As Ye Sow .... The Banksification of ACT

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sat, 2011-11-26 11:12

[From the Blandification Thread]

The oleaginites have now created ACT's worst nightmare, self-inflicted: an ACT party led by its sole MP, the repulsive feral conservative John Banks. He made a point of thanking ACT on Campus tonight for their contribution to getting him elected: the very people who ought to have known better, misled by slimy Rodentian connivers at their helm who acquiesced to the denial that the marijuana speech ever happened and that ACT's core principles ever existed. I hope they're satisfied. But it's the end of them, and the end of ACT. Thank Galt.

It's time for a new Freedom Party, minus Rodents and oleaginites, comprised of people whose reason for getting out of bed is not The Game and the nuances of who's shafting whom. Libz folk should be open to this too. A snarling, self-important clique of the heroically irrelevant is not going to cut it. Out of tonight's ashes must arise a phoenix of freedom—principled, professional, prolific and politically proficient.

John Key has no basis on which to effect significant redemption from tonight's results; the country will carry on drowning in the mire of socialism. A new Phoenix (or Freedom) Party will be the only means of dragging us out of it. Meaning, for libertarians, our best days are ahead.

"Come my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world!"


Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

Furthermore considering that the NZ political mindset is so far left, the mere exercise of pulling it back to centre remains no mean feat, yet alone catapulting it to the right or going libertarian.

Ideally, you'd like New Zealand to go libertarian ... or be catapulted to the right. Either you don't understand that libertarianism is not "right wing"—

—or you just showed us your true Conservative colours.

In my opinion Banks is a better solution to national being on its own or labor for that matter.

In other words, you see Banks in government with National as the lesser evil. Kasper, the lesser of evils is still evil. You are Satan's minion.

In his debut post, my co-blogger Tim Wikiriwhi described Christianity as

a faith which functions properly by voluntarily embraced values under grace in liberty, not via political coercion or a self-imposed moral tyranny. Christianity ... means being true both to yourself and to others.

I put it to you that, in voting for John Banks, you have not been true to yourself. And you voted for political coercion and Government-imposed moral tyranny. How do you plead?

Would Ayn Rand have voted for John Banks? If so, then here's an idea. ... Peikoff's getting old. Why not position yourself now to be the one to assume the mantle of "intellectual heir" once Peikoff's gone? All you need to do is write a book or two, singing the praises of Objectivist pragmatism and promoting the virtue of imposing the lesser evil. Imagine it, Kasper. Kulak's In Praise Of Objectivist Pragmatism and its companion volume the Virtue of Imposing the Lesser Evil. Essential reading for all compulsion touters. What do you think?

Greg

Richard Goode's picture

LOL.

RG

gregster's picture

You voted for John Banks without my consent.

I was hopeful there would be a smaller club used on you.

RG

Kasper's picture

We are not in a libertarian society and therefore I will not defend my vote from that platform. We live in a society fraught with government interference both economically and socially. That is the platform from which I'll defend my vote for the Act Party via John Banks. Since Banks is a representative member of the Act Party he also represents their core economic values such as supporting the government to make decisions which enable sustainable economic growth through the deregulation of private enterprise, reform of the RMA and through advocating for small enterprise. In my opinion Banks is a better solution to national being on its own or labor for that matter. Furthermore considering that the NZ political mindset is so far left, the mere exercise of pulling it back to centre remains no mean feat, yet alone catapulting it to the right or going libertarian.

The issue of NZ's economic future carries such an overbearing weight for me that a politicians attitudes towards fags or the consumption of Pot pale into a low priority. Fags have no danger from him as he isn't repealing their liberties and Pot consumers have the status quo to deal with.

Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

Apology for wanting to get Act in? I'm not sure why one is required.

An apology is required because you voted for John Banks without my consent.

Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may authorise—do you hear me? no man may vote for—the use of Government against others.

Greg

Richard Goode's picture

Others who voted ACT, myself included, did so reluctantly

You voted for John Banks without my consent.

Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may authorise—do you hear me? no man may vote for—the use of Government against others.

No Goode

gregster's picture

I wouldn't be happy buying a beer for someone who happily voted for John Banks.

Others who voted ACT, myself included, did so reluctantly but conscious that with a few ACT MPs John Boy Key would have an excuse to move his arse a little away from Labour-lite. Chris Trotter describes the situation here;

"The confidence-and-supply agreement negotiated between National and Act provides us with an emphatic answer to that question. Confronted with a “coalition partner” incapable of garnering more than 20,000 votes nationwide, or winning a seat without assistance, Key’s National Party arrived at the negotiating table without obligation. Indeed, it was John Banks who was entirely obligated to John Key – without whose intervention the Act Party would’ve ceased to exist as a parliamentary player. Had they been of a mind to do so, National’s negotiators could have simply shoved a C&S agreement in front of Banks and told him to: “Say ‘Thank-you’ and sign here.”

