London mayoral race doesn't inspire

I've never understood those passionate about local government. The world of sewerage, rubbish collection, footpaths, planning, bylaws, parking and strategic visions is far from inspiring. In fact whilst many of these activities are respectable businesses, the deathly bureaucratic insipidness of how local government loves to govern should send shivers down the spine of any person who has a sense of life. I'm not saying there aren't good people in local government, sadly local government dominates some sectors so that professionals in those sectors have few other places to work - roads being one. However, those who get excitement about the potential for local government to make people's lives better are really deluded and possibly ill. Local government is perhaps the least accountable layer of government there is. It generates the lowest electoral turnout, it almost always attracts people of modest achievement compared to national politics and by and large most of what it does is so tedious that only in particularly egregious cases of incompetence does it get media coverage.

.

So in one respect the lack of coverage of any aspects of the English local body elections this year is a blessing - it shows how little time most people have for it. The only contest of interest is the London Mayoralty. One aspect of UK local elections is how national politics is replicated at the local level in that Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats all contest such elections, and by and large, local results reflect national polling. So this time round Labour is worried, and the prize of London is coveted by the Conservative Party.

So this is why Boris Johnson was selected. Who else could the Tories choose to defeat the self promoting ego-centric Ken Livingstone than the entertaining quick witted Boris Johnson, known for having his foot in his mouth more often than not, but by and large well loved for being a comedian. Boris's wit and general congenial character means he is a chap likely to give the Mayoralty a good shot, although some of his embarrassing past remarks have seen him be carefully stage managed, rather sadly. Livingstone on the other hand has, pretty much, seemed like a grumpy old sod who thinks he is the centre of all that is special about London, whilst he largely ignores a lengthy set of claims about the use of public resources to campaign and the waste of money by his self selected dubious advisors.

.

For me I simply want Livingstone defeated. He is a ghastly little man who still blames poverty on Margaret Thatcher, is sycophantic towards leftwing dictators like Castro and happily pours money down nonsense such as "city embassies" in Caracas, Beijing and Delhi. His ambition to gain London the Olympics is seeing a monumental waste of taxpayers' money on managing it all, and granting the construction sector a massive windfall. Londoners and UK citizens may wonder how much money would be available to them all in taxes if London had abandoned this folly. A vastly overcrowded city with creaking infrastructure and a booming tourist sector doesn't need the Olympics - but it's a fait accompli I'm afraid. Livingstone has promised all sorts of socialist nonsense from free tube trips at peak times for pensioners, to his enormous public housing campaign. He has nothing good to add, and his attitude to corruption allegations (throwing the word racist at opponents) should seal his fate. Yet Boris Johnson's good qualities - wit and humble determination to do his bet, aren't quite enough to get me excited. I'll rather cheer the end of Ken than have solace with Boris.

.

Take one area I DO know. Transport. It is rather hard to tell the two apart except on a couple of points. Boris doesn't like articulated or "bendy" buses, rather passionately. About the only reason to hate them is how they've become the free buses of much of London, as one notices hooded youth tending to enter by the back doors and not flashing Oyster cards to pay. Ken saw them introduced. Ken wants to convert the congestion charge into a punitive tax on big cars, Boris wont. However there is no serious challenge to the status quo. Both oppose a third runway at Heathrow Airport, although clearly there is the demand from travellers. Neither advocate doing anything substantial for roads, although London has perhaps the worst developed arterial road network of any major Western city. London's bus network costs over a billion pounds a year in subsidies, is dirt cheap to users and most buses run with very few passengers on a per km basis. The tube is costing a fortune to recover from years of public sector underinvestment, yet it doesn't cost seriously more while it is overcrowded than at other times. Meanwhile Ken pursues expensive but low impact projects like the East London line extension, whilst renationalising maintenance and management of two thirds of the tube!

.

A lot could be done, but Boris doesn't want to rock the boat. He is waiting for Ken to lose, although he does advocate confronting the transport unions and fighting petty crime. That and being more spendthrift would be nice. However Boris is no Thatcher, he wont cut spending and council tax, he wont privatise what London needs privatising. London will continue to make money from the City and tourists, while bleeding elsewhere and subsidising half of its population and most of the UK, whilst having pitiful infrastructure that barely keeps up. It could be so much better, but socialist Britain wont hear of it.

TAP Air Portugal? 3 stars

I recently flew TAP Air Portugal for the first time, London to Lisbon return, in scum class. No I didn't expect much, and neither should you. Portugal is a nice country, the people are lovely, the airport at Lisbon was better than many, but the airline could do with some polishing. I've reviewed it on my travel blog, which will now include flights and hotels that I experience and think you should know about. The verdict? BA's better - although at least my luggage turned up.

UN “experts” with vile credentials

The reputation of the United Nations is, for most I dare say, one of morality, peace and even handedness. Yet the UN more often than most know appoints so called experts who, in any sane interpretation, would be considered cranks. The sort of people who should be standing on a street corner with a cup whilst they blast out their unhinged nonsense.
.
David Aaronovitch writes about two of them in The Times. Professor Richard Falk, once Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University (I remember reading some of his articles when I was at university) has been appointed expert on Israel by the UN Human Rights Council. Remember this same council selects the likes of Cuba and Libya to be on it to judge the human rights of others. Imagine an organisation of convicted child abusers advising on how children should be protected. It is that hypocritical, that despicable and that fraudulent.
.
As Aaronovitch writes, Falk himself has taken to comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Falk believes “suicide bombers appeared as the only means still available” for the Palestinian “struggle” to go on. Falk also has written a chapter in a book called “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out”, a book authored by David Ray Griffen. The book talks of how no plane ever flew into the Pentagon and how the World Trade Centre came down by a “controlled demolition” (though how they explain the two airliners flying into it is a little harder).

Of course the UN would give this intellectual with some severe problems a job.

Aaronovitch also writes about how the Swiss government convinced the Human Rights Council to appoint Professor Jean Ziegler to its advisory committee. Professor Ziegler has defended Mengistu, the former Ethiopian dictator who was responsible for the famines in the 1980s (Ethiopia once exported food until Mengistu collectivised the farms), Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro and Muammer Gaddafi.

However, given Switzerland’s proud history of sitting courageously on the fence being bankers to the Nazis whilst Europe burnt around it, I don’t expect a great deal from the Swiss. Being neutral in what was the defining war between good and evil (and evil and evil) in the 20th century is indifference to evil.

.
The UN of course is not indifferent to evil, just hypocritical beyond words. Of course it was created after World War 2 to stop another such war. However, imagine what harm it would have done if it had existed in advance of that. Would it have stopped the Nazi goosestepping advance across Czechoslovakia, then Poland? Would it have stopped the Japanese empire, which had already enslaved Korea advancing its racist brutal dictatorship along the Chinese coast, past Indochina and in Malaya and the Dutch East Indies? Hardly. Of course a review of the UN would only expose that it is fully constrained by appealing to the majority of states, which are typically quite corrupt and power hungry, and by not offending Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, two of which – China and Russia have been held predominantly by totalitarian or authoritarian regimes since the UN was formed. So the UN is the sum of its members, and many of its members are morally dubious, and some quite evil indeed. However that is another story.

.

You see some see the UN as being a repositary of virtue in international relations, or some authority that should be listened to or respected. However, it is none of the sort. The most recent appointments of an "expert" on Israel who is a conspiracy nutter, and an advisor on human rights who sympathises with Robert Mugabe continue to deny it any real claim to morality. Until the UN or its member states unite against such repulsive individuals having any role within it, it will remain a place where those who are great achievers and those who cheer on murderers are treated the same. Anyone who looks to that for inspiration or guidance will surely be lost.

Maori party's despicable sophistry

A chap who shares part of my name has posted on SOLO about the Maori Party's attempt to place criminal gang members on the same level as Jews in Germany in the 1930s.

.

The Maori Party has had a free run, because of the rather vacuous notion that it is difficult to criticise a party that attempts to define itself as being of a people rather than a philosophy. Except it IS a philosophy. It is nationalism, collectivism and with the possible exception of Pita Sharples on a good day, morally dubious. It has a highly privileged position in having part of Parliament defined on the same basis as it defines itself.

.

Having said that, who doubts that, if he believes he needs to, John Key will sell out his principles and policies to the Maori Party for power. Actually sorry he wont do that anymore than I can sell out my ownership of the Isle of Man.

Mbeki and China accessories to Mugabe's bloodshed

As despicable as Robert Mugabe's despotic machinations are to cling to power, steal and prop up his blood thirsty cronies, whilst bulldozing the bodies of ordinary Zimbabweans into the dust, a close second comes to his buddy - Thabo Mbeki - not an appeaser but a partner in the crimes against Zimbabwe. Mbeki by rights, should be persona non grater in international circles. However, South Africa at the moment chairs the UN Security Council, which doesn't particularly surprise me. After all, when Libya gets selected to go on the Human Rights Council it confirms the moral vacuousness of the UN, which has the moral heights of its lowest member.

