Every lefty who said that the right were over-reacting and being hysterical about the potential reach of the controversial Electoral Finance Act are today eating their words.

The Electoral Commission have decided that there were 4 instances of illegal campaigning under the Act in the recent election; 3 of which are worthy of police investigation. Most noteworthy, was ACT's Rodney Hide's yellow jacket which was deemed an election advertisement meaning it had to have an appropriate authorisation statement and written authorisation from the Party Financial Agent had to be obtained.

UPDATE: The Electoral Commission has referred my query to the Chief Electoral Office.

The Special Votes have been counted, the official result of the New Zealand 2008 Election is in; see the effect they have made on the provisional results:

Final results in bold, (provisional results in brackets)

National 44.93% (45.45%) - 58 (59) seats
Labour 33.99% (33.77%) - 43 seats
Green 6.72% (6.43%) - 9 (8) seats
ACT 3.65% (3.72%) - 5 seats
Maori 2.39% (2.24%) - 5 seats (overhang)
Progressive 0.91% (0.93%) - 1 seat
United Future 0.87% (0.89%) - 1 seat

Basically National loses a seat, the Greens gain one. What is with kiwi's overseas and nostalgically voting Green? Its all right for them, they don't have to live here.

No change to the reigns of power or anything dramatic as the confidence and supply agreements are more than adequate but as David Farrar said on applying the St Lague formula:

National was at massive risk of losing a second seat as they hold Spot 120. Labour are in 121. National’s quotient is 9160.0 while Labour’s quotient is 9159.5.

If Labour had 40 more voters turn up (that is less than one voter per seat), then Damien O’Connor would be back in Parliament and Aaron Gilmore would have missed out. Or if 22 people who voted National had voted Labour, then Labour would have 44 seats and National 57.

This does raise the risk of Labour seeking a recount somewhat, though of course, there is no guarantee that'd help them.

Colin Espiner really should be more careful about what he writes on his blog.

Though I must admit I love the irony of him having to eat his words; last election he shot his mouth off too.

Good on him for following through. He is talking about writing a book of recipes if enough people decide they would like to contribute so I have offered him my news-print paper, speed-kills sign.

National and United Future's confidence and supply agreement is out.

Portfolios outside Cabinet:
Peter Dunne gets Minister of Revenue and Associate Minister of Health.

Policy Concessions Include:

• Maintain the policy, research and advocacy role of the Families Commission whilst seeking to achieve administrative efficiencies between the operations of the Families Commission and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.
• Reducing elective surgery waiting lists by greater utilisation of private hospital capacity, in a planned way where this cannot be met by the public hospital system;
• Progressing the long-term medicines strategy for quality use of pharmaceuticals in the health sector, Medicines New Zealand, including the role Pharmac should play in that strategy.
• Support Public Private Partnerships for major roading infrastructure developments where these are deemed to be the preferred options regionally and nationally, such as the Transmission Gully highway.
• The government notes that United Future has been committed to income splitting as a key part of their tax policy and agrees to support appropriate legislation to First Reading in Parliament.
• Proceed with the establishment of a Big Game Hunting Council as part of a national wild game management strategy with a view to it becoming a statutory authority.
• And the government acknowledges United Future’s ongoing support and interest in the development of the Seniors’ Gold Card, the Community and Voluntary sector, and advancing the interests of the disability sector.

Most of it is the usual centrist stuff *sigh* but I will comment of the standouts.

The Families Commission was a dumb idea and it has been a dumb bureaucratic nanny-state money-gobbler, just like the Children's Commission, ever since. So ugh! to that policy.

Income splitting is a positive move to lowering taxes but it adds complexity to the tax laws and does not benefit enough people. Lowering the top tax rates as the government are planning to to 30% would make the need for income splitting largely redundant.

National and the Maori Party's confidence and supply agreement is out.

Two Maori Party MP's get portfolios outside Cabinet:

Dr Sharples gets Maori Affairs Minister, Associate Education Minister and Associate Corrections Minister.
Tariana Turia gets Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, Associate Health Minister and Associate Social Development Minister.

Policy Concessions Include:

• National offered a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act to see if was working and whether there were any better alternatives.
• National will drop its opposition to the Maori seats and in turn, the Maori Party would drop its pursuit of entrenching the Maori seats and a group will be formed to look at constitutional issues including Maori representation.

Good on the Maori Party for pushing the Foreshore and Seabed Act issue. It is a shame to see that National has not framed the issue in terms of the affront to due process and instead is talking about all New Zealander's being able to access the beach, as if that is somehow more important than human rights.

I am relieved to see there is no deal to entrench the Maori seats. The status quo of race based representation is abhorrent enough.

The hoardings have barely had time to gather dust and National have just announced they have stitched up a deal with ACT, United Future and the Maori Party. Surely this is the fastest confidence and supply stitch up in the history of NZ MMP.

National and ACT's confidence and supply agreement is available here online. Highlights are:

Two ACT MP's get portfolios outside Cabinet:
Rodney Hide gets: Minister of Local Government, Minister of Regulatory Reform, Associate Minister of Commerce and a member of the Cabinet Expenditure Control Committee.

Heather Roy gets: Minister of Consumer Affairs, Associate Minister of Defence and Associate Minister of Education.

Areas of Co-Operation Are:

• Law and Order
• Climate Change
• Controlling Government Expenditure
• Tax
• Regulation
• Resource Management Act
• Education

Policy Concessions include:

• An advisory group to look at ways of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025 with the aim of stopping the exodus.
• Pursuit of a sustained lift in New Zealand’s productivity growth rate to 3% a year or more and the establishment of a high quality advisory group to investigate the reasons for the recent decline in New Zealand’s productivity performance
• National will, within 6 months, send ACT’s Taxpayer Rights Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee of Parliament as a government measure with the aim of passing into law a cap on the growth of core Crown expenses.
• National agrees to introduce ACT's "Three Strikes Bill" and support it to Select Committee.
• The implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme will be delayed until a review of New Zealand’s response on Climate Change with agreed draft terms of reference is completed, and the thermal generation ban will be repealed.
• An agreement that a medium-term goal be set for the top rate of tax to be 30 percent so NZ has a government that will reward and celebrate success - not punish it.
• National will explore the concept of a New Zealand Productivity Commission associated with the Productivity Commission in Australia in order to support the goals of higher productivity growth and improvements in the quality of regulation.
• An agreement to work together over time to increase education choices so that pupils and families have more freedom to select schooling options that best meet the individual needs of their children.
• Ongoing discussion is agreed to on ACT's most excellent 20 point plan.

Sounds promising. I was worried that Key’s pursuit of Dunne and the Maori Party meant something far more centrist would be announced. I dislike all the bureaucratic committees that will be funded and set up to talk about everything but hopefully something positive will come out of it. Its better than what we had anyway.

Details on United Future and the Maori Party's baubles are yet to be announced - I hope the Maori Party have stood firm on some aspect of the Seabed and Foreshore as ACT should support them on that and there will be those in National who were appalled at that particular affront to due process too.

