrowed money and print some more, in the hope it could generate economic growth.  The problem was that public debt in a few countries looked so large, that banks, who had been warned about being profligate (and faced considerable new rules on the amount of leverage they could have), could see enormous risk, particularly in parts of the Eurozone, but also the US and the UK.

Now in the Eurozone reality is hitting home.  The Greek government needs to either cut spending by around 20%, or hike taxes by the same amount or some combination of either to avoid a crisis.  It is unable to do so, because Greek taxpayers are fed up.  Half of them are rent seekers who have been enjoying bank subsidised jobs and benefits, the rest are tax avoiders who don't want to pay for the rent seekers.  Italy is little different.  The German government faces telling German taxpayers to pay more because the Greeks and Italians have been living on borrowed money and they wont pay it back.

There no longer is a middle way.   Either governments live within their means, cutting back or raising taxes, or other governments bail them out.

It is either less government, more free markets and more of people paying for what they use.

Or it is more government, more transfers from those who are productive (in this case Germans, but also Austrians, as well as Dutch, Finnish and French people), to those who are not. 

Merkel and Sarkozy are looking for a middle way, of the banks that loaned to Greece and Italy taking a big hit, of Greek and Italian taxpayers getting less for more, and for German and French taxpayers to save their own banks.  Yet even this wont wash.  Obama also can't find a middle way, because he can't convince enough Americans to pay more tax, while he is unwilling to cut spending on anywhere remotely near the scale he needs to.

For the period from 1989 to 2011, it could reasonably be argued that mixed economy liberal democracies had "won" the battle of ideas, both in terms of economics, but also socially.   The moral and economic bankruptcy of "actually existing socialism" was obvious,  China and Vietnam already knew the economic bankruptcy of it and had started to change.   The moral dimension of freedom vs. dictatorship had won, at the time.  However, since then, it has been challenged.

Russia has seen some measure of economic success, coinciding with authoritarianism, as it has ridden on a wave of community price booms for energy.  China has gone from strength to strength to be the second largest economy in the world.  Meanwhile, Western Europe has been sclerotic, and the US, following the bubble of productivity and innovation arising from IT and telecommunications, is looking like it did in the 1970s - morose and stagnant.

The trend towards more personal freedom continues.  The Arab Spring is, in one part, about that, as people throw off the shackles of dictatorships, although whether they elect their new shackles is a moot point.  China too, is experiencing freedom of speech and debate unseen in over 60 years, although there are still lines that are dangerous for citizens to cross.

However, on economics, mixed "third way" economies are now seen to be wanting.   It is, in part, due to fiat banking (the inflationary bubble created by printing money is only starting now to apper), but is moreso due to politicians being incapable of being fiscally prudent.   In the US the debate is becoming one about whether Americans want a smaller government, with lower taxes, but less benefits/subsidies, or a bigger government, with higher taxes (for a few), more like Europe.  At least there, the debate is being opened up.  In Europe, the debate is yet to be entered into, but the far-left and far-right are starting to sound off where they want it to be.  The far left want to squeeze business and run big governments, the far-right want to reassert national sovereignty and not pay for bankrupt foreign economies.

The centre is floundering about wanting a "solution", but given their philosophical base is neither to increase taxes, nor dramatically shrink the state - they have no clear answer to fiscal profligacy.  Their bumbling attempt to discuss a financial transactions' tax being inept, and largely pandering to the far-left desire for blood, theft and destruction of the financial sector.

You see, it comes down to politicians.  Most do not understand economics, let alone finance.  A TV journalist some months ago asked a cross section of UK MPs what the difference is between the deficit and debt, and many had no clue.  Why would anyone trust any of them to spend your money or borrow in your name?

They do not know what they are doing, and the voters do not understand what is going on, and will vote based on short term imperatives rather than long term ones.

In other words, liberal democracies can't find an answer because they are inherently incapable of making difficult decisions that must be made.

In this climate, is it any wonder that China is looking on to see the eclipse of the West and the slow withdrawal of Pax Americana from the world, as Obama withdraws from Iraq, seeks withdrawal from Afghanistan, plays a back seat role in Libya, and seems ready to leave the world to others, whilst seeking to follow the European example on economics.

