KISS THE ALL BLACKS GOODBYE

This is a mighty rugby union country, where kids can start playing the game as young as 3. All three of my kids play for Parklands Rugby Football Club, here in the City of Christchurch, New Zealand. My youngest (5 years) is in his second year of Rippa Rugby. Last weekend, he had the unfortunate experience of playing against a third team from Christchurch RFC. Despite the fact that Rippa Rugby is supposed to be non-contact, at least two players came off injured after being thumped by Christchurch players. One was such a blatant tackle near the try-line, that it should have been a penalty try. This is the fourth time I have witnessed a Christchurch RFC team use illegal tackling and shirt-pulling in a (supposed) non-contact scenario. Saturday’s game has prompted me to pour you another Cup of Vitriol.

Woah! Hang on. Back-up; what the hell is Rippa Rugby?!!!!

Well, Rippa Rugby is the junior (Under-6 and Under-7 grades) version of Rugby Union. Instead of tackling, the kids rip off fluorescent tags from a Velcro belt. It’s not too dissimilar to Touch Rugby. Tackle rugby, in New Zealand, starts at the Under-8 grade. Rippa Rugby is the precursor to that collision game. The clever use of bright tags focuses the kids on the future tackle area; the hips. For my sins, I have the huge honour, privilege and pleasure of coaching my son’s Under-6 Rippa Rugby team. However, with that coaching comes significant responsibility.

I have a responsibility for the kids’ enjoyment of the game. I have a responsibility to develop their skills. I have a responsibility to the Parklands Rugby Club to uphold their good reputation. However, more than anything, I have a responsibility to the kids and their parents to keep the players free from harm under my care.

I believe the worst offenders of these physical infringements, that I have ever seen, are 2012 Christchurch U6 Bronze (and yes, I’m naming you!). Here’s a quote from the official NZRFU site on Rippa Rugby; “It is a very safe, non-contact, easy to play game…” I think the coaches of Christchurch Bronze need to read that statement many times; “very safe and non-contact…” I had FOUR players off injured from contact in that particular game, three weeks ago. “...it’s fun and exciting for all involved…” Two of those players – and we’re talking hardy kids here – had been thumped to the ground so many times, they didn’t want to go back on. The parents of our team, my co-coach, and I were appalled. It was such a disgusting display, that one of our parents wrote a strong and eloquent letter to the Canterbury Rugby Football Union to protest. As a result, Christchurch Bronze will be audited by the Union. But Christchurch RFC is a very large and successful rugby club, and a major part of the provincial Canterbury RFU. I’ve heard parents sign up their littlies at Christchurch RFC, in the expectation of becoming a part of that successful, winning culture. It's apparent that parents sign up their kids there, thinking they'll all be All Blacks. When you see that, you see why winning becomes everything there – at any cost – even in the junior teams. The parents' need to win becomes secondary to the little kids' enjoyment of the game.

I’ve become a cynical boor in my old age, when it comes to “process,” “auditing,” and “taking action.” So here’s what I think will happen; Christchurch Bronze will be audited, I’m sure. And, the coaches might be apologetic: “Oh, it’s kids being kids. We’re trying to rein them in, but they love their rugby soooooo much. And they so want to play for Christchurch.” [yeah, right. The PARENTS want them to play for Christchurch].

From my experience, the Christchurch perspective will be full of spin, and our account will be trivialised: “Oh, come on, they’re exaggerating, this is a physical game, it’s nowhere near as bad as they’re making out, they’re sore because they lost. We’re trying to breed hard kids here. Rugby isn’t tiddlywinks.” In other words, I think nothing will come of it.

Please prove me wrong, Canterbury Rugby Football Union. Show me you’ll take action when our concerns are corroborated, when the safety of 5-year-old kids is threatened.

Setting aside for now, the injury potential for my son and his mates (and that WILL be difficult), there’s a deeper worry the CRFU need to think about. It’s been whispered in my ear that the real reason Rippa Rugby was introduced, was because Mrs White-Middleclass became worried about all those big Pacific fella’s thumping down on poor wee Johnny. Pfff! Really? True or not, the NZRFU say, "Rippa Rugby will promote excellent ball handling and running skills, and give all kids a chance to participate in our national game," before the kids enter the tackle aspect of rugby. Now that, I do agree with.

Yes, yes, yes. I know that my Under-6 kids will have to get into the collision game eventually. I can hear my critics screaming now, “Rugby is a physical, contact game – get over yourself!” I truly don’t have a problem with tackling, per se. My issue with sticking to the non-contact rule in Rippa Rugby, is about giving my players a level playing field (no pun intended). Why should Christchurch Bronze players be allowed to tackle when my players aren’t? Why should I have to take my Under-6 kids, who have been taught running and evasion, onto a field with Under-6 kids who seem to have been taught tackling and shirt pulling? I want to develop my kids LOVE for the game first, before they mature into tackle-readiness. THEN, I’ll develop my fit, hardy players into tackle monsters.

So here’s the clever part from the NZRFU (in my humble opinion): mums LOVE Rippa Rugby. It is truly a fast, exciting kids’ sport that parents love to watch. AND, kids can be playing Rippa for up to four years before they enter the tackle game. By this time, the kids are hooked. They have fallen in love with rugby, as my three sprogs have done. Once the love for rugby is there, the KIDS are in control of their sport, not the mums. I've seen Rippa suck those faint-hearted mums inexorably into tackle-rugby. So, when the tackle game comes along and Johnny gets thumped at Under-8, the mums can “Ooooh! Ahhhh! Ouch! Poor Johnny!” all they like, but Johnny now loves the game - and wants to keep playing! “No Mum, I’m fine – I’m going back on the field!”

