"There's Plenty Of Jobs Around If You'll Just Look Harder"

Whose Debt? Whose Fault?

(Update: As someone on another blog has pointed out, the data in the pretty graph below is actually wrong. I've no idea where the author got it from. I should have noticed this, because I know that public debt sits at about 30-odd percent of GDP, and that private debt is somewhere in the 80s or 90s. My bad. Maybe I was distracted by the pretty colours. However, the message remains the same: public debt as a percentage of GDP is extremely low by world standards. It's only when you combine private and public debt that you get a crisis. So the person who pointed out my error is committing an error of their own by suggesting that government debt is at crisis levels. It aint)

The next time you read something written about how we have to slash spending because government debt is out of control, and that it's alll the fault of the last government, remember this graph:

(Update: try the below graph instead. Hat tip to Robin Johnson's Economics Web Page

(Source: Wikipedia)

And some more stats for overseas debt, and for total government debt, are here and here)

We have a problem with private debt, sure--a big problem. But given that the current government has done little or nothing to address our private debt mountain, it shouldn't go around pointing the finger.

Imagine how bad things might be now if the last government hadn't devoted so much effort to paying down debt.

(I pinched the cool graphic from The Standard - update: the original one, that is. More fool me)

Kicking The Puppy

Having given their most wealthy supporters tasty tax cuts, the Nats are now turning to the problem of the poor.

Poverty has been with us for many years, but it took the advent of Rogernomics for it to become a major problem. Successive governments have considered the problem, some more energetically and sympathetically than others. Some have taken a more creative approach, treating the problem as a political opportunity.

Ever the opportunist, John Key now sees a chance to put the boot into welfare recipients. Beating up on beneficiaries makes good political sense, however reprehensible it may be, because beneficiaries can't really defend themselves, and it creates a common enemy in the minds of National's supporters. Bashing a beneficiary for being a bludger is about as courageous as kicking a puppy, but if you keep kicking a puppy it will probably grow up to be either a snarling out of control menace, or a timid and nervous wreck.

People aren't that different. If you tell someone that they're lazy and useless, and that person is already at the bottom of the pile facing God knows what sort of personal issues and adversities, the chances are you'll only end up causing more damage.

John Key talks about using a stick and carrot approach towards welfare reform, but the only thing he's wielding is a baseball bat. The economy is in the doldrums, but it's not because of welfare. To suggest otherwise would be to completely misunderstand cause and effect. The economic downturn has led to a loss of jobs and the breakup of families, as downturns always do. People have been displaced and impoverished by redundancy and the destruction of their relationships. Those factors have led to a spike in demands on the welfare system.

Surely, then, the solution to the problem welfare dependency is to provide a viable alternative for beneficiaries. A growing economy would lead to job opportunities for beneficiaries, but this government has done little to stimulate growth or create jobs. It's a waste of time telling people to find a job when there aren't enough jobs to go around.

And we can't seriously expect everyone to get off the dole or DPB when the government has made early childcare education more expensive for parents, and has cut funding for industry training.

Attacking beneficiaries may lead to a reduction in the number of people on welfare, but it will be the charities and food banks that have to pick up the pieces. And with no end in sight for those already at the bottom of the heap, we can expect to see an increase in the problems commonly associated with endemic poverty: crime, poor health, domestic violence and family breakups. We'll just end up paying the price, but in a different currency.

But attacking the poor makes good political sense, because they're a silent victim.

Why Not Charge Him?

NZPA reports, via Stuff, that an internal police investigation has concluded one of the witnesses in the David Bain trial was "untruthful".

According to the report, it was believed there was sufficient evidence for a perjury charge, but police decided not to proceed.

I find it difficult to understand why police would label someone as untruthful, but decline to press charges. It seems to go against the idea that a person should be regarded as innocent unless found guilty.

Given the enormous controversy generated by the Bain trial, it would surely have been in the interests of justice to pursue the alleged perjurer if there was strong evidence. So why didn't they?

Was their case perhaps not as strong as they made out? Is this merely an example of the police attempting to save face over their botched investigation?

Right Thinking: It’s All Just A Coincidence

Controversial conservative columnist Dr Frank Shizenhausen writes in defence of the ACT leader

People have been attributing all sorts of mischievous motives to the decision by a group of ACT and National-linked people to organise opposition to MMP.

The fact that some of the people behind the campaign have close ties to ACT leader Dr Don Brash is entirely coincidental. That’s why Brash has denied knowing who is behind the campaign.

In case you are wondering whether Brash should be taken at his word, bear in mind that one of the people identified as being involved, Simon Lusk, was also instrumental in 2005 in introducing the Exclusive Brethren to National. Dr Brash also denied any knowledge of the Exclusive Brethren’s campaign for National in 2005.

This just proves that Brash is a serial truth-teller, who doesn’t know what his supporters are up to. Why would such a man lie to us? What would he have to gain? The fact that many of the rich-listers who bankrolled Brash’s National in 2005 (e.g. Shirtcliffe and Deane) remain implacably opposed to MMP means nothing. I’m sure they gave all that money to National out of a desire to help the community, and not because they wanted a political environment that allowed people with big money to do as they please, free from the need to consult with and listen to others, and free from regulation and taxes.

And even if a shadowy group devoted to getting rid of MMP does exist, why would that be a bad thing? Consensus politics have been a disaster for this country, preventing us from enjoying the fruits of the revolution that began in 1984. With so many political parties in the mix and capable of influencing the course of government, the task of lobbying parties has become increasingly burdensome and expensive. Under First Past the Post a large cheque to the National Party would have once ensured a favourable outcome for the philanthropists who seek to influence the course of events for the good of humanity, but now they must donate to multiple parties to cover all potential combinations. Consider the plight of the weary lobbyist.

So let’s get rid of MMP and replace it with a system that rewards success and freedom. Electoral reform is long overdue, and the sooner we get back to the notion of one dollar one vote the better.

Disney v US Navy: Who Has The Biggest Guns?

The Patently O Blog reports that the US Navy is challenging Disney’s attempt to get a trade mark for "SEAL TEAM 6".

Disney filed an application for the trade mark on 3 May this year, and the US Navy responded by filing an application for “SEAL TEAM” on 13 May.

Seal Team 6 was the name of the elite squad that killed Osama bin Laden.

Hopefully the parties will resolve the dispute. Because my kids are looking forward to seeing the animated Disney kids series “Seal Team 6”, in which a group of lovable talking fur seals are made to balance balls on their noses, swim through hoops, and assassinate global terrorist masterminds.

Science Or Ideology?

Tapu Misa is one of my favourite Herald columnists. It probably helps that she’s not a narrow ideologue, unlike the majority of the others who write regularly for the Herald.

Her column today examines the limitations of the discipline of economics, and she asks if many economists aren’t just letting faith get in the way of facts.

It would be nice to think that economists had become more humble about the limitations of their field.

Yet economic myths (that tax cuts lead to growth, or magically "pay for themselves") continue to be trotted out as scientific truth, rather than articles of faith.

She points to the latest example of blind faith, John Key’s claim that increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour will lead to 6000 job losses. It turns out that the projection was between 4280 to 5710 jobs, but that the report urged caution in relying on these figures.

Many studies exist around the world casting doubt on the claim that increasing the minimum wage has a negative effects on employment.

It is no longer an accepted fact that minimum wage growth leads to job losses. The truth appears somewhat more complicated.

