Budapest - museum capital of the world

Well maybe. Besides a good selection of art galleries, the Museum of Terror focused on communism and fascism, the Jewish Museum and Holocaust museum, national history, transport, and standard national and metropolitan museums, Budapest has ample evidence of a past when whole families were expected to go out on a Sunday and observe the past (going to church wasn't a big deal under Marxism-Leninism).

I haven't been to any of these, but it is rather sad that I am curious about more than one of them (and have no time to go now):

Pharmacy Museum
Museum of Actors and Actresses
Stamp Museum
Bible Museum
Underground Railway Museum
Military Baths Museum (baths would be too big a category)
Ambulance Museum
Electrical Engineering Museum
Museum of Hungarian Commerce and Catering (how did people cook in the past?)
Television Museum of the Technical and Programming TV (not just communist TV)
Marzipan Museum (see how unnatural it is?)
Agricultural Museum
Geological Museum (don't look at new rocks)
Foundry Museum
Postal Museum (not the stamp museum, don't expect stamps here!)
Museum of Crime (got to be worth a look!)
Museum of Medical History (not pharmacies though!)
Sport Museum
Telephone Museum
Textile Museum
Fire Service Museum
Flag Museum

So it is either the place for museum buffs, or a place to bore most kids senseless.

Keep politicians away from roads

The nonsense of Auckland City Councillors arguing about whether a barely used bus lane should be allowed to have wider usage speaks volumes about why politicians are profoundly incompetent at running what is essentially a utility service.

It's very simple. The NZ Herald reports that the Auckland City transport committee has decided to allow the Tamaki Drive bus lane to be open to any vehicles with 2 or more occupants, largely because the lane lies empty every 7.5 minutes at peak times, whilst parallel lanes are congested. An intelligent decision, although it could be better (as there is no reason why all heavy vehicles couldn't use it, since they pay more than any other vehicles to use the roads anyway, and have no reasonable alternative.

However, the leftwing halfwits at City Vision disagree. They would rather a precious scarce resource (road space) remain empty, whilst cars, taxis and trucks sit held up, wasting more fuel (and emitting more pollution and CO2) than would otherwise be the case. They baulk at money for the conversion coming from the "public transport fund", which of course is a little precious.

It's a quasi-Soviet central planner attitude that people using cars are "bad" and should be punished (presumably also trucks, because freight should go on rail), but public transport is "good" and everyone else should be forced to subsidise it.

Auckland's local roads should be given over to a new council controlled organisation, at arms length from all politicians, with a board, and a mandate to operate the road network to encourage free flow of people and goods and make a profit doing so. It would get money from kerbside parking (which it would run to maximise profits), any tolling, rates (as a transitional measure) and bidding funds from the National Land Transport Fund (as councils do at present). It should also be allowed to hand over local streets to body corporates of adjoining property owners if they so wish, and build new roads (tolling them if it sees fit).

Then you might get roads for those who pay for them, with the highest priority going to those who pay the most - at the moment truck owners and private cars.

So do that along with amalgamating Auckland councils (and getting rid of the power of general competence), and you might help address Auckland transport far more than an electric train set.

ACT's first serious (partial) let down?

A law on what people wear in public in one district.

After all, couldn't pubs, clubs and restaurants just enforce private property rights and set their own rules?

Good on Heather Roy and Sir Roger Douglas for being principled opponents, shame on Rodney, David Garrett and John Boscawen. You cannot pretend to be for less government or the liberal party by supporting the criminalisation of what people wear in public in one district.

It is not just authoritarian, but ludicrous that there is now a separate criminal law (not bylaw) for a distinct local authority district.

It is one thing for ACT's policy to disappoint me as a libertarian, but to actively machinate to support a new - victimless - criminal law, is appalling. The issue of course is that it isn't party policy, but for individual MPs - of whom only Rodney Hide is directly voted (and without whom none of the others would be there).

So I'll leave it to Bernard Darnton, Lindsay Mitchell and Blair Mulholland to conclude. Garrett and Boscawen appear to believe it, but Rodney Hide? He always talked differently - now with this, and the mega city, he looks like the others, it's a pity. I always hoped I would be wrong about ACT in government. This appears to be its first active support for MORE government not less. Shame.

How to help families?

Homepaddock proposes an excellent first step:

"If the Families Commission was really serious about addressing the causes of neglect and abuse it would disestablish itself and request that the funding it gets is redirected to where it will make a positive difference."