That National’s negotiators walked out of the room with a C&S agreement mandating a Tax-Payers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR) and the establishment of Charter Schools owed nothing to Banks' skill as a wheeler-dealer, and everything to a sophisticated strategic understanding between Catherine Issacs, John Key and Stephen Joyce. The latter’s pragmatism dictates that Key should hold on to his moderate persona for as long as he can by attempting to blame Act for the National-led Government’s sharp turn to the Right. Issacs, meanwhile, will take advantage of the inevitable disintegration of the “Brash Bloc” to carve out a new niche for the Act Party."

Everything I'm hearing ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... about ACT's parliamentary staff appointments tells me the Rodents have consolidated their position and effectively have Banks's head in a noose. Whether Banks willingly stepped onto the gallows I don't know, but we essentially have here the Re-Rodentification of ACT. Whether there's a plan to bring back The Rodent himself at some point I don't know. Whether it even means anything I don't know either, since the Rodents are, as I have said previously, congenital connivers first, libertarians a distant and occasional second. Perhaps they're just there to further their own political ambitions and status-seeking and will happily serve the feral conservative as long as he's useful to those ambitions. But they will surely try to claim that they have not abandoned their classical liberal agenda, that that agenda should be left in their hands, and there's no need for a new pro-freedom party. Which underscores the fact that there *is*.

Cheerleader-in-Chief for the Rodents, Cactus Kate, has seen fit to attack the most promising young classical liberal on the scene, Stephen Whittington. That's a good clue as to who the best face for the new force might be.

Greg

Richard Goode's picture

You wouldn't buy a beer for someone who'd happily have a beer with Matt McCarten. Would you buy a beer for someone who'd happily vote for John Banks?

Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

Apology for wanting to get Act in?

No, an apology for voting for an abominable piece of slime.

I'm not sure why one is required.

Because you haven't just inflicted John Banks on yourself. You've inflicted John Banks on us all.

The fact that Banks is the only man standing for Act after the election is not a [lack of] foresight I could be held accountable for.

Yes, it is, and I'm holding you accountable. Polls immediately prior to the election had ACT on 1.3%. That means a roughly 50% chance of 2 ACT MPs (Banks and Brash) in Parliament and a roughly 50% chance of 1 ACT MP (Banks only) in Parliament.

Are you suggesting that I should have placed an effective no-vote by putting in for libertarians?

It's your electorate vote I'm complaining about, not your party vote.

Is John Banks going to do anything of any significant import that would be of any great detriment to NZ as to make current issues fade away?

Not the point. John Banks is now a Minister in the Fifth National Government. And we're all going to get what you voted for, good and hard. A waste of good John Banks.

Setting the record straight ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

ACT's principles had been removed before I came on board and before Banks was confirmed as Epsom candidate. Discovering their absence, I had them reinstated before Banks was confirmed, if memory serves me correctly. At the time I thought their disappearance was innocent, but knowing what I know now I strongly believe it wasn't. But it had nothing to do with Banks.

In a few days I shall publish the fuller version of the Blandification article I originally wrote ... and withheld. It should help make clear to folk why ACT, now dominated by an unholy alliance of feral conservatives and Rodents, is unworthy of the support of any conscientious freedom-lover.

One of Banks comments in

Mark Hubbard's picture

One of Banks comments in Herald (I think) read like he was happy to have won, now he was going to read what ACT stood for so he could promote them better. He probably got as big a shock reading their supposed principles as his pragmatic voters are going to get with him ... no wonder ACT took down its 'every individual has rights and responsibilities and it's the role of the state to protect those rights but not assume the responsibilities' adage on its home page. John The Intruder Bigot Banks could never have promoted that.

It's all somewhere below the level of sell out. Still, Peter Cresswell covers well on NotPC the evils of pragmatism, which would be my main conflict with the idea of an alliance: but if structured right I still have hopes for 2014.

Reminds one ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... of ACT's glory-days, when Rodney was leading the charge against the IRD. What happened? Rodney became just like the rest of them, only worse.

Speaking of which, everything I'm hearing bears out my prediction that the Rodents ("congenital connivers first, libertarians a distant and occasional second") are swarming around Banks and sticking their tongues up his rectum, in return for which some of them are being appointed to his staff and the rest remain secure in their Board positions, etc. It truly is the end of ACT, but these entities will strive to keep it going as NACT, a party for wannabe politicians who've used classical liberal principles when it has suited (and dumped them when it hasn't, e.g. the marijuana speech) as a prop for their pitiful social-climbing and power-lust. It's inescapably clear that a new party, or some kind of new force for freedom, is urgently needed.

IRD Puts Offshore Investment at Risk.

Mark Hubbard's picture

More on the atrocious decision in the tax case mentioned in my below post - note, NZ's tax scene was once governed by the broadly classical liberal ethic of the Westminster Rule, 1936, under which the taxpayer did have some necessary 'riggle room' with the State in the conduct of their tax affairs. Over the last ten years the judiciary of New Zealand, trained by Gramsci in our schools, holders of the belief that the individual must be sacrificed to the State in a travesty of the historical function of that profession, have utterly set aside the Westminster Rule, and IRD have won every single tax case that has mattered over that period.

