In the wake of the jonkey...

From Spiegel, by way of ALDaily comes thoughts on the state of politics and, directly from that, of democracy as a political form.

Habermas is an 82 y-o "philosopher" who has some considerable standing in Europe in particular and his name has passed my way on occasion in the past as well.

Jürgen Habermas, 82, wants to get the word out. He's sitting on stage at the Goethe Institute in Paris. Next to him sits a good-natured professor who asks six or seven questions in just under two hours -- answers that take fewer than 15 minutes are not Habermas' style.

Usually he says clever things like: "In this crisis, functional and systematic imperatives collide" -- referring to sovereign debts and the pressure of the markets.

Sometimes he shakes his head in consternation and says: "It's simply unacceptable, simply unacceptable" -- referring to the EU diktat and Greece's loss of national sovereignty.

...

In the past, there were enemies; today, there are markets -- that's how the historical situation could be described that Habermas sees before him. He is standing in an overcrowded, overheated auditorium of the Université Paris Descartes, two days before the evening at the Goethe Institute, and he is speaking to students who look like they would rather establish capitalism in Brussels or Beijing than spend the night in an Occupy movement tent.

...

Habermas accepts all this without complaint. He steps up to the lectern and explains the mistakes that were made in constructing the EU. He speaks of a lack of political union and of "embedded capitalism," a term he uses to describe a market economy controlled by politics. He makes the amorphous entity Brussels tangible in its contradictions, and points to the fact that the decisions of the European Council, which permeate our everyday life, basically have no legal, legitimate basis. He also speaks, though, of the opportunity that lies in the Lisbon Treaty of creating a union that is more democratic and politically effective. This can also emerge from the crisis, says Habermas. He is, after all, an optimist.

...

He rails against "political defeatism" and begins the process of building a positive vision for Europe from the rubble of his analysis. He sketches the nation-state as a place in which the rights of the citizens are best protected, and how this notion could be implemented on a European level.

He says that states have no rights, "only people have rights," and then he takes the final step and brings the peoples of Europe and the citizens of Europe into position -- they are the actual historical actors in his eyes, not the states, not the governments. It is the citizens who, in the current manner that politics are done, have been reduced to spectators.

His vision is as follows: "The citizens of each individual country, who until now have had to accept how responsibilities have been reassigned across sovereign borders, could as European citizens bring their democratic influence to bear on the governments that are currently acting within a constitutional gray area."

(emphasis is mine)

That is based upon a premise that government as a process has changed; that it no longer serves "the people" (as in the catch-cry of old); that the process of government has become the means of perpetuating the careers of the "representatives". There is a strong parallel here with the "statism" cry of the libertarians. There are parallels to the "anti-socialism" of the Republicans.

(Confirmation Bias warning here!)

Very near the top of google (on the very first page) in response to "politic opinion europe economy" comes this -

On the other hand the economic policies exercised by the EU as a whole, with anachronistic, counter-productive, centralized protectionist policies, with an increasingly aging population and with the accumulation of excessive debts at private and public level; left the continent in a position of witnessing too little growth based on too much debt - an unsustainable cycle. The European leadership seeks to address the cancer of debt in all of Europe, both eurozone and EU, by means of issuing more debt. This is in practice what the EFSF is, the "stability bonds" and the ECB monetizing debts will be. There can be no end to the cost once new debt is issued to pay for the old one. Only sustainable growth, emancipated from cumbersome bureaucratic techniques can fix the problems EU is facing.

In another more recent post he concludes -

All this is caused by the denial of the powers of the European (and local) establishment, to accept that the crisis is fundamentally caused by quasi-bankrupt banks and by a single currency that should have never been created, but was produced to satisfy the arrogance of its architects, who thought that they could design an economic project to achieve political ends.

That does beg the question - fairly severely - of the cause of the "quasi-bankruptcy" of European banks. Was it the result of the same lending policies as led to the demise of Lehmanns and the need to rescue several other American banks as well as BOS in Britain? Was it the result of the prospect of default on sovereign debt by PIIGS? He is right in that current policies are aimed more at perpetuation rather than cure.

And at this point I can tie back directly to the Jonkey and his government's policies for the next three years. First contrast between NZ and Europe is that not one of the European governments is proposing the sale of government owned assets. Is this because they do not exist? Someone could help me with that one please.

More to Habermas' point, none of the governments in the PIIGS grouping has said anything at all about the real problems. I like Protos-stavrou's comment on the CAP in Europe - About 40% of the total expenditure of the Europe group is subsidy for a sector that produces 2% of GDP. I mean to say, that definitely comes under the "Say WHAT!!??!!" heading.

It also raises the point made by Whanga-Ray (returning here to the Jonkey) that one of the easier targets for the new government will be universal superannuation. That is likely, but it is also a problem for the Jonkey. The logical solution is to defer the qualification age to, say, 67. There is one major difficulty - that was Labour's policy and has already been put down by Jonkey as not an option. There are some quite attractive alternatives within that major strategy - such as paying less super for earlier take-up, more for later take-up. Will Jonkey sugar the pill? I doubt it.

Whenever the Gnats have talked of reducing government expenditure they have always taken the direct route; first to go are the budget items which will lose the least votes, the items which have received the greatest criticism in the past and so the likes of adult education bites the dust; next in line are those who vote for "them", and so we have the reductions in day-care subsidies, changes to the DPB and Unemployment benefits; then...

There is no question that the Jonkey is almost solely responsible for the ressurrection of Winnie the Pooh. His reported comments (directly attributed to the tea-pot tape and reported by W-t-P himself) that NZ First's supporters were "dying out" have created a multitude of Erinnyes that will be richly deserved for the next three years. To make matters worse for the Jonkey, every step he takes toward monkeying with the rate of superannuation is going to create severe pains in the back seats.

And that comes back to Habermas -

Jürgen Habermas is angry. He's really angry. He is nothing short of furious -- because he takes it all personally.

He leans forward. He leans backward. He arranges his fidgety hands to illustrate his tirades before allowing them to fall back to his lap. He bangs on the table and yells: "Enough already!" He simply has no desire to see Europe consigned to the dustbin of world history.

"I'm speaking here as a citizen," he says. "I would rather be sitting back home at my desk, believe me. But this is too important. Everyone has to understand that we have critical decisions facing us. That's why I'm so involved in this debate. The European project can no longer continue in elite modus."

Enough already! Europe is his project. It is the project of his generation.

...

And then he's really angry again: "I condemn the political parties. Our politicians have long been incapable of aspiring to anything whatsoever other than being re-elected. They have no political substance whatsoever, no convictions."

Hear!Hear!!

And, I guess, that leads down a path toward the "Occupy..." protests of the past few months. The WSJ I think has a recent op-ed talking about "blind campaign donations" of past and the next Presidential election in the US. As I pointed out in my last post, DHC laments the connect between Maori Party and iwi corporations. That is a trend that started decades ago in NZ with the Round Table and similar political "ginger groups" with the last major infiltration coming from the Brethren Church. Forget the "open market" arguments, they are as relevant as climate change in this context.

This from Wiley Post says it all...

Almost the end of The Agony -

I quite enjoy reading Deborah Hill Cone in the busyness section of Granny Herald. Not because I necessarily agree with her POV, but simply because it is often one of the better writes in the paper.

And so it is this morning with her take on elections and electorates. In fact I think that I can sympathise with her personal agony of being an Epsom Saltie.

What caught my eye was her wave in the general direction of one of the elephants currently occupying the room. Hers is the one carrying the "youth unemployment" label.

Billionaire Sir Richard Branson this week wrote a piece warning the British Chancellor he is creating a "lost generation" of young people who will never know work, and advocated some drastic policies.