We all know the left will stop at nothing to win in politics; see what they did to Stephen Franks in Wellington Central - systematic election hoarding defacement, abuse on his blog (too numerous to link to any one example), You Tube videos twisting out of context comments into scary hate filled messages against Christians and gays [note it was only called homophobic]. The threats and abuse we received for Fisking Grant Robertson, the critique of the latter You Tube Video, to name a few examples from one electorate.

But who phones 111 when they realise, on election night, that the left have lost and that National will lead the country?!?!?

And WHY???!!??

What littany of lies and propaganda about the right would have had to have been put up such people by the left to make them do this? (or are they just incapable of understanding the political process and the policies of the right?)

Liberty Scott's comments are on the button; extract from: What DID leftwing campaigners tell some people?

This report that some people rang the Police when the election results were coming through is alarming in several ways:

1. That people thought their benefits would disappear because National was being elected. What sort of untrammelled nonsense have the left been spreading about such a situation? How despicable are those who promote such lies among people who are clearly rather unhinged? How many were persuaded to vote Labour or Green or else their benefits would dry up?

2. What do people think the Police will do? Arrest John Key and Rodney Hide? Call an end to general elections? Do they think when things don't go their way the Police should be called in? How scary is that?

3. Most disconcerting is the helpless dependency of such people who think the only way forward is to remain dependent on money taken by force from others. How insipid has the welfare state become that there are people terrified at the prospect of having to earn themselves a living?

Sorry folks, it's when the word Libertarianz replaces National that you might be worried, but by then the culture would have to have changed so radically that you wouldn't be scared anymore.

I sat down to work out how the special votes, which are yet to be counted, might impact the seats with the St Lague formula and saw David Farrar had already done it so I am going to be lazy and steal his post - I am tired, went to bed around 2am got up at 6am - Sherry had a One Day Event this morning, they start early, and Troggy bit me, so my arm hurts when I type... anyway, hat tip Kiwiblog, taken from What might happen on specials?

The allocation is:

National 59
Labour 43
Greens 8
Maori 3 (+2 overhang)
United
Future 1
ACT 5

Now who is most at risk from specials? They are the party that is in List Spot 120. And that is National.

The quotient for National is 951145/117 = 8129.4. And who is in spot 121? Labour with 706666/87 = 8122.6.

Very roughly if Labour pick up 600 more votes relative to National, then they get one more List MP, and National loses one. That is not at all impossible.

But could someone else grab it off National. The Greens have spot 124, being 134622/17 = 7918.9. They would need to gain an extra 3,600 votes (on top of their existing proportion of votes) from specials. That is a bit of an ask, but they have done well on special traditionally.

The next candidate on each relevant list is Conway Powell for National, Damien O’Connor for Labour and Kennedy Graham for the Greens.

So many people emailed me blue food suggestions and left comments that I feel compelled to give a review of our election gathering last night.

Despite efforts to be inclusive, my sister and brother-in-law preferring to manipulate visually impaired voters into voting Green instead (they had to take Rich's mum to vote and teased me via text that they refused to take her unless she agreed to vote Green and that when they took her and she couldn't see the ballot they voted Greens for her).

It was fair to say that our guests did not represent a cross section of the electorate, though a few brought offerings that suggested otherwise:

The bearers of the strawberries came in waving a Chris Carter pamphlet and a palm frond as a guesture of green peace and his wife brought a plate of green animal biscuits.

The offerings were pretty clever and they all tasted good too. On the table were:

[I have included the colours for the benefit of our overseas traffic]

Representing National (Blue and White)
Creme fraiche and blueberry tartlets drizzled with blue jelly
A bowl of blue jellybeans and white milk bottle lollies
Blue jelly and whipped cream - though I forgot about it and left it in the fridge

Representing ACT (Predominantly Yellow with a bit of Blue)
Banana muffins with blue icing
Chips and cheese and onion dip
Homemade pizza with dark olives (giving a bluey hue) and a thick layer of yellow cheese hiding the red tomato paste base (kinda clever as ACT formed out of a Labour Party split)
Mango chilly philly (which is yellow) with yellow crackers
Hot chips

Representing the Family Party (Yellow and Black)
Cashew nuts with raisins
Samosas (yellow outside, very dark filling)

Representing Labour (Red and White)
Strawberries and whipped cream
Tomato sauce (ketchup) for ACT's chips

Representing the Greens (Green)
Green animal biscuits

It was all great conversation, good wine, lots of buzz and a great outcome but for Stephen Franks missing out - we all felt a bit deflated when we realised that he had missed both the List and Wellington Central.

What did everyone else get up to last night? How did you all pass the evening?

National 59 (46.8%)
Labour 44 (34.6%)
Green 10 (8.1%)
ACT 3 (2.6%)
Maori 4 (2.4%)
United Future 1 (0.5%)
Progressive 1 (0.2%)

• John Key is New Zealand's new Prime Minister
• Helen Clark is standing down
• Labour will be in opposition with a new leader
• NZ First and Winston Peters are gone
• Roger Douglas is back
• National List MPs include up to Conway Powell number 59
• Labour List MPs include up to Stuart Nash number 36

(Special votes may affect some of the above a little)

I need some help, you see we sent out these invites to our election gathering (don't want to risk calling it a party as it may run the risk of breaching the EFA). You will note the instruction regarding the food....

(in other words, I am inviting my sister)

How to choose who to vote for tomorrow, from Glenn (once again - what can we say? he is brilliant and we ran out of time *ahem*)

Extract from: So who AM I voting for? (the election blog, part 3)

Basic Human rights/freedoms
There are some bottom line human rights and liberties that should always be protected. They’re sometimes called “first generation” human rights. Whatever you call them, here are the big basic things that no government anywhere should neglect, and which no state has any right to diminish. These are the non-negotiables, the rejection of which means that you’re simply morally deficient and unfit to be in power.

Right to life
Christians believe that human life is sacred. Humanity is made in the image of God, and as such taking life is a serious matter. Prima facie, we have a duty to not kill. That is to say, if there are no other factors to consider, then killing human beings is always wrong. Some times, of course, there are other factors to consider. Sometimes people are attacked (or their families, friends etc), and in the course of defending themselves they kill the attacker. This is rare, since self defense usually does not require killing anyone, but sometimes it happens. Sometimes this happens not merely on a personal level, but a national one, where your country is attacked by another. Here too, most of us recognise that although we may not want to kill anyone, that may be an unavoidable outcome of defending our country.

Even in the controversial case of abortion, many conservative Christians accept that – although it is a terrible thing to have to do – there are cases where the very existence of the unborn child poses a clear and imminent threat to the life of the woman carrying the child, and removing the child at an early stage of gestation involves ending the life of that child. It’s the doctrine of double effect – you save life and prevent both mother and child from dying, but a consequence of this is that one of them dies. A more controversial example still for some Christians is the issue of capital punishment. Here, while we have a prima facie duty not to kill people, a person is deemed to have done something so terrible that they give up their right to life itself, and they are put to death.

None of these scenarios, of course, involves rejecting the right to life, since the right to life imposes only a prima facie duty. But it is still a duty, and the fact that there are a few rare cases where we can take life should not allow us to trivialise this right or duty. For that reason, abortion should be regarded as prima facie wrong (even if there could conceivably be isolated cases where it is permissible), and not merely wrong but such an abridgment of human rights that it ought not be permitted.

