Wellington International Airport's rock?

OK, so what the hell is THIS all about? It's creative yes but attractive? It's the design for the expansion of Wellington airport's international terminal wing (note the ambitiously hopeful thought that Singapore Airlines might decide to service Wellington, hmmm).

~

On the outside it looks out of place, bizarre even, on the inside it looks like you're sitting in a cave. Yes I know there is a desire to make an impact, and most airport terminals are "the same", but hold on a second. The main impact I get is "it's not like an airport, but I could get lost inside this".

~

At one point the worst thing about Wellington airport was the old Air NZ domestic terminal, which is now long gone with the new terminal which is reasonably functional and quite pleasant to use. There is a need to expand some capacity at the international wing, mainly because typically 3 or 4 flights arrive and depart within three slots of an early AM peak, mid afternoon and late evening. However, I don't know if this design is quite right. Nevertheless it will make the airport environment less clinical and if it provide enough space for three times the expected passengers it WILL be comfortable. You see the best airports are the ones that don't seem packed, but can take you, with room for your bags, and a friend to spread out, and let you know when you need to know, when to board. It's nice to have that without lounge access! I'm unsure if this design makes it easy to use, imagine running to a flight through this, you don't have a clear sight to a gate and where to go, and what to avoid. Interesting to see what views others have, especially Not PC.

~

Eye of the Fish has more comments and TV3 has a fly through video of the terminal.

Hope for Cuba?

Following Castro's surprisingly short statement of resignation, President Bush and Prime Minister Gordon Brown have both called for Cuba to transition towards liberal democracy. Bush said:

~

"Eventually this transition ought to lead to free and fair elections, and I mean free and I mean fair, not these kind of staged elections that the Castro brothers try to foist off as being true democracy,"

~

I would hope those of the liberal left might actually agree with Bush, for once. Just on that point, go on, show you DO actually believe in liberal democracy. After all according to Cuba's official mouthpiece "45 years have passed and the overwhelming majority of Cubans remain unyielding in their support of the Revolution and the undisputed and reinvigorated leadership of Fidel Castro” so why fear elections and free speech?

~

The so called "genocidal war" of the economic embargo might end then, although I would have thought the embargo, as an anti-globalisation measure, should be welcomed by socialists. Why would they want to trade with the great capitalist enemy?

~

Meanwhile, the truth of Cuban socialism is, like that of almost all dictatorships, opulence for the rulers. Castro's life of luxury is reported in the Daily Telegraph, as evidence from videotapes smuggled out by an ex.girlfriend of one of Castro's sons shows:

~

"The series, titled The Secret life of Fidel Castro, depicts his main residential compound, Punto Cero, or Point Zero, in western Havana. Monday's episode showed Mr Castro dressed casually before a banquet, inspecting the elaborate dinnerware on the dinner table, his grandchildren playing with relatives and Antonio zooming along the patio on an electric scooter. It pictures the spacious compound and carefully landscaped garden and reveals that many of the family are wearing designer clothes. The house is decorated with wooden chests and Cuban handicrafts. A large-screen television monitors foreign news channels."

~

Of course it is neither here nor there for Castro's sycophants that he has what he denies fellow Cubans - access to free media.

~

So who are his sycophants?

Top of my list is London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, great friend of Cuban authoritarian one party rule. Ken Livingstone loves Castro.

However add to that list George Galloway (mate of dictators far and wide), Naomi Campbell (brainless without beauty), Steven Spielberg (though he isn't keen on Castro's mates in Beijing), Oliver Stone (why doesn't he move there?) and Diego Maradona (he has a tattoo of the thug).

~

The Independent has an excellent although lengthy entry outlining many bits of information about Cuba.

~

So what might Cubans hope for?

~

Access to the internet, since it has been illegal since 2004 for private citizens to access it.

Mobile phones or computers, since it is illegal to own those without government permission (which is not common).

Red Cross access to prisons, which Cuba denies.

The end to imprisonment for "likelihood of committing a crime".

The end to imprisonment of journalists for criticising the regime.

Freedom of movement (the right to leave Cuba).

~

Let's hope 2008 is the year all of the above is granted to Cubans.

Fidel Castro resigns

Good for Cuba, perhaps. Like some other authoritarian criminal states (Syria, North Korea), the principle for power is nepotism - something that the sycophants of Cuba, like Ken Livingstone and Matt Robson, might reflect on.
~
I hoped he'd die before an orderly transition of power, but it is difficult to tell whether his brother will make radical reforms - opening up a system of oppression to free speech, and allow people to get on with their lives without the state crushing them. Raul has a few months to prove himself.
~
You might read how Cuba treats political dissidents to see how good to the people it is, and you might look twice at its official health statistics on child mortality and life expectancy - given that authoritarian regimes are not very reliable on telling the truth.
~
Let's hope Raul opens up the mental hospitals and prisons to the political prisoners, allows a free press and radio, and starts granting Cubans individual rights. He might start finding that if he holds free and fair elections, US sanctions would evaporate.
~
However, somehow, I don't think many of Cuba's supporters really want that.

So I own a bank, well..

My taxes get to pay for the losses and guarantee the operation of the bank, but I don't get a dividend if it makes a profit (there is no hope in hell that Labour would cut the top tax rate). Worse of all, if it keeps losing money, I keep having to pay for it, but I can't sell my "shares" in it.