Now I know it would mean bugger all when you spread it around all families, but it is the principle of the thing.

Besides, wouldn't it be fun to watch Peter Dunne have a hissy fit about his pet bureaucracy?

If he left the government nobody would care, and it would be far preferable for government supporters to vote for a National candidate in 2011 than Dunne. Winston's gone, Anderton must be nearly retirement, about time to remove the last party that is simply an offspring of Labour.

Hungary 1989 - the iron curtain was cut

Today is the 20th anniversary of the day the Iron Curtain was cut. It followed Hungary's own movement towards freedom that paralleled that of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev. Karoly Grosz had become General Secretary of the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party in May 1988, and began a process of liberalisation.

Widespread protests in 1988 calling for democracy saw multi-party elections announced in February 1989. Along with that came freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and the right to form competitive trade unions. In April 1989, the USSR agreed to withdraw all Soviet troops from Hungary by 1991.

However it was the removal of barbed wire between Hungary and Austria, and the "shoot to kill" policy of border guards on 6 May 1989, that saw the Iron Curtain pulled to one corner, and the light of the West draw thousands.

You see passport holders in the Warsaw Pact countries had freedom of movement between those countries. East Germans notably could travel freely to (then) Czechoslovakia and onto Hungary, and now onto the West. 30,000 did so between May and September 1989, before the geriatric thugs in the dying German Democratic Republic (GDR) put up their own restrictions on travel to Hungary. East Germans kept fleeing to Czechoslovakia, which had its own border closed in October before protests by hundreds of thousands in the streets saw Erich Honecker himself deposed by his own party.

Then the Wall came down.

Today I am in Budapest, by pure coincidence. It is a thriving city of free people, as it always should have been, and a city that remembers what it went through from the terror of a brief period of fascist rule in 1940, to Soviet imperialism, the 1956 uprising and its crushing and the sheer terror of never knowing from one day to the next whether the state would turn on you next.

Budapest has a Museum of Terror, dedicated not to terrorism as we know it, but the terror of the period of Hungary under dictatorship - from its own fascism to Nazi occupation. to the Soviet occupation and its socialist stooges. It includes pointedly, a long list of those who were the foot soldiers in this police state, the prison guards, the "judges" who proclaimed death sentences and the secret police men and women who bullied their own people. It was designed to name and shame those who "were only following orders" and so did what most would think was unthinkable - murdering, imprisoning and torturing in the name of "the people" and "the party" and "the revolution".

Today is a day worthy of celebrating, for it is remarkable to think that this once Marxist Leninist dictatorship is today a free member of NATO and the European Union. It is also worthy remembering that most of the former Soviet Union itself, at best has only just started really having some of that freedom, at worst is under a similar level of tyranny, with a different name. The philosophical and political battle for freedom in the former Soviet bloc is far from over.

Mt Albert and that motorway

One issue that both Labour and the Greens are making a big deal for the by-election is the Waterview motorway extension to SH20, which will link the soon to be finished Mt Roskill extension to the North Western motorway, effectively completing the Western Ring Road.

The bottom line is this:

Labour wants to bore a tunnel for the route (it isn't through a hill). This would come to around $2.8 billion. Note all the other sections of the Western Ring Road are open cut trenched motorways, note the total cost for the other six sections that have been built since 2000 is less than half this. In other words, you might wonder why the motorway through the former PM's electorate was to be a goldplated (but narrow) tunnel, but the other sections were left to be open motorways?

National is reviewing the alternatives, including a cut and cover tunnel, or an open cut road, like the other sections, on the ground it could save between $0.5 and $0.8 billion. It doesn't have Helen Clark on the end of the phone demanding her precious ex.electorate be protected from the big bad road.

The Greens don't want the road built at all, they want a railway line to connect west to south Auckland, and presumably prefer the roads between the two motorways to be congested. I guess they hope think road transport will become hienously expensive, and so everyone will use trains shooting past empty road.

Of course the decision will be made by this government. So which candidate is likely to make a difference to this?

Not Russel Norman. The government will ignore a local MP who says no road. Besides the Greens should be happy, they are getting their big electric train set.

Not David Shearer. He can jump up and down as much as he likes, but he wont have access to the government. Besides, there isn't enough money in the National Land Transport Fund to pay for more greenplated tunnels that aren't going under hills (the Victoria Park Tunnel will take enough money as it is thank you).

