No Minister

Posts Tagged ‘Leftists

The Total, Utter and Complete Backdown on Hate Speech Legislation

with 8 comments

I was certain that this Labour Government was going to foist Hate Speech laws on us. There were six specific proposals:

  1. Increase the number groups protected under the Human Rights Act, from the status quo protecting groups based on their “colour, race or ethnic or national origins” to also include “sex, gender (including gender identity), religious belief, disability or sexual orientation.”
  2. Introduce a new offence in the Crimes Act so that hatred is specifically a crime (in place of current laws which merely forbid intentionally inciting racial disharmony).
  3. Make the crime of being a hateful bigot punishable by three years imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000.
  4. If the second proposal was enacted (the criminal offence), at the same time beef up the Human Rights Act so that complaints may be made about hatred under the Human Rights Act (grossly empowering the Human Rights Commission)
  5. Make it illegal to incite others to be hateful bigots.
  6. Add to the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act to clarify that trans, gender diverse and intersex people are protected from discrimination.

It was a huge overreach and deeply unpopular with ordinary NZers. The Free Speech Union mounted a very successful campaign against it. It made criminals of conservative religious NZers, ironically including any Muslim in NZ who held to orthodox Muslim beliefs about gender and sexuality.

The government is completely backing down from all of these changes – don’t believe anything that says otherwise! The one minor change they are making is a very watered down version of the first proposal, to simply add religious belief as a protected group in the HRA.

This is a complete 180 degree U-turn. The poorly drafted proposals, which failed to properly define hatred and allowed for civil and criminal proceedings against an alarmingly broad definition of discrimination, would have been ruinous for social and religous cohesion in NZ. Conservative churches (and mosques and temples) would have suddenly been guilty of hatred and hate speech if they dared to preach what they have believed for literally thousands of years.

The new proposal specifically protects those churches (and mosques and temples) from the woke fascists who would have been leading the charge against them!!!! Tyrants such as Shaneel Lal, David Farrier (and the entire Stuff propaganda department…), the Marxist-Pagan cult, and Shaneel Lal (again) were licking their lips with the opportunity to criminalise hateful bigots like me.

The reaction from the fascist left is furious – how dare the government not just allow but actually protect religious groups to hold religious views!

The truth is, Faafoi was grossly incompetent when he let activist bureaucrats from the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission dream up such far-reaching and poorly thought-out proposals, which had severe third and fourth order effects on the rights of New Zealanders to hold and express orthodox views. Kiri Allan has cleaned this up admirably by not only ditching the proposals, but actually reversing them to specifically protect religious groups in NZ.

The fact the Human Rights Commission is saying that the new changes are “very disappointing” is an excellent indication to me that this is a good proposal!

True to form though, this isn’t the last of it. The government is tasking the Law Commission to undertake a review, opening up the possibility for another attempt in a year or two. Clearly the polling is telling them to hold off before the election…

Advertisement

Written by Major Star

November 20, 2022 at 1:43 pm

Further reflections on ‘Military Academies’

with 14 comments

I think it’s fair to say that National’s proposal to send serious teenage criminals to a proposed ‘Military Academy’ has gotten everyone talking about it! So I would like to make just a few more remarks and observations about it and what people are saying about it.

There’s the usual suspects crying out about how the poor little petals who get themselves caught up in drugs, gangs and crime don’t know what they’re doing and we just need to be kind to them. The habitual crim-hugger Jarrod Gilbert is against it, so is Chester Burrows. Grant Robertson is against it, referring to Sir Peter Gluckman’s 2018 report (which I’ll talk about soon). Gharaman and Davidson from the Marxist-Pagan party were against it, which partly causes me to re-examine my own initial opposition to it!