~

I don't even use it.

Thanks to Alastair Darling.

~

Should Northern Rock been allowed to fail? Well, sad to say for all of those with accounts in the bank - yes. Your investment in Northern Rock is not a risk I should have to bear. I don't expect you to bear my risk in spreading my money among four different banks, people with shares don't expect everyone else to cover the loss of any capital value.

~

Yes the government guarantee of deposits was the start, the start of the state bearing the losses, the state being the bank of last resort. Now the nationalisation is more like being put in administration, which is pretty much what would have happened anyway - although it may have been a little more brutal for depositors.

~

It might not all be bad, according to the Daily Telegraph the UK government may yet make money out of it but...

~

"Now that the company is part of the public sector this profit, which will come from selling off its mortgage book, could help improve the public finances, reducing the need for future tax increases. However, in order for the bank to turn in a profit, it will have to be managed well. This means jobs will have to be cut, and the homes of those Rock customers who can't keep up their repayments will have to be repossessed. To the horror of Whitehall, it is now faced with the prospect of doing all this dirty work itself. Taxpayers must hope it has the stomach to do so."

Indeed, I can only hope that it does. A nationalised bank that acts commercially, hmmm. According to Shadow Chancellor George Osborne addressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer:

"You are introducing unprecedented, sweeping, draconian powers that will let you nationalise any other bank or deposit-taking institution in Britain by ministerial fiat. That is something not even Michael Foot dreamt of and it will create further uncertainly in financial markets and do further damage to Britain's reputation"

That in itself is disturbing, and perhaps the only thing saving the reputation is the impression that Gordon Brown himself is really behind this, and he is no Michael Foot. I can only hope the damned thing can be privatised and the relevant legislation repealed.

Islamism: The first enemy in the battle of values

As I said in a post in January, I am posting a series on what I see as being the great battles of values in modern civilisation. This post discusses what I see as being the nearest immediate threat to Western liberal democracy and individual freedoms. Islamism, also known as Islamo-fascism.

~

Islamism is the most pernicious example today of integrating religion, which is a personal choice, with the state and law. It is pernicious not only because it reflects a vision of religion, the state and individuals that was apparent in the dark ages, but because those advancing it are waging war. They are willing to kill to advance their bleak vision of the world.
~
Islamism places the worship of a faith at the centre of laws that govern behaviour between individuals, not reason. That in itself is a cause for concern, as it is for those of other faiths, Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism and Christianity all have plenty of followers ready to integrate church and state. However, whilst all that do so take a malignant view of individual freedom and reason, Islamism is a particular concern for several reasons:
~
1. Islamists have deliberately waged war against secularism and against Western civilisation. There is a long litany of attacks. It is deceptive to dismiss these as reflecting a desire to resolve the Palestianian question, or to keep US troops out of Islamic holy lands. Those who advocate Islamist terror have a far more malignant agenda, of a global caliphate. Islamists are a clear and immediate danger, that can be seen not only in the Middle East, but also in the USA, UK, France, Spain, Indonesia, Africa and elsewhere.
~

2. Islamists worship death and glorify sacrifice, and often actively target civilians regardless of race, belief, age or sex. Their philosophy is the complete antithesis of life, the pursuit of happiness, individual freedom and diversity. Some seek to ban music, glorify explicit violence and horror, and revel in those who die for their religion.

~
3. Islamists are profoundly sexist and racist. Their anti-semitism rivals that of the Nazis, and goes beyond concern for the Palestinian question. Their sexism is renowned, from seeking to ban education of girls, to treating women as subservient and almost evil seductive creatures that divert men from their duties of running the world. They insult both men and women in their sexist generalisations that treat sex and human relations as a joyless necessity that needs planning by old judgmental men, not a celebration of people with common values, shared experiences and affection/love for each other. Islamist states treat women as second class at best, and virtually slaves at worst.

~
4. Islamists are totalitarian in their attitudes. They are intolerant to the point of calling for murder of those they disagree with and who offend them. Their solutions to being insulted, or those disagreeing with them is to use threats of force or actual force. Their suppression of debate cripples those under their rule and cripples humanity. This is an attitude of brutal savages. By contrast, they do not think twice about adopting the most vile terminology to describe those who they are bigoted against.

~
Islamists are well funded, highly motivated, have states that actively back or shelter them, and have proven their willingness to kill for their political objectives.
~
One simply has to look at those states which exemplify Islamism to see how governments treat their citizens, or indeed how citizens are permitted by the state to treat each other. The Taliban banned girls over the age of eight from getting an education and would execute any (and their teachers) who sought it. It banned music, women playing sports, flying kites, stuffed animals, photographs of people or animals. Think how much of a joyless bully you have to be to ban all that.