Melissa Lee? Well yes she will have access to Bill English and Steven Joyce, who will decide on the availability of extra money to the New Zealand Transport Agency, which in effect will determine the option selected. She is best placed to influence it.

On my part, I think it should be built when the private sector thinks it will be worth it, or at least when it is a better spend than paying for all the other roads that can be funded from road taxes.

Of course, Mt Albert voters might want to make a different choice. A choice about whether they want to vote for more government or less government.

It might be better to just wait to see who all the candidates will be, before making a choice.

UPDATE: ACT candidate John Boscawen has sensibly argued that the Waterview extension should be a surface level motorway, he isn't wanting to pillage taxpayers to placate local interests. He says "no more Buy election" which is quite clever, and in fact making it a surface motorway (like all the other sections) will make it far more affordable. Good for him, by contrast Labour was rolling out the pork for Mt Albert on this issue before the general election, and is doing the same now. (and credit to Gooner for his comment as I was typing this!).

Go on, take real action on global warming

Frogblog is quoting a survey saying "a majority of kiwis support taking real action to combat global warming". Fine, who is stopping them? The survey the Greens are quoting lists a whole host of "measures", which I don't have a problem with, if they involve people making their own choices or they are about getting the hell out of the way of making choices. So let's go through them, nice to get rid of the euphemisms and describe what they really are

"More incentives for households to improve energy efficiency" means forcing other people to pay others to save money by being more efficient. Oh please. How about letting electricity operate at market prices, by privatising it, and not really caring where prices go as a result?

"Incentives for businesses developing renewable energy projects (like wind, solar, wave, geothermal, hydro power)" means forcing other people to pay for businesses in the renewable energy sector that the state identifies. Another option could be to zero tax any companies primarily engaging in that sector, but that starts to become complicated, better to just reduce the burden of tax on business overall.

"Lower vehicle registration fees for fuel efficient and low-emission vehicles" means reducing money to spend on road safety promotion and Police enforcement of traffic laws. Though the main part of registration fees primarily pay ACC (which would be better off just being open to competition and choice), and also pay for road safety promotion and Police enforcement of traffic laws. So do the Greens want less spent on road safety, or money transferred from roads? Yeah you've figured it out already.

"A cash incentive to encourage replacement of energy inefficient home appliances with energy efficient ones" means forcing you to pay for people to buy new appliances. Nice, could always just cut GST on them instead, or just cut taxes overall so people can better afford them. Guess it doesn't matter if the reason people don't buy them is it is cheaper to buy others and spend the difference on something more important right?

"Financial incentives to purchase fuel efficient, low emission vehicles" making you pay for other people to buy new cars!! When was the last time you bought a brand new car? Yep very Green. Could always just cut GST on them too.

"Incentives for landowners to plant more carbon sink forests" making you pay for landowners to plant trees. Yep. Own land do you? Nope no money for you.

"New Government investment funds to help quickly commercialise new lower-emission technology invented in New Zealand" making you pay for "businesses" that aren't profitable in the hope they are. How's your business doing? Yep maybe they'd all like a company tax cut?

"Lower road user charges for diesel vehicles using lower-emission bio fuels" less money for roads because I haven't noticed the type of fuel trucks and buses use reducing the wear and tear they impose.

"A Government information programme to advise businesses and households about climate change policies and ways to help manage it" forcing you to pay to be told what to do by the government. Is it polite to call it propaganda?

"Increasing goods transportation by rail and coastal shipping" how? What's stopping those who want to, doing it now? Oh yes, it often costs more. So is this about forcing you to pay for goods to be shipped at higher than cost? Where is the evidence this will make a difference?

"Increased spending on research to produce technology to help reduce emissions" force you to pay for more research. Be more polite to ask.

"Subsidies for farmers to use fertilisers which inhibit the release of nitrogen, lowering emissions and improving water quality" force you to subsidise farms. Fertiliser subsidies went in the 1980s, and this would hurt arguing for less subsidies in agriculture at the WTO, but the Greens don't care about exports soo...

"Assistance to sell New Zealand emissions reduction technology to other countries" subsidises for marketing to countries? So governments then? So are businesses that incompetent that they need to force others to pay for their marketing?

"Replacing road user tax with a lower vehicle licensing levy for light diesel vehicles, including cars" This doesn't even make sense. So light diesel vehicles should have their road use subsidised so they pay an annual fee instead of according to usage? Buy a diesel and use it as much as you like - very Green??