It is unarguable, however, that increasing the minimum wage will give many people in low paying jobs a higher standard of living.

So why doesn’t the Government highlight that benefit? Perhaps because most of the recipients don’t vote for National.

Brash Calls For End To Racist Fruit Policies

ACT leader Dr Don Brash this afternoon launched a scathing attack on the New Zealand kiwifruit industry, saying it was separatist and racist.

In a speech given to the Orewa Rotary Club, Dr Brash accused Zespri and kiwifruit growers of fostering Maori privilege.

"The kiwifruit industry has been set up in a way that ensures only the fruit with brown skin makes the grade," said Brash.

"Frankly, it's racist."

Dr Brash said that the name of the fruit was offensive to mainstream New Zealanders.

"One of the first things ACT will demand in a coalition government is an end to the culture of entitlement that sees this product being labelled 'kiwifruit', when if we were being brutally honest we would call it 'iwifruit'", said Brash.

Are kiwifruit hatemongering racists?

"We don't believe in special privileges for iwi, because the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees equal rights for all. That's why we will be demanding a return to the name 'Chinese gooseberry'".

Dr Brash said that renaming the fruit would be a sign of goodwill towards the Chinese, and would encourage more Chinese investors to buy our critical strategic assets.

"We should welcome investment by the Chinese with open arms. They are a low wage economy with a self-serving and corrupt leadership. We can learn much from our Chinese overlords."

The audience responded warmly to the speech. 

Barry Gidgers, a car dealer from Silverdale, said he was impressed with the speech, and had become fed up with racist kiwifruit policies.

"Where are the white kiwifruit? Even the golden kiwifruit variety has a brown skin," said Mr Gidgers.

Dr Brash rejected claims by opponents that he was stirring up anti-fruit sentiment.

"I totally reject those allegations. I want fruit to grow up in this country knowing that they won't be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin.

"ACT supports one law for all fruit. We want a society where fruits of all descriptions can live together in harmony, without one species being favoured over another. It takes a lot of different fruits to make the perfect fruitcake.

"So if you want more fruitcakes, vote ACT. this November."

In The Herald on Sunday

Matt McCarten launches an attack on Labour, deriding Phil Goff. According to the alleged political mastermind McCarten (whose latest diabolical act of powerful genius has been to get the Mana Party close to breaking the 1% mark in political polls), Goff's great sin is that he has allowed himself to be derided in the media. So McCarten derides him some more.

It is pointless to debate whether Goff should stay or go, because it's too late for Labour to make any change in the leadership this close to an election.

McCarten is such a powerful advocate for the left that it's no wonder he's often quoted by David Farrar with approval.

******

Kerre Woodham's miffed that Tau Henare stole her line about Hone Harawira being so racist he puts chocolate milk in his tea.

I'm surprised she wrote a column owning up to that. I've written all sorts of stupid idiotic things in the past, but I usually just hope people don't go back and read them. I don't normally point them out.

Revisiting The Street Of Gain

ACT leader Don Brash went doorknocking yesterday on Cremone Street in Herne Bay, where the average house price is $5.83 million.

Brash is the latest in a series of politicians who have visited the street, usually accompanied by camera crews and journalists.

In 2008 National leader John Key famously visited the street, promising to improve the lot of those living there. He labelled Cremone Street a "street of gain", because it demonstrated what privileged white people could achieve if left to their own devices.

Key said then that the people of the street were falling on slightly less luxuriously easy times, because of nine years of Labour policies aimed at not punishing the poor.

After Key's visit he took one resident's son, Giles Bedevere, on a trip to Waitangi, but the trip had to be cancelled after Giles became confused and distressed at the appearance of brown people.

During Brash's visit yesterday he talked to locals about whether the Key government had made their lives better.

The residents were divided on whether Key had done enough to help them acquire material riches and status.

Maxwell Billingsworth-Squires -- one such resident -- said he had voted National at the last election, but was no longer certain whom he supported.

He said things had gone terribly wrong for his family because of the enormity of his tax cut.  The debate over how many expensive European cars to buy with the money had torn the family apart.

"I thought Key was a great politician, but he does nothing for families," said Mr Billingsworth-Squires.

Another resident, Dame Felicity Snoot, said she was fed up with politicians and their camera crews invading her street.

"I'm simply not interested in these people, and I have no desire to talk to them.

"As for that Dr Brash, I made my political views very clear to him when I gave an enormous donation to his party last week.

"He hardly needs to come knocking again asking what I think. He wrote all it down."

Banks Is Back

Former Auckland Mayor and former National MP John Banks is now the ACT candidate for Epsom.

He'll probably win the seat if the Nats don't put up a strong candidate to oust him.

My completely uninformed guess is that the Nats won't make a particular effort to win Epsom, now they will have someone in ACT they can work with. Don Brash may be offensive to the public (his polling is very poor for a new leader), but Banks doesn't carry the same baggage and has a strong network of supporters in the affluent eastern suburbs of Auckland.

On current polling ACT may get only three MPs in the next parliament, meaning Brash, Banks and one other.  Probably not the hard-working Heather Roy, and probably not Hilary Calvert (who could best be described as "eccentric"), because Brash's past record suggests he is not keen on having too many women in positions of responsibility. So they'll probably choose Boscawen, or perhaps they'll resurrect another dinosaur, or find another crypt to crack open.

Anyway, it's good to finally see rich elderly white men getting a chance. They've had it rough these last few years.

Chinese Investment: Good Or Bad?

The Chinese have billions of dollars to spend, and they want to buy our assets.

It sounds like the start of a chilling NZ First election ad. But it also appears to be true.

We need to exercise some caution about foreign investment, but we should welcome it if we can be satisfied that it will help to grow our economy.

Checkpoint had an interview with Beijing-based investment banker David Mahon, where he opined that we should be letting the Chinese buy shares in our state assets. I am not convinced by the need to sell state assets at all, but it would seem the height of madness to allow even more of our critical infrastructure assets to be owned by offshore interests.

If the Chinese want to spend money here to help grow new businesses, or to breathe life into floundering and cash-starved Kiwi ventures, then we should encourage them.

But if their investment strategy is to buy up shares in existing profitable businesses and export the profits offshore, we'd have to ask what's in it for us.

Our Silly Election Day Law

Our electoral law really is an ass. The Electoral Commission may well be legally correct in warning people about what to tweet on election day, but the idea that someone tweeting "I'm going to go vote this rubbish government out of office, and you ought to as well" should be fined is ridiculous*.

It is already well established that our copyright laws and media laws don't fit comfortably with modern digital and social media. But nobody other than the zealots ("abolish all copyright!") knows how to fix the problem.

We can now add the Electoral Act to that list of dysfunctional laws. But in contrast with copyright and media laws, fixing the election day law would be reasonably simple.

Often when a law just doesn't work the solution adopted is to make it more elaborate, so that the fact it still doesn't work is less obvious and only becomes apparent after it's been argued to death for several years in the courts and academic journals.

But in the case maybe the solution is to dump the election-day law altogether. Will anyone who has been subjected to weeks and weeks of political advertising really make their mind up who to vote for because of the billboard they saw on election morning? Okay, so some soft swing voters might, but even if that happens why is it a problem? They might just as well decide to vote for NZ First because they had a bad Chinese meal the night before. Or decide on ACT because the dole bludgers in the flat next door had another rowdy party on Friday night. There's no explaining why some people choose to vote the way they do.