In this country, it is still too much of a buzz kill to address the reality of long-term youth unemployment of 25 to 30 per cent, or how to transform an underclass of people stuck on welfare.

But she actually closes with a very accurate posit on the nature of NZers and their attitude to elections and governmental retaliation (translate that with the story of the old radio programme earlier...).

We feel the decisions that affect us are taken way above our heads, in so much as they are the operation of large economic forces over which we have no control. This is probably true. But sometimes we do have at least a small opportunity to exert our agency.

Tomorrow is one of those days. I just wish I could vote for someone who has woken up.

Which earns from me a heartfelt "Hear, hear!"

Anyone who has the slightest interest...

... in the future of democracy in this country MUST go read this!!!

What a storm in a teapot!!

It begins with all of the anticipation - …will he won’t he will he join the dance… - but not a sign of a lobster at all. For two weeks the media waited agasp for their invitation to the event of all electoral events; the expected invitation for Banksie to share a pot of tea with none other than the PM and the acknowledgement that Banksie was in fact a Nat in all but name for electoral purposes. Not only that, but the pot of tea was to come with shared electoral biscotti. In return for an undertaking (always an interesting word that, in circumstances such as these) to provide stable government the PM himself would ensure that his party would not actively contest the seat in which Banksie is standing.



The appointed day arrives. A media scrum is put down in a café on Broadway – another of those interesting coincidences that passes everyone by - the limousine draws up, the Banksie appears magically with entourage who dust the pavement from car to café and Banksie and PM repair to a table for a nice cuppa.



Once the media have played their part in supporting the election campaigns of the two, they are ushered out to press their noses against the windows and wonder just what PM’s talk about over a nice cuppa. Well, one industrious member of their number found out by (inadvertently) leaving his radio-mike in a bag on the table.



Since then, all manner of unprintables and several hundred tumbrills full of printables have been flying through the air.



Quite amazing then that no one has asked what the PM and Banksie were drinking. Choysa? Bell? Twinings? Or did the PM go the whole way and treat Banksie to a pot of Uncle Don's Best?

Elections 2011 - Fit the Third

Wednesday -

RNZ on Morning Report as I was avoiding the rush traffic between here and there included a “debate” between the leaders of the “minor parties”. Quote of the 20minute duration; Dunny himself with “Tureia is right up to the point where ideology steps in.”.


Thursday -

SMH this morning is trumpeting the fact that the UN has rated Australia only 0.1 points (on a 0 – 1 scale) behind Norway.

After reading through the whole article, one finds (in the very last para) that the top five are Norway, Australia, Netherlands, US, and NZ.

Say what? NZ is in there at number five? That just can not be true!!! After all, NZers are leaving in droves, herds even, for the much greener pastures of Australia in particular. It is (we are told on the hustings) the problem of the economy. This is why we have to lift our wage rates to compete. That is why our productivity is stuffed. We are so far behind Australia that it is not funny!!!

Well, that deserves a “Yeah, right!!” of the first water.

There is a dose of realism that needs to be taken with the sugar. NZ has vulnerabilities internally, and most especially externally.

The internal exposures stem primarily from size; we are the very small branch office in a very large global multi-corporate organisation; we are the very small leaf at the far end of a long branch of an oak tree. The internal threats is one thing that we should be concentrating on over the next three weeks. Decisions made now are going to shape what this country looks like in three and probably fifteen years as well. My greatest fear is that none of the relatively sane parties has the guts and the intelligence to go beyond the application of ideology to the solution of pressing problems.

There is one instance where I think this combination of belly driven common sense is becoming apparent and that is in the form of Papandreou and his proposal to take the Greek economic woes to the electorate. No, seriously; I mean, stop laughing like that!

This article from The Age gives a pretty fair run-down on the choices; the consequences. That it might be “unspeakable” a distinct possibility is exactly why I think Papandreou has taken this course.

If the electorate chooses to turn down the bail-out offered by the EU it will so do in the knowledge (I would hope) of the consequences. That, I submit, is exactly what Papandreou wants. If the electorate is not going to stand behind him and support the economic rebuilding that is needed then why bother making the start. I can well imagine that his political career would end the next day. This is essentially the thesis of Thomas’ “return to the drachma” article.

There are many who paint – with Rolf Harris like speed – terrifying portraits of the result of Greek default on its international loans. It would, we are told, lead to the failure of the Euro, the collapse of most of Europe’s banks and financial institutions.

So, I want to stand back for a moment and look at that. If Greece were to refuse to comply with the conditions imposed by the EU what would really happen?

There is already in place an agreement to write off 50% of Greece’s borrowing. That is being soaked by the banks and financial institutions. The other 50% will largely fall on the same funds sources. But, and no one I have read says this, there is also agreement to bail Greece out to the tune of a very large sum indeed. That, in addition, is being expressed in a way that implies the presence of a very large “AND” that would follow; the agreement to provide further funding down the track with Greece’s continuing compliance with EU restraints. What happens to those agreements and promises should Greece refuse? They immediately become void.

Germany and France, in particular, have promised the greatest part of that funding; most in the form of guarantees but with the provision of immediate cash as well. Hands up those who remember the NZ deposit guarantee scheme that was implemented with almost indecent haste (let’s face it, the response was essential) a couple years back. That is where the Euro zone nations should be putting their efforts if Greece fails to meet their demands.

And, I think, Papandreou would be among the first to say, “Good on yer, mate. Take care of home first.”.

I follows on from that to back at home here where a small number of young and enthusiastic improvers of the universe have joined in the fun and games (that started in Wall St NY) of occupying places. In Auckland they chose Aotea Sq, in Dunedin the Octagon. Their main beef is the power and greed of the major banks. Watching those same major banks taking a bit of a pasting on the fallout from Greece might have them smiling. Hearing that the EU is bailing out those same banks will no doubt add a great deal of fuel to the fire.

I can but wonder how many of those yaeiou will pause for a moment to reflect on the problems that Greece would be facing.

Elections 2011 - Fit the second

No, I did not watch the “Leadership Debate” on the tv last night. I had a few better things to do.

No, I am not sorry. (That is the same kind of answer as “I am not going to raise GST”.)

From the reports, seen and read, I have the impression that it was pretty much as scripted. The Jonkey was not surprised by anything that the Gofer raised, though there is a suspicion that he was momentarily a bit backed up by the delivery. Similarly, there seems to have been no surprises for the Gofer.

And that really is the point. These leadership presentations are not much more than proving to the electorate that the leaders they are voting for are not zombies, are not frothing at the mouth maniacs, can and do hold something that could pass for a conversation. But, as politics keeps reminding us, that is about as far as it goes.

The pundits and propounders are all weighing the outcome as even, favouring whichever side of the divide they sit.

Of course, there are always the likes of Cactus Kate who is trumpeting Brash Donnie’s “triumph” over a hapless tv3 reporter. In that instance the script only ran to two words. Brash Donnie was not able to expand past his robot-like inchantation of “deceitful bastard”. CK herself seemed stuck in a groove to prove the journo’s typo revealed a total inability to spell. Yep, well as I pointed out in a submitted comment there are a lot of suitable alternative epithets. Rather than ascribing to the Chris Christie school of political attack the Donnie could perhaps get a whole lot more benefit from a quiet review of a few of the archive tapes of the master, old Mouldie himself. As for handling unwanted journos, Mouldie’s attack on Tom Scott has to be the pinnacle.

There is a rich vein of commentary in this. It follows the interdependence of politician and journalist; both need the other. In Muldoon v Scott, the dependence was “broken” because Scott became “expendable” to Muldoon. There were far more servile channels he could use and Scott was just too hostile. Personally, I think that Scott was doing his job well and that was to get Muldoon pissed off…

There is a similar conflict in the relationship between Granny Herald and The Speaker just before Parliament rose for the RWC.

