NZ – Kiwi Polemicist – You are onto it

Up on Ration Shed; with thanks to our Kiwi Polemicist KP – Take note Go https://rationshed.wordpress.com/ration-shed-authors-comments   ·      Communique http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationshed ·      BLOG https://rationshed.wordpress.com  Onward – Jim “““““““““ Kiwi Polemicist

 

• Helen Clark gets UN job Posted: 28 Mar 2009 12:37 AM PDT   The comments button is at the bottom right of this post. Herr Helen has got the job and will now be the head of the UN Development Programme. This is from the UNDP website: UNDP is the UN’s global development network, advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We are on the ground in 166 countries, supporting their own solutions to development challenges and developing national and local capacities that will help them achieve human development and the Millennium Development Goals. Our work is concentrated on four main focus areas: * Democratic Governance * Poverty Reduction and Achievement of the MDGs [Millenium Development Goals] * Crisis Prevention and Recovery * Environment and Energy for Sustainable Development As I said in my earlier post, Helen doesn’t know the first thing about democratic governance so she is clearly unqualified for the job. The UNDP is in for a real shock, because they have no idea what Helen looks like. Here’s a screen shot from their website ↓ If a picture says a thousand words then this photo is a thousand-word lie. It’s her 2005 campaign photo, which in an earlier post I compared with the real thing. Mind you, it’s closer to the truth than the 2008 campaign photo. I’m sure that Helen will be in hog heaven at the UN, with a bottomless taxpayer-funded trough to feed from an ivory tower to proclaim to the proletariat from. A highly placed source has sent me a copy of what will be Helen’s first press release as head of the UNDP: “If the peasants cannot eat bread then let them eat cake”.   What do you think about Helen getting this job and using fake photos? ~~~~~~~~~~ Tagged: classical liberalism, helen clark, new zealand, Politics, un, undp, united nations, united nations development programme

• Auckland to get a single city council Posted: 27 Mar 2009 08:02 PM PDT   The comments button is at the bottom right of this post. Technically my title is incorrect: the Royal Commission has recommended that Auckland get a single council, the so-called “supercity”. Of course they did: the Commission is bound to consist of Socialists rather than people like myself. The government has gone away to think about it and I’m assuming that Aucklanders will get a single council, irrespective of whether or not they want it. I’m not aware of any public consultation on this matter apart from the Royal Commission, and I believe that something this big should be subject to a binding referendum. But the government knows best so Aucklanders will have to bend over and take their medicine. The Royal Commission says that a single council will save $113m, but I’m extremely sceptical about that. The bigger a bureaucracy is, the more inefficient it is and the more floorboards there are for money to fall between. Basically Auckland will get 23 councillors, a mayor, and six toothless, penniless local councils for decorative purposes. Two of those 23 councillors will be voted in by Maori, and one will be appointed by Maori – more reverse racism. Then there’s this nappy gem from the idiots in the ivory towers: Penny Webster, Mayor of the Rodney District in the north of Auckland, was unhappy at the plan to remove Orewa and Whangaparaoa from the Rodney local council area and making it part of the Waitemata urban area. “Most of our people from there see themselves as part of the Hibiscus Coast or Rodney,” she told NZPA. “They don’t see themselves as Aucklanders.” Source Anybody with half a brain knows that Orewa and Whangaparoa – very much to the north of Auckland – have little in common with Waitemata, which is the western portion of Auckland. So what’s the real agenda behind all this? Three things: power, control, and subjugation. The mayor will have a lot more power, and 24 people will control the daily lives of 1.3 million citizens. Even Mike Lee of the Auckland Regional Council, who is in favour of having a single council, describes this this as “centralisation of power” and has concerns about “democratic representation”. A single council with more power will attract councillors more like central government politicians and less like those that currently inhabit council chambers. It will be much harder for individuals to approach councillors, and councillors will have less concern about giving the finger to individuals because those individuals will be a single fish in a big ocean, rather than a single fish in a large lake as they are now. In other words, the voice of an individual will count for less when 24 rulers are chosen by 1.3 million people. A single council will also reduce the choices available to individuals. Presently Aucklanders have the option of changing suburbs if they don’t like a council’s rules about keeping chickens or altering houses, but with a single option that choice will be removed because it will be one rule for all (shades of Communist central planning). Furthermore, as I described above, it will be harder to get those rules changed. Just look at how hard it is to get central government to alter ridiculous rules that interfere with the lives of individuals: that’s what Auckland is headed for. But wait, there’s more: the Royal Commission also wants the new council to get involved in social issues, addressing inequalities within the region (note the Socialist/Marxist language): “Auckland does poorly on many indicators of social wellbeing. The extent of deprivation is significant, and it equates to lost potential.” […] “The inequalities within the region are significant and unacceptable,” it says. “The new governance structure must enable these inequalities to be addressed if Auckland is to become a leading Asia-Pacific city.” […] It says the region’s four “critical social issues” are: Helping all children get the best start in life. Improving the transition of young people from school to work, further education or training. Improving public transport, particularly to disadvantaged communities. Improving the quality and affordability of housing. Source So the council won’t just be looking after roads and rubbish, it’ll be the junior Nanny State. I’m all for reducing bureaucracy, but a single council isn’t the way to go about it. Democracy means “government by the people” and there’s a common myth that says we have it: a single council will only take Auckland further away from democracy and put more power in the hands of second-tier slave masters. What do you think about the plan of having a single council for Auckland? Click here to see Brian Rudman’s opinion. ~~~~~~~~~~ Tagged: auckland city council, auckland regional council, city council, classical liberalism, local government, mike lee, nanny state, new zealand, Politics, rodney hide, supercity

• Government dropping DPB work rule Posted: 27 Mar 2009 06:27 PM PDT   The comments button is at the bottom right of this post. The National government had planned to get beneficiaries (welfare recipients) on the Domestic Purposes Benefit to work part time when their youngest child turned six. In earlier posts I said that this idea would backfire and it placed homeschooling beneficiaries in grave danger of having to send their children to the state brainwashing camps called state schools. Now the government has dropped the plan, for a daft reason: …yesterday Social Development Minister Paula Bennett confirmed it was on the backburner because people were being made redundant and jobs were in short supply. I believe that this is a good move, for two reasons: § as I said in my earlier post, beneficiaries would have just had more children to to avoid the work rule, resulting in more fatherless children, more life-long problems for those children, more crime, more costs for taxpayers, and more multigenerational welfare dependency § those beneficiaries who wish to homeschool will be free to do so. Not only will those children be free of state indoctrination, but it is reasonable to assume that the sort of parents willing to do the hard yards of homeschooling are less likely to raise future beneficiaries Why do I agree with this move when I believe that the state should not provide welfare? Because the DPB work rule would have simply increased the number of people dependent on welfare: dropping the rule is the lesser of the evils. Related posts: • Paula Bennett claims ownership of all New Zealand children • A biblical perspective on home schooling and state schooling What do you think about the dropping of the work rule? ~~~~~~~~~~ Tagged: children, classical liberalism, domestic purposes benefit, dpb, education, home school, home schooling, homeschool, homeschooling, national party, new zealand, paula bennett, Politics, public education, state education, welfare, Welfare state