We wouldn't want people standing outside voting boxes yelling "vote Labour!" or "vote National!", because once someone's gone off to vote they shouldn't be under any pressure to vote one way or another. Nobody wants to see mobs standing outside voting booths cheering, hissing or booing, and giving out pamphlets. But the solution to this potential evil is relatively simple: employ "clean zones" outside voting booths (e.g. no advertising, banners or leaflets within 200 metres of a voting booth), so that people can cast their vote in peace.

Then we would be able to tweet, post or broadcast as we please.

Instead we get a lecture on not breaking the law by tweeting or by posting on Facebook. What about all the Facebook posts I'll have left up explaining why John Key is the son of Beelzebub and must be voted out of office? If someone on election morning posts a comment like "yes, totally agree, let's go out and vote for a change" my Facebook post becomes active again and presumably I break the law.

Does that sound sensible? Not to me. 

* Less ridiculous, perhaps, than fining someone for a tweet that says "Vote John Key today", but only because I'm biased.

A Modern Day Canute

UK PR consultant Richard Hillgrove writes in the Guardian about his brilliant idea for preventing social media sites like Facebook and Twitter from breaching suppression orders.

“Clearly, they are going to have to introduce a delay mechanism so that content can be checked before it goes up”, he opines.

Yes, that’s an excellent idea, and it will solve all of the US’s unemployment problems in one fell swoop. Twitter currently has some 175 million registered users, while Facebook has about half a billion, so it would take an army of hundreds of thousands of staff to not only check every post or tweet that went out, but to also be aware of each and every injunction and suppression order that may be out there. A bit of a problem, perhaps, when in some cases the very existence of the order is a secret.

Maybe the only answer is to abolish the internet. How else can we be really sure people aren’t breaking the law by posting illegal or suppressed material to social media sites, blogs and web forums?

We’ll have to get rid of email too, because they can be circulated with absurd ease.

I’m certain you’ll agree that winding back the internet, perhaps the most important technological development in the last fifty years, is preferable to allowing the identity of overpaid and oversexed footballers to be exposed to the public.

Another Broken Promise From National

John Key's Nats have been caught out again.

John Key told the public that the changes to Kiwisaver announced in the Budget would not come into effect until after the election.

But the government has already passed legislation putting the changes into effect.

And the changes take effect from July this year, four months before the election.

The Nats are claiming that because the reduced government contribution to Kiwisaver will only be paid in July 2012, no promise has been broken.

But that's nonsense. The law has been changed. From July this year the new payment regime will be in force.

It will take legislation to reverse the changes.

His hired sockpuppets may spin this as much as they like, but John Key promised there would be no change before the election. He has broken that promise, and it is clear he never intended to keep it.

No Party For Old Men

The Maori Party's choice of candidate to stand against Hone Harawira is revealing.

Solomon Tipene may well be a good man (I wouldn't know), but he's one year short of the retirement age.

Where are the future leaders of this party? Why did the party leaders not pick someone younger and more energetic? Mr Tipene did not present particularly well on the TV news last night, and looked hesitant. He will come a distant third in the race unless he quickly reveals some hidden talents.

I don't understand Maori politics beyond what I read, see or hear in the media, so I have no special insight into what is going on within the Maori Party. But it would seem that most of the younger leaders from the Te Tai Tokerau electorate have deserted the party, leaving a group of old men in charge.

I don't know if that situation has been replicated across the party. However, if the Maori Party have a strong youth wing they don't seem to be making much noise. A party floundering in the polls needs the energy, hope and vitality of youth if it is to survive. It's hard to believe things are so desperate that nobody younger than Mr Tipene could be found.

Those Raping Socialist Dogs

Karl Du Fresne should win an award for this piece. It must take serious cojones (if you will pardon the unfortunate use of that expression in the context of this post) to even attempt to impersonate Michael Laws’ style, other than as a form of satire.

His topic is the arrest of French IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Du Fresne makes much of the fact that DSK was a socialist, so what else would you expect?

Du Fresne doesn’t expressly state that being a socialist is likely to make one come over all rapey, but you’d have to be blind and a bit senile not to see the implication.

Never mind the fact that anyone who rises to be head of the IMF is probably about as much of a socialist as Don Brash is.

Perhaps the real causes of Dominique Strauss-Kahn's alleged serial lusting and abuse of women are the power and position he has accumulated, and perhaps they have led him to think he can do anything he likes.

Alternatively, perhaps he’s just a dog on heat lacking all self control. I don’t know, and I have to keep reminding myself that he hasn’t actually been convicted of an offence (I appreciate of course that it’s notoriously difficult generally to convict someone of a sex crime). But nobody really knows the exact triggers in an individual, and what makes them commit a heinous offence.

I would be astonished if anyone had ever claimed that the commission of ugly crimes was the sole domain of non-socialists. It may well be the case that, as Du Fresne says, there are as many alpha-male bullies and sexual predators within the ranks of socialism as in any other "ism”.

But using the alleged crimes of one man to beat up on an entire political system is frankly a bit silly. In the case of the right wing system beloved by Du Fresne, there’s so much material and so many offenders that I wouldn’t even know where to start.

Who's Dirty?

On Kiwiblog David Farrar worries about the coming Labour election campaign.

One of the reasons often cited as part of Labour’s loss in 2008 was that they ran such a relentlessly nasty and negative campaign against John Key, with everything from the H Fee up.

Whale Oils blogs that Labour have appointed Trevor Mallard as their campaign manager for 2011.

One can only assume that they are determined to run an even dirtier, nastier and defamatory campaign than last time.

I can’t imagine who they will get for their 2014 campaign – maybe Clay Davis?

The unstated assumption with all of this is that only one party went negative in 2008, otherwise Farrar's post would look rather silly.

So which party constantly chipped away at the leader of the other party, attacking their credibility, whispering about their personal relationship, accusing them of running a PC dictatorship and nanny state, and calling their party corrupt?

And let us not forget the election campaign before last...

Crowds Protest Against Sign Evil

Protests against Wellington Airport’s Wellywood sign have gained momentum, with protesters yesterday conducting marches and hunger strikes.

A group of protesters led by veteran activists Sue Bradford and John Minto abandoned plans for a march for equality, and instead barricaded themselves inside the main terminal of Wellington Airport.

They were joined late last night by a members of the activist group Death To Wellywood, who have commenced a hunger strike and are refusing to move from the terminal until the plan to build the sign has been abandoned.

Meanwhile a large group gathered outside Parliament to demand the government take urgent action against Wellington Airport.

One woman in the noisy crowd, Carmel Valera, explained why she was at the protest.

“I’m outraged at this. I live a comfortable middle class existence, and I wouldn’t normally dream of waving a protest banner. Certainly not if it meant having to stand among the poor and oppressed demanding social justice and an end to inequality.

“But this sign will be an eyesore and will offend my delicate sensitivities. Death to Wellington Airport! Death to all of them!”

Te Tai Tokerau MP Hone Harawira said he would lead a hikoi to march on Wellington in protest at the sign.

“That sign must not go up,” said Mr Harawira.

Harawira confirmed he was abandoning his byelection campaign for the Te Tai Tokerau seat, because a more pressing issue was the need to ensure Wellington Airport’s proposed sign was never erected.

