Tory MP Alan Duncan was foolish enough to say MPs live on "rations" and are "treated like shit". Of course, nobody forces him to stand, and given the competition every few years for the job, it would suggest that plenty of people are interested in the job.
Given Duncan is a millionaire from working in the energy sector, you'd have to wonder why he should care.
However, it does show a sad failure by those who get elected seeking to have power over others to recognise that they live a life well beyond the means of many of their constituents.
It is something MPs in New Zealand, on all sides of the house, may think carefully about.
14 August 2009
13 August 2009
Privatisation improved train reliability in UK
Yes, this is according to a BBC report.
"According to Hassard Stacpoole, media relations manager for the Association of Train Operating Companies, the value of improvements to punctuality is greater because the network is getting more crowded.
He said: "You will find that we are running 20%-plus more trains than we were under British Rail, in what is a busier network.
"Overall we would say punctuality is much better than even under BR. We have one of the most punctual railways in Europe.
So the doomsayers are wrong, railways in Britain are carrying more people than they have for over 50 years, and more reliably.
"Mr Stacpoole adds that commercial incentives, which did not exist under the nationalised BR system, work as a safeguard to improvements.
"If the trains are not going to run on time that's going to cost you money. Network Rail will have to compensate the operators or vice-versa (depending on who is at fault).
"There's an incentive to get things right. People expect their trains to run on time. "
You see if it is the fault of the track owner (Network Rail) the train operator, which pays to use the track, gets compensated. If the train operator is late in using its slot, then it pays more to use it later, as others are disadvantaged by the change.
Now there remains mistakes, massive subsidisation of major infrastructure projects that should have been financed directly. Political subsidisation of uneconomic lines and projects, but by and large, it has been a success going this far. Another loony leftwing legend about "good old British Rail" (which closed more railway lines than private railways ever did) is blown away by the facts.
"According to Hassard Stacpoole, media relations manager for the Association of Train Operating Companies, the value of improvements to punctuality is greater because the network is getting more crowded.
He said: "You will find that we are running 20%-plus more trains than we were under British Rail, in what is a busier network.
"Overall we would say punctuality is much better than even under BR. We have one of the most punctual railways in Europe.
So the doomsayers are wrong, railways in Britain are carrying more people than they have for over 50 years, and more reliably.
"Mr Stacpoole adds that commercial incentives, which did not exist under the nationalised BR system, work as a safeguard to improvements.
"If the trains are not going to run on time that's going to cost you money. Network Rail will have to compensate the operators or vice-versa (depending on who is at fault).
"There's an incentive to get things right. People expect their trains to run on time. "
You see if it is the fault of the track owner (Network Rail) the train operator, which pays to use the track, gets compensated. If the train operator is late in using its slot, then it pays more to use it later, as others are disadvantaged by the change.
Now there remains mistakes, massive subsidisation of major infrastructure projects that should have been financed directly. Political subsidisation of uneconomic lines and projects, but by and large, it has been a success going this far. Another loony leftwing legend about "good old British Rail" (which closed more railway lines than private railways ever did) is blown away by the facts.
New reasons to abolish the ARC
Number 1: ARC wants to force people to pay for a tourist tram. It is already going to waste Auckland ratepayers' money on a "feasibility study", even though it doesn't own the roads or property that such a tram would run on. Given the loud silence from the private sector, this is just another toy from the same people who made you pay for a big elaborate train set to replace commercially viable bus services. Of course it hasn't stopped legions of gormless idiots saying it's a great idea on the NZ Herald website, none having the slightest idea as to how to pay for it.
Number 2: ARC wants to force people to pay for a far more elaborate SH20 motorway extension. Whilst there are issues with the government's less expensive plan to complete the South Western Motorway in Auckland (mainly how it wont obtain consent from all property owners), the ARC has shown that other people's money is no object. Again. It is campaigning to extend the motorway from the current end at Mt. Roskill through Rosebank Peninsula to the North Western motorway. Why? It is "superior" strategically, and has less environmental impact. Given the ARC has no responsibility for roads at all, belongs to the railway religion, and the views are expressed by hard-left shrews like Sandra Coney, you can see where economics escaped them all. Mike Lee is "annoyed" this very high cost option was ruled out. Well Mike, it was ruled out by the previous government as well, and nobody sees the ARC coughing up money to pay for it (let alone the private sector).