The march of the State continues, the IR's of the West are the new storm troopers and secret police in one. If this government is committed to a vibrant business sector in New Zealand, then our IRD must be reined in, and the only way that's going to happen is to get Peter Dunne out of that portfolio.

From: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/i...

Inland Revenue has won its landmark case against building supply group Alesco.

The decision – which is estimated to ultimately affect a large number of Australian-owned firms and could garner the taxman $800 million – has been slammed as being inconsistent with the IRD's own guidelines and as a threat to overseas investment in New Zealand.

...

The decision - which is expected to go to the Court of Appeal – has been slammed by tax practitioners.

Alesco had a genuine acquisition it needed to fund and it was entitled to use OCNs to fund that acquisition, said Ernst & Young tax partner Jo Doolan.

"Yes, it got advice about how to provide long-term finance in a tax effective way, but it is hard to imagine any major company would not consider tax in the context of its acquisitions process. In fact, a company would be required to do so."

Any other finance would have caused interest costs, and these could have been claimed as tax deductions, she said.

"So nothing was gained through the zero coupon OCN that would not have otherwise been automatically achieved through any type of debt.

"On this type of analysis, where companies have a choice of injecting equity or debt, and debt provides an interest deduction that equity does not, will the choice to debt fund in any form now be tax avoidance?"

The wider issue is the question of certainty for overseas investors in New Zealand, she said.

"We are an importer of capital and rely on overseas companies investing in NZ. One has to question whether this type of uncertainty is in our best interests.

It is all very well to use the anti avoidance rules to slam-dunk transactions and to collect more tax, however if this means we lose out of offshore investment, then we have all lost."

I said below on this

Mark Hubbard's picture

I said below on this thread:

The IRD are already looking to win a major case against 15 Aussie corporates operating in NZ, including Telstra, which would make it even more unattractive for these firms to do business here, given the case is in essence about them transferring income back to Australia to get a better tax treatment than here - pity IRD are not responsible for the damage they do to our economy.

Well, they're going to win ... why is your department, Mr Dunne, punishing some major Australian companies simply for investing in New Zealand, employing Kiwis and offering all of us a competitive range of services and goods? If our tax system is that uncompetitive they are best to be taxed elsewhere, then that's a failure of our tax system, and our politicians, not these companies.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/busines...

Quote:

The Inland Revenue Department has successfully defended its finding that Alesco Corporation illegally avoided tax obligations by using a financial instruments called optional convertible notes (OCN).

Alesco will now have to pay the approximately $8.6 million sought by the IRD.

Alesco's challenge of the IRD's tax determination was the first of several other trans-Tasman companies facing similar tax avoidance allegations, including Mediaworks, Qantas and Toll Holdings.

Although Alesco's case was not given official ''test case'' status, High Court Justice Paul Heath acknowledged in his judgment that the decision would set a precedent for other cases to come.

He said 16 individual companies, including four under the Alesco group, had challenged the IRD's categorisation of OCNs as tax avoidance.

He said more than $226m in core tax and penalties was at stake, or over $300m when accrued use of money interest was taken into account.

For the record I put my below

Mark Hubbard's picture

For the record I put my below comment to Deborah's opinion piece up on Herald Sunday morning, but by Monday morning, they've still not updated the moderated posts to that piece: the Herald's online comments policy is pathetic.

RG

Kasper's picture

Apology for wanting to get Act in? I'm not sure why one is required. The fact that Banks is the only man standing for Act after the election is not a foresight I could be held accountable for. Are you suggesting that I should have placed an effective no-vote by putting in for libertarians?
Is John Banks going to do anything of any significant import that would be of any great detriment to NZ as to make current issues fade away? I don’t think so. Erect a useless monument maybe?

Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

I give you credit for your earnest attempts (here and here) to excuse your appalling voting behaviour. The fact remains, however, that you voted for John Banks. How about an apology?

The MMP system created a "get Act in" loop via the Epsom electorate which had John Banks as its representative.

A vote for libertarianz is effectively a no-vote. Sure, a vote for them may be consistent with your own political beliefs but I wouldn't be so quick to feel good about it when you've knowingly casted a vote which has no hope of making an iota of difference.

Both of the above problems with MMP are not due to MMP as such, but due to the 5% threshold. We need to eliminate this threshold. Stephen Berry makes the case for doing so here.

Richard

Kasper's picture

I don't know of anyone voting for Act because John Banks was in it. The MMP system created a "get Act in" loop via the Epsom electorate which had John Banks as its representative. It could have been Donald Duck for all I care. At the time of voting I wanted Act in and Banks wasn't disgusting enough for me to withdraw my support for Act altogether. For some, Lindsay perigo, Banks was. That's fine. I wanted to get behind an Act party led by Don Brash. Unfortunately, with the election result, it has all imploded. Sad

Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

I just can't believe how people can write to a newspaper promoting more tax and more government interference in their own lives. How can people be so irrational? How can they so willingly and self-righteously hand-over their own freedom and independence to a body so hell bent on making life more difficult than it all ready is?

How can people be so irrational as to vote for John Banks? How can they so willingly and self-righteously hand-over their own freedom and independence - and MINE - to a feral conservative spendthrift?