Kiri Allen had an interesting comment:

There’s no better way to get fitter, faster, stronger, better, more well-connected criminals than by chucking them all together in an army camp to ultimately go on to form fully-fledged national networks.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/11/national-s-military-academy-crime-proposals-skewered-by-government-ministers-greens.html

Is that what this Labour Cabinet minister thinks of the NZDF – that it’s a breeding ground for criminals and criminal networks? I’ve felt the full loathing that this Labour Government has for the military this term, now I’m really seeing it clearly!

I don’t actually care what Gilbert, Burrows and other lefties think of this policy. They instinctively hate anything to do with the military. For a good analysis of it, former TF Lieutenant Colonel (and ACT party policy advisor) Simon Ewing-Jarvie has written an amusing take down of this policy from the perspective of what it will do to the NZDF.

The key thing about this policy from National is that it is nothing new, it is a re-hash of what Sir Bill English proposed before the 2017 election. BUT – the key difference is how much better Sir Bill was at selling this (bad) idea than Mr Luxon. It certainly was not received well last time, but at least Sir Bill was able to articulate who exactly it was to be aimed at and why – he gave exact figures and numbers of up to 50 people at a time, to Waiouru, backed up with data such as 20 teenagers who committed 800 offences. Sir Bill specifically sold this an “an alternative to prison”. Sir Bill was able to link this to his (very good) Social Investment strategy, and that this was only one option for a very small segment of NZ’s increasingly large pool of ferals.

Mr Luxon has totally failed to control the narrative about this. People are either confused or remain unaware about who he is aiming this at, where it will be, how many ferals are going to be targeted and what happens next to the delinquents. It just feels like a very lazy rehash of a policy which they do not understand the detail of, let alone able to sell those details through a hostile media.

The biggest failure about this policy announcement is the total lack of comprehension about how this will impact the NZDF. For starters, forcing these ferals to eat from the Waiouru Camp Mess will be a truly cruel and unusual punishment! National should know this, they should know how dilapidated NZDF camps and bases are. (Shout out to departing Rangitikei MP Ian McKelvie, who despite representing the biggest NZDF electorate in the country since 2011, encompassing Waiouru, Ohakea and Linton, has never mentioned the NZDF at any point in time in the House, nor has he done anything for the families or personnel in his long and spectacularly un-illustrious career).

NZDF is decimated right now, with attrition over 17%. Not mentioning how stretched the NZDF is when giving them this big task is nothing other than incompetent and stupid by National. Where is Tim van de Molen in this (supposedly the spokesman for Defence)?

If National wanted to sell this policy more effectively, they could have considered mentioning or discussing three things:

  1. The Limited Service Volunteer (LSV) scheme, staffed by NZDF personnel, jointly run by NZDF/MSD. Designed for teenagers and young adults at risk of becoming long term beneficiaries, lasting for a few months at either Burnham, Trentham or Auckland. Not perfect, also a drain on limited NZDF resources, but yields generally good results.
  2. A counter to Sir Peter Gluckman’s 2018 study of so-called ‘boot camps’ which concluded they don’t work. But his conclusion was built on shallow foundations, referencing only a study of other studies, which looked at a small number of American boot camps, and did not find conclusive evidence either for or against boot camps.
  3. The significant success of RF Cadet School. Not a boot camp for ferals, but more of a vocational school for teenagers looking to join the NZDF later on. It was an option (for people like Ron Mark) to join before heading down a path towards delinquency (such as his brother Tui went down). The benefit was that NZDF would receive a significant chunk of those teenagers as recruits when they turned 18, many of whom are still in today.

National didn’t talk about any of those things, instead they have left the narrative to be dominated by lefties and crim-hugging luvvies, whilst further undermining the NZDF. This policy announcement has been a disaster.

National has limited credibility and gets only so much attention in the media. They would be far better off discussing wide-ranging changes to our education system instead of poorly thought-out regurgitations of 2017 policy not updated to the changed situation of today, and without the mastery of detail which Sir Bill English had.

I actually think we should be punishing the parents of the ferals, probably with stocks and pelting with rotten fruit. But that’s just my opinion!