Elections - 2011 Fit the First.

I have a real problem at the moment.

Do I vote for the Jonkey, the Nats?

Or do I vote for the Gofer, the Labourlites?

Of the minor parties; ACT has self-obessessd on the occupiers; Winnie the Pooh has ressurrected for the third time; the Greens have taken a jump to the left; Maori will lose their Mana with the departure of Pita and Tariana; Tamahere is making a joke of the idea of mana; the rest are just lost in the wilderness.

The problem is this.

The Nats have not done anything that drastically changes the economy, personal rights or the general state of society. In other words, they have not done much atall at all. That is something that they want to change. After spending three years borrowing in excess (well in excess) of requirements for reasons that were hazy at the time and incomprehensible now they are now suggesting the sale of assets such as power supply utilities so that the proceeds are available for a National Infrastructure Fund.

I guess that makes as much sense as a long-haul carrier selling half his truck so that he can buy a car for the wife.

Labour has just one problem. The Gofer. He sounds too much like an earnest scout master trying his hardest to sell raffle tickets in the local pub. They have a new team. The old guard left with absolutely no regard for succession, or for the continuity of ideas. Bring Back John A!!! The ideas that have come forward thus far have merit. Well, there is only one that has not originated in the powerhouse of the FOL. The Gofer is right about one thing; the minimum age for national superannuation MUST increase to 67, and I would bring the idea forward by about ten years for what he is promoting. Give him credit for what is, so far, the most realistic policy plank put to the electorate.

The rest can be discounted. Totally. I can't even raise the energy to consider Maori for a protest vote. I know the Tai Tokerau Labour candidate and he is not a bad chook. The Nat candidate similarly, with the proviso that he has to support the sale of state revenue earning assets.

Indications at the moment are that public support is on the side of retaining MMP. This is a good thing. I am not going to lose sleep (yet) on that quarter.

Next weekend is for friends; the Monkfish and co have opened their door. Good food, good wine, good company; three that just can not be beat.

As the sun sinks slowly in the west...

... one of the most shameful episodes in NZ criminal justice is quietly coming to an end.

I have no connection with those charged, other than the fact that for two years I lived in a similar community where my father was headmaster at the local school. I was 8 at the time.

That it has taken so long for the Justice system to pull its thumb from its collective arsehole is beyond belief. That it has occurred only 4 months before a General Election only adds to the solid stench of political agendae and unsettled scores.

Firearms charges against most of those arrested in the police raids on alleged military training camps in the Ureweras have been dropped.

But four of the accused, including Tame Iti, will still stand trial on charges of participating in an organised crime group and firearms charges.

The Supreme Court has ruled certain evidence inadmissable at the so-called "terror raid" trial of next year which was set to last for three months.

The groundbreaking decision over-ruled previous judgments from the High Court and Court of Appeal over whether the Crown could use evidence gathered in the covert police operation before the arrests in October 2007.

The Crown has now dropped the Operation Eight prosecution against 13 of the 17 accused, according to a statement just released by the Auckland Crown Solicitor, Simon Moore SC.

Mr Moore said the judgment of the Supreme Court is subject to suppression orders and cannot be reported.

The most immediate question has to be "Why" can this latest step not be reported?

The effect of the delay would be that those accused facing Arms Act charges alone would not be tried for a period of four and a half years from the date of their arrest," said Mr Moore.

"Further, they were remanded in custody for a period of time following their arrest, and they have been on restrictive bail conditions through much of the time since their release.

"Taking these matters into account together with findings made by the Supreme Court about the seriousness of their offending, it is the Crown decision that the continuation of proceedings would not be in the public interest."

You bet it would not, nor will it be, simply because the whole process from the day the AOS stepped onto their bus and drove to Ruatoki has been nothing less than a monumental fuck-up. I will say it. It is so bad that I can not believe for a moment that it was solely the responsibility of the Police. There has to have been another hand. There is only one that could move things in the mysterious way this has progressed.

Politics.

Which raises the next question. Why has the Jonkey been so slow in making it known to the Police and the Justice system that enough is more than enough.

The secrecy has to end. It might be justified to the time that the last remaining charges are settled.

Then the book must be opened.

On not thinking very hard about anything in particular…

The last post was when? April?

Actually, it is bad because we do have the parliamentary general election coming up; there has just been (well, a couple months back) a by-election resulting from the departure of Pansy Wong; there has been the reasons for her “retirement” as the local MP; there has been the consequential vacancy and by-election for the Council; and there has been a total non-event called “The Budget”. It is not as if “nothing” was happening!

The by-election? Well that went by default almost. There was no contest in truth; Nat begat Nat in the form of one Jami-Lee Ross. He has been a local Councillor since he was allowed to stand, and he is a reasonably non-obnoxious person. Is he likely to go anywhere politically? I can’t say that he has neither nga raho nor personality, but neither does he stand out as a future powerbroker. The size of his win was expected, simply on the grounds of the nature of the Botany electorate. The selection process prior to the by-election was very carefully managed so that the final selection (for the Party) was between Ross and a television gardening personality (who has fortunately been selected for the Blubberman’s electorate over on the Shore). That he is a politician is as much an accident of history as much as his qualification for the post. He has no specialty that he brings to the job other than having been Manukau’s youngest-ever Councillor.

More significant – in terms of the Nat’s selection process – was the fact that the final three or four did not include any Chinese, Korean, or South African. A fact that is remarkable only in terms of the nature of the local population.

Did I vote for him? Probli, seeing that I can not remember who I did vote for.

Where is all of this going?

Well, it really starts with a questionnaire that came through the mail, originating from JLR’s mailing list (that started two Council elections back when I was unwise enough to send him some suggestions for what he could do as Councillor). On second thoughts it may have been Pansy’s mailing list because I was unwise enough to communicate some thoughts on the nature of the real world to her as well. Nothing spectacularly original about the survey – no more than the standard Nat thing with “Botany” printed in the spaces where government forms traditionally have options available. SWMBO got a bit het because it was addressed to me personally, but then it was me that stuck my nose in the nats nest to begin with. I was very magnanimous and consulted her for responses to all of the questions ( :D ) and we negotiated our way through those. The questions I ”enjoyed” the most were to select which of the Nat’s actions on “law and order” I thought were “good things to have done”. The one’s I ticked were (from memory) “Initiatives on P” and “Increased police numbers” – that one even I can remember originated with the Labour lot rather than the Nats, but there is little harm in lily-gilding. The rest – things like penalising boy-racers, restricting gang access to public buildings, increased sentences…- all got the word “Joke” written alongside because that is what they are.

