Iran's 30 years of Islamist terror

The 1979 lesson of Iran was a painful one for the United States. The regime of the Shah had spent previous years becoming increasingly authoritarian, despite its secular outlook its intolerance of dissent and its own extravagance sowed the seeds for opposition. Iranians overthrew the monarchy and embraced a new form of authoritarianism. Secularism was gone, the Islamic Republic of Iran was founded.

From then, the Iranian regime has brutally oppressed those within its borders who wish to see an end to secular rule. An Islamic cultural revolution was imposed, with the Committee for Islamization of Universities ensuring an "Islamic atmosphere" for every subject, including engineering. Broadcasting and the press was severely restricted with only Islamist programming permitted. While discussion and debate is allowed, it is within an Islamist context. In other words, you can criticise policies, but you can't criticise the Islamic Republic.

Women have a lesser status in Iran. For example:
- A woman needs her husband's permission to work outside the home or leave the country;
- the value of woman's life is half that of a man;
- Daughters are entitled to half the inheritance of sons;
- Women are required to cover their bodies and hair.

Notice how the peace loving feminist left regularly protests outside Iranian embassies about this. Yep, notice how invisible they are.

Apostasy (converting from Islam to another religion) is punishable by death, so tough luck being raised as a Muslim.

The criminal age of legal responsibility is 15 for boys and 9 for girls. Iran has executed 26 people under 18 since 2005. I have noticed the extensive protests and flag burning about that by the peace loving left. It executes over 300 prisoners every year.

According to Human Rights Watch "Iran retains the death penalty for a large number of offenses, among them cursing the Prophet, certain drug offenses, murder, and certaincrimes, including adultery, incest, rape, fornication, drinking alcohol, "sodomy," same-sex sexual conduct between men without penetration, lesbianism, "being at enmity with God" ( haddmohareb), and "corruption on earth".

Internationally, the Islamic Republic has annually called for death to the USA and death to Israel. It has supported the IRA, Hamas, Hizbollah and been a base for training terrorists. It thumbs its nose at the IAEA while it develops its nuclear programme.

Meanwhile, it has a President who denies the holocaust, who cheers on the eradication of Israel.

The Islamic Revolution is a reason to jeer. Not because the regime it overthrew was good, but because this is worse. It was like the Khmer Rouge overthrowing the corrupt nasty Lon Nol regime in Cambodia.

So today why don't you tell your local Iranian embassy to fuck their revolution, and that you can't wait till Iranians can live their lives the way they wish, without the Islamist bullies spying, arresting, torturing and murdering them. While you consider that, ask yourself why so few of the leftwing protest movement give a damn about Iran. Ask why they tolerate women being treated as men's chattels (and no, comparatively liberal Tehran is not the measure of that country). Ask why they are silent over the execution of a 16 year old girl because she had sex with unmarried men, but will jump at the chance to damn Israel to hell for engaging in a war of self defence. Ask why they protested en masse against US nuclear warships, but wont raise a banner against Iran's nuclear programme.

The sooner the Islamic Republic of Iran is an era (error) in history of Iran, the better, the safer for the world and Iranians. The secularist bullies need to be sent back to the mosques, out of Parliaments, out of laws and let Iranians be free.

Iran's government is evil. If you doubt it, then read this post I made two and half years ago, about the children the scum execute. Yes lovely types.

The flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran isn't worth wiping your arse on and setting fire to - but it would be nice if someone did it.

Obama's confusion of whose money he is spending

"Only the federal government has the resources necessary..."

That's called a lie. It doesn't have it, it is printing it, borrowing it from future childrens' taxes.

You see that's the problem. Mortgaging future taxpayers now, and NO accountability for it.

Maiden Speech 3: Kevin Hague: Green and confused

In my ongoing series catching up with the new MPs, there is Kevin Hague. A new Green list MP. My hopes weren't high, but he was CEO of the West Coast District Health Board - you would hope someone of that position, responsible for a region's healthcare, would be clever.

His maiden speech is here.

So:
- He is keen on the Treaty of Waitangi (whatever rocks your boat, funny how the Green party does so badly in Maori seats).
- He doesn't believe in objective reality instead "a new economics that values intrinsic natural characteristics and recreational use". Presumably if different people value things differently, Kevin will sort them out?
- He doesn't believe that you can change your health by your eating, drinking, exercise, smoking, drinking and drug taking because "the health of a population group is largely a reflection of the power it has over its own circumstances, and the environment surrounding it, and that good health improvement can only result from political will". Yep, only politics can make you healthier. Idiot.
- You can only be happy once? "Growth achieved through the bubble economics of speculation is exploitation of another sort, where the non-renewable resource is human dignity and happiness". Happiness isn't renewable?
- Yet he is an atheist and proud of it. Wonderful stuff "I absolutely reject the idea that ethical or moral behaviour has its source in religious faith." I absolutely agree that it need NOT have such a source.

Then he goes off beam:
- "In the absence of such external power then the responsibility for determining how we should live together, and for acting to achieve that state, is solely, but collectively, ours". See no objective basis for it, people vote for how they should live together. Like some tribe.
- "Only two coherent philosophies are possible: survival of the fittest, with no regard to the effect on any other person, or a world in which we recognise our interdependence and respect for the equal and inalienable rights of every person. I have a passionate allegiance to the second of these belief system" Bollocks, there are other philosophies. People are not interdependent, but they can enhance their lives by trade and exchange and being social.
- Now we know what he means, he likes Marxism "It has echoes in ‘to each according to their need; from each according to their means’ or in my personal motivator "If not me, then who? If not now, then when?"

So it's Darwinism or Marxism - nice!

He goes on, he even thinks we should iron out everyone's opportunities to be the same "What are these inalienable rights that each person is entitled to? Eleanor Roosevelt (driving force behind the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, which we celebrated yesterday) referred to equal justice, equal dignity, and equal opportunity." How do you guarantee equal opportunity or equal dignity unless children are raised collectively in some Orwellian nightmare? I doubt he understands that though.

Yet then he just, for a few sentences appears to get it "I think another valuable right to conceptualise is autonomy, provided that the exercise of that autonomy does not reduce that of another person. For me the opportunity to make decisions affecting one’s own life, tempered only by the effect of those decisions on others, is driven directly from this central idea and is exactly the idea captured by the Charter principles of appropriate decision-making, and non-violence."