"Allowing forest owners to cut their trees and replant substitute carbon-sink forests on other marginal land without incurring any emissions penalty" Yes!! DON'T do anything that penalises behaviour that can reduce CO2 emissions. That can't be hard.

"Higher road user charges for vehicles which are not fuel and emissions efficient," oh so making a windfall profit from such vehicles, to spend on what? More roads? Didn't think so. Oh to subsidise the other ones for the costs they impose. Any evidence this would work?

"Higher road user charges for diesel vehicles which do not use lower-emission bio fuels" ditto

Bar one, it is all about making you pay more to prop up unprofitable businesses or to pay people to do something that likely benefits them financially (reducing energy use).

Here are four better ideas:

1. People who believe "more should be done" to prevent climate change should do it themselves. Turn off the lights, drive less and do all this without tax or regulation. Live the ascetic low carbon footprint lifestyle, and you can tell others to do so as well, but don't force them.

2. Stop getting in the way of low CO2 business activities. Nuclear power is an obvious one (which may go nowhere but still), but also cutting taxes and regulatory barriers to establishing any such businesses.

3. Stop subsidising business activities that emit CO2. Buses would be a start, since the majority of bus users don't have access to a car, you might find they walk or cycle, or travel less.

4. Get government out of activities that emit CO2. Privately owned energy and transport companies wont tolerate unprofitable activities or poor rates of return, so wont subsidise prices or run poorly used services. Coal mining is the other obvious one, farming too. This also includes roads, which governments stubbornly underprice at peak times, and overprice in areas where roads are cheap to maintain (e.g. Canterbury).

So would the Greens support getting the hell out of the way of more environmentally friendly businesses, and stop subsidising sectors that produce emissions, stop owning businesses that produce emissions?

Three bills on Auckland mega city

The NZ Herald reports there are to be three bills setting up the new Auckland uber stadt rat, one to set it up as a legal entity and establish transition boards, a second dealing with representation issues and a third "detailing structure, functions, roles and powers of super Auckland council and local boards".

Maybe we'll get answers about what the new council is meant to do?

Maybe that's the time to demand that the power of general competence be abolished, as is ACT policy (and which National opposed when the Local Government Bill was being put through Parliament).

Let's take the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee in 2002 and what National said then:

"National members of the Local Government and Environment Select Committee strongly disagree with the process, policy, and detail of this bill.

National believes it will result in increased duplication of services and inefficiencies, and, when things go wrong, a lack of accountability and buck-passing. National believes Parliament should clearly define the role and function of local and regional councils.

Councils will have a freer hand to invest in particular activities but not divest in areas such as ports, housing, and water systems. This introduces a structured bias towards expanding councils and their playing an ever-increasing role in our economy and citizens’ lives. National believes that increasing the size and involvement of local government will only make harder the ambition to return New Zealand to the top half of the OECD."

Quite! So what are you going to do about it?

Phones, streets and mail not safe for children

That's my reaction to the Privacy Commissioner's absurd declaration that the "internet is not safe for children".

What is?

Travel? Talking to people on the phone? Sending letters? Talking to neighbours? Relatives? Playing sports? Climbing trees? Swimming pools? Playing in the streets?

It really becomes a matter of applying your mind to the situation, and when children are involved, an appropriate amount of supervision. Smart kids manage risk, and smart adults know the extent and degree of keeping an eye on their kids.

In the scheme of things, the internet isn't dangerous. Physically it does nothing at all other than facilitate information and conversation. Of course if you let your kids take photos and send them without permission it becomes a little riskier. If your kids seek attention from strangers then maybe it is because they can't talk to you about certain things, or they are from a home lacking a parent. As much attention should be paid to those who seek out inappropriate attention, as those who respond to it.

Meeting people you only know from the internet is risky, just as risky as pen pals once were i bet, just easier. Simple rules around never meeting people without someone else present, who is an adult, is key.

This issues comes up perenially, this time because a man was luring underage girls to talk about sex with him online. He of course is now paying a price for that, the law is strict and is in itself a deterrent. However, the internet for many kids is probably far less risky than Uncle Tom, or Cousin Jed, especially if you leave them alone, they are alcoholic, and you as parents spend large amounts of time partying, or being absent. Risks need to be in perspective. The bigger risk comes from meeting people you don't know who might abuse you. These people are often brought in by adults as friends, or partners.

