Liberty Scott

It's a victory!

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 11:45:00 +0000

In July 1953, then Premier of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kim Il Sung, declared victory in the Great Fatherland Liberation War (the "Korean War" to the rest of us). This was a war he started in 1950 (although he claimed the US started it), and had a clear purpose, which was to obliterate the Republic of Korea (south Korea) and unify the country under his communist rule.

This was after over 200,000 military deaths and the death of over 1 million north Korean civilians (and likely over 200,000 Chinese deaths, as Mao intervened to deter the US attacking China), and the net loss of 3,900 square km territory. However, Kim Il Sung treated it as a victory and the Kim dynasty has done ever since.

Sure it lied about why the war started, and it is logically impossible to think that the war was any sort of victory for the north, but at least the Kims have an excuse - they are part of a psychopathic totalitarian dynasty clinging to power.

Trump doesn't have that.

Sure, 90% of the Iranian Navy has been destroyed, but it is clearly fully capable of attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz, using small boats, coastal based cruise missiles and drones. The US and Israel have obviously not destroyed that capability.

Sure, most of the Iranian airforce has been destroyed, and its ballistic missile capability has been badly damaged, but it isn't over. Perhaps its nuclear programme is completely, or mostly destroyed, but its motivation to have a nuclear programme will not have abated, indeed quite the opposite.

After all, Kim Il Sung himself also knew that once the Soviet Union collapsed, the only security guarantee the regime in Pyongyang could rely upon is having its own nuclear weapons. That has been proven, as there is little real chance of the US engaging in a first strike against north Korea, because the risk of nuclear retaliation, whether to the south or to Japan or beyond, is very real.

The Iranian regime has been weakened, it has lost leaders, but it has not loss control of the borders, the mass media or the instruments of domestic repression. It has not been destroyed, but it has been battle hardened and has - rightfully - claimed victory. Victory against the United States is defined as survival. It is not a victory Saddam Hussein could claim, as the Iraqi Government fell completely. It is not a victory Muammar Gaddafi could claim either (although the regime of Nicholas Maduro is - largely - intact without him).

Trump's claim of victory isn't quite as hollow as Kim Il Sung's, but at best he has diminished and deferred the ability of the Islamist regime to project its terror abroad, and only moderately diminished its capability to project terror domestically.

If the regime remains, it will be more hardline, more focused on advancing terror abroad, including targeting the US, Israel and liberal democracies globally.

I bet the Cuban regime isn't that worried anymore.

TACO indeed.

What's the role of government in an energy crisis?

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 07:35:00 +0000

For all of the fatuous claims of those who think fossil fuel use should be ended "as soon as possible", we can all see that the world values them, not just to power transport, and provide base-load energy generation in many countries, but to provide the essential materials for a vast range of industrial and consumer goods. Notwithstanding the nonsensical claims by the likes of Greta Thunberg and de-growth multinationals like Greenpeace, oil use continues to grow worldwide according to the International Energy Agency. Half of that growth comes from aviation and chemical feedstocks - in other words the use of oil as an input into the manufacturing of everything from pharmaceuticals to pipes to electrical insulation to asphalt and paint.

Yes there is some substitutability around energy in some sectors. Most obviously in electricity generation, although no single alternative to oil or coal is "ideal". Hydro-electricity is geographically dependent, nuclear is difficult primarily due to extremely high capital costs and public opposition, and solar/wind power is intermittent (and storage remains expensive).

In transport there have been huge leaps ahead in technology for light road vehicle, and medium weight trucks and buses doing short to medium haul trips are increasingly electric as well. However, it is going to be some years before long haul heavy trucks (and coaches) will go electric.

Aviation isn't moving from petroleum for some time, although hope it being seen in biofuels, that has its own issues. Shipping likewise, which mostly uses heavy fuel oil, is also not moving away from petroleum. What many activists ignore is that most transport, certainly commercially provided transport, is only too aware of the importance of minimising fuel costs. Conventional engines have never been more fuel efficient, and that is driven by market factors more than anything. Airlines, shipping companies, trucking companies all want to save on costs, because most of what they do is motivated by profit.

Private individuals less so because they trade off high capital expenditure vs. lower operating costs, and many don't have much capital to spend on cars, but the incentives are there. As someone once said, the stone age didn't end because of a lack of stones. Similarly railways did not move from steam locomotives because coal (and fuel oil) were scarce, but because technology made diesel and electric traction more cost effective.

Outside transport, and outside the wishes of planners hoping people will trade off time and comfort to use public transport and active modes more (which will happen anyway due to cost), the big consumers of fossil fuels are in agriculture, industry and manufacturing, and much of that isn't changing soon.

So what SHOULD government do when petroleum gets more scarce and more expensive?

1. Not meddle with prices. Higher prices ensure more supply and encourage more supply. When people face the real price of energy they will take steps to conserve or change energy sources, and trade off whether they think it is a short or a long term saving they get from switching. The idea that politicians or bureaucrats have any clue as to what best meets the needs of everyone using petroleum products now is simply absurd. High prices are already encouraging people to shift modes of transport, to drive less and consider what their next vehicle's fuel consumption is. Let that work, and don't listen to the excitable planners who think more needs to be done. A majority of the costs of urban public transport are already predominantly paid for through motoring taxes and rates, as it is already "being encouraged" with fares well below cost. It doesn't need to be more.

2. Don't get in the way of exploring for more energy. The Ardern Government's ban on new oil and gas exploration was always an act of virtue signalling to fly a vacuous flag around climate change to the world, even though the impact of no more exploration on climate change is nil. The even more preposterous argument that "there isn't any more to discover" makes it more ridiculous, because there is no need to ban something that wouldn't happen anyway. Norway has the world's highest takeup of electric vehicles (96% of new light vehicle sales are EVs) and it is the world's seventh largest exporter of petroleum and gas (and there is bipartisan consensus about expanding it).

3. That means all energy. Whether it be wind power, solar power, nuclear power, tidal or coal, government should get out of the way. There are negative externalities with some options, but these should be treated as property rights issues. Pollution is an escape over property boundaries and permission should be obtained from owners of such property if pollution represents anything from nuisance level onwards. There should be minimal restrictions on installing solar panels, wind turbines or damning waterways if you own them, and the replacement of the RMA should enable this. It also means that electricity generators should also be able to plan for future supply.

4. Maintain constructive foreign and defence relations with allies: Freedom of navigation is critical to survival for New Zealand. That means defence matters, including the alliance with Australia in particular, but also other like-minded liberal democracies. Yes that includes the United States, Japan, south Korea and Singapore. It means that there should be a blue water navy and an air force that is a credible contribution to collective defence of sea lanes. It doesn't mean having to go along with every military action by allies, but it does mean contributing to the defence of allies, and having clear lines about what matters in the national interest.

5. Maintain a minimum critical reserve of supply: The International Energy Agency recommends member states keep reserves worth 90 days of supply. This isn't "free" to do, but should be considered a core part of national defence. Without such supply, significant parts of the economy and the public would be in danger.

6. Sell off your ownership in gentailers: As clever as it seemed for the Key Government to sell 49% of three electricity gentailers, it doesn't go far enough. For these generators to build more supply they need more capital, and it shouldn't be constrained by governments having to put their own capital into the three SOEs. Government should state that, at the very least, it is relaxed about becoming a minority shareholder, or better yet just hand over the shares to the general public for it to do with as it pleases. They can sell them or hold onto them. Before that happens, it should break them up. Generation and wholesaling electricity should be separated from retail, so the retail market can thrive. I don't mean the private gentailers like Contact, just the majority state owned ones. That will stir up the market and encourage investment in capacity, which is just what is needed as more choose electricity over gas and petrol.

I'm old enough to remember how the National Party's greatest conservative socialist, Muldoon, tried to centrally plan New Zealand away from the volatility of oil prices, and lumbered the country with billions in debt for inefficient pet projects. From the Motunui gas to gasoline plant, to the North Island Main Trunk electrification, many Think Big projects were an economic disaster because officials assumed oil prices would remain high perpetually, which was not to be the case.

The Muldoon government subsidised CNG and LPG conversions for vehicles, and subsidised the roll out of CNG and LPG refuelling at service stations across the country, and by the mid 1980s the growth in demand in CNG and LPG had collapsed. It also indirectly subsidised road use by such vehicles, as fuel duty on CNG and LPG was (and still is!) significantly lower than that for petrol.

In a few months, the US-Iran war will be over and the crisis in fuel prices will have ameliorated, and despite the eager calls by central planners, the best government can do is to

The climaxes of those who absolutely love expensive and scarce oil

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 11:43:00 +0000

There are people absolutely loving the price of fuel going up and eager for there to be fossil fuel shortages. It’s getting them terribly agitated, in a quasi-sadistic scolding way. “Told them so” said one, “those car fascists are going to pay” said one politician, “if only there were cycleways, the teachers and nurses would use them to get to work” said an earnest unionist. “It’s ironic that the white supremacist genocidal Zionists are helping up” said keffiyeh wearing angry woman.

It started online of course, chatting together getting all excited. “Shortages will show them we were right all along, public transport is better, that’s why we need to tax people more to make it free” said the urban planner. “The people, well I mean they aren’t really human are they, that own Ford Rangers or RAM are going to feel it bad, and they’ll realise how uncool and hate filled such vehicles are” shouted the Greenpeace staffer. “Child murderers!” cried out the neurodiverse kindness campaigners. “They’re not all ACT or Winston supporting straight white men who don’t have degrees though right?” said the elder gentleman who once marched against apartheid”. “No, but 90% of them are” said the suspicious purple haired non-binary student. The university lecturer noted “Look this will expose the far-right white supremacist Zionist Trumpist terror supporters to the mass of good people who support a powerful exemplar of decolonising resistance”, before the photographer yawned and said “steady on now, we need to be practical if we are to free people from the car addiction they don’t want.

A failed list candidate said “Great, even though the climate destroying far-right scum are in power, it’s election year and can get The People on our side. We can finally show people how wonderful it is to share journeys with others on public transport, or enjoy being with nature in a cycleway”. A sick, sniffing one said “and it doesn’t matter about the Nazi Ranger drivers, all we need is for the Greens to give Labour enough of a boost to kick out Peters and Seymour”.

I might jest, but they really are almost tumescent in their excitement.

This is the chance, the central planners can take more taxes, they can impose new rules, they can spend more of your money and direct the poor “addicted” car users to the more enlightened future of more public transport use, more cycling, more walking and of course freight should go by rail. Not having convinced enough people that abandoning driving was necessary to save the planet, they think they can convince people that it is for their own good to abandon their transport choices.

What do they want? You don’t even need to ask it’s all pretty clear:

• Make driving less attractive. Slower speed limits, remove general traffic lanes, remove parking, tax cars more.

• Tax you more (now or later) to subsidise public transport even more with cheaper fares, despite demand being up and the cost of providing services going up as well.

• Tax you more to subsidise rail freight, because businesses that use it already need a helping hand from… you.

• Tax you more to subsidise people who can afford to buy new cars to buy EVs, and for other people to buy e-bikes.

Lunatic fringe academic Timothy Welch is one of these people . He’s a senior lecturer in urban planning, which of course is something we need much less of. He gets republished by leftwing media because he plays to its unconscious bias, as he really knows little about the commercial side of the transport sector and is keen to selectively quote data as facts to support his own point of view. His claims are mostly value judgment nonsense.

His latest piece of polemic sees him supporting taxing buyers of petrol vehicles to subsidise buyers of EVs (it wasn't long ago he was bemoaning EVs saying "EVs require the same amount of road space and, due to their increased weight, potentially cause more road damage. But EV owners don’t buy petrol, which means they don’t pay excise tax – the same tax that pays for expanding roads". EV's don't cause more road damage, but then after the Government put EVs onto road user charges he bemoans it making EVs "less competitive". More generally he supports making new vehicles more expensive (through the “Clean Car Standard”) which helps ensure the vehicle fleet stays older for longer, but Welch doesn’t like cars at all. He loved that fewer utes and SUVs sold under the Clean Car Standard. He bemoans the car ownership rate of 815 cars per 1000 people “one of the highest in the world”. This should be celebrated that so many can afford a car and have the freedom it provides (urban planners aren't big on this), but he ignores that NZ is larger than the UK with 8% of the population. He claims that every decade there is an oil shock, which isn't really true, but even when it happens that all dies down (remember people like him warned us of Peak Oil? That was until fracking discovered more). The 1979 oil shock one provoked Rob Muldoon to advance Think Big, and every single one of those projects turned out to be a net drain on the economy, because in a few years oil prices dropped right back. Welch doesn’t let that stop his excitement for reducing car ownership. He finishes with this absurdity:

Every bus electrified, every cycleway built, every train funded is a direct reduction in exposure to the next crisis. The question now is whether New Zealanders begin to treat their car dependence not as a lifestyle choice but as a strategic liability.

What utter rot. Unless the bus is taking people out of cars, and unless a cycleway takes enough people out of driving cars to offset its cost of construction, it does nothing to reduce exposure. He advocates fully taxpayer funded public transport, which has been shown in multiple examples (e.g. Tallinn, Estonia) to largely replace walking instead of driving (in Tallinn car use dropped 5%, but walking dropped 40%, and car mode share climbed back up because public transport was overcrowded with people riding it for short trips).

There’s photographer Patrick Reynolds made a name for himself as an urbanist, and has for some years been an activist for the Green-left’s war on private motoring. This is why he was appointed to be board of NZTA in the first term of the Ardern Government, as the Greens strongly advocated for him. He’s positively excited about the crisis on the ~~Green Party~~ Greater Auckland blog. He says we should think strategically (i.e. don’t just react to the crisis, but think of the “long term”). His next step is to “rapidly reduce demand” and to “ensure an equitable path”. He said we are “structurally addicted” to driving. Curiously he floats the idea of lower speed limits for everyone but EV drivers, which is nonsense of course. Of course he doesn’t talk about aviation or shipping because These are blind spots because, by and large, governments don’t tax you to pay for their infrastructure, vehicles or services, because you’re willing to pay for them yourself (directly or indirectly through freight).

Of course it is now rounded off by the Greens. Chloe Swarbrick has, finally, taken time out shouting for the destruction of Israel and touting Hamas propaganda to demand "free" public transport and a new tax.

This wont excite the car hating mob though. Nothing gets them over the top quite as much as penalising car driving. Cars, the epitome of individual freedom, expensive capital assets that exist purely to sit idle for the owner to use when wanted, to go when and where they want to go. So unlike public transport which is planned (!) and scheduled and directed to be a sharing experience, not so fast, not so direct and not so "selfish".

And No. Unlike the control freaks, I really don't care how you get around, or how goods get around, as long as people pay for it themselves. No modes of transport are "bad" or "good", they just are well suited for different purposes. For as long as this fuel crisis continues, people will respond to the price signals in the ways they want. Some will drive a bit less, some may buy vehicles that use less or no fuel, some will ride public transport, some will bike and some will walk. Most people are quite happy buying their own cars, fares, bikes and shoes, and the way it SHOULD work, is the more people buy of one mode, the more that can be provided.

Funny how the planners don't really think that should be the way isn't it?

UPDATE: Oh look another one, this time from Professor Alistair Woodward, from the University of Auckland's Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, who RNZ conveniently cited without counter-argument that there should be regulations on people buying vehicles he thinks are bad. The public health lobby's appetite for micro-managing what everyone does, because a small handful engage in bad behaviour has no end.

Whether your agree with it or not, the US has to win in Iran

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 04:48:00 +0000

Morally it was entirely justifiable to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many will disagree honourably because of concern that the international order, represented by sovereign states with recognised borders respecting each others territorial integrity, is fundamental to international peace and security. They believe that this order protects peace and supports negotiation and diplomacy as the path to dispute resolution. However, it is a defensible position that the Islamic Republic of Iran (distinct from Iran the nation) is not deserving of that protection or recognition, because it does not afford that to some other sovereign states.

It is a regime that has spent its entire history calling for death to the USA and Israel, and used terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Israel and Yemen to spread its evil poisonous misanthropic ideology of ultra-conservative Islamist theocracy. Besides calling for "death to Israel" it has actively spread anti-semitism globally, including hosting conferences questioning the Holocaust. It has the world's highest per capita rate of executions, killing over 972 in 2024 alone, and most recently reportedly slaughtering tens of thousands of protestors across the country. Its theocracy includes a morality police dedicated to policing what women wear and how people interact in public, and it uses rape as a punishment of dissident women.

Given its long standing global sponsorship of terrorism (which included the IRA back in the Troubles), its pursuit of uranium enrichment and lack of transparency, it is easy to justify military action to stop it obtaining nuclear weapons.

Whether or not it was tactically correct for the US and Israel to take on Iran only history will tell. As much as those against the war will be wanting Trump to lose, to embarrass him, this is a very narrow and suicidal position. The very last thing anyone who supports liberal democracy, rule of law, individual freedom, human rights and civilisation should want is for the Islamic Republic of Iran to defeat the US, Israel and by proxy, the Gulf states as well.

Overthrowing the regime would be a success, weakening it so it fails due to domestic pressure (including from the Kurdish north) would be a partial success, but emboldening it even if its ability to project abroad is significantly weakened, would be seen as a victory for the regime, and a victory for its proxies.

For it would embolden Iran and its proxies to attack not just in the Middle East, but beyond, endangering Americans, Jews (don't even think Iran separates Zionists from Jews). This would make us all less safe, it would embolden Islamists across the world to promote their ideology, and for a few to be willing to use force to terrify us all.