And here’s the threat to all that: When asses like the coaches of Christchurch Bronze fail to rein-in the physical play at the non-contact Under-6 level, lots of 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds are going to get hurt. Enough to put them off the game! And if that proliferates to other Under-6 teams, a heap of mums will start to pull their kids out of rugby – before the love takes hold. The mums will take their wee ones back to (gulp!) that strange game with the spherical ball, for histrionic prima donnas. By definition, there will be less young talent going into the All Blacks Funnel. So when that happens, lack-of-depth will threaten the very future of our national rugby side.

And if that takes hold for any length of time, my friends, you can kiss the All Blacks goodbye.

THE PAIN OF BEING RIGHT

Now here’s a couple of interesting articles:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6673730/Electricity-prices-tipped-to-rise-steeply
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6675785/Tax-cuts-blamed-for-zero-Budget-admission

How are they linked? Well, I predicted electricity price rises as a consequence of reduced income tax revenue in my article last year:

“...all that results in lowering income tax is this:
• It empties the government’s coffers of much-needed tax revenue. Governments then find new taxes to fill them – usually regressive taxes – such as increased GST, increased power bills, or increased duty on fags and booze.
• It gives more money to those who already have it, not to those who need it
• The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer”

And guess what? What have we seen since the Smiling Shark came into power:

* increased GST
* increased customs duties on cigarettes and alcohol
* increased electricity prices.

[Heavy sigh]

I hate it when I’m right. I really do. It gives me no satisfaction when I’m proven visionary and correct (as well as modest) on these issues. This is because I still have to endure the pain of the wrong, when everyone says, “You’re wrong.” In this specific case, my budget is hurting like yours. But when I’m later proven right, it’s too late to change the wrong. I bemoaned another term of right-wing spin after the 2011 election, and everyone laughed at me for exaggerating like an old gay socialist. Well, they ain’t laughin’ now, with their increased GST, increased prices on beer crates and increased power prices. One year on, and the derision on this old leftie is replaced with, “Hmm, why can’t I afford some of the basics anymore? Why is my pay not going as far? Why is my tax cut not helping?” Because lowering income tax doesn’t work. And we still have another three years for the Smiling Shark to do even more damage. Read this exchange about the effect of tax cuts on affordability:

"Tax System Changes—Effect on New Zealanders"

Did you like Bill English's spin? Right-wing governments, eh? You can always trust ‘em to raise regressive taxes and not care about the effects on low-income families. What amazes me is why we let them do it?!! Regressive taxes adversely affect many more of us - real people - than the few who are part of the rich establishment. If you think about it logically, there is no way that a voting populace in a mature democracy would allow a rich 10% of the population to benefit from almost half of the total tax cut revenue. Surely, there is NO WAY that a mature democracy would allow subsequent taxes to be placed on the very people who can’t afford them?

The answer to “How can these happen?!!” is an easy one: because selfish human greed allows it to happen. First of all, the rich few sponsor a political party with the intent on having their own taxes reduced. They bleat that they pay more tax than everyone else. Duh! That’s because they earn more than anyone else! So, when The Few lobby and sponsor a political party to reduce income tax, it’s simply an opportunity cost for them; there is no moral or ethical consideration of the effects. However, that’s only an elite minority with few individual votes. For that party to come to power, we, the voting populace, have to vote them in. How on earth did enough of the population agree to such madness? Well, you, the mortgage whores, allowed it to happen by prostituting your vote. You are intelligent, thinking people, yet you sold your vote to a regressive tax government; for the “crumbs from the rich man’s table.” [Luke 16:19-31]. Do you remember this line when you voted National:

“A tax cut for every New Zealander.”


WERE YOU MAD??!! Did you really believe that GST wouldn’t be raised? Did you not realise that electricity prices would be raised again to raise revenue??!! How did you THINK such tax cuts were going to be funded?!!

Was it worth that temporary little increase in your budget? Your vote was bought.

"The Government is having to borrow in order to cover the tax cuts that they gave and so now it is putting pressure right through the Budget." [Dr Russel Norman, April 2012].

And please don’t whine and tell me, “But I never agreed to raising GST and other taxes. It wasn’t part of their election promise. I didn’t vote for that!” Well here’s another quote:

“To point out the blindingly obvious: New Zealanders in 2008 voted tax cuts for themselves that we could ill-afford as a nation... No one who voted for National in 2008 can genuinely claim ignorance – we were warned. News of the building crisis and recession filled the media. New Zealanders’ greed for money simply outstripped their common sense.” [Frank Macskasy]

You voted for tax cuts. You voted in the National Party. You voted in right-wing spin doctors who had enough financial backing to buy the advertising which kept them there for a second term. So the National Party can do pretty much anything else it wants to for the next three years. Haven’t you learnt that yet?

Clearly, I’m angry and bitter about the behaviour of this National government. I was an impoverished student during the Thatcher years, so after 17 years of right-wing government corruption in the UK, I swore blind I would never vote for a right-wing party. And I haven’t. Sadly, not everyone agrees with me. But surely many of you have similar experiences, haven’t you? Yup, you sure do.

