Virgin - image vs substance

No, not virgins, so the dozens or so pervy people who are searching for something about virgins or anything but virgins, and are now disappointed can go here (R18 seriously NSFW and I'm not banned in China). I'm talking about:

Sir Richard Branson, or "Beardie" as Jeremy Clarkson likes to call him, is a great marketing man. He has built a brand image of excitement, innovation, cutting edge and being, somewhat, the outsider - the new guy who likes to shake things up. It started with Virgin Music, but has moved onto broadcasting, airlines, trains and more. My main experiences have been in travel.

^

Travelling on a Virgin Trains Pendolino train in first class reminds me of what the Virgin brand is about, image more than substance. The sort of style that leaves dirty teaspoons at the table, the sort of style that means sometimes you can’t get scrambled eggs with the full breakfast because the menu says fried eggs, even though the menu also says scrambled eggs with salmon ("I'll have to check with chef"). Honestly, how hard can i be for a fare that can be as high as £168 one way? Virgin has a whole range of products I have had reason to consume or deal with:
^
-Virgin Trains
- Virgin Atlantic Airways
- Virgin media
- Virgin radio
- Virgin mobile
^
My problem with the Virgin Group is not that its products are awful, mostly they are not. Sometimes it is outstanding, much of the time it is ok, sometimes it is awful. It is the inconsistency that is annoying. However what particularly irks me is Sir Richard Branson’s play with the media, and how seduced the media is by his antics. He’s very clever, the name, logo and the style and way he gets media attention is pretty clever. For years he played the underdog ticket, and still does. He played it against BA with Virgin Atlantic Airways, little guy against the big former state owned monopoly.
^
He has done it more recently with Virgin Media (essentially the former NTL/Telewest cable TV/broadband network here in the UK), moaning about how Sky wanted more money for Virgin Media to keep rebroadcasting content that Sky produced/commissioned/owned the rights to. Branson bleeted about being the consumer’s friend, when anyone who subscribes to Virgin Media must sign a minimum 12 month contract and has no right to use anyone else for national/international calls using the phone service. Virgin Media has lost this battle somewhat, despite slick advertising, Sky has picked up new subscribers by offering broadband as well. Style over substances hasn't really won. Virgin Media's High Definition TV offering is also style over substance, as it only relays some on demand programming and BBC's HD channel. Sky by contrast offers another 9 HD channels and video on demand. Virgin Media in its previous incarnation as NTL had shocking service. Call centres that wouldn’t answer, that weren’t helpful. Cutting off the phone even though you paid your bill because you made calls that went over the “limit” allowed, and meaning you use your mobile to call a call centre that made you wait. The public clearly are not enchanted with Virgin Media more than the previous brand, no wonder there are negotiations to sell Virgin Media.
^
Of the Virgin group, Virgin Radio bothers me the least. It’s ok, it’s on AM everywhere outside London (and digital radio, but I haven’t bought one of those yet) and I don’t pay for it. Virgin Records similarly is an outlet, which may or may not have what I want. Nothing special, but nothing wrong with it either. However it is owned by SMG, not Virgin Group (although retains the name/logo etc). Virgin mobile is a slightly different story, only in that the coverage of the network it is reselling in the YK (no, it doesn't have a network of its own not here or elsewhere, it resells T-Mobile's network) is inferior to Vodafone. You might notice that a lot of what Virgin does is not really about being innovative, it resells what others offer. T-Mobile is one, the trains are another (it only leases the trains bought by and financed by a rolling stock company), the cable TV service Virgin Media is, partly, another.
^
Virgin Atlantic Airways is something else though. On one side of the ledger are Virgin Clubhouses, outstanding airport lounges, especially the one at Heathrow. You can get massages, haircuts, the works, full cooked meals before you board the plane. On arrivals you can much the same as well. That’s brilliant, though BA does have lounges that offer a lot of the same (and when Terminal 5 opens BA may give Virgin even more a run for its money). Similarly, Virgin Upper Class sits between first and business class in terms of quality, and offers sleeper suits, on board sit down bars and massage therapists on board the plane. If you've tried Air NZ's new business class then you've experienced the Virgin Atlantic Upper Class seats (Air NZ is using them under licence). Pretty good right? Well…. it would be if the cabin crew were of a consistent standard. Virgin Atlantic clearly has, as one of its selection criteria for cabin crew, age and looks. The vast majority are relatively tall young women who look good in short skirts. While this certainly has appeal to a portion of the City Banker crowd who fly Virgin, in terms of service consistency it doesn’t really work. Virgin Atlantic crew are the spectrum, from very good to moody tarts. The ones that gossip in their regional accents swearing in the galley, and who don’t bother going out of their way to provide service. BA service tends to be more consistently good.
^
However, Virgin Atlantic in economy class is pretty dire. On the surface it has a handful of little extras that sound good. The inflight entertainment system, fully interactive is rather impressive, though less so now that virtually every airline outside the USA has it or is installing such systems (it is akin to the Singapore Airlines system, which is hardly a surprise as Singapore Airlines owns 49% of Virgin Atlantic). There are inflight amenity kits for economy class passengers (earplugs, eye masks, toothbrush/toothpaste) which is a nice touch. Finally there is a choice of three mains for meals. This is where substance is lacking.

^

The food itself is vile, bland and is rivalled by your average Tesco readymeal. Drinks are served in tiny glasses and you’ll be lucky if the drinks trolley comes round again (I didn’t get wine apparently because I needed to ask for it, so I got no drink). Once the short skirted ones (never seen a male Virgin Atlantic flight attendant, ever!) have done their jobs, they disappear and lurk in the crew quarters (which on the A340 Airbuses appear to be cunningly situated downstairs I think!). So service disappears. Then there is the seat. Virgin Atlantic squeezes lots of seats on its aircraft (all long haul) with a seat pitch of 29-31”. Want to know what that’s like?