“Poverty and injustice will always be with us, and it’s a battle we’ll always be fighting,” said Mr Harawira. “But we can stop this sign right now. All that other stuff can wait.”

Harawira has allied himself with a newly formed group Racists Against This Sort Of Thing, a white supremacist organisation devoted to being racist.

Group leader Kyle Chapman said he liked the colour of the proposed sign, but said the message on the sign was the wrong one.

“”We were keen on something simple but less derivative, something that spoke to our values. Something like ‘GO HOME YOU STUPID DIRTY FOREIGNERS, AND WHILE YOU’RE AT IT TAKE YOUR COMMUNIST IDEALS AND SMELLY FOODS WITH YOU, YOU’RE NOT WELCOME HERE, UNLESS YOU’RE WHITE”.

Mr Chapman said he was not worried about working with Hone Harawira.

“Normally I’d be wishing him dead, but for the racist community this issue is much bigger than personalities. I’ll work with anyone, whether he be white or… or… I’m sorry, what was the question again?”

UPDATE: Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has confirmed he will relinquish control of his country, but only if Wellington Airport agrees not to erect the Wellywood sign.

“I will stand aside, but not if this satanic sign goes up”, said the Libyan leader.

It is understood that Gaddafi has a role in the upcoming Hobbit films as the Goblin king, but is refusing to fly into Wellington for filming if the sign is built.

UPDATE 2: Wellington Airport management have confirmed they will no longer proceed with the Wellywood sign. They are instead going to build a giant penis.

Minimum Wage: The Evidence Isn't Conclusive

Of all the announcements by Labour over the weekend, the $15/hour minimum wage one was the riskiest politically.

Predictably, the policy announcement has been lashed by the business community and right wing commentators. It is taken as a given that raising the minimum wage will be bad for business and will result in job losses.

But is this true? Hundreds of studies have been done around the world over the years on the effects of minimum wage legislation, and although I'm no economist and don't intend to trawl through the literature, it seems obvious to this layperson blogger that the answer's not clear.

If we always let the business community dictate what was good for the country there would probably be no minimum wage legislation, and possibly little or no other legislation protecting worker rights. So clams by businesses that raising the minimum wage will hurt jobs need to be treated with caution.

And in the Chicken Little hysteria being generated by some commentators over the minimum wage announcement, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that for many workers struggling to survive on the current minimum the weekly wage boost will be substantial. Instead of accepting at face value the claims that the increase will hurt jobs, let's focus on the positives. Like the fact that people struggling to cope will have more money in their pockets and will be less likely to need state assistance.

Blame Labour

2311 AD: Finance Minister Bill English has lashed out at the Labour Party, claiming that the New Zealand economy remains weak because of nine years of poor economic stewardship by Labour over three hundred years ago.

Speaking shortly after delivering his 303rd Budget, and just before returning to the cryogenic freezer for another eleven months, Mr English said that National had inherited an economy in tatters, and that it would take some time before the government’s books returned to a strong state.

“Labour’s reckless irresponsibility is still being felt today. This has forced us to make some tough decisions.”

Under last week’s Budget the Government announced further changes to Kiwisaver, and a reduction of the maximum Working for Families fortnightly payment to $0.49, down from the previous level of $0.52.

Mr English also announced a reduction in the level of income tax paid by those within the top tax bracket, in order to stimulate the struggling luxury boat market.

The Government’s moves have been heavily criticised, but Mr English defended the Budget by claiming National had to cut costs somewhere.

“The reality is that Labour’s policies of running massive budget surpluses, using them to reduce government debt levels to historic lows, introducing a superannuation scheme to boost the culture of savings in this country, and putting aside billions of dollars to fund retirement, were fiscally and economically reckless. Unlike, say, our tax cuts.

“Labour’s irresponsibility over three hundred years ago left us with no choice but to give further tax breaks to the wealthy. We simply can’t afford to lose our brightest and best finance company directors and property developers overseas.”

Mr English said that decades of flat economic growth were now behind the country, because Treasury projections were predicting strong growth in the coming year.

“We’re confident that these projections are entirely accurate. Unlike the last three hundred years of Treasury projections, which frankly weren’t fit for lining a dog kennel.”

Mr English said that being firmly in last place on most major OECD rankings was a sign National’s policies were finally working.

“Three centuries of prudent economic management have arrested the slide down the OECD table. Now the only way is up, and we’re planning a step-change for a brighter future.”

What's This? A Plan For The Economy?

I have read the transcript of Phil Goff's speech to the Labour Party congress. It contains some good stuff, and indicates the party is starting to find a way to differentiate itself from National. Admittedly, this has been much helped by a muddled and clueless Budget that shows little vision or forward thinking.  Labour appears to be picking up on the widespread feeling within the community that this government doesn't seem to have much of a plan for the future. National's "hands off and wait for the magic pixies to make everything better" plan is based on Treasury forecasts that can best be described as heroic.

Some of the policy announcements are bold, while some are a continuation of what we've seen in the past. The $15/hour minimum wage within the first year is probably the boldest and riskiest move, both politically and economically.  Business commentators will beat the hell out of Labour over this, but the move will unquestionably go down well with traditional Labour supporters. It might steal some votes from people who might otherwise have voted Green or Mana, but it remains to be seen how it will go down among middle-income earners. After being slapped down again and again for lacking boldness (and, yes, I was probably doing some of that slapping), Goff has finally showed some political courage. No doubt some will label his courage as folly.

The best thing about a minimum wage increase is that it doesn't require additional revenue to fund. The flipside it that it increases the cost to business. Can those extra costs be afforded at this time? That's what we don't know.

The other big Goff announcement is the return to an R&D tax credit. National dumped Labour's R&D credit system when it took office, claiming that the only people who benefited from it were accountants. But the scheme had been going barely a year, so nobody really knows what affect it would have had on R&D investment had it been allowed to remain in place. The new scheme is slightly more modest than the original (a credit of 12.5% instead of 15%), but it demonstrates that Labour's serious about stimulating R&D. The Nats have fiddled about with the CRI sector, but haven't done anything bold on the R&D front, so this move is a direct challenge to the claim by the Nats that they have a "brighter future" and a "step change" planned for us and our economy.

It's also pleasing to see the tax credit policy has been fully costed, and that the money will come from another source, without the need to borrow more. The money will come through bringing agriculture within the Emissions Trading Scheme by 2013. That's only fair. Agriculture is currently exempt from the ETS, while other industries and sectors have had to pay. Farmers will kick up hell over this, but the farming sector has been given a free ride under the scheme, and should start paying just like everyone else.

Imposing a carbon cost on agriculture will also encourage the sector to find less polluting ways to operate. That may in turn stimulate further R&D into reducing carbon emissions. Cleaning up the farming sector may also go some way towards restoring our much-tarnished clean and green image.

Tax credits won't transform our economy overnight. What we need from government is an environment that encourages investment in areas that will return high growth and productivity. That means looking at a range of tax options, including potentially land taxes or taxes on capital gains. Labour's fiscal policies need to be bold and meaningful. "We'll clamp down on tax cheats" sounds nice, but it needs to be more than just noise and rhetoric.

And government is only part of the answer. The business sector needs to do more, and business leaders need to lift their game.

But at least one party is talking about taking steps in the right direction. Small steps, admittedly. But the journey has to start somewhere.