.

The UN, after all, including the People's Republic of China, repeatedly condemned apartheid as an hienous system - not hesitating to comment or pass resolutions regarding the internal affairs of South Africa - but not Zimbabwe.

.

So Gordon Brown's call for "the world" to stop Mugabe stealing his election finally shows some backbone, supported by France. China regards this as an "internal matter", but then again China is far from the world's repositary of moral authority. Mbeki chaired the UN Security Council meeting where Brown made this call, and did not mention Zimbabwe. Mbeki despicable betrayal of Zimbabwe seen by his reported "snub" of Brown afterwards and condemnation of "loud diplomacy". Of course loud diplomacy was fine under apartheid - but Mbeki presumably supports the halving of life expectancy, the murders, the electoral fraud, or he insanely believes his wealthy thug of a friend that it is all a conspiracy. This may explain it, given Mbeki's retarded views on AIDS and HIV, he may simply be an idiot who is friends with a bullying fraudster.

.

Mbeki's role as "mediator" for Zimbabwe is completely ridiculous. It would be like appointing Mussolini to mediate between the Nazis and the Jews. Morgan Tsvangarai has called for Mbeki to stand down in this role - it is critical that this gets widespread support. Mbeki is known for believing AIDS isn't caused by HIV, but by poverty. This ludicrous notion has undoubtedly killed many South Africans who believed that, with HIV, they could act with impunity.

.

He says claims of serious violent crime are exaggerated, apparently 50 murders a day - the second highest rate in the world, isn't bad enough for Thabo Mbeki. Perhaps 100 a day, well apparently Zimbabwe's death rate isn't an issue. He is a quiet man who not only is in denial about his own countries biggest problems (AIDS, crime and now electricity shortages), but is an accessory to murder and a constitutional coup by Mugabe and his Zanu-PF thugs. South Africa's post-apartheid moral leadership of the continent has been lost because of its siding with one of the continents biggest living kleptocratic thugs. It is complete evasion to claim, as Guardian columnist Blessing-Miles Tendi does that this is about South Africa respecting state sovereignty and non-intervention - South Africa is intervening, it choses to let constitutional law in its neighbour to proceed. It treats and warmly embraces the man undertaking it - Thabi Mbeki is embracing a murdering tyrant, and that makes him only one step better.

.

Meanwhile the latest step is China - as it seeks to claim the moral highground over the Olympics- is now shipping arms to Zimbabwe, as a Chinese ship has docked in Durban South Africa for transhipment to Zimbabwe. If you wanted another reason to oppose the Beijing Olympics, then enjoy noting that while Zimbabweans starve, Zanu-PF, the army and the police can put them out of their misery with Chinese made arms. Of course, South Africa wont stop the arms shipment will it?

Helen Clark defends Winston Peters?

So the PM thinks that it is notable that Winston Peters doesn’t trust National. Well that’s hardly a surprise, but she selected a man who leads a racist party to be Minister of Foreign Affairs.

What would immigrants, particularly Asian ones, think of how cozy Clark is being with Peters?

and more importantly, why should anyone trust the Prime Minister when she has to deny the tactic promoted by Mike Williams - Labour Party President - member of various government boards - to use the public sectors' resources for political campaigning?

Greens oppose competition for government companies

Green MP Sue Bradford in the typical "Nanny State knows best" fashion of the Greens has said in her press release against privatisation that despite John Key's decision to have a privatisation policy to the left of the British Labour Party..
.
"Key's assurances say nothing about opening up state assets to private competition"
.
So the Greens now believe that state owned enterprises should actually be monopolies? She witters on about ACC - the only example in the world of a state monopoly for personal injury by accident cover, and as a result one with the worst payouts. If you're a student doctor and have injuries that prevent you ever being a surgeon you'll get compensation equivalent to you pay as a student - not what you would have lost. You can't sue of course, because that's not allowed in the happy socialist world of "no fault", even if someone drove drunk into you.
.
Bradford's view presumably means she thinks that NZ Post should have a statutory monopoly again (the Alliance did vote against it), Air New Zealand surely should have domestic routes to itself, and private companies shouldn't be selling electricity, so bye bye Contact Energy and Trustpower. We know the Greens aren't friends of privately provided health and education, so presumably private hospitals and independent schools should go. Banking is more complicated, because presumably Kiwibank shouldn't have to face private competition.

.

So in other words it's ok for the state to rip you off, provide poor service and shut out competitors, because competition is "bad" unless it is the evil private sector facing it. Presumably if you get bad service from the "people's" hospital, you should complain to your MP who will fix it - you know how effective that has been.

.

The Greens don't like monopolies except ones that you, the taxpayers have to fund, and which are owned by the big brother state they want to control and grow.

Auckland local government?

It doesn't matter how you want to slice the Auckland local government cake - it is still cholesterol laden and tasteless. It's too big. Arguments about the best structure avoid the first point - what should local government do? Labour and the Greens believe it should have the power to do just about whatever it wishes, this means running businesses, supplying housing, regulating and planning as much as it can get away with. I believe that, at the most, it should provide a transitional role in defining property rights, administering public space and divesting itself of activities that could be done by the private sector and voluntarily.
.
What does National believe?
.
It could start by restricting local authorities to only being custodians of arms length commercially or cost recovery run water, sewage, stormwater, rubbish collection and public parks, with planning authority only to enforce private property rights. It could transfer roads to companies with adjacent property owners owning the shares and paying access fees. However, most of all local government needs to be limited. The current review of Auckland governance ignores this, and attributes blame for Auckland problems on the wrong arrangement of councils - when the real blame is the meddling of councils and their inability to carry out well some of the functions they are entrusted with. The poor turnout at local body elections show what little interest many people have in local government and how poorly representative it is of "the community".
.
So first decide what local government should or shouldn't do. What do YOU think? Would Auckland be worse off if Auckland Regional Council was abolished?

Labour's Zimbabwe election tactics?

If anything should justify universal outrage about Labour it is the report in the NZ Herald that it plans to sidestep the Electoral Finance Act, by using YOUR money through the once politically independent state sector. These come from confidential strategy notes apparently distributed at the Labour Party Congress.
.
According to the NZ Herald "in a private session on the election strategy, run by president Mike Williams, delegates were advised to distribute pamphlets on KiwiSaver produced by the Inland Revenue Department and on Working for Families produced by Work and Income. They were also advised to tell voters when handing out the pamphlets that National voted against both measures."
.
So Labour wants to use taxpayer funded leaflets about government policy to campaign - how very convenient. Of course all public servants are expected to declare to the Chief Executive their political affiliations - all such public servants should simply not be permitted to remove from their work large numbers of publicity material for political purposes.
.
This, of course, was always the problem with the nonsense about "buying elections" with private money. The incumbent government can always "buy elections" with the resources of government departments directly or indirectly, and it is compulsorily funded by taxpayers whether they support them or not.
.
So will Nicky Hagar write a book about Labour's strategy to buy the next election? Oh no, that's right, that "journalist" wants Labour to win. Meanwhile, watch Labour's blogging lackeys deny it, say the Herald is a rightwing rag or claim that it's been misinterpreted. Anything for power right?

John there IS an alternative - make the argument

So John Key has been reported by Stuff as saying that National has "ruled out" state asset sales in its next term. Why? Well don't expect any thought about it - it's simple, Key doesn't believe in much another than getting elected. Fair enough some of you will say. However, some of us want to think that he'll DO something other than not be Helen Clark and not make things worse.
.
Of course, Helen Clark is having him for toast on this. "Miss Clark said Mr Key's stance was "laughable" and could not be trusted." It is and I actually hope it can't. I hope he DOES engage in asset sales, because there is so much the state shouldn't do.
.
There are multiple reasons why the state should privatise its commercial operations, and why the abject lies spread by the left about privatisation should be confronted. Here are some:
.
1. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to invest in businesses they don't want to invest in.
2. Politically appointed boards will be less competent than privately appointed boards, because politicians have incentives to meddle and make a company less profitable than it would be otherwise - which then means there is a bigger chance of a bail out.
3. The state should not be engaged in competing with the private sector. It is unfair for private competitors to fund state owned companies through taxes.
4. Private companies can more readily raise capital to invest, update and expand than state ones - this explains why Contact Energy seems more able to fund and build power stations than its competitors.
5. Businesses SHOULD be allowed to fail if they don't perform. It's part of capitalism and the world moves on, and new businesses buy the assets and provide services for people to use. This happened to TV3 in 1991, not that most of you will remember that. Australia was hardly crippled by the collapse of Ansett.
6. Privatisation can provide new expertise and capital to grow and develop businesses. Telecom and Contact Energy are two examples of this. The refusal to allow Singapore Airlines to do the same thing for Air New Zealand is one of the reasons the firm fell over.
.
However, arguments about better performance, getting more investment and accountability will not work with most of the public. Even arguing selling SOEs to cut public debt wont wash that much, although it is still valid. John Key could advocate privatisation of a more direct kind - give away the shares.
.
Imagine if National offered to give shares to every single citizen, in equal numbers to avoid arguments, in one current SOE. This would be true public ownership. Everyone would own shares, get dividends and watch the value rise and drop - and could decide whether to sell, buy more, and appreciate a little what it means to own business. Oh and the socialists could give the shares away to their favourite charity, not that they would of course.
.
So go on John, say you'll sell just one of the three government electricity SOEs (no monopolies here, there are around seven electricity generating firms) like Genesis - with 40% of the shares going in a public float and the rest shares distributed to all citizens. The firm buying 40% would provide the expertise and capital injection, the rest would mean all citizens could vote for directors, attend AGMs and truly own shares.
.
How many Labour voters would vote to get their shares? How would it change how people felt about capitalism being all shareholders? Watch how Labour and the rest of the left would say the poor would simply sell the shares - showing their contempt for their own supporters - assuming they are all stupid or that it is wrong to give them a part of the beloved state THEY can control.
.
Go on John, it's worth a shot. You could make privatisation NOT a dirty word.