^

Air NZ on a domestic 737 flight averages as slightly better, imagine that for 12 hours London-Hong Kong. Ryanair manages a similar standard. BA is a little better with a standard 31”, but Singapore Airlines and Air NZ go for 32-34” depending on aircraft type (Singapore gives more room on 777s, but Air NZ gives more on 747s). Virgin Atlantic economy truly is cattle class.

^

On a better note, its premium economy on the other hand has just been upgraded to new wider seats with more legroom, and from appearance looks better than Air NZ's. Finally, Virgin Atlantic had an annoying little slogan called “4 engines 4 long haul” to imply that airlines that had twin engined planes for long haul flights were less safe. Utter bollocks of course, because any modern twin engined plane can fly on one engine safely for considerable distances, and have done so across the Atlantic and between Europe and Asia for many years.
^
Now I come back to Virgin trains. Virgin Trains receive tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers money each year to operate trains on one of the main lines out of London to Birmingham and Manchester. These trains run one of the busiest rail routes in Britain. It is quicker by rail than by air (taking into account airport transfer and check in and luggage pickup times) and by road between those cities. Virgin trains charges up to £168 one way in first class between London and Manchester, and £109 in second class. There is a high proportion of business traffic, which explains why four out of nine carriages are first class. Virgin touts how environmentally friendly it is and all that, but wont invest in more trains without taxpayers coughing up, even though it is faster and charges a not too insignificant fare for the trips.

^

Furthermore it regularly fails to provide the complementary refreshments expected in first class (sorry can’t do breakfast today, the skillet is broken or the coating is worn off, or we didn’t load the eggs), and you get nothing in compensation (oops I forgot, you can apply for compensation and the onboard shop attendant refuses to accept the compensation voucher because it doesn’t have the word “Virgin” on it, and just acts like a Soviet era worker denying that it’s his fault). How about the sockets for the laptop power that don’t work, and the response is a shrug that it is a maintenance problem, presumably because Virgin doesn’t check everything to make sure the train is fully functional.
^
Branson of course never experiences anything like this when he takes the well publicised trips on his trains. I needn't spend much time wondering why.

^
Virgin group have been innovators in some senses, Virgin Atlantic was the very first airline to introduce 180 degree flat reclining seats in business class (albeit it was a clunky recliner that went all the way back in those days), and certainly helped put pressure on BA to do better, and vice versa. However, mostly, Virgin is a sexy brand name that has not much more behind it than the colours and the pazazz of Branson. Virgin Blue some years ago promised domestic flights in New Zealand. This, of course, was media bluster and wont ever happen in my view. Pacific Blue was going to slash prices to and from Australia, and it now prices hardly any differently from anyone else (and frankly, if you pay the same with Qantas, Air NZ or Emirates you can get a better seat, get fed with free drinks and entertainment).
^
It’s a shame really. Virgin trains are ok, but nothing special. Virgin Atlantic is pretty good up the front, but with variable service and economy class that really is scum class because of almost criminally tight seating. BA, on balance, is better in most respects. Virgin media could be really good, if it had the flexibility and helpdesk service that was better than the UK standard (which isn’t high). Such a powerful brand, and such mediocrity. It isn't a brand for grownups sadly.

^

UPDATE: It appears the Department for Transport has found a more grown up firm to run some of the routes Virgin Trains have been running. I mean, hot meals in first class, free wi-fi. Who'd have thought. Go Arriva!

Alan Johnston's release

It is an enormous relief for Alan Johnston and his family and friends that he has been released from the hands of Islamist thugs. Hamas has clearly seen this as an opportunity to gain greater legitimacy in the eyes of the West, and no two ways about it - it is positive. However, it doesn't absolve Hamas of its responsibility to stop waging war against Israel and using terrorism to achieve its political goals. Until THAT happens, it wont and shouldn't be treated as anything less than a pariah.

^

Hamas still has as its objective:

- The destruction of Israel as a political entity;

- The abolition of the secular Palestinian Authority;

- Replacement of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority with an Islamic Republic of Palestine.

^

It teaches children the glory of suicide bombing, bombs buses full of civilians. It must renounce political violence and the overthrow of Israel and the secular Palestinian administration to gain international respect.

Garuda banned from the EU

Given that (according to the BBC) European Commission has banned Garuda Indonesian Airways from flying to any European Union country, and has advised EU citizens to not fly on ANY Indonesian airlines because of safety concerns, it might not be bad advice for New Zealanders either (note that Garuda doesn't fly to Auckland anymore, but does fly to Australia).

America's Cup loss

Yes it is a shame, but as Not PC said "Whatever the successes on the water this time - and make no mistake, what Dalton and Co have achieved is fantastic - that's my money these boat builders are calling an "investment"".

^

and so I am glad in one respect. As one commenter (Hitman) on Not PC's blog said:

^

"It's kinder for all if they lose now rather than win the cup and bring it home to be projected as a symbol of the successes of glorious national socialism. The cup does not belong in a collectivist outfit such as NZ. You people do not deserve it. No way."

^

That is a fair point. If Team New Zealand had won, you can be sure that the government would have milked it for all the glory and talked about how it (you, without any choice) supported the great and glorious campaign for this sporting trophy.

^

While one shouldn't celebrate the waste of government money (it's not theirs after all, it's yours - money you'll never get back), there is a sense of justice in this.

^

The Swiss syndicate of Alinghi, privately funded and sponsored won. Nobody was forced to pay for Alinghi. Team New Zealand was partly compulsory funded by New Zealand taxpayers rich and poor, including many who have no interest in racing. Indeed, the state funding helped prop up a very high profile sponsorship campaign by Emirates - an airline owned fully by the UAE Government.

^

How many Labour supporters truly believe this is morally defensible? (and remember arguments that it is "an investment in tourism" could be sustained for the government sponsoring just about any major international sports event - and this "investment" just burnt money in a black hole of the syndicate).

