4 billion to watch the Rugby World Cup?

Sorry John? You must mean every time an individual watches a game.

It doesn't stack up.

World population in 2011 will be about 7 billion.

Over 4 billion of those are in Asia, and let's face it, you'd be lucky if 1% of that population were rugby fans. The big countries (China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia) are not rugby nations, it is a minority activity in all the others, so let's assume 40 million watch in Asia.

Another 1 billion are in Africa, South Africa is 50 million and Zimbabwe has 12 million. Let's assume all of them, and 1% of the remainder, so another 10 million to be generous. That's 72 million in Africa.

Around 730 million are in Europe. Let's be ridiculous and assume all of the UK, Ireland, France and Italy watch, and 5% of the rest. 200 million or so.

Around 600 million are in Latin America/Caribbean. Assume all of Argentina, and 1% of the rest, so say 100 million.

Around 340 million in North America. Be generous and assume 5% give a damn, that's 17 million.

And let's assume all 35 million in Oceania, including Australia are keen.

So that's less than half a billion. Assuming every man, woman and child watches, which is a bit mad, so we should round it down to 400 million.

Plus ça change - government advisors aren't new

Idiot Savant damns the Nats for installing their own handpicked "purchase advisors" taxpayer paid, to provide advice that the Nats presumably don't think the state sector can.

It does not particularly surprise me, partly because I can't see any real shift from what Labour did.

Idiot Savant says:

"As for why English is doing this, it seems he trusts neither the public service, or his newer Ministers - so he's planting personal spies in their offices to micromanage them and ensure that they "[produce] outputs that align with government priorities".

Not surprising, neither did Helen Clark. Heather Simpson was her personal appointment as Chief of Staff, but was often referred to as the "Associate Prime Minister" as Cabinet papers would go through her first, as Helen's trusted sidekick. Ministers regularly got a roasting for not reflecting "government priorities" with their papers, and that was partly because after 15 years of a public sector advising governments from Lange to Shipley (which all had a free market bent), many departments were not trusted.

It went further, Ministers appointed their own political advisors, but had to get approval for this. Michael Cullen had more than one. These political advisors were on the Ministerial office payroll, but personally selected by Ministers, and would be the primary interface many departments would have with Ministers. It was helpful when senior Ministers had large or multiple portfolios, as it meant Ministers devolved workload to the political advisors, but it also kept Junior Ministers in check.

Political advisors would co-ordinate together, and would run cabinet papers past Heather Simpson, before the Minister concerned would submit the paper to cabinet committee. Few Ministers were brave enough to submit papers themselves without Heather's approval, only the most senior Ministers could do so (Cullen and Anderton are ones known to do it).

So for Idiot Savant to say "So under National, we'll have the public service, and a parallel bureaucracy of handpicked hacks overseeing them. And all at taxpayer expense, of course." I'd say, well, just like Labour then?

He is right though in saying "If this is what National calls a "cleanup", I'd hate to see what they think is a "problem"..." unless, of course, these "purchase advisors" are temporary, and a different approach to Cabinet is now apparent.

UPDATE: The Standard is adopting its usual "see no evil" view of the Labour Party saying what National is doing is unprecedented. Labour had its own political advisors, but The Standard is willfully blind when its own political allies do something it accuses the Nats of.

Student unions are an arm of government?

Yes that's the argument made by Tony Milne at Just Left criticising David Farrar:

"Instead he advocates for student associations to become voluntary. The equivalent of course is the public refusing to pay their taxes when the Government does something they don't like."

My response to that is fairly clear:

Tony that is absolute bollocks, student unions are not like some arm of government, they are associations no different from a political party, industry association, trade union, environmental group, sports club or the like. This same old tired argument gets trotted out time and time again.

Governments have a monopoly of the use of legalised force against citizens. This is typically used to protect citizens from each other and from invasion. Local government has specified devolved statutory responsibilities regarding the enforcement and operation of certain laws (e.g. RMA, dog laws, food premises).

Student unions do not by any stretch of the imagination carry out any statutorily defined functions or have a legal right to use force in any way - except to force students to belong.