Where is Nelson Mandela?

According to the Sunday Times, Mugabe's murdering self styled "war veterans" are back on the rampage, brutally attacking the handful of remaining white farmers, and black farmers accused of supporting non Zanu-PF candidates:
.
"When the trunk stopped they punctured the tyres, dragged the farmer out, cuffed his hands behind his back and drove him away in another vehicle. At one point one of the war veterans put a wire noose round his neck and began to strangle him. He stopped before it was too late. Meanwhile, the police had been alerted and managed to persuade the war veterans to release their prisoner"
.
Charming indeed, for a 76 year old man to endure. However, Mugabe's thieving murdering lackeys fear him losing for fear they will be held to account for their own crimes. The Sunday Times also reports that "meticulous records kept on filein a special archive in the Reserve Bank could be used against them". This includes the army chief Constantine Chiwenga, the Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri, and many other high ranking military officials and politburo members. Air Vice Marshal Henry Muchena was reported as saying that Zanu PF " did not fight a liberation war to have Zimbabweans vote incorrectly".
.
Meanwhile, there are to be recounts of results in 23 constituencies, 22 at the call of Zanu-PF. The appeasers of the Southern African Development Community, which represents 14 countries in southern Africa couldn't even agree that there IS an emergency - at best useless inert nobodies, at worst mates with Mugabe all with blood on their hands.
.
So while Thabo Mbeki does nothing while black Zimbabweans starve, get beaten up, tortured and bullied, where is his predecessor? Nelson Mandela - the great hero of South Africa, who was rightly feted for having allowed a peaceful transition from fascist apartheid rule to relatively open non-racial liberal democracy?
.
Why is he silent when fellow Africans are being so appallingly mistreated, lied to, cheated and killed by Comrade Mugabe? Well the ANC is wilfully blind to electoral fraud, putting out press releases like this, which ignore any claims of fraud, bias or intimidation. According to the Helen Suzman Foundation, the South African media is largely craven in its unwillingness to criticise Zimbabwe, because the ANC wont. It calls for targeted sanctions.
.
but it wont happen. Mandela COULD speak up, he could call for Robert Mugabe to step aside, for international monitors of a free and fair runoff election with no intimidation, and for failure to follow this to be a reason for South Africa to impose targeted sanctions. He wont, and this makes him, as one commentator put it, a fallen hero.
.
Robert Mugabe has created more damage, death, pain and suffering than Ian Smith's racist minority regime ever did - it is a damning indictment on Mandela, Mbeki and the ANC that Mugabe's past support for the fight against apartheid excuses his murderous tyranny. When human rights campaigners criticise China for propping up Myanmar and Sudanese tyrannies, they might start aiming criticism at South Africa for doing the same thing.

Woe betide those going to Lincoln University to study transport

You really have to wonder how Lincoln University's Professor of Transport Studies Chris Kissling gets any sort of credibility. I've been in the transport sector for over eight years now, and the times I mentioned Lincoln University's courses I tended to be looked at funny, and the more I heard about it, the more I knew why. They are courses that have a marginal connection to economics, and are more akin to the fantasies of fanatics than an interest in the commercial and individual needs of transport users and producers. I'd gently suggest that anyone thinking about spending NZ$140 on the book noted in this article in Stuff, consider how much better off they would be going here and downloading this study, which will tell more about transport for free than the writings of academics who are ignored by those who provide transport and (hopefully still) by those who advise government on it. Frankly Kissling needs to do some basic economics, and perhaps get some help. The claims of the future sound like the ramblings of an enthusiastic 12 year old - but remember, your taxes pay for this guy to teach!

.

Let's take the Stuff article to test some of what they say:

.

"The driverless, or electronically chauffeured, car is already being tested on designated roads in California. Kissling expects it to be carrying commuters in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch by the 2030s...Kissling says the retro-fitting of cables for broadband internet has shown the system could be applied at any time." Well driverless cars for motorways are indeed feasible, but retrofitting highways to allow it is some way off. If he really did follow this he'd look at the Vehicle Infrastructure Integration project involving US vehicle manufacturers and the US Federal Government, which is about installing intelligent equipment on new vehicles, it is not about "using wires laid under the roads". Why do you need that when there is GPS?

.

"within 25 years, he hopes to see a light-rail commuter system operating in Christchurch. This will include the use of existing rail corridors from Dunsandel and Rangiora....trains will bring commuters as far as suburban transfer stations, where passengers will switch to buses which will run on dedicated road lanes to the city centre. Smooth transfers and speedy travel will entice commuters away from their cars. Kissling says big spending will be necessary to establish such systems but "private motoring as we do it now is unsustainable". Oh dear. Why? What's wrong with efficient low emission buses, or does it justify paying the enormous premium of light rail over buses? Since when did transferring modes "entice" people away from cars? Why is private motoring unsustainable? Assertions with no evidence, like a Green Party wishlist with the taxpayer paying for something they wont use.

.

"Another 25-year scenario is the development of "smart" clothes. These could incorporate miniature computers which would open doors on command and steer people around hazardous places" Yes, the decades of infrared detectors and electric treadle mats with electronic doors must have escaped him at Lincoln University. Nothing like being "steered" by your clothes is there? Now I'm worried, is this guy sane?

.

"Kissling does not discount "smart" clothing incorporating wings that will allow people to "fly" above busy streets -- but that is beyond his 25-year outlook." Well add another zero to 25 years. Why would you even mention Daedalus and Icarus type ideas?

.

"His 25-year outlook includes computer-controlled carparking systems which remove the need for drivers to carry cash. Kerb-mounted devices will scan the number plates of cars as they park, calculate the time spent parked and charge the cost to the vehicles' owners." Well done, but not 25 years. Go to baa.com and you too can do this today, in the UK, at airport car parks.

.

"Kissling objects to aspects of Christchurch's parking system. The "early bird" provision, charging a lower rate for parking all day in a parking building, while giving access to the best parks at ground-floor level, is contrary to transport policy, he says. The lack of integration between civic and privately owned parking buildings in signage telling motorists of spaces available is confusing to visitors, he says." So they should be nationalised should they? Contrary to transport policy, well we should fix that shouldn't we? So Kissling is a bit of a fascist, if you own property and get best use charging people low prices for all day usage, it shouldn't be allowed. Actually his concern is congestion - which is about how roads are managed, not parking. However, he seems to never mention road pricing - funny that.

.

"His 25-year view includes electronic check-in with "a walk-through portal in front of a camera lens" that scans passengers." Visited an airport lately? Electronic checkin is the norm, and the IRIS system at many UK airports bypasses immigration checks. Hardly revolutionary.

.

"Kissling's wish-list for transport in New Zealand includes "serious investment" in railways, to broaden curves, smooth gradients and widen tunnels. Only then could trains run at speeds to challenge road haulage, he says." Go on Kissling, "invest". Explain why people who don't use railways should do this? By what insane economic analysis does this make sense?

.

"There is a place for swift rail (like Japan's bullet trains) in New Zealand, from Auckland to Hamilton and perhaps Tauranga." Cost? Business case? Thought not. Utterings from a train fanatic with no basis in economic reality.

.

"He says coastal shipping suffers from unequal competition with international shipping lines, while trucking benefits from paying an inadequate amount towards highway building and maintenance." However users benefit from the cheap cost of sea freight cabotage using ships that are already moving between domestic ports, which he ignores. Where does he get that trucks pay an "inadequate amount" towards highway building and maintenance? If he is true, why not increase those charges? No, let's pour billions into railways!

.

"Kissling's and Tiffin's new book has been greeted in other countries for presenting a global context for transport and analysing many issues involved." Well the Observer in the UK has reviewed it glowingly (idiots), and that has noted some more mad ideas:

.