The Five Biggest IP Mistakes Tech Start-Ups Make

US IP blog IP Watchdog lists the top five IP mistakes tech start-up companies make. It's worth a read if you're involved with a tech start-up.

Lists like these are always subjective. Ask two different experts and they'll give you two different lists. Which is why I will post my own list. Having said all that, my list is not all that different from IP Watchdog's. This tells me people make the same mistakes wherever they're from.

Here are my five.

Not getting patent protection: If you're a tech start-up, then patent protection will probably be an important part of your business. The main reasons you want patents are:

• VC investors will usually look at the availability and extent of a tech company's patent portfolio when they decide whether to invest in the company. 
• A patent is an exclusionary right, meaning it is a right to prevent others from doing certain things described in the patent's claims. A good portfolio of patents and patent applications can deter others from making or exploiting the products or processes the subject of those clams.
• A good patent portfolio can also be a useful insurance policy in the event a company is dragged into patent litigation. The more patents you have, the harder it will be for someone else to take you on in the courts.

So not investing in a good patent portfolio can often be fatal. 

Not doing FTO searches: If you're going to invest a heap of cash into R&D, then it makes sense to check the patent landscape first. Freedom to operate patent searches can assist to determine whether an area of proposed R&D activity has been heavily patented. Inventors and developers will often go to see their patent attorney after they have made their supposed breakthrough, only to learn that what they have done potentially infringes someone else's patents. A good FTO strategy can prevent unnecessary work being done in heavily patented areas, and identify gaps that can be exploited. 

Not being smart about what, where and how much to file:  It's a myth that patent attorneys are only interested in filing more patents, designs and trade marks. It's a myth perpetuated by some in the anti-patent or open-source community, and by some in the business world. I've heard one business adviser refer to patent attorneys as being like drunks in a brewery.

As with all industries, the IP profession has both good and bad people. The profession has a few cowboy operators, but most are reputable, responsible and professional. They understand that the secret to a successful and strong IP practice is repeat business. A client who goes nuts filing everything and everywhere will soon learn they are blowing cash unnecessarily, and they'll probably blame their IP adviser.

The key is to think strategically and work out where your key markets are, what you need to protect, when you need to do it by, what the costs are, and what you can afford to spend. A good IP adviser can help with that exercise, so you should use their expertise and not assume their answer will be to file more patents. 

Not tying down confidentiality: For most tech start-ups confidentiality is absolutely critical. Anyone the company deals with should be under obligations of confidentiality, if at all possible (accepting the reality that some people and companies just refuse to sign confidentiality agreements), and the company's confidentiality and secrecy policies should be aligned with its patent strategy. Some disclosures of information, even if made under confidence, can destroy patentability, so any proposed disclosure of anything potentially patentable should be cleared by the company's IP adviser first. 

Sorting out ownership:  IP laws are complicated, and different laws have different rules about who owns new IP that is created. For example, under New Zealand's Copyright Act 1994 the first owner of a certain type of work (i.e. a photograph, software, painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, model, sculpture, film, or sound recording) will be the person who commissioned it, unless the parties otherwise agree. But under New Zealand's current legislation someone who commissions another to create a patentable invention does not automatically have legal title to the patent rights in that invention.

Other countries have completely different IP laws, so if you're dealing with overseas parties the issue of IP ownership can be a minefield unless you've got a clear contract in place.

For this reason it is critical that companies dealing with third party developers and creators have clear contracts in place setting out who owns the IP in what is created, and who has the right to exploit it.


I could post a whole lot more about the most common IP mistakes people make, but five seems like enough!

The Rapture Song

Oh! You better watch out,
You better not cry,
You better not pout,
I'm telling you why:

Jesus Christ is coming to town!

He's making a list,
He's checking it twice,
He's gonna find out
who's naughty or nice.

Jesus Christ is coming to town!

He sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake.
He knows when you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!

So...You better watch out,
You better not cry
You better not pout,
I'm telling you why.

Jesus Christ is coming to town.

Some Rapture Questions

Can I take a suitcase?

Does my existing insurance cover the Rapture? And will I need travel insurance?

Is there mobile phone coverage in Heaven? And will be there be somewhere I can charge my phone?

Will all my childhood pets be there to meet me in Heaven? If so, have the ones who used to shit everywhere been housetrained yet?

What arrangements have been made for people with food allergies?

Do they have patents and IP lawyers in Heaven? (Obviously they do in Hell)

Will I earn air-miles on my trip there?

Does Heaven have a good retirement scheme?

All the pictures of Heaven I have seen depict an old white guy in charge. Is Heaven run by ACT?

Is it true that nobody in Heaven works and that everyone just does whatever they want? Maybe it isn’t run by ACT after all.

How does it work if I do something wrong? Can they transfer people "downstairs"? If so, do people have the right to a fair trial? Are there courts? Lawyers? Judges? Juries? Police? Justice lobby groups? Prisons? Is there legislation?

If all this justice apparatus doesn't exist, does that make God a tyrant?

Can I please not be put on a seat next to Richard Dawkins on the flight up? He’s going to go crazy when he finds out the destination.

Some Changes

Regular readers may notice a couple of changes to the site.

I've removed my Hall of Shame and Order of the Tin Foil Hat pages because I'd grown bored of them and was never updating them.

And not because my Labour paymasters required it. Nobody from Labour was on either page. Just in case you were wondering about the timing.

If you insist on the timing being suspect, it's more likely to do with tomorrow's Rapture.

I also deleted that hideous tag-cloud. I'd been meaning to for some time, but only just got around to it.

I've also revised my page about this blog. Because I could.

Let me know if any other features of my blog annoy you (besides my writing generally - you're stuck with that). Unless you want to complain about the Blogger platform generally, because I'm not ready to move to WordPress.

It Is Labour

As I mentioned in my last post, I decided to get off my backside and do something about this useless government.

I had not expected much from the Budget, and just figured it would be business as usual for a government lacking any courage or vision.

But it was worse than than. The only plan this government has is to rely on a boost from the Christchurch rebuild, and the continuation of high commodity prices.

Neither of these things will last.

Meanwhile, the attack on Kiwisaver threatens to actually increase the size of our national debt. The myopic obsession with government debt is a distraction from the larger issues.

So I got fed up and joined Labour. I haven't been happy with some of the things the party has done in the last couple of years, but when I look around the political landscape I don't see many other options.

If you're a regular you'll have read a few of my rants about Labour's lack of focus, so this may seem like a bit of a u-turn.

But my many years of following New Zealand cricket teams show that you can be infuriated and exasperated by the ineptitude of a group of people and yet still support them.

I haven't quite worked out how my joining Labour will lead to the downfall of the Key government (my decision probably won't give rise to too many crisis meetings within the National leadership team today), but I'm going to take things one step at a time, and I am still thinking through the level of involvement I will seek.

Will it change anything on this blog? It's hard to imagine I'll suddenly fall in love with the party's strategy and attack only other parties, but if this does happen and I end up making a complete arse of myself by cheerleading the indefensible please, call me out.

In the meantime, to show how truly independent and fearless I intend to remain, here is a graphic I haven't updated for a while. Previous versions can be found here and here.

Budget Fail

I can't think of much to say about the Budget that hasn't been said better by others. My overall impression is that the Government has delivered a tepid budget full of promises but devoid of any substance.

Does anyone other than a few optimists in Treasury actually believe any of the growth forecasts? They sound fanciful. The economy is flat and I expect it to remain so for a while yet. I hope I'm wrong, because I'd love nothing more than to suddenly see lots of commercial activity taking place.