Similarly, because of the value of human life, most forms of euthanasia are likewise not permissible. I say “most forms” because there are some forms of euthanasia that are arguably not killing, or which are sufficiently indirect that they are not morally on par with killing (such as withdrawal of extraordinary means, or death as a double effect resulting from pain relief). Firstly then, I think that any party that has a permissive policy on abortion or euthanasia has a big black mark against it when it comes to being a party worth voting for. I know of only two parties in the election race who pass this hurdle, namely the two Christian parties: The Kiwi party and the Family Party.

[Support for Abortion is illiberal; any liberal who supports it is inconsistent. Don't agree? Then read our series and post a reasoned rebuttal.]

Free speech
The right to freedom of speech means that if I want to say it, and if I am able to say it, then I must be free to say it and the state should not prevent me from doing so. As with the right to life, this is a prima facie right, and there are limits on what I can and cannot say. Sellers are not allowed to mislead people about products and services they sell, for example. I am not allowed to defame somebody: Say things that are not true or reasonable to believe and which damage another person (for example, I cannot spread rumours that a local retailer is a paedophile in order to get people to come to my store instead). But the right to free speech means that it is wrong for the state to censor or inhibit the propagation of any point of view in society.

If I want to print and distribute fliers telling people who I think they should vote for, or if I want to rent billboard space to do the same thing – no strings attached, it is something I have a right to do. Of course, nobody has a duty to promote or protect my views, so another person can refuse to use her private property to promote my views (e.g. if I leave comments on her blog she may delete them, because it’s her blog), but that’s an issue of that person’s private property rights, and it doesn’t mean I no longer have a right to free speech. What’s more, free speech doesn’t come with extra conditions.

For example, the state can’t say “sure, you can voice your political opinion and attack our policies, but if you do then you must wear this big bullseye so that people can identify you in public,” or “OK, so tell people that you’re opposed to our regime, but you’ll have to attach this big yellow star to the front door of your house so that our goons know where to look for you.” That’s not free speech because it’s not free. All it would do is discourage people from expressing themselves via intimidation or fear of reprisal.

Generally speaking, free speech exists in New Zealand, and few parties pose any sort of threat to it. As far as I know, none of the parties listed in this blog entry would threaten free speech. I haven’t listed the Labour Party or the minor parties on the far left, as they tend to fail just about every single criterion I present here. Free speech is no exception for Labour, who are responsible for the “electoral finance act” that I discussed recently. The act in effect does the same thing as would a law that says you can have free speech as long as you paint a bulls-eye on the door of your family home. Check out my earlier blog entry to see why.

Property rights
People have certain rights over their own property. What they earn belongs to them, and it cannot be taken from them without due process and given to others. The government cannot commandeer land that you own for its own projects, and if it requires land you own, you must be compensated at market value. This has implications for taxation as well. Prima facie, the government cannot tax you at all. Only after good grounds have been given for obliging you to pay tax can the government take money from you, and it must be transparently accountable to you for what it does with that money, and continually justify the level of tax taken. Remember, “thou shalt not steal.”

In addition to what we might think of as basic human rights and freedoms, there are a few other important principles of government that have in common the pursuit of justice and/or the reduction of corruption by state interference.

Separation of powers / due process
By “separation of powers” I mean that Parliament, while it has the authority to make laws, has absolutely no authority to enforce those laws, and no role whatsoever in the judicial process. It will respect the decision of the courts, it will not commandeer the police to do its bidding, and it will not influence the likelihood of a person facing (or not facing) charges, among other things. The Labour government and its ministers have blatantly violated each of these principles as I have noted elsewhere.

Small government / non intervention
This is really the broad principle underlying many of the rights and principles I’ve outlined here. In a pluralistic society, we all have our own agendas. Some will get married, others will not, some are happy with one type of school or educational method, some prefer others, some people might like one insurance company, some prefer others, some people take fewer risks, and so end up having fewer accidents and less accident related expense, some people make foolish choices and end up disadvantaging themselves and so forth. You get the idea. Small government means that the government does not intrude into private life, and it lets people make their own choices and bear responsibility for the consequences of those choices. People will save money or waste money depending on the options they choose, they will have more or fewer accidents, they will spend more or less on education, and so forth. Likewise, the government might not like the values that parents instill in their children, but it is not the job of government to raise children, that is the role of parents. Likewise again, the government might not like the fact that a court reaches a certain decision, but it is not the job of the government to settle cases, that is the role of the courts.

In the political tradition that I am partial to, namely the Christian classical liberal tradition, the role of the state is limited by the law of nature. It should only do what the basic precepts of the law of nature (that is, minimal standards of justice and upright living) require of it, and beyond this, it usurps the role of the private sector.

Safety net for the poor
Why am I listing this last? Doesn’t the Bible say more about caring for the poor than it does about free trade or property rights? Yes it does. It also says more about worshipping God in song than it does about free speech, but that doesn’t mean we should only vote for a party that promises to create taxpayer funded hymn singing squads. The fact that something is encouraged in the Bible does not automatically mean that we are justified in saying that the Bible advocates it as a duty of the government. Just about every time the Bible says anything at all about caring for the poor, it is clearly speaking about the duty that we as people have, rather than describing government spending programmes. I’m also listing it last to deliberately contrast myself from some Christians who (as far as I can tell) seriously believe that social justice just is wealth redistribution to the poor. Those who think this are somewhat selective in their reading of the Bible. For some reason none of them ever seem to quote 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12:

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

That being said, there does need to be a safety net for those who fall into genuine hardship. People who are genuinely unable to earn a living (or who are demonstrably doing all that they can to obtain work) and who have no other means of support should be assisted for as long as is necessary. Although by no means a desirable state of affairs, it’s like the Proverb says, “people do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry.”

Far from being some sort of socialism, this has always been a part of a conservative or classical liberal outlook. John Locke gives his rationale for limited welfare in his treatise on government, book 1, paragraph 42:

But we know God hath not left one man so to the mercy of another, that he may starve him if he please: God, the Lord and Father of all, has given no one of his children such a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods; so that it cannot justly be denied him, when his pressing wants call for it: and therefore no man could ever have a just power over the life of another by right of property in land or possessions; since it would always be a sin, in any man of estate, to let his brother perish for want of affording him relief out of his plenty. As justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry, and the fair acquisitions of his ancestors descended to him; so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another’s plenty as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise.

Likewise in biblical law, allowance was made for those in genuine need to receive something from the surplus of those with plenty. See Leviticus 19:9-10 - “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.”

This has particular relevance here because it is not simply moral instruction but law, and therefore enforceable by the authorities.

What should be pretty obvious in all this is that having basic safety nets for those in genuine need has little (if anything) to do with enormous wealth redistribution programmes to equalise all middle class families and give them advantages over people with no children. One other reason for listing this criteria last is that it really serves no value as a means of distinguishing between political parties in this election. There is no party that stands any chance of being in Parliament that does not meet this criterion in some way. Most parties go well beyond a safety net, and end up pursuing admirable ends by immoral means.

So how do these parties measure up?