However, all that gets the attention of law enforcement on the internet is not the result of adults. You see the truth is that censorship laws are producing some new perverse results - according to Wired thanks to camera phones and web cams, teenagers (they aren't children and not adults) are now being prosecuted for producing child pornography. Why? Because they take photos of themselves and send them on. In one ridiculous case a teenage couple have been prosecuted because they filmed themselves having sex, and sent it to no one.

The internet is presenting new challenges to parenting, it also means taking a realistic approach to what young people do. It is more an opportunity than a risk. It offers unparalleled access to information and entertainment. It makes it far easier for young people who feel isolated and alone to explore the world, and learn about themselves and others. In short it offers far more good than bad.

Children shouldn't be exploring the internet unsupervised, but as they get older they should be allowed more and more freedom. They will talk to friends online, they may make new ones, and yes, some will explore sexuality - like they have for time immemorial. Yes, they should be protected from being hurt and harmed by predatory adults, but given the rate of teenage pregnancy far too many are experimenting with each other in the riskiest way. Wouldn't many parents rather that their teenagers sat behind a computer looking at pictures and chatting to strangers they never meet, than went out partying, getting drunk, and risking getting pregnant (or someone pregnant) or catching something nasty?

Risk is all around, it is about life. The best gift any parent can give to their children is to nurture their ability to reason, balance risk with opportunity and make informed judgments, and to be monitored, and observed as they mature with that ability.

The internet is no different.

Bludging kiwis should thank Rudd government

$A22 billion of spending on 100 new fighter jets and 12 submarines by Australia is a substantial commitment over the next 10 years, along with confirmation that its military alliance with the US is the cornerstone of its defence policy.

Have no bones about it, this means Australia is maintaining its strong defence presence in the region and its ability to project its air and sea power around its lengthy territorial waters. It is a commitment Australia has maintained throughout the Cold War and since.

Sadly, New Zealand has eroded its military commitment to the defence of the South Pacific in several stages since the mid 1980s. It started with the effective abandonment of ANZUS when the Lange government, following extensive goading from the left of the Labour Party, took an ideological hardline against the US Navy. The Lange government refused to accept a conventional powered, nuclear incapable ship because the US "neither confirmed nor denied" it carried nuclear weapons.

Following that, New Zealand has eroded its blue water navy to 2 frigates, and eliminated its air strike capability. As a result, with New Zealand effectively unable to contribute more than 2 frigates (and the army) to an overseas actions, its contribution to the collective defence of the South Pacific is derisory, through no fault of the forces themselves.

So New Zealand should be grateful at Australian taxpayers continuing their commitment. The truth is that the New Zealand armed forces are capable of maintaining some defence of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) from illegal fishing, but not any serious attack, or assisting Australia in the likelihood of any attack.

From Lange to Clark, New Zealand governments have wimped out of defence, because New Zealanders always felt safe from invasion. The idea of contributing to a defence alliance has seemed fanciful, suiting the "independent foreign policy" stance of the so called "peace movement".

Defence is a core role of the state, and while the current government will be fiscally constrained in a recession to remedy it, it should be addressed over the medium term. Meanwhile, a big "thank you" should be extended to the Rudd government, for maintaining Australia's defence forces over the longer term, and in effect, New Zealand at the same time, whilst New Zealand can effectively contribute proportionately so little in return.

How Turkey put back membership of the EU

One of the more presumptious statements of President Obama in the past month has been to support Turkey's membership of the EU. An understandable position, but I suspect had George Bush said it, Europe would be seething with "imperialist" and damnation that the US was meddling in EU affairs. Given the USA is not a member of the EU, for it to openly express a view that it should accept a new member is rather rude at best.

However, the bigger issue itself has long been a debate between those who believe such membership would promote the acceptance of secular Turkey's modernisation, a predominantly Muslim country accepted into the European club, vs. those who fear the mass migration of Turks into the rest of the EU, swamping the state welfare, health, education and housing systems, and putting EU boundaries at Syria and Iraq, rather than Turkey as they are today. Besides 6 countries of eastern Europe, plus all of the former USSR (besides the Baltic states) remain out of the EU. A bigger case can be made for the integration of the former Yugoslav republics in the EU than Turkey.

Christopher Hitchens argues in Slate that Turkey itself has put its own case backwards by a long shot. It did this by:
- Opposing the PM of Denmark as a candidate for NATO Secretary General, because he refused to interfere with Danish newspapers publishing the famous "insulting to Islam" cartoons because he had no legal right to do so;
- Opposing the PM of Denmark as a candidate for NATO Secretary General, because he refused to shut down a Kurdish language satellite TV channel, accusing it of being sympathetic to terrorism.