In fact, after two and a half years – almost exactly – that is just how this current government appears. Led by a Jonkey who established the highlight of his first term as PM playing the stand-up comic on David Letterman; abetted by a farmer acting the part of a Finance Minister whose financial management is just like farming - you plant it in the ground and spread as much fertilizer on it as you can afford and being a dairy farmer he has lots of the right kind free; a Police Minister who takes enormous risks in legislating for the destruction of boy-racer cars and preventing gang patches being worn in public buildings; a Justice Minister who is looking to prepare a White Paper that will propose the abolition of the Civil Division of the Justice system on the grounds that no one can afford to use it and because the Small Claims Tribunal is far more effective but who at the same time is totally against any admission that lowering the drinking age to 18 was a horrendous mistake; so the list goes on…

Our present parliament (I initially wrote “government”) is a joke. They are completely devoid of idea. There is already a very strong ordure of the past; the old ideologies of “selling state assets to reduce the deficit” have already been pronounced as the foundation of the Nat election campaign – by none other than the Jonkey and FarmerBill together. This from a government that is overseeing the borrowing of $500 plus million a week, to cover deficit funding requirements of less than $400 million and that latter number includes debt refinancing. The failed dogma of governments past are being heard; of Bolger, Shipley, even Muldoon’s ghost is clattering his chains in the basement of the Beehive. Even sadder, there is not much of a difference between them and The Rest. They are all of a muchness other than the colour of the flag they wave. The far right is being now run by an ex-Nat Leader who failed. The far left has become the plaything of a radical Maori who will be the next Peter Dunny (less the coif, of course!) if he can persuade the whanau to support him rather than the elder put up as his hopeful opponent in the by-election next week. The Jonkey and the Gofferguy play their own Tweedle-Deear and Tweedle-Dumb parts, alternating almost by the hour. The Grass gets Greener by the day, specially now that Tandos has gone. And Dear Old Uncle Jimmy; what would we be doing without him? Auntie Tari steams impressively into future irrelevance while Pita always looks as though any kapahaka group, anywhere, would provide far greater pleasure.

And this is the bunch from which we - the electorate - have to choose our government in about 5 months’ time. From the TV Gardening Guru to Tweedle-Dumb (the political equivalents of Vale and Valea) to the QuizMaster himself who misses not a chance to tick off a vagrant MP who dares enter the House without his permission to wear “inappropriate attire”.

What are the chances that there will be some sensible debate – like how to rescue those who have borrowed far beyond their means and do not qualify for the tax cut lifeline. With all the heat and bebotherment about PIGs and international financial crises NZ seems to stand unique. As far as I can determine, the “National Deficit” (other than the one described above) is something like 20% government borrowing and 80% borrowing for those myriad personal essentials like house, investment property, new second-hand Japanese people mover, and mobile phone. Steenkamp (of RBNZ) tells us -

Gross foreign debt to GDP peaked at over 130 percent in 2008... Banks are responsible for more than 60 percent of total gross foreign debt, which is equivalent to around 80 percent of GDP. General Government debt is a comparatively small portion of external debt. Since bottoming at the end
of 2006 at 8.9 percent of GDP, gross public debt increased to about 13 percent by the first quarter of 2010. On a net basis, public external debt stands at 6.7 percent of GDP and overseas bank debt is 64 percent of GDP.

That being the case, I (for one) can not help but get the very strong and uncomfortable feeling that the past three years of ennui and minimal activity has in fact been a season of planting. The hoped-for fruits are the public fears that the Nats will use in their election campaign; the need to sell public assets to reduce debt; the size of the public deficit and the need to curtail services; our total capitulation to US trade demands because of our future economic dependence on a FTA with them; the “need” to change employment laws yet again has already been announced. The list can go a lot further than that.

The most interesting thing for me, by far, is the plebiscite that will be held on the present electoral system. The original legislation was put in place with a sunset review clause and it may well be that we have run three years past that review. Regulars here will know that I am a strong and fervent supporter of MMP with the only reservation being that the number of list members could be reduced from 100 to 50. Yes, I know and understand that might complicate the mathematics just a little for the bureaucrats; they are after all accustomed to counting and addition rather than multiplication and division.

On Right Wing Politics in New Zealand -

The most “right wing” of NZ’s right wing political parties is a small group represented in Parliament by 5 MPs. The party stems from what was originally called ”Association of Concerned Taxpayers”; now known just as ACT.

The party was started by a group led by two of the more right wing movers out of David Lange’s Labour (left Wing) government by then Finance Minister Roger Douglas and Minister of Rail (as I recall) Richard Prebble.

The party’s representation in Parliament is based entirely on the fact that the Leader (the Rhinohide) is an electoral MP (as distinct from List). That, and the fact that they polled nationally some 4% of the total vote at the last General Election has given them 5 places around the table and a good part of the current Government.

I must be honest. I am not in any way a supporter of ACT. Realistically they are no more than a bunch of opportunistic self-promoting wallies – but then isn’t that what “politician” means? To give a f’rinstance their current Policy on the shape and form of the government of NZ -

Constitutional Framework
Action: Strengthen. Adopt Tax Payers Bill of Rights. Pass Regulatory Responsibilty Act. Return to privy council. Hold referendum of MMP voting system.
Benefit: Makes democracy more democratic. States spending capped, taxes kept low. Hard to make bad laws like the EFA. Free access to best judicial minds from a population of 58 million. People get long-overdue say on how they like MMP.

Sounds great, huh! So, let’s take a look at the “Action” –

“Adopt Tax Payers Bill of Rights” – whatever that means. Go find out if you want. I think that they favour flat tax rates.

“Pass Regulatory Responsibility Act.” Interesting one this, given that they have just supported the introduction of a Bill to “fast-track” the work needed in Christchurch (post-earthquake), which said Bill includes extensive Regulatory powers to the Ministers involved. Essentially, this gives the Government the right to make fiat law, within the structures of the Statute that will come out the other end of the process. So, there y’go. Instance one of great words being spoken by weasels.

“Return to privy council”. No I don’t think that they mean a convocation in the gents at the top end of The Terrace. I think they mean “Privy Council” – an august and highest Court in Britain. So they want to sell justice as part of our silverware, like so much else of NZ that they want to part with.

“Hold referendum of MMP voting system”. Now, I have to admire their political chutzpah on this item. I am quite certain that a good part of their party support comes from those who (like my #1son) believes that MMP is death and destruction to democracy and wishes for a return to FPP. The smile on my face as I type that is broad because, if it were not for MMP, ACT would have at the very most one member in the House. He would not hold anything like a balance of power. He would be a dim shadow of the last two (and quite missed in some respects) “third party members” under FPP, Bruce Beetham, and Gary Knapp (who I knew well and who had the most inappropriate nickname) who both originated in the (equally marginal) Social Credit Party. They were preceded by one Vern Cracknell (also SC), who achieved a heck of a lot for his electorate; primarily because the government of the day wanted to get the electorate back into their own (National Party) hands. Beetham and Knapp were nowhere near as successful.

“…democracy more democratic”? If the Rhinohide had his way… well just look at his approach to the Ministry he holds; autocratic and dictatorial.

“State spending capped…” See previous paragraph.

“Hard to make bad law like [Electoral Finance Act]”? How can I say this gently Rhino. Look in the mirror. What do you see? There is no question in my mind that you and ACT would not differ from any other parliamentary party in power. If expediency calls, then the law will be made; with or without consultation; with or without advice. That is the nature of politics in this country. No matter how you might try to argue otherwise, that is a truth that applies to your Party as much as any other. “Why” will be explained below.

“Free access to the best judicial minds…” Hey folks, this is the party that promotes and praises “user pays” and capping government spending. But when it comes to Justice, they propose that NZ should free-load on the British Justice system? Tui billboards spring to mind – “Yeah, Right!”

“…get a say on how they like MMP”? OK Rhinohide. I for one luvit! Why? Because it puts idiots like you and Boscowen and Garrett in Parliament where you can show the world just what “Right Wing Politics” really means.

That comes by way of introduction.

The present government is propped by two minor parties, ACT being one and Maori Party the other. I feel sorry for the Maori Party; they have been well and truly dicked by the Nats, and for some strange reason seem totally unaware of the fact. Perhaps it has something to do with the anaesthesia of political power? That aside…

During this past six months, ACT has been showing signs of suffering the kind of damage recently visited on Christchurch. Liquifaction of support, crumbling brickwork, failing infrastructure; and none of it due in any way to the impact of the outside world. Well, I must agree that the Rhinohide will blame “the left-wing dominated media” for his woes (well, I mean to say, it worked for George, why not me). In truth, that is about all he has to work with.