If the Islamic Republic survives, it will embolden Putin and Xi to give it succour, money, arms and to push on. Putin already knows Trump wont stop him in Ukraine, Xi already knows the US will do little in the South China Sea, and wonders if he can attack Taiwan with little more than sanctions.

At this stage the biggest risk is that Trump chickens out, and wants a "deal". There is no "deal" with those who want you dead, who want your country dead and another dead. As much as the international law purists want pontification from the Western world about the legality of the war on Iran (they think it isn't legal), that horse has bolted.

While it's entirely possible (and probable) the Iranian regime could be replaced by one that is far from ideal (see Iraq, Libya and Syria), it is also likely it could be better. Better is not wanting to destroy other countries, better is not wanting to fund, train and arm multiple terrorist proxies across the Middle East, and across the world to "globalise the intifada" against the infidels.

Better is not expounding an ideology that is a fundamentalist misanthropic dark-ages view of humanity, as serving a supreme religious leader who sends people to their deaths for the sake of Allah, who restricts music, literature, art, apparel, human relationships and human expression, for the sake of blasphemy. Humanity, and in particular Europe and the Western world have been spending centuries unshackling themselves from the tyranny of theology.

The end of the Islamic Republic of Iran wont remove this, as there are plenty of others expounding such a view, including some it is attacking, but it will remove the most toxic, virulent and violent example embodied in a outwardly aggressive state. For it to "win", survive and double down on militarising itself and securing weapons of mass destruction would be dangerous to us all.

Allister Heath in the Daily Telegraph:

Either Donald Trump holds his nerve, crushes the Iranian regime, rides out the oil shock and reopens the Strait of Hormuz, or he and America are finished, exposed as unserious, fickle and incapable of forward planning, a superpower manquée felled by drone-wielding barbarians.

The challenge is Trump’s character, his willingness to accept short-term economic and electoral pain, not America or Israel’s exceptional military capacities. Does the US president, a hawk on Iran for 47 years, have it in him to finish the job, going down in history as the saviour of civilisation from nuclear Islamism, or is he merely the unidimensional man child his critics believe him to be?..

The great danger is that Trump snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. A loss would involve the Iranians shutting the Strait for an extended period, the Americans panicking at elevated oil prices and the US president walking away with a premature declaration of victory. Iran would be bloodied, but unbowed.

This would be a calamity from which neither Trump nor the West would recover. It would be interpreted by our enemies, chiefly China, North Korea and Islamists, as proof that their stereotype of the average Westerner is correct, that we are coddled, narcissistic consumers who cannot handle even the smallest discomfort.

It would also embolden the West’s defeatist class. Their “analysis” relentlessly asserts that the US cannot possibly win, and dismisses any contrary evidence. Everything to them is a miscalculation; killing Ali Khamenei will backfire, we are told, but not killing him would have been criticised just as harshly.

There is nothing wrong with caution, but some of these people sound as if they want Iran to win. These same experts rightly loathe Putin, correctly seeing him as a fascist monster, who is willing to kidnap children and ethnically cleanse civilians. They rightly support Ukraine, emphasise its victories and urge it not to give up when Russia strikes a blow.

Yet they are not as passionately opposed to the Iranian regime, even though it is just as fascistic as Putin’s. They loathe Trump and Israel. They were willing to suffer high energy prices to help defeat Putin, but cannot tolerate dearer petrol to take out the Iranian regime. Their double standards and hypocrisy are vile.

This is a civilisational struggle, a battle between good and evil. The West must win, or all bets are off...

Luxon or not

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 08 Mar 2026 11:55:00 +0000

It's hardly news to most people, other than some members of the National Party caucus, that Christopher Luxon is not doing well as Prime Minister in convincing even a plurality of voters that he is the right person for the job. He defeated Chris Hipkins in 2023, and now more people think Hipkins would be a better Prime Minister than him, although I suspect a significant plurality think neither of them are any good (and a smaller number dream of minor party leaders, especially Winston Peters).

Luxon was clearly a competent CEO, and his best characteristic is that he is a good delegator. He has largely left most portfolios to their Ministers, and it shows. The Ministers that are most highly rated are those that have shown results, or at the very least, show competence in dealing with difficult issues. Regardless of what I think of any of them personally or even some of their policies, it is fairly clear that Erica Stanford, Chris Bishop, Simeon Brown and Mark Mitchell (of the National Ministers, as there is competence in NZ First and ACT as well), have all shown themselves to be able to "get things done".

I would be one of the first to criticise Stanford in many ways, in particular I think she is just another wet who is almost wholly submissive to the teaching unions, but she has shown both a willingness to effect change and a passion for what she does. Her efforts for curriculum reform, pushing structured literacy and passion for lifting standards is clear. She projects confidence and communicates clearly and competently, even if I think the government is incredibly weak in opening up the education sector to more choice, this isn't about libertarians, it's about the general public believing in competence and leadership.

Chris Bishop on infrastructure has also demonstrated a commitment to results. You can criticise the replacement of the RMA on multiple grounds (as Nick Clark from the NZ Initiative competently did), but you can't criticise his passionate commitment to a long-term fix of the housing crisis, and his efforts to hold Kainga Ora to account, and take interim steps making it easier to build some homes and infrastructure. Furthermore, I've never encountered a Transport Minister in New Zealand or anywhere in the world who both believes in road pricing and sees it as a tool to improve conditions for drivers, and to make better investments in road improvements. Whether it is housing, transport or social infrastructure, he doesn't just talk in carefully curated soundbites, he speaks off the cuff and shows a passion for change and results. It helps that he has twice won the usually safe Labour seat of Hutt South (Luxon, Stanford, Brown and Mitchell all have safe seats), which takes considerable effort and shows a cut-through to much more than the party base.

Simeon Brown, despite childish and cheap jibes directed at him on social media, has demonstrated calm, capable competence in delivery. In health, traditionally an albatross around the neck of politicians almost anywhere, he quickly got across the issue of Dunedin Hospital, and made a decision about its future. This matched developing a five-year health infrastructure plan and setting five key health targets. As Transport Minister his great achievements were in turning around the spending plans of NZTA to meet those of the government, and to reverse the widespread speed limit reductions. He has a financial and economic competence as a "dry" member of Cabinet, which reflects his education and previous career in banking.

Finally Mark Mitchell has been the face of National's commitment to law and order, cracking down on criminal gangs and delivering a demonstrated reduction in violent crime, following increases in Police numbers and corrections staff. Although this was undoubtedly supported by policies from both ACT and NZ First, Mitchell is convincing as a Minister against crime.

All of this contrasts with Luxon. He is unconvincing, he seems unable to show a serious passionate spirit that chimes with much of the population. As much as delegating is good, people want a Prime Minister to be across it all. Not necessarily like Helen Clark was (as she was a control freak Prime Minister, micromanaging most policies and not trusting most Ministers on major issues), but at least as well as John Key and Bill English could. PMs need to be able to ad-lib, to respond spontaneously without briefing notes, based on a philosophical and policy grounding about the direction of government and principles. Some might say it is a bit too much to ask a Prime Minister, especially a National Party one to base thinking and what he says on principles, but principles and passion are where authenticity comes from, and authenticity helps win elections.

People want political leaders to believe in something and to express it, showing their passionate commitment to not just results that people want, but the basis for getting there. Luxon hasn't got it, he didn't have it before the last election, but the public were so fed up with the failed performance of the Ardern/Hipkins years, post-Covid, that they were willing to give him a go. That willingness has been eroded considerably. There is a chance he can pull together enough support at the election to defeat Chris Hipkins, in part because Winston Peters has clearly positioned himself on the conservative right, and David Seymour continues to have a decent base of support for those who think the National Party is too wet, but that chance is far from a safe bet.

Much more importantly, New Zealanders deserve a Prime Minister who they have confidence in, who can take a clear, principled stand on issues, without fluffing his lines. I'm not fussed really if Luxon wants to support the US and Israel over Iran, or oppose it because he thinks it may be against international law, or claim that NZ is watching, not involved and does not want to take a stance out of respect of our allies. Just believe in something.

So he needs to go. Stanford or Bishop look like the leading contenders to replace him. Mitchell hasn't the breadth and depth for the role, and Brown is too young and too conservative to attract the non-politically engaged middle voters National needs. However, Brown would be an excellent Finance Minister.

Stanford is Auckland based, and socially liberal, with the undoubted advantage of being a woman, with a clear, pleasant voice. She would need a deputy who is more conservative and able to moderate concerns she is too wet and centrist. Some may think she could look a little like a National Jacinda, but that is under rating Stanford. It seems unlikely she would characterise herself by emotions and over-ambitious targets. To address concerns about being wet, Brown would be an ideal deputy to Stanford, although two Auckland leaders is not ideal, it is not as problematic as two Wellington ones.

Bishop, notwithstanding the alleged failed plot late last year, is equally as compelling. Being Wellington based is no asset, but the Hutt is a bit different, and he is much more of an "everyman" able to reach across to a broader group of voters. He would need a deputy who is not Wellington based, and although he isn't a "wet" at all, he is socially liberal, so a more conservative deputy who is either Auckland or regionally/rural based would be ideal. Brown again would deliver this, although the push for a woman would suggest Stanford could be a choice, two social liberals might grate against part of the caucus.

I've not mentioned Willis although some would suggest she is the automatic choice, as the current Deputy. There is a clear couple of reasons for that. Firstly, she has anchored herself as a Luxon loyalist, it's difficult to see his weaknesses as not reflecting on her. Secondly, and far more importantly, she has not delivered on substance, particularly on the cost of living, but also notably in turning around the economy. Rather she has pushed relatively insignificant policy measures and issues with little real result. You can predict exactly what the Opposition is going to say, because so much of what she has pushed has delivered little.

I doubt more than 10% of voters could name Family Boost as one of her signature policies, because it's achieved little despite her efforts to publicise the handout. The Opposition has portrayed her as a harsh austerity Finance Minister, which if it were true, would have demonstrated results, with a path to surplus being sooner (and commensurate impacts on inflation and interest rates). She would have upset public sector unions, recipients of government largesse and leftwing academics, but at least would have some respect from the public for taking difficult decisions that were unpopular with some, for the sake of better long term outcomes. She didn't need to be Ruth Richardson to just take spending down to the levels (as a proportion of GDP) when Labour got elected in 2017. In reality she has stemmed the growth in government spending, but wears the banner of "cuts" and hasn't been able to repudiate it. What's much worse than her weakness on spending is the populist hobby horses she has chased to no avail. The utterly fake dressing down of the head of Fonterra for the high price of butter, when no one credible thought anything could be done about it (bear in mind she used to work for Fonterra as a lobbyist), was cringeworthy. Furthermore, she cried wolf so much about supermarkets so when it was clear that the main solution - RMA reform - was actually out of her hands, and given the price of groceries in New Zealand (when GST is taken into account) is not disproportionate to Australia, she couldn't communicate reality and back down after fuelling hype that delivered nothing. Finally, while she has claimed credit over lowered interest rates, that all about to reverse, thanks to a lowering dollar and now the war in the Middle East. She couldn't even get the Reserve Bank's profligacy under control. The public want action on the cost of living, but few believe she can do anything.

She might think she is entitled to be the next Prime Minister, but it's not clear what she has to offer. Most recently, her speech in Parliament about Iran demonstrated a patronising tone that focused not on the events in the Middle East, but what it means for New Zealanders. In foreign affairs, the public wants someone to talk convincingly about what is happening in defence and humanitarian terms, balancing the death and destruction of war, with the optimism of potentially ending a brutal tyranny, and concern about the end-game and what it means for the people involved. New Zealanders know they are far away, and they are not just concerned about inflation and trade, they do not just think of foreign relations as transactional, but as a matter of what is right and its global impacts.

So no, Willis is not the answer. She should not be the next Prime Minister and if Luxon is replaced, she should go too and be replaced, with a Finance Minister who understands what it takes to raise productivity and make New Zealand more attractive for starting and sustaining businesses. It isn't tax breaks for movies.

Of course nothing might happen. Maybe some National MPs want to retire early (!), maybe some think Luxon is misunderstood and the media is to blame, or the polls are missing those who are undecided and will be drawn to him for stability on voting day. They are all wrong. Luxon has been a disaster.

Labour has twice had one-term governments, and twice had two-term governments. National has never had a one-term government, or even a two-term government, but it nearly had a one-term government in 1993. It was saved not just by the voting system, but because voters rejected Mike Moore's second attempt to be Prime Minister as Bolger, just, convinced voters that tough decisions were made for later gain, which proved to be true.

There is a risk in rolling Luxon (and Willis) that it makes the government look like a mistake from the start, that it draws into question the whole period since the last election. However that risk is smaller than just fumbling along and hoping Labour will look less credible, and people will be frightened by the Greens and Te Pati Maori.

With a passionate principled Prime Minister, and a competent, economically literate and sharp minded Finance Minister, a blend of time and courage can convince voters than the National Party has listened and wants to give the public confidence in a new Prime Minister and refreshed impetus to focus on what matters the most to them. It needs to purge the mediocrity, the man who forever says "you know" (when you know he is trying to convince himself as much as you) and give New Zealanders passionate, competent and principled leadership. The time for change is now.

Mourning the Ayatollah

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 11:31:00 +0000

I understand those who think initiating military action against Iran is wrong because it risks lives and money with uncertain results. I also understand those who think intervention either to maintain international peace and security, or to relieve a humanitarian catastrophe (such as an oppressive murderous regime), should have multilateral endorsement.

However, if you are in a secular liberal democracy, and you mourn the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, then you're contemptible.

Of course you should be free to do it. As much as you are free to memorialise the death of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao etc.

Don't expect not to be ridiculed or despised for it though.

ABC (Australia) reports:

Ali Alsamail and Julie Karaki, directors at the Shia Muslim Council of Australia, a peak body, said Khamenei's death was a "religious and communal loss".

"Reducing his death to celebration alone erases the reality that millions are grieving," they said.

"At a time when the Muslim community is already carrying profound anguish over the humanitarian catastrophe and documented human rights violations in Gaza and elsewhere in the region, this moment compounds an already heavy burden."

Oh please.

If your beliefs, regardless of whether they are religious or secular, embrace anguish over someone who presided over a state that ran an oppressive theocracy, which would imprison, torture and execute opponents, including abusing women who didn't follow a misogynistic stone-age view of their rights, then you should bear the burden of others celebrating his death, and disdain from those who are concerned that you endorse such a political and philosophical perspective being applied more universally.

It's one thing to be concerned and upset about Gaza. I get that.

To be mourning and moreover to be demanding there be respect for that mourning is utterly anti-human.

Indeed the ABC continues:

Deakin University chair in global Islamic politics Greg Barton emphasised it was only five out of some 80 Shia mosques and centres in Australia that held commemorative events.

And he suggested the Iranian embassy could be pressuring Iranian religious groups in Australia to do the vigils.

"The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps runs not just a police state in Iran but to the best of their abilities, operates out of embassies and consulates to surveil the diaspora population," Professor Barton said.

Strength be to Iranians. They deserve freedom from the tyranny and oppression of a dark ages regime that treats them all as subservient subjects to a death cult version of Shia Islam.

If you're sad at the Ayatollah's death. Sure, you are free to be, and you are free to mourn, but don't expect any public displays of sadness to not be subject to judgment or criticism.

In particular, consider if you want anyone who is an acolyte of the Ayatollah to be working for you, serving you, working in a hospital, teaching children or, in particular, working in defence or law enforcement. Replace the word Ayatollah with "the Fuehrer" and all that goes with that, and you may be clearer on this.

Regime change in Iran should be celebrated.... if it happens

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 01 Mar 2026 11:23:00 +0000

Unless you're an Islamist, a tankie or a Jew hater, all of whom loathe individual freedom, secular liberal democracy and capitalism, you'll be elated at the sight of thousands of Iranians worldwide cheering on the attacks by the US and Israel on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Of course international relations lecturers, the UN and international law advocates will all claim that the attacks are "illegal", which may be true. They cite the inviolability of state sovereignty - the concept that all states are entitled to have inviolable borders and to be free from aggression.

The point of this is that people should be free from war, but the single biggest philosophical question in the context of the attack on Iran, is how legitimate is that principle when it protects a regime that wages war on its own people.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a tyranny, a misogynistic theocratic autocracy that does not hesitate to imprison, torture and execute dissidents. From its oppressive ultra-conservative treatment of women, to its global sponsorship of terror and promotion of its bigoted intolerant brand of theocratic totalitarianism, it is wilful blindness for anyone to claim that this regime was in any way peaceful, or had any remote sense of moral authority.

The celebration of Iranians in the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere for the killing of the Supreme Leader is a message of the illegitimacy of a regime that does not tolerate challenge, does not allow for peaceful transitions of power, and suppresses freedom of speech and the media egregiously.

The Iranian Islamist regime has funded, trained and armed terror groups in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Israel, and has provided arms for Russia's aggressive revanchist war against Ukraine.

There are fair and reasonable questions to be asked about the attacks on Iran:

Will the Islamic Regime actually be overthrown? Or could it remain in power through sheer brutal force against Iranians who seek to overthrow it?
What sort of government will replace it, and could it be worse (more radical)?
How will its proxies, such as the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas respond, spreading conflict further?