Because you can never tell if

Mark Hubbard's picture

Because you can never tell if the Herald will put up a comment or not, this is what I put up to Deborah's thread (trying as ever for a bit of self promotion on Herald - sorry Deborah Smiling )

To all those calling for more government on this thread, remember, quoting a great philosopher, '[M]ankind's tragedy lies in the fact that the vicious moral code men have accepted [altruism] destroys them by means of the best within them'.

We certainly need a classical liberal freedom alliance, for this is where the Gulag of Good Intentions has led us. However, sadly, while the majority of people only know the freedom of the slave, which is the false freedom of not having to think for themselves, and are scared witless of actual freedom, we are doomed. It could even be surmised, looking at Europe, doomed to play out the totalitarian nightmares of the 20th century all over again, in some form or other.

Deborah, regarding ACT's '... government role to protect rights, not assume responsibilities' adage on its site, you are right, I don't think as a party it has been seeking to free the 'best within man' for some time - the three you mentioned were the last of those who could make such a claim, and only Brash could have truly worn that phrase latterly. Banksie, as a conservative, a bigoted one at that, certainly can't own it.

... that Rand quote has two meanings when you think about it. I've only just noticed.

Government fukers

Kasper's picture

I just can't believe how people can write to a newspaper promoting more tax and more government interference in their own lives. How can people be so irrational? How can they so willingly and self-righteously hand-over their own freedom and independence to a body so hell bent on making life more difficult than it all ready is? This kiwi psychosis is so bizarre.

The poor **ARE** getting poorer all the time in NZ and yet our government has GROWN, not shrunk.

The NZ government for decades has been anti-profit and therefore anti-business. This means anti-jobs, anti-opportunity and anti-prosperity. A NZ populace far more interested in closing meaningless gaps than seeking real solutions to increase the living standards of the poor. If the poor were to earn 50,000 then who cares that someone else earns $1m? If the poor are better off? Why cut the top poppy, why cut incentives to prosper, why reduce everyone to the bottom of the income ladder - for the sake of equality? What is so virtuous about economic equality if it reduces (which it does) everyone to the same level of dilapidation?

The current attitude in NZ of “tax the rich!” and make the profiteers pay dearly is sickeningly stupid! This short-sighted attitude is prosperity suicide!
Rather, let’s cut taxes for the poor and flat tax the rich to 20%. Promote business growth, promote profit and create an environment where the incentive to transform ambition into spectacular human achievement is made possible. This will create jobs, real opportunities and will lift the sinking spirit of the poor to realize their aspirations. Let the government raise revenue from high profits not progressive high taxation on the little that is circulating the NZ economy! I firmly believe that the above underpinned by a justice system below would create a better NZ for everyone!

NZ requires strong law and order in order to ensure judicial justice evenly for everyone across the board. Are you a victim of a crime? Let’s get the government to pay for your legal aid, may your court costs and your proven losses be compensated. This way a victim is reimbursed from the likes of some idiot who damaged their car/body ruining their livelihood and putting them out of pocket because he couldn't afford to pay the court order repayment. The libertarian view that government is their to protect your right to your life and that you the individual are responsible for your own actions is vital to the freedom and prosperity of everyone, most especially the poor.

Deborah's article

Lindsay Perigo's picture

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/poli...

Warning: The comments are depressing.

And..

gregster's picture

..we didn't need to de-lisp McGregor.

The difference is that when...

Marcus's picture

...Ewan Mcgregor got back from his bike trip to Africa, he complained that there was too much political correctness in the west.

Morgan's bike ride

Ross Elliot's picture

The ride he did across mid-Asia was a pretty good show. So was the one by Ewen McGregor and his sidekick, Charlie. Long Way Round they called it. A really good expose of the newly opened up territories of the former Soviet republics.

Add 99% of lawyers to that,

Mark Hubbard's picture

Add 99% of lawyers to that, Ross, and I couldn't help but agree.

(Linz, yes, I'd realised that. A decade ago I'm sure Morgan was a limited government advocate: something strange happened on that bike in Africa. I can't figure out who New Zealand's Wesley Mouch is: Morgan or Bernard - 'banks have a responsibility to the economy - Hickey).

Why, Mark?

Ross Elliot's picture

"It's hard to think of someone I'm angrier with than Gareth Morgan."

Surely the last people you should trust for sane moral leadership are accountants and economists?

Eye

Good save, Lindsay

Ross Elliot's picture

And it just goes to show that wealth does not a rational man make.

Just in case ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... anyone's under any illusions, no one here, least of all me, is lauding Gareth Morgan. The man is a sickly apologist for sacrificialism, a repulsive sell-out to the wealth-is-guilt, savages-are-noble mentality. I was simply noting in passing that Roger's plan was similar to his. Which no doubt had something to do with the fact that I didn't support it.

Oh, gawd....

Ross Elliot's picture

...Gareth Morgan?

"Incidentally, Roger Douglas has a plan, rather like Gareth Morgan's, for zero company tax (and a $32,000 threshold for income tax)."