I don't "belong" to the New Zealand Government, nor Wellington City Council or Wellington Regional Council. All those entities have legally defined powers related to my behaviour in public places and the use of my property, student unions have none of the sort (all the powers they have are private property rights).

There is a fundamental human right of freedom of association. That means if I don't want to belong an association because I do not want it to represent me (which is the core function of student unions), then I shouldn't be forced to. Whatever other services student union's provide can largely be rationed by showing a membership card, or other techniques that, remarkably, virtually all other voluntary associations manage. For example, associate membership just to use certain facilities and not cross subsidise the political activity.

I know the left pined for compulsory trade union membership after the Nats abolished it in 1983 and again in 1991, but it is no different.

Yes members can vote, but why should one vote in an organisation that you don't believe in, that you don't want representing you, and which doesn't deliver what you want.

The truth is that student associations oppose voluntary membership because they are scared shitless that most students would rather keep the money than support a student association if they use few to none of the facilities, and don't agree with the fringe Marxists who run the show.

Of course Marxists have never been known for their belief in individual rights.

This follows up the appaling case of some turd at Salient spamming Big News, and then when Dave at Big News outed it, Salient threatened a defamation law suit, until it was outed that Dave was right. Salient thinks an apology makes up for someone being threatened with a lawsuit. Like kids left with the liquor cabinet open, they behave as if they are responsible to no one, because they aren't.

It also follows up the ANZAC Day celebrates war, so we wont celebrate ANZAC Day view of the communists running the VUWSA. In the past a couple of VUWSA Presidents have had the audacity of laying communist wreaths, happy to insult veterans of the Korean and Vietnam Wars, as if it would have been better had Kim Il Sung made all of Korea a totalitarian hellhole instead of half.

Most students don't vote at student union elections for some obvious reasons, many go to university to go to lectures and tutorials, not to spend time figuring out how to vote. Most students get little chance to really understand the candidates (it's a bit different from a general election!), and so many candidates are mediocrities that nobody can be bothered voting for.

Most students will see their vote not counting at all, because student unions are almost always run by leftwing activist types, so the student union is not seen as relevant to them.

David Farrar is dead right, Anne Tolley should be putting voluntary student union membership on the agenda (although she's never struck me as a supporter of individual freedom in the past). The primary opponents will be Labour and the Greens, both of whom treat student unions as training boot camps for future candidates, but it is ACT policy, and National might get some kudos from students by making student associations truly accountable.

It is about freedom, fundamentally.

Everyone is equal but?

Idiot Savant has said that it is a "fundamental principle that everyone is born equal and should be treated as such" in damning Kevin Rudd's opposition to gay marriage or civil unions.

I agree, the state should treat everyone equally, the state should be blind to race, sex and (NIOF*) sexual orientation.

However, he doesn't carry that view consistently.

He has called abolition of the Maori seats (without the "consent of Maori") racism, although Maori seats do not treat everyone equally by definition.

He supports government policies requiring the state and private sector to give preferential treatment to women in employment;

He supports government policies to spend more on Maori health proportionately than other citizens, because Maori do not “choose” unhealthy lifestyles

He damned Don Brash for promoting equality before the law saying “Brash is just the latest in a long tradition of beneficiaries of unequal status quos using egalitarian arguments to defend their advantages. But the sort of formal, legal equality that they espouse is about as useful as the formal, legal guarantees of human rights in the old Soviet constitution.”

So formal, legal equality is useless then. The state should treat individuals differently on the basis of race and sex. If you're born Maori, you have guaranteed political representation, but not if you're born gay, or become a Muslim, or are a libertarian. If you're born Maori, the state should spend more money on your healthcare, not because YOU'RE unhealthy, but because on average others like you are.

Are redheads more likely to suffer mental illness? Blondes more likely to catch STDs? Brunettes more likely to be hired to managerial positions? Maybe someone should investigate and get the state to interfere to "fix" this.

So treating everyone equally isn't much of a "fundamental principle" then is it?

