Labour erodes mobile phone operators' property rights

David Cunliffe has nationalised something else by stealth. It was coming, and has less publicity than local loop unbundling, but the government has announced the terms and conditions by which Vodafone and Telecom will be forced to onsell their network capacity to competitors. That means being required to offer the cellsites they developed themselves, and all of the equipment including the newer 3G networks.

.Let's remember how cellular networks developed. The first was Telecom's from 1987 which was a monopoly until the government sold off other spectrum, and BellSouth started replicating Telecom's network in 1993. Vodafone bought BellSouth and greatly expanded its coverage, built it all from scratch. Its coverage largely overlaps Telecom's. Meanwhile Telecom installed two digital networks and Vodafone retrofitted its current one.

.However Labour doesn't want a third company doing the same thing, it has decided to penalise those that HAVE built networks by making them resell them to those who wont. So there wont be any new networks (the new providers have to reach 5% of the population, which can be easily done with a handful of sites in Auckland) unless you are willing to share your investment with competitors.

.Nice one that, and will National reverse this?

Compulsory Maori music

Oh please, with millions being poured into commercially unsustainable Maori radio, it still isn't good enough for some Maori musicians. According to the NZ Herald:

.

"composer Tihi Puanaki, who is leading the campaign for more airtime, are calling for a compulsory te reo Maori quota. "Its invisibility creates a perception of this whole genre lacking in status. "There is fantastic work being produced by Maori musicians that is not receiving the support it should be." While she understood that commercial radio had an imperative to make money, there was still a "moral responsibility" to help to revitalise an official language which was still at risk. She said the campaign was not about "ramming" music down people's throats."

.

Actually it is - a quota means you are ramming down the throat of a radio station you don't own.

.

It's simple. You think the work is fantastic, it may be, it may not be. However if you can't convince people of its merits, you have no right to force it onto anyone.

.

I realise that the Maori, Green, Labour and NZ First Parties all don't understand that, but forcing radio stations to play what they don't think their listeners want to hear is immoral. After all, should Maori stations be forced to play music they don't want? Go on, promote your music, even set up your own radio station - but don't expect radio stations to be forced to play what they don't want to play, anymore than you should expect newspapers to publish what they don't want.

Murderous scum in Burma, whilst China appeases

Take a look at this, Myanmar State TV Channel 3's news reports:

"Chairman of the National Disaster Preparedness Central Committee Prime Minister General Thein Sein who is supervising relief tasks for storm victims in a speedy and effective way in Ayeyawady Division presented 20 sets of TV, 10 DVD players and 10 satellite receivers to Chairman of Ayeyawady Division Peace and Development Council Commander of South-West Command Brig-Gen Kyaw Swe for the storm victims at various camps enabling them to enjoy the programmes at Mya E-ya Hall of the South-West Command this morning"

Yes, it was a priority to get TVs to storm victims. The Burmese military thugocracy has demanded that all aid simply be dropped off at airports and it will then ensure that the party, military and their lackeys will get all they need before the aid is distributed to areas friendly to the regime.

.

Burma's bullies are being shown on national television (it is a crime for Burmese to attempt to access TV or radio broadcasts from foreign countries) handing out aid, because they want to be seen as the great benevolent force in the country. That's why they want YOUR aid, so they can sustain their blood stained regime. It said it would welcome cash and aid, of course. However, the BBC reports it has turned away flights from several countries, including Qatar (hardly a regime willing to spread democracy and fredom). Apparently offers of helicopters to aid distribution were refused, whereas Burma's own Soviet era military helicopters are limping with inadequate payload or range to be too effective.

.

Meanwhile, China abides by what Burma says - and gives it aid. Xinhua is not reporting the conditions Burma is imposing. Funny how China refuses to discuss the inadequacy of Burmese distribution efforts, or comment on the refusal to accept foreign search and rescue teams - because, of course, this tinpot dictatorship is so good at it. Yes, you now have another reason to protest against the Chinese Communist regime.

Stuff still thinks Nick Smith is the Minister

Still and here is the article here. Is someone trapped in the past or is it a grim forecast?

Boris cans taxpayer support for commie rag

Just in case you thought that Ken Livingstone was some bastion of moderation, Boris Johnson as London Mayor finds out what London council tax payers have been helping prop up...