But it just feels like we're going in the wrong direction. The changes to Kiwisaver will only discourage private savings, at a time when one of the biggest problem facing us is not the size of our government debt but the scale of our private debt. This Budget makes it less attractive for people to save and invest.

And the projected return to surplus will only occur if we see some good growth and a lift in tax revenues. Or a savage cutting of public services. Or the wholesale flogging off of public assets. You can probably guess which one of the three scenarios I think is least likely.

If anyone was hoping for meaningful tax reform to close loopholes, ensure everyone paid their fair share, and actually encourage investment, then their hopes were dashed. The Nats just don't have any imagination or vision beyond winning the next election.

Update: Just read Bernard Hickey's response to the Budget and am now further depressed. Something had better be done and fast!.

Update 2: Something has been done. I just joined the Labour Party. It's all okay now. I'll quickly rise through the ranks, take control, win power in November, then steer the ship back on to the right course.

Update 3: Bugger! Someone just pointed out my rookie mistake. Apparently I was meant to join the party after being confirmed as leader. Idiot!

Madame Zoltar's Budget Forecasts

Treasury forecasts that the Government's books will be in surplus by the 2014/15 financial year... and you will soon meet a handsome man who will sweep you off your feet. He will wine you, dine you, romance you and dance you. He is also a billionaire.

This Budget will boost growth and savings.... and you should put your entire life savings on Lucky Lady in the 3.:15 at Te Rapa.

According to Treasury forecasts the outlook is positive and we should see growth of four percent next year... and I see a lottery win for you in the near future.

This Budget will arrest the brain drain to Australia... and you will take a long oversees trip in the near future.

A Few Minor Things To Be Aware Of

The NZ Herald reports on the strict protocol one must adhere to if they wish to address the Maori King.

It suddenly occurred to me that some of you may not be prepared for a chance encounter with me. So I have drawn up a short list to assist you should you find yourself in my presence.

Dress code: Remember that I am extremely vain, and also highly sensitive about matters of fashion. It is essential that I not be shown up by someone better dressed than myself. So if you wish to avoid my displeasure you should dress modestly, preferably in rags and sack-cloths. The more down at heel you look the better I will feel about my own exulted position. You must remember at all times that your only concern is for my welfare. Let than be your guiding mantra.

Poise: Humility is essential when you are in my presence. Your body language tells me a lot about you. Your approach towards must be slow, and you must come to me unnoticed so as not to disturb my train of thought. I recommend that you crawl carefully on your hands and knees towards me, until you are no closer than five metres away. Then stand, bow, and then fall to your knees. Keep your head bowed at all times, and do not let me see your eyes. It is a direct challenge to me for you to look at my face.

Conversation: Say nothing until you are invited by me to speak. Keep your conversation to a minimum and do not stray from the topic at hand. I tire quickly, and am easily bored, so keep it quick. Do not talk loudly, but do not mumble. I am likely to fly into an uncontrollable rage if required to ask you to repeat yourself because you weren’t clear enough the first time around. Remember at all times that if I did not understand something you have said, it is your fault.

Titles: When you first speak to me it is customary to begin with the standard ceremonial greeting: “Oh Mighty Tower of Imperial Majesty, the Eminence of Which Shines Forth Upon the World like a Radiant Sun!”. But I do not insist on such fancy formalities throughout every conversation, and after that initial greeting I will be content with being referred to as “The Holiness”. Remember never to refer to me using a personal pronoun, as this is a direct insult to my majesty.

Gifts: It is an insult not to give me a gift. I will be enraged if I discover you have been a cheapskate, so no Warehouse vouchers please. If in doubt money is always a safe gift.

So I hope that is all perfectly clear. I didn’t want to make a big deal of this, but protocol is important.

I will have to update my comments policy next.

Unbelievable!

In shock news, a rich white old guy has confirmed he wants to stand for ACT.

Saturday's Forecast: Cloudy, Followed By Periods Of Rapture

Some people in the US are saying that the Rapture will commence on 21 May.

They are also saying the survivors will suffer through 153 days of torment.

In hindsight I might have skipped the dentist this week if I'd thought it through, because I suspect when we're swept up and put before Him for judgment, the fact that I now have shining teeth probably won't help my cause. Particularly when the other people who have shining teeth are mostly real estate agents.

But isn't it typical that He chooses a Saturday to doom us all? He couldn't do it during the working week, when we're all stuck in our offices. Some days I'm so busy at my desk I wouldn't notice if outside the sky went red with fire. Now it looks as if my Saturday morning will be ruined. At least it should be warm.

And why hasn't someone told poor Bill English? All that hard work he's put into the Budget will be out the window. If English thinks the Christchurch earthquake put a big hole in the books, wait till he sees what the Apocalypse is going to do to the nation's balance sheet.

I personally can't abide the sound of people screaming as the fires of heavenly justice cleanse the land, and such frank displays of emotion leave me uncomfortable. So if you are one of those about to be obliterated on Saturday please have the decency not to make a big song and dance about it.

And for those of you who grimly hang on after the initial onslaught, I hope it is some comfort to you that  Gerry Brownlee will be given emergency powers to deal with the situation. In fact, he'll probably be the only politician left alive. I have a feeling the thick layers of blubber will shield him from the worst of the horrors.

But my advice is not to get to stressed. You're doomed, and there's little to be done about it. Did you think He wasn't going to punish you for the gratuitous way in which you waste paper clips? The only creatures likely to survive the fiery cleansing of the earth are the cockroaches. And finance company bosses. So you'll probably be grateful you're dead.

Labour's New Election Strategy: Piss Off Rural People

If you are trying to demonstrate that your party is a viable alternative to National, showing a basic understanding of business finances will be essential.

On that measurement this piece represents a failure. A number of right-wing bloggers have seized upon Stuart Nash's claim that dairy farmers don't pay their fair share of tax, pointing out the flaws in his reasoning. Many of the points they make are valid ones.

The average Fonterra payout may have been $500K for 2009, but this was a revenue figure only, not profit. From that amount farmers would have had a lot of expenses to cover, including mortgage, capital expenditure, farm expenses, and salaries (which would have had PAYE deducted from them, let's not forget). The years prior to 2009 were lean ones for farmers, so farmers would also have been paying down a lot of debt and replacing worn out plant.

It's true that some farm businesses use every loophole they can to avoid paying their fair share. Just like many other businesses do. But Nash's figures are flawed and don't really tell us anything useful about the scale of the problem.

These attacks on farmers play into the hands of opponents of Labour, who claim the party has no understanding of business. They also threaten to (further) alienate rural voters.

Budget 2011: Anything For Innovation? And Does It Matter?

It's two days out from the Budget, and I have been pondering what it might mean for innovation, and wondering whether we can expect the Government to offer anything to businesses in the innovation area.

This thinking was prompted by a (mostly) excellent all-day seminar I attended today on some of the secrets of doing a deal in Silicon Valley.  It reinforced to me how alien much of this stuff is to most New Zealand inventors, and how bad we generally are as a nation (with some notable exceptions) at getting our technology offshore in a way that benefits our businesses financially.

But I'm not holding out any hope that the Budget will change much. It's easy enough to bag governments for not doing enough to foster innovation, and certainly successive governments have been pretty lousy at incentivising companies to invest in R&D, and assisting companies to get their technologies offshore, despite all the "knowledge economy" and "step-change" bullshit they utter.