But then a professional “Labour” party gets in and fucks it all up, so that a right-wing party sings sugar-sweet in your ears, and the entire rotten cycle begins again.

Sigh.

RUGBY AND POLITICS - HOW TO CORRUPT THE WORKING MAN

Now here’s an interesting article:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/6273863/league-is-the-game-they-play-in-heaven.thtml

To summarise the article, Mark Latham is lauding the simplicity of rugby league, and lambasting the complexity and elitism of rugby union. However, as I read though the entire article, there was an underlying thread that made me think about the journey of the working man through history. In that context, there is a comparison between rugby and politics. Mark Latham reminds us that the working man founded rugby league. Rugby league was founded as a professional sport to answer the working man’s needs for travelling expenses and subsistence while playing the game. There’s a similar journey by the working man in politics.

But first, I need to point out that Aussie Mark Latham’s logic doesn’t quite add up for rugby union in New Zealand, does it? Here, rugby union has always been the every-man’s game. Colin Meads, Zinzan Brooke, George Nepia and many other working-men All Blacks legends say they played for the All Blacks, despite the fact that they didn’t get paid. Indeed, any resentment or envy has only come out in the last few years when such legends grizzle at the salaries of our new generation of All Blacks legends. Even despite that, rugby union still draws more grass-roots support in New Zealand than rugby league. The article’s premise may hold truth for Australia, but not for New Zealand.

So let’s get back to politics. You know, the pursuit of subsistence while pursuing politics is exactly why the Chartists protested in 19th century Britain. Their Six Point Charter listed demands from the establishment, to allow the working man to have a democratic voice. Indeed, we have since adopted all of those points but one (we’ve rejected annual elections) as the building blocks for our modern democracy. I should add that the Chartists, at the time, were all imprisoned for their efforts.

Eventual success by the Chartists led to the adoption of one-man-one-vote and paid electorates. This led inevitably to working men founding Labour Parties across the commonwealth in the 20th century. Let’s have a look at their record today, say, in New Zealand. How many radical acts or policies do you remember to come out of the “Labour” party in modern times? How many working men in the street would say that the $150,000-earning Labour electorates are in touch with them? There aren’t many voices coming out of the Labour party in support of the Auckland wharfies, are there? Does anyone else find it cynical that such Labour Party hacks are creeping out the wordwork only when the Auckland wharfies dispute has gained mass, popular support? And I wonder how fewer would be those supporting Labour politicians, if Labour was in power managing the dispute?! Despite 11 years in power by our so-called Labour Party, New Zealand is still a right-wing country.

And here’s the comparison: politics is exactly like sport for the working man. As soon as you have a professional sport, paid representatives, it stops being the every-man’s game. It becomes A BUSINESS for the Executive Class to milk. The problem is that working men still think that the legacy sport is “there’s.” Take soccer in the UK. Long ago, former players would end up as coaches, and subsequently form part of the (voluntary or averagely-paid) board of the club. Many a working man still goes to the matches on a Saturday afternoon, but working men no longer run those clubs. A swathe of rich owners and executives own the sport in the UK. How few of those soccer executives actually played the game in the past?


And that scenario is the same for rugby league. Mark Latham’s article is true on the history, but the working man no longer owns rugby league. I find it supremely ironic that Mark Latham, former Australian Federal Labor leader, has written this article. I agree when he says, “rugby league has … maintained its working-class fan base” but I would add that working men have been deceived into thinking that they still own the game. In the same way, we no longer own rugby union here in New Zealand. It is owned by the sponsors and Sky TV. We have sold our soul to the devil (pictured left).


However, the ball sports executives still need the collective money and the collective viewing figures of the working men to feed the game – which is why the illusion is maintained. The ball sports still need the TV ratings to allow the corporate sponsors to sell to the fans. Yet, it is these very corporate sponsors which, like parasites, threaten all ball sports by deluding the working man. Social commentator John Clarke (pictured right) expressed that Sky sports would love nothing else for rugby union than the stadium to be filled with corporate boxes, and the working man sit at home watching the game on Sky – being sold to by adverts and sponsors.

Indeed, I’ll tell you where all these football codes are going. The working men still thinks the team is “Their Team.” Southern men still believe that the Highlanders are from Otago!! The thugs at Chelsea still scream at rival London fans, as they watch “Their Team” compete. But how many of those players were born, or even bred, in Chelsea? The teams from the working mens' ball sports are not “Their Teams” any longer. They are franchises. They are businesses. They are corporations. They no longer represent the working man, whatever the code of football. In America, a number of grid-iron franchises (not teams!) upped-and-left their host cities to move to other cities. The “Oakland” Raiders left Oakland in 1982 – then left Los Angeles to go back to Oakland in 1994!

Fans would become so incensed at “Their Team” leaving, some grid-iron franchises had to move city in secret, in the middle of the night, to avoid the anger from those betrayed, delusional fans. Such is the loyalty of the franchise model and corporate business to its customers – the fans.

And politics is no different. How many Labour politicians do you believe are there to genuinely make a difference for the working man? Or are they there for themselves, at the trough? That’s the dilemma and consequence of having professional politicians in the Labour Party. Sadly, I believe that Taito Philip Field was not the only one guilty – he just got caught.

In the same vein, I wonder how many of the Executive Class in rugby league are there for the sport, Mark?