~
Let me make it perfectly clear, there is a difference between being Muslim per se, and being an Islamist. Being a Muslim is a private personal choice (or should be), and practicing the religion in one’s private affairs, subject to the non-initiation of force principle, is not my concern. It is the application of Islam upon the state, advocacy of a singularity between the state and Islam, and the particularly violent means that Islamists use to advocate their view. The first battle is against violent Islamists, but Islamism itself is at the root of this. Only when Islam is considered a religion, and not a blueprint for the role of the state will there be the tolerance and acceptance that so many Muslims seek. Humanity has gone a long way to have secular tolerant liberal democracies where people can feel free to choose religion or no religion, without violence or threat of violence or discrimination by the state. Islamists seek to destroy this. For the sake of civilisation, peace, human rights and the future of humanity, Islamism must be fought until it is no longer a violent threat, and then must be debated vigorously until this philosophy of death, misery and irrationality resides in the past.

Kosovo independent: an all too easy solution?

The Serbian province of Kosovo has declared independence, a move that for Kosovo Albanians is "freedom", but for Kosovo Serbs is not welcomed. The US and the UK have declared they will recognise an independent Kosovo, but is the solution to what is essentially conflict based on national identity division? The EU is putting a lot into it, with 2000 troops being sent in, but more importantly Kosovo laws will be subservient to EU supervision. Yes, you read that right. Kosovo will essentially be an EU protectorate for the indefinite future. The EU chief representative will have veto powers over Kosovo government decisions and the right to fire officials obstructing relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

~

So this is quite something different from what has happened with all other declarations of independence, it is more a declaration that power has moved to Brussels, for now.

~

Kosovo’s independence is different from that of the former Yugoslav republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro, not least because it never was one. It follows many years of repression of the Kosovo Albanian majority, an oppression that was more severe after the erosion of communist rule, when the cancer of nationalism replaced Titoist Marxism as the blight on freedom and individual rights in Yugoslavia.

~

It is partially dismembering Serbia, partly to punish Serbia for its long racist fascist politics that succeeded Titoism, but more importantly to protect the Kosovo Albanians. Instead of being a minority in Serbia, they will be the majority in Kosovo.
~
This is not the place to go into the Serbian/Albanian conflict over Kosovo, lest to say that the Serb nationalist bullies like Slobodan Milosevic who pined for Serbia’s “golden age” of being defeated in Kosovo since 1389 (yes only nationalist Serbs understand). The vile bigotry of Milosevic’s nationalism saw the Albanian language banned and cooked up fears that Albanians were harassing Serbs, which clearly would justify Serbs harassing Albanians. The conflict over Kosovo was not as bloody as Bosnia-Hercegovina, but it did involve slaughter. Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo by and large despise each other in a mutual lack of trust. The Albanians remember the repression and fascism of Milosevic and the fascist Serbian authorities, the Serbs fear the Albanian majority’s own hatred towards them, and see Kosovo as being part of Serbia, which until today it has been.
~
So why is Kosovo a big deal? Shouldn’t it become independent because the majority want it?
~
Unlike the US and the EU I don’t believe the answer is yes.
~
The philosophy that says Kosovo Albanians should be independent could also be applied to Serbs in Bosnia, Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, Russians in Abhazia, Basques in Spain etc. It is the notion that ethnic identity should determine statehood. The problem with this idea of course is that the psychological state of ethnic identity (which, by and large is all ethnicity it. It is in the mind), isn’t shared by those for whom boundaries are drawn around.

~

More importantly, this is exactly what has been the problem in what was Yugoslavia – the notion that people shouldn’t live together with different ethnic identities. The scourge is NOT Serbs, it is the scourge of nationalism. That is what the EU, US and the UN should be confronting. It is not confronted by bowing to Kosovo Albanian nationalism.

~

The butchers who rounded up Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica, marched them out of town and shot them – the butchers who went from house to house in the Krajina and rounded up Serbs to remove them from “Croatian land”. All expounded the philosophy that people could not be treated as individuals, but be treated as part of a group. Either you were one of us or a member of the "other". It's what collectivists do, you hear the same philosophy from them all.

~

In Kosovo it has been the same, and now it will be Kosovan Serbs who will be the other, in a small rump state with desperate economic prospects.
~
Carving up Serbia sends a message that countries should exist according to the philosophy that Serb nationalists have been fighting for since the early 1990s, except this time the Serbs lost and the Albanians won. The Serbs wont forget, sadly.

~

You see Serbia offered full autonomy, and could have also had a peacekeeping presence so that Kosovo autonomy could have worked. Serbia could have had a chance to experience tolerance, individualism and freedom first hand, even if it involved a continued heavy peacekeeping presence in the province. However, now it has simply been punished, and the EU and the US will pay for Kosovo to be rebuilt as a rump state, and Serbs in Kosovo will live in fear.
~
Russia has said it will take action if Kosovo becomes independent. Hardly surprising, as it has many scores it can settle, in Georgia and Moldova for starters. Will the West intervene if Russia attacks Georgia to apply the same rule to its ethnic majority areas? Would it be a surprise if Putin decides he can flex his muscles on his borders without provoking a serious response?

~

No. Because the philosophy of nationalism has created rivers of blood for generations.

~

I note Helen Clark has stated a "neither confirm nor deny" approach to recognising Kosovo's independence, although Australia will recognise it. I suspect this is simply part of the MFAT philosophy that rejects "recognition" of states formally, but it is the wrong approach. Clark claims "It's never been the New Zealand Government's position to recognise in such circumstances." Um East Timor?