I'd like to hear him talk about that. The effects of the decisions on others though is not the same as not infringing on the rights of others. After all, if I decide not to spend money, or not to take a job or not to go out with a friend, it affects another - but I should have that right. Why should anyone else make such a decision?

Then we get into the envirovangelism: "My personal principle is to take only what resources I need from the natural world and to harm the natural world to the least extent possible." He wont be driving, flying or eating more than subsistence then. Look forward to Mr Ascetic's principle actually being proven wrong.

He remembers the death of Bobby Kennedy (sad but yawn).

So really, he's a bit confused. How the people of the West Coast coped when he was Chief Executive of the West Coast District Health Board is beyond me. He's a Marxist, a believer in armageddon and has many bizarre ideas (maybe he just doesn't pick his words well, which is particularly bad in a legislator).

Nick Smith gives trolley buses free run?

Government genius Nick Smith has been reported in the NZ Herald saying the government planned to waive road user charges on electric vehicles.

Odd that, given that road user charges are set to recover the costs of road maintenance from vehicles that don't pay petrol tax. Electric vehicles aren't weightless.

However, Smith may learn that opening his mouth before he understands something can cost. You see there have been electric vehicles paying road user charges for years - Wellington's trolley bus fleet being the notable ones. Not many indeed, but these are heavy vehicles that do tear up Wellington streets, and not charging them for doing so (but charging diesel buses) would make Wellington Bus and its owner, Infratil, rather happy.

So Nick, giving trolley buses a free ride on the roads too now? How many more electric cars will be encouraged because they wont be paying 4.5c/km?

A politician who understands

Sir Roger Douglas is showing his value as an MP, by opposing the government's economic "package" in words, although he is unlikely to vote against supply in the House. At the very least he isn't following the sheeple Keynesians who think there is one solution, when that medicine may prove to simply delay the inevitable economic realignment.

Stuff reports Douglas saying:

"When international credit is particularly tight, the Government has announced plans to borrow and spend on infrastructure projects.

"We have now been put on notice that our credit rating may be downgraded."

Sir Roger said New Zealand needed lower spending and lower taxes.

Unless both measures are adopted our children will have to pay back the borrowed money, and interest, in the future, he said.

"The Government is now mortgaging our children for the next round of spending increases."

Citizens have become more concerned with "dividing the pie rather than growing it" and politicians "merely mirror the sentiment" of voters.

He's right of course, but then he shows Bill English up so easily.

Douglas has a far more useful solution than spending your childrens' taxes:

He wants a tax system where an individual's first $30,000 would be tax-free, above that they would be taxed at a flat rate.

The flat rate, and company tax, would be reduced to 15 percent over the next 15 years.

Families with children would receive their first $50,000 tax-free with an increased tax-free threshold based on the number of children.

Families would be guaranteed a minimum income boosted by tax credits if they earned below the threshold.

The flip-side is that individuals would have to foot the bill for their own retirement, healthcare and insurance.

Yes amazing, low flat tax and you'd have to pay for healthcare and your retirement. Sadly though, most New Zealanders are too lazy, too scared and too much like children to want to actually be responsible for themselves.

The report shows a lack of understanding by the reporter, as Douglas says it would be optional to either go for his choice or pay taxes at the moment. THAT is where the real policy revolution should be.

Imagine that - pay the current taxes to access state health, education and promises of pensions OR opt out, get most of your income tax back and don't go crying to Nanny if you stuffed up.

You wont get it voting National.

Obama's big spendup

You’ll hear a lot about Obama’s print money package to stimulate the US economy by mortgaging on the taxes of people’s children. Curious how the left, which goes on endlessly about the suffering children and grandchildren will bear from the environment, doesn’t give a damn about subsidising the follies of imprudent borrowers and lenders with future taxes stolen from the unborn.

So what IS Obama offering? Well let’s start with the, apparent, good. Tax cuts. According to the Washington Post these are 22% of the package, although the Obama Administration claims it is 33%. Why the difference? Well because some of the cuts are tax credits given to people who pay no net taxes at all. That isn’t a tax cut, it’s welfare! I’ll be generous and say that the 22% is a good thing, it is good for the US Federal Government to take less money from people, but the rest? Well it is complicated, but who am I not to try to summarise it all:

The biggest lump is spending called “health, education and labor”. US$91.3 billion worth. It includes money to “renovate schools”, which I’d say the federal government shouldn’t own anyway. It also is money to the Department of Health and Human Services. This means subsidised healthcare, welfare programmes and a large number of other government “public health” initiatives. You might wonder how much of that is sucked into this huge bureaucracy, and indeed how much of the education spending isn’t just going to be absorbed by Obama’s unionised friends.

US$89.7 billion is boosting Medicaid temporarily, the socialised healthcare scheme for children of poor families, the disabled and other categories of low income people. Again, unlikely to stimulate the economy.

US$79 billion for the state fiscal stabilisation fund, essentially bails out states so they can keep spending money on education primarily. Again, unlikely to stimulate the economy.

US$62.3 billion for transportation, housing and urban development. Half is to build roads, but the US has an appalling system for deciding how to build roads. Politicians set priorities, so again this could be money down the plughole if unnecessary roads are built. The rest is public transport and housing assistance, again more money down the drain. The best housing assistance is the one provided by the deflating market.

US$48.9 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, including subsidising electricity infrastructure. You might think there would be more efforts by individuals at energy efficiency if they paid themselves for the cost of core electricity infrastructure. Again another fundamental failing in how the US does infrastructure.

US$45.7 billion Essentially a boost to unemployment benefits.

US$40.8 billion Welfare so the unemployed can buy health insurance (don’t laugh, they’ll get better care than New Zealand or UK unemployed people using socialised medicine).

US$26.9 billion. Agriculture, nutrition and rural. More money for foodstamps (welfare) and subsidising broadband to rural areas. US$4.1 billion included for “rural development” whatever that means.

The rest are smaller (!) sums for all sorts of pork like:
- Improving national parks
- Improving water infrastructure (couldn’t just privatise it or run it commercially so users pay? No this is the United Socialist States of America)
- Science and technology grants.