But it's also not purely a government thing. We don't do well in the innovation area because of a number of unfortunate cultural traits we have.

Why is it so important that we do better? Because we can't continue to sustain our standard of living if we focus most of our efforts into doing what we have been doing for decades: exporting raw produce. The only way we will lift wage growth is by growing more high-value businesses.

I'm not knocking farmers, because farming will always be an important part of the economy, and the export of dairy commodities provides billions of dollars in revenue to the country. But relying on dairy and other agricultural commodities alone won't lift us into the top half of the OECD. Our economy is largely stagnant, even though we are experiencing record high commodity prices. Things can't really get much better on the commodity front, and yet we are still flatlining.

And so we need to find high growth industries if we are to lift our standard of living. That means finding out what we're good at, and then encouraging and inventivising people to lift their game. Government has a role to play, but so do businesses.

This also means teaching businesspeople to think globally, and encouraging them to focus on exporting high value products, technologies and services. If we do this we have a shot at growing some big companies, and creating role models for young people to follow, other than sports stars.

So what are some of the cultural traits that hold us back?

• We have a small-business mentality. This results in us wanting to control everything, and finding it difficult to work with others. I see this again and again with start-ups: inventors who won't take a smaller share of a bigger pie, and instead of allowing others to invest and share control, they try to do everything themselves. They usually fail.
  
• We suffer from complacency. We congratulate ourselves on our number 8 wire mentality, but it's a myth. If anything it shows that we're not prepared to invest in innovation and try instead to do everything on the cheap.
  
• We're good with our hands, but have a distrust of intellectuals. We also don't trust anyone who wears a suit. We regard business advisers, lawyers and accountants as necessary evils (if we engage them at all), rather than people who can help us grow our businesses.
• We lack role models: people who have succeeded in business through actually creating a product, rather than through shuffling money around. For example, our beloved PM made his millions through being a money-changer.

These are all generalisations, of course, and there are thankfully many people who don't have these traits. But there are not enough of them.

Governments also have a role to play, by helping to establish the conditions for businesses to flourish. Making sure our capital markets have the right mix of regulations might help to get people investing in businesses again, and fiscal policy can be used to encourage positive investment behaviours while discouraging the negative ones. 

Government programmes can also assist in providing early-stage seed funding, mentoring and strategic advice to start-up businesses. Successive governments have run various programmes over the years dedicated to these things, with mixed success, and every few years these programmes are overhauled and something new is tried. They haven't got the balance right yet.

The Don Brash prescription - cut taxes and regulation and we'll magically flourish - is based on fantasy, and the reality is far more complicated. But because government is only one part of the reason why we suck at commercialising our good ideas, I probably won't be shaking my head when I discover there's nothing in the Budget for innovation.

Guest Post: Time To End Marrie Entitlement

A guest post from Margot Oldwitch of the New Zealand Centre for Research and Policy.

Last week an overwhelming 81% of 40,000 respondents told Close Up that the Marries do not have a special place in this country.

Naturally the left portrayed this poll as a meaningless vox pop that merely showed how ignorant many people are when confronted with issues of race.

But you can’t ignore a poll like that, unless the poll gives you the answer you don’t want, in which case it’s a pointless and non-scientific vox pop that shows just how ignorant some people are.

Like the poll on Campbell Live a week or so ago that showed that 60% of respondents would be prepared to give up their tax cuts if student loans, Kiwisaver and Working for Families were untouched.

That’s just what you would expect from the liberal handwringing wowsers who watch John Campbell. They claim to be enlightened and educated, and yet ask them if they’ve read the entire works of Ayn Rand and they just sneer. So who’s the ignorant one now?

The views expressed in the Close Up poll echo the sentiment I have heard voiced again and again when I talk to people and only listen to what I am saying. People have had enough of those goddamn Marries and their culture of entitlement.

Liberals whine that the Marries are overly represented in the prison statistics, and that they clog the hospitals and medical services with their goddamn illnesses and what not.

It is an act of supreme cognitive dissonance to argue that the Marries get the rough end of the stick, while relying on their very overuse of public services as evidence.

It’s simply not fair to the rest of us that all the hospital beds have been taken up by sick natives. If I ever decide to exercise my democratic right to have diabetes (assuming the government PC food police don’t end up legislating all tasty and unhealthy foods out of existence and then force-feeding us tofu in their concentration camps), I will find myself on a long waiting list if I want an operation or need dialysis, because the Marries have clogged the system up.

And if I ever exercise my democratic right to shoot a home invader through the eyes with one of the many military-style weapons I keep at hand to preserve my freedoms, and it turns out that the person was actually a Salvation Army collector whom I invited inside for a cup of tea and who never saw me coming with the gun, then why should I have to share my prison block with hundreds of these Marrie types? White people built the prison, so they should damn well have all the most comfortable parts of it. I exclude, of course, all of my financier friends who have recently fallen upon hard times and have been unjustly given prison sentences, all because they engaged in a bit of harmless massive fraud. Prison’s no place for a company director. Wouldn’t justice be better served if they were out in the community giving something back? I can think of any number of charities who would be delighted to have one of these fine gentlemen helping out pro bono, handling their finances. Actually, I can’t think of any right now, but there are bound to be some, I’m sure.

If you think the Marries have it so tough then consider that their asset base is a massive $37 billion. That’s a figure I plucked out of my arse after hearing someone mention it some years ago, but that’s where all my best information comes from, and I was in Parliament you know, so I know what I’m talking about. Think about it. That’s an awful lot of money, and probably more than the combined wealth of the top ten or twenty richest white people in this country.

One of the founding principles of this land was the notion of one law for all. It’s what the Treaty of Waitangi actually says, or it will once a few minor revisions are made to some of the more ambiguous sections. The Treaty allowed us to bring our laws and our diseases to this country, and any suggestion that the Treaty was not honoured is pure historical revisionism. Yes, a few Marries may have lost their lands, but the bulk of the land confiscations in the 19th century occurred because land was needed and it was convenient for the settler government to take it. The whole motivation behind much of the last four hundred years of Western liberal thinking may have been the protection of property rights, but if you offer someone a few muskets and blankets for their precious lands and they refuse to see reason, then what choice have you but to evict them and shoot or imprison those who fight back? It was the law of the land, the law the Marries agreed to adhere to when they signed the Treaty. In any event, before the Europeans came there was no title deeds system. So the Marries can’t actually provide title deeds showing ownership of anything before the Treaty.

I asked law lecturer and fellow NZCRAP contributor Donald Ball what he thought about the Treaty, and he agreed with everything I said. Ball is a self-appointed pre-eminent expert on the Treaty, having been published in numerous works that you have never heard of, but only because the Marries and their supporters in the legal fraternity have shut down debate on the issue and won’t listen to what he has to say. As anyone who has been to law school knows, there are no dud lecturers. So Ball must know what he’s on about.

NZCRAP stands against this attack on white man’s privilege. If the Marries get their way we’ll all be forced off our lands, and our children will be taken into white slavery and have their faces tattooed. Is that what you want? If not then join the fight against this tyranny!

