I recently got back from a holiday break in Bali. It was great: nice people, excellent weather and a new cultural experience.
Also, nobody blew me up.
What there isn't at the moment is very many tourists - largely because Australia and New Zealand recommend against non-essential travel. Other countries don't do this, the UK recommends exercising caution. Since I'm British and in any case consider a beach holiday to be "essential travel", then I reckoned I was ok.
I do think the travel advice thing is bad. It hurts a lot of people who can least afford it. Anywhere outside an active war zone, one is far more at risk from traffic accidents than terrerism.
I reckon the travel advice for everywhere should be something like the following:
Abroad isn't like NZ (or Australia, etc). Bad things might happen. They probably won't though. We don't provide a nanny service for travelling Kiwis (..etc) - if things turn bad, you're on your own. Having said that, almost all people have an enjoyable and enriching time overseas. Have a good trip!
Monday, July 31, 2006
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Fiat advertisement and "All Blacks" Haka
Offensively amusing?
Graham Henry, the manager of the Ford Steinlager Adidas All Blacks, was on the telly tonight complaining about the awful Italians commercially exploiting the "Ka Mate" Haka. Which came out of copyright in 1899 (50 years after Te Rauparaha's death).
I think the iwi is on slightly better ground that the AB's, morally, if not legally. But if they have a complaint about culturally disrespectful advertising, the Italian people could have one with the "don't toucha the hair" Sky ad - depicting Italians as mafiosi. Come to that, the Germans might have an issue with Steinlager using the German language to market one of NZ's nastier beers.
And have you noticed the Ford/All Blacks ad - doesn't the tune remind you of Chumbawumba's 1997 hit Tubthumping?
Monday, July 03, 2006
Ben Elton's not just boring because he's turned Tory
Boring Ben
There's an interview with Ben Elton (not online as far as I can see) in the Herald on Sunday.
It covers, as you might expect, the criticism that Elton has "sold out" and become unfunny.
I think he isn't funny any more, not just because of his new-found Tory politics, but also because he's become very, very stale. Comedians have a sell by date, as do rock bands (take REM for instance: way back in 1980, they were cool as, nowadays, they're grannies music). And whilst rock bands can get away with a lot if they maintain a decent obscurity and keep playing the same stuff (like Iggy Pop, or George Clinton), comedians have to keep producing new material. And Elton's new material isn't any good.
He also came up with the lamest excuse for his political turnaround from left-wing firebrand to sycophantic royalist: "with a soft liberal government there isn't anything to get angry about" (paraphrased). I'm sorry:
- Thatcher refrained from invading anywhere except the Falklands (and pretty much all of the Falklanders favoured the re-invasion)
- Thatcher never gave state schools away to religious wierdos to run
- Despite them repeatedly (not to mention understandably) trying to kill her, Thatcher avoided locking up IRA members without at least a semblance of a trial
- After totally losing the confidence of her party, Thatcher at least had the good grace to resign
Monday, June 19, 2006
Prejudice and property?
According to this Herald story (and I can't find anything on the Green party site, so it may be a misrepresentation), the Green leader, Russel Norman, is calling for (further) restrictions on foreigners buying NZ property in an effort to limit house price rises.
To me this smacks of racism, and I don't think it fits well in the policy of a progressive party.
I don't believe non-resident foreigners are a major factor in the NZ housing market, except maybe in a few places like Herne Bay or Queenstown. Returning Kiwis and new immigrants with pounds/euros/dollars to spend might be, but I can't believe the Greens want to stop permanent residents owning houses?
I'd suggest the following non-discriminatory measures that would work much better in controlling house price inflation:
- Just as the Reserve Bank has a target for general inflation, set a similar target for house price inflation and use mostly fiscal measures to achieve it. I'd suggest 2% under general inflation for the next five years.
- Introduce GST on larger mortgage payments (e.g. a mortgage over $300k).
- Introduce capital gains tax on house sales over say 500k (with an indexing allowance).
- Introduce a wealth tax on fortunes over, for instance, $2mln. Making this fall on any property in NZ would ensure that any "wealthy foreigners" would be making a fair contribution to the country.
All the above measures could be adjusted to achieve the inflation target (and abated to control a house price crash). The revenue could be used to reduce income tax and/or GST, helping ordinary people afford houses. They'd also help address the massive imbalance between taxes on capital and taxes on income in NZ (why is it that if I earn $80,000 working I pay 39% tax, while if I make the same amount of money speculating in property, I pay *no* tax).
To me this smacks of racism, and I don't think it fits well in the policy of a progressive party.
I don't believe non-resident foreigners are a major factor in the NZ housing market, except maybe in a few places like Herne Bay or Queenstown. Returning Kiwis and new immigrants with pounds/euros/dollars to spend might be, but I can't believe the Greens want to stop permanent residents owning houses?
I'd suggest the following non-discriminatory measures that would work much better in controlling house price inflation:
- Just as the Reserve Bank has a target for general inflation, set a similar target for house price inflation and use mostly fiscal measures to achieve it. I'd suggest 2% under general inflation for the next five years.