After all the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime saw the power gap replaced by an Iranian backed regime following the disaster of ISIS. The regime of Muammar Gaddafi was followed by civil war and bifurcation of the country. The US couldn't sustain the overthrow of the Taliban. So there is good reason to be sceptical about the US being willing to do what is necessary.

However, it is not a reason to cite the belief that the Islamic Republic of Iran is entitled to protection under "state sovereignty" because it doesn't respect the sovereignty of multiple sovereign states, nor does it respect the autonomy of its people.

Those granting the Iranian regime moral equivalency to Israel, the United States, to any liberal democracy, are either completely banal, or morally bankrupt.

When the Iranian revolution happened in 1979, there was much domestic opposition in Iran to the regime of the Shah, which was itself autocratic and intolerant. Some liberals and many Marxist activists backed the Islamic Revolution, and were promptly arrested and had their political movements suppressed.

Anyone who supports individual freedom and peace will want the end of this regime, let's just hope it happens, and Iranians, the Middle East and the world will be freer and more peaceful after this action against one of modern history's most brutal, terror promoting and fascist regimes.

The abomination of Britain's Gorton and Denton by-election

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:01:00 +0000

The UK is having one of its regular by-elections, this time in Gorton and Denton, a constituency in Manchester. The constituency was new at the 2024 election, and at the time was won by Labour's Andrew Gwynne with 50.8% of the vote, with Reform a distant second on 14.1%. Gwynne had been an MP for a previous constituency since 2005. He was suspended from the Labour Party for a series of Whatsapp messages ranging from joking about hoping a constituent dies, retweeting "sexualised comments" about deputy Angela Rayner, and claiming an American psychologist's name was "too militaristic and too Jewish", he subsequently resigned from Parliament due to ill health.

Gorton and Denton has a relatively low income nationally, with a significant (27%) Asian ethnic minority population, mostly Pakistani, but 57% are white Europeans. A slight majority voted for leaving the European Union in the 2016 referendum.

The campaign has been dominated by the Greens and Reform. The Greens claiming to be the party of the poor and for the Pakistani and Bengali population. Its campaign video depicts Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi, explicitly designed to stir up anti-Indian bigotry, as well as depicting Foreign Secretary David Lammy alongside Benjamin Netanyahu, designed to stir up anti-Israel bigotry. Reform's reaction to this is to call for a hardline against illegal immigration. Labour looks well behind, and the Conservatives are nearly irrelevant. The Greens say they are fighting the hate of Reform and racism, but Allister Heath, editor of the Sunday Telegraph sees the Greens as pandering to racist hate even moreso and calls for this all to stop.

From Allister Heath in the Daily Telegraph:

We should start by calling out the Greens for what they have become: a hateful, despicable, extremist party that has identified an entrepreneurial opportunity in weaponising tribalism, division, stagnant living standards, misinformation and envy. Their behaviour in Gorton and Denton has been abominable.

Following a playbook pioneered by far-Left parties worldwide, the Greens, now led by Zack Polanski, are targeting a red-green coalition of white, woke “progressives” and the reactionary subset of the Muslim electorate. These two groups may appear culturally incompatible, but they can be united not just by their support for socialism but also their often virulent Israelophobia, an atavistic prejudice that the Greens unashamedly pander to....

The Green candidate in Gorton and Denton was photographed wearing a keffiyeh, symbol of Palestinianism, has accused Reform of Islamophobia and racism, and has fronted a video in Urdu featuring Benjamin Netanyahu and Narendra Modi meeting Labour politicians, as if these were self-evident provocations and proof of a grand betrayal....

It’s a scandal. Extreme tribalism of the sort promoted by the Greens is incompatible with a democratic culture that requires a strong sense of commonality, a belief in a peoplehood that transcends differences of ideology, race, religion or class. It requires a neutral, single-tier rule of law, where citizens are treated as individuals, not as members of a group. Democracy isn’t just about tallying votes, and handing power to the winner. It is about debate, trying to change people’s minds, feedback mechanisms and punishing or rewarding politicians who fail or succeed.

None of this is possible in a world in which voters vote along religious or ethnic lines, and where the best that can be hoped for is peaceful coexistence and Northern Ireland-style or Lebanese confessionalist power-sharing. Under that scenario, democracy becomes a mere game of arithmetic, of demographic superiority. Outcomes are pre-determined, governed by community leaders.

This may not trouble the Greens: they have reinvented themselves as a vehicle for a new Left that combines Marxism-Leninism, Third Worldism, critical theory, and other radical anti-Western and anti-bourgeois philosophies. They detest private property and family values.

They support quasi-open borders and are soft on crime. They are infected by every Left-wing pathology of the past 200 years, every intellectual error. They have imbued the poison of “anti-colonial” Soviet propaganda, of woke writers such as Derrida, of fanatics such as Edward Said.

Britain used to be a beacon among nations, a country uniquely hostile to extremist parties. The British Union of Fascists never won a single council seat. The Communist Party of Great Britain only seized a couple of parliamentary seats in the 1930s and 1940s. The National Front never made it to Westminster. Militant grabbed Liverpool City Council but was kicked out of Labour by Neil Kinnock. The British National Party won councillors and MEPs, but just 1.9pc of the vote in 2010.

Our record mixes world-class success with catastrophic failure. Some groups have integrated extraordinarily well, and children of immigrants often do better at school and in the labour and housing market than the white British. There has been a surge in mixed-marriages.

At the same time, we have suffered the rise of Islamism, separatism and intra-minority tensions, fuelled by race-obsessed woke policies that denigrate Britishness. We use incorrect metrics: materialistic markers of achievement, rather than ideology. Numerous Islamists are well educated; doctors have been stuck off for anti-Semitism. Many British Jews, whose synagogues offer prayers to the Royal Family weekly, are having to reconsider their future in Britain.

The Panglossians, who believe that tensions will diminish spontaneously; that sectarian voting will wane as it did in England and Scotland by the 1970s; that secularism will dissolve all differences; that Islamism is overblown; that today’s minorities will rapidly become latter-day Huguenots or Irish immigrants, indistinguishable from the rest of the population in all but surname, are delusional.

In addition to slashing immigration, we will need to be more muscular. We will need to crack down pitilessly on extremism, including in some mosques or in local areas where prejudice is rife. We will need to learn from Singapore and other well-managed multicultural states. We cannot allow our country to fragment. Regardless of race or religion, we must all be British.

Ukraine : A fight for civilisation

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Wed, 25 Feb 2026 09:51:00 +0000

From the Daily Telegraph (UK):

And understandably: this is not just a struggle for Ukraine, but for the West itself. Aside from Beijing, which is not yet engaged in open warfare against us, the Kremlin has become a focal point for every authoritarian and sadist who would have us subjugated or dead.

The deformed child of 20th-century communism loves Putin. Neo-Nazis love Putin. The Chinese love Putin. The Venezuelan regime, or what’s left of it, loves Putin.

The North Koreans fight in his orc army. Even sponsors of jihadists are his bedfellows; on our first night in Ukraine, of the 297 drones and loitering munitions that were launched into the country, about 200 were Shahed drones made by Iran.

In his book The Fourth Political Theory, the nationalist Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin, nicknamed “Putin’s Rasputin”, lavished praise upon the “conservative revolutionist” Osama Bin Laden. The terror mastermind offered hope that “those values that were gathered into a heap and taken to the junkyard can still arise”, Dugin enthused.

Clearly, the overlap between Moscow and jihadism runs more than skin deep. Just as the Western far-Right conjures Putin as an anti-woke strongman rather than the murderous tyrant he is, Dugin absurdly projects onto jihadism a kind of orthodox cultural conservatism.

But what these repulsive groups really have in common is that they all loathe the free West. In recent years, three peoples have found themselves facing this omni-enemy on the civilisational frontlines: the Iranians, the Israelis and the Ukrainians. They know they stand together and they know they stand for us.

Herzog deserves to be welcomed

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 11:43:00 +0000

If Isaac Herzog were not Jewish and certainly were not Israeli, an objective assessment of him would see him ticking most mainstream liberal boxes on political views. He was a member of the Israeli Labor Party before it merged with Meretz to be the new secular centre-left party of Israel. Herzog believes in a two-state solution and “land for peace”, which is the mainstream view of virtually all liberal democracies across the world on the Israel-Palestine conflict. He is socially liberal. He was a strident critic of Netanyahu and was Leader of the Opposition for four and half years.

President of Israel is not the same as President of the United States. It is not an executive function, but a constitutional head of state. It is elected by the Knesset for a single seven-year term, and is largely a ceremonial and administrative function, not political. The President doesn’t declare war or decide on the budget or pass laws.

He’s currently visiting Australia in response to the worst terrorist attack in Australia’s history, which targeted Jews for being Jews, on the holiest of days, in Bondi on 14 December 2025. This is understandable, as Israel exists as the national homeland of Jews. He has travelled to Australia to offer condolences, sympathy and comfort to the families and friends of the 15 who were murdered, and the entire Australian Jewish community who feel vulnerable, threatened and frightened.

None of this matters to the psychopathic hate mobs who have been protesting in Australian cities about his visit, calling him a “war criminal” (even though he has literally no role whatsoever in declaring, waging or ending war) and choosing to disrupt solemn occasions created by the Jewish community to support themselves, and to mourn the dead.

Plenty of them are well meaning but ignorant people, who are riled up by anger about what happened in Gaza, which is nothing to do with Australian Jews and little to do with President Herzog, and of course which they don’t give any agency to Hamas which started the war by a sadistic massacre of Jews at a music festival, and abduction of hostages, many of which it killed. A mix of understandable distress and anger about the suffering of some, blends with hyperbolic propaganda, and the deep buckets of Jew hatred spread by Hamas and its backers in Tehran and elsewhere, to a venal expression of hate. Hate not just for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but a hatred of Israel itself, demands that it be eradicated (and who imagines what happens to Jews and Arabs who are happily Israeli citizens during and after this process), and of course anyone who opposes them is a fair target. Given most Jews support the existence of the State of Israel (even if many oppose the Netanyahu Government), it’s a very short jump to want to wipe Israel off the map and want to wipe Jews off the map or rather eject them from their homeland. You know the land that, if it were in Australia would “always is and always will be” their land?

Some are not well-meaning people of course. Those are the ones flying the flags of the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing solidarity of the ones who claim that there is a Zionist conspiracy running the media, governments and the world. Those are the ones who think the Bondi massacre was a false flag, or Israel’s fault. Those are the ones who want Jews to be scared, because they are probably pro-Israel. Those are the neo-Nazis, Hamas supporters and utterly evil.

Yet they all march, protest and shout together. They say nothing about the 30,000 murdered for protesting the brutal authoritarian Iranian Islamist regime. Like they say nothing about mass murders in Sudan, Syria, Ukraine or Burma. For they aren’t human rights activists, they don’t care about peace, let alone freedom of individuals. Nor do they care about the deaths of Muslims (for the ones in Iran don’t count, because they are rejecting an Islamist theocracy), or Arabs (see Syria’s civil war which saw no protests of Russia backing barrel bombing/chemical weapon dropping Assad).

It matters not to them that Herzog wants a Palestinian state, opposes settlements in the West Bank, wants peaceful co-existence and is simply in Sydney to give support, sympathy and courage to a Jewish community as shattered by its terror attack as Muslims in Christchurch were by the attack on them. They couldn’t just spend some days being quiet, letting Jews have space and time to be themselves, with a head of state that is there for them. No, they couldn’t.

The moronic can change, because almost everyone was once young, naïve and stupid. It doesn’t take much to learn something about the topic you protest about, to stop following your readily packaged social group going on protests you think are righteous because people you like think that way (and how could they be wrong). The malignant are another story. They deserve all of the contempt and disgust that polite company treats Nazis.

For they can't just let Jews live in peace.

Loony leftwing teachers

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 22 Jan 2026 10:08:00 +0000

In the UK...

"A Labour MP was prevented from visiting a school in his constituency because the teaching unions and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign do not like the fact that he believes Israel should have a right to exist. The MP in question is Damien Egan, who represents Bristol North East" ...

We know of this story only because Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, who describes himself as a Zionist, mentioned it during an address to the Jewish Labour Movement, without naming Egan. Reed said of the people who had scuppered Egan’s visit: ‘They will be called in, and they will be held to account for doing that, because you cannot have people with those kinds of attitudes teaching our children.

Well, Steve, there’s people with those kinds of attitudes teaching our children in pretty much every school in the country, save for a few free schools and some of those in the private sector

"In fact I cannot think of a single occupation more likely to be stocked with these pig-ignorant dunderheads than teaching, a calling which they gravitate towards because they are useless at everything else and also to acquire a soupçon of power which is otherwise wholly absent from their wretched, impotent lives"

Rod Liddle, The Spectator

Happy New Year

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Tue, 20 Jan 2026 20:22:00 +0000

It's a bit late. I thought of writing about the fact it is election year in New Zealand, but that seems almost inconsequential when the entire international order is being turned upside down, primarily because the President of the United States does not value individual freedom, liberal democracy, free market capitalism or alliances at all.

It's easy to cheer the overthrow of Nicholas Maduro, but perplexing to see the anointment of his Vice-President as someone Trump can "do business with" while snubbing the actual Opposition leader, who actually won the last election and has broad based support, because presumably she hasn't shown enough obeisance to him. Venezuela is better off, but not by as much as it could be.

It's also easy to be hopeful that Iranians will shrug off the evil, totalitarian Islamic Republic, and starve the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah from waging terror on the people they govern and hate, but note that for all of the bluster, it's far from clear what anyone else is doing to help Iranians remove their racist, misogynistic masters.

It's not so easy to be optimistic about Ukraine, even though it has largely held off the Russian military from total victory, because on the one hand Europe has been pathetic in providing support it needs, and President Trump has decided that Russia taking over its immediate neighbours is none of his business. On the other hand it is hard not to see Russia flailing about as a failing empire, with an economy largely fuelled by moral relativist allies buying its oil and gas, while producing 1980s era military hardware, as its population tumbles and it looks to Beijing to give it some assurance.

It's also not so easy to be optimistic about Taiwan, again although most of its citizens are willing to fight for their free, liberal democratic "Republic of China", because nobody really knows if Trump will help it, or not. Japan looks like it might help it, which would be a significant step. However, we know the leadership in both Canberra and Wellington are far more interested in selling goods to the aggressive PRC than in showing any moral leadership. Meanwhile, the PRC itself faces multiple challenges, ranging from a spiralling property investment debt bubble, declining population (especially among working age adults), 30 million more men than women and a population increasingly fed up with the distractions of the CCP.

It's difficult to not be pessimistic about the divide between the US and Denmark, Greenland and the rest of Europe. The US has almost unfettered access to Greenland for military purposes under NATO. The mineral resources of Greenland are far too costly to extract given the thickness of the Arctic tundra. The idea that the US, rather than Denmark or the people of Greenland themselves should govern the world's largest island because of an "imminent threat" is just absurd. There is no threat from the PRC through Greenland, and the threat from Russia seems specious when there us little effort to kneecap Russia's revanchism over Ukraine (and elsewhere). Turning all of Europe against the US is not something many would have forecast, but it makes Moscow and Beijing grin.

On the other hand, there is mild optimism that Israel remains capable of inflicting a bloody nose against Hamas when it seeks to wipe out Jews, although there is less optimism that an enduring peace settlement can come from Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Maybe the overthrow of Iran could help that, but so would US pressure on Israel.

There is some optimism that the self-sabotaging policies of many Western countries, in regulating and taxing industries for the sake of mitigating climate change, only to see those industries shift to China, India and elsewhere that do not care one bit about mitigating climate change, is coming to an end. However, there is little optimism that it will be matched by liberalising economies and freeing them from the constraints that mean Europe, in particular, generates little new business innovation on a global scale.

There is also optimism that the trend towards the post-modernist critical constructivism that ranks people like Marxist-Leninists, according to fictional hierarchies of oppression and domination, is losing traction. More and more people are resisting the confected idea that merely because of your race, sex, gender and sexuality you're either an enlightened downtrodden oppressed victim who needs to be "listened to" and "empowered" (even if you're already a high-profile politician or celebrity with a large personal fortune) or an obsolete oppressive white supremacist (you don't even have to be white) misogynist who should be "shut down" and "know your place" (even if you're an unknown nobody who owns little). This whilst those claiming it are living in the economic and social system that has allowed the greatest level of prosperity, freedom of self-expression and diversity of viewpoints and lifestyles in human history.

However, the pessimism is that part of the reaction to this is to embrace post-modernist conspiratorialism that is xenophobic, ultra-nationalist and anti-capitalist, that doesn't just want to leave peaceful people alone, treats outsiders as the enemy rather than people who can embrace free-market capitalist high-trust liberal democratic society, and sees criticism of itself as being as binary as the far-left critical constructivists.

Nevermind, I have something else on my mind this year.

What the Gaza protestors could have done to not stir up Jew Hatred

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Wed, 17 Dec 2025 06:03:00 +0000

I’m not going to pretend that I would protest for any movement that has the support of Hamas or Fatah, but of course anyone in a liberal democracy has the right to express their views on what happens in Gaza. The consequences of some of those views are to stir up not just hatred of Israel, but hatred of Israelis and of course of Jews, despite the claims of best efforts of many protesting that they oppose all forms of “anti-semitism” (and curiously then say also “Islamophobia” et al, because you can’t just criticise Jew hatred without relativising it with hatred of the people of the religion that seems to have a disproportionate number of promoters of Jew hatred).