* Non Initiation of Force. Rapists of adults and children are not entitled to equal treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation.

What's wrong with David Shearer?

I have read his article on "Outsourcing security" (thanks DPF) where he makes a strong case for allowing mercenaries to be contracted to protect civilians in the midst of a civil war, or governments seeking to terrorise a local population. He also wrote "outsourcing war" which continues on a similar vein

Imagine, for example, if such a group were placed to protect Tamils in Sri Lanka, or the people of Darfur? Indeed, what good they could do in protecting ships from Somali pirates!

The man seems to have character, indeed far more than any other Labour candidate, and dare I say most National candidates. John Key's cheap shot that "he wants to privatise the army" is nonsense, and unfair. He no more wants to privatise the army than National wants to privatise ACC.

David Farrar appears to be supporting the guy, quite right too, although is also publicising his pro-mercenary views more to "foment happy mischief" I suspect.

Of course Labour passed legislation banning New Zealand mercenaries, led by Phil Goff himself. The Greens, supported it (why let civilians defend themselves? war is bad no matter what).

National opposed the Bill, so I would have thought the right thing for National to do is support his candidacy, on one level anyway.

However, his views on many other topics are unknown, and so he can't be judged, good or bad, without knowing those. Being a member of the Labour Party of course, instantly raises some obvious suspicions, but I haven't heard any substantive reason to be against him yet.

If National opposes him, because he has a policy National implicitly supported in the past, then you have to wonder whether National regards politics to be just a game of point scoring, or is about principles? (Then again, isn't that question just tautological?)

The beginning of the end of the Progressives

With the announcement that the Progressives (which have long just been the Jim Anderton fan club for Labour supporters) are not standing in Mt Albert, how long before Jim Anderton retires, along with his party?

Clark gone.
Cullen gone.

Surely the man who was Deputy PM from 1999 to 2002, who brought Kiwibank, converted the Ministry of Commerce into the Ministry of handing out subsidies Economic Development, has nothing more to add?

What Dr Cullen's valedictory ignored

Dr Cullen’s valedictory speech is the cause of much fawning from the Labour side. The best that can be said for Dr Cullen is twofold:
- He is witty and entertaining (which of course would be fine if he hadn’t had his hands on your wallet);
- He kept his less intelligent colleagues away from totally destroying the national finances. In short, despite the mistakes he did make, he said “no” a lot.

“He cited tax reform, the creation of the Cullen Fund, and Working for Families as among Labour's major achievements.” On tax reform presumably he means GST. Labour certainly simplified and broadened the tax base, but it did mean people paid more tax.

However, the Cullen Fund is a very mixed achievement indeed. Yes it shows the government is better off investing taxpayers money rather than running a PAYGO pension, but it doesn’t address the fundamental unfairness of national superannuation. Everyone pays, to different degrees, but not everyone receives what they paid in, and more importantly some receive nothing because they died before they were eligible.

Working for Families extended welfare to the middle class. Instead of granting tax cuts, it targets credits and payments to people regardless of whether they earned the money in the first place. It expands the state’s role in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, who now must be grateful that the benevolent state is helping them gain a living – it would have been cheaper, simpler and fairer to grant tax cuts.

He responded to calls about NZ being a Nanny State saying “"New Zealand is, in fact, far less of a nanny state than it was in 1981 in terms of both social and economic freedoms.”

Well hold on Michael, was that you who did that? No it was mostly the previous Labour government and National government that followed it. It was Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson on economic freedoms, and personal freedoms? Well that depends on what you are talking about. Alcohol? Yes Smoking and drugs? No Homosexuality? Yes Censorship? No. The record is mixed, and the last Labour government did precious little to enhance freedom and a fair bit to erode it. Helen "the state is sovereign" Clark was no fan of individualism.