.

From Iain Dale's blog:

.

"the GLA Building had a subscription of forty - yes, forty - copies of the Morning Star delivered every day. Boris's first action as Mayor was to cancel all forty subscriptions to the lefty rag"

.

Good job, that vile little commie rag should be a choice of people to pay out of their own pocket. The cancellation will hurt, Iain Dale says it will save £10,000 a year.

Gordon Ramsay - the fascist chef

Well after this BBC report where Gordon Ramsay said this:

"Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay says British restaurants should be fined if they serve fruit and vegetables which are not in season. .. Mr Ramsay said he had already spoken to Prime Minister Gordon Brown about outlawing out-of-season produce"

.

There is only this to say...

.

Dear Gordon

Pardon the expletives but it is important you understand.

You’re a fucking good chef, of course you are, there are few bastards in the world half as good as you, so shit, you can talk with authority about food and running restaurants. I can't doubt that for a moment

However, you know fuck all about economics you dozy prick. You want restaurants to be fined for using out of season food. Besides the obvious of how the fuck you’ll enforce this shitty idea (imagine people furtively saying "shhh there is a restaurant that's selling strawberries out of season, don't tell anyone"), what the fuck is it your business? Unless you want protectionism, but you're not the sort of loser twat who would I am sure.

.

What if I fucking want asparagus in December? Do what you like in your restaurants and leave everyone else's alone you cunt! By the way you ignorant fucker, ever looked south of the equator, when it’s winter in Britain it’s fucking summer in South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, not out of season there, and a lot of people make a living out of selling that produce to people in Britain who want it – and you know what? Most of them don’t get the namby pampy subsidies for losers like ones in Britain do from Brussels – which by the way also subsidies your beloved local farmers exporting elsewhere and fucking up markets around the world. Maybe you should learn a bit more about how mollycoddled farming is in Europe you dickhead, and even how that has fucked up farming elsewhere in the world.

.

So when you say that fruit and vegetables should not be imported into Britain, presumably they can’t be exported too. Not going to get too many fucking bananas then are you? How about the great British grown citrus fruits? Oh maybe you just think that it should only be produce grown in Britain that isn’t imported – classic protectionist, putting the price up of course, like you’d care though. Let the prols pay more for food, the ungrateful peasants. Is that what you think?

You talk as if it is about carbon emissions – what bullshit! Tomatoes grown in Spain and shipped to the UK have a lower carbon footprint that ones grown in heated hothouse farms in Britain. Not so fucking simple now is it brainbox? Ever noted how butter and lamb from New Zealand shipped to the UK has a lower carbon footprint after all that than British produced butter and lamb? You fucking tosser being taken in by this food miles malarky, and I bet you still drive too.

You say “There should be stringent laws, licensing laws, to make sure produce is only used in season and season only," … "If we don't restrict our movements within this industry of seasonal-produce only, then the whole thing will spiral out of control."

Oh you fucking fascist prick. You want a bunch of bureaucrats poking their nose into restaurants checking where the fuck the produce has come from, making sure a strawberry, apple or yam is not in the wrong place. Oh and what is “out of control” mean? You mean people actually just choosing what they want, paying for what they want, and farmers who work fucking hard who don’t happen to be in Europe (because you can’t implement this bullshit against the EU you cock, unless you want to pull out, which is another argument) and don’t suck off of the great tit of Brussels can just fuck off? Well fuck you!

Ok so how about this, let’s restrict all you fucking do to Britain. Ban your TV programmes, books and you even opening up restaurants elsewhere in the world. Who wants some foul mouthed English chef when they can have their own, in fact why trade at all? Don’t get kitchen appliances from Italy, France, USA or Japan, get British ones – get British cars too (good luck), after all if you want to fuck the rest of the trading world with your economic nationalism, then you can’t expect the world to want to buy or sell you anything.

So while you sit playing with yourself thinking how great it would be for a restaurant to be fined for selling an apple pie in June, or tomato sauce from the USA, you could be doing something more useful – run your restaurants and shut the fuck up. You want better quality food, then keep doing what you are doing, but accept that a lot of people in Britain like the bland mass produced crud that is found as ready meals, or is called sandwiches. They do because it is cheap and convenient and they have the taste buds of a goat, but it is THEIR fucking choice.