All in all, change? Hardly, it’s just throwing money at bureaucracies to spend money like they always have done. No confrontation of why the Federal government thinks it should pay for water or electricity or education. No change to how transport is funded, just throw money at the bureaucracies that spend money where politicians think, while bridges collapse because there aren’t votes in maintenance.

Oh and investment? Yep there will be jobs, bureaucratic unproductive ones. They wont be jobs that are better than those created by people spending that money themselves. They wont be better than setting free the government regulated (and in most cases owned) power, water and road systems, which are America’s tribute to socialism in how badly they are all run.

Obama is just trying to kick the recession into the future again. His soundbite moment of capping chief executive pay for subsidised banks will be popular, and understandable, but he's pouring money down the fat pig laden hides of congressmen and women, state governors and others who leech off of the productive, and by and large show little interest in changing the USA to fix the most badly run parts of the economy.

Never mind that he never had any great new ideas for reform, his personality cult lives.

Prick of the week award goes to

Australian Environmaniac Bob Brown for claiming the deadly fires in Australia, partly because of arson are due to global warming, as reported by ABC Radio.

"Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25 per cent, 50 per cent more," he told Sky News. "It's a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority our need to tackle climate change."

Way to help the victims Bob. Wouldn't be better to have as a priority catching arsonists, larger firebreaks, more responsive fire services? Nah, cycle to work instead of driving, it will really help the victims of the fires.

Notice the Australian Green Party website has a press release on the fires that doesn't express this viewpoint. You see, it didn't go down well to point score from other peoples' misery.

Of course the Guardian takes it all seriously, even though one expert it talks (Roger Stone, a climate expert at the University of Southern Queensland,) said: "It certainly fits the climate change models, but I have to add the proviso that it's very difficult, even with extreme conditions like this, to always attribute it to climate change." While also reporting the imminent blizzard conditions in the UK.

Don't let the facts get in a good story Bob, or you doing as much good for the victims of this disaster as pissing on the fire.

Maiden Speech 2: Rahui Katene: Te Tai Tonga

In order to give balance to reviewing the maiden speeches, I figured I'd try to alternate between opposition and government MPs. In this case, Rahui Katene is the Maori Party's new MP in 2008, taking Te Tai Tonga from Mahara Okeroa of Labour.

Her speech is here on Scoop in full.

Early in the speech is a statement that effectively says she is a Mormon ("That life of service to, and love of, others is a lesson well learnt as a member of my whanau, hapu and iwi, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."). Of course she can believe what she wants, but frankly someone believing in a church founded by a relatively modern day fraudster deserves some ridicule (Christopher Hitchens has a short summary of the bizarre story behind this ridiculous church).

Beyond that most of the speech is about her family. Dad protested at Raglan, Bastion Point and at the Springbok tour. Mum went with the New Labour Party. Great stuff! Red flows in her veins in more ways than one. A minor error saying "as a University student I protested against the Springbok tour in 1986" which was the Cavaliers's tour of South Africa.

Unsurprisingly she is big on genetic identity "My politics have always been defined by my upbringing and my experiences as a Maori, a Maori woman and a mother of Maori children." Because, she understands the experience of not being one?? Of course most of the rest of her speech is about how she became a lawyer and part of the Treaty of Waitangi industry. Again, hardly surprising, but nothing outstanding out of this, beyond the strong alignment between who she is, and ethnicity.

Verdict? Well she has hardly a wide range of experience or exposure to different ideas of philosophies. She has been brought up by socialists, and matured in an environment of ethnically based nationalism. She believes in collective responsibility and " Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly".

You wont find an advocate of individual freedom here, you'll find socialism, nationalism, stirred with the mysticism of a loony church, but be grateful - she's not Kennedy Graham!

Maiden speech reviews: Kennedy Graham: control freak

Yep, I'm a bit late on these, so thought I'd better catch up. Starting with the far left of the House with Kennedy Graham, brother of ex. Cabinet Minister Doug Graham. However, whereas Doug went with the Nats (and had his proudest moment after the 1987 election when he admittedly wholeheartedly that National should have embraced the free market years ago) , Kennedy is a Green socialist.

Sadly reason isn't one of his fortes. Take this part of his speech:

"For ours is the first generation to confront problems of a planetary scale – daunting in their complexity, seemingly intractable in nature."

World War Two? Risk of nuclear annihilation? Those were past generations. Give up the dramatics.

"- As our human numbers increase, our earth-share diminishes."

A new piece of GreenNewSpeak. "Our earth share diminishes". Sounds like voluntary human extinction could help out.

"- As our materialistic lifestyle expands, our ecological footprint grows ever larger."

alone with our lifespan, our time for leisure, and opportunities for happiness, but fuck that right?

"Humankind today, casting precaution to the wind, is recording an ecological overshoot beyond the planet’s carrying capacity, anthropogenically inducing climate change of unprecedented magnitude and alarming danger."

Utter bollocks of course, since there has been far more dramatic climate change in human history than is even forecasts by the most pessimistic of major climate scientists.

"We are drawing down on Earth’s natural resources, borrowing forward on the human heritage, irretrievably encroaching on our children’s right to inherit the Earth in a natural and sustainable state. It is the uniquely dubious fate of our generation to have broken the eternal promise of inter-generational justice. "

Ah, "we" and "our", the words of the collectivist. The eternal promise of inter-generational justice? More Green NewSpeak, what the hell is he on about?

"We in New Zealand are part of the problem, not yet of the solution. Our ecological footprint is three times higher than the global average, our carbon emissions five times higher."

Dodging a definition, I assume he means per capita. Probably explained by this being a developed country Kennedy, of low density and high agricultural output. You could try North Korea which is almost certainly below average, or Equatorial Guinea, or how about Sudan? Yep they get up every morning glad they are your heroes.

" It is time we measured national success, not through mindless material growth but through genuine progress in human well-being"

It is time individuals measured their own success. Mindless material growth is it? So you tell people wanting to earn more that it is mindless? Ah genuine well-being, well go tell a trade union that they should give up material growth for their members.

"It is time we relinquished our feverish ranking within the OECD, and began contributing to the true advancement of the emerging global society"

Yeah man, let's drop down like Argentina once did, for the "emerging global society".