People can protest for an independent Palestinian state (the idea it would be “free” is fanciful, but the far-left, which dominates these protests, regarded leaders from Robert Mugabe to Macias Nguema to be “liberating” their people), but perhaps some of the following might be less likely to encourage and promote Jew hatred:

• Exclude anyone calling to “globalise the intifada”: Don’t kid yourself. If you read about what the Palestinians intifadas involved, it was targeting Israeli civilians in terror attacks. Intifada is violent resistance. If you want to undertake it globally, who do you want to target? Who will get targeted? It’s Jews (nobody undertaking such attacks.

• Exclude anyone supportive of Hamas or the 7th October attack or justifying them: Justifying most murderous pogrom of Jews since the Holocaust, at a music festival is justifying violence against civilians. It wasn’t an attack on a military target, but much worse than that, it took men, women and children as hostages. It saw the gleeful slaughter of young people because they were Jews. If you want to justify the sadistic slaughter and taking of civilian hostages because of who they are, then you’ll justify it happening anywhere.

• Exclude anyone using symbols that place the Star of David into a rubbish bin or depict it with a swastika: Equating any regime with Nazi Germany is a tall order. Russia’s actions in Ukraine could justify it, given the use of the Z slogan, the abduction of children, the direct targeting of civilians and the desire to destroy Ukrainian culture, but the Gaza protestors are uninterested in that. North Korea has many shades of Nazism, given its totalitarian system that tolerates zero dissent and promotes racial superiority. However, to link Jews to the regime that sought to eliminate them is promoting Jew hatred. That’s not a call for a Palestinian state it’s a call to wipe them out wherever they may be.

• Promote peace talks and a two-state solution, not the extinction of Israel: Most governments agree that this is the only solution for a lasting peace, but so many protestors call for Israel to be destroyed. If you are chanting for the destruction of the Jewish homeland (where Jews have lived for thousands of years), then you’ll justify destruction of those who want to retain it and to keep Jews as a global diaspora always at the mercy of others.

• Call for the overthrow of Hamas and for Gaza (and the West Bank) to be a secular liberal democracy: If you just think Gazans should live under the jackboot of Hamas, with its explicit Jew hatred and support for eliminating Jews, then you’re hardly damning attacks on Jews are you?

• Demand an end to foreign support for Hamas: Iran and Qatar both fund and support Hamas, and Iran in particular constantly expounds Jew hatred, including Holocaust denial and tropes about Jews running the world. Maybe, just once, protest against the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Of course you can criticise Netanyahu, any Israeli political party, you can call for the occupation to end, you can call for a Palestinian state, but if you are silent on Hamas, silent on the Jew hatred that drips from Palestinian political movements and welcome explicitly anti-semitic individuals and their rhetoric into your protests, you’re part of the problem.

Some activists say that if you have one Nazi at your protest, you’re at a Nazi protest. Well, there is no lack of people that are part of the pro-Palestine movement who expound Jew hatred. Whether it is the trope that the Jews run the world, or that Mossad was responsible for 9/11, the Holocaust was exaggerated (or there was a good reason for it), there is plenty of evidence that that movement attracts Jew hatred.

Maybe, just maybe, treat these like you claim to treat people who are racist…

Oh and calling "despicable" the act of lighting a museum in the colours of the Israeli flag days after it had suffered an explicitly anti-semitic attack of Jew murder, isn't caring about Jews, is it MP for Auckland Central?

Sadly I wont be holding my breath while you pretend all your colleagues, friends and fellow travellers are all good people who are “anti-violence”.

It's all empty words.

The intifada came to Sydney

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 14 Dec 2025 20:33:00 +0000

When the leftie kids go on marches shouting "globalise the intifada" alongside the geriatric tankies and the blood-thirsty Salafist and Wahhabist Islamists (who know what it mean), they probably think it means protest marches, blog posts and "deplatforming" ~~Jews~~ Israelis.

Well Bondi is what it means. A group of murderers out to target Jews in a place far away from the Middle East, living lives of peace. It's not just the 15 murdered by the fascist Islamists, it's the pipe bombs found and the car containing explosives. The intifada perpetrators wanted a bloodbath - in Bondi - because they hated Jews.

Whether it's about Gaza or Palestine, or the age old belief that Jews control the world, or whatever it is, doesn't matter so much. When you call for a global holy war for your cause, then this is the result. This, when Gaza is under a ceasefire.

Jews are frightened in Tel Aviv, London, Paris and Sydney, and everywhere, because politicians enable a small bunch of radicals to let fascist ideology take over marches and protests that started almost instantly after the 7th October pogrom was launched.

Jews are always afraid of Nazis, so are Muslims, so are the many others Nazis hate, but they aren't the main cause of their fear. They fear the (Iranian supported) Islamists who want to wage war against them globally, and the far-left academics and students who cheer them on, or apologise for them, or now... say this is a false flag that Mossad set up.

The problem is mainstream politicians, not just the far-left, have appeased it as well.

If you don't think there is a direct line from the ghouls who were "elated" on Sydney streets after 7th October, or stood outside the Sydney Opera House shouting "where's the Jews" or "gas the Jews" (it hardly matters), then you're kidding yourself.

It's time for those politicians to come out, to make it explicitly clear that there shall be no intifada, that Jew hatred must be expunged from the public space AND from mosques that expound it, and that Australia is no place for anyone who justifies terrorism, or wants to make any peaceful citizens fear for their existence.

SH1 improvements in Wellington - a lot to like, but it wont complete the job

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 11 Dec 2025 06:36:00 +0000

So this was a quick couple of hours of thoughts... Feedback to NZTA is due by Sunday 14 December if you are interested.

Background information is here (PDF)

A video flythrough is here

Apologies, I've been following this whole segment of road for far too long, from growing up being driven through Mt Victoria Tunnel, to some work on the Inner City Bypass 20 odd years ago to living near the tunnel today.

....

The Government’s proposal for a 2nd Mt Victoria Tunnel, 2nd Terrace Tunnel, reconfiguration of the roads around the Basin Reserve and widening of Vivian St is the latest set of proposals to fix the unfinished business of the Wellington Urban Motorway. We will see whether all, some or any of it proceeds, but for the sake of Wellington at least some of it should (specifically the tunnels), because the status quo, notwithstanding the largely evidence free claims of Green Party politicians, is an absurd waste of time and energy in a city of this size.

History

It wouldn’t be hard to write a book about the history behind all of this, which started with then US consultancy firm De Leuw Cather, preparing a “transportation master plan” for Wellington. It considered the option of a waterfront motorway (see Seattle and San Francisco for now demolished versions of this), but preferred what was known as the Foothills Motorway. It follows the existing motorway, with two instead of one Terrace Tunnel (3 lanes each way), with 2 lanes continuing on a motorway going under and over various streets and, initially, demolishing the Basin Reserve for a motorway interchange, before finishing up at a second Mt Victoria Tunnel (2 lanes each way using the existing tunnel). De Leuw Cather also proposed placing the Wellington commuter rail service underground to Courtenay Place, through the reclamation land. Of course that latter proposal wasn’t going anywhere, but the motorway started from Ngauranga (not connected to Ngauranga Gorge, but rather as just an extension of the Hutt Road from the Hutt). In the 1960s and early 1970s, the motorway cut a swathe through Thorndon and Kelburn, with much of a cemetery dug up and interred in a mass grave (don’t think that this was an era of much consecration to Christian religious values). However, the 1974 oil crisis (entirely stemming from the Yom Kippur War) saw a slowing down of the project, with the Muldoon Government ultimately deciding that it (and multiple other road projects) would be terminated at Willis Street, with the segment from Bowen Street south halved in scope. One Terrace Tunnel, one lane southbound, two lanes northbound.

At the time, with the motorway only being SH2 (SH1 still being the Hutt Road from Ngauranga to Aotea Quay, and continuing along the waterfront to the termination point of Jervois Quay and Taranaki Street), this made some sense. It was never congested, and the scale of traffic through Te Aro was easily handled by the Vivian St/Ghuznee Street one way pair.

In 1983 the Ngauranga Interchange changed all that, by around doubling traffic on the motorway, the end of the motorway became a bottleneck, exacerbated by the single lane in the tunnel. Further bottlenecks existed with Ghuznee Street and Buckle Street, with the dog leg route from the Basin Reserve to the motorway being utterly unsuitable for the traffic volumes going through it. This situation persisted for 12 years.

Meanwhile, a scaled back proposal to ease the traffic pressure came from the then National Roads Board. A motorway extension designed as an arterial highway with 70km/h speed standards. The original plan to destroy the Basin Reserve for a motorway interchange (which had been shelved some years previously) was replaced with a highway bridge across the northern boundary of the park. The Terrace and Mt Victoria Tunnels would be linked by a fully grade separated highway going under Willis and Victoria Streets, severing Cuba Street (except for a pedestrian bridge), passing over Taranaki Street before darting under Tory and Sussex Streets. One lane would extend from Mt Victoria Tunnel under Sussex Street to join a second lane from the south. Whereas one lane would exit at the Basin to Cambridge Terrace and Dufferin St, with one lane extending to Mt Victoria Tunnel.

1980 scaled down motorway extension proposal before it got dropped in a trench in 1991

Fully trenched but not covered in this brutalist image that looks like it was designed to kill it

The next decade or so would see the project rise up the regional priority rating, as other projects were built: Upper Hutt Bypass, Mungavin Interchange, Silverstream-Manor Park 4-laning etc, but then the funding system for roads was reformed. The Ministry of Works was abolished, and shortly thereafter, Ruth Richardson slashed funding for roads. At the time, funding was mostly allocated based on a cost/benefit analysis, with 25 year return periods. For around two years funding was not even sufficient to keep up with maintenance, and as the 90s progressed, the Wellington Urban Motorway arterial extension went up in cost and was always borderline for funding. However, it always had a BCR of over 2 when the threshold for funding was 5 or 4.

At the same time the nascent Green Party campaigned vehemently against it. To try to address concerns the project was first redesigned to be trenched the whole way across Te Aro, then put in a cut-and-cover tunnel to the bridge on the north of Basin (called Tunnellink). However, it was clear by the mid 1990s that funding wasn’t likely for over a decade. So a three stage project was advanced. First a simple one-way pairing of Buckle and Vivian Street, followed by what is now known as Karo Drive. Karo Drive literally took around 12 years from its inception to opening, largely because of the opposition to it by the Green Party spreading vast amounts of misinformation. Then Green MP Sue Kedgley always called it a “motorway extension”, and eventually when it got funded by Transfund, and all legal avenues under the RMA to stop it were exhausted, it got built. It was only meant to be a ten year stopgap until the Tunnellink could be built.

However, by then Transit NZ (later to be merged with Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority) had largely given up on the idea of a cut and cover tunnel. So the next step was to fix the Basin Reserve, and plus ça change it was stopped by an organised campaign of the Greens and Mt Victoria NIMBYs. This was for a two-lane 50km/h one lane bridge clear of the Basin Reserve, westbound.

2001 - preferred Basin grade separation without Tunnellink

2008 - one of the options for the Basin Bridge

At the tail end of the Key/English Government there was a commitment to a second Mt Victoria Tunnel, but of course that all was stopped under the Ardern Government, as the Greens made sure that the Let’s Get Wellington Moving project would prioritise emission reductions, and put little value on reducing general traffic congestion.

The Ardern/Hipkins Government did support a second tunnel, but it was to close the existing tunnel to motor vehicle traffic, and build a new one with four-lanes, two for buses. In short, no relief for general traffic.

What’s been proposed?

So here we are today with essentially five main elements to upgrading SH1 through Wellington. Once again the Greens are talking about “building a motorway through Wellington” which it absolutely does not do. It doesn’t build one metre more of motorway, but it does widen one section along an existing motorway corridor. The five elements are:

- Second Terrace Tunnel

- Upgrading SH1’s one-way pair through Te Aro

- Basin Reserve reconfiguration

- Second Mt Victoria Tunnel

- Widening eastern approach roads to Mt Victoria Tunnels.

Second Terrace Tunnel: This is sensible, because it will the single biggest measure to remove 20% of traffic from the waterfront route. It is on a smaller scale than the original proposal (will be two-lanes not three southbound and the existing tunnel will only be two-lanes northbound), but should not be controversial. What will constrain it is…

Upgrading SH1 through Te Aro: Reversing forty years of planning, Te Aro will still be blighted by heavy highway traffic pushing through it, by widening Vivian Street (which has been designated on the Wellington District Plan for many years) to three lanes one way. As a stopgap this is satisfactory from a traffic flow point of view. but is hardly a long-term solution. It should have a cut-and-cover tunnel along the line of Karo Drive, which would be expensive and disruptive, but would be transformational for Te Aro. A proper bypass would make a huge difference, but for now with the two tunnels being the major bottlenecks, that idea isn’t progressing. In short, this will be the new bottleneck, exposing the greatest number of pedestrians (and traffic) to delays and emissions. It’s the cheap part of the package, and it will need to be addressed at a later date.

What’s disconcerting is that there is little future proofing to enable a solution to his, especially with this proposal…

Basin Reserve reconfiguration: There is no shortage of options designed to fix this problem, which is essentially the need to separate east-west traffic from north-south traffic, while also allowing it to interchange. The latest proposal partially separates traffic, but it means the same number of traffic light controlled intersections westbound and eastbound on SH1. See below:

No doubt clearing Mt Victoria Tunnel congestion will improve eastbound flows, but it is far from clear that retaining a network of pedestrian controlled traffic lights and keeping SH1 at ground level in front of the Basin Reserve will not create new bottlenecks, and worsen the concentration of traffic/emissions across the northern side of the Basin. The Rugby/Dufferin Street sections outside the schools will be quieter, but be a ratrun for traffic from the city to SH1 west, and from Newtown to SH1 east. The big winner is north-south traffic to and from Newtown towards the city.

No doubt there will be a net improvement, but it is clear from the proportion of benefits of the total package that this is where not much will be gained. What’s particularly concerning is that it doesn’t look like it provides for future proofing building a parallel eastbound pair of lanes to take traffic from Vivian Street and over to the second Mt Victoria Tunnel. I understand the reluctance to elevate SH1 near the Basin, but it could be done by elevating Sussex Street over SH1 and building an artificial hill to carry the road with significant mitigation of the visual and noise impacts of a bridge. This is a mess. The new Green Link looks like it is preserving an option, or maybe it is preventing it.

Second Mt Victoria Tunnel: This is like past proposals and is entirely suitable as a solution to this problem. It is a shame that westbound its capacity will be constrained by unnecessary intersections at the Basin.

Widening eastern approach roads: Four-laning Ruahine St and Wellington Rd (six lanes at points) has long been the right approach, but the design of intersections seems bizarre indeed. Grade separating at Hataitai Park (to a new road where houses currently exist) seems over the top. The removal of Taurima St access to Mt Victoria Tunnel needs a solution, as does access to Hataitai Park, but why is this intersection getting such lavish treatment, but Wellington Rd/Ruahine St (which enables access from Newtown to the airport, from Hataitai to Newtown, and for access to southern Newtown to and from SH1 bypassing the bottleneck in front of the Hospital) is curtailed to simple slip lanes in one direction only? The latter should be a full scale intersection. Previous plans simply had an elaborate intersection at Goa Street, although there is some merit in having grade separation, it seems odd that a low traffic intersection gets it, but not the much heavier traffic ones at Kilbirnie Crescent and Evans Bay Parade (although imagine the outcry if that were proposed).

There are lots of minor details in this section which make access between Kilbirnie, SH1 and Hataitai worse, presumably to save money from more comprehensive wider intersections. Much of this looks worse for residents. In particular, anyone driving from Newtown to the airport will weirdly have to drive through Kilbirnie’s CBD (but not in the other direction). Anyone driving from Hataitai to Newtown will either have to go through Mt Victoria Tunnel to ratrun past the stands at the Basin Reserve, or go into Kilbirnie and ratrun up Duncan Tce. (a narrow street with poor visibility at the top).

This is all details though in intersection design, which I expect locals to have their views on. The Greens are claiming a big increase in traffic in Moxham Avenue will occur, but that’s mostly a shift from Taurima Street and the existing intersection on Ruahine Street.

Thinking more widely

There is talk of tolling the route, although no details have been presented, it is difficult to envisage it not simply being at the tunnels. On its own this would have merit if the whole proposal enabled free flow traffic all the way. It doesn’t. Paying a toll to drive through the Terrace Tunnel to end up at Vivian Street isn’t a compelling proposition, and would divert local traffic from the tunnel to The Terrace. Likewise paying to use Mt Victoria Tunnel to reach a pair of traffic light controlled junctions by the Basin Reserve. A full scale freeflow bypass would be another proposition, offering a high value fast trip, but that isn’t what is proposed.

On the other hand, a central Wellington congestion pricing scheme within the boundaries of SH1, which helps pay for this, would have much more merit as it would reduce traffic towards the city at peak times, and enable better flow of traffic around it. An AM peak inbound, PM peak outbound price for driving in and out of Wellington on weekdays would have some merit.

Much has been raised about the BCRs of the project, but although I put some value on economic analysis, when it comes to tunnels, the return period for them is much longer than any conventional highway or bridge. Tunnels last almost forever once dug, and only need moderate upgrades throughout their existence. So I treat the two tunnels as very long term investments in addressing the resilience of the city’s transport network, and enabling a future full scale bypass of the city.