Morgan is one of the most dangerous pundits in NZ. The massive payout he got from the sale of TradeMe has obviously gone to his head.

He reminds me somewhat of Bob Jones, who, as I recall, suggested a 150% tax deduction for advertising companies.

Morgan, a man of so many mixed premises, he's almost worthless. A true pragmatist.

Have they decided on the new Government yet...

Marcus's picture

Is it National, Act, United and Maoris again?

I note ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... the DomPost parliamentary staff say Key's allowing charter schools into the mix is an attempt to help Banks head off a classical liberal stampede from ACT and the formation of a new party, since apparently both Key and Banks have gone off the idea of an ACT merger with the Conservatives. I'll be very interested—and I suspect unsurprised—to see just who comes out in the next few days recommending we all roll over for Banks and give him a "fair shot." Eye

Gulch Invites Rescinded

gregster's picture

Edit: It was too good to be true.

This is worth a look. Key tries a domineering approach over Smalley. Then the PPTA man states his case for regulation as education's salvor.

That Australian tax plan has

Mark Hubbard's picture

That Australian tax plan has a lot of holes: it's actually an ultra-progressive tax on corporates - the more successful the company the more tax it will pay, while rewarding crap companies that can't earn a sufficient return on investment. Their resource sector will end up crippled by a 'super tax' and have to carry the load for all the rest. Ayn could have fit that into Atlas Shrugged pretty easily.

It's hard to think of someone I'm angrier with than Gareth Morgan.

Have we found the literal Gulch?

gregster's picture

I'll just calm down now..

Sounds as though the Aussies have made a wimp of me.

It's just typical Aussie behaviour. They have to be bigger, and better.

It wouldn't take much John?...... John?..... John?.... John?.. John?.. John?

The Spending cap proposal is

Stephen Berry's picture

The Spending cap proposal is pseudo-conservative window dressing.

Limiting increases in government spending to population growth and inflation, unless the Finance Minister goes to Parliament. Isn't that what a finance minister does whenever they present a budget?

I should imagine ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... the TV bulletins were full of it as well, but I can't watch them for reasons I've stated often enough.

You know you're doing something right when the media go into a feeding frenzy.

Incidentally, Roger Douglas has a plan, rather like Gareth Morgan's, for zero company tax (and a $32,000 threshold for income tax). He reckons he can get double the revenue from an asset tax. Pushed hard for it to be ACT policy. I didn't agree. His numbers didn't stack up for starters. And the asset tax sounded suspiciously like a gratuitous, envy-driven wealth tax to me. But at least it was a KASS plan. I argued for something comparably bold but not involving new forms of tax. My plan would have reduced company tax immediately to 17 and a half per cent, then two and a half per cent a year thereafter till it was gone. Sounds as though the Aussies have made a wimp of me. Eye

The only station I can get in

Mark Hubbard's picture

The only station I can get in the Mahau Sound is National Radio, and charter schools are getting a right drubbing by some socialist or other on that at the moment. They're the most evil thing since Eve ate that bloody apple apparently Smiling

So yes, good tick on that.

Though I would go further than you and say the spending cap is tantamount to a fraud. It's only a cap on increases, it still allows spending to grow at the inflation rate (which government effectively controls) and at population increase, so all sorts of statistics could be pulled out to justify any increase, and, worst of all, all the agreement says is if spending does need to go over this amount, then all government has to do is tell Parliament why. Snort. Complete window dressing, that's all, and the first Labour/United government would rescind it quickly (Dunne already voted ACT's Spending Cap bill down from going to second reading (about September this year).

And you are right, the target should be to halve government expenditure over next six years.

And National may well have to pick up it's game very quickly if this stunning proposal comes about in Australia:

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/art...

Quoting :The final death knell for the New Zealand Stock Market could come next year if a radical proposal is adopted in Australia that would see most companies pay no tax.

The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, is said to have set up a nine-person working group to consider a proposal known as “Allowance for Corporate Equity”.

This would mean no tax would be levied to the portion of corporate profits necessary to get a ‘reasonable’ (but so far undefined) return on equity.

Most companies – especially manufacturers – are likely to fail to meet that hurdle and therefore would pay no corporate tax.

Banks and mining companies make a much greater return on equity and so would be liable for a ‘super tax’ on the excess portion of their earnings.

If a company with a lowish return on equity could pay no tax in Australia, then they would be duty bound to move over there.

The IRD are already looking to win a major case against 15 Aussie corporates operating in NZ, including Telstra, which would make it even more unattractive for these firms to do business here, given the case is in essence about them transferring income back to Australia to get a better tax treatment than here - pity IRD are not responsible for the damage they do to our economy. If this ever got through in Australia, NZ would rightly see a mass exodus of Kiwi firms there.

Kudos ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... to Banks and the team for the securing of "charter schools," where private enterprise and others can take over schools that aren't performing, in the confidence-and-supply agreement. This is the kind of thing that could start a process of attrition whose ultimate outcome will be the end of state education (though I doubt that's what Banks has in mind!).