^

As you can see, the Labour government and quite probably its lickspittles (NZ First, United Future and Anderton) are keen for you to continue to be forced to pay for competing in the most prestigious yachting race in the world. However, it can't afford a tax cut, and no you'll still have to wait for that hip replacement, varicose vein operation or other surgery you need to make your life more comfortable. Why would Telecom, Steinlager or the Lotteries Commission bother to sponsor (they already bailed out) when the Great Leader makes you help pay?

Travel today and the friend of Ken Livingstone

Someone left a package unattended on a train I caught today, but it was sorted out - but everyone was reminded about what not to do. It would be fair to say most London residents have become a bit complacent about it all, because thwarted plots are largely ignored. Let's not forget:

- The first plot failed because ambulance staff were vigilant;

- The second plot failed because the bomb failed to go off, possibly because the car pound where it had been taken to was outside mobile phone coverage;

- The third plot failed because the courage of Glaswegians superseded that of the bombers.

^

On the bright side, the Diana concert went off unaffected (setting aside that the only bright point is that there was no terrorism, as I haven't the slightest interest in supporting such a vapid figure of histort). The Gay Pride festival did too, another potential target.

^

The station had armed police pointing their semi-automatic weapons towards the floor, and plenty of other police in bullet proof outfits.

^

It's the 2nd of July, and frankly I can't wait for the next six days to be over. 7/7 is coming up.

^

Oh and as a side note, Ken Livingstone's friend is visiting Iran. According to the Islamic Republic of Iran News Agency He said "The world arrogance is getting weaker thanks to the anti-imperialism movement worldwide, particularly in American countries." He visited Belarus and pledged solidarity with Lukashenko. Swissinfo reports Livingstone's friend said "There are few peoples in the world who endure such strong pressure from the empire as Belarus. In this struggle we are brothers," "The empire which calls us dictators is itself trying to impose its dictatorship on the world.

^

When will bloggers sympathetic to this thug wake up and smell the blood?

Religious madness, and another reason for the secular state

"we are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way then there are going to be consequences".

^

No, not some mad hate filled Islamic cleric, it is the Bishop of Liverpool uttering such hate filled rhetoric.

^

On the front page of the Sunday Telegraph, it is reported that senior bishops have argued that... wait for it, the summer floods here in the UK are "God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society".

^

The Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Rev James Jones has said "

^

I wonder if he'll go to Sheffield and tell families who have lost their possessions this? No he wont of course. "We are reaping" what nonsense. What did he reap? Does "god" deliberately target flood prone areas, or was it "too hard" to hit Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill (where people liver "profligate")? Sanctimonious prick.

^

The Bishop of Carlisle was worse. The Rt Rev Graham Dow said "This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way... We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as environmental damage". He apparently also said that "pro gay legislation" had provoked god to cause the storms.

^

Yes, the Anglican Church is surely on the side of the angels. If "god's wrath" is being reaped by Britons, presumably including good church goers among others, it's pretty cruel.

^

In fact, both Bishops are irrational and immoral. How fucking DARE they blame the victims of the flooding for what they have experienced? Homophobic, neo Marxist, guilt filled nonsense. It is another good reason for the Anglican church to be purged from the British state, including the Queen's role in relation to it. Let's face it, it is a bastardised version of the Roman Catholic Church created for the sake of Henry VIII's convenience.

^

Regardless, this sort of nonsense is what I expect from evangelical nutcases. So Christianity is about vengeance and hate, and sacrificing the many for the sins of others.... and they wonder why congregations shrink.

Ahmadinejad's popularity plummets

Following on from Not PC's post a week ago reporting how Iran insanely is introducing petrol rationing (having subsidised the price, scared off foreign investors due to previous compulsory nationalisations), the Sunday Telegraph reports that average Iranians are tiring of Ahmadinejad.

^

Petrol is priced at around NZ$0.31 a litre, and average Iranians see it as an entitlement - something that in itself ought to change. So the rationing has annoyed many. However, more economic disaster has appeared, as his Stalinist style economic planning and spending programmes fail to deliver. He visits villages, promises to build roads and houses and disappears. His latest mad idea is to build vast steel, cement and petrochemical works, with the steel works apparently 200 miles from the nearest iron mines.

^

Middle class educated Tehran has never supported him, but as unemployment and inflation remain high, the poor are also turning. His centralised control and personalisation of policy are coming back to haunt him.

^

Inflation is at 40%, think about it, as nobody in New Zealand or Britain under 25 can remember inflation above 5%. 50 senior Iranian economists have written an open letter to Ahmadinejad saying his policies are hurting the poor he claims to represent. His response to the crisis has been to replace officials with his own lackeys.

^

Sadly the average Iranian is not concerned about the country's nuclear programme or Ahmadinejad's desire to destroy Israel. However, it can only be good if he is hoisted on the petard of his own economic illiteracy. Hopefully it can also deal to the outright evil of the Islamic Republic's oppression of the individual as also reported in the Sunday Telegraph.

Glasgow Airport and British Islamism

So now an attempted suicide bombing at Glasgow Airport. The car rammed into the airport terminal contained gas cylinders and petrol, and one of the arrested occupants of the vehicle had a suicide belt.

^

It's not just London at risk from Islamist bombings. This is an attack on ordinary British people, in London it was those who dare to have fun late at night - people who would stone, rape and murder women who dare show their legs have no hesitation at murdering those who they see as sinners. In Glasgow, it was those who dare to go on a summer holiday.

^

Today there is an interesting article in the Sunday Times from Ed Husain. He points out that most British Muslims fail to distinguish between private belief in Islam, and Islamism's political objectives. As he says:

^

"Just as the IRA bombed and maimed, and Sinn Fein explained the motivations for mass murder, jihadists today plant car bombs and dispatch suicide bombers, while entryist Islamists from the Muslim Council of Britain and a host of other organisations explain their “legitimate grievances” to us. But unlike Sinn Fein’s demands, Islamist calls for the annihilation of Israel, overthrow of all Arab leaders, and changes in western culture cannot, and should not, be met. "

^

He points out that for some young Muslims in the UK (particularly men) there is a "them and us" mentality. The "them" being not only the police but "clubbers, Jews, gay people, Christians, atheists and even moderate Muslims who reject the extremists’ war call".