Vapid onanism par excellence so far. However, he's not just silly, he's downright dangerous. His speech took a far more ominous tone when he talks about individual freedom (emphasis added below)

"Sustainability is the supreme political value of the 21st century. It is not a concept of passing political expediency – a clip-on word for post-economic environmental damage. It is now the categorical imperative of personal behaviour. Individual freedoms are no longer unlicensed, but henceforth subordinate to the twin principles of survival and sustainable living. The political rights we enjoy today are to be calibrated by the responsibility we carry for tomorrow."

Get it? The categorical imperative of personal behaviour is NOT "do no harm to others", it is not "obey the law", it is not "respect the bodies and property of others", it is "sustainability". Furthermore individual freedom is subordinate to the "twin principle of survival and sustainable living". Think how much freedom you can lose by this idiot pursuing "sustainable living" because he thinks this is more important than your political rights. Not a libertarian, possibly not even a democrat.

He waffles on about international commitments, worrying about tomorrow's children (sacrifice you and your current children though), and respecting all civilisations and faiths with due humility (yep the Taliban, the North Koreans, respect them all!).

He misquotes the UN Charter saying "Today, armed force may no longer be used by Member States save in the common interest". Bollocks, as every member state can use armed force for self defence, and the UN Security Council can authorise it against threats to international peace and security (and has done so). He wants it to be illegal for New Zealanders to commit aggression. By that he means war, which undoubtedly includes mercenaries. He doesn't mean himself and other politicians against New Zealanders, although the state is by its very nature aggressively initiating force every day. He undoubtedly wouldn't like mercenaries from New Zealand trying to overthrow any dictatorships, as he probably sees them as civilisations to respect.

So he's a fool and has the inklings of a fascist in his willingness to sacrifice freedom for "sustainability". He says "Generations gone before have sacrificed for our cherished freedoms – freedom of speech and association, freedom to practise our religions, freedom from want and freedom from fear" yet he is willing to sacrifice freedom for his religion of "sustainability", using fear of Nanny State to practice it.

For a man with several degrees, he has foolishly bought into the Green hysteria, the moral relativism of post-modern political philosophy, and is happy to sacrifice individual freedom for the new religion of environmentalism.

If he was just an airy-fairy hippie with silly optimism about the world he'd be harmless, but he worships sustainability over individual rights. He is, in other words, a rather dangerous man.

Discriminate away

Catherine Delahunty, one of the new intake of post-modernist reason evading socialist MPs is upset that Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, has told a businessman to avoid the instructions of his local authority on a planning requirement. These apparently have no legal force.

According to Stuff, the council said that if the man, an employer, were to install a shower for staff, it would have to be wheelchair accessible. According to the employer, that would make it prohibitively expensive.

Catherine Delahunty's reality evasion sees her blogging that "There is a growing body of evidence that tells us people with impairments are above average employees if their needs are met" and goes on to give no evidence at all, showing how shallow her argument is. That's it, just make it up, the Greens are used to faith based initiatives. Think about it - people with impairments are above average employees if their needs are met. However she did make the faux pax in saying "And if you build a walk-in shower everybody can use it, whether they have been cycling on two wheels or rolling to work on the two wheels of a wheelchair". Yep those two wheeled wheelchairs are a real hit!

Idiot Savant is upset because a Cabinet Minister is advising someone to break the law. A position I am sure he wouldn't have had a problem with if it was a law he didn't agree with, like laws on blasphemy perhaps. It is hardly being a gangster saying "if you want to build a shower, build it how you like it". Particularly since it isn't a legal requirement (although Hide didn't know that at the time).

The point is simple, the law should leave this man well alone regardless. If he wants to install a shower for his employees, good for him! He probably figures that it is a good way of helping retain valued staff. If he doesn't want it to be available for those in wheelchairs, why the hell is it anyone else's business? Why is it the state's business if he doesn't want to employ people in wheelchairs?

In fact if Catherine Delahunty believes so passionately in "transition from a disabling environment to an equitable environment" why doesn't she offer to help pay for it? Does any property she own have fully accessible access, to all floors, rooms and showers?

Making the fun police squeal

I'm unsure what it is, whether it is some sort of inate desire to evade the parenting finger pointing and "do what I say" judgmental nannying of do-gooders, but few things are quite as satisfying as pissing off Sue Kedgley.

The government decision to scrap the "only healthy foods" policy for schools is one I don't get too heated up about myself. You see I think schools should make their own decisions on this sort of thing (in fact all decisions if they could get funded from parents directly), so this is a minor step forward. However, for the chief conducator of nanny state, Sue Kedgley to describe it as "an astonishingly stupid move which will cost the nation dearly" is her usual hysterical cry of nonsense.

Kids can eat some unhealthy food, it's fine. You see, they ENJOY it. Enjoying some unhealthy food is part of life Sue - enjoying non-organic, sugar salt or fat laden deliciousness - like a decadent chocolate cake, like deep fried fish and chips. It's part of living, and the do gooding harpies like yourself make people want to do it more.

Because frankly the more you tell people to not do something, the more they want you to just fuck off and mind your own business. Especially since you want a state run health monopoly that doesn't charge people more or less if they live less or more healthy lifestyles, and rations due to politically agreed criteria instead of price.

It's like telling teenagers not to drink, not to smoke, not to have sex - the obvious response is to want to do it, just because you say no, and because the common theme among do-gooders is to want to regulate having fun.

That's the same response I give to Dr Alan Maryon Davis in the UK, who the Daily Telegraph reports as saying "I see an increasing acceptance that we, all of us, need not only more information and guidance from government, but also more legislation to save us from ourselves". He WANTS more Nanny State, he thinks people are stupid and should be treated like children and saved from themselves.

What he wants and needs are two different things. What he needs is, as Bob Jones would say, a smack in the chops. People take risks about their health because they face no consequences in the Soviet style National Health Service. The ultra healthy gain nothing, the ultra sick get all the health care the system can ration their way. If you change that, then it shouldn't be any else's business if you want to risk a short life being decadently unhealthy, or a long life being frigidly good - or indeed the opposite, as both happen.