.

People can choose things you don’t like and you can’t do a fucking thing about it – leave it that way. Plenty of fascists want the world to be their way, you’re not the first. How about remembering you are in charge of your restaurant and your property – you are not in charge of anyone else, that’s why on this proposal there is only one right answer.

Fuck off.

Mike Moore on why many poor countries are poor

Yes, former Labour Prime Minister (well for a few weeks anyway) hasn't got it wrong. Unlike the doomsayers on the left, he paints an optimistic picture about poverty in his Dominion Post column:

"In the past 60 years, more wealth has been created than in all of history. The number of people living on less than a dollar a day has dropped from 40 per cent in 1981 to 18 per cent in 2004. During the same period, the numbers living on less than $2 a day have dropped from 67 per cent to 48 per cent."

That hasn't been because of charity. Moore points out that:

"Private ownership works. Open economies always do better, competition and trade drive up better results and drive out corruption, as well as allocate resources more efficiently. A free market without solid, trusted institutions, property rights, independent courts, a professional public service and democracy is not a free market but a black market."

Yes yes, though we may argue about how much of a public service is needed, he's got it! However it is more than just having corrupt free institutions it is about getting the hell out of the way of doing business:
.
"in Egypt it can take 500 days, 29 visits and 29 agencies, compliance with 315 laws, and costs 27 times the monthly minimum wage to open a bakery."

.
Funny how so many on the left think that somehow the world is impoverishing countries that actually are badly governed and overgoverned in many respects. He concludes that property rights are what is needed, so that the poor can leverage off what they own, have access to courts when their rights are infringed upon and can protect what they produce.
.
"We can establish property rights which will encourage people into the formal economy. It's not that radical, it simply suggests that poor people in poor countries should have the rights that rich countries have. Perhaps that's why they are rich."
.
Now can someone tell the Labour, Green and National Parties?

Nick Smith spits on property rights... again

Although Stuff reports Nick Smith as "Conservation Minister" (wait till after the election guys), Dr Smith wants to confiscate the property rights of Kaiangaroa Timberlands to protect some douglas firs. He wants them protected, which presumably doesn't mean Kaiangaroa Timberlands has any option on not selling them.
.
He wont offer to buy them himself, or set up a charity that seeks to raise funds to buy them.
.
No they should be bought with taxpayers funds because they are "part of New Zealand's heritage". Nice.
.
Now you know how much better National will be than Labour on property rights, as if you had any doubts. Is it any wonder one of my fastest growing tags is "National party disappoints"?

Are your kids on Adultfriendfinder?

Ok Stuff reports that a man is in prison for having sex with three underage girls, 2 were 14, 1 was 12. However check this out:
.
"Davidson initiated contact with the girls through internet websites AdultFriend Finder and Bebo, and by using MSN, email, and text messaging after the initial contact."
.
Now the risks of Bebo as a social networking site for young girls are well known, but Adultfriendfinder? What's that then? Well it is a website for adults that want to meet to have a sexual relationship "The World's Largest Sex & Swinger Personals Community" it claims. It asks that all members declare their birthday as it requires that all of its members be 18 or over. Now Adultfriendfinder is free, but as with many such sites you can't do much without having paid membership. For starters you can't see anyone's photos, and you can only send messages to other members if you are very popular or if a paid member has paid to allow standard members to contact them.
.
Hmmm, so presumably at least one of these girls of 14, pretended to be 18 on her profile and while posting her picture online couldn't view others. What's that about? Not so innocent? Adultfriendfinder is a blocked site listed with several well known parental control software suppliers, presumably the girl's parents didn't care where she went online.
.
Does it justify his foolishness? No, although unless she confessed early on about age, he could well have believed she was 18 as, after all, her profile would have to say that. Adultfriendfinder vets profiles before they are posted too, to avoid the "claim 18 but say I'm younger in the profile" problem, so she must have told him at some point after he started contact.