Written by Major Star

November 18, 2022 at 1:26 pm

I’ve heard this before

with one comment

Based on the comments of one of the authors over at the Red State news site, Kira Davies, as she discusses the US MSM.

If Information Is King, America’s Mainstream Media Are the Court Jesters

She discusses the fear that the MSM market in constantly to keep the attention of jaded viewers, though what she’s talking about (“I’ll put on CNN or MSNBC for the day to keep an eye on them. Yes, it’s torture. I do it for you”) is really the same thing that has existed at least since the 1970’s when the phrase was coined – “If it Bleeds, It Leads” – which back then meant having murders leading every news hour.

But I was amused by another comment of hers:

I’ve never forgotten the words of Rush Limbaugh, during one of the first times I’d ever heard his radio show. I was still a liberal all those years ago. I knew I hated Rush Limbaugh. I knew he was a bigot. I knew he was ALL THE PHOBES. I knew he was irredeemable. I knew all that about him, but I didn’t even know the sound of his voice because I’d never once taken the time to listen to him personally. The media told me, and they wouldn’t lie.

By sheer accident one day she borrowed a car while doing chores around Chicago, left the radio set on the owner’s talkback station and kept missing the station/host id as she hopped in and out – all while finding herself agreeing with much of what was being said and enjoying how interesting the host was. And then….

“This is Rush Limbaugh and you’re listening to the EIB Network.”

WHAT???? I was listening to *choke, gasp, cough* RUSH LIMBAUGH??? And I liked it?  I nearly drove off the road in shock

So say we all.

Written by Tom Hunter

November 17, 2022 at 7:57 am

Unity and Utopias

with 4 comments

Growing up in the 1970’s I’d read, watched and listened to sufficient propaganda that I was convinced that the Left were tolerant in many different ways. Perhaps there was an element of the old hippies involved, but I appreciated the whole scene even as I rolled my eyes at their world (punk music was the thing in my time and they had little good to say about Hippies):

“Whatever man. Let your freak flag fly. We dig it”

Of course there was communism, but as the USSR slowly opened up in the 1970’s we became aware of many very conservative things about the place that seemed incongruous with its supposed revolutionary spirit. I was too young to be aware of how narrow that definition of revolution was, with its overwhelming emphasis on the dialectal materialism of Marx and Engels. I was also yet to read about the deliberate Red Terror of Lenin, Mao and company: for whatever reason we did not connect the Cambodian horrors we read about in high school with other communist regimes, probably because we were ignorant of their own Year Zeros and that elimination of existing societies was essential to the establishment of communist rule.

But my understanding of Western Lefty tolerance came to a crashing halt on July 25, 1981 at Rugby Park in Hamilton when some 300 anti-Springbok Tour protestors invaded the pitch and forced the game to be cancelled. I was not averse to the protests in the streets that had been going on for some time by then; if they got the tour stopped that was just politics, even if not via the ballot box (The Left having failed to eject Muldoon three years earlier).

But this was something much more than a protest demonstrating opposition, with the idea of showing sufficient numbers that the government could be turned on the issue. No, this was the outright force of one group telling another that they did not have the right to watch this game of rugby and would be stopped from doing so – by any means necessary. As I wrote on KB in a 2007 post on Chris Trotter calling out John Minto’s justification for violence in certain circumstances:

As Trotter says of Pat McQuarrie – “what was he willing to do to stop the tour”. Well he was willing to threaten to crash a plane into a crowd of spectators for a bloody rugby game, and that threat was the key to achieving one of the objectives of the protest movement. In what way is the motivation different from the current crowd that Minto is running with? Presumably those people also have a cause that is going to make them, perhaps has made them, “do some very dangerous things”.

In twenty years time will a future Chris Trotter-type emerge from the current crop to talk of such things, absolve themselves as “good people” and “decent, caring New Zealanders” who were simply driven to desperate lengths by an oppressive state and the failure of their fellow citizens to heed the call?