~

Either there is a principled stance against independence or in favour of it. My call is that, sadly, independence has to be formally recognised. Either New Zealand will treat Kosovo as part of Serbia or not, and to not recognise what will be fact (no rule from Serbia), is of little effect.

Tariana Turia's tribalist bigotry

According to the NZ Herald Maori Party MP Tariana Turia thinks all Maori deserve an apology. What for Tariana? What did I ever do to you?
~
She, no doubt like many, thinks that Rudd's apology is actually about everyone individually apologising to all Aborigines, rather than what it SHOULD be, which is the Australian federal government apologising to specific victims of its own policies.

~

Sorry Tariana, there is no collective guilt by people against another people. All Maori are not victims. If Maori want to sue the state for any wrongdoing by it against them individually then they should feel free to do so. However, I think that many New Zealanders could claim the same. The ones let down by socialised medicine, statist education, the non-inheritable superannuation scheme, the miserly socialist ACC scheme, the limp wristed law and order system, the mixed performance Police force, NaZis on Air jackbooted bullying of the past, criminalisation of people committing victimless crimes etc etc. The government could apologise for not delivering what was promised with the money collected by force from the public, and for its coercion against people's lives.

~

That I'd like to see.

~

Your ancestry doesn't make you special. You should be judged by what you do and your character, and both are sadly lacking. It has nothing to do with your identified Maori ancestry - that is irrelevant. It is that you're a mystic worshipping socialist nationalist statist, and you and your party perpetuate division, racial judgment and victimhood.

Obama's economic backwardness

So Obama has got an economic policy. Well I'm not impressed, it is a leftwing programme. It will hurt New Zealand, and will hurt the economic growth of the USA. It is beholden to protectionism of industry and unions, and indicates that when Obama says the word change he really means to "turn the clock back". Obama is about going to the tired old solutions of the 1960s and 1970s of spending money on pet projects, instead of setting people free to innovate with their own money.

.

Here are some of his policies:

.

Fair trade: Yes a favourite of environmentalists, the Green Party and others. Fair trade is a euphemism for tariffs, quotas and bans of imports, because after all who decides what is "fair"? He wants to spread "good labor and environmental standards", which presumably means pricing businesses out of developing countries, but also doesn't mean spreading private property rights which COULD address environmental standards. Perhaps he means paying more for commodities than the market price, increasing their overproduction. All that is clear is that he doesn't believe that people should be able to exchange goods and services freely.

.

Subsidise inefficient industries: He wants to prop up the US automotive industry to make fuel efficient vehicles in the USA, he wants to "invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers", invest with money taken from businesses and individuals through taxes. How does he know best how to "invest" money taken from others? Back to the tired old policies of the 1970s.

.

Create jobs through destroying other ones: He goes on about creating jobs, mainly by using money taken from businesses and individuals through taxes that THEY could have created jobs through their own investment and consumption. It is sleight of hand and old fashioned childlike socialist economics. Policies like "create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025" could cost the USA a fortune, diverting investment on cheaper energy into more expensive options, reducing the competitiveness of businesses either through utility fees or taxes. It is easy to point to jobs socialists create, but harder to point to the many they destroy by eating away at spending of others. He will "will invest in rural small businesses" I only wish he would do it with his own money, why take it from others?

.

Price more unskilled jobs out of the market: He does this by wanting to "raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs". Tiring indeed, and he wonders why unskilled manufacturing jobs move south.

.

On top of that he wants to regulate and subsidise housing lending, and heavily regulate credit cards and the like, because he thinks Americans are too stupid to look after themselves.

Do you want "real change" which is about going back to big government knows best?

Are you worried about Obama yet?

As Barack Obama catches up with Hillary Clinton in the latest Democratic Party primaries, Hat Tip for Trevor Loudon, pointing out the Marxists who are cheering him on, such as this blogger.

~

Change you can believe in? He could well be the most leftwing major Presidential candidate since George McGovern.

He's an inspirational speaker, but plenty of big government statists have been.

He is no better than Hillary Clinton, in fact he's worse. Clinton's foibles are clear, obvious, everyone knows what her weaknesses are. Obama is untouchable. It is about time that he is asked some serious questions about what he believes in besides being nice and "beyond the old politics". What does he want besides to make people feel good?

Greens want look at political addiction to gambling

Sue Bradford is right.

~

There is a political addiction to gambling, it is gambling with OTHER people's money.

~

Sue Bradford is concerned about those who gamble with their own money (and their families), which is at best just stupidity, and at worst a sad reflection of a deeper affliction. However, the enjoyment of thousands should not be sacrificed because a small number can't control their behaviour.

~

Sue Bradford is in a political party that gushes at the chance to gamble other people's money, taken by force through taxes, at any pet project that their own faith calls them to support. The Greens want to gamble money on "renewable energy", rail based public transport, state broadcasting, recycling, state health care, state education, increased welfare benefits and state housing. This is far more insidious that private gambling because the money is taken by force from taxpayers, and there is no accountability for those taking it. At least those wasting their own money on gambling miss it, they could have bought something else with it. In addition, those spending the proceeds received the money by choice, not force.

~

The Greens are ever addicted to taking more and more, regardless of how badly it performs. Their faith based initiatives on pouring money into rail completely ignore economics, but cost people their money - but the Greens ignore that. They are so addicted to gambling with other people's money they don't realise it IS other people's money and that the Greens want to use force to take it for their purposes.