.
So when a 57 year old man find a girl who says she is 18 on an adult contact site, and she's your daughter 14 - you might ask yourself what you did to prevent her going where she shouldn't go, and don't blame the state.
.
UPDATE: It is notable that the NZ Herald never mentioned Adultfriendfinder, but did mention the girls pretended to be 18 and 16 online. However, it is an offence to sexually groom those underage even if you don't know they are (which he did when he met them), interesting thought crime that one is.

Burma's bullies let their subjects die

How utterly repulsive it is, day after day people are dying in Burma, not for the want of those willing to help, but because the petty little men who run the military dictatorship refuse to let the US in to help, and are maintaning a bureaucratic process for visas that is insane and proving deadly.
.
The BBC reports UN World Food Programme regional director Anthony Banbury saying "We will not just bring our supplies to an airport, dump it and take off".
.
The BBC reporter Paul Danahar notes ...Normally after a natural disaster, he says, roads are choked by the relief effort, but those into the Irrawaddy delta are empty.
.
Charming really. CNN reports China is urging Burma to open up to aid supplies.
.
So what to do? Well it wouldn't be immoral for armed forces from several countries to just enter, provide protection for aid workers, and tell the Burmese authorities that it will use force if necessary if anyone gets in the way of saving lives. The cowardly generals have already been seen on Myanmar state TV in posed shots of them delivering humanitarian assistance. Armed support for aid supplies is possibly the only sensible way forward, and if the regime cries that its sovereignty has been interfered with (and I am sure the so-called peace movement would decry any such action, preferring people to die in peace whilst their government ignores them), then its illegitimacy can be pointed to. The thugs in charge deserve no respect.

The funny old USA - United Sexual Abhorrents

Oh the fuss. Miley Cyrus poses for Vanity Fair magazine in tasteful shots that apparently destroy her image as a good little church going virgin (because of course if you're not you're inferior). That's because, she's 15 and looking sexy. Yes I know I should be shot for that comment too. You see she is Hannah Montana, an incredibly successful child personality.

.

She's apparently not allowed to grow up, not allowed to be proud of how she looks and not allowed to acknowledge that yes, she might even be sexually attractive. She's not pregnant, there is no impression at all that she is sexually promiscuous (or even sexual really), BUT she

.

Look at the comments that some photos of her provoked, accusations that she is a slut or been abused. It appears so many in the USA haven't grown up. For some there you are either an angel or you're a whore... not much different from radical Islam really.

.

Quite simply, it is her body, her choice, if she feels beautiful and happy about who she is and what she does, then good for her. She has harmed nobody, and has spent some years entertaining millions. Begone the repulsive judgmental finger pointers who cast aspersions at someone who is simply becoming an adult - it is you that think the human body is something ugly and vile, and it is you that sees filth in the most natural thing in the world.

NZ taxpayers effectively help pay for Tonga's lavish coronation

It's not new of course. French taxpayers paid for the blood thirsty megalomaniac Bokassa to have a self styled coronation as "Emperor" of the "Central African Empire". This is nowhere near as bad, but you may ask why, according to the Dominion Post, the Tongan government needs NZ$11.5 million a year in taxpayer aid from New Zealand when it can afford to spend NZ$4 million on a coronation of King George Tupou V. Don't forget Tonga is hardly a free country with liberal democracy with an open free media. Although the report says no aid money will be used, this is semantics - because if there was less aid money presumably the coronation would be cut back.

.

Even the BBC has the exclusive broadcasting rights - nice to see my TV license fee being used to pay for what is effectively a dictatorship.

.

International aid should be non-governmental, it should be voluntary. If you want to aid Tonga, then let reputable aid agencies develop projects and help it, and other poorer countries.

Burmese junta letting its people die

Apparently today the Burmese embassy in Bangkok was closed, for a public holiday, whilst many aid workers sought visas to enter and provide help. French Foreign Minister Bernard Koucher has asked that the UN Security Council pass a resolution to allow aid to be flown in by force if necessary.

.

The Australian reports that Burma was warned of the cyclone two days ago but didn't warn its beleagured population. One of the murderous thugs that run the regime has shown how much he is concerned about the locals:

.

Social Welfare Minister Maung Maung Swe said "For expert teams from overseas to come here, they have to negotiate with the Foreign Ministry and our senior authorities"

.