The only way this will be confronted is if voters decide they will no longer expect politicians to deliver them answers, but that government should stick to what it is good at, and do less, and tax less.

The alternative is what the "Occupy" lot incoherently seem to want, which is more government, more taxes on those they don't like, to confiscate property and bugger the consequences.

You see the approach being taken now, of spending a little less and taxing a little more, doesn't deliver an environment for economic growth and more jobs, nor does it meet the demands for blood and money that the far-left are bullying for, because it maintains the corporatist state - that borrows and taxes to give privilege to some.

Meanwhile, figure out for yourself who represents what view in the New Zealand elections and in mainstream politics everywhere else.  Good luck at finding those who aren't of the middle ground or the grow the government mob, or indeed journalists who can understand it at all.

Fear unbridled government? The answer isn't a coalition

When Geoffrey Palmer wrote "Unbridled Power" his concern was primarily about the lack of constitutional limits on government in New Zealand, and how Cabinet would dominate single party government which itself would almost always dominate Parliament.   Jonathan Milne has taken the latter tack in his latest article in the NZ Herald.  His hypothesis is that small parties will do badly this election, and that there is a real chance of something "dreadful" - one party government.

Of course he might think he looks like he is making a rather generic point about the advantages of coalitions and minority governments compared to single party majority government.   Yet he hardly hides his colours at all.  He doesn't pick on Rob Muldoon "banning inflation", spending billions on Think Big and bribing voters with national superannuation, he doesn't pick on Norman Kirk for creating big government businesses, expanding the welfare state and greatly expanding subsidies for government trading departments.  He wouldn't.  You see he isn't exactly an economist, or a historian or a political scientist, he's a leftwing reporter.  What other explanation is there for this comment:

The controversial free market reforms of the Rogernomics era were pushed through by the all-powerful fourth Labour Government without warning or by-your-leave. Similarly, there were few fetters on the National Government when Ruth Richardson presented her slash-and-burn Mother of All Budgets. No presidential veto, no senate or upper house sitting in oversight, and no small coalition partners to soften the hard edges of these governments.

All governments are "controversial", but you'd only say that if you thought that.  Except Jonathan is naive.  In 1987 Labour asked for a mandate to continue the reforms, got one and continued.   "Softening the hard edges" is the sort of comment one would only make if you disapprove, and those who disapproved were Jim Anderton and Winston Peters, and their bands of socialist, nationalist and xenophobic state worshippers they founded.

I opposed MMP in 1993 primarily because I had seen the previous two governments implement the most politically courageous policies in modern history.   Governments that cut subsidies, cut public spending, including cutting benefits.  They restructured government departments, made thousands redundant and privatised in the face of venal xenophobic hysteria.  Farmers, state sector workers, beneficiaries, pensioners and unemployed people were unhappy at the time, not a state of affairs most political parties are keen to promote if they want to be re-elected.  Contrast that era to the smile and wave of John Key, and Helen Clark's middle class welfare, and cash thrown at various interest groups (and craven acceptance of support from Winston Peters).

Even at the time of the 1984-1993 governments, the "hard edges" had plenty going the other way.  The fourth Labour Government opened up the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process, created bureaucracies for conservation, the environment, womens' affairs, youth affairs, Pacific Island affairs, and sowed the seeds for the Bolger government to pass the RMA.  Foreign policy saw New Zealand effectively step away from being aligned with the United States in the Cold War.   Education and health care remained firmly within the grip of the state sector and the rent seeking unions that dominated them. 

For Jonathan, stopping governments doing all they want is a good thing.  Which of course would be all very well, if what they wanted to do is more.  However, Jonathan's opposition to single party government is not that, indeed he rejects it because of history when governments were deliberately pulling back from spending money they didn't have, and telling people what to do.

He showed a childish thrill to think of the Greens and National working together on transport policy - because two conflicting ideologies must produce the best results.   He mentions NZ First, ACT,  Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne and the Maori Party, as if he misses them having influence (remember the positive influence of NZ First after 1996?).