Hitchens argues that these show Turkey is not willing to accept the values of the EU of free speech and tolerance, and with its continued discrimination against Kurds, and denial of the Armenian genocide of 90 years ago, Turkey has a fair way to go yet.

"Put it like this: Obama's "quiet diplomacy" has temporarily conciliated the Turks while perhaps permanently alienating the French and has made it more, rather than less, likely that the American goal of Turkish EU membership will now never be reached. And this is the administration that staked so much on the idea of renewing our credit on the other side of the Atlantic. This evidently can't be done by sweetness alone."

3 May 1979 - the day Maggie's revolution started

Yes, it's the 30th anniversary of the day that British voters turned their back on the failures of the Labour minority government of James Callaghan. Persistent strikes, growing unemployment, inflation and the general state of decay of the United Kingdom in the late 1970s meant Labour was voted out (as governments are). Margaret Thatcher was new, a woman as leader of a major political party, with the Conservatives campaigning hard to attract Labour voters. An 8.1% swing to the Conservatives came from Labour and the Liberals, with the Scottish National Party also suffering (as it supported the no-confidence vote). Britain was not to know what was about to hit it.

Thatcher turned the UK economy around, she did not, as widely believed, cut state spending in real terms. In increased on average throughout her period, but the difference is that the economy grew faster, and she shrank the size of the state through privatisation.

Inflation was tamed, a vast industrial sector that suffered from chronically poor productivity was restructured, and limits on innovation and competition were dramatically reduced. Air, telecommunications, bus, rail and energy monopolies were broken up, and entrepreneurship grew once again.

Thatcher took on the militant unions, the unions that hated secret ballots that they couldn't rig, the unions that forced workers to be members, the unions that had funding and support from the totalitarian USSR. She won, as these violent institutions (that bullied and harassed those who valued their jobs more than the unionists) were no longer in control of the economy.

She ejected the vile military dictatorship of Argentina from the Falklands, and with Ronald Reagan confronted the grand evil of the Soviet Union, until Mikhail Gorbachev demonstrated he was willing to let the shackles of Soviet imperialism be removed.

She resisted the growth of the European Community beyond being merely a collaboration of free trade and movement of people, to being an institution of subsidy and regulation. She saw the EC as reversing what she was trying to do in deregulating Britain. She has been proven right.

However, overall she turned the tide on a postwar consensus of socialist mediocrity, a view that individuals knew best how to live their lives (though sadly with a conservative streak that did not stretch to social liberalism), and that success and entrepreneurship would save Britain, not more state sector control and bureaucracy. Allowing people to buy their own state houses at a discount opened up home ownership to thousands, and started to wind back the desolate decaying depression of council house dominated Britain.

Despite much hatred of her by the left, she did not dismantle the welfare state, or the NHS or the state schooling system. All got more funding in real terms under Thatcher's rule, and all were too difficult to seriously confront and reform. She was not without faults, her big mistake was the Poll Tax, as people resisted paying more for local government - when they really needed local government to shrink further. Her warmth towards Pinochet of Chile was a tragic mistake too, her love of the free market and hatred of socialism blinded her to the brutality of his dictatorship. She was, after all, a conservative, not a libertarian.

So today Britain should celebrate what she did. She was so successful it transformed the Labour Party so that, to some extent, the Blair government continued her reforms and did little to roll back the clock (primarily it just spent more on what the government did). She did not defeat socialism in Britain, but she slashed it back - the spirit and philosophy of socialism still pumps through the veins of this country, and is seen in petty fascist local government, the continued growth in the state sector, and the stifling lack of accountability from the NHS behemoth.

Much of Britain still seethes with hatred for success and the wealthy, as can be seen by the majority support for the new 50% top income tax rate, but it at least has had a chance, and as a result of Maggie has not slipped back like Italy and France have over the past few decades. It is a country I enjoy living and working in because of this - and I hope Baroness Thatcher is aware of that anniversary, and can quietly enjoy it with loved ones.

I for one am glad at the revolution she brought, she had more courage and fortitude than any of the spineless little men she led, and the ones she needed to fight to get where she was. The Conservative Party sadly being a repositary of too many privileged mediocrities. I wish the Conservatives could have the courage to complete the job, and that the philosophical arguments for less government can be argued more forcefully. Perhaps one day, and perhaps Britain can start to be grateful for what she did.