The stuff about an expenditure cap is just flannel. A cap on the rate at which spending increases? I mean, really. A major assault on spending is what's needed, and I hope the new party will not shrink from saying so.

Ditto the RMA stuff. It's not enough to say there must be only one District Plan. Fuck District Plans! (Couldn't quite work that into any of Don's speeches for some reason.) The presumption must change to be the reverse of what it is now: you have the right to do as you please on and with your property as long as you don't damage someone else's. Something else for the new party.

Stephen Whittington ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... I was really meaning the

Mark Hubbard's picture

... I was really meaning the insolvency is the device that fixed the malinvestment.

not really

Damien Grant's picture

I take out the trash Mark.

Many insolvency practitioners (to use the industry term) think they can turn businesses around. We cannot. It is like asking David Beckham to play Rugby. It always ends in tears.

Fact is, by the time a business gets to my door it needs to be quickly sold to a better owner or quietly dismembered so the people and capital caught up in its toxic vortex can be released to more productive areas of the economy.

Possibly a bit like Act, actually.

But thanks for the positive vibes!

It's about branding Damien.

Mark Hubbard's picture

It's about branding Damien. You're not an undertaker, sorry, liquidator, you're a Mr Fix-it of malinvestments, keeping the economy moving along Smiling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

In the cold

Damien Grant's picture

Yes, my invite was lost as well, but no one likes a liquidator at a party.

We bring the smell of carrion with us!

Oh darn ...

Mark Hubbard's picture

... I must be Neville, no friends, because I've had no invite.

Rodent alert!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Be aware of my words about "slimy Rodentian connivers." The principal slimy Rodentian conniver has been inviting people to a secret cyber location to discuss a new party. My view, for reasons stated at the top of this thread, is that this person is part of the problem, and has no business touting himself as part of the solution. I just want folk to know that that's my view, especially the folk here who've accepted the invitation. I don't expect you to see things as I do, because you don't know what I do from my months inside the disaster zone. I do ask you to be vigilant. The solution to Blandification and Banksification is not a return to Rodentification via some cyber equivalent of the Masons. Project Phoenix will offer up many alternatives. Don't put all your eggs, if I may mix metaphors, in one basket, especially a Rodentian one.

Interesting: I knew Damien

Mark Hubbard's picture

Interesting: I knew Damien was a liquidator.

Damien, can you cross-post some of your pieces to SOLO. I'd especially be interested in your Hotchin piece.

(My last piece on him was here: http://www.solopassion.com/nod... And I'll put up my earlier much longer pieces on him - and Alan Hubbard - soon. Do you know if there is an actual time limit they can keep his assets frozen for?)

Welcome along

gregster's picture

to SOLO Damien.

Damien

Mark Hubbard's picture

Note I'm very definitely not saying NZ doesn't have freedom of religion: we do - that's not my argument here at all. What I am talking about is having religious beliefs inevitably inform policy making in a system that is not classical liberal. Look at Richard Goode's reply to me below, and tell me why we do not have humane euthanasia policy in New Zealand yet?

Plus it's more than that. Look at the NZ Conservative Party's policy: that party will be every bit as interventionist into both our lives as the Left are, and Craig makes no apology for it. There's no freedom to be found there, and I'm not just referring to religion (though that's certainly an important influence informing them).

Mark

Damien Grant's picture

The idea that having a religious person in a position of power means that your freedom of religion is undermined is ridiculous.

Freedom of religion is a given in this country. I have no idea of John Key's religious views, and that surely is the proof of my last sentence.

As for the Conservatives, well, their name says it all I guess. Maintain the status quo, whatever that is.

Damien

Mark Hubbard's picture

A free society is one where every individual has freedom of religion, yes, but I don't see how Christians can give me my freedom - including my freedom from their religion - if they are in a position of power over me. Surely God trumps the non-initiation of force principle for them (because they're not free to make these decisions, they always have to hand over responsibility to the Big G). Euthanasia is not an 'unimportant' issue, or abortion: issues like that are a litmus test.

But forget religion regarding this new Conservative party. This lot don't even believe in asset sales, that is, they believe the State should own the means of production - so they're either stupid, or socialists. And that doesn't matter, either, because the only thing that does is they're Statists. You and I are servants of the State. I don't see how Colin Craig can any more be part of a classical liberal freedom movement, than John Banks (who has in two days destroyed the only political party in parliament which was, on paper classical liberal.)

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

Really, someone's religion is irrelevant.

Really? So why refer to the Conservative Party as "the Christians"?

Really

Damien Grant's picture

Really, someone's religion is irrelevant. I admit it worries me when I know someone believes in a divine being. Bit like a fourteen year old still believing in Santa Claus, but a belief in religion does not mean that that person cannot also believe in individual liberty.

The whole, ‘I disagree in what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it’ philosophy.

Not all religious folks want creationism taught in school. Big difference between a conservative main-stream Anglican and a fundamentalist crazy.

Anyway, if you will only engage politically with those who you agree with economically, on religion and on all other social issues you will be in a very small and splintered groups.

Bit like the Marxists, who used to fracture into tiny sub-groups until they faded into complete obscurity.