Somehow he links Brian Tamaki to Peter Dunne, and then concludes while the Greens might not be good on "roading policy", one party government is "far worse", and his only evidence is the reforms of the 80s and early 90s.   That's just being rather vacuous.

Frankly, if either National or Labour were committed to privatisation, commercialisation, cutting government spending and winding back the state, I'd say bring on one party government.  However a Labour-Green-Maori-Mana government would be a four headed hydra of disaster, which would easily spook foreign investors and send more aspiring New Zealanders abroad. 

Unfortunately Jonathan hasn't really bothered to check what the two main parties have on offer.  National is hardly driven by a desire to engage in major reforms, it is instinctively conservative.  Labour is hardly seeking to engage in radical reforms, although is at least masochistically more interesting than National.

So no Jonathan, one party government after this election wont be perilous or dreadful, it will be "meet your new boss, same as old boss".  Politicians wanting to boss people around, spend their money while saying "it's good for you".  The only difference with a coalition is that the flavour changes.  Maybe if National needed ACT, and ACT gained 10 seats, there might be something more radical - presumably that's when Jonathan gets upset because that's not what he meant.  You see to him, like so many reporters in New Zealand, government should be there to fix problems, not get out of the way.

So you're having an election

Get a feeling it is a little like 2002?

Elections in New Zealand haven't been the same since 1996 when MMP meant that "winning" wasn't all it used to be.  However, sadly, neither the media nor the public have fully got to grips with it.  The simple truth is that it is extremely unlikely that National will get to govern alone, just as it was the same for Labour in 2002.  

A cycle has commenced.  In 1999, 2002 and 2005 Labour cobbled together coalitions, in 2008 National did, and it will likely do so again.  However, it cannot be guaranteed.  You see after one term, with a media essentially presuming a simple result, voters get complacent.

National will desperately want to ensure it gets a good turnout, for it will fear a low turnout will mean things are far closer than usual.  Bear in mind MMP means that it is getting party vote out that counts, and that means all electorates.  The flipside is that Labour will also be seeking a turnout, when it knows most assume it cannot win.

Yet it isn't quite as simple as that.  2002 is an object lesson for the two main parties, because it saw a significant shift in votes.

In 2002, Labour saw polling say it might win an absolute majority, yet it gained only a small swing of 2.5% in its favour, primarily because it gained at the expense of the Alliance.   National was decimated.

One interpretation of what happened was that support for the government, which had been slim, shifted around a bit, from the Alliance to Labour and the Greens.  There isn't quite the same parallel for National.  The Maori Party isn't a natural ally, and ACT is more likely to face fear of oblivion seeing its support go to National.

In 2002, the decimation of National was due to an assessment by many of its supporters that it had no chance, so they voted for United Future to give Labour a tolerable coalition partner.  This time, it is Labour that may be seen as having little chance, but Labour supporters aren't going to back Peter Dunne the same way (why would they? he is back to being a one man band), unless he gets some lucky media traction.

Some Labour supporters may choose to vote Green for the same reason ACT did better in 1999 and 2002, because they prefer a more principled opposition. 

This time round there is another dynamic - the Maori seats.

Mana Maori is making them a three horse race, and my pick is that it benefits National. 

You see, Mana Maori is more likely to take votes from the Maori Party than Labour.  Odds are this will not see Mana Maori pick up seats besides Hone's one, but could decimate the Maori Party.  It could eliminate the Maori Party overhang (but create a one seat one for Mana Maori), which can only benefit National.  Moreover, if Labour has a clean sweep of the Maori seats, the overhang is gone, but it only takes seats away from Labour's list allocation.  It can only be good for National.

Except of course, if ACT doesn't get Epsom or North Shore, and National is just short of 60, and Peter Dunne isn't enough.

National is playing its traditional game, being the classic "do next to nothing" party that saw it win most elections since the war.   It impresses the masses who like the smile and wave.  Labour will get out its core vote of public servants, low level aspirational control freaks, beneficiaries and some of the working classes.   What's left is who votes for the other parties.

The Greens have the clearest consistent brand for those who want someone else to do the thinking for them, or at least the emotive neo-Marxist posturing.  It's the party for people who believe the end is nigh, but also those who think they know best for other people.  The classic authoritarian party.