~

So go on Sue, stop the political addiction to gambling, look in the mirror and stop advocating gambling with the money of other people.

Rudd apologises

Australian PM Philip Rudd is to say sorry for past treatment of the Aborigine communities, in particular “the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country”.
~
The move is controversial. Some argue that there wasn’t a stolen generation at all, although there is certainly evidence of there being a discriminatory policy towards targeting particularly so called “half caste” aboriginal children through much of the 20th century, and evidence of disconcerting practices and policies towards them.

~
As a result I don’t know what is truth and what is not, but one thing is clear, if it were true, it would a damning indictment upon Australian federal and state governments. Saying sorry would be the right thing to do.
~
What? Me an objectivist libertarian believing in collective guilty? No. It is the guilt of the state, the Australian federal and state governments in what was theft, theft of people. Australian governments nationalised children. The Director of Native Affairs in Queensland literally was guardian of all indigenous people under 21 after 1939. He had complete authority over them all. What is this other than the racist nationalisation of children?
~
It is also difficult to escape the testimony of some of those who talk of being taken from their parents, and how they were treated. Yes, some were taken from abusive environments, some were given up by their families, but some were not. My question for those denying it is simply this : do you trust the federal and state governments to be parents?
~
It is fair to acknowledge that in some cases the removal benefited some children, as the odds are that some were in abusive or negligent families, and that they benefited from removal. However, that is what the state should do regardless of race, remove abusive parents from their children, not remove children completely from families.
~
It is also fair to acknowledge that materially some of the children were better off because of it, but this does not make it right. It is not right for the state to break up families when there is no evidence of criminal abuse or neglect of the children. The ends do not justify the means. Children are not the property of the state.
~
The stories that some have told are gut wrenching and vile. It went on up through to the 1960s. This isn’t concern about what happened before people were born, there are generations today who were stolen, and no doubt people alive who were part of this bureaucratic process.
~
The “Bringing them home” report commissioned by the Federal government notes the attitudes of the 1930s were not dissimilar to those of South Africa at the time:
~
“Mr Neville [the Chief Protector of WA] holds the view that within one hundred years the pure black will be extinct. But the half-caste problem was increasing every year. Therefore their idea was to keep the pure blacks segregated and absorb the half-castes into the white population.”
~
A problem based on race.
~
Statements like “We was bought like a market. We was all lined up in white dresses, and they'd come round and pick you out like you was for sale.” ( New South Wales: woman fostered at 10 years in the 1970s; one of a family of 13 siblings all removed; raped by foster father and forced to have an abortion)
~

So let's say for argument's sake, the woman concerned had abusive parents, or their parents gave them up willingly, does it absolve the government from placing them with an abusive foster father with no checking?

~

Beyond the apology and acknowledgement that wrong was done, needs to be acceptance that the appropriate process for compensation is through the courts and proving harm was caused. It is not a reason to grant blanket compensation that could be fraudulently claimed, it is also not a reason to engage in additional racism. However, when governments act as it appears happened in Australia it is wrong – pure and simple.

~

Those of conservative bent should think very carefully about this. Statements like:

~

"The truth is that "reconciliation" already took place thirty years ago. This took place at the time of the Constitutional referendum in 1967, in which certain constitutional changes were proposed, allegedly for the benefit of aborigines. Many Aborigines campaigned for a Yes vote at this referendum, and were ecstatic when a staggering 97% of Australians voted "Yes". This was a recognition that Australians wanted one people, treated fairly and equally, and were fully prepared to extend the hand of brotherhood, citizenship and reconciliation to aboriginal Australians."

~

Sorry? Reconciliation started when you granted Aboriginal Australians the full rights of citizenship in the 1960s? I guess all them black fellas should be so grateful it took until 1967 to extend citizenship to them, on the land they were on first. The USA did the same to Native Americans in 1924, and funnily enough Australia granted Maori in Australia the right to vote in 1902. Aborigines got the same in 1962.

BBC kills private broadcaster

OneWord the spoken word private radio station in the UK has closed, largely it seems, because the BBC - using the funds extorted by force from TV owners - launched BBC 7, a digital spoken word network, commercial free.

~

OneWord was available on DAB and on Sky and Digital Freeview, and broadcast audiobooks, drama, comedy, discussion programmes and the like. It attracted an audience of around 300,000 nationwide, but couldn't attract advertisers, but the BBC could attract more and didn't have to care about who it could ask to fund it - it doesn't ask, it demands.

~

The heavy hand of the state funded dominant broadcaster strikes again.

No more short haul business class on Air NZ?

Yes I know most of you don't care, but there is evidence growing that Air NZ is looking to drop business class on its Boeing 767s and Airbus A320s in favour of premium economy. This presumably means a drop in food service and possible drop in food quality as well.

~

Why does it matter? Well some of us pay for business class occasionally for crossing the Tasman, it is more important between Auckland and Perth. Sometimes there is value in using airpoints upgrades as well (useful when flying in the evenings after a long day to get a decent meal and relaxing seat without sitting like cattle). Qantas business class is usually far more expensive (and not any better), and Emirates flights are not at convenient times.

