In stark contrast to the Clark years, where ministers got 10 in the sin-bin, Phil Heatley has effectively been dismissed by John Key for misuse of his Ministerial Credit Card and other irregularities which will come in in the goodness of time.

John Key had to do something with other ministers becoming a bit loose with discipline. From this day forward they will have had their attitude adjusted with an effective sacking.

Just by way of comparison, despite taking illegal donations, not declaring the donation and lying to the Privileges Committee, Helen Clark and Labour stuck by Peters till the bitter end. Clark only basically stood him down until after the election but still with full ministerial pay and privileges. Don’t forget the staunch defense of Taito Philip Field until he made the fatal decision to suggest he might go independent and then Labour dumped him faster than  shit at 30,000 feet. John Key has acted and acted fast sending a message to his cabinet and to his caucus that bullshit will not be tolerated.

Phil Heatley will stay on as MP for Whangarei.

Popularity: unranked [?]

Not 24 hours after my well connected Beehive spies alerted me to the prospect of a flip flop on GST we have confirmation that my prediction was right.

Radio NZ Interview with John Key

Prime Minister John Key says he will cancel plans to raise GST if evidence shows people will be worse off.

And he says, he would not proceed if the move meant losing the support of the Maori Party.

While Mr Key has put conditions on the proposal to raise the Goods And Services Tax from 12.5% to 15%, he says he’s confident further work by officials will confirm that low income families will not be worse off.

He says that should reassure the Maori Party, which has concerns about the impact on low income Maori families.

So if the news media can find just one family who will be worse off the centre piece of planned tax changes just gets tossed out the window. Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia sure do have Keys nuts in the palms of their hands. Why does he need them to pass the law? He ACT and Peter Dunne in reserve.

Can we have a Prime Minister with a spine please, someone who has the bo9ttle to make the drastic changes to our over-bloated state sector and rampant welfare system, otherwise we are going to go broke

Popularity: unranked [?]

FOR FUCK’S SAKE!

The Whales’s most reliable Beehive spies have just informed him that, this morning, Beehive political staff are agitating for John Key to do a u-turn on the 15% GST idea and quickly decide and announce to leave it at 12.5%.

Just what the fuck are these turkeys doing.

Popularity: unranked [?]

Like I said, don’t get your hopes up. DPF rates Key’s Opening Statement to Parliament with a “B”. I’d give it a “C”, although I’m tempted to give it a D (i.e. fail), because Key has simply disregarded the Tax Working Group and 2025 Taskforce’s recommendations (his reactions to Capital Markets will be out next week).

Key ought to have done something about the tax status of property. That would’ve given the government better leverage to to get income, trust and corporate tax rates down (NB: I’m not totally convinced of the need for a land tax, but think LAQCs should go). Increasing GST to cut income tax was a good move, but there is little mention of cutting spending save for better enforcement of welfare rules. To do it, Key will break a promise on not increasing GST. He should’ve broken his promises on superannuation thresholds and the age of eligibility.

Bernard Hickey is saying I should get a one-way ticket to Australia because of Key’s failure to introduce a land tax. Personally I’d rather do what my parents did in the 70s and go earn the big money in Europe to save. Or join my mates in Hong Kong or Singapore. But I digress…

Popularity: unranked [?]

The Prime Minister will make a big speech tomorrow at the opening of Parliament. Apparently it’s going to set out the government’s tax policies. Be prepared to be disappointed. That way if the package is good, you’ll be elated.But seriously, tomorrow’s speech needs to articulate a way forward – a wishy-washy yes maybe speech won’t cut it. Luckily, I suspect the way it’s been talked up in the media implies JK’s office knows it.

It won’t be Labour that ends John Key’s dream run. No, 2010 will be the year that makes or breaks John Key’s premiership. Showing some testicular fortitude now by moving the country towards significant changes in how much tax we pay, and what we pay it on, will significantly alter our future course as a country. Allan Bollard is right – we won’t catch Australia if we don’t make some bold changes.