ACT is on its last legs, on life support, but still offers - just - a more "National than National" party with policies that are closer to National's own principles.

The Maori Party has shed its most racist, Marxist, pro-violence wing in the form of the Mana Maori Party.  However, will it have satisfied its supporters?  Has it handed them enough in coalition?

Beyond that, we are saying bye bye to Jim Anderton's personality cult party as he retires, and Winston Peters is having another go at attracting malcontents, but most of his past voters have passed away.   Peter Dunne faces his repeated challenge from two sides, and the only minor parties that remain outside that which have survived are the Alliance retards, Libertarianz and the ALCP.

Of that lot, only three parties offer any hope of less government.  ACT has a leader who talks the talk, and policies that mostly face the right way.  Libertarianz is consistently pro-freedom, with a nicely refreshed lineup, and ALCP maintains its single policy.

I hope to do a bit of a quick review of the main people on the party lists and the electorates, if the psephologist in me gets the time.

Greece is to collapse under the weight of its own reality evasion

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreao's decision to hold a referendum on the "bailout" plan agreed with other Eurozone countries has sealed the final act for Greece's democratic socialist attempt to live a life that it wasn't willing to pay for, and should serve as a warning for the economic catastrophe that the Euro project has become.

Let's recap what happened.

Since Greece became a liberal democracy in the 1970s, it has run policies that could broadly be called "democratic socialism".  A typical right/left democracy saw little difference between policies, but the Communist Party consistently would come third.  Progressively more generous welfare policies and a growing public sector, combined with a lackadaisical approach to tax collection, and feather bedding the armed forces.  Meanwhile, the Drachma devalued again and again.

Greece joined the EEC in 1981 and the money came rolling in.  As the poorest Member State it gained funding to build infrastructure, generous agricultural subsidies and access to markets in Western Europe.  The typical EU type deal was made.  Greece gained new markets for its goods and services, grew tourism and attracted investment, whilst the money flowed in from Brussels to prop up a burgeoning public sector, inefficient state companies (Olympic Airways being one of the perpetually near bankrupt ones). 

The delusion worked for a while, and then Greece got the next offer - get a Western European currency.  The Euro.  Greek governments lied their way into the Euro, not really having a 3% budget deficit (hiding defence and hospital spending) at all.  So out went the Drachma, and Greece borrowed - more and more.  Borrowing for the Olympics in 2004, and this time credit flowed freely.   The Euro was being loaned out at interest rates reflecting the economic environment of the dominant Euro Member States - Germany and France.  So Greece was receiving credit not on the basis of running large budget deficit and public debt approaching 100% of GDP, but rather running low budget deficits with a reformed economy - like Germany.

Greek government kept getting elected, by Greek voters, to give them their pork, at little cost to them.  Ridiculously generous pensions, a public sector where nobody could legally be fired under the constitution, a bloated armed forces that had not changed since the Cold War (nor since Bulgaria became an EU Member State rather than the front line of the Red Army), and a tax system that was a bit of a joke, saw Greece slip slide its way to bankruptcy, as banks in France, Germany and to a lesser extent Britain and elsewhere, lent to the Greek government believing all was well - because it was the Euro.  A currency those banks believed would be government guaranteed.

They didn't factor on a Eurozone government going under.

Greece is to all intents and purposes, bankrupt.  Its austerity programme of cutting spending and increasing taxes only slices off some of the overspending.  It cuts the budget deficit NOT the debt.  Think of it as you being on the brink of being personally bankrupt and you've managed to cut your spending to be only 5% higher than your income rather than 10%.  You still need to borrow.

So who is to blame?  Well, quite a few.  Greek voters, Greek politicians, Eurozone governments, the European Commission and Greece's creditors all carry some blame.

Greek voters

If you believe in liberal representative democracy, then Greek voters are to blame.  They voted for politicians who gave them public spending that was unaffordable.   They didn't support politicians who believed in containing the size of government or even increasing taxes to pay for their socialist state.   They benefited from the loans taken out in their name, they happily evaded taxes, but they didn't evade taking advantage of the money spent by their government.   Now they are unhappy about facing reality - the reality that they have been living beyond their means, or at least, supporting governments that have been doing so.   For so many they need only look in the mirror to find who to blame.