Let’s leave my radical, rambling rantings finally, and focus on the sport. I’ll focus on the difference between the rugby codes. I agree with the article, to the point that League is more free-flowing. However, I love the technical aspect of the Union game. I love the set-pieces, the scrums, the mauls, and the clever, brutal conflict up-front. Rugby Union has become the thinking-man’s game, while League has become Thug Rugby. And that’s exactly how the elite at the IRB want it. As a prominent board member of the English RFU said to Will Carling (and that’s not all that bloody long ago!), “We can’t have just anybody playing this game, you know.” The IRB want to keep a certain “quality” of individual playing the game – ideally from a fee-paying school! That’s certainly happening in Australia, England and Scotland. Wales and New Zealand still seem to be resisting that, thankfully. However, I wonder with sadness, how long it will be until the IRB makes Rugby Union so complicated, that the game becomes unplayable?

THE CONVERSATION

Parklands residents in Christchurch seem to be screaming out to “Go Red.” They want to take the government “offer” following the earthquakes and get out. I think there’s a lot of folk missing a fundamental point here. If we “Go Red,” those of us who are not insurance re-builds will have to find the $100,000 shortfall - or more - to pay for the same kind of home we had before the quakes, as a result of John’s “offer”. Yes, if we stay “Green TC3,” we may be subject to liquefaction. I know neither scenario is palatable, but if we “Go Red,” the government will deliver us into the waiting hands of the mortgage lenders, property developers and lawyers. Call me old fashioned, but that’s why I paid off my mortgage in the first place – to be rid of those parasites. Uh, oh - I can hear my critics now. I’m going to be accused of being harsh; “These are not parasites - these are professional people providing you a valued service!”

“parasite n. interested hanger-on; sycophant; animal or plant living in or on another.” [Oxford Dictionary]

Now, if I was a cynical man (and recent events are getting me there), this is the kind of conversation I bet took place last year:

JOHN: Hmm. This earthquake’s a bit of a bugger, Gezza. And we’ve got a recession. Our corporate friends are finding it pretty tough in Christchurch. What can we do?
GERRY: What about making those middle-class mortagage whores in Parklands homeless?
JOHN: How would that help the economy?
GERRY: Well, they would need to find and pay for new homes. There’ll be all kinds of spin-off revenues for our friends; land deals, new sections, lawyers’ fees, new mortgages, new house sales. Yummy.
JOHN: We can’t do that! We can’t just turf them out of their homes … Can we?
GERRY: Oh.... Yeah … Good point. Hmmm. Hang on! What about giving them a little “compensation”? Not enough to buy a new home as they had, but enough to give them some more vain hope.
JOHN: Sorry; what do you mean by “more vain hope”?
GERRY: Well, they’ll have to work even longer and harder to afford those new homes (the ones they already had before the quakes), in the vain hope of perhaps getting promotion at work, a pay rise, or even (snigger!) paying off the mortgage.
JOHN: Not sure about this. They’ll be mightily pissed off that we’re not fully compensating them for the loss of their home in the quakes. Let’s face it, we’ve had sixty years to prepare for this, and we’ve given it all away in tax cuts to our friends. Remember, you big bugger, you said publicly on Campbell Live, “It’s all about equity preservation.”
GERRY: Pfff! They’ll forget that. I’ll just deny it or put another spin on what I really said. They’ve been through quakes and liquefaction – they’ll want out at any price.
JOHN: But how the buggery would we afford that? Even SOME compensation is going to cost. Putting up income tax would hurt our friends – the ones who sponsor us.
GERRY: Pfff! We’ve bought off the mortgage whores before. We gave our establishment friends big tax cuts, and those pokey homeowners were happy with crumbs off the rich man’s table. No, we’ll just put up GST and other regressive taxes, instead. Tax the proles.
JOHN: But GST hurts our friends as well – it would mean luxury boats, designer suits and exclusive cars would cost more.
GERRY: That’s OK, they can afford it. They’ve got that back in spades from the huge income tax cuts we gave them three years ago.
JOHN: What about the proles – petrol, food and power will be much more expensive in relative terms.
GERRY: Fuck ‘em.
JOHN: I’m listening.
GERRY: And because jobs are so scarce in Christchurch right now, our friends wouldn’t have to put up with all those moaner mortgage whores asking for pay rises.
JOHN: So what you’re saying is, we make the quake-shocked homeowners homeless, give them some (not a lot) compensation for their house, so that they’ll work harder and longer to pay for the additional mortgage payments? We deliver traumatised, vulnerable people into the waiting hands of our mortgage lender, property developer and lawyer friends?
GERRY: Yup.
JOHN: Get it done.

THE PERILS OF GOING RED

This is our street; these are our friends and neighbours:

• “Quake-hit residents forget it's Christmas” [NZ Herald 27 Dec 2011]
• “Depressing deja vu for quake victims” [ODT 27 Dec 2011]
• “Flooded area can't be fixed – expert” [The Press 27 Dec 2011]

The 23 December quakes seem to have broken the resolve of Monterey Place, Parklands, Christchurch. The street is flooded from liquefaction for the third time in a year. It looks like the entire street wants to be “Red-Zoned.” I live in Monterey Place, I’ve done the research, and I don’t want to be Red-Zoned. This article explains why. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what Vanessa says (apart from, perhaps, the confirmed number of re-builds); it's the Red Zone compensation plan I take issue with. Forgive me if I sound bitter or cynical at times as you read this – you’ll see why.