So couldn't Auckland local government reform simply wind up the ARC as a good start?
Number 2: ARC wants to force people to pay for a far more elaborate SH20 motorway extension. Whilst there are issues with the government's less expensive plan to complete the South Western Motorway in Auckland (mainly how it wont obtain consent from all property owners), the ARC has shown that other people's money is no object. Again. It is campaigning to extend the motorway from the current end at Mt. Roskill through Rosebank Peninsula to the North Western motorway. Why? It is "superior" strategically, and has less environmental impact. Given the ARC has no responsibility for roads at all, belongs to the railway religion, and the views are expressed by hard-left shrews like Sandra Coney, you can see where economics escaped them all. Mike Lee is "annoyed" this very high cost option was ruled out. Well Mike, it was ruled out by the previous government as well, and nobody sees the ARC coughing up money to pay for it (let alone the private sector).
So couldn't Auckland local government reform simply wind up the ARC as a good start?
Simple policy lesson on energy
The Electricity Commissioner position was created by the Clark Labour Government.
It was never needed before. Jim Anderton and Helen Clark were keen on Ministerial Inquiries into industries that had no fundamental problems.
The Electricity Commission isn't needed, nor is an Electricity Market Authority.
My first step would be to choose another electricity SOE to privatise. Although whilst National has promised to sell nothing, there is no reason why it cannot issue shares in an electricity SOE watering down the shareholding. Similarly, shares could be distributed to everyone. Private owners, after all, demand better performance and seek to be more competitive than the state.
Lines companies should be allowed to retail electricity, as the recent review recommends.
So hopefully Cabinet will agree on modest steps to liberalise and get crony bureaucrats out of the way - and so the question will arise as to why the government owns the majority of the generation and retail market.
It was never needed before. Jim Anderton and Helen Clark were keen on Ministerial Inquiries into industries that had no fundamental problems.
The Electricity Commission isn't needed, nor is an Electricity Market Authority.
My first step would be to choose another electricity SOE to privatise. Although whilst National has promised to sell nothing, there is no reason why it cannot issue shares in an electricity SOE watering down the shareholding. Similarly, shares could be distributed to everyone. Private owners, after all, demand better performance and seek to be more competitive than the state.
Lines companies should be allowed to retail electricity, as the recent review recommends.
So hopefully Cabinet will agree on modest steps to liberalise and get crony bureaucrats out of the way - and so the question will arise as to why the government owns the majority of the generation and retail market.
Driving distraction
I'm not surprised at the ban on using handheld mobile phones while driving.
It is politically popular with older drivers, and undoubtedly there are people who can't drive while talking on the phone.
Although I recall discussions with the then Land Transport Safety Authority a few years ago which confirmed that far more accidents at the time happened while people fiddled with the car stereo. Changing radio stations and fumbling about for CDs (and before that cassettes), was a bigger distraction because it involved a fairly short burst of activity and frustration.
There are other distractions while you drive. Talking to other passengers, controlling children, pretty girls on the side of the road as you drive by. All of these can contribute to a driver failing to take care.
However isn't THAT the issue? The philosophical belief that when people cause an accident, it isn't them to blame per se, but because they did something they shouldn't have. Why is it easier to produce a rule to ban something, than to focus on people who drive dangerously and cause an accident?
Is it because it is easier for the Police, who can treat talking on the cellphone as the reason to prosecute, rather than negligent driving?
Or is it because of ACC? ACC remember removes your civil liability from being to blame for causing personal injury by accident to anyone else (although not property damage). Indeed your ACC levies for owning a car (equivalent to accident insurance) don't vary if you have a good or bad driving record. So perhaps opening THAT up to competition, so bad drivers pay far more for accident insurance, and good ones pay less, might make a modest difference?