Just another government with blood on its hands, letting its people die for the sake of protecting their precious dictatorship. Charming.

.

China meanwhile is sending US$1 million of aid to the capital and half a million in aid materials. That'll be well spent of course. Wen (Chinese PM) said "I believe that the government and people of Myanmar will soon overcome the difficulties caused by the cyclone and restore normal life and production," in a message to his Myanmar counterpart General Thein Sein. Yes, the government is always most important isn't it?

China's censorship easing off?

The Peoples' Daily is the Chinese government's official paper. Its forum has much anti-CNN anti-Western discussion, but I did manage to post the following:

.

"You may criticise CNN, but is it possible on Chinese media to loudly condemn CCTV? You see unlike people in China, I can watch CNN any time and it will never be censored. I often disagree with it, but I am free to choose. CNN is a private company, it does not represent any government, people in China should remember that and that they cant see it uncensored."

.

It's not much, but perhaps things are changing slowly. It wasn't long ago that such criticism would be censored.

It's his money not yours

This is what Dr Cullen believes when he talks about what he ISN'T going to give back in tax cuts in the NZ Herald. So he wont institute a tax free threshold for income, so that NZ will remain one of the few countries where the government taxes children for having a paper round.

.

This is, fundamentally, the difference between those on the left and libertarians. Dr. Cullen and the Greens (forever talking about "we" and "our" as if the state and individuals are indivisible) believe that taxes are not your money, but their money - their money to be used to pay for setting up a radio station, subsidising a business, buying a train set, paying for welfare - it's all their money. Taxes are moral to the left, they are the way by which the rich (spit) have their wealth (probably not justified) taken to be given to those who deserve it, or for a "higher purpose". The "national interest" being the reason why people are forced to pay for what Dr Cullen wants.

.

Now you wont ever see those on the left talking about force, they prefer to ignore what taxation actually is. It isn't something people give up willingly - no. It is taken under threat of more being taken, and imprisonment. Don't forget, the state only presumes you're guilty of not paying your taxes - if you murder someone, you're innocent till proven guilty.

.

You see the money taken in taxes is yours, you gained it by salary, wage, dividend, interest, sale or gift because someone chose to give it to you for whatever reason. However, most politicians think that it is their money, and moreover that you can choose between those who will take a bit more and those will take a bit less. That's going to be the parameters of the debate at the election. Dr Cullen is going to throw you a little bit back no doubt, and you'll be expected to be very grateful for that. The Greens will oppose it, because they believe the state should do whatever it thinks is right to make people behave correctly. National will offer you a little bit more than Labour, but still believes it isn't your money - it is the government's money.

.

So what i want to ask is this. Whose money do YOU think it is?

.

Many of you trust Dr. Cullen to buy you healthcare. Do you think you're getting a good deal from him? If not, why do you think John Key can do a better job?

.

Many of you trust Dr. Cullen to buy your kids' education. Do you think you're getting a good deal? If not, why do you think John Key can do a better job?

.

Many of you trust Dr Cullen to use your money to support businesses or other organisations of various kinds, including recording music videos, producing TV programmes. Would you choose for this to happen? If not, why do you think John Key would do it better?

.

Many of your trust Dr Cullen to buy you a retirement income? Do you trust you'll get a good deal? If not, why do you think John Key would do it better?

.

Got the picture?

.

This is what arguments about tax cuts are about. Are politicians and bureaucrats better placed to spend your money than you are? Would you choose to spend your money on what they want?

.

Ah yes, some of you say. What about schools and hospitals? You're happy to pay taxes for them. Are you? You get good value for money do you? What happens if you don't like the school, you can... no the money stays there. How about the hospital? Oh yes, you can't do anything about that either.

.

How about if you gave Dr Cullen some more, so he could buy your groceries, would be simpler wouldn't it? Ah, you get that, but so many don't get why he shouldn't be trusted to buy your education or health care.

.

You'll also notice that most politicians want you to pay taxes so you can pay for the education, health care and food of OTHER families. Ask them how many people you're expected to pay for - you wont get a straight answer, but the implication is that you're obliged to otherwise there is something wrong with you.

.