UPDATE: The Sunday Times says "It's time to invoke the spirit of Maggie".
The Times reports on seven born at the time, only one who is wholly negative, some have shown the entrepreneurial spirit she helped unlock.
David Aaronvitch (typically centre left) in the Times writes how those in 1979 couldn't have anticipated what was to come, from the winter of discontent and the punk era to...
The Daily Telegraph has comments from friends and foes alike, but has a whole section on her (unsurprisingly)
The Daily Telegraph asks David Cameron to dare to be unpopular

"Mr Cameron will need a degree of commitment and courage at least as great as Margaret Thatcher’s, because if he is to have any chance of success, he will have to pursue policies which generate as much anger, bitterness and unpopularity as those of the “Iron Lady”. That, of course, should not stop him – any more than it stopped her"

Or if you want to see the slithering beast that she helped slay read the comments on the Guardian's pathetic little piece, where she is blamed for British kids being obese

but the leftwing Mirror is at least dignified.

Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail laments how she failed, as Major and Labour afterwards did much damage.

Gordon Brown's popularity

Gordon Brown went on Youtube in the past week, though you have to wonder at his incongruous smiles in the video. The Daily Mail reports that a Downing Street spokesman said "it had banned comments on its own site – where the video was also published – because the task of ‘moderating offensive comments would be too arduous’."

However, it doesn't beat the British Government's efforts to be democratic, by allowing people to set up e-petitions to go to the Prime Minister. What a great idea Kalvis Jansons thought.

Just check out which one is by far the most popular.

(Hat tip: BBC Have I Got News for You)

Hard left against Auckland uber city?

Well there is a website against it, and frankly if what it is saying about the supercity is true, I might be far more relaxed about it.

Sadly, I think not.

It suggests "Water, Transport, Waste management, Parks etc will
become Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s)" so would be at arms length, run professionally to deliver good service and recover costs from those willing to pay for the services, and wouldn't be subject to politicians pillaging ratepayers or manipulating the provision of services to meet narrow interests.

It suggests "We the public will pay for services we already own outright." You know, because it costs nothing to supply water, roads or collect rubbish. Once you own something you never have to pay to use it ever again, or maintain it. What mindless drivel

Then "Our Public assets will be Commercialised, Corporatised and then Privatised. Metrowater is a perfect example of profiteering from essential public services. The intention is to set up one giant metrowater and spread user pays for waste water across the entire Auckland region." If only! Food is a perfect example of profiteering from essential public services. So is clothing. Why the fear? England has fully privatised water, and nobody has dehydrated as a result. Why shouldn't users pay, unless of course you use a lot and think others should pay for you by force.

The inane errors in the arguments conclude with the ideal "Originally Auckland was run by the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and Borough Councils, this model was dismantled in the 1980’s under Rogernomics so private companies could profit from public services. The destruction of this system was called amalgamation."

Yes the ARA presided over an uninterrupted continuous plummet in bus patronage as it ran its starved bus monopoly into the ground, underinvesting, with no bus priority systems and no transfer ticketing. Well done. Auckland's water, wastewater and stormwater starved too, so much so there is a huge backlog of stormwater work still being done. It grossly underinvested in Auckland airport so much that Air NZ spent its own money upgrading the domestic terminal, the then Ansett built its own terminal, and the international terminal could barely handle growing demand. Oh and road investment in Auckland was starved so much that designated corridors to complete the South Western Motorway, Henderson and Central motorways were abandoned.

Oh it was dismantled so that ratepayers could get better services at lower cost than council run monopolies that arrogantly didn't give a damn about customers. It has partly worked.

This campaign is being led by Penny Bright of the Marxist "Water Pressure Group", who think water is a "right" so nobody should have to pay for it, which begs the question how you maintain the system and operate it. The rabid mob don't care as long as the users don't have to (force anyone but the users to pay). It has support from leftwing rag "The Aucklander" and cheekily links to an Owen McShane article damning the super city for very different reasons.

The rhetoric is all about democracy, which of course means pillaging a minority to pay for what a minority say is good for the majority.

So it's kind of funny. The hard left think the supercity is about privatising Auckland by stealth, libertarians think it is plain old amalgamation while keeping the left's vision of fully empowered intrusive local government.

Who is right?

ACT calling for voluntary student union membership

which is welcome. It is one reason people voted for ACT (I thought they also supported less local government, but not a peep about that).