In the transport sector few know that Cullen essentially ran the show on the railways, and pushed for spending more on roads, largely because, with the exception of Pete Hodgson, the transport ministers were all fairly lowly ranked (Gosche was largely sidelined for example). Policy on Air NZ, railways, Auckland transport and highways funding was driven substantially by Dr Cullen. Having the purse strings means you can do that. Which of course brings me to his low points:

1. Refusing to allow Singapore Airlines to bail out Air New Zealand (by owning 49% of it), preferring to listen to Qantas which had a vested interest in kneecapping Air NZ as a competitor, and having the whole South Pacific aviation market to itself. Then “having to bail out Air NZ” when he need not have. His interference in what was then a privately owned company was palpably incompetent.

2. The ongoing fiasco over rail. Buying the Auckland rail network at 4 times its market value. Buying the national rail network for $1 and then not enforcing track access charges against the company granted monopoly access rights. Then paying 50% over the market price for “Kiwirail” when it knowingly would almost never make a return on capital. It has destroyed over $200 million of taxpayers' wealth, and counting. His own justifications, were a joke.

3. The waste of money in health. How there was next to no increase in productivity for an over 50% increase in health spending in real terms. Money down a black hole (which even he would privately admit).

4. The unnecessary “sin tax” of 39%, cutting in at the ridiculously low $60,000 which sent a signal that under Labour, successful people were to be penalised.

5. Letting the state sector grow, with little to see for it beyond more bureaucrats and policy wonks, and little improvement in advice. It soaked up hoards of mediocre university graduates in Wellington, bright eyed, bushy tailed and keen to do what they were told, without questioning the fundamental wisdom of any of it.

6. "We won you lost eat that" attitude shortly after the 1999 election when dealing with the business sector. Imagine the Nats doing that to the union movement.

So while most will miss the wit and humour of Cullen, I wont miss the fact he was Helen Clark's right hand man in taking from everyone, and being the great renationaliser when he need not have been. He expanded the welfare state, the commercial role of the state and frightened off a major foreign investor (Singapore Airlines) because of his own pig-headedness and attitude to some foreign investment. If the best that can be said is it could have been worse, it is a low threshold to cross for success.

Clark needed Cullen, he was the only person in the Labour caucus that business started to trust, and who was seen as a fairly safe pair of hands to deal with the economy (she certainly wasn't seen that way). Sadly, he squandered so much of the proceeds of surplus for more welfare, a bigger state sector and more spending on health and education, with very mixed results, that now in recession the country faces a huge deficit.

Bill English is stuck with having to the dirty work of cutting this bloated state sector down to size to deal to the deficit - that is Dr Cullen's true political legacy - growing the state so much in nine years that the Nats have to have courage to reverse his work - and you all know what Labour's reaction to that will be.

Cindy Kiro's swan song - blame everyone for abuse

The Dominion Post has published an article interviewing Cindy Kiro as she leaves the role of Childrens' Commissioner. While Kiro undoubtedly is a passionate and honest advocate for children, her collectivist way of thinking remains.

She says the risk factors for child abuse are "long periods of neglect, harsh physical punishment, caregivers being unemployed, drugs, a history of spousal abuse". Hold on. The first two of those ARE forms of abuse. Unemployment is a risk, but intergenerational welfare is moreso one. Other risk factors are criminality, poor education and unplanned/unwanted children.

She says the reason for child abuse is "It's pretty simple actually. The reason they're so high is that we tolerate violence to children."

Who is this "we"? She could have said "some people", she could have said "many", but no "we" tolerate violence to children. Because "we" all do, "we" all must be part of the solution.

Then she said "I actually feel quite optimistic about the next generation of parents. I think they are much more conscious of their parenting and they want to do a really good job." As opposed to the past ones, who were abusive and didn't want to be good parents.

She concludes by supporting her highly paid role "Somebody has to be there to step up. Somebody has to make sure that when laws are made, what's happening for children and young people and their best interests are at the forefront. And that's not a simple job."

Actually Dr Kiro, it should be the part of any good Justice Ministry to take into account the impacts of all laws on different groups of people. You were an advocate for surrendering the freedom and privacy of all families for a terrifying level of state surveillance all because you believed that "we" tolerate violence.

Most parents and most families do not abuse their kids, they love them more than you ever will, and do more for them than you ever will. It's about time that you focused your efforts on the minority who do abuse and neglect, instead of thinking you should be doing your bit for all kids.