National
I won’t say much about National, other than to say that they have painted themselves into a political corner. In order to attract Labour voters, they have become as much like Labour as its own supporters will let it, which is quite a lot unfortunately. Think enormous government, duplicating Labour’s massive welfare programmes, shaving tiny amounts off tax for most people, and calling it a change. There’s no principled stance on matters of human life that I can see, and little to redeem the party apart from the fact that they could be worse (e.g. they could be Labour). It does, however, have two redeeming features (I said there’s little to redeem them, not nothing). One, they aren’t Labour, and two, Stephen Franks (one of the finest politicians in this country, and a former ACT MP).

United Future
Ditto for United Future, but add to the mix a leader (Peter Dunne) who will literally support any other party no matter how bad, as long as it gets him leverage as a minister and coalition power broker. This is the man who was happy to prop up the minority Labour Government in exchange for a ministerial portfolio.

The Kiwi Party
The Kiwi party presents a strong Christian image, opposing abortion and the legal manufacturing of same sex marriage, but they are a bit of a political Frankenstein – sometimes appearing to favour a socialist state (when it comes to, for example, spending taxpayer funds on pre-marriage counselling), sometimes appearing to favour a more limited state (opposing the so-called “anti-smacking bill” as a government intrusion into the home).

There’s a statist approach to employment (and effectively job cuts), advocating raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, which is a big nod to leftist voters, and then they’re back in the lower tax camp by advocating income splitting for couples. On the whole they certainly seem to advocate more of a limited government/personal responsibility stance than the current government (additional policies like tax rebates for private health insurance bear this out). So while I like them when it comes to a few specific issues, on the whole I just don’t see them as having a particular political vision or unifying set of principles, and they fail quite badly in some cases when it comes to the scope and power of the government. An improvement? Sure. Will I vote for them? No.

ACT
On the whole, the ACT party score very well in regard to the principles that I look for in government, as outlined here. It’s such a shame that they do so abysmally poor when it comes to issues of human life. As a party perceived as being fairly extreme (only because most New Zealand parties contain so many socialistic elements that any party that lacks them appears very different and therefore extreme), it attracts extreme supporters, and like Labour it has managed to capture the affections of some young voters very hostile to Christianity. There’s great potential in what the party quite self-consciously stands for; individual rights and responsibilities, personal liberty, strong policies on justice and other things, but the fly in the ointment – terrible policies that lack regard for the sanctity of life and a support base that contains some crazies – is pretty distracting.

The Family Party
Lastly there’s the youngest of the parties that have my interest, the Family Party. OK, least important things first: I hate their party name. It gives the unfortunate and misleading impression that they want to benefit families and forget everyone else. There are people who wouldn’t vote for a party with a name like that. Their policy statements reveal that their concern is much broader than this, so they should have a different name. But that aside, I like what I see.

They’re the second explicitly Christian party. They have what I think are some great policies on taxation. They advocate removing sales tax on necessities like food and gasoline. Freedom of choice in education is a priority, a welfare policy designed to get people away from welfare, a clearly pro-life stance on abortion, and policies across the board that as far as I can tell line up very well with the values that I outlined at the start of this post. So what’s the drawback? Why am I not coming out in full force telling everyone that this is who I will vote for? The answer lies in a fairly embarrassing pragmatism. In order for a party to get into parliament at all in New Zealand’s electoral system, they must either have one candidate who wins an electorate seat, or they must win at least 5% of the party vote, and I’m not sure that the Family party will do this. If I knew that the party I vote for would definitely get into parliament, I would vote for them in a second. As it is, I still might do so, but my mind hasn’t been made up.

Ask me who I’m not going to vote for, however, and I’m as clear as day (they aren’t listed here).

We have still not decided who we will give our party vote to so tonight's mission is to finally work out which party we are voting for. Our previous list of potentials has been whittled down to:

• ACT - have Sir Roger Douglas, NZ needs him right now, they are the second most correct and most consistent out of the lot on the limited government and basic civil liberties and they have this fantastic 20 point plan but their inconsistency on life issues lets them down.
  
• Libertarianz - are the most correct and most consistent out of the lot on the limited government and basic civil liberties but their inconsistency on the life issues lets them down, [UPDATE:] however, they are the only secular party who at least would remove public funding for state-sanctioned homicide, as Libertyscott states below in the comments section, "one clear point Libertarianz holds is that private health care means you wouldn't have to pay for other people's abortions."
  
• National - are not Labour so they have to be looked at seriously; if their policies were closer to their stated philosophy they would earn more admiration from us but they are still better than what we have and the ethical values of their people are closer to the Judeo Christian position than the other secular parties.
  
• The Family Party - Andy Moore called them the closest thing to a Christian version of ACT and I think he is right. They get things right on the life issues and fairly right on the limited government and civil liberties issues, certainly far better than the Kiwi Party or the Pacific Party and it turns out that the allegation they do not separate church and state is a falsehood promulgated by the Kiwi Party - definitely the best Christian option.

These are the four least nanny state parties that have the most going for them. Their success means a definite change of government and they are the closest fit to the biblical role of the state out of the lot - though all fall short.

We will not waste our vote. Votes for Christian parties or parties that will not cross the threshold have led to Labour continually, narrowly, winning elections because such votes are not counted. We will not contribute to this, so basically it will be ACT or National as the other two do not stand a chance.

At this stage we look like we will be voting differently but as we argue with each other that may change. Matt might see the light - well, I am still conflicted too truth be told. Not telling whose argument is whose but basically our wrestle goes like this.

A party vote for National is a vote for a change of government, you know you will bring in some social conservatives (horrid term that that is) and you might just help Stephen Franks make the list if he misses out in Wellington Central.

A party vote for ACT is still a vote for a change of government, you know you will bring in Roger Douglas and enhance the chances of NZ's economy surviving the downturn if the number of ACT MP's is decent and National needs them to form a government. A vote for ACT has the potential to pull National back to its roots and away from being Labour-Lite.

However, if there is a vote on a 'life' issue, ACT are more secularist and despite their principled ideology are inconsistent on life issues. As a Christian, can you in good conscience bring such people into parliament?

When you have no alternative, yes, as ought implies can.

But do you have no alternative? Is Labour-Lite really that bad when you consider the life issues as National are generally not consistent on them either?

First of all it was the over-excited motorists honking at anything blue.

Then I just went shopping, I wanted to buy myself some new shoes and take a break from being serious and deliver invites to our election gathering. My phone beeped.

A text from a stranger:

Politics is changing. This election keep the Government clean, and party
vote Green! Please 4wd. Authorised by Jon Field 73 Eden St, Wgtn. To unsub txt
bk NO

I wrote the following reply:

Don't spam my phone. I won't be voting for nanny state.

I got the following reply:

Aw shuks. I'm just helping swinging voters to come join the happy throng -
its never too late to take stock of our collective future.

"Helping" ???? How? by invading my phone? I responded:

No matter how much I swung as a voter, I would never support a party that
thinks the state can invade law abiding citizens lives.

I would love to know how I got on a Green party undecided swing voter list. Hmmm.

UPDATE: This question is now answered, the Green texter was my brother in law - I am so embarrassed I was so rude to him! Sorry Rich :-)

Then I came home and opened my easy vote pack and discovered we are in the Te Atatu electorate, we had assumed we were in Waitakere but with everything happening in our lives we hadn't checked. So now I have to frantically research the candidates.