To effect change you need to engage with the system or work to dismantle it.

I quite like the system, for all its faults. I can state my fringe views openly, even if I am totally ignored.

Mark

Richard Goode's picture

You say you do 'not consider a person's religion when you vote', however, can a Christian not think of his or her religion when making law, in our current system, that concerns my right for euthanasia? Or for sensible freedom based laws in areas such as abortion? I'm afraid Christians can't make laws around individual property rights, because they don't own their bodies, God does.

You voted for a Christian. That's irony.

Kasper and Greg voted for a repulsive feral conservative. That's not irony. That's iniquity.

The long answer

Richard Goode's picture

And will Christians allow the State channeling God to stand aside and give me freedom in such fundamental areas?

Some will, some won't.

the problem is small

Damien Grant's picture

I do not care about euthanasia, liberalisation of drug laws or other key social issues in this environment because for these issues to be won requires a change in the mind-set of the wider public.

Decriminalisation of drugs, something I support, will only happen when the wider public change their mind on these issues. I have no idea how to do this but elections every three years do not seem to be the most effective way.

Richard

Mark Hubbard's picture

How can you have answered no to that question, and yet in the past have stood for Libertarianz?

Richard, research the history

Mark Hubbard's picture

Richard, research the history of political conservatism: you can't untangle God and Country from it. Religion and nationalism: every bit as bad as the Left - the State must control the individual, completely.

I'm in the Sounds at the moment, with 'limited' Internet and radio, but even I have still heard this morning that Colin Craig has said for them to merge with ACT - what am I saying, Banks - then ACT would have to purge it's Libertarian element. I suspect Banks had to think all of a second before agreeing with it: after all, what would be know of ACT's supposed classical liberalism - nothing.

Bloody hell.

Statist swine. No, Statist swines. Every politician involved in this reeks of treachery and evil. Freedom lovers can ignore ACT and Conservatives from this point. And ACT on Campus should now be holding Banks to account for everything he has said just this morning, for he's played them like fools. If any ACT on Campus volunteers are reading this, defect, and do so publicly, you've been sold out, don't take it sitting down. To recover your reputations only scorched earth is any good from here: destroy ACT to put it out of its misery.

The short answer

Richard Goode's picture

And will Christians allow the State channeling God to stand aside and give me freedom in such fundamental areas?

No.

Mark

Richard Goode's picture

it's pointless the freedom lover going any further with that party.

The same can be said of all other New Zealand political parties bar one or two.

They're just more Statists, acting on God's command.

They're just more Statists, yes, but are they "the Christians"? Gordon Copeland is a Christian, but so is Ian Hayes.

Richard, look at Conservative

Mark Hubbard's picture

Richard, look at Conservative Party list, get to fundamentalist Gordon Copeland, and it's pointless the freedom lover going any further with that party. (Quite apart from their position on no asset sales). They're just more Statists, acting on God's command. There's no freedom to be had from collectivists whose motto has always been 'God and Country'.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

I was referring to the conservative party

Yes, you referred to the Conservative Party as "the Christians". Why? I'm curious.

I think there is a problem

Mark Hubbard's picture

I think there is a problem Damien - at least more than I used to think. You say you do 'not consider a person's religion when you vote', however, can a Christian not think of his or her religion when making law, in our current system, that concerns my right for euthanasia? Or for sensible freedom based laws in areas such as abortion? I'm afraid Christians can't make laws around individual property rights, because they don't own their bodies, God does.

Perhaps no problems in a classical liberal society where a Constitution of New Freeland protects an individual's rights, but not only aren't we that, we're moving further and further away from such a society toward Statism, full blown. And will Christians allow the State channeling God to stand aside and give me freedom in such fundamental areas?

What say Reed and Dr Goode?

Yep, the core values of Act

Damien Grant's picture

Yep, the core values of Act seem at odds with those of the Conservatives. You cannot mix liberal ideals with the religious values of the Conservatives, but you have to ask yourself, does it matter?

The social value debate has really been settled for a generation now in New Zealand. What matters is economics, and I'm not so sure the core economic beliefs of most Act and Conservative members are that different.

Votes on things like drugs etc are never done on party lines anyway.

Are we standing aside from the Christians because we would rather feel the warm glow of inner righteousness rather than form an accommodation with people we think are odd because they do not believe in evolution? (Well, not me. I'm not an Act member, just a voter, should not get above my station).

I do not consider a person’s religion when I vote, although I would not vote for a religious party.

Last rites for ACT

Mark Hubbard's picture

As Stephen said, and now the burial already - such unseemly haste: http://www.stuff.co.nz/nationa...

Quote: ACT's lone MP John Banks says he is in favour of talks with Conservative Party leader Colin Craig – as speculation mounts behind the scenes about a merger.

None of these dreadful people would know a principle, a freedom, or a property right. Every politician is tarred as a Statist. Their reliable treachery makes me doubt even a Constitution of New Freeland could contain them for more than a decade before they found a way to pervert that.