- Introduce GST on larger mortgage payments (e.g. a mortgage over $300k).
- Introduce capital gains tax on house sales over say 500k (with an indexing allowance).
- Introduce a wealth tax on fortunes over, for instance, $2mln. Making this fall on any property in NZ would ensure that any "wealthy foreigners" would be making a fair contribution to the country.
All the above measures could be adjusted to achieve the inflation target (and abated to control a house price crash). The revenue could be used to reduce income tax and/or GST, helping ordinary people afford houses. They'd also help address the massive imbalance between taxes on capital and taxes on income in NZ (why is it that if I earn $80,000 working I pay 39% tax, while if I make the same amount of money speculating in property, I pay *no* tax).
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Citizens or Serfs
This month's edition of Prospect magazine has an article by its editor, David Goodhart, setting out his views on the nature of "citizenship" in modern (British) society. I thought it worthy of comment as it shows how far Blairism has diverged from the internationalist and liberal ideas that Labour began with.
To start with, the article shows incredible causistry in trying to argue that discrimination against non-European peoples is in some way not a form of racism. That there is a unfortunate practical need for some form of immigration control I do not dispute - that it is in some way a worthy expression of "Liberal Realism" I utterly disagree with.
Goodhart then constructs a model of citizenship suitable for a Blairite society.
It states as amongst the requirements of citizenship:
This negates democracy, as it requires that certain aspects of the nation's current arrangement are to be "accepted" as beyond disagreement. This is rather reminiscent of pre-Victorian Britain, where everyone was required to adhere to the state religion as practiced by the monarch - Jews, for instance, being banned from public office unless they converted to Christianity.
The author goes on to discuss the "duties" of citizenship. This is a communitarian idea that has become popular in Blairite circles over the last few years. The problem with this idea is that it directly conflicts with the concept of a democracy bound by laws. In such a political system, the duties of everyone, whether citizen or visitor, are limited to one - they must obey the law or face the consequences. Current British law imposes very few legal obligations that differentiate by citizenship: mostly it is one's presence or habitual residence in the country that determine an obligation to comply with national law.
As if to remedy this, Goodhart proposes that citizenship be bolstered by obligations and ceremonial. This ranges from a civil birth ceremony to the promotion of ID cards as a badge (I prefer the word "brand") of belonging. He even brings up the old concept of conscription - arguing for a "national volunteering scheme for school-leavers". (Since there are numerous such schemes already, I assume that "volunteering" is a euphemism).
These measures are not a mark of democratic citizenship as we have come to know it. It is rather more reminiscent of the system that preceeded liberal democracy - serfdom. Under this system the people of the nation were subject to the arbitrary requirements of the state for labour and military service and were expected to comply with the forms of religious and other thought required by the state. In a similar fashion to Goodhart's "contract" the state then attempted to protect the serfs from Mongol hordes and the like. The Blair project appears to want to revive this - with perpetual "centre-right" governments and local councils replacing kings and barons in the feudal structure.
To start with, the article shows incredible causistry in trying to argue that discrimination against non-European peoples is in some way not a form of racism. That there is a unfortunate practical need for some form of immigration control I do not dispute - that it is in some way a worthy expression of "Liberal Realism" I utterly disagree with.
Goodhart then constructs a model of citizenship suitable for a Blairite society.
It states as amongst the requirements of citizenship:
"acceptance of the rule of law and the authority of the state and its institutions; agreement to play by the economic and welfare rules and to accept national norms on such things as the place of religion, free speech and women's equality"
This negates democracy, as it requires that certain aspects of the nation's current arrangement are to be "accepted" as beyond disagreement. This is rather reminiscent of pre-Victorian Britain, where everyone was required to adhere to the state religion as practiced by the monarch - Jews, for instance, being banned from public office unless they converted to Christianity.
The author goes on to discuss the "duties" of citizenship. This is a communitarian idea that has become popular in Blairite circles over the last few years. The problem with this idea is that it directly conflicts with the concept of a democracy bound by laws. In such a political system, the duties of everyone, whether citizen or visitor, are limited to one - they must obey the law or face the consequences. Current British law imposes very few legal obligations that differentiate by citizenship: mostly it is one's presence or habitual residence in the country that determine an obligation to comply with national law.
As if to remedy this, Goodhart proposes that citizenship be bolstered by obligations and ceremonial. This ranges from a civil birth ceremony to the promotion of ID cards as a badge (I prefer the word "brand") of belonging. He even brings up the old concept of conscription - arguing for a "national volunteering scheme for school-leavers". (Since there are numerous such schemes already, I assume that "volunteering" is a euphemism).
These measures are not a mark of democratic citizenship as we have come to know it. It is rather more reminiscent of the system that preceeded liberal democracy - serfdom. Under this system the people of the nation were subject to the arbitrary requirements of the state for labour and military service and were expected to comply with the forms of religious and other thought required by the state. In a similar fashion to Goodhart's "contract" the state then attempted to protect the serfs from Mongol hordes and the like. The Blair project appears to want to revive this - with perpetual "centre-right" governments and local councils replacing kings and barons in the feudal structure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