"Pilotless planes would be flown closer together, automatically rerouted to avoid bad weather, and would be less vulnerable to hijackers. · Passengers would be given sleeping pills and stacked horizontally on beds" Great! Because pilots don't reroute planes around bad weather already, and because pilotless planes can't be hijacked, and we all want to take drugs and travel like freight. Funny how he isn't predicting low emissions carbon fibre planes, oh sorry that's real.

.

but surely the best is this "Virtual reality technology would allow people to meet in cyberspace, saving travel for more personal occasions"

.

Amazing, a book written in 2007 predicting video conferencing and.. the internet.

.

So if you are planning on studying transport at Lincoln University I'd suggest, gently, don't. If the Professor engages in flights of fancy that are either economic nonsense, technical nonsense or... already existing, then you really don't want to spoil your CV by looking like you've had your head filled with such adolescence.

Compulsory third party insurance nonsense

So Stuff reports that Associate Transport Minister Harry Duynhoven has finally decided to completely ignore all official advice, and institute compulsory third party insurance for motorists.

.

Oops not that the report says he ignored official advice, but go on - make an Official Information Act request on the matter- you'll find numerous papers written on this saying what a dumb idea it is, politely.

.

Now, I'll hear you say, what about that bastard who ran into my car and wasn't insured? Well what about him? Were you insured? Did you insurance company provide cover against the uninsured as many do? If not, then well you took the risk didn't you? Besides, do you think making it compulsory makes it universal? All compulsion will do is add to the penalties for those who don't wish to be insured, and a few more will become insured - after all, if the threat of being sued by someone else's insurance company isn't enough of a threat, a fine wont do more.

.

Ah but it exists in other countries. Um, no you're not quite right there. Compulsory Third Party Insurance in other countries is typically about personal injury cover, not property cover. In New Zealand this is irrelevant since there already is compulsory third party injury cover, which you pay at the same rate regardless of your driving record - ACC does that for you, it's a monopoly that treats the driver with the clean record the same as the recividist drunk driver - but that's the state for you - it's equality after all!

.

The claims made about this nonsense policy have little evidence to back them up. Duynhoven's claims about the effects of compulsory third party insurance overseas are such rubbish, because the premiums are about INJURY cover. The INJURY cover premiums vary according to driving records in Europe, but they don't in New Zealand, because New Zealand is the only country with nationalised no-fault socialised injury insurance (which means you can be accident free or be a serial killer by accident, and your premiums don't change).

.

Certain parts of the country, such as East Cape, the far North and the Chatham Islands have low levels of Warrant of Fitness, Motor Vehicle Registration and Drivers Licence compliance, and many don't have insurance. This will just be added to the list. The excuse that it will address "bad driving" raises the question - why aren't dangerous drivers simply denied licences for longer, or face imprisonment for dangerous driving causing death? In other words - is this just another sound bite for election year which, when you look at the evidence, isn't worth it?

.

but will National oppose it? It COULD suggest an alternative - open up the ACC motor vehicle account to competition, so good drivers could choose a private insurer who rewards good behaviour. That MIGHT make a difference, but that would weaken the holy grail of ACC socialism - no fault, no blame, everybody pay the same.

Why the media is playing into the Chinese government's hands

It is difficult to determine how language develops when stories are covered by the media, but perhaps too many underestimate its importance. It is particularly important with the coverage of the Olympic torch relay, because whilst protestors are typically concerned about human rights, and the Chinese government's oppression of political opposition and free speech, the news media has characterised the protests as being "pro-Tibet". In smaller numbers have been those waving the flag of the People's Republic of China, and have been called "pro-China". The implications of these two phrases should not be underestimated.

.

The Beijing government is milking this coverage for all it can, playing the nationalist card. This card is particularly strong for Chinese, because, unlike Marxism (which has little genuine currency left in China or amongst Chinese worldwide), focusing on Chinese identity and implying that those who protest the games are "anti-Chinese" can foment a great deal of animosity. Yet I doubt if any of those protesting the games are anti-Chinese at all.

.

The protestors against the Beijing Olympics are variably in favour of greater political freedom in Tibet, some believe in Tibetan independence, but the overwhelming message is that the Beijing government should provide some outlet for Tibetan grievances to be heard or at least expressed. The phrase "pro-Tibet" implies the Chinese government is "anti-Tibet", which is slightly silly. The Chinese government happily hangs onto Tibet for a whole host of reasons.

.

The truth is more that the Chinese government is "pro Han Chinese" and, like most cultures around the world, does apply an element of cultural arrogance and patronising attitude towards ethnic minorities. In short, Tibetans should be damned pleased the Chinese Communist Party "liberated" China and has given them electricity, roads, hospitals etc. That is what Beijing is trying to sell, and with some justification argues against Tibetan Buddhist feudalism. Beijing's line on Tibet needs to be understood clearly for what it is:

.

- Tibet is part of China, always has been. If you argue for Tibetan independence the fear is that China will splinter as CNN reports Hu Jintao saying. Don't forget China was far from unified before 1949, and a China that is broken up is weaker than a unified one, well for those in power in Beijing anyway.

- Beijing believes, quite strongly, that other powers (Japan, USA and other neighbours) would support the disintegration of China, purely for geopolitical reasons. This is due to an inherent xenophobic view of the world burnished into Chinese political thought based upon experience with colonialism in Shanghai and Hong Kong and Japan's invasion and occupation. Beijing and the Communist Party in particular strongly believes the rest of the world fears and opposes a strong China, and that supporting Tibetan independence is one way of achieving this (the aggressive attitude towards Taiwanese independence has a similar motive).

- Beijing believes, with a grossly patronising attitude, that Tibetans should be grateful for rule from Beijing and what has been materially delivered to that rather cauterised province (historic Tibet has had a good chunk of its land incorporated into Qinghai province). As Tibetans are arguably materially better off than they were in the 1950s (which frankly wouldn't be very hard), they should be grateful and stop ruining a sporting event that China as a whole should be proud of. They want Tibetans to be conscious they are part of the Chinese nation, and isn't that a great thing.

.

So Beijing treats protests about Tibet as being a foreign inspired plot to weaken China, and its media is full of this line. Calling the protests "anti-Chinese" plays into its hands. This is why those who protest should acknowledge what the real problem is and the real solution - the problem is not China governing Tibet, it is its governance. That problem isn't just Tibet, it is all of China barring Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.

.

The Chinese state media, which today has global TV and radio broadcasts, and multiple websites, is constantly portraying the protests as being "anti-China", and the lackeys who wave the blood stained flag of the People's Republic as "pro-China". Western media should abandon such terminology - nobody is protesting against the "Chinese nation" or "Chinese people", they are protesting the one-party state authoritarian rule of the Communist Party of China. Unfortunately the protestors have rarely made that clear and coverage of them has not helped.

.

This coverage is why some protests have started emerging in the West that are "pro-Chinese".

.

So I call about protestors to abandon the calls for Tibetan independence. The call should be for all of China to have fundamental political freedoms. This means freedom of speech including freedom of the press, and for prisoners of conscience to be released. It is about allowing criticism of the Communist Party. It should also be about China stopping its support for Myanmar and Sudan's fellow dictatorships, and its sending of North Korean refugees back to almost certain death in gulags. However, one thing at a time.

.

The message needs to be loud and clear. There would not be protests against the Beijing Olympics if China's government opened dialogue with the Dalai Lama, opened up Tibet to the sort of freedom of speech that exists in Hong Kong, and stop arresting political prisoners. China is the third largest economy in the world if you don't count the EU as one entity, there is much to be proud of in raising its peasant economy to an industrial power - but in the 21st century many fear the Olympics will shine a light on all of this, while ignoring the executions, torture and oppression by those who rule China against those who oppose what is done to them. This message is blurred by those who paint this as being "pro-Tibet" and "pro-China". Nobody is anti Tibet or anti China, and those who are "pro-China" are actually pro Chinese Communist Party rule. If this was 1936 and Germans were flying Nazi flags would they be pro-German or pro-Nazi? China's government and many Chinese may not think there are parallels with the 1936 Olympics - but while China is ruled by a single party that executes those who challenge its rule, it is difficult to avoid the link. Not since Moscow in 1980 have the Olympics been held in a dictatorship.

.

In an age of soundbite news reporting is it too much to ask for simple slogans like "pro-Tibet" and "Pro-China" to be done away with and instead call them "Tibetan independence" or "human rights campaigners", and "pro Chinese government". Being anti Chinese Communist Party is not anti Chinese.

Mbeki the friend of fascism

South African President Thabo Mbeki has visited his ol' buddy Robert Mugabe and according to the BBC Mbeki has said that "there is no crisis" in Zimbabwe. What is that if it isn't wilful blindness to the destruction of Zimbabwe?

.

Why do world leaders remain silent against this accessory to murder and fascism?