The fun police are to be scorned and loathed and exposed for what they are, with their only argument of merit - that it is useful to inform people of risks and behaviour that can harm them - being something that the fun police should direct attention to. I like knowing blueberries are very good antioxidants, and butter really is rather bad for the circulation (with little else going for it). However, damn the health fascist who tells me off from lathering butter on toast once in a while, or tells me I am not eating enough blueberries.

In the meantime, upsetting Sue Kedgley is a pleasure - so let's all have a chocolate bar, hamburger or the like this weekend, to make her writhe.

Waterview connection business case

The Minister of Transport has kindly released a report on the business case of the Waterview Connection of SH20 in Auckland - the NZ$2.8 billion motorway that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) wants in a bored tunnel, even though the two other sections under construction are of standard surface level cutting design - surely not because it partly goes through the former PM's electorate. Current legislation, heavily influenced by the Greens, probably means the tunnel makes sense if all that matters is to minimise environmental impact. Anyway, the main points I got are:

- While this is only for four lanes, having six lanes would add another NZ$390 million to the project. Given growth in Auckland traffic in recent decades you'd be mad to assume that a four lane route is all that will be needed in the medium term.
- The benefit cost ratio is 1.15/1, which means it is barely worthwhile doing. However, if delayed ten years that goes up to 1.7/1. Cutting costs from the project would do a lot more.
- The appendix at the back of the report shows you could do a six lane cut and cover tunnel for 10-15% less than the four lane bored tunnel. Better yet you could shave 20-25% off the cost if it was built just like the other sections of SH20. Doing this of course makes the project worthwhile.
- Pushing the project forward at current costs will delay many many others which are more worthwhile.
- A toll could only hope to pay around NZ$400 million of the cost, suggesting that those who would directly gain from the road wouldn't be that interested in directly paying for the time and operating cost savings. That should in itself set off some alarm bells.

There is some analysis that is missing that could enlighten further of course. First, it would interesting to see what "shadow tolling" would say about the revenue the road would generate from those using it, that is from fuel tax and road user charges, which are "paid" whenever any road is used. If you combine that with a toll (or even on its own), would enough be paid over 35 years from users to pay? THAT is the true "toll" from a financial perspective.

Secondly, what would the toll revenue be if the parallel route was also being properly tolled. In other words, if the local roads the motorway would bypass were charged by a company seeking to maximise revenue. You see, many more may pay to use the toll road if the slower local streets were priced at peak times also.

Anyway, the NZTA has been sent back to find ways to trim the cost of the project, and I think this has to mean at least going partially cut and cover, if not abandoning the nonsensical tunnel idea altogether.

Personally, I'd prefer it a decision on whether to proceed were delayed until the other sections under construction are completed. Then we will know how bad the congestion is between SH16 and SH20, and for how long. It can also exploit the recession to get a better price for construction. (Steven Joyce might also consider the removal of the Avondale to Southdown railway designation, because frankly that railway wont ever be built, isn't worth building and can provide some of the land for the motorway).

The bigger truth is that the government is operating in a non-market mode, with roads priced as taxation, so the roads parallel to this motorway are too cheap to motorists (as around 60% of the cost of maintaining them comes from ratepayers), and inadequate analysis of revenue generated from road taxes from use of the road. Most of all, the pressure to build the road comes from planners and politicians.

What this doesn't tell you is that the primary blame for the problems around this project is the stupidity of Auckland City Council in the 1970s in abolishing motorway designations, on unbuilt land.

Designations were retained for the Mt Roskill to Manukau section, but not beyond. Without it, the land has been built on, unlike the designated land which always has temporary use (and little property purchase was needed). That's local government failing again. There was a designation for a motorway from Upper Queen Street parallel to Dominion Road to Mt Roskill as well, but all you see of it today is a cheaply built section from New North Road to Upper Queen Street. See how good planners are? The country is full of examples like that by the way.

Government cuts spending on broadband pork

Well, the NZ$340 million broadband subsidy that Labour proposed.

Because National has a bigger one, which I can only hope doesn't go anywhere. If the telecommunications industry could be certain of its private property rights, it would invest where it would see returns in providing broadband capacity.

Labour's Clare Curran (who I described as a vile little PR hack) is screeching saying it is "gut wrenching and wrong", presumably because delaying some people having subsidised access to swap music, download pirated videos, porn and do high end gaming is "wrong". Not that she knows right from wrong, as she actively tried to position National as "enemies of the people". You can just see what she'd have been doing had she lived in East Germany before 1989. She says it sends the industry tumbling backwards. Well any industry that needs shots of money taken from taxpayers shouldn't be our concern.

Broadband has become the new political pork of the 21st century. Those who want it aren't prepared to pay for it. Some suppliers are gagging for subsidies to expand their "businesses" and it has become the cargo cult "essential for the economy". Remarkable how something so essential doesn't get investors excited or the users willing to pay for what it costs.

However, I wont hold out hope that the government will keep its sticky fingers off this, restore private property rights to Telecom over its network and remove the ability of councils to block the roll out of new telecommunications networks through the RMA

In the "get over it, you lost" file

A report that Prince William is to be sent to the Falklands with the RAF as a search and rescue pilot has upset the Argentine government.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

"Jorge Taina, an aide to Argentina's foreign minister, said the move would reopen debate about the future of the islands.

"This circumstance only serves to once again highlight Britain's ongoing military presence in land and sea areas that are part of the Argentine Republic's national territories," he said."

Guess what Jorge. The people of the Falklands don't want you there, the territories are de-facto and de-jure recognised as part of the United Kingdom. Falkland Islanders do not want to be ruled by a developing country that comparatively recently was run by a mindless and incompetent military junta.

If they don't want you, then you should kindly fuck off and leave Falkland Islanders alone, look at your own bizarre little leftwing government to find reasons why your economy isn't as much of a success as Chile. It isn't that different from Spain and Gibraltar. Spain wants Gibraltar, most people in Gibraltar don't want to be governed by Spain.

Steven Joyce gets it right

He’s seen the light and has called for a review of the Greenplated Waterview extension project for SH20. Understandably so, as the previous PM pushed for it to be underground as a bored tunnel, the most expensive option, and only for four lanes. It would save hundreds of millions to make it a cut and cover tunnel, and save hundreds of millions more to make it a trenched route – and start recognising that it is not WORTH saving the local environment there. It is more important for people to be able to move freely around Auckland.