Whilst Matt and I will not endorse a party or share who we give our party vote for I think most of our readers would know that Chris Carter, no friend of the Christian, was never going to get our electorate votes and would further not be surprised that we are likely to vote strategically for his closest opponent. That said, Tau Henare, his closest opponent still bears scrutiny as it still matters to us where his political compass is and he does not automatically get our vote - well he probably will as a cursory look and value your vote (not that we endorse their 'ends' focussed analysis or agree with all the criteria they deem anti-family) tells us that he is pretty suckful as a candidate but like Matt said who would you rather was fronting some bad piece of legislation, the slick, seasoned campaigner, nice-guy Carter or Tau?

Then I checked in on our blog and could not believe the vitriol in the comments section of Fisking Grant Robertson, so many anonymous's and the statements are so extreme they have to be people taking the piss, they cannot be for real!

The craziness is esculating!

Supporters of Labour Candidate for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson, have published this video to provide evidence that Stephen Franks, the National Candidate for the same electorate, is “homophobic.” I remain unconvinced; in fact, I suggest that a careful analysis of the contents show that, if anything, Robertson is the bigoted ideologue. Unlike Robertson’s supporters, I will endeavour to argue for my position.

The video opens citing Franks’ comments that he was tired of having to deal with “grumpy Christians and whiny gays;” the caption is put above the head of John Key and attributed to the National Party as a whole. This is clearly dishonest. Franks’ comments were made in a particular context; while he was on the select committee for the Civil Unions Act, he commented that he was sick of grumpy Christians and whiny gays appearing before the committee. To suggest from this that he is sick of gays and Christians in general is simply engage in inaccurate spin.

Moreover, to suggest that because Franks’ on one occasion, several years ago, was sick of them in a particular context means that it follows that the entire National party is sick of them in every context is a whopping non-sequitur. It is hard to take this kind of inference seriously except for the fact that many people actually appear to!

Turning to the video; Grant Robertson starts by responding to the arguments Stephen Franks gave against the Civil Unions Bill in parliament. After admitting that he has read the speech, Robertson does not provide any arguments against Franks’ reasons or offer any critique, he instead suggests that Franks’ arguments are “convenient” given the comments he made which “did not put the gay community in a positive light.”

Note what’s going on here, Robertson is suggesting that if a person utters comments that do not put the Gay community in a positive light, if such comments do not advance the PR agenda of homosexuals, then their argument can be written off. It apparently does not matter whether their arguments are well reasoned, sound or that the facts they cite may be true. The crucial consideration is whether everything they have stated is in the interests of the gay community.

If it is not then everything they say should be ignored and dismissed by members of parliament considering legislation. Apparently, the state should only listen to and consider the reasoning offered by those who advance the PR of the gay community.

This is not open minded tolerance, its close mindedness of the worst kind.

The other point about this opening comment on Robertson’s part is that it is clearly irrational. Robertson is responding to Franks’ arguments, not by showing there is anything mistaken about them but by insinuating he is really motivated by homophobia.

In other words, his response to a critique of government policy is to impugn the motives of the critic and attack his character. Grant suggests that Franks’ is homophobic but then immediately declines to mention or provide evidence of the charge despite the fact that he has put it out there. Moreover even if what Robertson claims of Franks were true, it actually does not address any of Franks’ arguments.

Even if people are motivated by hatred or fear in adopting a position, it does not follow that the position itself is mistaken or that the reasons they offered for its adoption were bad. If I, for example, were motivated by an irrational fear and hatred towards fundamentalists to publish books defending evolutionary theory that would not mean that evolutionary theory is based on an irrational fear of fundamentalism and that I had offered no reasons for this theory. The theory stands or falls on the evidence not the motives of its proponents. Hitler thought the world was round. Was he wrong because he was a monster?

Turning to the allegedly homophobic comments; Robertson cites Franks’ statement “I love my dog that does not mean I can marry him.” Some of Robertson’s supporters have claimed on the basis of this that Franks “compares civil unions to marrying your dog.” This way of interpreting Franks’ comments is of course easily turned into something homophobic, if Franks had actually suggested that a same-sex civil union is on par with marrying a dog, one could then suggest that he thinks that gays are like animals, and hence less than human with no civil rights.

The problem is that this is not what Franks’ said. He did not say that “civil unions are like marrying your dog” he said the fact that you love your dog does not mean you can marry it. In other words, he is stating that the mere presence of love is not enough to justify the state issuing a marriage licence.

As Franks himself clarified, he was not attacking civil unions per se, but the premise of one particular argument for civil unions; the premise that the state should recognise all loving relationships.

Now contrary to what Robertson and his supporters contend, there is in fact a world of difference between noting that one premise of one argument in favour of civil unions entails that one can marry one’s dog and the claim that all gays are dogs.

The reasoning of Robertson’s supporters seems to be this:

P. If one premise of one argument for P entails Q then P is analogous to Q.

But this is clearly false: the North American Man Boy Love Association has offered arguments for Gay rights which utilise premises that entail that paedophilia is a loving relationship between adult and child. Many gay people are aware of these arguments and reject them precisely because they have this implication. Does it follow that these gay people believe that all homosexuals are paedophiles? Of course not! They simply reject these particular arguments and ensure that those who defend ‘gay rights’ use other arguments that do not entail support for paedophilia. To suggest that anyone who rejected NAMBLA’s argument because of its absurd implications then believes that all gays are paedophiles is ridiculous.

Take another example, Grant Robertson supports abortion. Grant is also aware, I am sure, that one argument for abortion rights, proposed by Peter Singer, entails that infanticide is permissible. Does Grant admitting this problem exists with Singer’s argument mean that he thinks abortion is on par with infanticide and that he is ok with this? Clearly not. He simply concludes that this particular argument is flawed.

So contrary to Robertson’s supporters, Franks did not suggest either directly or by implication that “civil unions is like marrying your dog”.

Its interesting that when Franks’ points out that Robertson has confused a claim about a premise with a claim about a conclusion and has cited him out of context that the response is not an apology and retraction; instead Robertson’s supporters, boo, hiss, shout “shame on you” and continue to affirm the false claim Robertson makes against his opponent. No attempt is made to suggest the original allegation was inaccurate or apologise. These people apparently think that it is ok to accuse people of malicious intent without evidence or to back their claims up and that when the claims are refuted they simply maintain them anyway. Who is the bigot here? Not Franks.

Its worth noting that even if Franks’ had claimed that having “a civil union is like marrying your dog” it does not necessarily follow that this is offensive or “does not portray the gay community in a positive light.” It depends upon what respects Franks’ said they were alike. It is true, for example, that heterosexual relationships are like marrying ones dog in some respects as both, for example, occur on earth; both involve at least one human, both can take place in the 21st century, both can happen in the middle of the day etc. Of course in other respects they are quite different. Marrying a dog, for example, (if one consummated the union) violates the law of God whereas a heterosexual marriage does not. But the point is that whether saying they are alike is offensive depends on the way in which they are said to be alike.

Interestingly, even if one misrepresents Franks’ comments, it is clear that he only stated they were alike in that both were loving. Is this what Grant finds offensive? Apparently to say gay relationships are loving “does not portray the gay community in a positive light.” Would Robertson prefer that people said gay lovers hate each other?