Thankfully you'll no longer have the power and influence you have had.

Time to use your Qantas Frequent Flyer points

Not only because it is easier whilst Qantas flies domestically within NZ (although you can still use them on Jetstar), but Qantas is reporting a major drop in premium business to the point where it is contemplating reducing the number of business and first class seats from some of its planes.

That means if you have Qantas Frequent Flyer points and want to book an upgrade, or a flight in one of the civilised cabins, then the time is now - clearly there are plenty of seats for the picking.

Your chances are higher if you have status of course, but in a recession there are always reasons to be optimistic - and whether you're going from economy or premium economy to business, or from business to first, it is a good way to use frequent flyer points, and to appreciate the difference between flying misery and flying in a civilised way.

Police picking on the victim... again

Oh dear, Andrei at NZ Conservative blogs about the case of Zhuofeng "Titan" Jiang.

His brave story is told in the Dominion Post. It's almost too easy to guess.

Thug attempts armed robbery of takeaway shop, having already fired a warning shot into the floor and pointing the rifle at a 19yo worker. Owner confronts thug and wrestles rifle from him, shoots the floor and then the thug in the leg. Thug runs off in agony.

Jiang rightly said "I was not scared. I would do it again. I hate these people. I will never give them any money".

Police response?

Threatening prosecution of the shop owner. A civilian who the Police could not protect, and took 10 minutes to respond to (although Jiang claims it was 25 minutes). Now the Police are also "hunting a fat man, 1.8 metres (6ft) tall, wearing dark-coloured clothing".

Yes, the Police should warn that people are taking big risks by retaliating, but when the public are denied having the right to defend themselves, when the Police are patently incapable of acting quickly to respond, what are people meant to do?

It would be nice if the Police acknowledged that the owner's actions were understandable, and the Police priority is the thug who started it all in the first place.

Sorry Rodney, it doesn't answer the question

Rodney Hide attempts to answer concerns about the Auckland super-city in the NZ Herald.

He makes a minor mistake:

"Instead of .... eight local transport entities.... there will be one of each." No Rodney, there will be three core transport infrastructure agencies, Ontrack and the NZ Transport Agency will both be responsible for the railway and the motorway networks. ARTA is the single local transport entity that is meant to co-ordinate local road network development. So no material change here.

However, more fundamentally he evades the core issue.

What should be the role of local government in Auckland?

The government's answer appears to be "whatever local government wants it to be".

ACT's policy appears quite contrary to this.

It states:

• Local government will be required to shed its commercial activity, thereby eliminating the need to separate regulatory and commercial functions between local and regional councils.
• Roads and piped water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.
• Abolish the local government power of general competency.
• Require councils to focus on their core functions.
• Ensure there is much greater scrutiny of regulations that undermine property rights.
• Promote contracting out of many council services.
• Lower the cost of complying with the Resource Management Act and other regulatory regimes.
• Review the two-tier structure of local government.

It's a lot less than I'd want, but it's a start, but all we are seeing is the last point.

So why is Rodney Hide doing next to nothing to implement ACT policy on local government?

It isn't good enough.

If an ACT Minister of Local Government is just going to maintain the Labour/Alliance/Green policy - then what was the point?

Maori Party sympathetic to Tamil Tigers?

Well it is unclear. The NZ Herald reports that the Maori Party blocked a parliamentary motion expressing concern about civilians caught in fighting between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). This has upset Jim Anderton and the Labour Party, who are both implying that the Maori Party is sympathetic to the LTTE.

Hone Harawira preferred "calling for restraint from the Sri Lankan Government in dealing with the last enclave of the Tamil Tigers", which appears to be sympathetic to the Tamil Tigers.

Now I know the Sri Lankan government has behaved appallingly towards Tamils in Sri Lanka, as the dominant Sinhalese minority discriminates against Tamils. There are legitimate issues to be addressed. However the LTTE is a terrorist organisation.