It’s just the same old, ‘high-moral-ground’ bullshit that leftists cling to. Their civil rights were infringed by faceless men with batons and charges over ridiculous offences and it’s an outrage? Yes, it was. But now that it’s the police under a Labour government? Less outrage it would seem.

As for the idea that Trotter and co. trampled all over the civil rights of their fellow New Zealanders when they invaded that ground and relied upon a threat of massive violence to get a rugby game cancelled?

Naaaah – the idea that that might be ethically unacceptable and outside the bounds of democracy never occurred to any protest group – either then or later.

It was the sniffy, sneering dismissal of the civil rights of the rugby watchers and tour supporters that got to me far more than the violence. Beat National at the polling booth, become the government and ban the tour was something I had no problem with; Kirk had done it in 1973. A few years later I was impressed by the cleverness of the lawyers who used the Rugby Board’s own principles about promoting Rugby to get the 1985 All Black tour of South Africa cancelled.

But that day in Hamilton was not any of that and it was that day that began my slow turn away from the Left, or at least away from whatever I had thought it was. The 1981 Rugby Park protestor tactics were bullying, domineering bullshit, as was the victim-pleading of those who got beaten up by rugby fans, which of course only added to the stereotyping so essential to the whole project and the Left’s conception of itself:

On the contrary, most were and still are proud of that particular effort, and Trotters latter-day thoughts hardly seem like a distancing. The gap-toothed rednecks had been lectured and fully informed about the bad ethical decision they were making in attending the game and they still went ahead anyway: outrageous! As a result, their civil rights would just have to take a backseat to a higher morality – and if those people chose to fight back about such a loss of civil rights such violence could simply be called a pogrom to denigrate and deligitimise them still further – as opposed to the other sides pure and virtuous violence and threats of violence.

River of Filth anyone?

And so we come to this piece of news boasted about by David Farrar at KB, Nick Smith shows how to unite, where Nick has appointed as deputy Mayor of Nelson a young man who ran against him – for the sake of unity and collegiality:

This move surprised some as Rohan stood against Nick for Mayor (was a credible 3rd), is only 22 and his politics are on the left. But Nick has shown great sense with the appointment, as people want their Councils to work together, despite having some different philosophies.

Very hippyish of Nick – and DPF. But the caveat is in DPF’s next line:

I think it stands in contrast to Wellington where new Mayor Tory Whanau could have united the Council by appointing an experienced Councillor such as Nicola Young as Deputy Mayor, but instead she chose a relatively new Green Party Councillor in Laurie Foon.

And how it will stand in contrast everywhere that the Left gain full control. When is the Right in NZ going to realise the lesson that The Stupid Party in the US is only now coming to grasp: the Left pretends to bipartisanship (and Free Speech and Speaking Truth To Power and Afflicting the Comfortable, etc, etc) – when they’re not in power.

When they are in power they, at best, throw a few tokens to the Right – as long as they’re sure those ideas will be watered down to nothing. How do we know this? Have you not seen what a majority Labour government is doing across-the-board in the last two years? But it’s nothing new; just watch how the Left react anywhere when their ideas are truly under threat of being wiped out or when it merely looks like they’re losing on an issue(see above). Bi-partisanship? No! All out war.

The favour of Nick Smith is not going to be returned. Anywhere.

I can’t help thinking this attitude about “unity”, bi-partisanship and the Great Centrist Pursuit is a hangover from National Party people who came of age in the 1970’s/80’s world.

That was a world (1945-1990) where the National Party had been in power most of the time. By 1990 it was 29 of those 45 years – and for more than one term too, meaning real control (even the Labour count should be reduced since it includes 4 years of post-war Labour love and 6 years of Rogernomics, the very opposite of the Left’s ideas). In that world it probably made sense to cling to whatever centre Labour had created, which was massive control and influence of the State in every sphere of life.

But since then National and Labour are pretty much even – 18 years Nat vs 14 years Labour – and since 1999 Labour have 14 vs 9 out of 23 years.