Claims from the likes of the Greens that “car tunnels” (a deliberate misinformation campaign to diminish the role of freight and buses) will just induce more traffic are largely nonsense, especially if congestion pricing is introduced in parallel. There is no more capacity that will be build north of Ngauranga Interchange, so more traffic cannot be attracted from that direction, and with much of the traffic on the route bypassing the city, little of that is going to be attracted from public transport to driving. Modern cities have good bypasses, Wellington has lacked it for decades.

So I’m in favour of the tunnels, in favour of the widening east of Mt Victoria Tunnel (with some caveats), but the upgrade through Te Aro is cheap and nasty, and needs to make provision for something better once the two tunnels are built. It will be obvious the city needs a proper bypass. The Basin Reserve proposal is messy and poor value. It’s unclear why north-south traffic going in a four-lane trench is better than being on a four-lane bridge over the east-west traffic, and why so many light controlled intersections should be kept. It should be reconsidered.

And for the opponents...

"A City for People" is, of course, a Green Party oriented activist site (they always claim to be non-partisan, even though the members are largely not) ideologically and philosophically aligned to the other Green oriented activist ginger groups (which have a lot of interchangeable members) like Generation Zero, Parents for Climate Aotearoa, Cycle Wellington, Women in Urbanism, Renters United and the Sustainability Trust.

The propaganda inference is that if you don't support their policies, you don't want a "city for people". It's a shade of the People's Republics, which imply if you oppose them, you're opposed to The People. While I have some support for their campaign to enable more intensification, this isn't a group in favour of more freedom and less government. It is not in favour of people who want to drive, or people who ship goods or deliver goods.

It claims "A whole generation of people are being forced out from the city spending hours every day in traffic jams". While I have lot of sympathy about housing prices, the idea that people in Wellington are spending "hours every day in traffic jams" is nonsense.

It states:

The cost of this project is truly bananas. Per kilometre it’s the most expensive roading project in the entire country. It’s $2.9-3.8 billion (with a B - looks like this).

And it’s all about a relatively small aspect of Wellington’s transport problems: private-car congestion at selected times.

It makes no attempt to fix what will make the most difference to people (and LGWM’s origin story): the bus-network that’s already at capacity and hamstrung by being stuck in general traffic.

Even just for general traffic congestion, this project is jumping to a platinum-plated mega project solution before we’ve tried all the other things first.

It could do irreparable harm to Wellington, just as we’re starting the transition to being a real city.

It IS expensive, but tunnels are. I'd note that the Let's Get Wellington Moving project to build a single tram line to Island Bay and a second Mt Victoria Tunnel that added no new road capacity (but freed up the existing tunnel entirely for cycling and walking, and added lanes for buses) was $7.4 billion. That would have delivered a tram to Island Bay that would have been no faster than current bus services, and only modest relief to traffic congestion at the Basin Reserve.

The claim that the proposal is just about addressing "private car congestion" is misinformation, and minimises a situation that exists most of the day during weekdays and much of the weekends. It also affects bus congestion from the eastern and southern suburbs at the Basin and Kilbirnie Crescent. It isn't just cars, it's also trucks (the Greens pretend freight doesn't matter), taxis and rideshare services, besides the majority of trips undertaken in Wellington are by car, either as drivers or passengers.

It WILL fix bus network capacity issues, especially at the Basin Reserve, Kent Terrace and from the Eastern Suburbs, as traffic will flow much more freely, and take 20% of traffic off of the waterfront route. It's wilful blindness to pretend otherwise (because these people think any new road capacity is malign).

The claim it is a "platinum plated mega project solution" before "we've tried all the other things first" is pejorative nonsense, especially from people who were happy to spend double that, mostly on a tunnel and tram line. The only option that might help somewhat is road pricing, but the advocacy for that is muted. There is no realistic chance of significant modal shift for trips that bypass the city, because they have a diverse range of origins and destinations. Likewise, without an additional tunnel to the eastern suburbs, there will not be modal shift from there as buses cannot flow freely. It's fair to object to spending a lot on transport infrastructure, but not when you're solutions are more expensive and require significantly more taxpayer cost over time to subsidise their operations.

The claim it could do "irreparable harm" to Wellington is pejorative hyperbole. The land for the second tunnels is hardly significant, part of it is within the motorway corridor in any case.

Finally, their claims about the proposals are weak:

It aims to “fix” traffic congestion by building a bigger road in the centre. Never, not ever, has this worked.
If you look at the numbers for how LGWM’s package was going to “fix traffic”, it wasn’t the very expensive road-building that was going to do the heavy lifting: it was congestion charging (digital infrastructure and some gantries) and the second spine for public transport (paint, signage, timetabling). And the costs for civil construction (which this expansion project is all about) have rocketed since then.
There are lots of flaws with the logic: smooth, faster-flowing traffic through the city centre while also somehow not worsening severance in Te Aro, and while also allowing lots of cars to turn on and off it…
Its Cost-Benefit Ratio is already low (even with the extra-low discount rate now allowed to be used) and the Inner City Bypass was found to have been probably not worth the money spent on it (we lose more than we gain from having it) so it’s highly likely this will be worse given its far greater costs. The opportunity cost of this public money is dismaying.

First bullet is wrong. It is not a bigger road in the centre at all, and yes building new roads has fixed congestion in many cases, especially in smaller cities. Many cities have inner bypasses that work, such as Oslo, Berne and Bergen, and they DO relieve congestion. The first motorway in New Zealand, the Johnsonville-Tawa segment, remains adequate for traffic at most times and there is NO proposal to widen it. It's time that the oft-claimed "every new road induces traffic until it fills up" is tempered by reality that this is only true in some cases.

Yes, congestion charging will have a big impact on traffic, which is also being enabled by this government. The second spine for public transport wont work effectively without a better bypass to take through traffic off the waterfront (and any good congestion charging scheme enables traffic to bypass it because public transport does not do well serving most demand that does not start or terminate in the central city). Furthermore, just converting lanes on the waterfront to bus lanes will make congestion worse, which backs up to buses elsewhere in the network.

The third bullet has a point. Not building a proper bypass under Te Aro will worsen the severance due to SH1, but the Greens spent years campaigning against a cut and cover tunnel under Te Aro to fix this. Nothing will magically fix this problem, short of kneecapping the economy and demand for travel.

Yes it is a low value project, but it underestimates the real lifecycle benefits of tunnels (which last for much longer than any appraisal period). It is fair to argue about the opportunity cost of the money, but then I don't think the people pushing this want people to pay lower taxes and spend the money themselves! The Greens opposed the project when it had BCRs of 2-5 in the 1990s, with a much higher discount rate and 25 year appraisal period. It is difficult to believe that if it had a BCR of 5 or 10 the opposition would change, it is a blanket opposition to any new road capacity regardless of whether it is priced or not.

The whole wording of the opposition is childish and sneering towards people's choices. The language that sneers at ""popping down to Moore Wilsons” and “going to pick the kids up cos it’s raining”" is misanthropic. So what if people want to do that, as long as they pay at peak times. Most people can't live within walking or cycling distances of where they want to go.

These groups stopped Wellington getting a proper bypass in the 1990s and beyond, and the blight of having at at-grade SH1 through Te Aro is because of this philosophy.

Could it be better? Yes. Should there be pricing? Yes. Should it mean the tunnels shouldn't proceed? No.

Jews are targets for being Jews in England - and it's not from the traditional far right

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 05 Oct 2025 02:55:00 +0000

When Jews get targeted in what should be safe liberal democracies, it doesn't quite see the same response as when Muslims or targeted or even the general populace. We all recall that, by and large, the Christchurch mosque attack saw universal outrage and condemnation. Muslims targeted for who they are. Utterly innocent, and nobody would utter that they had some fault because they hadn't condemned say the Taliban, ISIS, Iran or any of the multitude of Islamofascist terror or totalitarian regimes. Certainly had anyone wanted to protest against the actions of any such groups the very next day, it would have been frowned upon and scorned. However, when it comes to Jews, targeted by association with Israel and therefore the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza, there is no thought around taste and sensitivity. The "pro-Palestinian" protestors (who range from people expressing concern over humanitarian conditions, to those wanting to wipe out Israel and "globalise the Intifada" (!) don't give a damn, after all it wasn't THEM doing it. Besides, "genocide". If you think that there is a deliberate campaign to wipe out an entire people, then a few Jews being killed by a jihadist are a mere detail.

Jews, you see, have a tryptych of groups who hate them. Traditionally their chief enemies were the (self-styled) Christian-aligned far-right, which of course inspired the Nazis, and are seen today in the actual far-right (you know, the Holocaust denying, "wrong side won the war", white power, big state type - not the current trend to call free-market liberal or traditionalist conservatives fascists). Their attacks on Jews are rare, thankfully.

The bigger problems are Islamists, often motivated by wanting to wipe out Israel, but also buying into pretty much the whole panoply of neo-Nazi conspiratorial Jew hate, and the far-left. The far-left, who also tout the anti-concept "whiteness" see Jews as "ultra-white". Jews are rich, successful in many industries and in politics, and of course are seen as "colonists" wherever they go. In the far-left's endless desire to categorise people under critical theory as "oppressed" vs. "oppressors", Jews get placed in the latter, so they don't count... again. They don't count.

As Nick Cohen said in the Spectator:

If they were from any other minority, no one on the left would have the slightest trouble denouncing the deaths of 53-year-old Adrian Daulby and 66-year-old Melvin Cravitz as the result of a lethal racist attack. A terrorist with the resonant name of Jihad Al-Shamie – talk about nominative determinism – went for them because they were Jews.

He continues:

Last night pro-Palestinian demonstrators couldn’t give it a rest – not even for 24 hours. They were outside Downing Street and Manchester’s Piccadilly station, chanting all the old slogans and ducking all the hard questions. ‘Globalise the intifada,’ they cried – does that mean killing Jews in Manchester? ‘Palestine will be free from the river to the sea’ – does that mean driving out all the Jews living between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan?

It should be the easiest thing in the world for pro-Palestinian demonstrators to reject accusations of Jew hate and dismiss these questions as smears. It’s not anti-Semitic to denounce Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli far right. Nor is it in any way racist to deplore the reduction of Gaza to a charnel house of rubble and bones.

Yet much of the British left cannot defend itself against charges of bigotry because many leftists (not all, but many) refuse to define anti-Jewish racism and declare it unacceptable. They can’t and won’t because any condemnation of anti-Semitism would imply a condemnation of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian theocrats. Rather than take a stand against the very people who have led the Palestinian cause to disaster, they prefer to say nothing at all.

Remember when Phil Twyford was hounded at a "pro-Palestine" rally for condemning Hamas?

Remember also the elation expressed by Islamist preachers protesting in Sydney just after October 7th.

As Julie Burchill said in the Spectator last year:

Excitement is the often overlooked element when it comes to anti-Semitism – an excitement that is almost sexual. There is a sadistic feeding frenzy to this anti-Jewish crusade, as though the rape rampage of Hamas made the cause of anti-Semites more, not less, worth rallying around. The ‘Paraglider Girls’ convicted this week appeared like overgrown Girl Guides, their grim insignia a twist on badges for Kayaking or being an Emergency Helper – only evil.

The fact that the pro-Palestinian marches started before Israel actually retaliated was a big tell; these people weren’t marching against Israel defending itself, but in favour of Israel being attacked. Unless they all had access to a big old time-travel machine, of course.

Nazis did this, the far-right does this, Maoists do this, and the Islamists do it.

It is, of course, entirely possible to protest against the Israeli Government, to call for peace and negotiations for a two-state solution. Remember though that many of the protestors for Palestinians don't want this. John Minto's Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa explicitly says:

PSNA aims to change public opinion and bring pressure on the New Zealand government to join the majority of the international community in requiring Israel to recognize and support the following principles:

A just peace in Palestine depends upon the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland and the dismantling of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel, recognizing that the further partitioning of Palestine in order to create the so-called Two-State Solution would only lead to further injustice and suffering.
Acceptance of the primacy of international law and United Nations resolutions as the basis for the ending of military occupation and all forms of ethnic discrimination in Israel.
The international community's responsibility for upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the urgent need for the state of Israel to be called to account for its gross abuses of Palestinian human rights.
Justice requires the establishment of a single state in Palestine, bi-national, secular and democratic, with full and equal citizenship for all with ethnic and religious rights protected in a democratic constitution.

So it wants Israel to recognize (sic.) that it should be destroyed, it rejects the "so-called Two-State Solution" and wants a single state that is secular and democratic. This is the policy of Hamas, it isn't even the policy of Fatah and the Government of the Palestinian Authority.

The entire mainstream left, including academia and much of the media refuses to call out the extremists in the pro-Palestinian movement, who celebrated October 7th and call for destruction of Israel, chant "from the river to the sea" as part of that, and then call to "globalise the intifada".

Murdering Jews at synagogues is what globalising the intifada looks like. For all of the mealy mouthed nonsense, it's a movement of violence and harassment, and it co-opts far-left Jew haters and far-right ones to join in on their embrace of the world's oldest hatred.

Unless those wanting justice for Palestinians can purge themselves of their Jew haters, can purge themselves of those who are the Islamist far-right (a tautology I know) as much as the Zionist ultra-nationalists who want to declare Judea and Samaria as Israeli land and purge it of Arabs, are the equivalent, then they are accomplices to Jew hatred.

Matthew Syed, a centrist journalist from The Times, went to a Palestine protest and asked "“Who do you blame for what is unfolding in Gaza? Do you think Hamas bears any responsibility?” and:

Here’s what happened next, as their friendly faces turned to, well, something else. “Go away,” one said. “Go away. You are a bad faith actor. We don’t want to talk to you. Just f*** off. It’s a really boring old line. You are disgusting.” “I am disgusting?” “Yes, you are disgusting. You are not a journalist. It’s very clear what your position is here.” Now, their voices were getting louder: “Piss off.” “Thanks for your time, I appreciate it,” I said retreating, but they were not finished. “What are you doing here anyway? You are prejudiced. Hopefully nobody will ever buy a book you write. You are a charlatan. You are a fucking racist.”

So they couldn't even accept Hamas bore some responsibility. Couldn't even say "sure, but Israel has overreacted".

It got worse:

I wish I could tell you that this was a one-off but I spoke to at least two dozen people and, with two exceptions (including a lovely black guy from north London who conversed intelligently and politely), the motivation for being here was obvious, potent and implacable. The hatred of Jews. I heard conspiracy theories (October 7 was a false flag operation), blood libels, and the pervasive view that the Manchester atrocity was not a heinous attack but righteous comeuppance for an evil people. My sense is that many felt liberated to say what they really thought by the proximity of like-minded others; the classic symptom of mob mentality.

We all know criticising Israel isn't anti-semitic. It's entirely reasonable to oppose Israel's actions in Gaza and not regards Jews as being to blame, wherever they may live (bearing in mind even around half of adult Israelis oppose the Netanyahu government).

However, we also know Hamas is explicitly dripping in Jew hatred. Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas has many times expressed Jewish conspiracy theories and questioned the Holocaust. Jew hatred is central to Palestinian politics, although it need not be so. Those who participate in pro-Palestinian protests that welcome Jew haters on marches - people who cheer on murdering innocent Jews a part of "globalising the Intifada" - are part of a movement of Jew hatred.

Think again, if there were protest marches that welcomed people who thought the Christchurch mosque attack was a false flag, or even justified, then we all know what those protests would be called.

It's time for the "pro-Palestine" movement to either exclude Jew haters, or be branded terror-backing hate groups, and for the far-left politicians who back them to deserve to be as ostracised as Nazis.

Who was it again who said that if you go on a protest and Nazi's attend, you're at a pro-Nazi rally?

Recognising a "state" that doesn't exist

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:47:00 +0000

Winston Peters has done the right thing. The entirely performative act of recognising the “State of Palestine” by three countries with left-wing governments is not a reason to follow. For a start, at least in the UK and Australia, the respective Labour (and Labor) parties fear losing Muslim voter support to minor parties or independents. The UK, Labour lost four predominantly Muslim electorates to independents in 2024. Some Australian federal divisions have similar challenges, with both independents and the Greens presenting challenges. France doesn’t quite have the same challenge, but France’s colonial past drives it to take its own stance to wage power in the region.

Objectively, nobody honestly believes that the “State of Palestine” actually exists. You’d think that might matter, but in this post-modernist age of relativism, then if you “believe” something is real, then it is true. So, let’s go through the factual basis for rejecting the recognition of something that can’t objectively be recognised as such.

The act of “recognising” a sovereign state is that of one state acknowledges another entity is legitimately its “equal” at least under international law. Almost always, this is a formality because states meet the formal legal criteria for actually “being” states. That being:

• Clearly defined borders

• Effective government over those borders and most of its territory

• A permanent population (comprising its citizens)

• The means to engage in relations with other states

The “State of Palestine” lacks most of this criteria for a whole host of reasons. It doesn’t have clearly defined boundaries. The State of Palestine has never existed, as before 1967 the West Bank was under the control of Jordan, and Gaza under Egypt. Given discussions on peace under the Oslo Accords were about this topic, it is clear this is far from settled.

There is no effective government over the borders of a not clearly defined territory as Israel and Egypt have control over those borders. Even if there were such control, there is no government with control over both the West Bank and Gaza, and even the Palestinian Authority has limited powers over part of the West Bank. With Hamas controlling Gaza, it hardly is a territory with effective control by the government. It’s hard to imagine a sovereign state without sovereign powers including that of entry or exit of its territory.