Finally let me say some comments about Franks’ argument. While Franks refers to a person loving one’s dog, elsewhere he pointed out that a common premise utilised by defenders of the Civil Unions Act entailed that incestuous unions should be recognised by the State. In this he is absolutely correct; many people who defended the Bill did so on the grounds that:

(1) the government should not discriminate against any loving committed relationships;

The problem is that it is a fact that:

(2) incestuous and unions with multiple partners can be loving and committed;

However, [1] and [2] entail that:

[3] incestuous and multiple partner relationships should be recognised by the state.

Hence if one affirms [1], one is rationally committed to supporting incestuous marriages. Now despite howls and boos from Robertson’s supporters, it is difficult to see what is wrong with this inference. The argument form is clearly valid, it follows the form: all A’s are B, x is an A; therefore x is a B. To deny this form is to affirm that all things of a particular sort can have a property and also some can not, which is a contradiction. Robertson’s supporters may be suggesting that it is homophobic to not contradict oneself but I doubt they are that stupid.

Seeing the argument is valid, the objector needs to reject [1] or [2] as false. The whole point of the argument, however, is to show that [1] is false by showing the absurd conclusions it entails. Moreover, Robertson’s supporters in the You Tube clip clearly support [1] one of them asserts very loudly that something like [1] is true. So presumably their claim is that incestuous couples or polygamous couples never love each other, but that is clearly false. The only sensible thing then is to suppose they support [3], but then if that is the case, then why is it offensive to suggest that homosexual unions are like incestuous ones? They apparently see nothing wrong with incest.

The honest thing to do then would be to simply admit that this argument is a bad one and offer another one. But of course they do not. When an argument for civil unions is refuted, they resort to quoting out of context, character assassination and dogmatic assertions of the falsehood even when its mendacity had been shown.

It is then unwarrantedly claimed that Franks’ comment in one context applies to all times and places and are held in this absurd way by everyone in the National Party. Moreover, any other argument against their position is irrationally dismissed and ignored on the grounds that it does not further their political agenda to consider it. Apparently this is the type of activity that some Labour supporters consider open minded tolerance.

Matt (posted by Madeleine)

Te Atatu Pony Club's grounds share a boundary with Auckland's busy North Western Motorway. Last night Matt and Sheridan were up at the Pony Club helping to set up jumps for this weekend's One Day Event (ODE).

As Matt was one of the few parents who had turned up to help the club president asked him if he and Sherry would help her to paint out the graffitti tag that had appeared on the cross-country jump closest to the motorway.

They headed off with a can of paint and walked to the end of the grounds by the motorway only to discover they had brought white paint with them which wouldn't do. Not keen to walk all the way back to the clubhouse for coloured paint they spotted a freshly painted red and blue jump with two paint cans not that far away. There wasn't much left in either can so the President suggested they pour the little bit of the red into the blue and just paint the resulting colour onto the jump. Instead of purple the resulting colour was a dark blue - much better for covering tags than white.

They set to work and began painting the whole jump to make it seem like the tag was never there. At this point rush hour traffic was just starting to drop off so the motorway was still fairly busy. As the painting progressed they began getting toots and waves and yells and thumbs up from passing cars. A steady stream. Confused they kept painting. However, when they heard someone angrily yell "Labour" accompanied with the fingers they clicked. By the time they finished they were getting a constant stream of toots and waves from the passing traffic.

They went back to the clubhouse and told the parents who had arrived to pick up their kids and the other helpers and almost everyone laughed agreeably when one person joked you should have used the white paint to add an "N" to the jump because they were in Chris Carter’s electorate. There were one or two glares but the majority seemed, like the drivers, to be rather keen on the idea.

With each of us feeling pulled, guilt tripped, bribed, confused over not only who to vote for and how to decide Glenn does it again; read his analysis of the state of our country and where exactly we have gone wrong in our thinking.

Extract from New Zealand: Land of greed, envy and political stupidity (the election blog, part 2):

The New Zealand political environment is one of very strong statism and government intervention, wealth redistribution and disincentives for many people to work hard and try to get ahead. “Share the wealth” might sound like a nice idea, only in this case it’s not a case of someone saying “why don’t you share your wealth,” but rather a case of the state saying “I am going to share your wealth – with everybody else.”

There’s more to it than just this. The involvement of the state with our finances is part of the intervention into private lives, but it’s not the only form of such intervention. Marriage in New Zealand is now essentially a legal construct, and as such those who make the laws inevitable end up telling people what does and does not count as marriage. We’ve recently been told (by lawmakers) that we must – regardless of our own views on the matter) treat same sex couples as having a relationship that is the same as a married relationship, if they have a civil union. Now, you might personally think that’s fine. The point here is that it wouldn’t be an issue if the state didn’t own marriage. If marriage was a private affair, perhaps accompanied by a private contract, there would be no “same sex marriage” controversy. Let churches marry who they are prepared to marry, and let anyone have a public gathering to celebrate what they will. But as soon as the state gets involved and starts bestowing its blessing, they have started forcing other people to endorse forms of relationships.

Take another example: The notorious (at least in new Zealand) “anti-smacking” law. Assault is a crime in New Zealand, however there have always been exceptions – scenarios where you are permitted to use force against other people (within reason). You can use reasonable force in self defense, the captain of a ship can use reasonable force to subdue and contain a passenger who poses a risk to other passengers, and up until recently, a parent could use reasonable force in the course of disciplining a child. The has always said that the force must be reasonable, so you couldn’t injure your child, for example. But you could use force – for example – to place your child in confinement (which would normally be illegal – I can’t confine another person under normal circumstances), or to smack your child (again, with the proviso that the force is reasonable and not harmful), or any other kind of force along those lines. However, section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allowed for this exception in the case of disciplining children, has now been repealed. The state can use force against you if you need correction, but you cannot use force against a child if that child needs correction. As has frequently been noted, this as the unambiguous consequence that any person who uses any amount of force on a child for any reason is a criminal. If you place your child in “time out” when he doesn’t want to be there – you’ve commit a crime, and a crime for which there is literally no legal defense. If you did this and the police laid charges, you’d be guilty, no matter what the circumstances, because the law has been changed so that absolutely no amount or type of force can be considered reasonable. When challenged with this fact, the member of parliament who proposed this law change, Sue Bradford, explained that yes, it’s true that nearly all parents would technically become criminals, but we should trust the police to use discretion. It’s sometimes hard to convict people who physically abuse children, she explained, so this way everyone is prosecutable, meaning that the genuine abusers can be successfully prosecuted without hindrance like pesky defences of “reasonable force.” Think I’m exaggerating? Not even close. I was physically present (and almost physically sick) at Bradford’s public meeting here in Dunedin when she happily explained this.

Another example is the Electoral Finance Act, which I discussed recently here. This is, in effect, an attack on the free speech of political spokespeople who do not wish their personal address to be provided to the new Zealand public.

Another example is Labour’s re-write of the Immigration Act. The new version gives immigration personnel (not even police officers) powers to invade private property, seize belongings and detain people, without the need of a warrant. Oh, and the detainees do not have to be given the specifics of why they are being detained, either.