It began with the dust-up between Rhino and Heather (Pass The Duster) Roy. The detail goes a lot further down, I suspect, than the latter having her Ministerial mail read by the former. It ended with one of Rhino’s mates – Boss Cawan – replacing Roy as Deputy Leader of the Party.

Now that might seem a little bit trivial, but what has become apparent is that the Parliamentary Caucus comprises two clear camps – Rhino, Boss and Garrett on the one hand and Douglas and Roy on the other; 3-2 in favour of Rhino.

Now in the past week, another of the number has come under fire.

It transpires that ACT’s spokesman on Justice, “three-strike” law, and strong supporter of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, David Articulated Garrett has a conviction for assault ($10 contributed to His Majesty King Tupou IV of Tonga and conviction) and has appeared before a NZ Court on charges (which I hasten to say did not result in penalty or conviction despite his admission that they were true) of obtaining a Passport under the name of a dead infant – as done by The Jackal and, more recently, MOSSAD.

So now the Rhino has a problem, a veritable dilemma.

On the one hand he has an MP with “shadow Ministerial” responsibilities including one of the more important pieces of recent Government legislation who has a minor criminal conviction plus some quite idiotic law-breaking history.

However, if Rhino were to “do the right thing” and shed that said MP, then the next in line (Articulated Garrett being a List MP) is very likely not a Rhino supporter. Then, suddenly, the vote in Caucus becomes 2-3.

Oh, Dear!!! The next few weeks promise to be interesting indeed.

What can I say?

One might remember from last year the fulminating over the totally ridiculous, unilateral, and idiotic little piece of legislation dreamed up by Auntie Helen; the one that masqueraded under the title of the "Electoral Finance Act". As a piece of political suicide it was perfect.

It does, however, have its humourous side. I missed this one, my wife drew it to my attention, so it must have been a particularly bad day for me...

Thanks to the Herald for the photo, taken without permission...

The story is that Mr Green is an operatic singer, a teacher of music, politically active, and a member of the Green Party. His hedge, in its sculptured form, has been there for some years. But that did not stop some little minded idiot from referring it to the Electoral Commission as an illegal electoral advertisement.

Faced with ruling on the somewhat bizarre case of a green hedge pruned by a Green Party member called Mr Green, the Electoral Commission has, for want of a better word, hedged its findings.

The commission has made no determination on a pre-election complaint from a member of the public that the hedge on the Auckland property of opera singer Richard Green constituted an election advertisement under the since defunct Electoral Finance Act.
...
His hedge is no ordinary hedge. He has pruned it to display the word "Green" in two-metre high letters - something the singing teacher says he has done for the past eight years to make it easier for students to find his house on what is a busy street.

What I did yesterday...

Well, first and most important we had our daughter staying with us for part of the weekend. Good to see her. We don't see her all that often these days what with her living in New Plymouth and all. Now she is 7 months hapu she can no longer fly so we will not see her again until after the bub is born in mid January. Mum will be taken down to be the good grandmother for a couple weeks.

The non-event of the weekend was spending 10 minutes to whizz around to the local school to cast my vote in the General Election.

Pansy Wong for the local representative. I have a fair respect for the work she does despite her political affiliation.

Maori Party for the party vote.

Say, WHAT!!!??!!!

My rationale goes as follows -

1. They are probably the most honest of the rat-bags that occupy the Beehive.
2. They have a unique process of consultation with their electorate. I could, if I wished, join in that process by attending at a local marae at the right time; and if I put the effort into becoming more fluent in Maori.

It goes without saying that the Jonkey is now "Our Noble Leader".

Winnie the Pooh is no longer a representative of anything. He lost his electorate by a dozen streets. Ron Mark (one of the few rational beings in the Beehive) was also turfed out. The NZF party polled only 4.3% (the minimum for representation by right is 5%) so no list seats either.

Auntie Helen has announced her retirement as leader of the Labour Party. That was about the only surprise of the night. I thought it would have been before the Party's next conference, rather than on the night.

Thoughts on elections...

The election campaign trundles along. There have been some “interesting” bits. There have been a lot of uninteresting bits. Include in the latter the attempts to get together an entertainment programme for tv (whichever channel) with the leaders of each of the represented parties “debating” various issues. RadioNZ has a winner with Kim Hill conducting public debates – at least it might be if you can get past the prepared rhetoric and party buzz-lines.

The interesting bits are led by two.

The first is Auntie Helen’s pamphlet. Watch for this one to get big in the next few days. RadioNZ had Shane Jones (L) and Gerry (Can) Brownlee (N) on Morning Report today. Interesting discussion. It seems that Jim (Iron Man) Anderton had this fantastic idea of putting out a booklet to his electorate “grey brigade”. All manner of helpful tips about how to cross the road, how to lock your door properly, that kind of thing. Someone in PartLy HQ got a hold of it and has a similar one printed for every sitting member of the present government. Labour, that is. From the Parliamentary Services vote. Jones said that his had been distributed “by party helpers and volunteers”. Question, very rightly, is “Is this electioneering material or not?”

Yes, that one is likely to get interesting.

The most interesting is illustrated by yesterday afternoon's(RadioNZ and Checkpoint this time) interview of the JonKey. “My old mate” Morrie (Minor) Williamson has opened his mouth once more and uttered the “T” word. That little faux is not the interesting bit. What is becoming increasingly apparent is that (if the polls are right) our next government is in fact going to be a dictatorship.

“Say what?!!?”

Yep, I will hang my hat on this one. Listening to the JonKey dealing with the fallout from Morrie (Minor) Williamson’s banana-skin tongue on my way home through the (un-tolled) traffic last night, he came up with the statement that “nothing will happen without my signature on the bottom of it.” He repeated it in the form “Nothing will come out from Cabinet until I am satisfied with it, and sign off on it.” I don’t know that anyone else has picked up on this as yet, but if it is true then he is going to be a mightily busy man over the next three years. After all, there will (on the strength of that statement) be no individual ministerial responsibility. Nothing is going to happen unless signed off by “the man”.

Think for a moment about how this election has progressed to date. The only voice heard with surety is the JonKey. Even Honest Bill English is given a list of catches to pop to the media, probably even the sequence. You can hear the echo of the JonKey’s voice. But that is a small and (becoming endearing) exception. Nothing, but nothing, leaves the Nats without the man, the JonKey’s, approval. He is the only man permitted to say anything.

Mind you, add the likes of Dr Lockwood Mastermind Smith to the mix and he does have a real problem to deal with.

Hello Dictatorship!!!

"Sideswipe" is a back page commentary of little bits and pieces...
The JonKey on the left... On the right?

The pre-election warm-up...

Sometime in October or Early November, Auntie Helen will (unless in the interim she can by some miracle change our "Constitution") be taking a limo trip to Government House (official residence of the GG) to tender her resignation as PM and to announce the intention for the General Elections to be held on a date not later than two months hence.

As in 1939, the troops are already gathering and lines being drawn in the sand. As in 1939, the propaganda machines are cranking up. As in 1939, the deep covert structures are being put in place.

But that is as far as I can take that parallel to WW2. Doesn't really work for me either... but to pass onward.

Already shots have been fired between most parties and NZ First. Of course, as Winnie is a coalition partner to both sides, both are being very careful to pull their shots. Auntie Helen aiming very short of the mark, and the Jonkey aiming far to the left in the hope that Auntie Helen might cop a stray one. The only one aiming for Winnie is in fact the YellowJacket and he can afford to as ACT's only claim to fame at the moment is Rodney the YellowJacket himself. As is his wont, Winnie is fighting fire with fire.