.

Mugabe has done more harm to Zimbabwe's people than Ian Smith and the racist Rhodesian administration - but racism is the biggest taboo nowadays. Be a racist leader and there is, rightfully, no tolerance. Be a murdering fascist black African kleptocrat, and it's ok - at least he's not killing and starving people based on race (though he did lead murderers based on tribe).

.

It's time the Western media got over the fawning lack of criticism of post-apartheid South African government. Nelson Mandela has been long gone - Thabi Mbeki is no Nelson Mandela, and Jacob Zuma even less so. The ANC is the Zanu-PF of South Africa.

.

According to CNN, the Summit of African leaders is likely to call for the Zimbabwe election results to be released in full immediately. Of course, it will ignore the widespread fraud - because their old bloodthirsty buddy Robert Mugabe is beyond criticism. It's about time Mbeki and the ANC regime was not.

Pity Zimbabwe

Robert Mugabe has always been an evil despicable thug - it has taken the world 20 or so years to finally realise that. He is going to claim victory. Although the opposition has already claimed it, Mugabe has a long record of being a bully. His goons will declare it has been free and fair, and the corrupt lowlife that comprise the ANC will continue to provide succour to Mugabe. You see, the South African regime only doesn't perform like Mugabe because it doesn't need to - yet.

So why is Mugabe not a surprise? Many on the left waxed lyrically about the man in the 1980s, he was a great hero - even though he is a Marxist-Leninist who has enriched himself enormously from his grip on power. What is the truth?

There are umpteen books telling this truth, but here are some of the highlights of how awful he has been, for some time:

- For starters, Mugabe is a Marxist-Leninist. Note that the 20th century includes Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Castro, Erich Honecker, Pol Pot, Nicolae Ceausescu among others who were Marxist-Leninists. That in itself should raise concern. He spoke Marxist-Leninist rhetoric repeatedly, constantly spoke in diatribes against the West and in favour of socialism. He spoke often about the state participating and regulating all sectors of the economy, and presided over an ever increasing growth in state ownership and control of the economy over the 80s and 90s.

- From as early as 1983 he was supporting the creation of a one-party state, openly asking why Zimbabwe couldn't have one? What supporter of liberal democracy and individual rights would not be concerned? His thugs murdered en masse in Matabeleland, his "war veteran" barbarians bayoneted whole families who were considered to be enemies, including infants in front of their parents.

.

Mugabe was treated with kid gloves for so long because of three different motives:

.

1. Enormous British "guilt" about Ian Smith's apartheid style Unilateral Declaration of Independence. Anything was better than that. Racism being a bigger sin than destroying free speech and an economy.

.

2. Left wing cheerleading of Marxist African post-colonial leaders as "heroes". They couldn't do any wrong - they represented Africans ruling Africa, when many were kleptocractic authoritarians who took what they wished and would beat and kill those that got in the way.

.

3. Conservative British desire to get "rid" of the problem. Rhodesia had been a weeping sore, largely because the UN wouldn't leave it alone. Unlike the mass murdering despots in Cambodia, China, North Korea, Indonesia and the like, Rhodesia was a cause celebre that had most of the world united in opposition. The issue wouldn't be left alone, but don't you dare raise gulags in Siberia at the UN - that's different.

.

Mugabe has now acted as would be expected. The election was held, he did all he could to rig it, and could only rig a run off. Now he has banned political rallies. It is clear Zimbabwe is no libera democracy.

.

The key to this is of course South Africa. Thabo Mbeki - an ignorant buddy of Mugabe - has disgustingly appeased his friend for far too long. Thousands have died because Mbeki wont turn off the supply of money and energy to Zimbabwe and demand Mugabe go. Why? Because in his heart of hearts Mbeki is a Marxist thug too. This ignores the quackery he believes in on HIV - which has directly contributed to the deaths of thousands of South Africans while HIV remained a lower priority for health care and far too many South Africans were complacent about it.

.

You simply have to look at how South African democracy has slowly been getting eroded since the end of apartheid. The ANC calls the opposition "racist" whenever issues of corruption are raised. The state owned television gives the leading opposition party - the Democratic Alliance - hardly any coverage and is highly sympathetic to the ANC. The truth is that if the ANC couldn't win elections on its own right, it would be highly tempted to play the Zanu-PF game.

.

Mbeki like Mugabe plays the race card against critics at every chance, he called Archbishop Desmond Tutu an "icon of white elites". It is the card of blame, and to remove responsibility. It's about time Mbeki was shamed for the useless man he is.

.

If Mugabe effectively overrides liberal democracy in Zimbabwe, it should feel the force of full international sanctions - and South Africa should be shamed if it fails to follow. Apartheid is gone in South Africa, the ANC does win free and relatively fair elections - get over colonialism and start policing the murderous thugs of post colonialism. Whatever good Mugabe could have ever have said to have done has been more than undone by halving the life expectancy of a once rich country. Some of us aren't surprised, it's about time Britain - who is responsible for putting this Marxist-Leninist bully in power, took the lead and called for global sanctions - meanwhile it would save the lives and pain and suffering of thousands if someone could swiftly deliver a bullet to his head.

Should the Olympics be boycotted?

Both the libertarian blog Pacific Empire and semi-libertarian blog Mulholland Drive are endorsing a boycott of the Beijing Olympics. Blair Mulholland explains why:
.

• Free speech and freedom of the press is severely restricted and censored;
• Religion must be sanctioned by the state or adherents are persecuted; and
• Huge numbers of political and religious dissidents languish in Chinese prisons

He calls for China to simply release all prisoners of conscience and to guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of the press. All perfectly reasonable. The boycott he calls for is for athletes to choose themselves, not for government to impose it.
.
So should they? It has been a while since an Olympic Games has suffered from widespread boycotts. Athens, Sydney, Atlanta and Barcelona were all games held in free liberal democracies with all such rights, as will London.
.
The Seoul Olympics in 1988 were the last games during the Cold War, but partly catalysed the democratisation of South Korea. When South Korea won the right to the games in 1981, it was under a military dictatorship, but in 1987 it had its first fully democratic presidential elections and despite North Korea demanding a boycott, only Cuba, Ethiopia and Nicaragua joined the boycott. Since the Seoul Olympics, freedom of the press and vigorous democratic elections have been the hallmark of South Korea. However, China is not on the cusp of becoming free, it is not South Korea 20 years ago.
.
The LA Olympics in 1984 were boycotted by the Warsaw Pact, but the 1980 Moscow Olympics were meant to be a propaganda triumph. This failed miserably not least because of the almost universal Western boycott in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

.

Now in 2008, the Olympic torch ceremony has been a focus for protests in London and Paris. Disturbingly though, the coverage has talked about "anti-China" and "pro-Tibet" protests - I doubt they are either.

.

Who is anti-China? Well besides many in Japan, Korea, Vietnam and others from neighbouring states who harbour the fear and the latent racism that is widespread outside Western civilisation, few indeed. I am not. I am pleased China is growing, pleased that freedoms in China have grown with it and would like nothing less than for the people of China to simply have some fundamental freedoms.

.

Simply being able to criticise the government, have a free and open press, and a state that is accountable, rather than being an extension of the Communist Party. I care less about China being a liberal democracy than I care about the right to free speech, for political prisoners to be freed, and for those who govern China being accountable before the law. It is about China growing up.

.

However, those who govern China are fomenting nationalist hatred that is seen on the China Daily forums that what the protests are about are about criticising and humiliating China. They are not - they are about rejecting the bloodshed, the repression and the unwillingness of China's one party state to be accountable or even honest about what it does. To me China is not what the Communist Party, which in its darkest period was responsible for tens of millions of Chinese starving and being slaughtered, says it is - it is about a people who are resourceful, hard working and creative.

.

Tibet is almost a sideshow, but represents what is wrong with the Chinese regime - it tolerates no dissent, it doesn't allow free and frank debate about government in Tibet, or criticism of what it does. Sadly this means that when Tibetans riot, and attack innocent local Chinese, it becomes a "them and us" story - some choose to unquestionably support the Tibetan protestors, others the Chinese - the truth is that neither are angels, but it is encumbent upon the Chinese Communist Party led regime to not suppress information and not suppress free speech there. i see no reason to be "pro-Tibet" anymore than being "anti-China", and don't believe that a Tibetan Buddhist theocracy is where it should be heading.

.

China has a better model. It's called Hong Kong.

.

You'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the world with more individual freedom than Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, there is a lively free press, with private property rights, independent judiciary and freedom to do business. Art and culture thrive in diversity, and this is all in spite of over ten years of oversight from Beijing. Hong Kong doesn't have liberal democracy, but it is a free society, has low levels of corruption and reasonably high accountability for politicians and bureaucracy. Most importantly, Beijing has left it pretty much well alone. The truth is that in the last ten years Mainland China has been slowly moving towards the freedoms of Hong Kong, not Hong Kong moving backwards - albeit that China has a long long way to go.