And here’s the thing with that Labour success: you never hear them or their activists, whether in public or on blogs like TDB and The Standard ever talking the same way as Nick Smith, DPF and National – going on and on and on about “The Centre is Where Victory Lies” and “unity”.

No. Labour may have won in 1999 with Clarke and Cullen’s pragmatism but they certainly pulled shit that they had not talked about on the hustings and which was cemented in so that National could not change it when they got back into government. Was the scrapping of the RNZAF combat wing or WFF or the KiwiRail purchase or any of what they did, ever sold as appealing to the centre? No! In fact their attitude was best summed up by Michael Cullen’s statement in Parliament, “We won. You lost. It goes.” They won two more elections after that bruising statement. Nothing squishy there.

In 2017, Ardern’s government got there on the basis of her freshness, telegenic abilities and the pettiness of Winston Peters. Have you heard anything about what has been done in the last five years as them appealing to the Centre?

No. And yet there we are with 14 out of 23 years in power and plenty of stuff done that the Left wanted – even if they want still more done and complain that what has been done (spending vastly more money than stingy old National) has not done any good for poverty, education, health care and such.

So why does National keep talking up – in public – things like unity, bipartisanship and appealing to the Great Centrist voter (swing voter)? There’s no longer any evidence that it’s any more successful than Labour’s True Believing approach.

I think it’s because they’re unable to make arguments for Right-wing ideas and policies outside of cuts to taxes and spending (and they’re not much chop even then). Much easier to just focus on the “process” of sniffing the winds and getting votes.

Labour don’t think like that and have never thought like that, and while you could point at them as “extremist failures” circa 1990, their electoral success in the last thirty years should be a reason to re-think the National Party approach. Nick Smith’s actions show we’re still a long way from that.

When it matters, Republicans look around and say, “Oh no we can’t do that, we’d lose a man. The Democrats would take seats.” They are virtually a majority for the sake of being a majority. They just want to polish it up, put it on the shelf, and look at it. 

To put it simply, Republicans approach politics like America fights wars: They don’t want to lose a single man. Democrats, on the other hand? They look at politics like the Russians looked at Stalingrad: The congressman in front votes now; when they fall the next man gets elected and he will vote too.

So you see a repeating pattern to American politics: There isn’t a true back-and-forth. Instead, Democrats change the country a lot while they’re in power. Then Republicans hold power and push the pause button. There’s no rollback that a new executive order can’t undo.

Maybe they cut taxes; bring back the Mexico City policy; junk a regulation that Democrats created but didn’t manage to implement; but that’s about it. When was the last time Republicans passed a huge law — one that changed America forever the way Democrats do every time they hold serve in American politics? You don’t see it.

This Sounds Familiar
The Precious Midpoint
Advice from the Peanut Gallery

A day in the life

with 5 comments

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to learn to code.

I worked in the IT industry around the world for three decades.

I don’t recall seeing anything as useless as the following, even inside the large corporate disaster areas that I was called in to try and fix.

This is supposed to be the very different world of high tech, Big Tech, Silicon Valley entrepreneurship. The world funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by angel investors hoping to strike it rich with share values that multiply a dozen-fold or a hundred-fold when they go public. A world of people who supposedly work their guts out in pursuit of that wealth. The world that is (it thinks) well on the way to establishing a new order of business, economy – and culture.

But if this is your workday then it explains why so many of these people apparently could live like they were still in university – having hysterical meltdowns over politics and now with the power to enforce their will on the Right-wingers they so hate even as they suckled at the teat of one of the most extreme hotbeds of capitalism in the world today.

I’ve put the snarky sub-title in below the post headline because I’m beginning to wonder how many of these people who are working for this IT company can actually code?

I also wonder how many of these clowns will be left holding stock options that they can’t execute?

There seems to be little difference between Twitter employee and much of the MSM.