Fixing the tax system is not a silver bullet though. The government must also address our long-term spending problem; the fact we are living beyond our means. Because today’s spending problem is tomorrow’s debt problem – and that debt will unnecessarily burden future generations. That’s why I care about these issues – because of our future generations. I don’t want them burdened by some previous government’s inability to control its own spending, as my generation was during the 90s thanks to Muldoon’s spending binge of the late 70s and early 80s. So come on John, show us you’ve got a pair and give us the step change we need.

Popularity: unranked [?]

John Key drew a picture, and he signed it, and he put a copyright on it too, all on live TV.

At least we know that it a) Wasn’t a forgery, b) He actually signed an artwork of his own, c) There won’t be a rubbish fire in his Helensville Office, set by a staffer trying to destroy evidence.

Now the doodle is up for sale on Trademe.

John "Smile and Wave" Key drew an image of the kind of flag he would like.

Popularity: unranked [?]

“In the end, we live in a world where the internet is there. It’s a real issue, we can’t stop people from putting things on the internet. We’re not going to start legislating to stop this sort of behaviour”

I need to find them quick to support my case and to have the suppression laws repealed. I need his help fast.

Oh wait………..!

Right so won’t (and shouldn’t) legislate against one, but is quite happy for a law that enables paedos, rapists, crim All Blacks, crim celebrities, crim lawyers, crim doctors and crim judges to hide when they commit crime? WTF?

Popularity: unranked [?]

National and Act have just announced their agreement to implement the 3 strikes law.

Agreement on the policy, which will be incorporated into the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, was announced by the Prime Minister John Key, ACT Leader Rodney Hide and Police and Corrections Minister Judith Collins today.

The new regime will uphold the Government’s election pledge to remove eligibility for parole for the worst repeat violent offenders, and incorporate significant aspects of ACT’s three-strikes policy.

Under the regime, an offender will receive a standard sentence and warning for the first serious offence.  For the second offence they will get a jail term (in most cases) with no parole and a further warning.  On conviction for their third serious offence, the offender will receive the maximum penalty in prison for that offence with no parole.

Good, time for us to put some people behind bars for a very long time.

In the revised Bill each strike will be based on an offender receiving a conviction for a qualifying offence. In the Bill as introduced, the threshold was a sentence of five years or more for a qualifying offence.

On their third strike offenders will get the maximum sentence for the offence rather than a life sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment of 25 years as originally proposed.

As a general rule, the list of qualifying offences comprises all the major violence and sexual offences with a maximum penalty of seven years’ prison or more.

The really interesting thing is that it was “Crusher” Collins at the press conference announcing this law and she is going to be the Minister implementing it. Normally this is the purview of the Minister of Justice, but Simon “FIGJAM” Power must have annoyed too many people to be trusted with this key piece of legislation. At least we know that “Crusher” will deliver, everything she has promised so far has manifested itself under her guiding hand, this law will be no different.

This is also a significant policy win for ACT and Rodney Hide can justifiably be proud of the impact his party is having on the government. The response from Labour will be interesting. Phil Goff would privately support this, but could he carry his caucus to supporting it. I seriously doubt he can do that.

Batter up I say.

Popularity: unranked [?]

I really shake my head sometimes at the Prime Minister. Today, when the economy is still screwed because “Karori” Bill English still hasn’t made a decision of he should make a decision to get a treasury report about him making a decision to do something, and he feels the need to comment on me! I  mean WTF!

He said it was the right of an individual to advocate against laws they disapproved of, but not to the extent of breaking the law.

“They can’t take the law into their own hands and that applies equally to Cameron Slater as it does to every other New Zealander.”

Then when he does comment he directly contradicts this statement which is the complete opposite of what he said about the Anti-Smacking legislation.

“Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable. It is up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children … Some people will continue to lightly smack their child for correction, some will not. It is up to them to decide.”