On the left side of the street, the government seems to be keeping its head well below the horizon. Now that is not a position that Auntie Helen would enjoy; it tends to limit the view of the outside world (that is now less important, has been for at least the past two years...), and it tends to leave the jacksie open for well-aimed boots. Thus far, she and the party have been lucky in that the boots have been flailing in the other side of the ruck with the inexperience of the Nats tight five clearly being put on show.

And that takes us across the street to the Jonkey's lot. They had a party last weekend, with much back-slapping and pre-match ra-ra-ing in the hutch. Trouble was that a weasel got into the hen-house and several of the roosters got bitten. Great series of stories for TV3 - whoever their informant might be.

On this last point, this is the one thing about NZ politics of which I have a serious dislike. I have been pointing the bone in recent times at the US Presidential race, and in particular some of the more dishonest (as I see it) tactics being used by both sides. It is shaping up little different here as well. Last time it was the Exclusive Brethren and their relationship with Brash Donnie that lost the election for the Nats, and resulted in the ignominious disappearance from the scene of Donnie himself.

This time around, the Nats are being very careful to NOT release any policy. That way, they can not be accused of having been given a mandate to do "A" when they end up in government and do "B" (the exact opposite to "A"). Oh, the lollies are already under the Christmas Tree. We can see the packet, but at the moment it is still in the plain brown wrapper so we can't tell at the moment whether we are being offered toffees, acid drops, or condoms.

Some of the other presents have been half unwrapped:

Like the half billion dollar broadband implementation. Will I see that in Opo? Not likely. Most up there use cell-phones rather than landlines so the minimum 500 line exchange probably does not exist.

Like the multi-billion dollar investment in "infrastructure". Well I mean to say... what the F*** is "infrastructure" when a politician uses the word. I suspect it likely means the same as "restructuring" in Iraq - a snack-line for the buddies, servings in direct proportion to their party contributions.

But the most entertaining, the most enterprising of the lot, is some young wally who bought his way into the Party and proceeded to "interview" some of the hats who were floating around. What he asked was quite "innocent", relating to the three major points of difference between Nats and Labs; nuclear issues, family support, and the sale of public corporations. Three of the senior hats (so far) have ended up on TV3 as a result. Quite embarrassingly so in the case of the Englishman. Flustered rustlings of secret papers in the wings behind the Jonkey as he heehawed his way through an on-the-spot interview.

Amazing what can be done these days through the medium of the humble cellphone.

Church and State...

I left the comment at Stern's Rantings that he had illustrated exactly why I believe Church and State should never mix.

Well, I am not going to lie down.

THIS MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN HERE!!!

Yesterday, Mitt Romney delivered a speech that artfully blended the centrist Meacham and the conservative Neuhaus.

From Meacham, whose book he has read twice, Romney borrowed the language of America’s political religion. He argued that beneath the differences among America’s denominations there is a common creed, a conception of a moral order described in the Declaration of Independence, and lived out during the high points in the nation’s history. He recounted Sam Adams’s plea for unity in a time of crisis, and how his own father’s commitment to the basic American creed caused him to march with Martin Luther King Jr.

From Neuhaus, Romney borrowed the conviction that faith is under assault in America — which is the unifying glue of social conservatism. He argued that the religious have a common enemy: the counter-religion of secularism.

He insisted that the faithful should stick stubbornly to their religions, as he himself sticks to the faith of his fathers. He insisted that God-talk should remain a vibrant force in the public square and that judges should be guided by the foundations of their faith. He lamented the faithlessness of Europe and linked the pro-life movement to abolition and civil rights, just as evangelicals do.

And yet it might...

The Destiny Church-backed Family Party begins its play for the Mangere electorate today.

The party says the seat, which is currently held by embattled MP Taito Phillip Field, is crucial to its 2008 election campaign.

NZ has TERRORISTS!!! - 6

Well, it is all over. The Solicitor General has determined that there is insufficient evidence for charges to be laid under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.

There are two consequences -

First there is the law itself.

But, while commending the police investigation, he described the terror legislation as "complex and incoherent", and said it should be reviewed by the Law Commission. He said it was almost impossible to apply to domestic terrorists.

Mr Collins told a media conference he had read hundreds of pages of communications and viewed photographs and video footage.

"Regrettably not all the evidence I have been able to see will be made public," Mr Collins said.

"The key reason I am not prepared to authorise prosecutions under the act is there is insufficient evidence to establish to the very high standard required that a group was preparing a terrorist act," Mr Collins said.

He said his decision was not a criticism of the police who had no doubt "put an end to disturbing activities".

We have his word for it... and that of Auntie Helen...

The other side is that of those arrested. Apart from Iti, all that I know of them is the little that has appeared in the news. All of those will live the rest of their lives with the tags of "arrested on suspicion..." and "terrorist".

Well, I want to make it very clear.

Until found guilty in open Court, all of those arrested HAVE NOT COMMITTED anything that is "terrorism".

If my AMerican friends want a point of comparison, they could perhaps consider the FBI action against the Branch Davidian sect at Waco Tx. No one was killed at Ruatoki. No houses were burned down. But in terms of scale, and the effect on the affected communities and individuals, the comparison stands clear in my mind.

LATER -

Tuesday 13 December...

Today is a day of shame for this little country. Today the Terrorism Suppression legislation was extended in scope rather than limited.

Parliament today voted 108-13 to strengthen terrorism suppression laws, but Parliament was told the bill had no relevance to last month's police raids and the Solicitor-General's ruling against charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

That, given experience over the past year or so from this current government, is very close to a downright lie. As a "truth" it probably is true, in the same way that I might say to the wife that I had stopped at the pub to drop a mate there; that I came home with a skinful three hours later is not included in the explanation.

Exactly the same rationale was used to justify the original law. Exactly the same argument was expressed both inside and outside of Parliament by the same suspects. Exactly the same sentiments were expressed when the first law was used by Police to "suppress" the actions of 17 people who were suspected of plotting to commit acts of terrorism including the assassination of George Bush, Auntie Helen, and the Royal Family.

The Bill that makes the new law has been in the House so the second part is also true. It has been around since long before the Operation Eight hit the light of day.

The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill was drafted long before the police raids with the main purpose of allowing New Zealand to meet its international obligations in terms of designating terrorist organisations.

But it also creates a new offence of committing an act of terrorism, under penalty of a life sentence, and gives the prime minister responsibility for designating groups and individuals as terrorists.

... and does the prospect of that responsibility being in the hands of any politician scare the proverbial out of me? Youbetcha it does. Whether it is Auntie Helen, the Jonkey, or Rob Muldoon does not matter one jot. This is not a power that any individual in government (as a political body) should have.

It is BAD LAW.

It is unsupportable - on any ground.

And the most fearful thing of all is that 103 of our politicians - from both sides of the House - supported it!!

NZ does have Terrorists, let me list them -

Auntie Helen Clark
The Jonkey John Key
Old Miser Uncle Mike Cullen
Teacher Bill English
Mad Duck Trevor Mallard

and all of the rest of their respective scurvy crews.

It must be elections - 2

Regular readers might recall about two years ago I spent some time debating the connection of politics and religion. Essentially my argument is that it took some 1100 years if not 1600 years for England to attain effective separation of Church and State – a boon passed to NZ through our status as a British Colony in the 1800s. “Nae kin, nae quin, nae laird, nae master. We’ll nae be fooled again!!”

Central to my commentary then was one “Bishop” Brian Tamaki, leader of the Destiny Church – one of the modern charismatic, personality based, “Churches” that seem to be so popular these days. “Salvation is at hand – place 10% of your money in my hand in return for eternal life”. It is the same Bishop Tamaki that has opened next year’s Parliamentary election campaign with one of the best jokes in years.