Meanwhile, the NZ Herald has called lobbyist Stephen Selwood, from the NZ Council for Infrastructure Development (NZCID), an infrastructure expert. Well yes, but what is the NZCID? It is a lobby group for road builders. He is there to promote more spending on roads, and that means more expensive options for them. He doesn’t want this “crucial” project delayed for rather obvious reasons, which the NZ Herald negligently forgot to note.

Well it isn’t “crucial”, it is desirable. Last time I saw a benefit/cost ratio for it, it was 1:1 and that was after some massaging and before the cost blowout. One way of looking at it is whether you’d rather have $2 billion spend on this single road, or on improving and widening other roads around Auckland (such as four laning SH1 from Puhoi to Warkworth), or you’d rather just pay less fuel tax and put up with delays. You see investigations on tolling indicated that if the road was tolled to try to recover a significant part of the costs, hardly anyone would pay it – which kind of proves how “crucial” Aucklanders think the road is. In short, they aren’t prepared to pay to use it to save 10 or so minutes, so perhaps it’s fine to have a motorway from Manukau to Mt Roskill.

Before you ask, no the private sector wont build it through its own accord. It’s far too expensive for the amount of likely users.

My expectation is that National can’t easily delay the project excessively, for political reasons, unless it could show transparently that it would be better spending the money elsewhere. Clarity may come when the Mt Roskill extension opens later this year, as we will see if queues develop between that stretch of motorway and the North Western Motorway at Waterview. That should then determine the priority for this project. However, in the big scheme of Auckland, I’d rather priority be given to upgrading Victoria Park Viaduct and the Newmarket Viaducts. They are choked parts of the motorway network that need addressing, but doesn’t this just show how poor politicians are at setting priorities?

Recycling questioned

The Daily Telegraph today reports that Peter Jones, former director of Biffa, a waste disposal company and now environmental advisor to London Mayor Boris Johnson, claims that much recycling contributes to "greenhouse gases" and it would be better burning the waste to generate electricity.

This comes on top of the collapse of the market for recycled commodities (hardly surprising). Jones suggests that kerbside recycling, which inevitably mixes different materials, effectively contaminates them making much useless for recycling.

Quite simply, recycling is a good idea when it is viable to do it. Planes and cars have always been recycled because the materials they are made of are in sufficient abundance that scrapping made sense, much like ripping up unused railway lines has often been worth it. However, your taxes shouldn't be taken to subsidise the supply of commodities to producers. Similarly you shouldn't be subsidising waste disposal. If landfills and kerbside rubbish collection were all privatised, then they would be user pays activities, required to make a profit. As a result, recycling as an alternative for some waste would be viable for those commodities that are worthwhile recycling.

THAT you see is the problem of rubbish disposal. Sadly in the UK, recycling has become a religion, because it is one in Brussels. Like many Green fads, it isn't driven by rational analysis, but a fervent belief that recycling is always good. However, when it costs more to recycle a bottle than it does to make one from scratch, you might ask yourself whether that difference is due to government interference (taxes or subsidies), or simply reflects that your premises of recycling are wrong.

WTO Director General warns of protectionism

It's hardly surprising, all of the "bailouts" funded by stealing from future taxpayers are raising alarm bells in the mind of WTO Director General Pascal Lamy.

According to Reuters, Lamy said that "it was critical to keep commerce flowing at a time when overall economic growth slows. "It has become more urgent for the WTO to strengthen multilateral disciplines that will reduce the scope for increased trade restriction," he said, repeating his call for countries to finalise the Doha round, a global free trade accord that has been under negotiation since 2001".

The WTO has noted a growing list of countries whose response to the recession is to further hinder trade - when the last time this was done, in the 1930s, the result was disastrous.

Some of those measures include:

-- India raised tariffs on some imported steel products

-- Ecuador raised tariffs on 940 products including butter, turkey, crackers, caramels, blenders, cell phones, eyeglasses, sailboats, building materials and transport equipment

-- Indonesia limited the number of ports and airports serving as entry points for certain imports, such as electronics, garments, toys, footwear, and food and beverages

-- Argentina imposed licensing requirements on products such as auto parts, textiles, TVs, toys, shoes, and leather goods

-- The European Commission said it would re-introduce export subsidies for butter, cheese, and whole and skim milk powder.

The Greens call this "economic sovereignty" when it is only sovereignty for the state, not for those producing or consuming - they get no choice.

It is critical that John Key fight hard to push for a renewed Doha Round, and for the Obama Administration to listen. Sadly, it has precious few credentials from any who believe in free trade, unlike the Bush Administration. Not that the Obamaphiles noticed or cared.

Roads under National

So the excitement in Auckland has been with the opening of the “Northern Gateway” toll road, previously known as ALPURT B2 (Albany Puhoi Realignment) which basically means State Highway 1 bypasses Orewa. All good stuff, although we will soon see whether the financials as a toll road stack up. You see, oddly, the motorists using the toll road wont actually pay a cent to pay for the systems installed to charge them. Fuel tax and road user charges paid for the tolling system, because (shhh) the finances behind tolling under the last government didn’t exactly stack up. Nevertheless, it is good to see a road where users actually will pay directly, as well as indirectly. Don’t worry, half the cost of the new motorway has been paid for by fuel tax and road user charges, like all the others.

However, the opening was marred slightly by the chronic congestion on the highway NORTH of the new motorway. So what will National Minister Steven Joyce do? Well, as you’d expect, I have a hoard of advice for him, far too much to put on this blog (thank god! You all say), so just about roads and just about now, here are some thoughts. No it’s not libertarian, but within the confines of what’s likely under this government.

1. Do some reading. Ask your officials for a copy of the Roading Advisory Group reports, and a report called the Land Transport Pricing Study. It will explain to you why, fundamentally, running roads and funding roads in a bureaucratic, tax and spend model, will ALWAYS mean significant inefficiencies, including congestion, overspending in some areas and underspending in others. It also foretold of many of the problems of the last ten years. Quietly talk to Maurice Williamson about it. In 1998 the Economist said “If roads continue to be operated as one of the last relics of a Soviet-style command economy, then the consequence will be worsening traffic jams and eventual Bangkok-style gridlock.” New Zealand is experiencing that.