^

He also says it is telling that US Muslims are at the forefront of reporting Islamists in that country, but they are hidden, protected and rarely reported here in the UK. This is partly due to the British Muslim communities being often tightly bound together. Dobbing anyone in could be dangerous. Emigrating to the USA is also more an explicit acceptance of the values of western civilisation. The UK for too long has been timid about its core values - which are fundamentally the same as the USA - freedom, individualism, tolerance, liberal democracy.

^

I heard on the BBC about how some young Muslim men in the UK go through a crisis of identity - raised by their family with conservative values, they then enjoy the temptations of liberal British society. This means young women who are sexually available. They then face their personal hypocrisy of despising that, despising their sisters who may also enjoy that society, and after they sate their appetite, feel like they have betrayed god and then want to attack the society that "seduced them into sin". They seek solace with Islam, and find a stream of Islamists more than willing to spread their poison of hate against western civilisation, blaming others for temptation.

^

Ed Husain was once associated with Islamist organisations and a former associate of convicted terrorist Dhiren Barot. He has written a book called The Islamist, telling of his journey to Islamism and back. He has received both bouquets and brickbats for his book, he has received a death threat for this and was advised not to call his local Police Station. This is because the relationship the police have with Islamic organisations in order to "represent Muslims" is leaky enough that his address details may leak to those who could do him harm. Some criticise him for supporting the war on terror and "neo-cons".

^

Well, you either fight those who want to kill us, or you don't. Islamism is not just about getting western military out of the Middle East, or the destruction of Israel, or the conversion of Muslim countries to be Islamist states - those on the left who wish to appease it, are appeasing those who would treat women as slaves, imprison gay and lesbian people and shut down free speech. It is time to defend why secular enlightenment western liberal democracies are morally superior to Islamist dark ages authoritarian nightmares. It is because of reason.

Attempted bombing in London

In the early hours this morning a Mercedes was intercepted in Haymarket containing gas cylinders and nails. Ambulance crew notified the Police after seeing smoke emitting from a car. The BBC has reported the car was driven erratically before crashing into a bin, and the driver running off.

^

Gordon Brown has clearly been granted a welcome by those who hate peace, liberal western civilisation and who worship violence.

^

As a result, half of Piccadilly Circus is closed, along with Piccadilly tube station and it will also be affecting the NZ High Commission.

^

so who is to blame?

You don't own your body - the government does

Jim Anderton's proud announcement, like big daddy telling off all the children - that it's good for them and they wont be allowed party pills anymore, is utterly sickening. Not PC has so much of this right. It is immoral and it wont work.

^

You see the point to me is simple.

^

I own my body because I am an adult. As a result of that, I have the right to ingest whatever the hell I like. Think about it for a moment. If I forced you to ingest something, you'd be infuriated. What if I told you that you were not allowed to have that cake, or that drink, or whatever in your own home? Why does anyone else have the right to stop you putting anything into your body?

^

Ahhh.... you say, but what if taking that substance makes me reckless and likely to harm others. Well then, you should be responsible for your behaviour under the influence of that substance. Your employer probably has a condition of your employment contract that you don't turn up for work that way for safety reasons. However, it is your risk to take. Remember we allow people to drink alcohol, and taking a lot of sugar can also affect behaviour. You're an ADULT - you know, like Jim Ol Son - Great Commander of your bodily ingestion. Why does HE know better?

Ah.... you say, but this might be bad for me. Indeed, it might. In fact, most things you ingest can be bad for you. Swallow half a kilo of butter everyday and you might find your arteries harden up. Drink 20 litres of water a day and you might end up in hospital. Don't drink anything in a day, and you'll be listless and maybe constipated. Paint a room without opening windows, and you might find yourself feeling faint. The list is endless. Thousands of people have taken party pills and their health remains fine. Do you think you need Jim Anderton to tell you so?

So what IS this about. Quite simply, Anderton is on a personal crusade about drugs besides alcohol because of his family circumstances. He would rather criminalise those who take the substance and distribute it, than deal with the cultural reasons why some people act stupidly with certain drugs.

The National Party, ever the sellout to its principles of less government, more personal responsibility and more freedom, is jumping on this bandwagon because it hasn't the guts to stand up and say - hold on, prohibition doesn't work and it is immoral. Jacqui Dean said "The longer he has delayed, the more young people believe you need to take a pill to have a good time". How fucking patronising and ignorant? So she thinks that banning it will fix it? Nothing like the naive, and the head prefect attitude of wanting to make rules for the bad kids to have to follow or they'll be punished. THIS attitude shows so much that is still wrong with the National Party - no principle, kneejerk populist policy and virtually no objective assessment as to effectiveness, just bandwagon jumping.

^

The Greens have opposed this, maybe not entirely on principle, but they do get credit for getting this somewhat right.

^

So what will happen?

^

The price of BZP will go up substantially after it is banned, it will become a lot cooler and more exciting, and its quality will slip. Less parents will know their kids have taken it, and less people will admit to A & E that they took it, or tell doctors that they have. Some people will have their lives ruined by the Police, courts and prison system penalising them for having a good time or selling the means for others to do so. Oh, and you'll find gangs will get involved in selling it, and it will be sold with cannabis, crystal meth and the like - so BZP will truly become an entrance drug into a wider market of substances.

^

Brilliance, such short sighted brilliance.

^

I hope the families and friends of those who get ruined because the quality of BZP plummets and becomes more poisonous, or those who fear admitting to doctors they take it for fear of being prosecuted, or those prosecuted for the crime of putting something into their own bodies, go and thank Anderton, Jacqui Dean and the other fascists against personal freedom for repeating a failed policy. Can't the likes of them (and the MPs who will support it like the robots they are) leave peaceful people alone?