~

I hope it is not true. It would go against the increase in legroom for some rows in the front of 737s on domestic flights, and the reintroduction of a (modest) complimentary food service on domestic 737 and A320 flights.

Planet Green

Jeanette Fitzsimons occupies a strange place, it isn't occupied by reason, it's a curiosity that means that when she "almost buys" a Chinese made drink in Moerewa, she hypothesises (makes up) about how she got that drink and how trade works. It would be funny if she was simply a private citizen, but you pay for her and she wants power over your body and property.

~

Jeanette is the mistress of the"we" word, the word used when someone actually wants to tell you what to do, because she wants to collectivise everyone under some banner. Take this from the Green Party blog post on the subject:

~

"And what benefit do we get from these dairy exports? Cans of water and sugar" which is extrapolated from her not buying a drink, and there being exports of dairy products to China.

~

Hold on. "We" don't get the benefits from dairy exports, the producers (and those supporting them) do. You don't make anything Jeanette ok?

~

The dairy exporters don't import "cans of water and sugar", someone else does that. The world does not operate in the fairytale land of "New Zealand inc" exporting to China and "New Zealand inc" importing. North Korea does, but New Zealand does not.

~

Besides Jeanette, the imports wouldn't be imported if people did not choose to buy them. Now go along and get your dictionary and find the word "choose". It means people have the freedom to say yes or no. You too can "choose" to persuade them to change their habits, and frankly I'd rather you spent all your efforts doing that rather than advocating force, which you do and have done the whole time you've been in Parliament.

~

She goes on: "We pollute and over-allocate our high quality water here in order to pay for importing doubtful quality water from China. Does that make sense?"

~

Paraphrasing what Not PC would say "what's with the "we" white woman?". "We" don't Jeanette. Get that through your collectively muddled head.

~

Having muddled through all that she concludes with the bizarre notion that "we" "swap", which is utter nonsense of course, unless you think New Zealand is, or should be, a highly planned economy:

~

free trade with China means swapping our good quality water and the health of our children and our rivers for their poor quality water, using lots of fossil fuel to arrange the swap and denying the human rights of their workers.

~

It is not "our" good quality water, it is owned by whoever's property it is on. It is not "our" children either. "We" do not deny the human rights of their workers either, it is the government of the People's Republic of China. You might ask why one of your MPs was once a cheerleader for the regime in one of its darker hours - Sue Bradford

~

Free trade with China is about choices. It is a choice to export to China, and a choice to import. A choice for individuals. If you wish to boycott Chinese imports then feel free, it may be perfectly moral to do so in some cases. However don't ban them.

~

However the Green opposition to free trade is not about human rights, it is not about pollution, it is about opposing choice in trade. The "fair trade" euphemism is actually about regulated trade, and is about ignoring price signals about over production. If the Greens are opposed to the dairy industry (which this post also effectively implies) then that is far more serious.

Mad woman costs us all

This has me absolutely furious. The silly bitch who stabbed a pilot because of her deranged desire to be flown on a small plane to Australia (which wouldn't have made it) is now going to be an excuse to grow the state - yet again.

~

One of the few reliefs of flying provincially in New Zealand is not going through the bloody silly nonsense of security checks before boarding turboprop aircraft. You know, much like we don't do it for passengers on buses, or people driving cars or trucks, even though all of those kill more people every year than aircraft do.

~

However no, the Dear Leader Helen Clark, responding to the kneejerk reaction no doubt of the safety fascists, has said that "tighter security was inevitable".

~

Why Helen? Because a mentally disturbed woman has undertaken a one off attack?

~

The great logic is from Helen:

~

"It was my understanding that we operated the same general rules as in Australia [but] it's now clear to me that there is a size of plane we're flying in this country which, in Australia, would be a jet plane. We apply the same jet plane rules but we have rather a lot of turbo-propelled planes in this country of some size. So that raises some issues."

~

Except Helen a turboprop is not a jet plane, and besides which, why the hell does it matter?

~

This will mean more money for the Aviation Security services then and "Tighter screening is likely to impose extra costs, however, and Miss Clark indicated that those were likely to be borne by passengers on a user-pay basis."

~

Hold on, user pays? Shouldn't this be on an "abuser pays" basis? Shouldn't the woman concerned be required to pay the full costs of health care, damage and delay she has caused? Why should the 99.999% (rounded down) of airline passengers pay more to be screened for an extraordinarily rare event when they are far more likely to be killed or injured being driven to their flight?

~

I know why, because one reason this incident happened is because the state failed... as "She acknowledged, meanwhile, that the woman at the centre of last week's incident, Asha ali Abdille, had "presented a range of agencies with serious issues for quite some time"."

~

Marvellous. So Air National could sue them for this? Hmmm.

Archbishop of Canterbury believes in competing laws?

"An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger" he is reported to have said according to the BBC.

He is quoted as saying "the UK had to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system." So what? In fact a lot more than simply Muslims do not relate, there is a whole underclass of yobs and obnoxious oxygen thieves that don't relate.

However, why is that a reasons to surrender the British system?

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law"

PM Gordon Brown has rejected this, and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has said "We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another".

Unfortunately in New Zealand we do, and the leaders of neither major political party want to change that, whereas in the UK the leaders of both major parties and the major third party don't want it.

and so Transmission Gully?