.

The key questions are this - is it positive for freedom and individual rights in China for the Olympics to be hosted there and a spotlight to be turned on China? and are the Olympics a celebration of China's economic and technological modernisation or a celebration of its one party authoritarian state?

.

The answer to the first question is yes. It is yes because the Chinese regime can't turn the screws too much while the world watches, for fear that it encourages more protests, more scrutiny and more attention about what it doesn't do well. It is already hurting and straining relations. If it were not for the Olympics then Chinese human rights abuses would be ignored, as they largely have been since Tiananmen Square. Unfortunately the day after the Olympics is likely to be painful for those who dare to express dissent in China in the run up to it. However in the lead up, and at the time Chinese officials will be confronted with questions.

.

The second question is more delicate, as the truth is it will be both. China has much to celebrate in its modernisation, the long journey from the murderous Maoist state which starved and shouted at its people, to the market based authoritarian state where, by and large, people can get on with their lives as long as they don't challenge the state, or get in the way of the groaning leviathan. Standards of living have soared enormously, all because of free market capitalism - although China's legal and banking systems are at best shaky and antiquated.

.

Meanwhile, political power continues to come from a barrel of a gun. The Communist Party's sphere of influence has steadily eroded. China is not the starving Police State of North Korea, but is no bastion of open debate. Political dissension in China is expressed behind closed doors within the Communist Party, and to a limited extent at the local level where some criticism is allowed. Meanwhile some within the Party use its siamese twin like linkage with the state to enrich themselves - with little accountability, except from enemies who dob them in for whatever reason. Let's face it, the Chinese state is authoritarian, corrupt and brutal.

.

The Chinese regime would use the Olympics to showcase China, and undoubtedly many Chinese in China would be proud to be in the Olympic host country. One argument is that this would solidify support for Communist party rule, but what if there was a boycott, would this weaken such rule?

.

A state boycott would not - the Chinese regime would turn in on itself, would make racist claims that countries boycotting are "anti-Chinese". If China does not engage in a brutal suppression of dissent in the run up to the games (and the situation in Tibet is not of the scale of Tiananmen Square), then states should not now announce a boycott. A boycott should have been clear when China won the rights to host the games. To posture now in the final year, in the absence of any major change in circumstances is simply to posture.

.

Yes I know some think Tibet represents that - but it doesn't. None of the countries posturing about Tibet recognise it has any right to independence. Tibet has been subject to far more repression in the past, yet the world was largely silent. China is under pressure to be restrained in Tibet, but how it acts there is little different to how it acts elsewhere - it's just that the Dalai Lama exists for Tibet, no similar spokesperson exists for people oppressed in other provinces.

.

However, none of this should hinder the absolute right of individual athletes and politicians to boycott the games to express opposition to China's lack of individual freedom. My own view is that athletes that value such freedoms should not go (with the added benefit that they avoid breathing the toxic swill of Beijing smog), and neither should politicians. Those politicians who do go should take the chance to express concern about China's lack of political freedom.

.

In that sense if the Olympics is held, has some politicians boycotting loudly, some attending and expressing support for individual rights and many athletes boycotting, then two things will have happened. China will be in the spotlight - much of what is good will be seen, and some of what is wrong will be seen too - and those in charge know this. So for that I support those who individually choose to boycott the games purely to support the rights to free speech and political dissent, and for freedom for those arrested and imprisoned for such offences. I don't support those who simply call for "Free Tibet", as all of China should be free.

.

In fact a better campaign would be to extend the freedoms of Hong Kong to all of China - but since there isn't liberal democracy in Hong Kong, many of those protesting wont see the value in that. However, the longer Hong Kong succeeds and is seen to succeed, the more the rest of China can appreciate that it is the way to go - because the most important thing isn't elections, it is freedom.

White trash family make innocent girl a victim

So the case of Shannon Matthews might be all a fake - it seems like her appalling mother, who at 32, is widely quoted as having seven children by five fathers (and I'm no prude, but this does seem to indicate a reckless disregard for life or her own kids), may have set it all up.

.

While she was missing, it was a cause celebre for those comparing the case with Madeleine McCann, whose parents are wealthier, and whose cute images are well known. The Times reported how "she was too poor for us to care". The Guardian and Independent had great fun accusing the UK of oppressing the poor. Shannon Matthews was meant to make many of us feel bad that her family didn't have money to wage a media campaign - except there was one key difference - it seems Shannon never went "missing" at all.

.

Of course she was "found" 24 days later, and there were scenes of the neighbourhood pouring cheap bubbly down their throats to "party hard" at the girl being found. No doubt most of them sincerely believed she had gone missing - now the truth appears more opaque.

.

The Daily Telegraph reports that some of those associated with Shannon Matthews asked for money from the Find Madeleine Fund, but that the plot is based upon a storyline from the TV show Shameless, which was shown nearly a month before Shannon was reported gone. In the meantime, the Police found Shannon in the base of a bed at her stepfather's uncle's place. Meanwhile, her stepfather was arrested for possession of child pornography, and her mother is allegedly was trying to leave him, and had been "offered a place to stay" by his uncle. Now her mother has been arrested for perverting the cause of justice.

.

Sadly, Shannon Matthews is the key victim in this, a tool for the sad losers around her to engage in fraud. No wonder she has been taken from this family, no wonder the Police didn't return her when she was found - she has to live with the shame of those adults who should have loved and cared for her, not the trash who scurry about in the gutters sucking welfare cheques and looking for ways to rip people off. Hopefully she (and her siblings) can be found more loving homes that are not occupied by possible fraudsters and perverts. I also hope that the donations collected for her search can be placed in a trust fund for her education - the least the girl deserves is a chance out of the disturbing chavtrap she has sadly been raised in.

When bureaucrats and politicians are out of touch

you get the most inane ideas proposed, agreed and implemented.
.
Surely the latest one in the UK - to require registered sex offenders to reveal their email addresses and for these to be forwarded to social networking websites like Bebo, Myspace and Facebook has been put through by people with only a banal understanding of the internet.
.
According to the Daily Telegraph:

"Under new guidance to improve internet safety, (police) officers will pass on the details to social networking sites in the hope that they will remove the profiles of anyone caught preying on children. Offenders who refuse to hand over their details, or supply false email addresses, will face a five-year prison sentence"

Now think about that, why would you refuse to hand over the details? How would they know they are false? What would happen? Presumably perv@uknet.com gets a nice email from PC Plod saying "Hello Mr Perv just confirming it's your email address" and he says "Yes officer thank you", before he logs on to Myspace using perv2@hotmail.com or whatever.

I have lost count of the number of email addresses I have had. I have had hotmail, yahoo, netscape, usa.net, netaddress and several other email addresses almost all of which have expired - after all they are free and easy to get. It's not as if it's your home address or phone number, though I don't doubt that some of the bureaucrats and politicians involved think it is!

The scaremongering and nonsense surrounding this issue is palpable. The same report says "Officials estimate that as many as one child in 12 who makes contact with someone online goes on to meet them." Well yes, perhaps. How many of these people are adults they meet? How many do they meet with parents or in groups or in public places? In other words, what are the actual crime statistics attached to this?
.
There are really only a few sensible approaches to this. Firstly, parents have to control net access in sensible ways. Most importantly by listening to (properly) their children, talking to them and knowing how they are. Inculcate dignity, pride and confidence to them so they look after themselves. Place the computer in a public room. Have some strict rules about meeting people online that includes insisting on meeting them with a parent, responsible adult or a couple of friends. There is only so much you can do of course. If you can't control your 15 year old drinking on a Saturday night then you'll hardly stop them meeting strangers over the internet.
.
Secondly, sentencing of sex offenders (and violent offenders) has to be proportionate to risk. Those who are clearly dangerous should have long custodial sentences. If there are truly dangerous people out there, then why are they free?
.
Finally, there needs to be a cultural change that stop making the care of children a matter for the state. If children are reaching out outline for company isn't this a particularly sad set of affairs? When I was a child, the neighbours in my street knew who I was and where I belonged, and I had no reason to fear any of them -women or men. It felt safe and almost certainly was. Nowadays adults are more fearful of any friendly contact with someone elses' kids for fear of being branded as perverts or predators - when we know this is highly unlikely. It's time to be realistic - despite the tabloid media - there aren't perverts under every corner. In fact the situations where kids are most at risk are either large extended families where parental supervision is lax, or single mothers who have questionable male partners (and daughters desperately seeking male attention). That is the sad tragedy about it all - the real issue being why are people's kids meeting strangers they meet on the internet in the first place? and if they are, how many of these cases are really a problem? The truth is nobody knows the answer to the latter question.
.

Telecommunications nationalisation

Not PC has said much of what I want to say, and I have said much in the past about the absurdity of local loop unbundling, and the de facto decision by the state to decimate investment in competing telecommunications networks by granting property rights over Telecom's network by its competitors.