You see, I by and large don't give a damn if stupid people cause accidents damaging their car and themselves. The state has better things to do that protect people from themselves. I do care about such people taking me or others with them. That is where rights to drive should be removed and penalties imposed.
It would be simpler though, if roads were privately owned. Road owners wouldn't want accidents to be common. Accidents generate blockages and cause congestion, making it less attractive to use the roads. Accidents can damage road property or property of adjoining road owners, which could see the road owner liable for letting idiots use its property in a way that could reasonably endanger the neighbours. Other road users may feel the same way. So the incentives to have a safe road are quite high, much like airlines which know a bad safety record is devastating to revenue. Korean Air was aware of this in 1999 and made radical changes, because non-Koreans would deliberately avoid the airline due to safety concerns.
However, selling roads may be a step too far for this government - but changing the incentives around ACC, and encouraging the Police to do their job (enforce dangerous drivers not victimless offences) would help. Dangerous driving causing death, injury or damage should subject people to prosecution and removal of their driving licence for any period from 6 months to life. Dangerous driving recklessly endangering people or their property should mean fines commensurate to a disincentive to stop. Driving in a way that poses a slightly higher risk than otherwise (and is no different from other behaviours that are legal) shouldn't.
Otherwise, the next road safety initiative will be to ensure all good looking women (and men) dress to cover themselves up when they walk adjacent to any road.
It is politically popular with older drivers, and undoubtedly there are people who can't drive while talking on the phone.
Although I recall discussions with the then Land Transport Safety Authority a few years ago which confirmed that far more accidents at the time happened while people fiddled with the car stereo. Changing radio stations and fumbling about for CDs (and before that cassettes), was a bigger distraction because it involved a fairly short burst of activity and frustration.
There are other distractions while you drive. Talking to other passengers, controlling children, pretty girls on the side of the road as you drive by. All of these can contribute to a driver failing to take care.
However isn't THAT the issue? The philosophical belief that when people cause an accident, it isn't them to blame per se, but because they did something they shouldn't have. Why is it easier to produce a rule to ban something, than to focus on people who drive dangerously and cause an accident?
Is it because it is easier for the Police, who can treat talking on the cellphone as the reason to prosecute, rather than negligent driving?
Or is it because of ACC? ACC remember removes your civil liability from being to blame for causing personal injury by accident to anyone else (although not property damage). Indeed your ACC levies for owning a car (equivalent to accident insurance) don't vary if you have a good or bad driving record. So perhaps opening THAT up to competition, so bad drivers pay far more for accident insurance, and good ones pay less, might make a modest difference?
You see, I by and large don't give a damn if stupid people cause accidents damaging their car and themselves. The state has better things to do that protect people from themselves. I do care about such people taking me or others with them. That is where rights to drive should be removed and penalties imposed.
It would be simpler though, if roads were privately owned. Road owners wouldn't want accidents to be common. Accidents generate blockages and cause congestion, making it less attractive to use the roads. Accidents can damage road property or property of adjoining road owners, which could see the road owner liable for letting idiots use its property in a way that could reasonably endanger the neighbours. Other road users may feel the same way. So the incentives to have a safe road are quite high, much like airlines which know a bad safety record is devastating to revenue. Korean Air was aware of this in 1999 and made radical changes, because non-Koreans would deliberately avoid the airline due to safety concerns.
However, selling roads may be a step too far for this government - but changing the incentives around ACC, and encouraging the Police to do their job (enforce dangerous drivers not victimless offences) would help. Dangerous driving causing death, injury or damage should subject people to prosecution and removal of their driving licence for any period from 6 months to life. Dangerous driving recklessly endangering people or their property should mean fines commensurate to a disincentive to stop. Driving in a way that poses a slightly higher risk than otherwise (and is no different from other behaviours that are legal) shouldn't.