There has been, since the last elections, on and off debate about the need for a “Christian Party”. It was apparent last elections that having both United Future (Peter Dunne’s party) and Destiny Party (the political wing of the Destiny Church) running against each other was not going to produce the right sort of results. Over the same period, Destiny and one Gordon Copeland – a member of United Future and present MP though he is now “independent” – have been talking about the possible formation of a Christian, faith-based, political party. This must have made some progress, as events of the past few days have shown, because one of the first concrete actions required was the winding-up of the Destiny Party.

So last Tuesday, we have the public announcement, a press conference held by Bishop Tamaki, of the closure of Destiny New Zealand as a political party. “Oh, and while you are all here, I will take the opportunity to introduce to you the co-leader of a new Christian-based political party to be formed in the near future.” Fine and good, if it were part of the agreed programme. Problem is that Gordon Copeland knew that he was the other co-leader, and he knew nothing about the announcement or about who the other co-leader might be. The hole started to get deeper when it was implied that the co-leadership had been agreed between “all of the major Churches”. A quick check by a number of people showed that quite a few of the major churches were not even involved in the proceedings and discussions that had taken place.

It got deeper still by Thurday night with Copeland saying that there was no chance of him being involved in co-leadership of the new party should it ever get off the ground. This morning Destiny's appointee was in damage control mode while still trying to see if the proposed party could lift a leg – without any possibilities of it ever reaching escape velocity. At the same time Copeland was making it clear that any remotely possible political association “with Destiny’s Blackshirts” was dead. Those who can not remember, might google “blackshirts” for the implication of this statement.

So all in all a fine time was had by all. Sunday’s sermons in the Destiny Church should make for interesting listening. Particularly any given by the Bishop himself.

For me? It rather reminds me of a sequence in a Peter Sellars’ film, I think it was “A Shot in the Dark”, where a bevy of nuns in full habit were involved in a “car chase” on go-karts. Hilarious stuff. I can well imagine a government run by the Destiny wallies – "Brothers, Brothers, please a quick prayer. We need guidance on … Hallelujah!! We have an answer!"

The onset of elections...

It must be the onset of elections that does it. We have city and district elections over the next month so the place is full of “vote for ME!!” signs for prospective mayoral and other candidates. Leading the personal interest is the Manukau mayoralty campaign. Long time (Manukau seems to pick good and keep them) incumbent Mayor Barry Curtis is standing down after about 20 years in Council. The second highest polling candidate from the last election was Len Brown, whom I have never met but seems a good and decent sort of bloke who is most likely to follow the path set down by Mayors Elsmore and Curtis. (Note I have lived in Manukau for some 36 years and these are the only two serving Mayors during that time.) I need to get out and see who (in terms of “teams”) is promising what in the various Council and Community elections.

TO that end one of the leading issues in the election involves not sewerage or salaries but City ownership of shares (“stocks” to you Americans).

Manukau city owns in shares some 10% of Auckland International Airport. At current market values, that represents about $130 million on the current market I believe… a not inconsiderable sum anyhoos. Auckland City also owns a slightly larger share. The issue is, of course, whether the City should retain share investments in anything but most importantly the Airport. “Imagine”, they say, “what could be done with all of that money!”.

Underlying the resistance to the idea of selling the shares though are two quite important principles. I touched on those earlier…

First is the value of the investment. For a city corporation that value has to come from the revenue stream (in the form of dividends) that the shares generate. Auckland City has been talking of some $100 million in dividends over the past ten years. The value of a shareholding then must reflect the future income stream from another investment. I suggest that the Airport investment would be very difficult to match.

The second involves the likely buyer. Dubai DAS was looking for a major holding in AIA. They promised increased investment and development. The quid pro would probably be increased landing rights for their Emirates airline (but that is a minor detail you understand). An offshore sale, and it matters not whether it is DAS or a Canadian pension fund, is in my world not an entirely good idea.

Why?

We know what happened when the Government sold our rail systems to an American corporation. Some three times the purchase price was “repatriated” by the company to the US; the rail system was “streamlined” (read “closed down”) to save costs; the government then had to spend some $100 million to recover what is in fact a fairly important strategic asset which was then sold off again to Toll who are Australian and was again “repurchased”. Is that the only example? No, Bank of New Zealand and Air New Zealand have both been through the same process.

Now I could care less that the get rich quick buyer might end up with the lemon that they deserve. Similarly if the buy-back is considerably less than the sale price.

I do get considerably steamed though about the flow of money out of NZ into the pockets of others in the name of “open global markets”. Yes by all means pay a dividend. But for every dollar of that dividend that walks over the border, NZ needs to earn at least two on the overseas market to recoup the “loss”. No, I am not talking about “income redistribution”. If I want part of the Airport pie I can and will go buy some shares on the market. I am talking about the reinvestment power of those dollars leaving NZ shores for the benefit of Dubai, or Canada, and other foreign shores. Equally, I also get steamed about the control of assets such as AIA being held overseas rather than by NZers. DAS wanted something like 45% and Board control. The Canadians are seeking about 30% but are happier to leave control to Board majority.

So at this stage Len Brown looks like he might get my vote for the mayoralty. If I look at the candidates for Council – and they are probably far more important in the general scheme of things than the Mayor – and cross out all of the “reduce the rates”, “sack the staff”, and “core services” candidates I don’t think that there would be much left other than parochial interests. I have to add that the present mob seem to know what they are about at least in general terms. The Council seems to tick over fairly quietly - like the proverbial watch, even if it does occasionally morph into a Mickey Mouse dial.

One of those moments...

It is very rarely that I am tempted to write on matters religious, but this is one where in one day where two events and a moment of perspicacity over ride all other considerations.

The "main event" on which I was going to write I have put down second; it is the political march of the Destiny Church here in Auckland that took place yesterday. To my chagrin and potential embarrassment I knew nothing of it until it hit the news at midday by which time the fun was all over. What has overtaken it in importance is a post at OneHandClapping which drew me through to this from Ragamuffin...

Jesus Talks With A Gay Man - (John 4:1-33, 39-42 - more or less...)

1 In late July, the Metro Chicago Synod heard that Jesus was attracting more first-time visitors and baptizing more adults than any other ELCA pastor in the city, 2 although in fact it was not really Jesus who had baptized them, but his irregularly-commisioned staff of unordained lay ministers. 3 Now when Jesus learned of this, he left the seminary community in Hyde Park and went back once more toward the ELCA headquarters on Higgins Road.

4 Now to get there, he had to go through an area just north of downtown called Boystown. 5 So he came to a part of Boystown called Northhalsted, not far from the plot of ground where Emperor Mayor Daley had ordained that the Chicago Cubs should play baseball. 6 Cub's Stadium was near there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey on the Red Line, sat down at a sidewalk café table outside the bar called Hydrate. It was just about lunch-time, and though the rainbow flags were fluttering in the breeze and the music inside the bar was pumping, there weren't many people around (because it's often hot and miserable outside, at mid-day in late July, in Chicago).

7 A waiter came to the table, wearing a bright pink "His+His" t-shirt and a "Silence=Death" armband, and raised one eyebrow at the man seated at the table in front of him in the "Come Follow Me" t-shirt. Jesus said to him, "Will you give me a drink?" 8 (All the lay ministers had gone down the street to pick up Subway sandwiches for the rest of the journey.)

9 The gay man said to him, "Hey...you tell me. After all, you appear to be a straight Christian, and I'm a gay man. Let's face it - we don't get many religious folks in Boystown, let alone places like this. And I'm not only a gay man, but I'm a Muslim gay man. So where does a guy like you get off asking someone like me for a drink?" (For Christians do not associate with gays, nor with Muslims if they can help it.)