The Blair years

The swearing in of Gordon Brown as British Prime Minister is seen by both the Labour left and the Tories as being positive.

^

The Labour left, feeling burnt by 10 years of Blair (forgetting they experienced 18 years of opposition in a row prior to Blair) is champing at the bit to have more government and more spending of other people's money, and backing off from the relationship with the USA, but happily going along with the growth of Brussels.

^

The Tories see Brown as less charismatic and less fleet in his speaking abilities compared with Blair, and easier to contrast with David Cameron. Unsurprisingly the Tories are calling for a general election, you know, like they never had when John Major succeeded Margaret Thatcher.

^

Both, I believe, are wrong. However, before reflecting on what the Brown premiership might look like, it is worth considering the pluses and minuses of the Blair years:

^

POSITIVES

^

1. Amended Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution which once called for nationalisation of "the means of production, distribution, and exchange" to a far softer statement of belief in solidarity, and having power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many not the few. In effect, he cauterised the Marxist wing of the Labour party.

2. Took a strong line against the warmongering Milosevic regime in Bosnia and Kosovo.

3. Stood side by side the USA in fighting Islamism and supporting the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein and Taliban dictatorships.

4. Granted independence to the Bank of England (albeit a Gordon Brown initiative).

5. Facilitated peace in Northern Ireland (not half helped by the withdrawal of much US private funding for the IRA though, and mitigated by the early release of out and out criminals).

6. Liberalisation of laws allowing civil partnerships, and other measures removing state barriers to treating gay/lesbian/transgender people on an equal basis.

7. Supporting more private provision of healthcare and education, including trust schools having far greater autonomy. A small step towards proving that state provisions doesn't satisfy everyone.

8. Introduction of tertiary tuition fees, at last rescuing most UK tertiary institutions from funding impoverishment and ongoing demand from those who are less than enthused about their studies.

9. Personal commitment, in general, to liberal democracy and the values of Enlightenment society, over Islamism.

^

NEGATIVES

^

1. Instituting a culture of spin, surrounding himself with advisors that end of providing filtered advice. Preferring style over substance.

2. Establishing the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies and Executives, helping to cement socialist government in both "countries", and the higher levels of state funding per capita for Wales and Scotland, relative to England- and the ongoing relative impoverishment of both as their economies rely more and more on the state.

3. Establishing the Greater London Authority and Mayoralty of London - another expensive layer of government in London, with an authoritarian Mayoral role. The result is that London has a lunatic leftwing Mayor hellbent on doing deals with dictators and penalising road transport more out of ideology less than economics.

4. Millenium Dome. Classic example of a big government project, too expensive and a white elephant for far too long.

5. Cash for honours, disgrace pure and simple. The word begins with "C".

6. Supporting the evangelical rise of environmental puritanism in the UK, with councils fining people for throwing away envelopes in rubbish bins as they walk out the front door or for NOT recycling material that may not even be recyclable in the first place. The biggest ethical crimes in the UK today could include flying, driving, not recycling newspapers and not buying fairtrade organic locally produced whatever!

7. ASBOs instead of genuine law and order. Allowing the Police to avoid protecting the public and prosecuting people effectively, and avoiding building enough prisons, instead giving people orders to not do things because they are anti-social. A distraction from core government responsibility, and as a result prisons are overcrowded because of inadequate provision, and also due to ....

8. Inexorable growth in nanny state laws that prohibit more and more personal behaviour, and allow more and more state monitoring of individuals with little accountability, culminating in...

9. Support for national ID cards - the tool of the authoritarian state, to make the state's business of taxing, subsidising, regulating and compelling people more efficient. Britain has more CCTV cameras per head of population than any other country.

10. Signing off the new EU Treaty which grows the Commission and role of the EU over the UK. Selling out some sovereignty for no good reason, without a mandate to do so.

^

I probably could never have voted for a Blair government, had I been allowed to vote here. However, by and large, the Blair government's record is briefly summarised as being:

- Status quo on economic management (following Major);

- Pro-Western civilisation on international policy;

- Mildly submissive to the EU bureaucratic/ Franco-Italian-German agenda of big government;

- Mildly more market in social policy;

- More authoritarian in terms of civil liberties, individual freedoms and approach to law and order (except where it counts).

^
I could say he has failed miserably to confront a wide range of problems in Britain, but would John Major have done much better? Unlikely. Will Gordon Brown? Highly unlikely. Would David Cameron? Well, except for perhaps more market in social policy, taking a tougher stance on the EU and opposing ID cards, there isn't much to choose from.

Greens and communists

So Frogblog is cheering like a groupie at the visit by Angela Davis, which appears to be funded by the New Zealand taxpayer. Maia is one of the biggest cheerleaders for her as well.

^

What is she about? Well Frogblog linked to Wikipedia about this woman, who has her place in history because she was charged as an accomplice to conspiracy, kidnapping and homicide. This was because a gun registered in her name was used by the brother of a man in prison to enter a courtroom and take a judge hostage in order to get his brother freed. The judge was murdered by his captors, two of the captors were killed in a police shootout. She was acquitted of all charges and pursued a life of political activism, which until recently included the US Communist Party. She stood as Vice Presidential candidate for the Communist Party in 1980 and 1984.

^

Understandably, growing up in Alabama she experienced the rampant racism of the 1960s and 1970s, but she turned to communism for intellectual solace. As a student she found appeal in communism, gained her Masters in San Diego before crossing the Iron Curtain to get her Ph.D at Humboldt University of Berlin, East Berlin that is. Humboldt was a true communist university till the end. It was run by the Socialist Unity Party (east German communists "by rigorously selecting students according to their conformity to the party line, made sure that no democratic opposition could grow on its university campuses. Its Communist-selected students and scholars did not participate in the East German democratic civil rights movements of 1989 to a considerable degree"). A training ground for the bureaurats who liked the world in the Orwellian oppressive superstate of the GDR.