It’s bad enough that we haven’t exterminated their language and culture. But now it’s starting to infest our education system. Children are being force-fed Marrie language and forced to learn about the Marries at school. And we now have pregnant and menstruating women being banned from exhibitions at Te Papa! You could be forgiven for thinking that the Te Papa story was a complete beat-up, and that it was made very clear by Te Papa that no such ban had ever existed. But remember that if you disagree with anything I’ve said it’s because you’ve been infected with liberal media bias. Don’t trust them!

And even if I do occasionally use outright lies to make my case, it’s only because I know how awful those Marries are. Hey, don’t shoot me, I’m no racist! They’re the racists!

Bob Mittsky's List Of Class Enemies

Award-winning columnist and Riesling revolutionary Bob Mittsky has returned after a long overseas trip.

You have probably been wondering what became of me. I was in Britain, on a fact-finding mission to study the way other parties of the left have responded to the challenges faced by rampant capitalism.

I was lucky to be able to meet a lot of top people from parties of the left, both past and present. Perhaps the highlight of my trip was meeting the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg. Under his genius stewardship the Lib Dems have entered into a coalition with the hated Conservatives, and it will surely result in the annihilation of most of his party at the next election. This act of stunning vision will purge the party of all its bourgeoisie hangers on and trendy well-to-do supporters, and will force them to look instead at adopting radical Maoist solutions to tackle the UK's major problems. At least that is my hope.

I also met Tony Blair, who finally broke the Tory stranglehold on power in the UK in 1997. Blair was and is a visionary, who taught me a valuable lesson that it's okay to lie outrageously and deceive the public so long as you know you're right. Even if you're wrong.

But I was following events back in New Zealand during my travels, and during my three week stay at David Richwhite's Swiss Alps chalet, and what I read in the newspapers and online left me cold. That is when I realised I was needed back in New Zealand, and so I cancelled the wine tour through the south of France and flew straight home on my private jet.

I realised it was time to do some cleaning.

All too often we focus our rage at those in the public eye. Like the unscrupulous industrialists and money men who run ACT, or our government MPs who continue to sell the workers down the river.

But the real enemy is much closer than we think. Forget the Brashes and the Keys. At least they are in plain sight. Let us instead expend all our energies on stamping out the enemies from within our own ranks.

To assist my followers I have compiled a list of the most notorious class traitors. These are the people most in need of re-education.

The List:

Hone Harawira. Harawira has made a great play for wanting to create a potent force for the left, but such a force already exists. It's called the Workers Solidarity Party of Aotearoa. I should know, as its Chairman. Now why do you think Harawira made no effort at all to work with us, and to put himself under my leadership? It's not that I seek power, comrades. Far from it. If I had my way all authority would be devolved to a series of collectives who would adopt models of revolutionary democracy to reach consensus on critical issues, after first having their critical revolutionary resolutions vetted by head office. Unfortunately, despite considerable advances, the members of my organisation lack sufficient class consciousness and must remain under my watchful guidance.

So I would have been prepared to mentor and guide Harawira, and all I would have asked for in return is his unquestioning obedience in all matters.

Thus, if Harawira will not join our leftist alliance then he must be regarded as an enemy. We must have solidarity under a common cause and a common leader (myself, reluctantly), and anyone who opposes this purpose is an enemy of the people.

John Minto. Minto has been the public face of protest in this country for many years. His masterful manipulation of the media displays all the characteristics of a man who understands the system well. Minto is the go-to man when the media wants a comment or quote from the far left, but if he truly cared about revolutionary struggle he would be urging the media to call me instead. I have years of training in Marxist dialectics, and have studied under the finest North Korean revolutionaries. What has Minto achieved?

To top it all off. Harawira now wants Minto in his party. More evidence that both have been captured by the rightists. Traitor!

Sue Bradford. As bad as Minto, and another reason why the special media hotline installed in my office fails to ring. Bradford and Minto have taken the easy option, by actually professing openly what they believe. How naive.

I would love to swan about in front of the camera, waving a placard and shaking my fists, denouncing the evil capitalist system, but the struggle requires more than that, and our tactics must be more subtle.

Even if I approved of such simplistic tactics, where would I find the time? My role as Party Chairman is a demanding one and keeps me busy almost every waking hour. My life is an endless succession of cocktail functions and golf club dinners, following by three-in-a-bed romps with call girls and bags of cocaine that would put Charlie Sheen to shame. That's just what you have to do when you're trying to undermine the system from within.

I remain hopeful that this masterplan will bear fruit after I have won the ACT Party selection for Epsom, although our party's revolutionary plan is a long-term one and may require a generation or two of suffering under the yoke of ACT Party discipline before we are in a position to strike.

Which is why I have so publicly endorsed Dr Brash as leader, despite his being a class enemy of the highest order.

Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury. A TV, radio and internet personality who claims to be of the radical left, but who has so far failed to mention my party's revolutionary struggle in any of his media appearances. Nor has he asked me to censor his shows or writings for incorrect thoughts. His efforts have contributed to the public's general distaste for all things ACT, even though for us to destroy the hated capitalists we must first encourage them. That is why I continue to issue press releases praising deregulation and advocating the slashing of welfare and public services.

A terrible rightist who must be stopped!

Russell Brown. Brown runs a popular blogsite that discourages confrontation, denouncement and class war. If that isn't bad enough, he recently failed to show class solidarity, when he questioned some of the tactics adopted by the left during the recent heroic revolutionary struggle against the arch-capitalist Peter Jackson.

A Trotskyite of the worst kind!

Helen Kelly. The CTU President was particularly vocal during the recent heroic revolutionary struggle against the arch-capitalist Peter Jackson. This was in direct contravention of my orders. The Workers Solidarity Party of Aotearoa has invested heavily in a number of Hollywood film studios, using a series of blind trusts and offshore entities registered in various tax havens. Kelly's actions threatened to damage our investment. Let us not forget that this investment is for the good of the revolutionary struggle, and that all of the profits milked from the hated capitalists (after a modest deduction to cover all of my living expenses) go back to the workers.

A true class traitor!

So, comrades, don't waste your time denouncing this government or its supporters on the right. That is just what these class enemies want you to do. Don't play their game!

No Pandas No Plan

The Dom Post has reported* that John Key's plan to acquire two pandas for the Wellington Zoo have been shelved.

Instead the zoo wants to acquire a pair of overgrown pussycats.

The panda plan was critical to our nation’s economic welfare. It was going to lead to jobs, economic growth, and our winning the Rugby World Cup.

In the same way that tinkering with Kiwisaver represents a bold move that will singlehandedly get government spending under control.

I can’t think why they abandoned the plan. Those lovable pandas would have bought joy to the cold bitter hearts of the bureaucrats and politicians who have made windy Wellington their home. Maybe that was the problem. The blood of reptiles flows cold.

Another possibility is that the pandas just weren’t up to the mark. The standard of Chinese product has increased over the years in general, but we still occasionally hear stories about tainted products, and IP infringement issues are still a problem. Maybe the pandas Key was looking at weren’t the real deal. Perhaps they were just a couple of Chinese guys in a suit pretending to like bamboo. We know from that Mr Peters and that Mr Chapman that all foreigners are evil, and most probably communists, and would you really want your children being subjected to a cute and cuddly bear reciting sections from Mao’s Little Red Book?

So let’s not be too critical. It’s election year and we don’t even know what Labour’s policy position on pandas is! Or on members of the ursidae family of mammals generally. It’s no wonder they’re lagging in the polls.

* Many thanks to The Standard for alerting me to this.