Greek governments

Many Greek voters and citizens obviously did not support the government, and were not public servants or major users of the profligate Greek state.  They can rightfully blame Greek politicians for lying.  Lying to join the Eurozone, lying about the state of the books and engaging in massive reality evasion at elections.   It is telling how so few Greeks are pointing fingers at past Prime Ministers and Finance Ministers for their combined failure to confront the public finances, and most of all in colluding with the state sector to lie - and I do mean lie - about the budget deficit to join the Euro.   That big lie is now costing lives and livelihoods.   Greek citizens should be baying for the blood of these lowlifes - lowlifes who now live off the back of generous political pensions.   Greek politicians didn't just evade reality, they denied it and covered it up - for shame.

Eurozone governments

Greek governments would not have been facilitated down this path had Eurozone governments not allowed it to happen.   They could have shown greater due diligence with Euro membership, but the Euro is a political project, driven by France, accepted by Germany, to bring European economies together.  It is not an economics project, but one driven by hubris, pushed by people sharing a democratic socialist vision of the EU being a fortress of common laws, taxes and generous business and personal welfare states.   They wanted it to be central to EU membership, and France itself has almost always failed to meet the Eurozone membership test itself, of a budget deficit no greater than 3% of GDP.   They supported lending to Greece, supported Greece's fiscal profligacy (given their own) and engaged in their own wilful blindness of both Greece and their own failures to meet their own disciplines.   Reality ignored

European Commission

The EC got Greece hooked on the corporate and state welfare of its subsidy programmes and cohesion fund.  It supported Greece's growth of the state and addiction to the European project as part of its political culture.  The EC is adept at covering up its own embarrassments and at pretending things are what they are not.  The EC wont admit failure, wont admit the inherent immorality of its project of transferring wealth from the earned to the unearned, and of power from Member States to the unelected Council and Commission.   The European Central Bank is, of course, central to this.

Greek creditors

The banks that loaned to Greece believed they were lending to a watertight debtor.  They believed German, French, Dutch and other Eurozone taxpayers would cough up, if anything went wrong.  They facilitated Greece's overspending and expected to make money out of making taxpayers pay up - whether they be Greek, or other Europeans.  They pretended governments couldn't go bankrupt, the "bailout" deal is based on them swallowing a 50% write off of the debt borrowed to date.

What now?

The bailout is doomed, quite simply because Greece is still overspending, its economy is on its knees and the banks that have loaned to Greece will be forced to face a larger than 50% cut in their loans.   It isn't enough and can't be enough.  France and Germany are pretending they can fool the markets into having confidence, through the construction of complicated derivative lending instruments, akin to those blamed for hiding risk before the financial crisis of 2008.   

However, the collapse will come from the referendum on the bailout.

If Greek voters choose yes, they face short and medium term pain, in the form of a vastly smaller state and longer term pain, by being hooked to the Euro.   They could take a bitter pill of reducing their failed democratic socialist state and become a reformed, free market economy that is competitive, following the reforms of its northern neighbours (e.g Bulgaria).   However, I wouldn't count on it.

If they choose no, as it widely expected, then Greece will default.  It will be unable to borrow, the government will effectively shut down many activities, and is likely to be forced out of the Eurozone, meaning it will have to either create its own junk currency, or operate in Euros independent of the European Central Bank.  The price of that will be severe in the short term.  Any Greek resident who isn't moving their money into a foreign bank in Euros is gambling, because Greek banks will collapse.  Greece will face an Argentine style default so will have no budget deficits after that, but then it could reawake and be revitalised.

The Greece experiment in profligate democratic socialism will have been dumped - and eyes will be on the Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Belgian and French varieties.

Oh and despite the vapid plaintiff words of some protestors, most of the blame for all of this lies not with the private sector but the political classes, and ultimately, the majority of voters.

The Eurozone crisis is not a crisis of capitalism - it is the dying gasps of a grand project of democratic socialism, and the first - weakest - branch of that tree is about to fall off.