Martin Kay from the Dominion Post is interviewing his PC by speculating that "The potential for private investors to pick up the $470 million shortfall for the planned motorway is firmly on the table"

~

Given that the legislation to do this has been around since 2002, and that there has been some private interest in this, it is hardly a surprise. However, Martin Kay has clearly missed a major point. The proposal for the Waterview project is (presumably) that the full cost of the project is financed by the private sector. Suggesting the private sector finance less than half of the cost of the project, while taxpayers subsidise the rest means that taxpayers are subsidising the return to private shareholders. Indeed, the noise from potential "investors" (nice to invest some money and get a return from the money "invested" by the state too) a few years ago was that they would happily help with financing, building and operating Transmission Gully, if the government coughed up the majority of the cost.

~

The truth still remains that Transmission Gully has low traffic volumes, is not viable as a toll road (even if the current highway is also tolled) and the $955 million putative cost is about to undergo the same type of inflation that Waterview Connection has. Let's not pretend that a costing that is now nearly 3 years old remains accurate in todays money, it is $1.04 billion based on inflation alone. The current detailed investigation phase will probably uplift that by another 20% I suspect. The $485 million "promised" hasn't increased to compensate for that. Again it's a road that the users wouldn't pay for if they had to, nor would those who directly benefit from it, so why make others pay for it?

What do the "anti-war" left think?

I’d have thought the leftwing blogs that claim to care so much about death and destruction in Iraq would be outraged that the Islamist insurgency is training children and using people with Down’s Syndrome to bomb civilians.

However, I have yet to see a single post from the left outraged by it. Surely it can't be because the insurgency is fighting the USA? Surely that doesn't justify using innocent people to bomb innocent people?

My question is this. Do those who opposed the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime support or oppose the Islamist insurgency there?

Quite simply, if you have strong views on waging war against the Ba’athist Iraqi government, presumably you should also have views on waging war against the current one.

Emirates first to fly whalejet into NZ

Those looking forward to flying on the "superjumbo" new Airbus A380 from a New Zealand airport look like they'll have to wait a year. Emirates is the first airline to announce flights with the A380 to/from Auckland. According to Business Traveller, Emirates daily flight EK 412 from Dubai to Sydney (and EK 413 in reverse) will be flown by an A380 from February 2009, and the flights will be extended onto Auckland (the flights currently continue to Christchurch). Emirates will be the third airline to fly the A380 starting September 2008.

~

Presumably there will be some rejigging of flights between Auckland and Christchurch, unless Emirates is dropping Christchurch, but anyway Emirates does promise its A380s will introduce new first, business and economy class products on board. That will be interesting given the world beating Singapore Airlines products on its A380s, although the number of seats Emirates is installing on its A380s will range from 489 to 600, whereas Singapore Airlines only has 471. I suspect Emirates will be flying the low density long haul version on this route though, as it seeks to compete with Singapore Airlines, Qantas, BA and Virgin Atlantic for the lucrative Sydney-Europe routes.

~

Anyway it will be good to see the whalejet flying regularly to and from NZ. This will undoubtedly put pressure on airfares in all classes. Frankly, the odds are that no other airlines will be flying A380s to NZ in the near future. The other airlines that have ordered A380s that currently fly to NZ are Qantas, Singapore Airlines, Thai, Korean and Malaysian. Out of them only Qantas and Singapore Airlines currently fly their biggest aircraft (747s) into NZ, and in both cases the majority of their flights are on smaller aircraft. I doubt it is worthwhile either Qantas or Singapore Airlines flying such large planes on any of their services to NZ.

Private road or expensive folly?

Earlier reports that the government was going to bribe Auckland voters by using taxpayers money to fund the hienously expensive and greenplated "Waterview extension" motorway link have proven to be only partially correct. It appears, amazingly, according to the NZ Herald that the government is looking to use private capital to fund, build and operate it. The full details are here in the government press release.

~

Firstly, it makes sense to do this. It makes sense for the private sector to raise capital and pay it off, using revenue collected from road users. It also makes sense for the private sector to not only build it (all roads in New Zealand are built by private contractors in essence), but operate it and although discussion is about a "lease" this in effect means it is a private road. The talk of Annette King that it is "not privatisation" is a fudge. In effect, even if it is a traditional BOOT operation (build own operate transfer) it is a privately built road that gets nationalised at the end of the lease period. This is not much different from similar private roads in Australia, or shouldn't be!

~

However there are still some significant issues:

~

1. Why must only the section of SH20 that goes under the PM's electorate be placed underground in a tunnel that adds well over NZ$1 billion to the cost? If the people of Mt. Roskill, Manukau, Albany-Puhoi, Greenhithe, Hobsonville and Waiouru Peninsula can have motorways built at ground level or in trenches, why is the PM's electorate special?

~

2. Should Transit do more than complete investigations on this project, and let the private sector take control of the design, route selection and property purchasing as well as construction? In Melbourne, the Citylink tollway saw the private company responsible for it determining the route, producing a design, engaging in consultation and negotiating with property owners for building the road. Why not let the private sector be incentivised to do all of this, so the road is built quicker, with more public acceptability and lower cost? Transit is clearly poorly incentivised to keep costs down.