There is a story about the success of deregulating telecommunications from 1989 through to 2001, the time that getting a phone line installed became quick and easy, when national and international call prices plummeted, as did cellphone calls. This is the time that a company came in and built, from scratch a duplicate nationwide telecommunications network - it was BellSouth at first, but Vodafone built the bulk of it. It is the time that Saturn (later Telstra Saturn and then Telstra Clear) built a hybrid fibre/coax telecommunications network to homes and businesses on the Kapiti Coast, Wellington City, Lower and Upper Hutt, Christchurch city - and planned to do the same in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga and Dunedin - yet, funnily enough, decided not to when the government started granting property rights over Telecom's network.

Now the very same people who wanted Telecom's network to be everyone's to use, but not anyone's to make an investment out of - decry that there might not be the incentives to build a next generation network of fibre optic capacity to the kerb. Funnily enough, when dialup internet was king in the late 1990s there WAS the incentive for two firms to do it - Telstra Clear as I mentioned, but Telecom did so also in parts of Auckland and Wellington, until it decided ADSL was cheaper to roll out in the meantime.

So what has been created in the last eight years of Labour government reforms has been to incentivise usage of Telecom's existing network - which is all very well if you believe that is the beginning and the end of telecommunications - except most don't. Some believe that fibre to the kerb is the next step - some believe it is wireless, some may argue that satellites can offer a solution. The state wont of course know best - in fact not one company will. Telecom got it wrong on mobile phone standards, and got it wrong on hybrid fibre coax in the late 1990s. The Post Office got in wrong in the 1970s by having triple twisted copper wire lines installed in parts of Wellington. How can the state get it right now?

and no. The arguments that "we'll all benefit" and it's "like the roads" are just fatuous. Those who will benefit from state subsidised investment (which all state investment) are those who will be internet intensive businesses. They aren't special any more than energy intensive, labour intensive or land intensive businesses. Remember how the great state folly in the late 1970s, early 1980s was replacing foreign oil - when all those "investments" were written off, as the price of oil plummeted and energy was no longer a problem (funny how most of those are irrelevant now when oil prices ARE high).

and roads? Well let's remember how roads are managed. When most people want to use them, they queue for them and get appalling service, some are in excellent condition, others are barely usable, there has been a massive backlog of deferred investment, except in politically driven projects which have dubious benefits. It takes years to get any extra capacity built, and there are plenty who lobby against it - and if you don't like the service, you generally don't have a competitor (except the railways, which may be akin to the postal service competing with email).

NZ First racism... again

Winston Peters built part of his career on race baiting ignorant white and Maori New Zealanders, scaring them about a so-calld "yellow peril", so it is hardly a surprise that with low poll ratings, NZ First is being blatantly racist - this time according to Stuff, Peter Brown is doing the job.

Brown is, himself, a foreigner. Although British is ok of course. He claims that "Asian immigration", funnily not Pacific Island, European, South African or American immigration is "pushing Maori further down the pile".

What complete utter vile racist nonsense. Not only is it racist, but it plays into the hands of those who think the living standards of Maori people depend upon others - they don't. It implies that Asian immigrants actively suppress the success of Maori. How different is that fin principle, if not degree, from the anti-semitic bile that the Nazis distributed in the 1930s claiming that Jews kept "Aryan" Germans down?

He is also reported as saying that "Asians would form "mini-societies" that led to division, friction and resentment". So unlike Maori iwi, or small villages, or gangs, or suburbs, or religions? The only person breeding resentment is Peter Brown - why be resentful, unless it is the repulsive New Zealand tendency to chop down tall poppies. You know the types - the semi-literate talkback calling envy dripping bigots who don't like the new family next door with the big car, nice clothes, who have spent money on the house, but speak some "foreign" language, and don't mix with us, don't like rugby, don't like drinking Tui's and whose kids are brighter than theirs.

Peter Brown is scratching this underbelly - a combination of racism, tall poppy syndrome and dependency - those who think the government owes them something, and resent when others do better than they.

Labour Party supporters might ask why they continue to support a government which relies on this racist party for confidence and supply, but even more inexplicably appointed its leader to be, of all things, Minister of Foreign Affairs. National supporters shouldn't gloat though. National made Winston Treasurer and Deputy PM, and would be sycophants to NZ First again for power (as would Labour).

So that's the test. Will the PM terminate the confidence and supply agreement of NZ First because Labour doesn't want to be reliant on racists for power, and will John Key say he wont do a deal with NZ First to win power for the same reason?

Of course not - both don't want to give Winston the monopoly on the racist vote.

Earth Hour or gulags more important?

I hope the sanctimonious act of mass onanism called Earth Hour gave people what they wanted - a sense of purpose from an act that at best is about saving a couple of cents. Auckland and Wellington cities allegedly participated in this. I'm glad the Green Party didn't promote it.

.

Meanwhile, while the world looks at China - I want yet again to raise the horror of the gulags in North Korea. I'll do it because unlike "climate change" you don't hear about it most days, you don't have sanctimonious little do-gooders telling you to do something about it - just 50,000 men, women and children in slave labour camps.

.

Yes, and when they escape to China - China returns them so they can all go back to the gulags.

.

LiNKorea's blog takes an uncompromising view on addressing the horrors of North Korea. They should be the top of the agenda for Amnesty International, and anyone else demanding improvements in human rights.

Many Heathrow travellers enjoying relief

well not those at Terminal 5. That's a disaster. It's not even a wholesale shift of all BA flights. All that happened is that most Terminal 1 BA flights were shifted to Terminal 5, none of the Terminal 4 flights have moved. They are scheduled to move in a month, but that's unlikely to happen on time. So expect a second major failure when that shift occurs.

.

However, by contrast Terminal 1 by some accounts is an absolute breeze.

.

You see, with almost all BA flights having moved out of Terminal 1 to Terminal 5, those remaining ones are flying through with a capacious, though aging terminal.

.

Biggest airline at Terminal 1 is BMI, enjoying its highest ever reliability levels at Heathrow, as well as a boon from those avoiding BA with all of the troubles. You can also enjoy Heathrow's easiest to use terminal if you fly:

- Aer Lingus;

- Asiana;

- Cyprus Airways;

- El Al;

- Finnair;

- Icelandair;

- LOT Polish Airlines;

- South African Airways;

- Transaero; and

- US Airways.

.

BA also has kept flights to Spain, Portugal and Finland at Terminal 1, for now (partly as BA wants routes operated jointly with codeshare partners not to operate from Terminal 5).

.

So, for now, avoid Terminal 5 - which continues to have flights cancelled, baggage delayed and more disturbingly luggage lost for transit. That means don't use Heathrow as a transit hub flying BA.

.

On the other hand, if you are flying any of the above airlines, Terminal 1 is apparently a breeze, with a 60% reduction in passengers - there are plenty of places to sit, baggage is getting through fast, no queues for gates on arrival. Meanwhile it's getting refurbished, and both Air New Zealand and United Airlines are moving there from Terminal 3 on 10 June.

.

So there is a new experience at Heathrow - it's at Terminal 1. Give the other one at least a month to shakedown.

Easter means farewell till Tuesday

escaping this cold place to go south!

Cullen shows how dirty politics is

Well there must be something in it if John Key denies he would let Roger Douglas implement a "radical right wing agenda", although methinks he is partly posturing cleverly to say "go on take some votes on the right and be my preferred coalition partner".

According to the NZ Herald, Michael Cullen, who was in Cabinet with Roger Douglas and voted to privatise Telecom, among other things, is bleating that Douglas would "flog off the schools, hospitals and cut benefits". Hell, if only! Cullen shows who he wants to appeal to - those who live off the state, not those who pay for it, as if wasting billions of taxpayers' money on growing the state is a great success.

What Douglas DID say was far from radical:

- Get rid of the 39% tax rate, which National voted against in 2000 but hasn't the balls to get rid of today;

- Inflation adjust all tax brackets since 1999, which was Dr. Cullen's policy writ large, but isn't exactly flat tax or abolishing income tax which was ACT policy before;

- $40,000 p.a. income tax free threshold, which IS rather radical, but does mean that perhaps as much as a half of taxpayers would no longer be so - except for GST. That isn't a bad thing, except those people will still vote to get money spent on them;

- Abolishing Working for Families, which National voted against but hasn't the balls to get rid of;

- Introducing education vouchers, which National had as policy in 1987, but hasn't the balls to introduce;

- Rental out spare hospital ward capacity to be used privately - which should hardly be an issue if public funding isn't available to use them;

- Cutting state spending by $3-$5 billion per annum, which is laudable - except little detail about where and how.

.