So come on Anne Tolley? Do you believe in change and freedom, or do you support compulsory membership of the youth training camps for Labour and Green politicians called student unions?

Broadband initiative should be shelved

Rather than duplicate the good work of someone else, the press release from Libertarianz spokesman Luke Howison on the government's broadband proposals says it all for me:

While the proposal tries to present itself as forward-looking and visionary, it is really just about identifying a currently fashionable investment and then throwing huge amounts of taxpayers' money at it. It is very easy to be visionary when you are spending someone else's money and have no accountability for the financial success of the investment.

The best thing the government could do would be to remove the barriers to private sector investment in telecommunications and to accept that if there isn't enough customer demand that investments will be (and should be) directed elsewhere.

Confiscating Telecom's property rights happens to have coincided with the end of competitors rolling out networks. Perhaps returning those property rights would have the opposite effect? Or are the soothsayers about how much prosperity and HD video porn fibre to the kerb will bring a bunch of enthusiasts that want everyone else to help pay for what they are interested in?

Another funny week from Catherine Delahunty

From the funniest REAL Twitter account of an MP

"Lots of laughing and shouting in The house today but no food labelling commitments or healthy food in schools for tamariki"

No that's right Catherine, all the healthy food has been taken away, if it isn't compulsory it isn't there!

"Mad scientists at select commitee read my blog later"

That's incomprehensible, but she'd know mad.

"We just spent a week on hold trying to get a new phone isnt the free market efficient?"

Why didn't she just pop down to a shop and buy one? Who sits on the phone for a week? Of course if it is about phone lines and she lives in the boondocks it isn't a free market, as Telecom is forced to supply lines to remote places at a fraction of cost - so it is socialism at work.

Abbas should intervene over Palestinian death sentence

Whaleoil reports on a man issued the death penalty by a Palestinian Authority military court for selling land to a Jew. He has also had all his property confiscated.

Reason? It breaches Palestinians "laws" dating back to 1953 (what country was that then?) than include bans on trade with Israelis, a trade embargo with Israel and banning selling land to Jews.

He has no right of appeal

The death penalty must be confirmed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, hopefully President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton will give him a short phone call to confirm this.

UK leaves Iraq

The British Army officially ends its presence in Iraq today. Well done!

The Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein was not a moral government, but rather an illegal dictatorship of aggression founded on lies and torture. The multiple aggressive attacks on neighbours (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel) and its own citizens simply reinforced that crime. It was an illegitimate tyranny that a coalition of like minded states had the moral right to overthrow.

The British Army can be proud of its legacy in Iraq, despite some mistakes and instances of appalling behaviour. It is hoped that some accountability can be had for instances of inappropriate use of force against civilians. However, one should bear in mind the cruelty and mass murder of the Iranian and Al Qaeda backed militia and terrorists who sought to transform Iraq into an Islamist tyranny. Part responsibility for this was appallingly poor planning on behalf of the US and its allies about what to do after overthrowing the Hussein tyranny. That was by far the biggest mistake.

Basra is better off now that the British Army has seen off both the Hussein tyranny and the Islamist insurgency. The Stop the War Coalition would have preferred Basra live under the Ba'athist gangster like Hussein tyranny - because governments that oppress their own people are apparently better than wars to overthrow them.

Tragically 179 British men and women lost their lives to this cause, and there are rightful calls for an inquiry into the British participation, with my concern being accusations the troops were poorly equipped and under resourced, as well as the lack of planning and follow up after the initial mission had been completed. Many lives, both civilian and military might have been saved had planning been more thorough. For now, perhaps British taxpayers will be relieved that the withdrawal will save them money!

(Unlike some, I don't believe that attacking a dictatorship to overthrow it is illegal or immoral)

Chrysler bankrupt but wait...

it's not that simple as the BBC reports

You see Chrysler isn't going bankrupt, being wound up and sold. It is Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

No.

US taxpayers will pour US$8 billion into the "new" Chrysler, to be 20% owned by Fiat, 8% owned by the US Federal Government, 55% by VEBA (union trust fund), 2% owned by the Canadian Federal Government and Ontario government jointly.

6 out of 9 member board will be appointed by the US Federal Government.

"No jobs will be lost in the short term" and No Chrysler plants in the US will close, says President Obama. So opportunities for efficiencies are where?

It already had a US$4.5 billion loan from the Federal Government.

The lesson is simple in the USA of Barack Obama - if you have a big enough business, don't worry, you wont take the consequences of bad decision making, everyone else will.