I write with a lot of sadness, but understanding, when I hear about my friends and neighbours in Monterey Place who have had enough. To be fair, my family and I haven’t been around for the third clean-up, the clean-up resulting from 23 December’s quakes. I’ve a feeling that has been the final straw for some. We’ve only been through two clean-ups, and my family still wants to live there long-term. So, in 10-15 years, we hope the quake effects would be behind us. However, we all have different agendas, different experiences, and different effects from the quake. As you might appreciate, this article is written from my family’s perspective.

In June 2011, the New Zealand government determined a system of coloured “zones” for quake-hit Christchurch residents, following the quakes of September 2010, February 2011, and June 2011:

• White Zone – the land still has to be assessed.
• Green Zone – the land has been tested and is determined fit for habitation.
• Orange Zone – the land has already been tested, but is awaiting further testing and a decision. Such land will subsequently be determined as Red or Green.
• Red Zone – the land is condemned, unfit to place a dwelling.

http://www.landcheck.org.nz/

In the event of land condemnation ("going Red"), the government will put together an “offer.” I put “offer” in inverted commas, because it isn’t an offer at all – we don’t have a choice. If we don’t accept, we’ll be forced off our land. Well, that offer in question is the GV (government valuation) of our land-plus-dwelling based on the 2007 rateable valuation. Sounds fair? Read on. The “offer” doesn’t come anywhere close to giving my family the house we have, elsewhere in Christchurch.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/5179959/Crown-to-buy-worst-hit-Christchurch-homes

In our case, we would secure $542,000 from the government “offer” if our house is placed in the Red Zone, and we are forced from our home. This might seem a lot to anyone outside Auckland, but it’s about comparing like-with-like. We found that our house will cost in excess of $600,000 just to rebuild – before we even find a section. Lord knows what the cost will be in a few months time. The key issues here are; house-affordability, and securing that like-for-like. We have neither with the government “offer”

There’s a lot of talk about re-building for quake-hit residents. In the aftermath of the February and June 2011 quakes, Mayor Bob Parker championed “10,000 sections” that will be available for evicted homeowners. Sections in Halswell are kicking around the $250,000 mark at the moment – up $50,000 since the government announcement in June 2011. It’s a prosperous household in these times that can afford to pay $250,000 for a section to build on, before even thinking about the kind of house they’d like. Frankly, that’s completely out for most of us. Remember, the earthquakes have destroyed thousands of jobs and livelihoods.

So, the obvious cost-conscious solution is to buy an existing house, elsewhere in Christchurch. Guess what’s happening to those houses that are habitable and are in areas which have avoided the liquefaction? Yup – prices are on the rise. What did Gerry Brownlee say on Campbell Live, when a Bexley resident predicted this in June 2011? “Oh, I don’t think that’s going to happen.” Thousands of displaced homeowners, and Free-Market Gerry didn’t think that such demand would increase house or section prices?!! And what did Gerry say to those that said the “offer” isn’t enough to buy another house? “This is when you need to talk to your bank.” In other words, folks, we’ve got to get deeper into hock. And what did Gerry say in the run up to the offer being announced? “It’s all about equity preservation.” If the “offer” is “all about equity preservation,” why is he saying people should be talking to the banks to arrange $100,000 more debt?!!

When I explain this financial wrangle to people, those who aren’t going through this, I’m asked, “Well, you have insurance, don’t you?” Yes, we do. In fact, we have Full Replacement House Insurance. However, this is where the insurance companies are behaving quite cynically (albeit, to be fair, probably to the letter of their policies!). You see, our house is not a technical write-off. So even though the government condemns our land, AMI will say, “But your house is reparable – here’s the repair money.” And wait; that repair money will be deducted from the government payout!! So we still will receive only $542,000 to find a new house.

And by the way, that $542,000 has to include lawyers’ fees, any additional mortgage application, planning applications, surveying costs, moving costs, and anything else associated with buying or building a house. Remember, we don’t want to move – the government would force us to move.

This is why we can't embrace being "Red-Zoned.” Yes our market value will take a hit - but we won’t lose any money if we don’t sell! We don’t want to move – we love our house! In a couple of years, the quakes will settle down, our house will be repaired, and we will achieve that “new normal” that everyone keeps talking about. Yes, our market value will take a hit, but it’s still better than the government’s derisory “offer.” I accept that many of my neighbours want out, and some don’t. What might be a good idea in marginal streets like ours (Green TC3, Blue) would be to give homeowners the choice; take the “offer” or stay in the street.

The financial truth is that for most, the government payout is woefully inadequate. I accept that the government had to come up with some solution, but is this truly the best they could do? It was certainly the cheapest and least imaginative. I hear Gerry and John talk about “winners and losers.” Well, those “winner” stories are keeping awful quiet. Or maybe those winners are few and far between. The truth for my family is that we will NOT be able to buy like-for-like. When you have insurance, isn’t there an expectation to be compensated like-for-like in the event of your house being condemned? You’d think so. We hear arguments about how this is a major event, and an act of God, so insurance doesn’t apply. In defence of the offer, we also hear arguments about how our house is worthless now anyway, because of its location and the earthquake. All these arguments try to tell us the government offer is fair.

Well, if we didn’t have the EQC then that might be true.