Then of course there was the notorious Seabed and foreshore Act. The government, one side of a dispute over ownership and governance of parts of New Zealand coastline, decided by legislation that the dispute could never be taken to court, and it declared by fiat that the state owned all of the disputed pieces of land. Case closed. No compensation required (oh, and no due process either).

And then there’s the general all-powerful thuggish behaviour of Labour’s members of parliament over their last few terms of government, including the Prime minister herself, to whom ordinary laws and principles of conduct simply don’t apply – whether it’s the leaked fabrications she used to end the career of the Police Commissioner, the artwork she falsely signed for an auction, the speeding that she apparently required of her driver to get to a rugby game on time – and then let him take the fall for it, as well as the more general reputation she has earned for being a controlling bully who allows no dissent (or free thought). Then there are the cabinet ministers (note: not just members of parliament but cabinet ministers) who, the police agreed, had prima facie cases to answer for assault, but against whom the police, for some reason, chose not to press charges. And then there was the cabinet minister who abused police power by literally calling them up to go and advise a citizen of a request to pay damages (i.e. a civil matter, and even before a civil suit had been filed). The Prime Minister did literally nothing about any of this. There was also the case where an application to build a marina in Whangamata was approved by the environment court, after much effort and expense by the applicants. But then cabinet minister Chris Carter overturned the decision. Again, no due process, no separation between the legislature and the courts, just heavy handed intervention to overthrow the normal process because a government minister didn’t like the outcome of the court.

There’s little doubt that Clark has had a clear vision for the type of society she wishes to engineer. The society towards which the policies of Clark’s Labour government are geared is a society that eschews traditional morality, sees solo parenting as normal and provides financial support to make it no more difficult than two parent parenting, a society where “sexual norms” is a judgemental term and same-sex unions are absolutely no different from traditional marriage between a man and woman, where authority and to some extent, responsibility, are transferred out of the family home into into the hands of the state (it is the state’s role to discipline, educate, or use force to punish, etc), a society where it is fundamentally the role of the state to see that your family is provided for, a society where healthcare and educational choices are made by the state and funded by the taxpayer whether they use those options or not, a society where the type of free expression that finds acceptance is that which upholds all these norms, and expression that call into question the moral acceptability of these things is frowned on, a society where the idea of promiscuity as something abnormal or unhealthy is itself seen as something abnormal, unhealthy and oppressive, a society where the defence of all these values is described as tolerance, and the defence of different values is presented as intolerance. Of great importance, amidst all this, is that the wise, benevolent state faces no opposition to its decisions, and if there is ever public opposition to its intentions (as was the case with the Civil Unions Bill and the Anti Smacking Bill), these complications are simply ignored.

Why, exactly, would a Christian vote for a government like this? I’ve asked a few, and I think that, unfortunately, the reason some Christians might vote for a party like this is that “if they become the next government, they will give me X.” What about their impact on laws relating to marriage, or prostitution, or their immoral solutions to land disputes, or their threat to free speech, or their thuggish and unaccountable influence over civil servants, or their disregard for human rights, whether in its treatment of immigrants or in other cases (such as their rejection of the freedom of association for students)? Don’t any of these give my fellow Christians pause before voting them back into power? “They’ve going to give me X.” Whether that X is a cash payout via some sort of state welfare, or a bonus for people working in the state sector, or something else, how in the world could anyone be so short sighted as to snap at a cash carrot and to ignore the wider picture of what is happening?

One answer has to do with the basic human condition: I’m greedy and envious. If the government gives me money, then regardless of whether I deserve it, my first inclination is to take it and enjoy it. Other people make much more money than I do, so why shouldn’t I be able to get my snout to the trough as well, right? And if the way to get this present is to vote for a particular party, then that party will get my vote.

There are less cynical ways of looking at welfare payouts, of course. Perhaps the Christian voter might think that the state is being kind to the poor by having these programmes (which should, hopefully, make them wonder why they payouts are made to families that earn salaries over $60,000). Maybe they believe that “social justice” just means distributing wealth so that nobody ends up at the bottom of the heap. I’ll say more about this in my next post, but my experience tells me that the main reason some Christians have for voting for Labour is that Labour will give them something, and they don’t want to lose it.

Here’s a question I put to any who think this way: Aside from the fact that you like getting free money, what would be wrong with you not getting that free money? Now I know – when you write conversations yourself you get to determine the outcome, but look at it this way:

Jerry: Hey Perry, who are you voting for?

Perry: I’m voting for Labour.

Jerry: Really? Wow. I wouldn’t have seen that coming. You’re a Christian, right?

Perry: Yes – what does that have to do with anything?

Jerry: Everything, I would have thought. I mean Labour is totally pro-abortion rights, they created same-sex marriage in this country, they made parents into criminals, they forced people to publish their address when they make political comment, they ride roughshod over human rights, they take incredible amounts of tax, they-

Perry: Woah, woah, slow down!

Jerry: Well, you do realise that Labour did all those things, right?

Perry: Well, maybe. I’m not sure. But still… won’t that other party take away the money Labour is giving us? And I work in the state sector, I mean, my future there is more secure with Labour, right?

Jerry: You’ve got to be kidding me.

Perry: What?

Jerry: Do you really think that your personal finances and security in a government job is more important than matters of right and wrong?

Perry: No, no of course not. It’s not just about me. What about all those other families out there? They get family assistance from the government too!

Jerry: And you point is?

Perry: Well isn’t it obvious? Getting money from the government makes it easier for them to get by, so of course I want to vote for a party that will keep giving them that money.

Jerry: Well firstly, pretty much every party is going to give them that money. It would be political suicide not to now that they’re already getting it. But there’s a much more important question here.

Perry: And what’s that?

Jerry: Should the government take my money and give it to you?

Perry: Oh come on, let’s not make it personal….

Jerry: OK fine – should the government take my cousin Bob’s money and give it to you?

Perry: Well it helps the families who get it, right?

Jerry: Oh, so if it helps families then the government can do it?

Perry: Well, I guess. The government is here to help us.

Jerry: Let’s see where that takes us. How would you feel if you worked hard to save up and buy a car, and then some agents from the government burst into your garage tonight and stole it, and gave it to my cousin Bob.

Perry: Come on, that’s ridiculous. Nobody is saying that the government should be allowed to do that.

Jerry: Well Perry, the thing is, Bob can’t afford a car, and having a car would really help his family. He could take them on holiday, and his wife could take them to soccer practice. Do you have any idea how handy a car is in today’s world for a family, Perry?

Perry: But the fact that they would find it helpful doesn’t give someone the right to just take it from me and give it to them! I worked to buy that car. I earned it!

Jerry: So what? Remember, it helps families. I thought you said a second ago that the government can do something if it helps families. In fact while we’re at it, some families struggle to pay for good healthy food. I hope you don’t mind if your local MP comes and raids your fridge for some food for them.

Perry: This is getting silly. OK, the government can’t do just anything because it helps families.

Jerry: Why not?

Perry: Because that stuff is mine! That wouldn’t be just!

Jerry: Just?

Perry: Right. Taking my car or my food would be unjust!