Written by Tom Hunter

October 29, 2022 at 4:13 pm

First Gabbard, now Sarandon

with one comment

It’s bad enough when a former vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee, Tulsi Gabbard, announces that she’s leaving the Democrat party, and that the reason she’s leaving is its growing extremism across a range of issues.

But when one of the really trendy Lefties of America, celebrated actress and Far Left activist Susan Sarandon, says the following, then you know you’ve got big grass-roots problems.

Admittedly she did not support Hillary Clinton in 2016 – something she still has not been forgiven for – but she has supported countless Democrat Party causes and politicians over the decades, although as the years have passed she has grown increasingly lukewarm about them (her opinions of Obama were considerably less rosy in 2016 than in 2008).

Still, while I’m sure she won’t be supporting any Republican any time soon, I don’t think she’s talking about the Republicans or the American Right-Wing here. That won’t stop her being slimed by the Democrats and their MSM/Social Media allies as ULTRA-MAGA, or whatever other brain-dead shit label they’re using as a substitute for thinking and debating.

They’ll have to do that of course because Gabbard and Sarandon are cracks in the dam – and once started they tend to widen. Rapidly.

Everything is Political

with 3 comments

That phrase grew out of the rise of the so-called New Left in the 1960’s, a movement that could no longer stomach standing with the old Marxist Left.

Not with the blood-soaked creatures like Stalin and Mao that were that faction when in power, but also not with the Western Left that insisted, as per Marx, that everything boiled down to the Class Warfare created by the economic dialectic.

No, the New Left insisted that there were other dialetics at work; sexual and gender, ethnic and racial, etc, along with all the cultural goods they created and then carted into the future as baggage.

And it would all have to be analysed, critically dismantled, deconstructed – and burned to the ground in a sort of Cultural Year Zero from which a new society would arise like the Phoenix. Incidentally the only thing unique about the Cambodian Year Zero was the proportionate death toll: from the Jacobins to Lenin to Mao the concept had always been around and pursued, for the simple reason that it was felt to be necessary to the rise of the new society.

So nowadays what job you do, the car you drive, whether you drive one at all, the house you live in, the school you send your kids to (or whether you send them at all), the steak and eggs that you eat, …. everything is political in ways beyond even the dreams of the 1960’s New Left. The reason this has to be that way is rather similar to the reason behind Year Zero and other Communist Revolutions, and that is that the resulting decisions have to be enforced politically, and they must be enforced forever; no backsliding allowed.

To that end I had to roll my eyes at this latest post from DPF on Kiwiblog, We must never go down this path, in which he links to an NBC report (of course) discussing the upcoming US Mid-Term elections, indications that it has the highest voter interest of any such election and one possible reason for that:

What’s more, 80% of Democrats and Republicans believe the political opposition poses a threat that, if not stopped, will destroy America as we know it. 

DPF comments:

I hope New Zealand never ends up like this.

I am passionate about politics. I think generally policies of the centre-right are much better for New Zealand. But we must never regard those we disagree with on policy grounds as enemies who threaten the country. The vast majority of people in politics have good intentions.

(Fortunately New Zealand politics is not in that state. There is still a fair measure of bipartisanship which I think is essential in a healthy democracy.”)

I’ve already commented on this over there to the effect that this is not new but has been developing for twenty years, that Trump’s 2016 election as President was merely a symptom of it, and that New Zealand will not be immune to it because the beloved objective of bi-partisanship cannot survive everything being political and the fact that the Left’s basic assumption about the Right – all of the Right, including National – is that they don’t have good intentions.

As for NZ, I have bad news for you; we’re moving in this direction – or have you not noticed the last two years of silencing and demonisation, courtesy of the government and their MSM allies (and academia) across a range of issues.

It could be stopped if the Right is willing to really fight back (argue back) against the rising screams of “racist”, “xenophobe”, “transphobe”, etc.

What are the odds? From my perspective both National and ACT are where the GOP was in 2003. All I think we’ll see will be tone policing of the Right from various Right-wing figures. It’s not funny to see former National Party politicians and activists use the Lefty term, “Denier” on two issues.