The sad thing is, in their heart of hearts both Key AND Cullen know that what Douglas did in the 1980s (and Cullen voted for it all in the House of Representatives and was in Cabinet for half of that government) was necessary and positive, and notwithstanding that the New Zealand economy is the better for it. Neither man is half that of Douglas, who faced down trade unions, farmers, manufacturers and countless interest groups suckling off the starving state tit and said "no more", as they were all suckling the productive sector and consumers dry.

.

Douglas has proposed a moderate agenda, positive yes, but hardly major leaps forward of the Unfinished Business kind, although it IS a winding back of the state. A high tax free threshold is a major tax cut.

.

However, nothing exemplifies the filthy lucre that is politics more than both men willing to take out the knives to Douglas to pander to the lowest common denominator, the Muldoonists, the Alliance retards and the second handers who constantly call for the "Guv'mint" to "do something", usually involving giving them some money or giving their favourite cause some money, taking it from someone else and telling people what to do. Key and Cullen know there are far more economically illiterate socialist types than productive types, so will sell out principle for politics.

.

Pragmatic? Perhaps yes. Revoltingly insincere and hypocritical? I hardly need to say so.

Pity those who can't avoid Earth Hour

A bunch of hand wringing environmentalists are promoting Earth Hour. A time when at 8pm (not at the same time, but 8pm local time wherever you are) you are meant to turn off the lights. You see to some this is the most important thing i the world to do - turn off the lights, feel so good that you've saved a couple of cents on your power bill, turn them on and feel purged of the sin of consumerism.

What banal nonsense.

23 million people are going to be participating in it without much choice. Take a guess who. Almost all of them aren't allowed to leave, can't own a car, take a flight or use the internet.

Last year I blogged about the true horror there. The existence of the gulags that keep children. One is called Camp 22. Camp 22 keeps 50,000 men, women and children as prisoners.

Testimony from those who have been prisoners and camp guards talks of 5 year old political prisoners. 5! Children of most ages are expected to work at gulags.

.

This 122 page report talks of the camps murdering newborn children who are not ethnically pure Korean. Some of the other stories from former prisoners include: Pregnant women have induced abortions. Prisoners do not get to bathe or any change of clothes. Prisoners are regularly beaten by fists, sticks, rifle butts or thrown against concrete walls. A 4 year old boy imprisoned with his mother dying of malnutrition. Forcing prisoners to beat each other up. Pregnant women raped by prison guards.

.

Former prison guard Ahm Myong Chol describes it all here.


This Earth Hour I ask you, for the sake of the tens of thousands in Camp 22 and the millions in North Korea, instead of engaging in some easy environmental onanism, go here and donate to LINK (Liberty in North Korea). Demand that all political parties standing in the 2008 election lobby to get this and all of the North Korean gulags shut down and the prisoners freed. Demand that North Korea stop imprisoning children and pregnant women, and stop executing new born babies of prisoners. Demand that this neo-Nazi/Stalinist/Pol Pot type horror end.

.

Given New Zealand's new relationship with North Korea, which Winston Peters has led - I want Winston to write to the ambassador to Australia/NZ from North Korea, demanding that, as a first step, all children are released from gulags and the Red Cross be permitted to enter the gulags and report on conditions. I expect the Prime Minister to support this. I expect Keith Locke and the Green Party to demand this as much as they demand freedom for Tibet and the end to Guantanamo Bay. This is a chance for politicians in New Zealand to stand up together for the end to the most vile oppression on earth today. We don't have a trade relationship with North Korea that's worth thinking twice about this.

.

This is about children being imprisoned, tortured, enslaved and murdered! Nothing is more important that ending this. Ask all candidates for election this year what they would do about it.

.

This is more important than turning the fucking lights out.

Bus patronage down in Auckland - want to know why?

The NZ Herald reports that while North Shore bus patronage has shot up thanks to the opening of the $300 million busway providing a faster ride. The increase is 66% on the express services that now use the busway. No surprise there, although by no means are the bus passengers paying anywhere near the full cost of building the busway. However bus patronage across Auckland is down 2.2% in the 6 months till the end of 2006. Why so?

.

Well there are a couple of reasons. For one, the collapse of the language school business a few years ago is having an ongoing impact, so it is partly demographics. However a more important reason is what you see in the overall public transport patronage figures - they are only up 0.4%.

.

You see train patronage is up 11.6%. Given the millions spent on new stations and more rolling stock, and subsidising more frequent services, it isn't a surprise, but many of those new passengers are actually former bus passengers. That is why the net increase in public transport use is a derisory 0.4%.

.

So with a fortune being spent on enhancing trains and buses (hundreds of millions from central government alone), with petrol prices continually growing, Aucklanders are hardly switching en-masse to increasingly heavily subsidised public transport.

.

The problem with people shifting from bus to train is that it costs. In 2002 the average subsidy per passenger in Auckland for rail was $3.69 per trip, for bus passengers it was 96c per trip (Source: Surface Transport Costs and Charges report, Ministry of Transport, Final report Table B8.1). Remember some Auckland bus services get no subsidy whatsoever, although the ARC has been trying to get the government to change that - because it wants to control all services and not allow bus operators to operate services on a commercial basis.

.

So it costs more to construct, maintain and operate rail services, and with lowering patronage of buses, it costs more to subsidise them as well. So when the ARC's leftwing Chairman Mike Lee says that it will impose a full 5c a litre petrol tax increase, for Auckland only, to pay primarily for upgrading rail services, you might ask a few questions:

1. How does shifting people from bus to rail services represent value for money for ratepayers and petrol tax payers?

2. How much faster is it to get around Auckland as a result of the improved rail services? In other words, is the spending on rail reducing congestion?

3. Why are people who live near railway stations and work near other ones, deserving of an over $7 a day handout to help them get to work, paid for by people who don't, including those who don't even go to work?

4. Why shouldn't they just ride buses that would cost only $2 a day to subsidise - in fact, why can't they pay for that themselves?

5. How many Aucklanders who live near the boundaries of Auckland region will buy fuel in Northland and Waikato, which wont be taxing motorists to pay for lavish public transport? How many petrol stations on the wrong side of those boundaries will go out of business?

Gordon Brown to meet Dalai Lama, would Helen now?

Good for him, he has told the Chinese PM Wen Jiabao that he will meet the Dalai Lama when he visits London in May. Not only that the Chinese PM has said he would meet the Dalai Lama as long as he renounces violence (which appears to hardly be an issue) and does not call for Tibetan independence (which he has not lately, simply requesting the same autonomy Hong Kong has). The Chinese reaction to the proposed meeting has not been hostile.

.

The British PM's meeting with be a formal one, not the Helen Clark "happen to be at the airport" meeting at Brisbane airport last year which she anxiously said "wasn't planned" and "because one doesn't know whether people are going to be in the lounge, or what time other passengers are boarded". They happened to be on the same flight from Brisbane to Sydney. Clark, understandably was in business class, the Dalai Lama in economy, but Qantas granted him lounge access at Brisbane which allowed the meeting to occur. Remarkable that Qantas could do what Helen Clark wouldn't - because she undoubtedly could have invited him as a guest (I fully expect she is a Qantas Gold frequent flyer).

.

This meeting will undoubtedly raise the pressure for the Chinese PM to actually meet the Dalai Lama. Helen Clark on the other hand has no backbone at all on this.

Arthur C. Clarke's passing

According to the BBC, scientist and novelist Arthur C. Clarke has died in Sri Lanka at the age of 90.

He wrote over 100 books, but is best known for writing the novel "2001: A Space Odyssey" that became a famous film directed by Stanley Kubrick, but perhaps his greatest contribution to history is his design of the concept of the geostationary satellite. Clark in a 1945 article in Wireless World proposed how a satellite orbiting over the equator at around 35,787 km over mean sea level could remain stationary over its "footprint" area. Whether or not his article was in fact the catalyst for geostationary satellites is unclear, but his science was impeccable. This ultimately had a profound influence over telecommunications and more recently television.

A dark cloud was briefly pulled over his life by the leftwing tabloid the Sunday Mirror alleging that he was a pedophile. Clark denied the allegations and a police investigation found no evidence to support the comments attributed to him, and the Sunday Mirror ultimately having to publish a retraction.

However Clark was a fascinating man - he was seen by me first in a TV series called "Arthur C. Clarke's mysterious world" which was unforgettable for the Mitchell-Hedges Skull that was part of the introduction to every episode. He had a remarkable imagination and whilst fascinated by the paranormal, was ever the scientist seeking rational answers to unexplained phenomena.

He is survived by his foundation which exists to:

• "Stimulate creative use of communications technologies and social resources to improve health, education, and the quality of life for people everywhere, with emphasis on the needs of developing countries."
• "Integrate science and technology with literature, film and other means of outreach to enhance recognition of our increasingly complex, interconnected world."
• "Deepen public understanding of science and technology, and their impact on humanity and all the other components of our universe."

these are all noble pursuits inspired by a man who looked at the stars and saw endless possibilities for humanity to use science, go forth, create and discover.