Uhmmm…John not it is not. Smacking children is specifically considered assault now under the law you refuse to change, not only that there is NO possible defense to that crime either. So according to John Key breaking law written in 1985 that is arcane, out of date an unworkable in a modern environment is “bad” and breaking a law that is a year old and is under the Crimes Act so punishable with prison and for which there is NO possible defence is ok.

Parliament when it wrote the Criminal Justice Act in 1985 deemed that breaking suppression orders, matters which go to the heart of our Justice system according to a big mouth cop in a small town, was so serious that it warranted rating only as a Summary offence with a maximum fine of just $1000 with zero possibility of a prison term. Pfffttt.

On the other hand, the law that John Key thinks is ok for parents to break, even though there is no defense possible if you do break it and get prosecuted, and therefore also carries a custodial sentence is just fine by him.

John Key also has suggested that police should not charge Maori MP Hone Harawira for driving without a helmet. WTF! so “Honest” Hone Harawira is able to be above the law and not be prosecuted but a blogger and one of his own MPs who drove a tractor up the steps of parliament isn’t. Is John Key the fricken Police Minister now?

I thought we got rid of the dictator at the last election. Obviously I was wrong.

If you are going to comment on the law John, how about you leave it to Christopher Finlayson who at least knows a little bit about it and had sensible things to say on newstalkZB this morning. No point in asking Simon “FIGJAM” Power, he’ll just tell the repeaters how hard and diligently he is working on aspects of a new law.

I’d say my confidence in John Key has now ebbed well below the 40% mark. The man is a pinko for sure.

Democracy Mum says it all in her last paragraph.

It is not up to the Prime Minister to decide, who should and should not be prosecuted.  Parliament makes the laws, the police prosecute and the judiciary pass sentence.  That’s just the way it works.

In the first instance the Prime Minister is trying to undermine an existing law by encouraging parents to ignore it, and in the second instance he is encouraging the police to ignore an existing  law and undermining their authority.

She is dead right. The Police independently, one would assume, have decided that I may have broken the law and so they laid charges. No problem with that. john Keys says I am not above the law, no problem with that, I’m not and nor should I be and if found guilty I will take the consequences. But he also says you can ignore some of the Crimes Act if you don’t fell like it, Big problem with that. And finally he gives an opinion, which is really an instruction when a Prime Minister says it, that someone shouldn’t be prosecuted when they broke a law on natonal television on the front steps of the Parliament when the law was written in the first place.

[shakes head again]

Popularity: unranked [?]

Key says personal tax cuts still on Govt agenda

Excellent news. Harmonise the personal tax rates with corporate tax rates by cutting wasteful government spending and increasing GST.

Popularity: unranked [?]

I’d normally save this for Friday’s Link-O-Rama, but since this is so awesome I decided to post it now: Car Jam

Thanks to Car Jam I now know my car’s rego is all correct. Excellent. More importantly, I’ve checked if the numberplate “FAIL” and “WIN” are available. They are. Also, it seems the person with the plate “007″ drives a Honda. That car should really have the “FAIL” plates…

But the most interesting information is the “CR” or Crown Limo service cars that whisk our statesmen and women about the country in comfort and, if you’re Helen Clark, speed. CR1 is the Prime Minister’s car you see – and the PM’s beemer is listed under Car Jam:

BMW 730LD 2008 (in Silver) Plate: CR1

Thanks to Car Jam we now know the PM’s car costs us $1,400 to run a year.

Popularity: unranked [?]

Today John Boscawen asked a fairly straight-forward question of the Prime Minister and all he got in reply was mumbled rubbish.

John Boscawen: Does he stand by the “concrete goal of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025” stated in the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement that he signed; if so, what is his Government’s plan for closing that $64,000 income gap by 2025?
Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. In the last 12 months, from an economic perspective, members have seen a number of moves by this Government. I strongly suggest that in 2010 members will see a lot more.

That is crap John and I think you know it.

Where is the plan? Is there a plan?