Otherwise, the next road safety initiative will be to ensure all good looking women (and men) dress to cover themselves up when they walk adjacent to any road.
Why bother with PPPs?
You see I have friends who can't wait for this - they would make a fortune screwing public servants of money to do something none of them really understand. The key to getting the best value out of them is simply letting the private sector build something and charge people for using it, and bear the risks of overspending, poor customer service and lack of demand for the service - like the Melbourne Citylink toll motorway - a great success, because the private consortium that designed it, chose the route, bought the properties, built it and now operate it - were allowed to do so, albeit with enormous contracts and a legal framework to keep (excessive) oversight. In that case the road exists because the owners borrowed to pay for it, and use tolls to pay back the debt. You wont find too many PPPs quite that elegant.
PPPs make sense when governments want to hide borrowing they make. PPPs probably make sense in developing countries when they want to build infrastructure and don't have legal frameworks to readily allow private investment to be securely made. However, I am not convinced they are better than privatisation OR the state sector contracting out activities it isn't any good at.
Bill English is keen on public-private partnerships, the privatisation you have when you want to privatise profits and socialise the risks.
He waxes lyrically about how much it is done in Australia. Music to the ears of management consultants, lawyers and the big 4 accountancy firms all keen to have a slice of the expensive pies involved in setting them up. You see, precious few public servants have a clue about what to do, so a lot of your money would be expended on consultants to help them out. Given I know some of the people who would do this, it is pretty clear to me that the you better have a good reason to spend such horrendous amounts of money trying to match clever people in the private sector out to milk profits and minimise risks.
English lists sectors he clearly approves of being involved in PPPs. Lets go through them:
- Roads: Well quite simply there aren’t enough road projects in New Zealand big enough to be worthy of the transaction costs involved in a PPP. Far better would be to allow private companies to design, build, own, operate and toll roads with little government involvement at all, except interconnecting with existing roads. For example, the Auckland Harbour Bridge and the approaches from the Central Motorway Junction to as far north as Constellation Drive, could be sold – lock stock and barrel, it could have included the Victoria Park Tunnel project and the right to toll (and either refund road taxes spent using the road or pro-rata the payments to the company). THAT would have made a lot of sense and be a model for the rest of the country.
- Rail: Look it isn’t profitable. Unless you’re going to sell the freight business off, then this is just paying the private sector to manage a black hole. A PPP would be worse than the status quo.
- Water: Why not privatise? It has been successful in England, and has addressed serious deficits of core infrastructure. Besides, this is a local authority function. Private providers would encourage water conservation, because they would seek to maximise returns by charging what the market could bear.
- Energy: Given it is partially privately owned, why even think of a PPP? Contact Energy works, so lets just privatise the other three SOEs and Transpower.
- Defence: A core role of the state. Why would you allow anyone to profit from supplying property and managing national security? What happens if that PPP provider is sold to a foreign owner with hostile intent? Certainly you may contract the private sector to manage property or assist in advice, but supplying infrastructure?
- Hospitals: Again, why not just let private companies supply hospital capacity that you buy services from? Why sign up to a monopoly provider to guarantee its returns?
- Schools: As with hospitals.
- Prisons: As with defence. Management contracts and advice are all very well, but having the private sector responsible for incarceration has always worried me.
- Radio networks: Why own these at all? Radio New Zealand can hardly be privately run as a PPP given it makes little revenue, so why not just privatise it and let people pay for it voluntarily?
With that, and his ever bright and political popular ideas of a capital gains tax and reintroducing the land tax that Ruth Richardson abolished, is it any wonder that Bill English is starting to look like the Finance Minister we might have got had Labour been re-elected?
PPPs make sense when governments want to hide borrowing they make. PPPs probably make sense in developing countries when they want to build infrastructure and don't have legal frameworks to readily allow private investment to be securely made. However, I am not convinced they are better than privatisation OR the state sector contracting out activities it isn't any good at.