It may be possible to identify a permanent population, although many Palestinians identify as “refugees”, inferring they are not permanent residents of the land they live on. However, this isn’t such a barrier.

Of course, there are Palestinian ambassadors, embassies and other trapping of being a state, in terms of foreign relations, so arguably it does meet that criteria.

However, that’s not enough. There are not clearly defined borders, there is no effective government over most of the territory that could conceivably be part of a Palestinian state, and certainly not its borders. It may be easier to claim a permanent population and the means to engage in diplomatic relations, although given it can’t control its borders or airspace, it’s rather empty.

By contrast, Taiwan (Republic of China) absolutely meets all of those conditions, even if de jure it claims sovereignty over all of the territory governed by the People’s Republic of China, it’s clear where the demarcation line between the territory governed by the two Chinese governments is (and we all know the government in Taiwan has long ceded any formal interest in expanding its control beyond its current territory). However, you won’t see any serious campaigns to recognise Taiwan (for many reasons), but I digress.

Luxon and Peters had a choice. Look like they are following the UK, France and Canada (and over a hundred less than liberal democracies along with outright dictatorships), or look like they are following the US. What he did do was neither, although the critics bay it is some sort of Trumpian act (the ultimate pejorative nowadays, much worse than supporting Hamas or Iran), it is aligning NZ with Japan, south Korea and Singapore.

When the UK and others recognised the “State of Palestine” Hamas claimed that its tactic, of the 7th October pogrom “worked” alongside its sacrifice of thousands of Gazans as human shields for its members. “Pro-Palestine” activists don’t care about that, because far too many of them minimise Hamas’s pogrom, let alone its theocratic fascist policies (zero tolerance for political or religious dissent, zero tolerance for equal rights for women, let alone LGBT people), because they are driven more by hatred of Israel and Western capitalist liberal democracies than concern for Palestinians.

That doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a “State of Palestine” at some point, once there is a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that resolves the borders, the relationship between both entities, Israeli settlements, sidelining eliminationists on both sides, and guaranteeing peace and security for citizens in both entities. It appears difficult to envisage when neither side is willing to compromise or negotiate, but neither Netanyahu nor Abbas will govern forever. However, until there actually is a “State of Palestine” agreed which lets it fulfil all of the legal conditions for statehood, it is pointless “recognising” it.

Recognising Palestine DOES give succour to Hamas AND to Netanyahu, because it gives them both reason to snub any compromise. “You see, murdering Jews en masse DOES work, because it means they will create thousands of our martyrs and the world will hate them”. For Netanyahu “see the world hates us, to hell with them, we will ensure there is no Palestinian state”.

It's empty showboating, there is no State of Palestine yet, it’s absolutely right to refuse to engage in the nonsense of pretending there is one to recognise, even if you wish it existed. Peace on that sliver of land is a long way off, but it wont come from engaging in propagandist make-believe.

Voting in the 2025 local election: Wellington City Council Mayor and Eastern Ward, Wellington Regional Council - Wellington constituency

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 25 Sep 2025 09:49:00 +0000

This is half serious, half humourous, because let’s face it, a majority probably wont vote, and a fair number will vote for MORE council, MORE spending, MORE stopping people doing things they don’t like and MORE making people do things they want. A fair number of people look at candidates who use clichés like “sustainable”, “equitable” and “inclusive”, and go “oh yes more of that”.

NZ isn’t like the UK, where local elections happen every year (different councils) and most candidates are party political. Those elections are used by voters to send signals about central government, which is frankly nuts. There is next to no value in voting for candidates because you like the National-led government or you hate it, because by-and-large, it wont make much difference at all. Sure there are Labour, ACT and Greens candidates, which is useful if you know you like or don’t like the party, but unlike Parliament most people who are party aligned don’t caucus together or vote identically.

In short, judge them as individuals more than their labels.

For my sins, I’m in Eastern Ward, so I’ll run through the Mayor, the City Council Eastern Ward, the Regional Council Wellington Ward and finally the Maori Ward vote.

MAYOR

Let’s not elect Andrew Little. The failed unionist popinjay who is looking for a sinecure in the twilight of his political career doesn’t deserve to be Mayor of Wellington. He’ll be better than the nice but dim Tory Whanau, but so would most Councillors. He wont list making Ramallah a sister city as an “achievement”, but part of his campaign is about “making public transport cheaper” which is literally nothing to do with Wellington City Council. It is a Regional Council responsibility. So he’s a pontificating poseur. Wellington has a dearth of significant private businesses located in the CBD, and is suffering the closure of retail and hospitality as the city slowly decays. A man who’s spent his life fighting employers and private enterprise and oversaw the irrelevance of unions he came to lead is not the person to revitalise Wellington. The fact he led student unions, including of course opposing voluntary membership of student unions should consign him to the dustbin of history along with the Berlin Wall. Rank him second to last.

I’m ranking Josh Harford of the Aotearoa New Zealand Silly Hat Party first. He is one of the smartest people standing for Mayor, and his vision for optimism is a good one. Sure some might say he is a joke candidate (and he is far cleverer, more subversive and interesting that the nihilistic William Pennywize, and there are enough unfunny clowns about), and you might say I am chosing him because I know him (although he's not the only candidate I know). In all seriousness, if he got elected it would uplift the optimism and publicity for Wellington more than any other candidates combined. Imagine the headlines if Wellington elected a young man with a sense of humour, sense of drive, sound academic record and proven willingness to work well with people across political spectrums. Leftie journalists will highlight his ethnic minority heritage, which he does not and which does him credit. He is his own man, and really will revitalise the city.

Now we all know he isn’t sure thing, so who to rank after Harford? There are three other groups of candidates. Lefties, righties and the ones you will laugh at.

Alex Baker is the Green candidate without being branded “Green” and talks in slogans. His priorities are “affordability” (which means rates, rents, house prices and transport costs – but it’s unclear how he can keep all of these down), “jobs” and “sustainability”. He wants land value rates, which on its own is worth considering, but he also wants to “complete the Golden Mile” (which will slow down bus services by eliminating the ability of buses to pass) and focus on bike and bus lanes to get the city “moving”, although there is no evidence this will make any material difference. His focus on climate change action isn’t credible to control spending or promote business. His ambitions suggest he will spend more money. Rank him last.

Scott Caldwell is to left and on X is known as the Scoot Foundation. He’s pretty smart, keen on more intensive development and is a housing abundance supporter. That’s good in itself. He’s dreaming if he thinks central government will pay more rates, he’s also dreaming to push an underground rail link through reclaimed land. However, having someone so pro-housing construction and antithetical to heritage protection is worth supporting over others. Rank him above Little.

Diane Calvert is a safe pair of hands and eyes on Council. She supports fiscal prudence and her Wellington Plan has a lot of merit. She wants to speed up consenting, focus on core services and maintaining assets and downscale the upgrade to Courtenay Place, and abandon the ludicrous Harbour Quays bus corridor proposal (which will worsen traffic and weaken the Golden Mile bus core). Sure, she’s no libertarian, no free-market liberal, but she’d be far more friendly towards revitalising the decaying private sector than Little. Rank her second or third.

Ray Chung’s entire campaign has been overshadowed by his ill-considered comments, from some time ago, about Tory Whanau. He's said a lot of things that get judged poorly in 2025, but the chap is 75. He’s committed to zero rates increases, which is ambitious, but a good goal, along with eliminating non-core activities. It’s difficult to disagree with that. Leftwing journalist from the Spinoff (!) Joel McManus did a hitjob on him which is hard to completely look past, and indicates he is unlikely to be the best choice for Mayor. He’s a useful Councillor as an antagonist to wasteful leftwing virtue signallers, but as Mayor he should be ranked below the better ones on the right. I’d put him above Little of course, but below Calvert and Tiefenbacher.

Rob Goulden has been around forever, but having been banned from Taxpayer Union events, it’s indicative that he too angry and combative. Arguably he’s on the right, but it’s not clear what he really wants and that’s not worth giving time to. There’s a lack of detail around prioritisation, cutting spending and scrutinising expenditure. I’d put him above Little, but only just.

Kelvin Hastie is another leftwing candidate whose weaknesses include being an arts promoter and venue operator, indicating he is likely to spend more on the arts. He talks of “sustainable growth” (any growth would be nice), and is committed to “affordable housing” without saying how. The Spinoff claims he wants to sell council housing to first home buyers, and supports the long-tunnel under Te Aro proposal (which isn’t happening and Council wouldn’t fund anyway). He has no chance, but rank him above Little.

Donald McDonald is well known because nobody really understands what he is promoting, bless him. Still he seems harmless enough.

William Pennywize isn’t funny.

Joan Shi seems fairly sound, focusing on core infrastructure and a business friendly environment, but also talk about “affordable public transport” (not up to the City Council). If she had a chance, I’d rank her reasonably, and certainly above Little, Goulden and Hastie, but not much depth here.

Karl Tiefenbacher has a solid record as an entrepreneur, and clearly has a chance as a centre-right candidate against Little. His support for faster consenting for housing, more scrutiny on the quality of cycle lane spending and constraining spending (and he understand the role of the City Council) makes him a strong contender. I’d rank him a strong third after Harford and Calvert.

CITY COUNCIL EASTERN WARD

Three councillors need to be elected here. Five are reasonable choices.

Ken Ah Kuoi: His name is dotted all over the ward, and is keen on fiscal prudence and focusing on “core services”, being part of the Independent Together team which is loosely affiliated. Fluent in Samoan as well. I’d rank him highly.

Alex Baker: See above. Don’t rank the Green in drag.

Chris Calvi-Freeman: He’s a bit of a leftie, but he knows transport policy well as a transport planner. He’d be an asset in Council and is pushing for the 2nd Mt Victoria Tunnel to have good facilities for al modes, which should not be controversial. He’s no ideologue on these matters, although his views on other subjects are less known. I’d rank him highly.

Trish Given: She’s a lot of a leftie. Promoting homes for all (how?), wants to future-proof the city against climate change (how?) and talks about a “fairer” city (which usually is coding for higher rates and more spending). Her website indicates she wants a very active council, so she’ll support much higher rates and spending. Don’t rank her.

Rob Goulden: See above. You might prefer him over the green/left, but that’s it.

Luke Kuggeleijn: The sole ACT candidate is a young man keen on avoiding wasteful spending, like the Golden Mile project. Standing for ACT in this ward full of lefties is brave in itself, so rank him highly, he’ll need it, and if he wins he'll be a breath of fresh air to shake this Council up into being more efficient and smaller.

Michelle McGuire: As with Ah Kuoi, she is with Independent Together with the focus on core spending and rates control. She has a private sector background. I’d rank her fairly highly.

Thomas G.P. Morgan: He has had nearly 30 years’ interest in local government, he uses his profile to talk about more… bus shelters. He has a lot of ideas, but I’m unsure that’s what is needed. I’m not ranking him highly.

Sam O’Brien: The Labour candidate is an urban planner, which is reason enough to rank him very lowly. He wants an affordable, accessible, resilient city, but clearly he wants to direct people’s property and businesses. He has a good chance of getting elected so rank him very low.

Jonny Osborne: A public servant standing for the Greens is enough to rank him the lowest. Like Andrew Little, he thinks he is standing for the regional council calling for “cheaper and reliable” public transport which is mostly regional not city council business. He’ll want more council and higher rates. Rank last.

Karl Tiefenbacher: See above, he’s worth a shot. Rank highly. He'll be an asset in Council.

WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL - WELLINGTON CONSTITUENCY

Five councillors to be elected here. It’s slim pickings. I can only get enthused about two, another three I might hold my nose and choose just to stop the hardened socialists.

Sarah Free: Was a Green City Councillor, now standing as an independent for the regional council. She’s not the worst option, being obviously a leftie she’ll back rates increases and more council spending and control. However, I’d rank her above the actual Green and Labour candidates. Middling ranking.

Glenda Hughes: She was a regional councillor before losing last time, and is trying again. Centre-right (former Nat), fiscally conservative, former cop and media minder, she’s safer with ratepayers’ money than the lefties. She should be one of the top five.

Alice Claire Hurdle: ACT’s candidate is the only one clearly offering a change of direction. Wanting less red tape on farms and businesses, and cost effective transport solutions, she will be valuable in constraining the ever expansionist regional council. Rank her first.

Tom James: This Labour candidate has as his top priority “faster, cheaper and more reliable” public transport, which is going to mean higher rates. For him “tackling climate change needs to be at the heart of our council’s work”, not core infrastructure or addressing key local issues. This makes him likely to hike rates, restrict development and virtue signal. Rank very lowly.

Tom Kay: Green in drag. He cares about our communities and environment, wants us safe from the impacts of climate change, with “cheaper, faster” buses. He will focus on protecting and restoring streams, rivers and wetlands, and reducing emissions. We don’t need an environmental scientist making the regional council a greater drag on development, and hiking rates. Rank lowly.

Mark Kelynack: It’s unclear really what he believes in, except much better public transport including a passenger reward scheme it seems. He seems practical, and the lack of ambition for the regional council doing more deserves a better ranking than the lefties. Maybe deserves to be in the top five.

Belinda McFadgen: Her career has been on environmental policymaking, science and law. She wants climate resilience, cost effective solutions and improving waterways. So she says she is evidence based, without the rhetoric of the lefties. She’s in the middling group, maybe above Sarah Free.

Henry Peach: Worst of the Green candidates, just say no.

Daran Ponter: The Regional Council chair and Labour candidate, he’s the Andrew Little of the regional council. This former public servant who was involved in the expansion of local government powers with the “power of general competence” wants more regional council rates, power and control. It’s telling that the second thing he lists is “lifting driver wages”, as if that delivers outcomes for bus customers or ratepayers. He’s a socialist who wants to end competitive tendering for public transport, lowering farebox recovery for public transport, and restoring wetlands. He is part of the problem of a regional council that is inflating rates and its role. Rank him very low.

Yadana Saw: Better of the Green candidates, but like all of the candidates (except Hurdle and Woolf) she is committed to hiking rates to increase pay above market rates at the council, and like Ponter talks of increasing public ownership of public transport, for ideological reasons (including the 18 new trains 90% funded by taxpayers through a central government she opposes). Just say no to her too.

Simon Woolf: By regional council standards he’s centre-right, but he’s really a centrist and quite sensible. Going to be much less keen on rates rises and ideological based expansion of the regional council’s functions. Rank him number two.

MAORI WARDS

Just say no. The last Maori ward city councillor won with only 872 votes. The lowest winning general ward city councillor had 2841 votes. It’s disproportionately unfair for there to be one councillor with so few votes having the same power as those with over three times as many. That’s without the more fundamental argument that it’s wrong to divide the electorate by ethnic identity, and treat that single councillor as the authentic voice of Maori in the city. Politicians talk about reducing division and working collaboratively. In a liberal democracy, voters are represented by whoever is elected by their constituents, including those who many voters disagree with. STV enables preferences to get the most preferred candidates elected. Maori voters included, and their preferences will be as varied as any other voters.

Local government elections 2025 for a libertarian

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 21 Sep 2025 01:40:00 +0000

Libertarians don’t like local government much, generally. While some aspire for maximum devolution, similar to Switzerland, so that most government power (outside defence, foreign affairs and border control) is at the more local level, that would require a transformational constitutional change. Switzerland works because its best and brightest get concentrated at the canton level, and also because the crazy only happens on a relatively small scale, so is easily purged from public policy. The culture of referenda means more engagement on issues by the public, but it also delivers a wide range of results. Conservative, liberal, free-market, socialist views all get some airing, but by and large Swiss politics is one of gradual evolution. None of this describes local politics in the Anglosphere, and especially not NZ.

Local government to many libertarians is an anathema, because a fair proportion of the people drawn to it tend to have one of two sets of philosophical positions:

• Socialism (government should spend more, do more, regulate more)

• Cronyism (local government should preserve, to protect the business, property and interests of the councillor).

Many in local government are well intentioned, but it does attract people who aspire to central government, but most of all a lot of busybodies (albeit Wellington is much better off with far-left wingnut Tamatha Paul being a backbench MP in Opposition, than a Wellington City Councillor).

Some of them brand themselves as such. Of course the Greens and Labour campaign, always thinking that local government should address poverty, “save the planet” and grow, spending more and taxing more (notwithstanding claims of prudence, none of them want to cut the role of local government). The ones who want local government to get involved in foreign affairs are the worst. Whether it be sister city junkets or "recognising "Palestine"" or declaring a city "nuclear free", it's absurd wasteful stuff.

However, the busybodies aren’t always branded. Tory Whanau pretended not to be a Green, and in Wellington this election, Alex Baker is the Green Mayoral candidate not branding himself as such.

It’s less common to find candidates and even less common to find councillors who want local government to do less.

Since the Clark Government granted local government the “power of general competence” (which the Key Government did not repeal, nor will the Luxon Government), councils have felt free to do more and more with ratepayers money. We can see the results in the areas that councils have had responsibility for. Nothing exemplifies this better than water.

The state of water infrastructure is, in much of the country, a debacle, and that has until recently been left entirely in the hands of local government. It’s local democracy in full effect, implementing what both the left, and conservative devolutionists want, and they have failed due to incompetence and ineptness.