Meanwhile Judith Collins takes the cane to Creepy Cosgrove yet again and even gets him to admit he is making a meal of things. I don’t know why Labour keeps on giving him questions to ask, maybe it is Trevor’s way of getting some sort of vicarious spark back into his life.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I stand by comments that I have made that were based on assurances given to me by the Commissioner of Police. I agree with the Commissioner of Police. That member is always trying to make such a lot out of this issue, yet the New Zealand Police now has an attrition rate of less than 2 percent—the lowest since World War II.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am not the only one trying to make a meal out of this. How does she reconcile those comments with the statement from the President of the Police Association, Greg O’Connor, who also has a view on her conduct, that on top of the extra duties and stresses created for the police in the run-up to Christmas, the most pressing issue for the police in 2009 is “how the hell to transport more people around for these duties with 10 percent fewer vehicles at your disposal.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have not read that quote from Mr O’Connor. No doubt, Mr O’Connor and I will discuss it at this evening’s Christmas party at the Police Association.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: While she is having drinks at the Christmas party tonight, can she tell us how she reconciles the assurance she gave to the New Zealand public that no front-line police vehicles would be withdrawn with the fact that, as an example, a purpose-built specialist drug-dog vehicle has been withdrawn in Dunedin?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually, we have new police cars going into operation right now, but I know that the member will not admit it. He should just wait till later this week, when he will see some new cars going in and some new vehicles that he is not aware of. I think they will be much more purpose-built for the police.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about a specific example in Dunedin. It was responded to with a general statement—the Minister laughs, prior to her drinks this evening—about police vehicle policy. The question was about a specific example in respect of Dunedin.

Mr SPEAKER: The member, if he recollects his question, asked the Minister how she reconciled a couple of matters, and the Minister reconciled them by pointing out that, in fact, new vehicles were being introduced this week. That seemed to be a perfectly fair answer to the question that the member asked.

Popularity: unranked [?]

Marcia Russell’s excellent documentary series Revolution got me thinking about this Government and our future as a country. Revolution’s basic premise is that by 1984 New Zealand had become a “fortress” desperately fighting to hold on to a post-war New Zealand that could no longer be sustained. I sometimes wonder if we’ve learned that the only course of action in the face of economic challenges worse than taking no action is taking retroactive action to try and preserve the status quo…

Popularity: unranked [?]

John Key has the spine of a jelly-fish. He has caved to greenie pressure and decided to burn masses of carbon to attend a photo opportunity in Carbonhagen.

Despite the mounting evidence of a global fraud perpetrated by so-called scientists he is heading off to watch the Chinese and Indian’s flip the bird to the rest of the world.

He will be standing there waving a piece of paper, Chamberlain like,  saying “but, but, but, we have an ETS”, looking like the token retard who wipes tables at McDonalds getting upset at the local bullies teasing him.

The huge irony of Carbonhagen is that Hans Christian Anderson the writer of fairy-tales lived most of his life in Carbonhagen. Speaking of additional irony how about this.

Danes caught fiddling their carbon credits. (Hat tip: Philip Stott) Carbon trading is the Emperor’s New Clothes of international finance. It was invented by none other than Ken Lay, whose Enron would currently be one of the prime beneficiaries in the global alternative energy market, if it hadn’t been shown to be (nearly) as fraudulent as the current AGW scam. It is a licence to fleece, cheat and rob. Still, jolly embarrassing for the Danes to get caught red handed, what with their hosting a conference shortly in which the world’s leaders will try, straight-faced, to persuade us that carbon emissions trading is the only viable way of defeating ManBearPig.

It is a fucking, complete farce. I’m off to draft a letter of resignation now. My talents are best used elsewhere.

Popularity: unranked [?]

Interest.co.nz has the details of papers put up by Motu economist Arthur Grimes and Deloitte partner Mike Shaw to the Tax Working Group’s final conference in Wellington on Tuesday, detailing the pros and cons of a land tax. Here’s my responses to the pros and cons:

Pros:

* Brings in property to tax base. NZ has relatively low property taxes compared to other countries.