You see I think it IS your money. So here's a trick to play this election. Do it at candidate's meetings or whatever way you can find - ask the magic question:

.

Do you think the taxes I have to pay are my money or your money to use?

.

If they say it is their money, congratulate them on their honesty and ask why they think they have to force you to pay for things they want.

.

If they say it is your money, ask you when you can have it back because you think you can buy better healthcare, education and pensions than they can.

.

No doubt you'll get all sorts of weasel words about taxation being the price for civilisation - bullshit. So tax havens are uncivilised are they?

.

You'll hear something like "what about all the people who can't afford it"? In which case, why should you put up with substandard health care and education for the sake of those who'd rather spend their own money on something else? Why deny you choice because of others?

.

You'll hear something like "most people agree with taxes". Say that "most people" once thought homosexuality should be a crime, and that the rights of minorities shouldn't be sacrificed because the majority wants them to be.

.

You see a libertarian doesn't believe taxes are moral. Taxes are theft, legalised of course, but still theft. Those who do not produce taking money from those who do. Those who truly believe in less government will phase out taxes, and reduce them without a second thought. They will proudly hand back your money, but in exchange say it is up to you to buy education, health care, a pension and insure yourself against unemployment and the like.

.

Will National do that?

Disaster aid for dictatorships

The tragedy that has beset Burma has according to the BBC now claimed 22,000 lives with another 41,000 missing. The cyclone has destroyed so many populated areas near the coast that the need for emergency aid and assistance is clear. In many countries it would be a simple matter of the relevant government allowing government and non-government aid agencies in to provide shelter, food, clothing, water and medical assistance to those now on the brink of their lives, but this is Burma.

.

Burma is a military dictatorship, a particularly nasty one, and has been so since 1962. It suppresses dissent with little mercy, and the military exists primarily to keep the government in power. It is notable how absent the military has been during this civil defence emergency, clearly it doesn't exist to help the population.

.

You see there is little point giving aid or money to the Burmese government - for the simple reason it wont do anything with it except to enrich itself. It is corrupt and murderous, and few want this regime to do anything short of collapse. It is telling that the French government has been explicit about this, with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner saying that only 200,000 euros is being donated because "we don't really trust the way the Burmese ministry would use the money". Indeed.

.

The USA has promised to come to the assistance of Burma, but only on condition that US disaster assessment teams can enter and be in control of searching for missing people and handing out aid. The Bush Administration too doesn't want the Burmese government restricting or taking any of the aid. No doubt some will accuse it of wanting to spy or not caring about the Burmese people - the same accusers probably also protest Burmese human rights, so are never happy.

.

Of course the World Food Programme of the UN is throwing food aid at the country, who knows how much of that will be quietly taken by the regime to keep the military fed in fear of insurrection. The United Nations, after all, is morally blind to whether a member state is a dictatorship or a free country.

.

So what SHOULD be done? Should Burma be, despite the toll, left to be, on the basis that aid will more often than not be confiscated by the military, and that any aid sustains the regime as much as the public? Is it not possible that the cyclone could weaken the regime enough that it can allow for some civil insurrection to bring it down? After all -the biggest problem Burma has is not the cyclone - the military government has impoverished, killed and imprisoned the population for decades.

.

Or should aid flow, on the basis that most Burmese have neither the means to resist the regime, and are facing certain death without food, shelter and medical help? Is it better for them to see western aid agencies and organisations giving help directly, and it is simply human benevolence to help those who can't help themselves in a time of dire need?

.

I say the latter, but conditionally. It is tragic to simply ignore what has happened, but Burma has to accept aid on the terms of those who offer it. That means if the US is willing to send in teams of experts at rescue and groups to rehabilitate destroyed villages, it does so on its terms. It means bypassing the military and if there is interference, then aid workers should leave. There is ample testimony that North Korea took western aid during the 1990s floods for high level party and military first, with many people receiving next to nothing. This can't happen in Burma. Medicins Sans Frontieres is one private aid agency that withdrew from North Korea out of frustration that it couldn't deliver assistance directly to those in need. If the Burmese authorities wont accept this, then the blood of the Burmese people will be on their hands again. Certainly the few media outlets the Burmese can access (illegally) should broadcast this loud and clear (BBC World Service and Voice of America in Burmese).