We saw this a few decades ago when they owned monopoly local bus companies, which were characterised by ever declining services, ever increasing pay for drivers, and a starving of capital for new buses. We can be forever grateful that this was taken off them, along with responsibility for local electricity distribution and retail (which was facing the same dearth of investment as water), and indeed even milk supply. Many are too young to remember what an absolute joke of an airport Wellington had when it was run as a joint local-central government entity. Once corporatised and part-privatised, decades of arguments about who and how a new airport terminal was going to be funded and built evaporated.

In the planning and regulatory space we see it in housing. Left to their own devices, Councillors choose District Plans and apply the RMA to drastically constrain the supply of new housing. While some of it is NIMBYism, most of it is because the culture of local government institutionally and politically is to be a block to development. It's a culture of no, not of yes, and a culture of "not there" rather than "why not there?".

Had the RMA existed a century plus ago, the railway lines through our cities wouldn’t have been built, and neither would any motorways (although I’m not saying the Robert Moses approach was the right one either), and many airports wouldn’t have been built, but most importantly most of the current housing stock wouldn’t have been built either. The RMA handed local government a powerful tool on development and it chose to strangle it.

So what do we face in 2025? Some candidates campaign for sticking to core spending and keeping rates under control, but plenty also push a series of cause celebres. Some want to “save the planet” by making driving less attractive because of “climate change”, even though it will make no measurable difference. Some want to ease poverty by… taxing property owners more and restricting house building. Some of course are “opposed to privatisation” because they are brain-addled socialist morons who think you’re all better off being forced to share in the ownership of some “asset” that, by and large, can’t be managed well by council at all (or is in a structure that doesn’t allow such management, like an airport or port).

Most candidates are “passionate about the community”, so much they want to pass bylaws on it, control development and decide how much to take from the community by force through rates, to spend on what it thinks is important. More than a few think my money should be spent on promoting arts and culture I don’t consume or want.

It’s worse at the regional council level. Candidate Tom James (Labour of course) says “For me, tackling climate change needs to be at the heart of our council’s work”. Really? How will we measure your success in doing that? Should you be punished if global temperatures keep rising? Candidate Tom Kay also say he wants to be “reducing emissions to slow climate change”. How deluded are these people?

Current regional council chair Daran Ponter says “I am committed to active community engagement, a vibrant Wellington , and supporting a thriving economy”. Really? Have you done that? How much are you making it thrive now? Like him, Green candidate Yadana Saw talks about having “helped fund” 18 new trains, which are in fact 90% funded by taxpayers through central government. She didn’t fund anything, she made ratepayers fund a sliver of it.

Even the highest profile candidate of the lot in Wellington, failed former Labour leader Andrew Little, campaigns on controlling public transport fares as Mayor – a function that is completely outside the purview of Wellington City Council.

So much is just pure charlatanism. Finger-wagging showboating by people you wouldn't trust to run you a bath, let alone run infrastructure competently (and of course they don't).

So what’s left? Well my first preference for Mayor will be going for a young man with ideas. Josh Harford. On a day like today, his policy of erecting large sails at the ends of Wellington to redirect wind to Upper Hutt “where it belongs” makes more sense than a busybody popinjay like Little. His mandate for optimism is well founded, but more generally the “Aotearoa New Zealand Silly Hat Party” has at its core the intellectual and cultural foundations of a good democracy. Not taking itself too seriously.

Josh wont be raising rates, he wont be telling people what to do, and best of all he doesn’t use the anti-concepts of 21st century post-modernist corporate, public relations double-speak that bastardises the relationship between reality and the public. He doesn’t talk about a city that is:

- Vibrant (it’s on a Faultline!)

- Inclusive (except for people who disagree with them)

- Innovative (like Council ever is!)

- Accountable (nobody is really held accountable for wasting money)

- Affordable (nobody is cutting rates)

- Collaborative (stop conspiring to spend more of my money)

So until New Zealand elects a central government to put the shackles on local government property (more than the removal of the four “well-beings” which frankly does little to achieve this), vote for whoever talks least about trying to do more, spend more and especially save the planet.

I might be bothered writing a voting guide for Wellington Eastern Ward, once I've worked how who to hold my nose and vote for!

Te Pati Maori's populism veers towards danger

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Mon, 08 Sep 2025 01:06:00 +0000

When Te Tai Tonga MP Takuta Ferris complained about non-white immigrants campaigning for Labour "against Maori", was he saying the quiet bit out loud, or was he just being a racist moron?

To their credit, Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi disavowed it, but they should know that their own rhetoric about “superior genes”, and Oriini Kaipara’s celebration of the proportionality of her Maori heritage is going to lead towards this. It isn’t the exclusionary racist blood and soil nationalism of the actual far-right, but none of this would be uncomfortable in a far-right ethno-nationalist party.

TPM did once state that it wanted to curb immigration until the supply of housing met demand, but later withdrew that policy.

The win by Te Pati Maori (TPM) of the Tamaki Makaurau by-election is hardly surprising, although that success is tempered by a low turnout, it reflect TPM’s underlying strength. Its populism. It's that populism that can lead into trouble for TPM, but also lead it towards nurturing dangerous narratives among its members and supporters.

Most of the media has too much unconscious bias in favour of the Maori national renaissance that it, by and large, neglects to see what a key part of TPM's success comes from. Populist rhetoric, policies and behaviour that promotes a strong emotional response from Maori, especially it would seem, rangatahi wahine. The decision to get Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke to lead the haka in Parliament was entirely strategic. It made her world famous (I even caught it being mentioned, approvingly, on the Gutfeld! show on Fox News - which is, by and large, MAGA central for US evening talk shows), which for TPM lifted them up for a new generation.

The term populist politics is almost universally used as a pejorative, because it largely plays to gut instincts and emotions, rather than a depth of thinking and reflection. Populism tends to thrive on an "us against them" narrative, which TPM hones very effectively. So much more rhetoric from TPM, from statements to their attire in Parliament is about differentiation, and as much as it may irritate some older people, especially non-Maori, that's the point. It's very easy to accuse National and Labour for being parties that bend to the wind and are weak on principles, but TPM isn't scared of being controversial. It thrives on it, because it literally doesn't care what the majority think.

It starts by its claim of being unashamedly Maori, but it drifts further into claiming it is the most authentically Maori (because it doesn't need to accommodate the "colonialists", like Labour).

Populism is all about a simple framing of what is wrong, and a simple framing of how to fix it. We’ve seen this before, as NZ First was built on it. The clue is in the name. NZ First had at its core anger at what was seen as a “betrayal” of the country ("us") by “them” – being the Lange/Douglas and Bolger/Richardson Labour and National governments. Betrayal to foreign investors and concern over immigration, essentially a xenophobic fear that foreigners who own businesses or foreigners that move to NZ are only in it for themselves and not for "ordinary New Zealanders".

NZ First was a response to a belief that neither major party put New Zealand first, and “sold out” the country to foreign investors, who bought privatised state businesses, and were “buying up land”. Furthermore, new immigration, particularly from Asia was “alienating” the local population, including Maori. After all, the 1996 General Election saw NZ First win a clean sweep of the Maori seats. It was a brief time when the dominant policy narrative was on free-market economics (although this had only minor impact on social policy areas like health and education), and NZ First could cater to this disenchantment differently from how the hard-left Alliance did (which was essentially the socialist wing of Labour having broken away).

Of course what NZ First did in the 1990s was scaremonger about immigrants. TPM isn't too far away from doing the same thing, as fear of immigration resonates with Maori who see it as another wave of newcomers that dilute their proportion of the population. Those immigrants tend to be wealthier than average Maori, more highly educated, and have children that do better than the local population at school and university. They also are less likely to be engaged with the criminal justice system. In short, because many immigrants are successful, well-behaved and peaceful, they feed narratives among some as to "why don't Maori do the same?". At its worst this antipathy towards immigrants is seen in violent crime and abuse towards them, and there are plenty of anecdotes of migrants facing racial abuse from Maori as much as other New Zealanders. Ferris's outburst last week hardly negates that.

In Scotland, the Scottish National Party (SNP) was built on the belief that Scotland could be independent from the UK and be better off, but it did nurture unabashed Anglophobia. Furthermore, it also promoted the idea that not supporting the SNP was traitorous to Scotland. Of course, the SNP was undone by actually having power and performing poorly, as there is only so much patience for constantly scapegoating Westminster as the source of your ills, when you get significant power to make your own decisions about what you do with your budgets. TPM almost certainly wont face that sort of scrutiny, which makes its own rhetoric potentially more dangerous. TPM knows that without radical and unlikely constitutional change, it will never lead a government at all. It can always blame the failures to meet the expectations of its voters on the "colonialists".

As much as TPM wants to be seen as inclusive and welcoming of all, its core belief system can easily be interpreted as highly divisive and hierarchical.

Four years ago Debbie Ngarewa-Packer wrote in the NZ Herald outlining the party's division of New Zealanders into three groups:

- Tangata Whenua (us);

- Tangata Tiriti (supporters of "us");

- Everyone else (racists).

For her, that essentially say that unless you embrace the TPM view of the world, you are an outsider. She says that Tangata Tiriti are "comfortable loudly declaring they’re recovering racists, and they teach anti-racism, extremely secure in knowing their place side by side with tangata whenua ushering in a new Aotearoa.... Tangata tiriti accept and appreciate the reason they live in Aotearoa is because the Tiriti gives them citizenship and mana equal to tangata whenua... Tangata Tiriti are people of the covenant that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. When you find a tangata tiriti that has a heart for the covenant it’s like meeting a long lost friend, the kind you know our tupuna fought to help treasure and protect. They want to make the burden light, hold up their side of the promise, clean up their own mess. They don’t want to lead our space they want to own their own, removing barriers of discrimination and clear the way to let us through, so we can live united in peace."

This is extraordinary stuff. Tangata Tiriti are original sinners who have to recover from their sin of racism and to "clean up their own mess". They only get the right to live in Aotearoa because their citizenship comes from Te Tiriti, not birth-right nor citizenship granted by a liberal democracy. Te Tiriti is like a Biblical text that grants "peace", what happens if you dare disagree?

Tangata Whenua can't be racist, presumably, which gives Takuta Ferris some reason to think he could say what he said.

Ngarewa-Packer, whether she knew it or not, was singing from the populist nationalist playbook. There are Maori (“us”), there are those who embrace our political-philosophical-cultural opinion (“Pakeha allies”) and the enemy. It’s a hierarchy that elevates its voters, as the indigenous people who are simultaneously superior to all others in Aotearoa, but also oppressed and marginalised. The scapegoat is the “colonialist” state.

TPM doesn’t really care about immigrants being upset with it, because its base isn’t keen on immigrants. TPM also doesn’t care too much about non-Maori being upset with it, not least because it sees Pakeha opponents as simply anti-Maori racists (seeing those that ridicule or denigrate Te Reo and claiming Maori just abuse their kids and waste their lives on benefits as being what many Pakeha “really think”) that fuel its base. It ought to care about calling those Maori who don’t support it “not really Maori”. That smacks of the Orwellian nonsense of Marxist-Leninists who claim that workers who don’t support the “workers’ party” are actually traitors to their class. The idea that Maori who are not with TPM aren’t really Maori is toxic nationalist racism. It resembles the nonsense concept of Third World Democracy which formed the basis for the one-party states of many post-colonial African states being dictatorships.

Clearly TPM's populism is working for it.

However, as much as Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer want to promote an image of inclusion and simply wanting Maori to manage their own affairs (which is entirely consistent with a genuine libertarian view of humanity), it's difficult to reconcile that with populism driven by nationalism which by definition deems them and their supporters as special, and others as redeemable sinners (and redeemable only if they concede to the TPM world view).

When TPM President John Tamihere tells Maori that they are living under a government "worse than Nazi Germany", he is feeding not just fear, but hatred and a justification to use all means necessary to overthrow the government. Of course no sane person could possibly equate the government to the Nazis, unless it was to rabble rouse and generate passion and anger. After all if you are fighting Nazis, is anything out of bounds?

This is not isolated rhetoric. Claiming the government is "pure evil" is akin to this, along with claiming the government is "erasing our future". This is absolutist eliminationist rhetoric which is alongside the claims of far-right white supremacists of the "Great Replacement Theory" that there is a programme to wipe out people of European ancestry.

Liberal democracies thrive when people with differences of opinions on how to address contemporary problems debate with some respect and acknowledgement that all are entitled to their views and expression of those views. They don't thrive when politicians seek to balkanise the population into a battle between "us" and "them", no matter what historic injustices have occurred by past generations. Particularly when they push a narrative that paints opponents as evil people who want to wipe their supporters out.

TPM leaders may think that all it does is change how people vote, but if it bleeds into changing how people interact in daily life, including giving succour to those who think they can commit or threaten violence against opponents, then it is dangerous divisive rhetoric that is every bit as racist and unhinged as any far-right ultra-nationalist movement. TPM isn't there yet, but the danger that it emboldens such thinking is very real.

The by-election without much choice

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Sun, 31 Aug 2025 23:29:00 +0000

It's hard to get too much enthusiasm for the Tamaki Makaurau by-election. The Maori roll and seats have become more politicised than ever before, as they are no longer an exercise in ensuring a core level of Maori representation in Parliament, but rather an expression of Maori nationalism. It used to be that the Maori seats would attract candidates from across the political spectrum, but no more. Of course Parliament now has 33 Maori MPs, most not being from the Maori seats, because Maori participation and representation for many is not exceptional. All parties in Parliament have Maori MPs. The case for the Maori seats to ensure representation is weak, it is particularly so with MMP, as Maori voters (as all other voters) have the same impact in determining the proportionality of MPs in Parliament.

As the by-election is for the electorate MP (of course) the range of choice is much more limited than at the General Election when voters enrolled in the electorate can pick any of the registered parties for the list vote. In 2023 this made a bit of a difference.

The media have portrayed the election as a two-horse race, which is realistic given the General Election, but in 2023 plenty of voters chose other parties for the party vote. Over a quarter chose other parties.

Tamaki Makaurau voters picked Labour for the list vote at 42.8%, even though the late Takutai Tarsh Kemp won the seat by 42 votes. Te Pati Maori only received 29.8% of the party vote.

The Greens came third with 11.9%, National fourth with 4.7% and NZ First fifth with 3.4%. Add in ACT getting 0.9% and there are 9% of voters in 2023 that voted for the current governing parties. It's hard to say they have much of a choice this time.

Hannah Tamaki ran last time and will have a limited following. Sherry-Lee Matene is little known and Kelvyn Alp, who was charged with distributing an objectionable publication (being a recording of the Christchurch mosque attack) is best not mentioned at all.

So what we actually have is a spectre of Peeni Henare, Labour list MP, trying to win "his" seat back by pandering to the far-left student activist nationalist rhetoric touted by the rather clueless Marxist nationalist Oriini Kaipara (who claimed that TPM was "repealing" legislation and wanted to look on her phone to find the party's contributions to Maori).

Henare said "We are faced by the worst government this world – and this country – has seen in a long time" like a slobbering idiot who blanks out the Nazis, Khmer Rouge and the Taliban and countless other examples.

Kaipara and Henare both want "Iwi-led" supermarkets which of course is possible now, but they are both economically illiterate.

However, most of all, both major candidates hold a view of the country, economy and Maori that is led by a philosophy of nationalist Marxist collectivism with a stronger state. They offer nothing to Maori who are entrepreneurs, who don't want to be tethered to the State or Iwi to govern them and their choices, and certainly nothing to Maori who don't want to give succour to Hamas, or who don't want to be a part of the tankie collective of haters of Israel, Western liberal democracy and capitalism, by giving a free pass to Iran, China, North Korea and Russia, and any groups engaging in "liberation" (totalitarian terror movements).

I am betting Kaipara will win, because the Greens, who are ideological allies of TPM, are not standing the candidate, and Peeni Henare is inauthentic. Unfortunately, the vast majority of voters on the Maori roll want more Government, they want more cultural nationalist chest beating, and really have little interest (or concern) about the Marxist anti-capitalist, anti-Western authoritarian cheerleading that TPM undertake.

That's because, whether you like it or not, a key indicator for many Maori is pride is who they are according to their ancestors, culture and the use of Te Reo. There is a clash of cultural views on this, and as obnoxious as TPM can be on some issues (which resemble "blood and soil" views of nationalism and a willingness to judge those who disagree with them as needing to emigrate or not being "real Maori"), what it does is demonstrate a cultural pride that works just as much as ultranationalists gain support in other countries.

TPM is not a party of ultranationalism, it's a party of socialist nationalism (and no I don't mean THAT), akin to the Scottish National Party, and it makes Maori feel good about themselves for what they are, not who they are. It constantly rabble rouses Maori into thinking they are being oppressed, silenced and suffering (worse than the Nazis according to TPM President John Tamihere - a grifting shape shifting used car salesman type if ever there was one), all because of a conspiracy of Pakeha white supremacism.

TPM also know they will never ever ever be in a position to be in power to prove that is wrong (unlike the Scottish National Party which has spend much of its political capital in being incompetent and corrupt).

So on we go. I hope Henare wins, as it denies TPM one more seat and reduces the overhand in Parliament by one seat, not because he is deserving. From the looks of it, none of them are deserving, but the winner at the very least gets to say she (or he) isn't the fascist candidate.