This is certainly true – the large burden of our tax base is on low-middle income wage earners. Spreading that tax burden will help the economy no end.

* Progressive tax hits richest hardest and hits those with most children least, as they have less land

Goodo, if you’re into that sort of thing. Not really much of a pro.

* Hits Maori and Pacific Island communities least

Again, good if you’re into that sort of thing – wonder how a land tax would affect Maori land though? Would National do a deal with Tainui or Ngai Tahu.

* Likely to cause rental property investors to rethink

Which is of course one of the problems we have – the $213 billion invested in rental property is 5 times what we’ve got invested in stock market. Because of LAQCs, this investment stock represents a tax “loss” of $500m (in credits). Why not just abolish LAQCs then? Probably not an election-winning strategy, although $500m could easily go towards lowering the top tax rate in compensation.

* Very cheap to administer

Excellent – all those tax law students hoping to work on land tax law should therefore re-think their careers at the IRD…

* No avoidance or evasion

No wine boxes then. Again, tax law students – start studying something useful.

* Land is immobile so no danger of assets ‘fleeing’ tax

Also good – one thing we struggle with in New Zealand is keeping our businesses onshore. Lowering company tax will help that.

* Per hectare threshold reduces hit on farmers and foresters

This would also be good – it would make little sense to cut company tax, then load more tax on productive sectors of the New Zealand economy – agriculture and forestry.

* Threshold cleaner and easier to administer than exceptions

Again, this is a pro – a “clean” tax cuts bureaucracy, and makes the IRD a little less bastard like.

* Discourages land-banking property developers from sitting on land

Good – that should mean lower house prices for first time home owners, if you’re into that.

* Less borrowing for property investment and lower overseas debt

Whoah there… less borrowing for property investment doesn’t mean less borrowing everywhere. It does mean that what is borrowed could be put into productive assets though, but this isn’t really a pro.

Cons

* 0.5% land tax could reduce land values by as much as 15%

Ouch. Pretty much a big election loser there… so that pretty much rules out the Government.

* House prices (land and buildings) could fall by 4-8%

Double ouch. Perhaps we could make the Grammar zone cover all of New Zealand to compensate?

* House price falls depends whether tax is deductible, level of real interest rates, other local body rates

Owww… lower house prices mean lower rates Bills. That’s actually a pro in my book.

* Retired households hit hardest

An incentive to move into rest homes perhaps? Here’s a sharemarket tip: if land tax is introduced, by shares in Metlifecare, Ryman, BUPA and Oceania Group. Not really a con in my books.

* Young homeowners with little equity, low discretionary income hit relatively harder

Now this is a big con, particularly at a time when housing affordability is down. However, is it really that important that everyone own their own home?

Overall, I would say conditionally that the pros of land tax outweigh the cons. I say conditionally because:

• The Government ought to reduce income and business tax and the same time as introducing any land tax – not using land tax just to generate more tax revenue. That means we’re still going to have to cut spending to sustainable levels.
• It’ll hurt house and land prices, something many small businesses depend on for equity, and “mum and dad” investors for their retirement. Although that is a long-term pro, as it will encourage New Zealanders to stop depending on housing to become wealthy, and put their capital to much better use.

Update: Big fail on rates there. Mea culpa. The issue is whether land tax increases average house prices and push up rates. So again, likely to make the government unelectable.

Popularity: unranked [?]

The MSM have already done their “One Year On” pieces on John Key, but today is the actual anniversary – while the election was on November 8th, Key’s Government wasn’t sworn in until 19th November. So today is one year on.

So endeth a pedant’s rant.

Popularity: unranked [?]

As usual, Brian Fallow hits the nail on the head in the Herald.  Just why is mad Nick Smith so obsessed with getting his lunatic ETS in place before the UN’s big talkfest in Copenhagen? 

As Fallow says:

No doubt it would be nice for New Zealand’s representatives at Copenhagen to be able to say: “Apart from the Europeans we are the only ones to have an emissions trading scheme on the statute books.”