It has carried out suicide bombings, carrying out 168 such attacks over 20 years. It has been responsible for the death of hundreds through terrorist attacks. It uses civilians as human shields, and has previously recruited child soldiers.

The end of the LTTE should be welcomed, there should not be restraint in wiping out that organisation, but the fate of Tamils living in territory controlled by the LTTE is a real issue.

So the question is this. Does the Maori Party sympathise with the murderous LTTE? If not, why can it not simply express concern about the plight of civilians caught in the civil war?

Satirical twitter NZ MPs

Following from David Farrar's handy list of Twitter accounts of NZ MPs, I thought I'd filter out the serious ones and list the funny ones. Most seem to be of Labour "men", suggesting they are good characters to have a laugh at, and that maybe most National MPs don't have enough public personality to poke fun at - and Nick Smith looks like he is absent any sense of humour.

Clayton Cosgrove
David Cunliffe
Hone Harawira (new)
Keith Locke (new)
Maryan Street
Parekura Horomia
Phil Goff (he has a real one here)
Shane Jones
Sue Kedgley (she has a real one, protected though)
Trevor Mallard

Catherine Delahunty on the other hand is funny, whilst being authentic
Nick Smith's one has been suspended (haven't noticed others suspended yet)

I like Cunliffe, Horomia, Kedgley and Mallard, and Horomia looks promising. If the Nick Smith one has been suspended because Smith is a humourless git, then thumbs down to him. If Trevor Mallard, Sue Kedgley, Parekura Horomia and others can take it, then more power to them.

UK's big brother state inches forward

The BBC reports that ISPs and telcos are being "asked" to keep records of all phone calls, all emails and all website visits to assist the Police in surveillance.

Nice.

Maybe the Royal Mail should keep a record of who sends and receives mail too.

Maybe there should be microphones in public places to keep a record of who has conversations with whom.

Why? Well the usual "it's about protecting you from murderers and paedophiles" nonsense is being trotted out, ignoring that most murders are between people who know each others, as is most molestation of children - and it is rarely planned over the internet.

It is the state being lazy. Too lazy to get warrants for interception of communications of people who are suspects of real crimes. Far preferable to hold information on anyone, communicating with anyone, looking at anything online. It has abandoned the idea of a single government database of communications, but wants voluntary agreement from the comms sector (which implies if it doesn't get it, it will legislated).

"Advances in communications mean that there are ever more sophisticated ways to communicate and we need to ensure that we keep up with the technology being used by those who seek to do us harm." says Jacqui Smith.

Of course it would help if the UK didn't have prisons overflowing, with limp wristed sentencing for those committing most violent and sexual offences.

No, we would all be safer under a Police state where we were all watched and if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. After all you can trust the state can't you?

UPDATE: Crusader Rabbit has essentially posted about the same thing.

The smallest most oppressed minority

All governments treat this minority with contempt to a greater or lesser extent, although some do talk respectfully of it, their actions are rarely supportive.

They say members of this minority are "only" that minority, denigrating them as being insufficiently worthy of consideration. Members are told they are "just a ......" or "you're just thinking of yourself as a ........".

Members of this minority are always told they should think of others first, sacrifice themselves.

Members of this minority regularly have violence done to them by governments, gangs and others.

This minority has an endless history of being robbed and its diverse cultures suppressed.

All of its people belong to the land of their birth, and have no common religion.

They comprise a global diaspora seen in every country.

A common philosophy to oppress them is to talk of the "greater good" and the need for "sacrifice for the public good". Schools even raise members of this minority to believe in sacrifice and in a greater power than themselves.

What is most tragic is how some members of this minority turn on their own kind, for power, in collusion with the oppressors.

Perhaps most universal is how the most successful, talented and brilliant are subject to punitive taxes, denigration and told they are "up themselves". Those who set up businesses are thought of as slave merchants. Those who are simple workers are treated as imbeciles incapable of making their own decisions.

You should know this minority well, it is the human individual.

and if governments treated everyone on the same basis, gave everyone's body and property the same rights, and protected this minority as a non-negotiable absolute - then no minorities would be oppressed.