When the Earthquake Commission (EQC) was formed in the wake of the 1931 Napier-Hastings quake, there was an expectation that we would be “covered” in the event of the next big quake. There was an expectation that we would get “like-for-like.” As part of our insurance premiums, we also put into the EQC fund which has since been put into off-shore government bonds. In other words, successive New Zealand governments have had sixty years to prepare for the next big quake. Sixty years. The government has created an expectation within New Zealand, and now it’s baulking. Prime Minister John Key makes us feel that we’re fortunate to be getting this “offer,” because this is the biggest government land deal in history. Well, we don’t buy it. It’s insulting, it’s belittling, and it’s not enough for another house.

The next phrase we get from worried taxpayers is, “But who’s going to pay for it all?” Answer: The government. Yes, the taxpayer. Get over it. Raise the upper tax rate; tax those who can afford it. It’s an emergency event for crying out loud. Europe’s doing it, and even America’s considering it!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/5653077/Obama-tax-rich-to-cut-deficit

In summary, here’s the reality if the government forces us out of our home:

• The government will give us $542,000 compensation for our section-plus-dwelling, if they condemn our land.
• We haven’t gone “Red” yet. So every day that goes by, in the event that we DO go Red, devalues that $542,000, as Christchurch house and section prices continue to rise.
• To rebuild our house on another section will cost in excess of $600,000 – before we even factor-in the cost of the land.
• Current equivalent houses, already built in Christchurch, are selling at around $600,000 to $650,000.
• Our house isn’t damaged enough to be an insurance rebuild. Even if the land is condemned, AMI insurance company will say, “We will repair your house, not re-build it.”
• Any repair money given to us by the insurance company will be deducted from the government “offer.”
• If we stay in our house, and resist the “offer,” we will be threatened with a “reduced offer.”
• We have Full Replacement House Insurance, yet we will have to find another $100,000 to buy the equivalent house for my family - because $100k is about the difference between what the government will give us and what the equivalent house in Christchurch ACTUALLY costs!

If we had a like-for-like offer, we might happily "Go Red". However, the recession-ridden, cold-hearted decision-makers of this government have delivered vulnerable, quake-shocked people into the hands of the banks, the property developers, and the lawyers. When such people are already down, they don’t have much fight left in them.

WHY ARE TAX CUTS NO LONGER A PRIORITY?

Now here’s an interesting article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6158896/Tax-cuts-no-longer-a-National-priority

I wonder why cutting income tax is now such a low priority? It wasn’t three years ago. Could it be that tax-cuts are a low priority because of the government’s legislative workload? Hang on – I thought the bulk of the government’s legislative workload was geared towards economic policy? And isn’t tax one of the key tools of this government’s economic policy?


And therein lays the key implied admission by tax-cuts being “near the bottom on the list of National's priorities”: lowering income tax doesn’t work. Lowering income tax doesn’t bring utopia prosperity. Lowering income tax doesn’t filter-down wealth to the impoverished. Lowering income tax doesn’t create a swath of new jobs. Lowering income tax doesn’t bring back the thousands of Kiwis who have migrated to Australia.

In fact, all that results in lowering income tax is this:
• It empties the government’s coffers of much-needed tax revenue. Governments then find new taxes to fill them – usually regressive taxes – such as increased GST, increased power bills, or increased duty on fags and booze.
• It gives more money to those who already have it, not to those who need it
• The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer

Let’s be quite clear: when I talk about “the rich,” I am not talking about hard-working small business operators, successful sales people, or successful information-age professionals. I’m talking about over-paid executives who continually command pay rises at obscenely higher rates than their employees. I’m talking about people who make money simply because they already have lots of money. I’m talking about people who exploit suppliers, customers and staff – and give back far, far less than they take out. I’m taking about people who actually don't need tax cuts. So when I talk about increasing tax, and not cutting tax, I'm referring to income tax at the high-end.

One of today’s wonders is the internet and the wealth of information that is freely available to all of us. And that has changed our thinking. We don’t blindly accept (well, most of us don’t) when a politician tells us that something is. When a politician spins, we can now jump on the computer and conduct some research (Hah! Like I did!).

When Margaret Thatcher was carving out her “New Age” in the 1980s, Norman Lamont and Tubby Lawson were heralding the arrival of M-O-N-E-T-A-R-I-S-M. “Ooooooooooh!” we all cooed, “Sounds impressive.” Before the internet and easily-available economic information, the western democracies accepted monetarism as the solution to stagnating economies. We let it happen. Top founding monetarist Milton Friedman became a chief advisor to Ronald Regan, and Regan thought the Laffer Curve was the most important economic diagram of the millennium. Margaret Thatcher followed suit in the “Special Relationship” between Ron-Margaret and US-UK. Poor Dennis Thatcher: how could he compete with the President of the USA and a film star (albeit a damn poor one on both counts)?

The Laffer Curve (illustrated right) determined that if you increase tax to a point, you actually lower tax revenue returns, because tax evasion becomes worthwhile. So, the Laffer Curve determined that if you lower tax, you actually increase tax revenue because the logic works in reverse (yes, that’s the theory!). At the equilibrium point, profits for business, taxes for the government, and happiness for the rich are all in sync. Monetarists will always claim the current tax rate is to the right of the curve (Point B). But just try getting those said pundits to put their head on the block and determine that optimum tax rate! In other words, the Laffer Curve is another hokum theoretical economic model.

However, Ron and Maggie loved it, and adopted it. America plunged into debt, but Britain actually climbed out of debt.