^

In fact, her view of dissidents to these suffocating police states is noted in Wikipedia:

^

"Russian dissident and Nobel Laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn criticized Davis' sympathy for the Soviet Union in a speech he delivered to the AFL-CIO on July 9, 1975 in New York City, claiming hypocrisy in her attitude toward prisoners under Communist governments. According to Solzhenitsyn, a group of Czech dissidents “addressed an appeal to her: `Comrade Davis, you were in prison. You know how unpleasant it is to sit in prison, especially when you consider yourself innocent. You have such great authority now. Could you help our Czech prisoners? Could you stand up for those people in Czechoslovakia who are being persecuted by the state?' Angela Davis answered: 'They deserve what they get. Let them remain in prison.'”

^

Bitch!

^

How despicable to be so callous towards those wanting the freedoms she took for granted in the USA. Indeed, the fact she campaigned for the Communist Party indicates clearly she didn't believe in political or individual freedom, she believed in communist revolution that would entrench a single party, with one truth, one source for media and imprisoning anyone who disagreed.

^

The main reason the Greens are excited about her is because she supports the abolition of prisons. All those rapists really should have their freedom shouldn't they?

^

Now to be fair Davis left the Communist Party USA because it supported the failed August putsch against Gorbachev and also supported the Warsaw Pact (funny, because she did too for so long), and founded the Committees_of_Correspondence_for_Democracy_and_Socialism. Nevertheless, she still holds up Cuba as a great example of democracy and socialism working together (no doubt forgetting those Cubans in prisons for their political activities and the complete lack of freedom for Cubans to set up private organisations without state approval).

^

However, if Davis has repudiated her sympathy towards the USSR and its former satellites, then good. However, she should be held to account for her past sycophancy and lack of compassion to the victims of the communist nightmare. What sickens me is FrogBlog's complete evasion of the truth. It said:

^

-"A woman who faced capital charges in the USA three times for her work for justice" Or being an accessory to kidnapping and murder, how about that? Or is it ok to demand the freedom of some men by kidnapping and shooting a judge at point blank range?

- "but also her warm humanity that really shone through". Maybe she has it now, but she shows little towards Cuban political dissidents or indeed showed none at all to Czech dissidents. Maybe she'd like to visit Prague and apologise, given that the Czechs have freedom no thanks to her.

- "She spoke of the enormous international solidarity of progressive people that has been demonstrated at times". Progressive meaning - people who want to replace one form of statism with another. It's a code word for socialist.

- "She also pointed out that women are the fastest growing section of the prison population". Couldn't be because they are committing more crimes could it? No! It's the capitalist industrial complex oppressing them.

- "Prisons, she said, are a dumping ground for people, as a means of control and maintenance of economic domination and conceptually, as a way of disposing of the unacceptable face of capitalist society" Or a place to put a lot of dangerous people who kill, rape, assault and defraud others. Not saying there is room for removing those who commit victimless crimes, but to say that violent offenders are the "unacceptable face of capitalist society" is actually true. They are unacceptable, and why not?

^

Now I am not saying that she is wrong about many points, such as the role of prisons in not rehabilitating, and the uselessness of a single minded approach to law and order, but there is a point for prisons as preventive detention. To keep bad people from committing more offences. Angela Davis has some useful points to make, but she is no angel - her past support for murderous totalitarian regimes is despicable, and I am disappointed nobody seems to have asked her what her views are of that time now. I am certain Keith Locke regrets his cheering on of the Khmer Rouge in 1975 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, you think the Greens might have learnt, or is it ok to have friends who believed in dictatorships?

^

UPDATE: This website has a fuller quote from Solzhenitsyn's book. He noted "Although she didn't have too difficult a time in this country's jails, she came to recuperate in Soviet resorts."

^

You're either stupid or immoral to think the Soviet Union was a more moral system than the USA.

The shine comes off Cameron the unprincipled

After a honeymoon run, and on the verge of the beginning of the Brown premiership, it is becoming clear that the David Cameron remaking of the Conservative Party is no longer looking that attractive to voters.

^

David Cameron, as you may recall, has been rebranding the Tories towards the centre, his top priorities being the NHS (as if that model isn't fundamentally flawed) and the environment - advocating taxes on aviation for example. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown increased tax on aviation, but also reduced the middle rate of income tax by 2% in his latest budget. Cameron has been unable to commit to tax cuts at all, terrified that he can't defend it on principle (how can you defend something when principles seem so easy to sell out) .

^

None of this was helped by the grammar school debacle, with the party having two different policies in concert!

^

Now Tory MP Quentin Davies has defected to Labour. I hardly approve of course, given his constituents voted for a Conservative MP - had they wanted Labour they would have voted Labour. Nevertheless, according to the BBC Davies made some very good points about Cameron:

^

"Under your leadership the Conservative Party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything.... It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda....Although you have many positive qualities you have three, superficiality, unreliability and an apparent lack of any clear convictions, which in my view ought to exclude you from the position of national leadership to which you aspire and which it is the presumed purpose of the Conservative Party to achieve"

^

Indeed, although why Davies thinks Labour is any better is unclear. All I can say is that more points of principle seem to come from Blair and Brown than from Cameron anyday, which shows you how much of a vapid marketing exercise politics now is.

^

Brown is perceived, quite rightly, as being strong. He might seem like a grumpy old sod, but he also speaks when he has something reasonably intelligent to say.

^

Don't get me wrong, I'm no friend of the Brown administration, it has failed miserably in its core goal of law and order, with overcrowded prisons and moves to defer prison sentences and encourage some early releases. This is when there is someone under 18 stabbed to death every week in Britain. Money has been poured into public spending, often with derisory return and local authorities continue to be the new generation of fascist enterprises, keen to regulating and prosecute to ensure people follow the religion of recycling. Meanwhile, Labour signs up to a new EU treaty, which increases the role of Brussels in British affairs and continues to expand the bureaucracy of what should simply be a glorified free trade agreement. There is nothing much to celebrate from Labour, at best it has slowly taken some of Thatcher's reforms further, and in some instances backwards. It is distinctively uninterested in personal freedom, and uninterested in challenging the cultural wasteland of underclass worshipping Brits.