(Reminded of this by Andrei at NZ Conservative)

Auckland's new motorway

9 May will give Aucklanders a chance to walk and bike for the first and last time on a piece of transport infrastructure paid for motorists that motorists can use, and which will deliver significant benefits in reduced journey times and vehicle operating costs, whilst also improving the local environment.

The Mt Roskill extension to State Highway 20 (SH20) will be open for cyclists and pedestrians to have a look around before it is opened for all traffic.

It has long been a worthwhile project, delayed by a group that wanted to save the volcanic cones along the route, and latterly by the Greens, it cost NZ$201 million and will greatly speed travel between west Auckland (Avondale, New Lynn, Blockhouse Bay and Glen Eden), the airport and Manukau City. It also widens the section from Queenstown Road to Hillsborough Road to 3 lanes each way.

What is effectively now the South-Western Motorway will now run from Puhinui/Wiri in the south (where it currently terminates at Roscommon Road) to Owairaka. It will also mean both Dominion Road and Sandringham Road will be connected more directly to the airport, relieving Mt Albert Road of congestion and providing alternative routes from central Auckland to the airport.

The Greens opposed it, pushed for it to be delayed by the government (which it was, briefly), supported protecting the volcanoes and wanted a rail line instead. Keith Locke even claimed that "SH 20 is a waste of public money at a time when climate change, local air pollution and oil depletion will all be much worse by the time it is opened".

Give Labour credit, this is one project that your fuel taxes have been spent wisely on.

Judge for yourselves. The 4.5 km extension will start opening for road users between 15 May and early June.

Already under construction is the next phase of SH20, linking the southern end to the Southern Motorway, then there will be a fast, efficient route from west Auckland to the south.

Funnily enough, whilst there is debate about having a megacity for Auckland, Auckland City Council seems to have stuffed up its small related projects. The foot and cycle path is incomplete because of a 66% cost blowout, and Auckland City Council hasn't prioritised widening Tiverton and Wolverton Roads (which link the motorway to New Lynn) so those routes are likely to remain congested.

Auckland City appears far more interested in My Fair Lady than paying its share to complete roads linking to a new motorway. Having said that, the contract for the motorway was signed at $168.9 million and is finishing at $201 million - nice bit of contract management there :/

While the Mt. Albert by-election proceeds you might ask the Labour candidate (whoever that turns out to be, Labour doesn't seem to care) why it wants to spend $2.9 billion on the final section of this motorway entirely in a bored tunnel when it is a similar length to the section just completed for $201 million? Why is Mt. Albert special?

Anyway, more detail on the exact design of the motorway extension is here and the overall project.

The Economist lays into Gordon Brown

In the leader this week, the Economist talks about the latest UK budget and describes it as "a dishonest piece of pre-election politicking", concluding that "the public is losing patience with him, and so is this newspaper".

It describes his strength as "dour pragmatism", but that he resorts to scheming and incompetent tribal politics.

Gordon Brown brought "two all-too-political sleights of hand: a string of over-optimistic economic assumptions and the misleading message that soaking the rich could absolve the other 98% of the population from personal sacrifice"

It assumes the UK economy will be growing by the end of 2009, and will grow by 3.5% in 2011, meaning public sector spending need only grow at 0.7% that year, which the Economist says is "a far more optimistic view than either the IMF or most private-sector economists take. No prudent prime minister would have allowed it." The prediction that state spending would go up so little was due to strong economic growth.

The implication being that assuming Labour loses the next election, the Tories face cutting spending significantly to meet this target if the economy does not recover so rapidly.

The higher tax on incomes over £150,000 is just as problematic, as it fails to address the need to drastically cut spending (or increase other taxes if that isn't done).

The Economist concludes:

"This must seem like clever politics to Mr Brown and his crew: folk have been inflamed by the greed and grubbiness of bailed-out bankers. In the short run, a bit of class war may work. But, like Nixon, Mr Brown is already struggling to escape the suspicion that he has a grudge against the world. And for every voter who likes the idea of soaking the rich, there may be several who remember that Labour pledged at the last election not to raise tax rates during the life of this parliament. "

It is worse than that, as the tax free allowance starts withering above £100,000 - a psychological threshold that now says "don't bother".