Bill English is keen on public-private partnerships, the privatisation you have when you want to privatise profits and socialise the risks.
He waxes lyrically about how much it is done in Australia. Music to the ears of management consultants, lawyers and the big 4 accountancy firms all keen to have a slice of the expensive pies involved in setting them up. You see, precious few public servants have a clue about what to do, so a lot of your money would be expended on consultants to help them out. Given I know some of the people who would do this, it is pretty clear to me that the you better have a good reason to spend such horrendous amounts of money trying to match clever people in the private sector out to milk profits and minimise risks.
English lists sectors he clearly approves of being involved in PPPs. Lets go through them:
- Roads: Well quite simply there aren’t enough road projects in New Zealand big enough to be worthy of the transaction costs involved in a PPP. Far better would be to allow private companies to design, build, own, operate and toll roads with little government involvement at all, except interconnecting with existing roads. For example, the Auckland Harbour Bridge and the approaches from the Central Motorway Junction to as far north as Constellation Drive, could be sold – lock stock and barrel, it could have included the Victoria Park Tunnel project and the right to toll (and either refund road taxes spent using the road or pro-rata the payments to the company). THAT would have made a lot of sense and be a model for the rest of the country.
- Rail: Look it isn’t profitable. Unless you’re going to sell the freight business off, then this is just paying the private sector to manage a black hole. A PPP would be worse than the status quo.
- Water: Why not privatise? It has been successful in England, and has addressed serious deficits of core infrastructure. Besides, this is a local authority function. Private providers would encourage water conservation, because they would seek to maximise returns by charging what the market could bear.
- Energy: Given it is partially privately owned, why even think of a PPP? Contact Energy works, so lets just privatise the other three SOEs and Transpower.
- Defence: A core role of the state. Why would you allow anyone to profit from supplying property and managing national security? What happens if that PPP provider is sold to a foreign owner with hostile intent? Certainly you may contract the private sector to manage property or assist in advice, but supplying infrastructure?
- Hospitals: Again, why not just let private companies supply hospital capacity that you buy services from? Why sign up to a monopoly provider to guarantee its returns?
- Schools: As with hospitals.
- Prisons: As with defence. Management contracts and advice are all very well, but having the private sector responsible for incarceration has always worried me.
- Radio networks: Why own these at all? Radio New Zealand can hardly be privately run as a PPP given it makes little revenue, so why not just privatise it and let people pay for it voluntarily?
With that, and his ever bright and political popular ideas of a capital gains tax and reintroducing the land tax that Ruth Richardson abolished, is it any wonder that Bill English is starting to look like the Finance Minister we might have got had Labour been re-elected?
11 August 2009
Don't give to Tearfund
Because it wastes your money hiring an intellectual minnow called Sara Shaw. She works for Tearfund (a Christian poverty relief charity) as "Policy Officer - Climate Change". I am sure that its money could be better spent hiring someone who can actually do some serious work in the developing world, rather than lead statist political causes.
She recently wrote this nonsense criticising the New Zealand Government's policy on climate change:
"Poor people, already being hit hard by climate change, have once again been disappointed by another developed country taking a weak and self-interested approach"
Hit hard by climate change how? No evidence, just part of the zeitgeist promoted by Shaw that climate change is happening, real and the poor are suffering because of it. Secondly, she claims to speak on behalf of poor people. Funny that, not being one herself, or even a member of parliament for any country. Thirdly, she criticises taking a "self interested approach", which of course poor people never do - they are always willing to sacrifice their lives for the greater good.
This follows from her earlier banality and economic illiteracy in promoting the faith based idea that by penalising "non-Green industries" and subsidising "Green ones", everyone wins. Not a shred of evidence or economics, just faith.
She presumably thinks she does great work to "save the world" and "help the poor", when she isn't doing a concrete piece of positive work in developing countries, for education, health or to improve infrastructure.