But I think this review of the destruction of a popular – even beloved – fifty-year old TV show tells us more about what’s going on in our societies than mere political polling, or elections for that matter. Just watch The Critical Drinker for nine minutes.

However, having introduced the topic of media culture I was sadly reminded of the fact that DPF was super-excited by the Star Wars prequels, the new Rings of Power and all the rest of this bullshit, which means he doesn’t get it either.

Record Tax Take overshadowed by Labour’s Spending

with 5 comments

$108 Billion. That’s the sum of our money that has been taxed from our incomes, company profits and goods and services.

But Finance Minister Grant Robertson said the lower-than-expected deficit shouldn’t lead political parties to yell out for cuts as there was still a deficit and New Zealand faces “choppy waters ahead”. He’s ruled out tax cuts that “disproportionately support the wealthiest New Zealanders”. National said a “careful” minister would produce “prudent tax relief” and still invest in public services.

Those wealthy NZers who would be “disproportionately support[ed]” are also those who disproportionately provide the bulk of that tax revenue! In fact, the top 3% of NZ income earners (in 2020) paid 26% of all income tax collected. In 2012, the richest 10% of NZ income earners paid 47% of all income tax!

I’d like to keep more of what I earn. I’d like to be able to support my wife and future children with a single income, with minimal government help. I’m happy for a portion of my wages to go to a well-functioning government to wisely spend on things that genuinely make the country a better place.

The Minister of Finance has ruled out tax cuts despite the record take of income tax. Because no matter how much money is coming in, even more is going out under him! Let’s look at some figures of what I reckon could be reduced or eliminated so that we can afford a tax cut – we’re currently looking at a $9.7 Bn deficit, so can we cut $10 Bn from the books? How about we start with the following:

  • Welfare benefits were costing $23 Bn in 2017, and are now up to $40 Bn this year.
    • Jobseeker and Emergency benefit at $3.3 Bn (up from $1.7 Bn in 2017)
    • Sole parent support up to $1.7Bn (up from $1.1 Bn in 2017)
    • Wage subsidy scheme at $4.8 Bn (it was $1.2 Bn in 2020 and $1.1 Bn in 2021)
    • Accommodation assistance at $2.3 Bn (up from $1.1 Bn in 2017)
  • Health expenses are now totalling $30Bn, up from $16 Bn in 2017. Nearly $7 Bn of that is due to health services for COVID-19, including vaccines and managed isolation /quarantine.
  • Educational departmental expenses are up to $2 Bn from $1.2 Bn in 2017. Not sure we need to increase the bureaucrats in the Ministry by that much!
  • Tertiary education funding has increased from $2.5 Bn to $3.2 Bn, for an increase of just 20,000 places. That’s $35,000 for each extra tertiary student.
  • ‘Core Government Services’ departmental expenses have increased from $1.8 Bn to $2.7Bn, the headcount of the public sector increasing a whopping 28%
  • $1.4 Bn has been spent on transport expenses in relation to COVID, including ‘shovel ready’ projects and temporary relief packages
  • $4.2 Bn on “COVID-19 Resurgence Support Payments” whatever they are
  • $135 Million on the “COVID-19 Cultural Sector Response” from heritage, cultural and recreation expenses
  • $1.6 Bn on the Emissions Trading Scheme

Now, I’m well aware that inflation since 2017 has been just under 20% in total. And wage inflation has driven some of the increased tax take, and government departments will therefore need to increase their expenditure to not only pay their people, but also to purchase other services which are now more expensive. Which increases inflation, leading to employees seeking higher salaries, and around the circle we go!

But really, does the government need to be spending an extra $52 Billion compared to 2017? The 2017 budget was $76 Bn of spending. Under Labour, that has grown to $128 Bn this year. If the budget had simply kept in line with inflation, it would only be $91 Bn.