The Labour government has pretended for far too long that the top rate taxpayers will tolerate being milked for the inefficient and inept NHS, and the enormous welfare sector that includes huge state spending on housing, cheap education and a multitude of programmes for business and the general populace. The truth is UK taxpayers can't afford it - the Tories also know that if they win in 2010, they will have to tell taxpayers this, and cut spending, harshly. Then Labour will say how "cruel" the Tories are, without proposing to hike taxes up by a similar proportion.

It shows how utterly bereft of moral authority Gordon Brown's government is, systematically wrecking the public finances for the next government, delaying the inevitable, so it can blame the Tories for doing what could have been done years ago - balance the budget.

Hone Harawira vs Steve Baron

David Farrar has blogged the case of Steve Baron, who Hone Harawira MP "shut down" using rather strong language according to the Waikato Times.

Hone called him "racist" because Baron apparently

Steve Baron has his own blog and presents his view here.

He said:

Here is the question I was trying to ask, as requested.

""Given the injustices past governments have imposed on minorities like Maori, Chinese, homosexual (he became very agressive and cut me off here), would you and or the Maori party support the introduction of binding referendums as a check and balance on governments."

I attempted to rephrase the question so as not to refer to any of the three as a minority but got shouted down again. His opinion is that Maori are not a minority, but tangata whenua."

Now I don't know Steve Baron from the proverbial bar of soap, he was an independent candidate in the 2005 election in Pakuranga, and came third (beating the ACT and NZ First candidates). However, that is besides the point.

Of course National relies on the Maori Party for confidence and supply, so I expect little concern to be expressed about Hone Harawira's outburst from government quarters.

Hone sees Maori as "special" being "tangata whenua" (well some of the tangata whenua, if you're born in New Zealand you are not tangata whenua), and indeed this is the fundamental point of difference.

For Hone, (and Metirei Turia and many others) this is why they do not see being Maori as a matter of race, for being Maori is more than just being ethnically different - it is being ethnically special.

For for him, who your parents and grandparents and great grandparents are really matters as to how he wants the law, government and himself to treat and judge you. Calling you "racist" is a simple way to dismiss you as irrelevant and call on the hounds of others of your race to evade argument.

John Key questions more sin tax

Yes, what a shift from Nanny Helen!?!

According to Stuff, the Prime Minister John Key on NewsTalk ZB said:

"I think you've got to be very careful you don't get in a situation where you simply whack up the price of booze and everybody gets affected because some, particularly young people, are going out on benders," he said.

"Because they (the Labour government) did that with the sherry tax and all that did was stop grandma having a sherry at night as opposed to the real purpose. . . I am not saying we have a closed mind to this issue, we will look at solutions.

"It is a problem, alcohol abuse, but not everybody drinking is abusing alcohol."

Yes - don't punish everyone for the bad behaviour of a minority. We no longer have a Headmistress running the country, but someone who actually believes that it is ok that many people drink alcohol responsibly, and that it is NOT ok to just tax them more because some people behave criminally while drunk.

This will amazingly confuse many bureaucrats. It is OK some people drink alcohol? Not everyone who drinks should be punished for it? Who would've thought?

Prince of Wales hypocrisy continues

It's not really news that Prince Charles is a Royal hypocrite on environmental matters.

So his latest antics say it all - according to the Mail on Sunday he decided to embark on a five day tour of Europe to promote environmental issues. He, with an entourage of 11 are flying to Rome, Venice and Berlin. For a man who is "so concerned" about climate change, you might think he'd avoid flying all over the place.

To top it off, he has a chartered a plane for the trip instead of booking commercial flights. Apparently 52.95 tons of carbon will be emitted by his trip, "nearly five times the average person's 11-ton footprint for an entire year".

Really, it does demonstrate how clearly having this man as a head of state is ridiculous. Of course he does a wonderful service is discrediting almost everything he says by his own actions.