^

The point is, the Tories are probably a slight improvement - but how can you trust political prostitutes who will sell everything they once stood for, for power. This is what happens when you're ashamed about freedom and capitalism, and don't know why they are both practical and moral.

^

David Cameron has done a bit of good for the Tories, taking it out of the gentrified grey haired old bigoted white men brigade, ready to pass judgment on non Anglo-Saxon immigrants, gay couples and people of other religions (or none, good god!). However, he hasn't stood up for anything that couldn't also be seen in Labour or the Liberal Democrats.

^

I wonder what other political party, and especially leader does that? and I wonder how long that honeymoon will last?

Video on demand entertainment on Air NZ Trans Tasman/Pacific flights

Well about time really. Thankfully the government is a passive shareholder in Air NZ, otherwise it might regard the $50 million investment in installing individual on-demand entertainment TV screens for all classes on the Boeing 767s and Airbus A320s as a waste of money.

^

The 767s fly all services to Cairns, Honolulu, Perth, and Tahiti, and some from Auckland to Apia, Nandi, Rarotonga, Nuku'alofa, Brisbane, Adelaide and Sydney, and extensions of flights from Apia, Nandi and Rarotonga to/from Los Angeles (the long slow way from Auckland to LA).

^

The A320s fly all services from Wellington and Christchurch to Australia and the Pacific, and from Auckland to Noumea and Port Vila, and some from Auckland to Adelaide, Apia, Brisbane, Melbourne, Nandi, Norfolk Island, Nuku'alofa, Rarotonga and Sydney.

^

Finally NZ can compete a bit better with the likes of Emirates across the Tasman, only the odd international 737 flight (usually to Niue and Norfolk Island, but occasionally elsewhere) will be without any decent entertainment. What the report doesn't note is that this means new seats on the 767s in both classes.

^

On top of that, shortly you'll be allowed to use Air NZ Airpoints to upgrade on flights by other Star Alliance carriers that have joined the Star Alliance upgrade scheme. They are:

- ANA (Japan);

- Asiana (South Korea);

- Austrian Airlines;

- LOT (Poland);

- Lufthansa;

- Singapore Airlines;

- Swiss;

- Thai;

- TAP (Portugal); and

- United.

^

I'll wait and see how many airpoints dollars I need to upgrade to first class on Singapore Airlines!

^

UPDATE: It appears the Boeing 767s will be losing business class in favour of premium economy class - hmmm.

Rushdie knighthood provokes murderous talk

Salman Rushdie gets a knighthood, and the self appointed spokesmen (it's always men) of the Muslim world demand "justice" because they have been offended "If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified" said Pakistan's Religious Affairs Minister (even having one of those is ridiculous and tells you how much freedom of religion and religious impartiality Pakistan has).

^

Funny how a man writing a novel creates talk of murder, but this, this, this, and this don't. You figure out what values that culture has that puts being offended ahead of the systematic abuse and subjugation of women.

^

Salman Rushdie has had to put up with many years of have a death threat hanging over him, which some Muslims condemned, but few did anything to confront those who threatened him. He is a symbol of free speech, enlightenment values and secularism, against the bloody minded caveman like murderers who would kill him and all of us who refuse to submit to their chosen religion. Britain has nothing to apologise for granting him a knighthood. Lord Ahmed who condemned the knighthood could have at least respected Rushdie's right to free speech and his bravery against those offended by his literature. As is all too often the case, others are expected to censor themselves to not offend Islam, but they are not.

^

Many Muslims need to go through the enlightenment and separation of church and state, instead of continually showing that they are stuck in a medieval era.

Nanny State UK on breasts

According to the BBC soon in England it could be legal to breastfeed in public. Fine, no problem with that in public spaces like parks or on the street. However, it is also proposed that it be allowed on public transport, in shops and in cafes!! So Gordon Ramsay will have to put up with breast feeding in Claridges perhaps?

Why?

This is because some mothers fear being stopped, so they don't do it and this is a "public health" problem. Well I'm sorry, it is not a reason to pass a law that takes away property rights from shopowners, cafe owners and public transport operators?

Why doesn't a cafe owner have the right to stop a lactating mother from feeding her child? Whose bloody business is it in the first place?

^

What's next? Should it be that if I feel like a wank I can whip it out, get some relief (presumably ensuring I don't make a mess) and put it back in again? After all, it is only natural (and please religious conservatives, don't tell me it isn't, because if I don't have a sexual partner by body will do most of this on its own anyway).

^

What sort of peculiar law makes it compulsory to allow someone to carry out bodily functions on private property? Ask the Labour government, and ask the Tories why they wont stand up against this nonsense.

^

It's simple, because for too many in Britain the answer to a problem is make it compulsory or ban it - kind of like the Green Party in NZ.

^

Of course to be complete, I should point out I don't care if women breast feed in front of me or not, it doesn't bother me. It bothers me that if I own a shop, I couldn't set rules that say you can't do it.

Bill English provides hope?

With Bill reported by RNZ as saying that large numbers of taxpayers should only pay a top rate of 20%, there may be hope yet that the 39 and 33% rates are either cut or the thresholds raised sky high. Of course I'd go one step further and say 20% should be the top rate.

^

Yes there are the usual groans from the left that either part of the "punish the successful" brigade (because people earning more than $38,000 p.a. are rich and they do so by milking the blood of children), or that it would be damaging. You see, they believe the state, which produces nothing itself (it does own producers, but it has to keep its sticky hands off them for them to be successful), is efficient and when it takes your money (takes it, remember that, it was never asked. If it stuffs up the best you can expect is a chance every three years to tick a couple of boxes in the hope that you out of over 2.5 million people can fire those responsible, but they never get to compensate you for the stuff up), it has that "right".