~

3. How should the private sector recover the costs of building the road? The only fair, modally neutral and economically efficient way to do this is:

~

• Allow tolls to be charged on the highway, at a rate of the choosing of the private sector (it will charge at rates to maximise use of the route, and is likely to vary by time of day. There are easily two alternative for potential users of the road);
• Land Transport NZ should pay shadow tolls to the private owner to reflect the fuel tax and road user charges collected from road users as a result of using the road.

Of course, a combination of these and the ultra high cost tunnel option wont work. It simply isn't enough money to pay for the road. That is why the private sector must be involved in the design stage, and lower cost alternatives be developed. However, even then there may still be a gap, which the government will be tempted to fill. The question is whether non-users should pay.

The only way this could be justified is to charge other road users for the benefits the road will bring in relieving roads they travel on (such as the parallel Great North Road, and Central Motorway Junction). This could be calculated and be part of a shadow toll (recognising that you could recover this if the roads were properly priced according to demand/supply), but that's it. I'd be wary about calculating this as well, because assessing economic benefits to non-users should not go beyond road users, so that the benefits of the project are not double counted.

If the project cannot be financed from tolls and shadow tolls that reflect what the users pay, it should not proceed. The road is not good "at any cost", it is only worthwhile if those who will benefit from it are willing to pay for it.

4. Finally, the question of the period of private involvement is important. Labour's legislation limits it to 35 years. I'd argue it could be indefinite (in fact the whole of SH20 could be privatised), but that wont happen. In the interim it would be preferable to have a 99 year lease and for the private lessee to have full control over that period. By then maybe people will not be scared of private roads.

Fundamentally the government COULD do this right, as long as it doesn't write a blank cheque, doesn't subsidise the road from revenue from those who wont directly benefit from it and allows the private sector to innovate and bear the risk. After all, if the forecast traffic levels are wrong the private sector should bear the risk/benefit depending which way it goes. This is a chance to see how things COULD work, but I suspect the main reason private involvement is being sought is to do off-government balance sheet borrowing. In other words, while the private sector finances it, the state effectively guarantees it and will almost certainly be willing to bail out a failed private invetsment. If that IS the case then all of the criticisms by the Greens and others on the left about Public Private Partnerships will be true.

The Waterview connection MIGHT be a good investment for a private company, it might not be. The government should simply allow the opportunity to be presented on terms that don't mean it is subsidised and do not mean failure is protected by the government. If the private sector is not interested, because the revenue from those who will benefit directly from it is insufficient to pay for the road, then it should NOT proceed at present. It might be worthwhile in the future, especially once the other sections of motorway are completed and there is further traffic growth, but if it can't be paid for by users then others should not pay for it.

Meanwhile I have to laugh at John Key saying "it represented a "massive flip-flop" after years of opposing private sector involvement in roading". Pot calling the kettle black surely, John Key ought to know a flip flop or ten.

UPDATE: No Right Turn makes the nonsensical claim that PPPs have been a "complete disaster". You may as well claim that government funded roads have been as well, because some of them have not generated the economic returns that were promised (although thats not very transparent). The truth is that many have been a roaring success, Melbourne Citylink is one, as is the Dartford Crossing in the UK, Chicago Skyway and on and on. His example of the Sydney Cross City Tunnel (which was also about improving the on street environment) shows it went into receivership, but it is still private debt and being privately managed. The road is there, it wouldn't have been there otherwise. The point is though that he isn't talking about fully private roads, and frankly if no taxpayers' money is involved and it is a new facility, why should he care?

UPDATE 2: Further reactions are curious:

Peter Dunne is cheering it on, and even seems to not care if it is all privately owned. This is good news, although I don't think he is that agnostic about whether it gets built. After all, Transmission Gully being an economic dud hasn't stopped Dunne cheerleading it.

The Greens are jealous that the government doesn't want to piss more of your money down a drain into the faith based initiative of rail based public transport saying "A couple of billion dollars could pay for a rail line to the airport, turning the Britomart line into a loop - with an underground extension to Mt Eden - and connecting Onehunga with the western line at Avondale". Yes but whose money is it Jeanette? When you build you trainset you want hundreds of millions every year to subsidise its operation too!

ACT's Rodney Hide has turned his back on user pays and economic efficiency in saying the government is dithering without saying what he would do. An empty statement at best, at worst he wants taxpayers' money ploughed into it without any concern about value for money.

The NZ Contractors Federation want this to be part of a Think Big style massive taxpayer funded build of infrastructure, which their members could profit from building. They claim it can be built on time and within budget. Which budget? The cost keeps shooting up year after year! Most concerning is the belief in Soviet style planning saying "We would like to see it become part of a 20-year national infrastructure plan. At present infrastructure planning for this country is ad hoc. To get the best from our scarce resources in the future, New Zealand needs to better co-ordinate projects, particularly very major ones like this".

So you want to nationalise planning for telecommunications, electricity, water, sewage, stormwater, airports and ports as well? Sheesh.

Perhaps the best comment came from IPENZ Director of Policy Tim Davin who says the current legislation is flawed "We are already hearing in the media today, members of the community opposing the project. Because the Act’s ‘high degree of support’ clause it may make any large roading project difficult to proceed as a lot of communities may take the NIMBY (not in my back yard attitude.) ".