Jerry: That’s interesting Perry. Last time I heard, you were all in favour of this thing you call “social justice.” Am I right?

Perry: You bet! As a Christian, issues of social justice are so crucial to me.

Jerry: I see. So what are some of the fundamental issues of social justice?

Perry: Well probably the biggest one is our attitude to the poor. We should share the vast wealth of society with them, redistribute those resources to see that nobody misses out.

Jerry: OK, so why can’ the government redistribute your car and your food?

Perry: Like I said, that’s unj- [the penny drops]

Jerry: Unjust?

Perry:… yeah. Unjust.

Jerry: I think we need to take a big step back here. I’m all in favour of me sharing my wealth or you sharing your wealth. But what do we normally call someone who takes it upon himself to share other people’s wealth?

Perry: Yeah, yeah, a thief, I know. But look, you can’t say that just because it would be wrong for an individual person, it would also be wrong for the government. Governments can do all sorts of things that an individual can’t do. They can make laws, they can change taxes, heck they can even declare war!

Jerry: OK, now we’re really getting to the heart of it. What can the government do, and what can’t it do? What’s it’s job in the first place? There’s no way we can even begin to ask if it’s all right for the government to take my money and give it to you if we don’t even know what the role of the state is in the first place. Is it the government’s job to redistribute wealth at all? Exactly what rights do I have to the money I earn and the property I possess? How much authority does the government rightly have?

Perry: There you go, getting all academic. Why doesn’t anyone just think of the children….

Perry is a moron. Not in every way, of course, but when it comes to voting and politics, he’s pretty dim. That’s not measured by who he wants to vote for, don’t get me wrong. There are politically smart people who will vote for Labour. They are politically smart because they realise what they are doing: They are giving their support to a particular vision of the role of the government in society. When they debate politics, they realise that they are not debating individual policies, they are really involved in a clash of ideologies: Different political philosophies altogether. Two people might both support the same policy, but on the basis of very different political outlooks. Take the civil unions act that created a kind of same-sex marriage here in New Zealand. One person might support it because they firmly believe that it is the role of state to create by law all the formal types of relationships that adults enter into because they support a big government statist ideology, and if all relationships are covered by law, they can be regulated. Another person might support it in the (mistaken, I think) belief that this law generates more liberty and gets the government out of the lives of consenting adults.

What grates me horribly, however, is the fact that so many Christians (like so many people in general) don’t even ask the big questions. Questions of principle like “should the government be taking and redistributing people’s earned money in this way – is that its job?” are replaced with much more selfish questions like “how much will I get,” or “how will this benefit my profession,” or even more benevolent sounding questions like “what will they give to families,” and people who dissent are not challenged intellectually on whether or not their political philosophy make sense, rather they are targeted with guilt trips like “but you’d be taking [taxpayers'] money away from ________ [insert some group here].” Never mind asking if the government should be giving them other peoples’ money at all, or if the government should be doing anything to benefit those in your profession. What about those not in your profession, or those from whom the money would be taken to give to you?

Let me put some flesh on the bones: I know a person (nobody who would be reading this blog) who is a Catholic believer, who would vote for a pro-abortion rights pro same-sex-marriage party on the grounds that his taxpayer funded job would be less likely to get funding if another party came to power. I have known Christians – high profile ones at that – who have stood up in public and said “when you cast your vote, just ask one thing: What are they going to do for _______,” and he then named the Christian institution that employed him. In short, Christians get tangled up in some pretty ugly political messes, supporting parties – some of them self consciously Christian parties – that are struggling to impress people by how much they are going to give people or do for them, and they are not once engaging in high-level discussion about why anyone should care that those parties are going to do those things. “He says he’ll get the government to promote heterosexual marriage in law! I’ll vote for him!” Or “they want to give cash payouts to married couples who stay together! He gets my vote!” Not “he consistently advances policies on the basis of a good understanding of private property rights,” or “He really understands the role of the state and the limits of its authority.”

A post by Glenn caught my eye the other day and I have not been able to stop thinking about it as despite knowing that Glenn knows what he is talking about in this field, I just am struggling to believe his numbers. It really is proof-positive of the socialist extent of Labour's policies in practice and should serve as a warning to anyone tempted to vote Labour because they think the criticims levelled at Labour's attempts to turn as many working people into beneficiaries dependant on the state as possible are exaggerated.

I have reproduced some of it below as it warrants further exposure.

Extract from New Zealand: Land of greed, envy and political stupidity (the election blog, part 1)

Wealth re-distribution is at an almost unbelievable level at present. Take a family with one income earner. At current taxation levels, with an annual income of $40,000, that income earner will pay $7770.00 in PAYE (“pay as you earn”). This includes income tax plus 1.4% ACC (socialised accident compensation insurance). On the whole, that’s about 19.43%. If the earner works more hours or gets a more skilled job that pays more and the income is $70,000, the total PAYE is $18,090. That’s about 25.84%. It gets worse if you earn more than that.

But it does not end there. Let’s add this to the mix: This family has four children below the age of 12. This means that this family will qualify for state welfare for those children. Use the calculators at www.workingforfamilies.govt.nz to check the figures for yourselves. Let’s imagine that there are two families with one earner in each, one earning 40K and the other earning 70K. I’ll be taking into account the payments received from the “working for families” welfare scheme as well as the accommodation supplement each of these families will qualify for. I’ve arbitrarily hypothesised that these two different families live in the same city that I live in, and pay the same amount of rent that my family pays. Taking all of the above into account, here is the weekly combined income from all sources – after tax – for these two families.

Family 1, earning $40,000:
Total after tax weekly income (including welfare payments) of $1018.27
This family will pay $7770 in PAYE and receive $19,916 in state welfare. No, that is not a typo. Nineteen thousand, nine hundred and sixteen dollars of untaxed welfare payments.

Family 2, earning $70,000:
Total after tax income of $1208.27
This family will pay $18,090 in PAYE and receive $10,920 in state welfare.

Take a few moments to take this in: Family 2 earns $576.92 more than family 1 each week. For their extra effort or skill, they end up just $190 better off each week.

The level of wealth re-distribution to minimise the difference in income between these two families is staggering. And yet, each of these families is a recipient of a sizable chunk of the re-distributed wealth of others. The first family effectively pays no tax at all and then receives a further cash bonus of $12,146. But even the higher earning family still receives well over half of the earner’s PAYE payments back.

Who are the benefactors here? The benefactors are those without children who are trying to get by on $30,000 per year and not receiving a penny from working for families (but still qualifying for an accommodation supplement of about $60 per week). The other benefactors are those who receive none of these taxpayer funded handouts but who fund a huge proportion of them: those who contribute more tax because they earn more.

Essentially, the financial landscape this creates is one where a family on a low to medium income with several children has little incentive to increase their salary/wages beyond around $36,000 (the level at which state handouts start to decrease). Even if they had a salary of $70,000, the difference in financial positions would not reflect this increase in earnings.

That’s what I’m talking about when I talk about statism and wealth redistribution. It’s not just rhetoric without substance. It’s a real system that demonstrably penalises the high achievers, and for everyone else it serves as the great equaliser, making it seem like nobody’s earning more than anyone else. When everyone gets ahead – nobody gets ahead, nor is there any incentive to do so.