Then came the reports in the mid-1980s that Milton Friedman had fiddled the figures in his research, and so monetarism was a farce. How then, did British monetarism allegedly succeed? How did the UK national debt reduce? It wasn't due to tax cuts. It was because monetarism, chiefly a US concept, didn’t factor-in privatised industries – the USA had none! Thatcher gave away £2b a year in tax cuts, on the back of £2b a year in public asset sales. The conclusion for us all, including our new shining New Zealand government? Tax cuts don’t reduce national debt. Far from it. All that happens with a tax-cutting regime is that the rich have more, and the needy are further deprived. Thirty years of monetarism, 30 years of a tax-cutting culture, and what do we have:

• “US Affluent Classes Dwarf China and India”
• “Wealth Gap Hits 30 Year High”
• “NZ Rich-Poor Gap Widens Faster Than Rest of World”

It’s taken us 30 years of social deprivation to wake up. In the Austerity Wars of 2011, was the talk in Europe about tax cuts to bring prosperity and reduce debt? Far from it. Europe, and now even America, is considering increasing income tax at the high-end, to drag itself out of debt and recession:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/5653077/Obama-tax-rich-to-cut-deficit

Because monetarism doesn’t work. Because cutting high-end income tax doesn’t work.

As I was writing this, I was so wrapped up in the economics, I almost forgot about the social aspect of tax cuts! And therein lays the fundamental problem with the right-wing government which runs our economy. It’s all about the numbers. What do you think are the social effects of tax cuts? Consider how the needy and impoverished feel, as they watch the rich grow richer. Consider how the low-waged feel as power, rent, milk, rates, all rise above their ability to pay for them.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5989843/Revealing-the-gap-between-NZs-rich-and-poor

What reminded me about the social aspect of increased impoverishment, were the words of my flatmate in 1995, when I lived in Wimbledon. Jim Deighton was arguing against our other flatmate, Sam, whose wealthy daddy “paid too much tax.” Jim's words, while harsh, had a crude truth about them:

“So here’s the thing, Sam,” says Jim. “If you deprive the poor of social programmes, self-help programmes, and adequate living, then they’re going to come into your fancy street, and they’re going to come into your fancy house and they’re going to rob your f*cking home.”

PROTEST IS NOW A CRIME

“V for Vendetta” and Resisting the Establishment
I spoke with a bright young lady last night, who reminded me how good the film, “V for Vendetta” is. We discussed the fine line between terrorists and freedom fighters. We discussed the Occupy Wall Street Movement and the recent London Riots. It made me think about our attitude to protest and the establishment’s attitude to protest. In my subsequent research, I found some interesting recent articles:

"Police arrest 20 at London student protest" [Stuff, Nov 2011]
"An internet kill switch and cyberIDs for all" [Aardvark Aug 2011]
"Stop apologising for these louts" [Aardvark Aug 2011]

“V for Vendetta” is set in the UK (probably London), where a masked crusader fights a repressive government which clamps down on freedom and protest. Ironically today, the UK government wants to exert a similar repression. The UK government wants to use the recent London protests as an excuse to adopt a Kill Switch “to disable social networking sites and networks if they feel some unease rising within the ranks of the great unwashed” [Bruce Simpson]. Prime Minster Cameron must love this; for the publicity on his own self, for the restrictions he can exercise on one of the world’s most important democracies, and for the attempted controls (yet again!) he can impose on the internet. Look closer - this story is really three big-picture stories:

• How our so-called free democracies continually try to restrict our freedoms
• How our so-called free democracies continually try to control the internet
• How our so-called free democracies consider sporadic protesting a crime

Cameron might yet succeed in convincing the proles on all three counts. He might succeed, because the spin on the initial London protests has been whipped up into a frenzy which purports to rip apart the fabric of UK society. It won’t, of course, but Cameron is spinning it thusly. The reality is that western politicians of mainstream parties are hypocrites who simply want to exercise more controls on what little democracy and free speech we have left. Shame on you, our elected representatives. Are we now in such a place that protest – albeit angry protest – has now become a crime?

Protest is Bad and Naughty and Nasty
All too often, we tow the establishment line; “sporadic protest = riot”. I am not condoning the opportunistic thugs, looters and low-lives in London who have hijacked this protest. These idiots play into the hands of the establishment, and make the lives of The People even more restricted. In fact, these idiots kill our freedoms and kill our democracy. Read on - you'll see where I'm going with this. The riots were sparked off by a perceived huge wrong; a young black man shot dead by police. However, when protestors take to the street to express their anger, they're BAAAAAAAADDDD. The immediate government reaction to the protests was "They're activists, they're thugs, they're radicals, and they’re nasty."

Do you know, that's exactly what the establishment said about the UK Chartists (Google it!) in the 19th Century? We have since adopted all points but one of the Chartists' 6-point charter, as the building blocks for our modern democracy. Sadly, this is where the Occupy Movement will fail utterly; it does not have the specific, listed aims that the Chartists did. By the way, the Chartists leaders were all imprisoned for between 16 months to 21 years. Before they were imprisoned, I might add, they formulated our contemporary democracy which has since been perverted and abused by career politicians. These are the political parasites who now govern us – victims of power abuse who have not grown up. Read Alice Miller’s “Drama of Being a Child”

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_drama_of_being_a_child.html?id=lG9xQgAACAAJ

I digress a little. Bear with me, I’m getting there.