2. Cut back on greenplating. Some of the big road projects that are in the pipeline have been grossly overdesigned, and are gold plated (or green plated) solutions to bottlenecks. The big ones that need your attention are:
a. Waterview extension of SH20. It no longer goes through the Prime Minister’s electorate. It doesn’t need to be a bored tunnel, you could save hundreds of millions by delaying this another 6 months to get it scaled back to something sensible.
b. Victoria Park Tunnel (SH1 central Auckland). This was once going to be simply a duplication of the Victoria Park Viaduct, but the ARC demanded it be a tunnel (local government again!). Diving into a tunnel before rising at quite an incline to spaghetti junction is madness. You can save a good hundred million or so by getting rid of the tunnel. An Auckland Harbour Bridge toll could pay for this of course.
c. Transmission Gully. You already know this one. The problem has largely gone with much cheaper improvements, the bigger problem north of Wellington is through Kapiti and north to Levin. You need an independent review of this as it is one thing that gets Peter Dunne’s knickers in a twist, but basically you’ll save around NZ$400 million by developing the current route. However, more kudos by looking to Kapiti and the north, it needs attention that has been neglected.

3. Think local. One of the biggest areas of neglect is local roads. Local authorities are often tight on spending ratepayers’ money on roads. It needs care as your problem is making councils accountable for spending road taxes central government collects. So longer term you need reform of the Local Government Act and for local roads to be run by commercial entities, partly funded by property access fees (instead of rates), but in the meantime you need to increase the Financial Assistance Rate for local road improvements with a high benefit cost ratio (over 3:1). 75% would make a big difference. Don’t forget, most congestion in Auckland is on local roads.

4. Cut subsidising slow modes. Your easiest tool to change spending are the priorities you can set for the National Land Transport Programme. There are lots of pet diversions Labour introduced into it that should go. This includes regional development, community focused activities, domestic sea freight and the way passenger transport is subsidised. Look at how you can slash much of this, and consider a more fundamental review of the role of government in public transport. The subsidy per passenger carried has been soaring under Labour, you might want to cap this in real terms at least.

5. Bring back efficiency. You know you don’t know what road projects should come first, local government doesn’t know much better. Get the NZ Transport Agency to change its funding allocation criteria to more strictly apply economic cost-benefit analysis. Projects with a cost-benefit ratio less than 2:1 shouldn’t go ahead. You’ll find that the best new road spending is on small projects to straighten bends, passing lanes, widen existing roads and fix bad intersections or bridges. You’ll find some big new roads you CAN advance that are worthwhile. In Auckland that means Newmarket Viaduct, in Waikato it means Te Rapa Bypass, etc.

6. Be creative with the private sector. Don’t get tied down to the acronym PPP. You’d be better off leasing off a stretch of state highway to the private sector for a very long period, such as the Northern Motorway from Spaghetti Junction to Constellation Drive, with the ability to toll, and let it finance improvements and a second crossing. In other words it will happen when it is worth doing, not when politicians think it is worth doing. Beyond that, simply tell the private sector it can build a new road and toll it as it sees fit, and government will allow its roads to interconnect with them. It works in the US, and in France, yes France, most highways are built and financed by commercial road companies.

7. Let priorities be set nationally not locally. Get rid of R and C funding for future NLTPs and reallocate future funds on a national priority basis. Local government shouldn’t be setting priorities with centrally collected taxes. Consultation is enough, and Labour used R and C funding to vote buy. A good funding system allocates funds where they are best spent.

8. Consider ways of letting motorists contract out of road taxes to pay directly. The trucking sector wants it replaced with diesel tax, but that’s because government doesn’t enforce it well and charges could be applied more fairly by weight and location. However, to address this properly you need more private sector involvement, and for highways to be run more on commercial lines. You should let local authorities approve heavier trucks than currently allowed, as long as they charge them for it and use the money to offset maintenance costs.

9. Funder and provider shouldn’t be the same. Start planning to split up the NZ Transport Agency back into a Highways Authority and a Funding Agency. It makes it easier to hold the Highways part accountable, and then make sure the Highways part seeks funds, and doesn’t expect funds. You can also allow it to borrow, toll and enable truck operators to opt out of paying road user charges to government, and pay them directly to road operators.

Finally, most of all, consider almost everything the Greens say about transport and remember almost always the opposite is true. Labour did, to be fair, boost spending on roads enormously in the last nine years. Now you can go open some of the roads funded under that regime and people will think things have improved. This is the part of the transport sector needing the most attention, and one which Labour spent not enough time on.

Oh and the other modes? Here's a quick and dirty guide:

Rail? A disaster ready to suck money from the state. Once you've got a few more months under the belt, then worry about this bottomless pit for money. Some hard decisions are going to have to be made about this one. Auckland will be first in line begging for a fortune to gold plate its system, you might want to get some independent review of its business case figures, just to see how bad it really is. Wellington's rail is already funded, you needn't worry about it.

Air? It's pretty much ok, maybe the big challenge is that Air NZ could do with some capital longer term, but at the moment it wont be coming from anywhere. Don't worry too much about this mode.

Sea? Ports and shipping will tick over nicely, Labour spent too long trying to placate protectionist moves from unions and shipping firms over foreign competition. Throw anything about that in the bin.

Davos Economic Forum? Why bother

There is not inconsiderable hype in the business world and among some in governments about the annual exercise in mutual onanism called the Davos Economic Forum in Switzerland. Like many conferences of high profile people, one of the key objectives is to get people to agree and put out nice sounding statements that will offend no one and look like some enormous intellectual capital has been applied to the economic issues of the world.

Quite simply if you look at the 2008 World Economic Forum it will speak to you in abundance about how little intellectual capital is applied - after all, that Forum hardly predicted the worst recession since WW2. You can get the Summit report yourself here (pdf) and read it.

The most it said was "the unfolding financial crisis should be viewed as a chapter in a much larger, more profound story – the rebalancing of global wealth away from the West and toward the emerging economies of Asia and the Middle East" except, of course, that the recession is global. Oops didn't see that coming, that export led economies can't grow without anyone buying their goods.