^

Imagine if a company required you to pay for everything it sold, by force, and the most you could do is vote at a shareholders' meeting where you and everyone else had one vote to vote in or out one person out of the 120 or so that decide how the company is run. If the company's services were inadequate, didn't meet your needs, or the company paid for goods and services you were ethically opposed to, the company spent money on telling you what to do, and absolutely none of those 120 or so directors could ever be imprisoned or fined for misspending funds, breaking fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders (promises), or destroying the value of the company, or being negligent.

^

It's called government. Where people are voted by you to take your money and spend it on what they think is best for you. Where after taking a fair proportion of your earnings, when it doesn't provide the healthcare you want, doesn't provide the education you want for your children, is not responsive to you as a victim of crime, and spends large sums for people to breed, make music videos and tell others what to do, the response basically is "it's a democracy, it's what you pay for civilisation".

^

Only politicians, public servants and the starry eyed state worshippers of the left could defend a system that makes them as unaccountable as possible for spending other people's money and failing to provide what people expect.

Herald on Sunday

A couple of people have told me that I was blog of the week, so thank you Herald on Sunday.

Putin's week (by Hugo Rifkind)

From the Sunday Times, this is just funny... take this excerpt (the first person is Putin):

^

"“Yo, Blair,” I say, to be sure he realises where he stands. “I am sick of your patronising, yes? I am sick of your excluding Russia from the cosy club of Western capitalism. No longer, my friend. We demand access to your institutions!”

^
“Now come on,” says Blair. “We let you into the G8. And Eurovision. What more can you want? Not Nato?”

^
“Ha!” I say, scowling as I realise how much nicer his suit is than mine. “Maybe I will run for the deputy leadership of your Labour Party, yes? Impeccable left-wing credentials, ha?”
“That is ridiculous,” says Blair, adding, “Gosh! Nice sandals.”

^
“Boom!” I say, darkly, and then wander off, to mutter combative things about whales to the man from Canada, and freak out Angela Merkel by inviting her to lunch. "

Albania welcomes Bush as a friend. Do you wonder why?

The first time I had ever heard of Albania was when National Geographic magazine visited it, in the early 1980s. It profiled a country that was, by and large, medieval. People went around in oxcarts, technology seemed to have passed it by, and it had what was, on the outside, a quaint insular appearance.

^

Albania had no private cars and hence no traffic lights. It exported hydro electricity, from plants developed by the Chinese (internal demand for electricity was very low). Shops were open short hours and the range of consumer goods available was very limited. Whilst traditionally Muslim, religion had been banned in 1967. Mosques and the handful of churches were converted into secular buildings, like a basketball court, or museum. News media was very heavily censored, televisions rare, but none were allowed to listen to radio broadcasts from other countries. The University of Tirana (established in 1957) had no law school, because "there is no need for lawyers in a country run by the people". Possession of religious texts was a crime, as was art that didn't follow "socialist realism" and dancing "Western style". There were some notable achievements, literacy had dramatically increased as free compulsory education was introduced and law and order was little problem, the blood feuds that haunted rural Albania largely halted. The simple reason why is because a police state had been established. Albania was the poorest country in Europe, and the most hardline police state.

^

That Albania eschewed relations with almost the entire world. The USA, UK were considered evil capitalist powers, and their allies little better (although there was a modicum of trade with Greece and Italy). Yugoslavia was a hated traitor of socialism, and Albania officially feared invasion constantly (shades of Orwell's 1984 for certain). The USSR and Warsaw Pact were also hated and feared. No diplomatic relations existed with Moscow, Belgrade or even Beijing by this time. Its Chinese ally had lost its way after Deng Xiaoping started opening up, so Albania was left having minimal ties with some Western countries (and flights were resumed with Belgrade, the only air route).

^

Albanians remained almost totally isolated from the rest of the world, whilst a police state was maintained within. The predominantly rural society continued to stand still, whilst using its ample hydro electricity to broadcast high powered shortwave radio broadcasts worldwide in over a dozen languages - as Radio Tirana sought to be the last beacon of socialism in Europe and maybe even the world. Albanians could not travel internally without internal passports, besides even the infrastructure was hardly up to many people moving on dirt roads and railways patched together since their Soviet and Chinese friends had long departed.

^

That Albania was the creation of Enver Hoxha, a ruthless communist who admired and followed Stalin's lead. That was why he repudiated Tito, then the USSR and China in turn. Hoxha died in 1985, but it took six years before his successor Ramiz Alia finally gave up the police state. The fall of communism in neighbouring countries, particular Romania gave courage for small groups of Albanians to start protesting and resisting. Radio Tirana had cut back its broadcasts dramatically (from once being the fifth largest shortwave broadcaster in the world).

^

The road to freedom for Albanians was not easy. The vacuum left by the end of a hardline police state was easily filled by organised crime, and the pyramid savings schemes of the late 1990s saw many Albanians cheated of what little wealth they had.

^

Albania is not the poorest country in Europe anymore. That title is unfortunately held by Moldova, which has been badly affected by the split of the Soviet Union denying it that guaranteed market, and the expansion of the EU, denying it alternative markets for its (primarily) agricultural products in eastern Europe (that beloved Common Agricultural Policy shafting the poor again). Albania has also enjoyed substantial foreign investment, with infrastructure improving remarkably, and new manufacturing industries appearing. Many have left, crime has certainly increased, and very sadly blood feuds have re-emerged. Albania has a long way to go. However, it is free.

^

So having gone through Stalinism for over 40 years, Albanians look West, even though many are Muslims (now that religion is legal again). Albanians do not look to Islamists, and they do not look to Marxism. So as the Times reports they have welcomed GW Bush as leader of the free world, the world that most of them had shut out from their eyes.

^

Oh and you probably have heard of the most famous Albanian. Mother Theresa of Calcutta (although born in what is now the state of "Macedonia" the former Yugoslav Republic). She allied herself with Enver Hoxha (among other mass murderers), which Christopher Hitchins reported on around ten years ago.