I reckon there’s an easy $20 Bn to be saved from just reducing or outright eliminating some of the increased spending above. And then all of a sudden government books are in surplus, and maybe we can reduce the tax burden on hard-working, middle-class NZers like me.

The Revolution is Postponed – Chile episode

with 2 comments

“Whoever doesn’t jump is a communist!”

And thank fuck for that, for when Socialist revolutions succeed you can guarantee a butt load of misery for the people, toiling masses and all, sooner or later.

What I’m referring to was something that happened a couple of weeks ago in Chile and was overshadowed by the Ukraine war and global energy and economic problems – and also by the fact that the MSM didn’t want to talk about it very much:

On Sunday, voters in Chile rejected a new constitution that would have represented a major turn to the left in the South American country. The vote was almost a landslide, with 62% of Chileans voting against the proposed constitution and not one of the country’s 16 regions approving the measure.

The voters themselves responded in an overwhelming fashion. Turnout was a whopping 85%

That’s an amazing result given that just last year a very Left-Wing, almost communist politician, 35-year-old former student activist named Gabriel Boric was elected President. This naturally led to the Left-MSM having a giant global orgasm, including locally with Chris Trotter and a somewhat more sober view Paul Buchanan (aka Pablo) at Kiwipolitico (Paul having grown up in Latin America).

However, Boric and his comrades suffered the almost inevitable overreach of Lefties who win big. While not forgetting (I assume) that Boric’s win had not changed the finely balanced Congress they did seem to forget that it was achieved with a low turnout in which only 56 percent of eligible voters went to the polls as fears of Covid-19 pushed most older Chileans to stay home. As a result the proposed Constitution was a shocker:

The proposed constitution was 170 pages long and included 388 articles. It was a leftist’s dream, with over 100 new rights enshrined into it, many of them containing left-wing buzzwords.

Additionally, the constitution would have created autonomous governing zones for Chile’s indigenous populations, compelled the government to adopt a radical environmental stance, weakened property rights, and required elected assemblies to include at least 50% female representation.

It made the EU Constitution look positively Jeffersonian. Even Left-wing supporters were not impressed:

“How the hell do you vote on a constitution with 388 articles?” said Chilean political scientist Gabriel Negretto to the New York Times. “You are overwhelming voters.”

Heh. Not to mention all those buzzwords and buzzterms: “neurodiversity, culturally relevant food, safe and violence-free environments, free time”, plus the right for Chileans to develop their “personality, identity and life projects.”

Alrighty then.

Judging from these scenes of joyous dancing that 62% vote against it may be understated: “Whoever doesn’t jump is a communist!”

I wouldn’t celebrate that much if I were them. The Left, like rust, never sleep. They’ll be back with some watered-down bullshit for the constitution at some stage. If it was me I’d put in just a few, bland articles that won’t get anybody’s back up but which can form a framework inside which huge pieces of legislation can be implemented that achieve all their goals. Hell, just look at what the Commerce Clause has enabled for the Federal government in the USA, not to mention the 16th amendment (income tax).

Still, together with Brexit, Trump, the rapidly increasing costs of the Left’s energy, environmental and immigration policies, the resulting rise of populist Right-wing parties in Europe, including the recent political shock in Sweden, it does make you wonder if the Leftist ground beneath our feet is not just shifting in small ways but in terms of a process of societal Continental Drift that started after the GFC.

Written by Tom Hunter

September 20, 2022 at 3:00 pm

Your Daily Sniff and Vomit

with 9 comments

And just like that, #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen were dead.

Have you purged yourself today?

Have you digested your breakfast and lunch?

No coffee, wine, whiskey or other drinks at hand at the moment?

Good. Then you are ready for this.

Nothing new here of course, as Liberal loudmouth actress Alyssa Milano already demonstrated two years ago.

I’m guessing that all of these women are sickened by OrangeHitler and that none of them ever paid any attention to Tara Reade (who?), even though VP Kamala Harris did.

As did others. Which makes sense given that this guy has history.

Related, Not a mask but a sickbag.