In fact they could say that now.

But anyone at Copenhagen listening to that claim is likely either not to care, or to see through it.

Mad Nick is defying  the Prime Minister with his obsession.  Remember John Key said that New Zealand shouldn’t try to be a heroic leader on climate change anymore.  Seems no one told Nick.

Fallow also reveals Mad Nick’s scheme is designed to raise at least another $2 billion in taxes a year:

 By 2030 the government would have been making about $4 billion a year out of it (assuming, rather conservatively, a carbon price of $50 a tonne). Under the amended scheme it will be half that.

This is also a direct challenge to the Prime Minister who has promised that the revised ETS will be fiscally-neutral.  Nick – collecting $2 billion a year ain’t fiscally-neutral.  It’s called raising taxes and its what National Ministers are meant to be against. You’re in the wrong party. 

Mad Nick also told Parliament yesterday that “we are the first country in the world to include forestry in an emissions trading scheme” – again, that’s a direct challenge to the Prime Minister who has said we shouldn’t try to be the world’s leader.

He also said that in Australia, “there is a complete ban on any deforestation of pre-1990 forests”.  Turns out that’s not true.  Mad Nick must have just thought it would sound good when he said it in Parliament.  But that’s called misleading the House.  Maybe he forgot to take his pills. 

Mad Nick is making a fool of the Prime Minister.  Time for John Key to grow some balls and sack him.

Popularity: unranked [?]

Not on his own blog but right here in the comments on my OMG! Dad recruited the Anti-Christ post. Phew! that means Dad isn’t some sort of evil devil incarnate recruiter for the National Party.

1. Been to the south and east… Is there a North Island Kiwi who hasn’t been to the South (Island) and The East (Australia)?
2. Spoken arrogant words… Well, Duh. He’s a politician. Of course he’s spoken arrogant words…
3. He’s risen to the top quickly… only if you consider that being Prime Minister is the “top” . Many would consider this to be the gutter rather than the pinnacle of New Zealand.
4. He has spoken against God… Not quite. He has spoken against 87% of New Zealanders. That makes him annoying, not the antichrist.
5. The Merchants of the Earth will prosper… Yeah, right. Anybody heard of a little thing called a recession?
6. 1998 = 666x 3… It also equals 111 x 18. Isn’t maths exciting?
7. The Anti-Christ will be different from his predecessors… What? You mean nicer and not an evil cow? That doesn’t sound like much of a recommendation for the prince of darkness (besides Murray McCully has already taken that position)
8. He will be called the Messiah… Sorry, you must have your wires crossed with Obama. John’s not the messiah, he’s just a naughty little boy (this is why he doesn’t like smacking)
9. He will be miraculously healed… Three weeks in plaster. Hallelujah! its a miracle of science! (Betcha he used a splint under his shirt sleeve for a couple of weeks)
10. His video blog is erecting a living image of him… Have you seen his blog? More like night of the living dead!

Popularity: unranked [?]

David Farrar has pointed to a blog post at the Dunedin School Blog.They assert that John Key is the Anti-Christ and provide biblical proof of their assertions. That means my Dad is the one who recruited the Anti-Christ to National and that The Standard were right all along.

Their ten proofs are:

1. He has been to the south and east as prophesied in Daniel 8:9-12
2. He has spoken arrogant words
3. He has risen to the top quickly
4. He has spoken against God with the anti-smacking law
5. The merchants from the Earth will prosper from the Anti-Christ and he is a former merchant banker
6. He joined the National Party in 1998, and 1998 is 666×3.
7. The Anti-Christ will be different from his predecessors
8. He will be called the Messiah, which means he must have Jewish blood – which he does have.
9. He will be miraculously healed – and didn’t his arm heal quickly
10. His video blog is erecting a living image of him

They conclude that the chance of this all happening randomly is 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, so John Key is definitely the Anti-Christ.

Popularity: unranked [?]