.

So if you wish to donate to aid efforts for Burma, be warned. Donate to private charities that are careful to use their own people to assist people directly, not donate to government. That means ignoring UN organisations.

.

I note also that the hosts of the Olympics this year have said nothing in their official organ about helping "Myanmar" but have faithfully reported their fellow dictatorship's news. Yes, the People's Republic of China is such a great world citizen isn't it?

Dr Cullen's logic impeccable

Around 30-40% of you still trust a fair bit of your income with this man. Would you trust him spending your money to buy food, clothes, entertainment? Would you trust him to select a partner for you? So why do you trust him to buy you a pension, insurance against sickness and unemployment, accident insurance, health care and education for your kids?

.

Just take this comment from the NZ Herald on why he justifies taking your money to buy locomotives, wagons and rail ferries "There were many benefits to the Crown being owner including that the taxpayer buyback meant "we won't be seeing profits flowing out of the country"". Why did he bother using the last five words?

.

He also said "a properly integrated rail system could not be run at a profit without some degree of subsidisation by the Government " again why use the last eight words? A profit with a subsidy is not a profit.

.

Oh and by the way, why would you trust Bill English and John Key to spend your money on exactly the same things? Especially since they wont dispose of this new taxpayer liability. Meanwhile ACT is condemning it, condemning National but not saying what it would do. What's that about? What's wrong with the "P" word Rodney?

Tame Iti gets to be a thespian

Yes, I know it's obvious to mention this, but who else could get bail on firearms charges that would allow you to leave the country so you can act in a play in Europe?

.

Tame Iti is a communist, and has a long history of siding with totalitarian thugs and long has wanted separatism for Tuhoe (wish I actually don't mind as long as private property rights are respected and there is no claim on the NZ taxpayer) as seen in this video.

.

However, his politics don't matter as much as how the oppressive occupiers allow him to go on a global trip as a thespian, despite firearms charges (which admittedly may not exist under a libertarian government).

Wellington transport plan reasonable

Well the Greens are unhappy (but building a road and not building a steel church - I mean light railway - means that is guaranteed), but the plan itself as reported in Stuff isn't half bad. A new flyover at the Basin Reserve (long been planned and necessary) will make a big difference as will widening Wellington Rd and Ruahine St. Bus lanes through town and down Cambridge and Kent Terrace could do some good (especially if taxis and trucks are allowed on them too), so all in all a reasonable way to spend some fuel tax.

.

The ridiculous light rail fetish, which few of the enthusiasts accurately cost on a per passenger km basis, should be killed. However, second Terrace Tunnel and Mt Victoria Tunnel would be good - but there is no talk of tolls which could fund them. I'd argue that State Highway 1 could be privatised and that would incentivise construction of a decent bypass as it could have variable tolls by time of day, but there is little appetite for this in Wellington.

.

Oh and while the Wellington Mayor is enthused, note no MPs will get fired up about modest good road projects - they don't see votes in them (unlike Peter Dunne's fetish with Transmission Gully), so they often get neglected. Not even the Transport Minister, Annette King, whose electorate would benefit enormously from improving the roads between the city and the airport, is too interested - but then maybe she's looking at what her job is after the election?

NZ Herald hits rail issue on the head

Today's NZ Herald editorial has made the point that is ignored by the anti rail privatisation church:

.

"If those private owners who put their money into the assets did not maintain their investment, there must have been a reason. They would surely have not let those assets deteriorate if rail was truly competitive with road transport and capable of realising a good profit. Passenger services would not have ended if people had viewed trains as a preferred means of transport. Most recently, Toll had been unable to make the business afford the rent that the Treasury wanted for use of the Crown-owned track network. Clearly, there was a significant distance between the profitability of the rail service and the cost of infrastructure maintenance."

.

Absolutely furthermore "People will also take some convincing that modernisation, in itself, will make rail attractive to customers. Evidence supplied by Wisconsin Central and Toll suggests there is a substantial, perhaps unbridgeable, gap between it and roading in purely economic terms."

.

So you see, it was economically rational to run down the railway system. It simply wasn't worth it. Unless of course you believe the nonsense about the environment, or you want a train set to run.