10 Jesus answered him, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

11 "Hey, mister," the gay man said, "I'm the waiter here. I don't see you with an order pad or a serving tray, and it's tough for customers to even get close to our fountain-drink station, let alone our bar. So how are you going to get anything for me to drink, let alone 'living water'? Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you somehow greater than the folks who own this place, who let us drink have free water and soda (and snitch the occasional mixed drink) whenever we want?"

13 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks your water, or your soda, or your beer will get thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

15 The gay man said to him, "Yeah? Mister...you know what, I have no idea who you really are, or even what the heck you're talking about. But you're the first Christian man in 20 years that hasn't spit on me, or called me 'an abomination' to my face. Somehow, I think I want some of what you're offering. Give me some of this water you keep talking about, so I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to get something to drink."

16 Jesus told the man, "OK - just call your wife and come back here, and we'll talk."

17 "Who are you kidding?" the gay man said. "Don't you know where you are? You're in Boystown, for cryin' out loud. I don't have a wife, or a girlfriend. Heck, right now I don't even have a boyfriend," he replied.

18 Jesus said to her, "You're right when you say you have no boyfriend. The fact is, you've had five boyfriends, and the guy you're living with now isn't even your boyfriend. He's just a guy you picked up in the club - some guy who doesn't even know your real last name."

19 Whoah, buddy," the gay man said, "that's pretty intense! How'd you know that about me?" Jesus was silent. "OK...I get it. Maybe you're one of those folks who can see right through people - maybe one of those guys with 'second sight.' Maybe you're one of those folks who 'have the Spirit,' like those televangelists say. 20 I don't know anything about that. My family - my people (the ones who are observant, anyway) - think that you have to pray five times a day to Allah to get that kind of power. The rest of the people I know don't even bother with that spiritual mumbo-jumbo...they just think you have to work out a lot, look good, live fast, die hard and leave a good-looking corpse. And all the Christians I've met think that I have to pray their way, and start living life their way, or I'm 'going to hell.' Either way, my day-to-day life is so empty, I'm not convinced that I'm not already in hell. What's a guy supposed to believe?"

21 Jesus said, "Believe me, my friend, a time is coming when you won't worship God in Mecca, or in the gym, or in the club, or in a church sanctuary. 22 You and your friends worship what you think you know, but do not know. Christians worship what they do know, for salvation is promised in Scripture. 23 Yet a time is coming - and has now come - when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

25 The gay man said, "I know that the church folks say that their Savior is coming. Maybe when he finally gets here, he will explain everything to us."

26 Then Jesus declared, "Then wait no longer. I'm the one they're waiting for."

The Irregularly-Commissioned Lay Ministers Rejoin Jesus

27 Just then the lay ministers returned and were more than a little surprised to find Jesus apparently talking with a gay man - one who appeared to be Middle-Eastern in origin, to boot. But no one asked, "What do you want?" or "Why are you talking with him?"

28 Then, leaving his tray and his order pad behind at the table, the gay man went back to the bar, and even next door to the gym and to the other clubs, and said to the people, 29 "You gotta come and see this... come see a guy who told me everything I ever did, and didn't run away or act disgusted. Could this possibly be 'the Christ' all those religious folks keep talking about?" 30 People came out of the gym, and out of the bars and clubs, and made their way toward him.

31 Meanwhile the lay ministers (the ones who considered themselves Jesus' disciples) kept saying, "Hey, padré, you may walk on water, but come on - even Michael Jordan's gotta eat something." 32 But Jesus said to them, "I have a source of energy that you know nothing about."

33 Then his disciples said to each other, "Did someone slip him some Mrs. Field's cookies while we weren't looking?"

....

Many Gays and Lesbians Believe

39 Many of the gays and lesbians who gathered from all around Boystown believed in Jesus because of what the waiter said: "You gotta come and see this... come see a guy who told me everything I ever did, and didn't run away or act disgusted." 40 So when the people of that area - gay men, lesbians, bisexuals (even people in civil unions from Vermont and Episcopalians visiting from New Hampshire) came to him, they urged Jesus to stay with them. So rather than continuing the ride out to Higgins Road, the irregularly consecrated lay ministers found some rooms at a nearby bed-&-breakfast, and he stayed in Boystown - amidst the people with whom most Christians would not associate - for two days. 41 And because of what Jesus spoke to the men and women there, many more became believers.

42 The people who heard Jesus said to the gay man who first encountered him, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

Remember, that is not my sermon. But, from my childhood knowledge of Christianity it rings something of a bell.

What I do want to do is to contrast it with the events of yesterday...

There is much in the following two articles regarding the counter-demonstrations. That to me is a disappointment, but not the reason for this post, because that reportage detracts from the main "news"...

First, extracted from the news this morning...

Warwick Gilmore and his children came from Tauranga to take part.

"This is not my scene. I've never marched before in my life and it aggrieves me that I have to do it, but I feel like I have to make a stand. Moderates like me are being pushed into this, it's like the basics (of society) are being redefined," he said.

National Front youth members, one wearing a balaclava, walked next to Destiny members.

Tamaki, overtly political, called Christians to arms in election year.

"Christians hear me. You are one of the largest voting blocks in the country, yet you are one of the most under-represented in places of influence. It's time for you to make your stand."

While digging around for that, I also came acros this opinion piece datelined from Friday...

But Christian Life Centre pastor Paul De Jong insists: "We are for something, not against anything."

There is an incorrect perception that the march is a Destiny event, he says. The family isn't important just to Christians, "many New Zealanders share these views".

He says the march is intended to be a political statement - leaders need to be reminded in election year that people are concerned about the moral state of the nation, and the lack of importance being placed on family values and society's cornerstone: the nuclear family.

Other groups lobby hard, so Christians need to.

He doesn't approve of black shirts and fist salutes and there will be none of that today. Anything that can be seen as a hate march is not helpful to the Christian message, he says.

"It's about marching for marriage, for our families and for the future generations."

That's not what the website says. Well, he admits, the website was a Destiny thing.

And the Destiny Church will be the only political party to speak. Others were invited and agreed to speak, but they pulled out. Why? "The perception that it was a Destiny march."

Does his church support Destiny's political aspirations? "We've never expressed categorical support."

...

Mr Winslade (national leader of the Baptist churches], making it clear he was expressing personal views, said Christians should not support Destiny at the general election or take part in public demonstrations that could be interpreted as political support.

This is despite "agreeing wholeheartedly with Destiny's desire to see an arrest of liberal and destructive social policy on the part of the current government".

"Could it be that such public displays are embarrassing the wider Christian community and stigmatising fellow Bible-believing Christians?" he wrote.

Mr Winslade argues that public displays are not the Christian way.

"Jesus and his first followers eventually won an empire through a revolution of love and faith and good deeds."

The Destiny movement is based on "presumptuous false prophecy - that Brian Tamaki was the anointed spiritual leader whom God is raising up to lead the nation", he says.

"Allegedly within four years Brian Tamaki will be the spiritual leader of New Zealand. Many Destiny Church members, and a growing number of Pentecostal Christians, believe this to be true. It's time to call this for what is really is: wrong."

The only mention on tv news yesterday evening was a 5 second clip of Tamaki haranguing the crowds after the demonstration... The outtake they screened "...our leader, Helen Clarke, is an avowed atheist..."

Which she is, and as if that makes any difference to how the country is governed.

To you folks of religious persuasion, which of these two pictures represents more closely the religion that you follow;

the picture of a Christ sharing a glass and debate with a gay muslim waiter,

or the Destiny Church marching against an inclusive society, accompanied by members of the National Front (who for those who do not know or remember are the neo- and devout followers of a diminutive Austrian paperhanger and Corporal who affected a funny little mustache)