Even the peaceful Occupy Movement protests are considered a threat – otherwise they wouldn’t be resisted. The Occupy Movement directly challenges the establishment, rather than the indirect threat of the London Riots. Splendidly, their adamantly peaceful nature is frustrating the establishment’s attempts to quash them. Thankfully, the Occupy Movement isn’t giving the ammunition that the London Riots did. However, the machinations of the US, UK and even NZ governments are trolling through the various laws to try to end the Occupy occupations. Let’s face it; in the UK, the police and government can do just about anything under the auspices of the Breach of the Peace, National Security or Disorderly Conduct laws. And I’ll elaborate on the limitations on our freedoms from the so-called War on Terror, later.

How Protest is Used to Erode our Freedoms
So here’s the hypocrisy. Let’s remind ourselves of some populist activists whom the western establishment has applauded in recent years;

• The Berlin Wall scalers, who tore down the wall in a populist movement
• Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia and Lech Walesa of Poland - good, naive men who led a populist movement, and then ousted by said political parasites from their own country
• The students in Tiananmen Square who stood in front of tanks and died
• The Egyptian protesters who fought against Mubarak and died

These protesters, above, were applauded by the west because they didn’t involve or result in change in the west. Capitalist “democracies” resist social change to their own country, but love change in other countries as trade opportunities. This is why I cite our western governors are hypocrites. And so are those who ride on the wave of their hysteria over these protests. How many of our fundamental freedoms are chipped away when events like this are used by the establishment? In fact, some would say the western establishment loves events like this. It uses them as excuses to curtail our fundamental freedoms. Geogre Dubya Bush was the Master! Look at how the UK and USA has used this and “The War on Terror” to limit, monitor and control:

• Our freedom of association
• Our freedom of speech
• Our freedom of communication
• Our freedom of anonymity
• Our freedom of movement
• Our privacy

Defining the Establishment
Before I discuss the internet and social-media threat to the establishment, it’s worth me defining “The Establishment,” so I don’t get accused of using wide clichés. I’m very clear on exactly who makes up the establishment:

• Capitalist-led, business-orientated politicians. That’s pretty much the mainstream political parties in all our governments. They came to power as a result of the bankruptcy and failure of the monarchies, post-WWI.
• Business leaders. The ruling executive class whose corporations are threatened by disruption and social change. They’re the hypocrites who now reap the most rewards from business expansion in foreign markets undergoing radical social change – but can’t abide such change in their host countries.
• The Civil Service (police leaders, judiciary, reserve bankers) who are most threatened by radical change to their host country.

The civil service part of the establishment is an interesting one. Following the collapse of the European monarchies after WWI, they seamlessly switched allegiance from the collapsed monarchies to the capitalists who subsequently won the peace.

I’m often accused of being a communist. If the Leninist-Stalin model was communism, then you can keep it. AJP Taylor, the famous historian, noted that the “revolutionary” Bolsheviks used exactly the same civil service – same employees – that the Tsars used! Strange how little change actually occurred as a result of the 1917 Russian “Revolution.” One dictatorship was replaced by another. There was no real social change; poverty was retained, elitism was retained. Today, the internet offers radicals the real opportunity to facilitate and plan real change.

If communism means egalitarianism, limits on power, controls on greed, and political accountability, then I’m happy to have that lable.

The Threat of the Internet to the Establishment
So here’s my point. The establishment is truly threatened by the internet. In the crass words of Dubya, “They hate us because we’re free.” The internet allows enormous freedom of speech (hah - like this blog!), has few controls, and it changes so fast, the people who rule us find it threatening. Anything that can’t be controlled by the establishment is a threat – which is why so many of the freedoms I described are being eaten away. This is because those things that can’t be controlled might, God forbid, lead to change. Real change. Social change. Such true change, that is for the betterment of our society, is abhorred and feared by the establishment. Such change means that as we become more empowered, the power of the establishment becomes diluted. Or worse (gasp!), the members of the establishment have to pay more tax to pay for that change. This is the reason that the establishment continually tries to put controls on the internet. Up until now, the reason for controls has been to (quite rightly) curtail kiddy porn. When those controls don’t work, copyright infringement is the excuse for new, tighter controls on the internet. And now “potential riots” is the excuse to stem the paradigm shift of social networking and the freedom of information transfer inherent in the internet.

It doesn’t help that the establishment doesn’t truly understand the internet, which is why their attempts to control it are so clumsy. But wait. I hear the whores of the establishment screaming in my ears. “If you’re not committing a crime, then you’ve nothing to fear.” Fine. Have you read Orwell’s "1984"? The logical conclusion to this indolent thinking is that you then have no problem with government CCTV cameras in your house. You have no problem with CCTV cameras in your lounge and bedroom, with more government agents watching your every move. Your increased taxes would be paying for these agents. Well, such controls would surely eliminate every crime, wouldn’t they? And, you’ve nothing to fear from government cameras in your room, remember - because you’re not committing a crime.

Conclusion
Do you value our democracy? Do you enjoy the limits placed on our politicians? Do you enjoy universal suffrage? Do you want the government in your lounge? Read more about the “Chartists.” They’d be turning in their graves by now.

I’m afraid that the powers-that-be will succeed in their attempts to do adopt a kill switch, on the back of this right-wing hysteria, whipped up by the equally right-wing media. Time and again, the white middle classes roll over and take it up the jackseye, if anything threatens their mortgage-related comfortable living. We are ants. The powerful voice of the educated middle classes has been silenced by the mortgage tombs around their necks and the vain hope of promotion. Capitalism has enfeebled, virtually enslaved, the middle classes. The current form of our business-driven democracy dilutes our voice, and protest has become a crime. We are ants.