If you don't like buzzword cliche phrases, then don't read this with a meal. This statement should be enough to provoke cynicism:

"Fourteen global CEOs and company chairmen representing a range of industries and regions
issued a call to their peers to join collaborative efforts to strengthen public governanceframeworks and institutions as a core element of their approach to corporate citizenship."

However, what's most telling are the "achievements" of the forum, which, barring one initiative, would do next to nothing for the global economy. These are:

- Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda unveiled a five-year, US$ 10 billion fund to support efforts in developing countries to combat global warming (apparently forgetting this is an economic forum);
- Agility, TNT and UPS, three leading logistics and transport companies, are joining forces to help the humanitarian sector with emergency response to large-scale natural disasters (nice, but this isn't economic is it);
- The World Economic Forum launched a landmark report on the interfaith dialogue between Muslim and Western societies. Islam and the West: Annual Report on the State of Dialogue (oh nice, a book);
- The World Economic Forum released the first part of the most comprehensive investigation into private equity: "The Globalization of Alternative Investments Working Papers Volume 1: The Global Economic Impact of Private Equity Report 2008" (nice another book);
- Mayors, regional governors and the private sector launched the World Economic Forum’s SlimCity Initiative, an exchange programme between cities and companies to support action on resource efficiency in urban areas, focusing on energy, water, waste, mobility, planning, health and climate change (yes noticed how well cities run anything they touch? Yep congested roads, undermaintained water supplies, first class health care systems);
- British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, Irish musician Bono et al issued a joint statement vowing to make 2008 a turning point in the fight against poverty. (well it certainly turned out to be a turning point. Just as politicians, businesspeople and musicians get together, economies start folding inwards);

Ok enough. Besides a few privately led development initiatives, it was onanism on a grand scale.

What the forum COULD do is be a platform to actually point the finger at some of the most appalling actions by government globally. So while the Davos Forum gets ready to be held, here are a few tips for those who are going- if they can put away their onanistic business consultant speak for a few days:

1. For many developing countries it is corruption, rank, explicit, corruption that destroys the ability of citizens to produce and retain wealth. War needs to be declared on this, as this IS unfair distribution of wealth, because it is governments granting privilege to those who pay them off. Failing to note this corruption, which also exists in wealthy countries, is ignoring one enormous elephant in the room.

2. It is property rights that need defending and protecting, but the World Economic Forum says nothing about that, as so many countries either have little notion of it (as in African kleptocracies) or sacrifice it for expediency (US concept of eminent domain). Without property rights, creating and producing wealth becomes a momentary exercise for immediate consumption. The lack of property rights, protected by a free, open and uncorrupt government, is the number one reason so many countries stagnate.

3. It is free trade that needs advancing and yes, protection. The damnable procrastination of the EU and Japan, and to a lesser extent the USA, in protecting agricultural markets, subsidising farmers and dumping their subsidised goods on world markets helped exacerbate the crisis in food prices in 2008. If governments could push for a multilateral liberalisation of trade in primary products and services, then it could spark off some recovery - like the GATT did in liberalising trade in manufactured goods in the 1950s and 1960s. Forget collaboration, businesses need to tell governments to get the hell out of the way - let those inefficient French farms fail.

4. Finally, it is the wealth shredding obsession with unpriced environmentalism, that is sucking productivity out of economies in developed countries. Recycling commodities that are worth little, taxing car parks to discourage car ownership, in essence spending more directly or indirectly for the environment than the benefits people get from that spending. It is an abominable trend in policy that the evangelism of environmentalism has hardly been challenged by objective analysis.

However, that would require confronting the countless vested interests, NGOs, businesses, governments and labour leaders who wouldn't like it. So instead Davos will be a lot of nice words, and talk about collaboration, working together, synthesis, co-operation, understanding, investing, refocuses, refreshing, rebuilding, blah blah. You see it is explicitly politically neutral, which of course can only take you so far when politicians and their lackeys are the problem.

UK weekend papers highlights

Well despite the doom and gloom, the major UK weekend papers remain first class, so here are some of the highlights as I have found them this weekend:

David Aaronovitch in The Times questions the moral tut tutting of the churches against spending by the working classes, which he sees as language showing concern about the corrupting effects of "luxury", which in the past was used to damn department stores, hire purchase, mail order and credit cards.

Presumably those who damned consumerism of the past should be basking in the joy of the recession with "I told you so". Buy Nothing Day this year should be a breeze for far too many.

Hugo Rifkind delightfully pokes fun at Malia and Sasha Obama in the Times (hmmm how many will find this offensive then) with "Our Week" (hey last week he did George Bush). Wonderful stuff like:

"We’ve been unpacking, and watching the video from last week’s Children’s Inaugural Ball. We met the Jonas Brothers, who are our favourite pop group. They promised that they would dedicate a song to both of us.“You’d better,” we said, “or else we’ll have you sent to Guantánamo Bay.” The Jonas Brothers started laughing at this, but we kept staring at them until they stopped laughing again. We need a bit of practice at this, but Mom told us that she was very proud. Friday Daddy has closed Guantánamo Bay. Mom said he had to, so we’re trying not to be cross."

Mark Henderson in The Times reports on trials of stem cell therapy to treat age related macular degeneration, the leading cause of blindness. It looks most likely that this can be carried out by President Barack Obama laying his palm on the forehead of the afflicted (yes ok maybe not).

Patrick Hosking in The Times reports "The Case Against Brown" arguing that the British PM is far innocent from blame for the current recession (which this week saw a 1.8% annualised decline in the UK economy to December 2008). As he points at bankers constantly, blame can be attributed towards Labour's monetary policy fueling the housing bubble, the almost constant budget deficits through the "good years" and how he made hiring people more difficult and less attractive.

Andrew Porter in the Daily Telegraph reports on proposals for the UK government to impose a tax on broadband users to compensate the film and music industry for breach of copyright. In other words, the entertainment sector can't be arsed taking its own steps against thieves.

James Kirkup in the Daily Telegraph reports, disapprovingly of course, that in the UK only 53% of convicted illegal drug sellers get custodial sentences, the remainder get fined or a caution. Now that's not legalisation, but it is hardly surprising that for most in this retail sector the legal risks are low compared to the financial benefits.

Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph reports on the filthy collusion between the banks and the government, crony capitalism as he calls it, and the nightmare of the creeping bank nationalisation in the UK.