If she really gave a damn she'd be pushing for the European Union to abolish its Common Agricultural Policy, eliminate agricultural export subsidies, eliminate barriers to importation of agricultural products into the EU, and abolish domestic subsidies. That would make an enormous difference to farmers in developing countries, but no - she worries about climate change - a distraction from doing real good for people who are impoverished. She could campaign loudly and vigorously for good governance, the end to the corrupt kleptocracies that plague Africa and don't protect private property rights or have independent judiciaries.
However no, Shaw would much rather finger point, pontificate and preach, blaming the developed countries, and suffer the poor, ever patronaged, people in the developing world. She is chasing the ever illusion, the idea that destroying wealth creating industries will help the poor, and taking money from those who create wealth and give it to those who don't helps them too. There are undoubtedly charities that help impoverished people without being distracted by Green politics and agendas of economic illiteracy, big government and finger pointing rather than evidence.
Tearfund isn't one of them.
She recently wrote this nonsense criticising the New Zealand Government's policy on climate change:
"Poor people, already being hit hard by climate change, have once again been disappointed by another developed country taking a weak and self-interested approach"
Hit hard by climate change how? No evidence, just part of the zeitgeist promoted by Shaw that climate change is happening, real and the poor are suffering because of it. Secondly, she claims to speak on behalf of poor people. Funny that, not being one herself, or even a member of parliament for any country. Thirdly, she criticises taking a "self interested approach", which of course poor people never do - they are always willing to sacrifice their lives for the greater good.
This follows from her earlier banality and economic illiteracy in promoting the faith based idea that by penalising "non-Green industries" and subsidising "Green ones", everyone wins. Not a shred of evidence or economics, just faith.
She presumably thinks she does great work to "save the world" and "help the poor", when she isn't doing a concrete piece of positive work in developing countries, for education, health or to improve infrastructure.
If she really gave a damn she'd be pushing for the European Union to abolish its Common Agricultural Policy, eliminate agricultural export subsidies, eliminate barriers to importation of agricultural products into the EU, and abolish domestic subsidies. That would make an enormous difference to farmers in developing countries, but no - she worries about climate change - a distraction from doing real good for people who are impoverished. She could campaign loudly and vigorously for good governance, the end to the corrupt kleptocracies that plague Africa and don't protect private property rights or have independent judiciaries.
However no, Shaw would much rather finger point, pontificate and preach, blaming the developed countries, and suffer the poor, ever patronaged, people in the developing world. She is chasing the ever illusion, the idea that destroying wealth creating industries will help the poor, and taking money from those who create wealth and give it to those who don't helps them too. There are undoubtedly charities that help impoverished people without being distracted by Green politics and agendas of economic illiteracy, big government and finger pointing rather than evidence.
Tearfund isn't one of them.
Bullshit on right and left
Right wing bullshit
Well known is the inane bullshit promoted by some on the conservative right that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fake or not original or something of the like. It is a very sad sign of the Republican Party that too many of its own kind will latch onto this rather than argue the very valid points about Obama's policies. Arguing against his socialised healthcare and his "spend it up large and hope" big government economy boosting policy seems too hard. I am no supporter of Obama, but I am quite convinced that he was born in Hawaii. Those continuing to ride on this bandwagon will look crazier as time goes on, and show how little they truly have in cogent arguments against the man. It is like "we can't say he's no good because he's black, so we'll say he's not American instead". Mindless, conspiratorial rubbish. In fact, it is the sort of thing that should cost the anti-business, pro-big government halfwit, Lou Dobbs, his job at CNN. Dobbs has long campaigned against free trade, foreign investment, globalisation and conspired against China's economic success. I also guess none of these wingnuts wishes the constitution would be different to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to stand for the Presidency?
Left wing bullshit
On the left is a New Zealand blog that prides itself on being fair, honest and open. No Right Turn is a blog I usually disagree with, but does make some well researched points from time to time. However, to characterise the stupid referendum on smacking (stupid because of the wording) as "New Zealand is voting on whether it should be legal for parents to punch children in the face or hit them in the head with a piece of concrete" is an outright lie.