Pity the UK

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:38:00 +0000

The 1970s are calling, and the UK is facing a sovereign debt crisis. Let's be clear, it has next to nothing to do with Brexit (as France and Germany s face similar crises, although some other European countries definitely do not). It has everything to do with economic malaise, a growing burden of welfare, pensions and the world's most centrally planned and provided health system (which is also the UK's biggest religion). A punitive tax system, a sclerotic planning environment , a vastly over-generous state pension system, energy prices that have skyrocketed because of a blinkered commitment to Net Zero (with a planning system that makes new supply too expensive to develop in manu locations) and a fraying of public trust in institutions particularly around criminal justice and immigration, is creating a crisis in confidence economically and socially.

Editor of the Sunday Telegraph, Allister Heath, believes that the Starmer Government will have to call an early election, because the Labour Party wont be able to reconcile demands to cut spending and/or increase taxes and not deliver on a sufficiently socialist agenda. The hard-left may splinter to Trotskyite tankie Jeremy Corbyn's party of Marxist/terrorist/Islamist sympathisers, and others will fear a loss to Nigel Farage's Reform, whilst the Conservatives are scrambling for relevance (given they governed for 14 years before).

From Allister Heath, in the Daily Telegraph (formerly the Editor of business paper - City AM):

Let us, for the sake of argument, first consider the “optimistic”, best-case scenario. Another wave of punitive tax increases, targeted at those who work, save and invest, would intensify our existing pathologies. We would be doomed to stagflation, rising joblessness, falling industrial and energy production and declining living standards. The best and brightest would flee, but there would be no sudden collapse....

The worst-case scenario feels more likely, and it would begin by an abrupt loss of confidence in the credit-worthiness of the British government. We need to borrow obscenely large amounts of money from the financial markets every month, thanks to Reeves’ lack of fiscal discipline, and yet our creditors are becoming increasingly jittery. They worry that our deficit is growing, not shrinking, that the economy is barely growing and that Labour backbenchers are vetoing all cuts. They are already charging us a “moron premium” to compensate for the growing risk that we default or inflate away our debt, and these higher borrowing costs automatically mean even greater deficits, and thus even more borrowing. It’s a vicious circle. The 30-year gilt yield recently hit 5.6 per cent, its highest since 1998; another substantial increase would surely topple the Chancellor....

Britain is facing a historic reckoning. The economic and social model constructed since 1997 has turned into an unsustainable Ponzi scheme, a farrago of lies, obfuscations and delusions.

The maths don’t add up. On one side of the ledger, growth and revenues are stuck thanks to oppressive taxation, poor incentives, net zero, the destruction of the entrepot economy, the throttling of the City, labour and product market regulations, low-productivity immigration and planning rules that make building anything difficult. On the other, spending is out of control: our ruling class is content to pay out of work benefits to 6.5 million UK adults and to serve as the world’s welfare state of first resort. Our free-to-use, taxpayer-financed NHS can’t cope with an ageing population.

An honest UK politician would have to give up promises to continually inflate state pensions higher than inflation, it would have to take a hardline on able-bodied adults not working and start to reform and ration the NHS. A scythe will be needed to cut through the detritus of decades of micro-economic regulation, and most of all the post 1940s failed consensus of planning control that kneecaps the construction of homes, business and infrastructure, inflating the cost of that which is approved far beyond the costs of comparable construction on the European mainland.

The UK needs another Thatcher. Conservative Leader, Kemi Badenoch, at another time, could perhaps have been that person. However, it is illegal migration and the provision of housing, welfare and health care at future taxpayers' expense (through debt), and the crimes committed by illegal migrants that is the focus of so much attention and concern. Britons, both locally born and legal migrants regard this to be at best unfair, and at worst an invasion of people seeking to take advantage of what the country has to offer.

It seems highly unlikely that Nigel Farage has what it takes to fix the economy malaise facing the country, when he is campaigning to nationalise water.

An Act devised by silly people, passed by silly people, enforced by silly people

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:49:00 +0000

The Online Safety Act in the UK has a name that could come from a dystopian movie, but it was introduced under previous Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak and of course the Starmer Government is in favour of it, boots and all.

As with so much legislative fervour nowadays, it was introduced to protect children by empowering a national regulator to block content, as well as require that end-to-end encryption.

Sean Thomas in The Spectator writes:

Since the Act came into force (originally in 2023, but with greater effect in recent days), the absurdities have piled up fast. Entire Reddit communities – from harmless subreddits about cider to basic vape advice chatrooms – have gone half-dark, unable to easily implement the age verification systems. Niche forums for LGBT teens, survivors of abuse, and mental health support groups have shrunk away rather than risk falling foul of vague ‘harmful content’ clauses. A forum about ‘fixed gear cycling in London’ (yes, really) shut down because it feared it couldn’t afford the compliance overhead.

The absurdity of it was seen a few days ago when Peter Kyle, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, said that Nigel Farage was on the side of Jimmy Savile - the late disgraced former DJ and TV star who, after his death, was found to have committed multiple sexual offences against young girls (none of this online or facilitated by the internet, as he was as technologically illiterate as the politicians supporting this Act).

Thomas rightly says:

it’s a naked attempt to distract from the fact that Peter Kyle – a man so well suited to his role as Technology Minister that he appears to have no background in technology, no experience in the technology sector, no career with technology companies, no obvious technological training, and a degree in ‘International Development’ – has no argument.

Former Conservative Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Nadine Dorries apparently: once walked into a meeting with Microsoft and bluntly asked when they were ‘going to get rid of algorithms’.

One of the most egregiously inane things any politicians can do is to pass laws as a kneejerk reaction to a problem and especially being seen to address a problem.

This is an example of that. Thomas points out the threats not just to free speech (which politicians care about that nowadays, as it is so often seen as coded with being a Nazi, a pedophile or a terrorist), but to the whole IT sector in the UK.

The result is a legal ambiguity so vast it could engulf an entire industry. Startups will die under the compliance burden. Larger tech and AI firms will shift labs and headquarters abroad. And Britain’s AI industry, briefly a potential world leader, will find itself reduced to the digital equivalent of a wine bar shut down for not having a government-approved corkscrew made of chocolate.

Let us hope our local politicians don't think this is a model to copy, bearing in mind both sides of politics seem to not be immune to this.

No to another mega-Ministry

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Tue, 22 Jul 2025 23:07:00 +0000

One of the ideas getting traction within the Government is the idea of merging the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) and the Ministry of Transport (MoT) into a mega agency. The “logic” behind it is threefold:

• More integrated policy thinking that will not only enable more housing to be built, but also the infrastructure to support it;

• Diluting the de-growth and pro-central planning culture of MfE (which most recently decided it was appropriate to submit on the Regulatory Standards Bill);

• Saving money (through administrative rationing).

This is a mistake, because its theoretical basis is rooted in some assumptions that don’t bear close scrutiny. Working backwards the notion that mega-departments are more efficient is largely a chimera. The larger the bureaucracy the slower it works and the less responsive it is, and it more difficult it is to retain specialised knowledge and experience as it gets swamped within multiple layers of management. Treasury likes mega-agencies for two reasons:

• Fewer managers is said to be more efficient;

• Fewer agencies makes them easier to monitor and hold accountable.

Unfortunately, this ignores the behavioural responses of public servants to this sort of structure. In a large department it becomes harder to get the attention of the top layers of management. In some cases that can help, because clever and competent public servants can get on with their work unbothered by the chief executive or deputies, but that also means the less clever and competent have their work not subject to the same scrutiny. The Adam Smith Institute in the UK has called for the UK Home Office to be broken up for exactly that reason. The incremental savings of a few fewer managers (which is disputable when you look at the structure of MBIE – New Zealand’s existing mega-Ministry – which has large units, with branches under them and sub-branches) is lost when there is significant failure both in delivery and public policy.

The UK already has had experience merging Transport, Environment and Local Government, from 1997 until 2002. Transport was split out again because the cultures of the agencies clashed internally, slowing down progress and making it difficult to get institutional focus on major reforms.

Australia by contrast does have a mega-agency responsibility for transport policy at the Commonwealth level, in an organisation called DITRDCA (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Culture and the Arts), which struggles to retain institutional knowledge in any segments of its activity. However, as a Federation, many of the functions in those sectors are carried out by States and Territories, so it is less of a day to day concern. Similar mega agencies do not exist at the State level.

The benefit of smaller agencies is that they can be nimble and responsive, and can pivot quickly when policy priorities change. They can readily collaborate and work together with each other, if there is clear project leadership across agencies. The idea that collaboration within a large agency, with managers and branches with their own interests is necessarily easier than between smaller agencies is largely theoretical, because it depends on the individuals. Bear in mind MoT implemented radical restructuring of ports, airports, land transport funding, the governance and delivery of urban passenger transport all as a small agency, stripping down its functions over the years. It's not clear what radical reforms MBIE as a major agency has done, and it is abundantly clear that DIA, with its de facto oversight of the water sector (i.e. next to none) did little until the Ardern Government saw it as a way to bail out local government and start to implement the principles of He Puapua (which remains on ice).

On the second point, the idea that a key reason to merge agencies is to dilute the culture of the one you don’t like, or which is corrosive to government policy is not a good way of diluting the poison, because it spreads the poison across a wider field. The answer for the Ministry for the Environment is not to merge it, but to cull its responsibilities and split what remains among other agencies.

The Partnerships, Investment and Enablement business group should be abolished because Government should not be seeking to “tangibly shift mindsets and change behaviours in New Zealand through effective partnering and engagement within the public and private sectors”. The culture of MfE is anti-development, anti-growth and it the behaviours that need changing are those ones.

At best the Environmental Management and Adaptation business group should be placed within the Department of Internal Affairs to work with local government, specifically regional councils on their statutory function, and the Climate Change Mitigation and Resource Efficiency business group should be part of MBIE, which has oversight of economic regulation of natural resources.

It is so obvious that the next time a Labour-led Government takes power, almost certainly with the Greens, that a Ministry of Housing, Infrastructure and the Environment would be rebranded into a Ministry of Sustainable Development or the like. The culture that would be dominant will be the one inherited from MfE and will seek to decimate private provision of housing, as well as turn transport policy into one big behavioural change programme that treats active travel and public transport as being good, at any cost, while treating private motoring and the movement of freight by road as being malignant.

One of the legacies of Labour Governments is that they implement structural reform of Government that National Governments rarely reverse. Don’t forget the optics of splitting MfE (“integrating environment across policy”) may not be great and of course the Opposition will cry that it is about decimating the environment, but the public largely will not care (other than the ones who vote Green anyway). Splitting MfE into Internal Affairs and MBIE will dilute MfE’s culture because it divides it. Merging it with MHUD and MoT keeps it intact, despite pleas from some that it will dilute the priority of the environment, it will place it in the centre of two agencies seeking to resolve issues that are, in part because of the prioritisation of the environment through the RMA that stops stuff being built.

The MHUD is essentially an oversight agency for Kainga Ora, as well as the regulator of rental housing and other accommodation. The synergies with the MoT are weak, especially given MoT’s functions range from monitoring the land transport funding and regulatory sector, through to the economic functions of all transport modes. There is little that MHUD can bring to aviation policy, and indeed most of the transport policy issues affecting MHUD are undertaken by local government.

If there is a case for a merge, then MBIE makes more sense for MoT than MHUD, because MBIE does look after network industries in infrastructure, such as energy and communications, but that was tried before in the late 1990s and ultimately abandoned.

So the idea of merging agencies should be put in the bin. There is a better case for reviewing their functions and determining whether some should exist at all, and if so, who is better placed to manage them. Putting climate change policy in the DIA or MBIE is likely to be preferable than having it dominating housing and transport.

Merging MfE, MHUD and MoT smells of something that the Greens or TOP (remember them?) would advocate. MfE is by far the agency with the most dominant culture, and it is one that is philosophically antagonistic to the Government it is meant to be serving. It should not poison housing and transport policy with that culture.

The Government should run a mile from it.

Local government will not be constrained by the current proposals

noreply@blogger.com (Libertyscott) — Fri, 18 Jul 2025 23:12:00 +0000

Like many one of my biggest concerns about local government is how unconstrained it is about what activities it enters into, whether it be an impost directly on ratepayers through spending, or an indirect impost in the time of Councillors and Council staff misdirected away from core business into other activities. Whether it is foreign affairs, shiny things (typically sport, arts, culture, entertainment), unviable businesses or any other "nice to do" activities, local government tends to attract a greater proportion of people who promise to "do stuff" which is typically not a promise to stick to the core.

It is rare to get candidates for local election who promise to simply ensure the roads are well maintained, the rubbish collection remains reliable, litter and graffiti are addressed, (all types of) water infrastructure is managed efficiently and effectively, and parks are well maintained. It's especially rare to get any who want to get Councils out of the way of building more homes, commercial or industrial property, or who want to make it easier to set up new businesses (unless they are tiny businesses, in Council premises, of certain pre-selected types).

So while I was hopeful that Simon Watts would announce a sea-change in the legislation governing local government I ended up being sorely disappointed. His main announcement is the abolition (again!) of the "four-wellbeings". This should be familiar with those who know about the local government sector (unfortunately in a previous career I got to know about local government legislation), because the Key Government did it before. You can be forgiven for not knowing that because it made not a jot of difference to local government, except perhaps slowing down its growth.

So while I think all of the proposals have some merit, they don't tackle the core cause of the problem, which is the "power of general competence" which Sandra Lee under the Clark Government got passed to reform local government. It was part of a vision of expansionist local government (which Lee, when she was in local government cheered on with alacrity) that represents the wet dream of the hard-left. The idea that "communities" (activist groups) would engage continuously with democratically elected representatives to get local government to address the cultural, social, environmental and economic wellbeing issues of their "communities". Of course the only ways local government can "address" these things is through its two instruments of compulsion: Taxing and subsidising (mostly rates, but also fees on anything the Council does and of course lobbying for central government to give it more power to tax) and regulating (forcing people to do what it wants, banning them from doing what they don't). It's the idea that "highly engaged" communities (which doesn't realistically include most entrepreneurs or the self-employed or busy workers, because they don't have the time) pushing everyone else around with a "democratic mandate". The sort that comes up with "Should Wellington become a sister city with Ramallah?"

My friend Peter Cresswell writes adroitly on the debacle of the power of general competence (dare I note that Greater Wellington Regional Council Chair Daran Ponter, pictured on PC's blogpost, was once a bureaucrat who worked on the Local Government Act reforms in the early 2000s).

I wrote a bit about it around a generation ago. It's not called that explicitly in the Local Government Act 2002, but it is Section 12 in the Act:

12 Status and powers

(1) A local authority is a body corporate with perpetual succession.

(2) For the purposes of performing its role, a local authority has—

(a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and
(b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), full rights, powers, and privileges.

As you can see it gives local government carte blanche to do just about anything it likes. This is at the heart of the problem.

If Simon Watts is NOT proposing to replace Section 12(2) with something else, then he is tinkering around the edges of the problem. I'm not surprised he isn't proposing to replace it, because the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) would not have advised in favour of it.

DIA supports the power of general competence because it mopped up a wide range of highly specified powers that previously existed that meant that local government couldn't undertake activities unless legislation specifically said it could. Now the law says it can do pretty much whatever it likes (with some provisions constraining regional councils and territorial authorities overlapping). A Council could set up a restaurant, a school, a taxi company, a radio station, a supermarket and a brothel. A Council can publish books, make movies, open up a liaison office in Equatorial Guinea, campaign in favour of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and open a nudist camp.

DIA would not have wanted the repeal of Section 12(2) because they would say it would require a "lot of work" (for them) to identify what Councils do and don't do now so activities wouldn't be suddenly banned. Frankly that would be a rather good thing. It would be simple enough to give Councils powers over their own property and then list the types of property Councils should not be allowed to own, and businesses it should not be allowed to own (a good start would be any type of business already existing within its boundaries). Then allow Councils to only exercise their legal obligations under any other legislation (e.g., RMA and its replacement) and limit it to rubbish collection, public spaces (parks, pools, coastlines, rivers).

The debacle over "three waters" has pretty much proven why the "power of general competence" was a mistake. We have had over 20 years of local government being given full capacity to look after water, waste water and stormwater infrastructure whether as a business or any other form of structure, and many have failed abjectly to do so. With a few exceptions, local government simply isn't up to managing large complex infrastructure networks as far too few Councillors and well-meaning local bureaucrats have the skills and experience to do so. The local road network is far from perfect, but at least NZTA and its predecessors for the last thirty five years have had some oversight of performance so that the network isn't crumbling.

Some may say the problem is Councils don't have enough powers to tax and regulate (that would be the Greens who rarely find a problem they don't think would be solved by forcing people to do what they think is best for them), some may say the problem is too many small Councils without the capacity to be more responsible, but then Auckland Council is hardly the shining city on the hill to emulate. Some may say the problem is that "the community" doesn't vote enough, and maybe teenagers who are deemed not fit to decide on whether they consume alcohol, tobacco or pornography should be allowed to vote.

It's pretty basic. We have had over twenty years of the "power of general competence" and Councils have proven incapable of managing their assets effectively, and most think that their problems can only be fixed by getting other politicians to make taxpayers bail them out (that's, in part, what Labour was going to do with Three Waters).

It's time to end the power of general competence. Tell local government exactly what its functions are. Don't put up with excuses from DIA about how long it will take, just get some clever people together to do it. You can be sure if something is missed out, then the affected local authorities will cry loudly at the Select Committee stage of the Bill and you can decide if it is worth addressing then. If the local authorities fail to identify that pending legislation will ban something they are currently doing, then it's pretty obvious how incompetent they are.

Oh and yes, you should cap rates increases to inflation.