Problem is ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Some of the Rodents are already trying to commandeer the renewal process and assume leadership of any new party. One in particular, who should not be allowed anywhere near the process or party. I'll be more specific in due course. Need to find out a bit more first. In the meantime, those who participated in the treachery of leaving Don to twist in the wind after the marijuana speech should own up—and announce to the world just where they stand now, after their cowardly betrayal—rather than simply pretend to be horrified at the Banksification of ACT to which they were huge contributors. If they've learned from their mistake, great. If they're just in it for power-lust and Machiavellian machinations, they should stick with Banks.

The Act party is dead and its

Stephen Berry's picture

The Act party is dead and its sole MP will stage the burial.

Many in the Act party who privately despise Banks shut their mouths and forgot their principles for the sake of politicial expediency. They thought that if they held their nose they would ensure an anchor for more Act MPs and continued classical liberal presence in Parliament. Instead they got their worst nightmare - a authoritarian conservative single MP who now seeks to exploit the infrastructure, membership ansd money of the Act party to create a new conservative party.

I said prior to the election that Act needed to purge itself of its conservatives. It seems the conservatives had a similar idea.

I was referring to the

Damien Grant's picture

I was referring to the conservative party

New Zealand's first MMP election was in 1996...

Marcus's picture

So everything has been going downhill for your parties since then?

And you are the plebs voting to keep MMP.

CCCP

Richard Goode's picture

the ALCP did much better than the Libertarianz. Maybe they should merge, at least they would agree on one policy!

New Zealand's first MMP election was in 1996. The Christian Coalition's party vote was 4.33%. The ALCP's party vote was 1.66%. Michael Appleby suggested that a Christian Cannabis Coalition Party (CCCP) would be a winner. (He was joking, I think.)

As ye sow ...

Richard Goode's picture

... so shall ye weep.

A Consummate Tragedy.

"the Christians"

Richard Goode's picture

the Christians have shown what can be done with money and unity of purpose.

Can you give me a specific example of that?

That's a shame Linz...

Marcus's picture

As an independent you could say whatever you liked.

In the lead up to the next election you could easily stir up a hornets nest in the media by the sort of things you would say.

Hopefully this would draw battle lines and force voters and politicians to take sides.

John Key was Appointed by His Boss - Helen Clark

Sandi's picture

The "World in Union" was not by accident. It was beautifully orchestrated, globally supported by all the BIG corporations and financed by the idiots who used their feelings to vote for a sock puppet, which in turn is going to rape them.

On a more positive note. In my area last election there was just my single vote for the Libertarianz. This year I note there were 21. Smiling

Well, the Christians have

Damien Grant's picture

Well, the Christians have shown what can be done with money and unity of purpose. Nearly three percent.

It is hard to know where to go from here for those with a liberal bent. Might be time to zip up the fly and get inside the tent.

Not me ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Too old and curmudgeonly for that sort of nonsense, though certainly willing to help with proselytizing. No, it needs to be a new force with heft, credibility, lotsa fresh faces (that can speak rather than quack), unity of purpose ... and money. Wheels are already starting to turn.

I note that Isaac is saying she doesn't want to lead ACT, just groom the young 'uns. That would be a disaster. As an arch-blandifier she would further compound the turning of the party into weasel-worders and mealy-mouthers.

yes, but the ALCP did much

Damien Grant's picture

yes, but the ALCP did much better than the Libertarianz. Maybe they should merge, at least they would agree on one policy!

Surely Linz should...

Marcus's picture

...work towards winning a seat as an Independent.

When successful he should build up a party around him while using Parliament as a public platform to bring the debate to the NZ public.

The Libertarianz actually got a bigger vote than the Alliance, at 0.07%. They also got a mention in the NZ herald.

If they're clever they will try and build on this publicity.

Great day for freedom

Rick Giles's picture

Great result for libertarians, I think. An election fate like this can sharpen your mind best and especially if you were involved, if you worked hard, if you had ego investment in the outcome. Now you can reflect without ambiguity on what it's got you.

Because the worst thing for a liar and a cheat is not getting caught out. Not coming to justice means not confronting virtue, not righting your conscience and the ongoing pretence of being good and doing good but knowing full otherwise. Corruption that gets caught is off the hook but corruption that works is a lonely hell lived in secret.

Great result for those taken in by the lie of government libertarianism, for those cheating at freedom by becoming involved in elections. Because, for you, the fraud is over now. Political parties for liberty are a fraud. Never have worked in this country or others, this election or in thousands previous over many many years. And they have always required us to turn a blind eye to working with Conservatives and players of The Game, pretending they were only joking and were really our pals, just needed a good talking to.

I hope you do feel lied to and cheated this election. That you hoped and laboured for grand results but your candidate or party scraped in something pathetic at the polls. And so, use that feeling to get out!

A new phoenix is indeed the only means of dragging us each out of tyranny. The phoenix is yourself the individual, not a Phoenix Party! Having escaped the undertow of political involvement now don't dive right back in again! Elections are not the answer.

Please don't put your life in the hands of a rock n roll band, who'll throw it all away. Doubly so political offices and officers! They have thrown it all away every time and always will.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.