That was never legal before, and is not legal now, and indeed despite the poorly worded referendum, smacking is NOT punching or hitting the head with concrete. However, it does show how some on the left use language to distort and lie, to get their own way. To demonise their opponents as grossly violent child abusers, rather than average parents who use mild smacking as correction.
Bear in mind I despise smacking, I despise corporal punishment altogether and wish it would never be used - I also despise criminalising those who use it mildly. It is NOT for the state to say that using force against children is wrong. It isn't. It is sometimes in their best interests to protect them (or others) from danger. Which is why I don't have a strong view on how to vote in that referendum. I don't believe smacking is "good parental correction", but I also don't believe it should be a criminal offence, unless it is repeated and physically damaging. I do not endorse the current law, but I equally do not endorse the view by many that smacking is a "good" thing.
So do I vote to endorse smacking, or do I vote to endorse an interfering state criminalising behaviour I don't think should be criminalised? Or do I abstain?
In that same article he cites a New York Times article that is quite disconcerting, about how some disabled children have been physically punished. That indeed is disturbing, but then to say "Just another example of what a cruel and barbaric place the US is". Of course, it really is, a barbaric place that millions try to flee, so much crueler than New Zealand, where all children are raised by loving parents who would never abuse their kids.
Funny how he has never ever blogged about the gulags that keep children as slave labourers in North Korea. He wouldn't, of course, endorse that at all, but why do these Nazi style concentration camps, with summary executions, rampant torture, incarcerating entire families from elderly to babies as political prisoners, NOT get the same passionate attention as does the torture of Islamists in Guantanamo Bay?
Imagine if the political left actually starting protesting on a grand scale about this atrocity. Oh what government does the North Korean regime condemn the most? The USA - guess they are not all that bad then, right?
Well known is the inane bullshit promoted by some on the conservative right that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fake or not original or something of the like. It is a very sad sign of the Republican Party that too many of its own kind will latch onto this rather than argue the very valid points about Obama's policies. Arguing against his socialised healthcare and his "spend it up large and hope" big government economy boosting policy seems too hard. I am no supporter of Obama, but I am quite convinced that he was born in Hawaii. Those continuing to ride on this bandwagon will look crazier as time goes on, and show how little they truly have in cogent arguments against the man. It is like "we can't say he's no good because he's black, so we'll say he's not American instead". Mindless, conspiratorial rubbish. In fact, it is the sort of thing that should cost the anti-business, pro-big government halfwit, Lou Dobbs, his job at CNN. Dobbs has long campaigned against free trade, foreign investment, globalisation and conspired against China's economic success. I also guess none of these wingnuts wishes the constitution would be different to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to stand for the Presidency?
Left wing bullshit
On the left is a New Zealand blog that prides itself on being fair, honest and open. No Right Turn is a blog I usually disagree with, but does make some well researched points from time to time. However, to characterise the stupid referendum on smacking (stupid because of the wording) as "New Zealand is voting on whether it should be legal for parents to punch children in the face or hit them in the head with a piece of concrete" is an outright lie.
That was never legal before, and is not legal now, and indeed despite the poorly worded referendum, smacking is NOT punching or hitting the head with concrete. However, it does show how some on the left use language to distort and lie, to get their own way. To demonise their opponents as grossly violent child abusers, rather than average parents who use mild smacking as correction.
Bear in mind I despise smacking, I despise corporal punishment altogether and wish it would never be used - I also despise criminalising those who use it mildly. It is NOT for the state to say that using force against children is wrong. It isn't. It is sometimes in their best interests to protect them (or others) from danger. Which is why I don't have a strong view on how to vote in that referendum. I don't believe smacking is "good parental correction", but I also don't believe it should be a criminal offence, unless it is repeated and physically damaging. I do not endorse the current law, but I equally do not endorse the view by many that smacking is a "good" thing.
So do I vote to endorse smacking, or do I vote to endorse an interfering state criminalising behaviour I don't think should be criminalised? Or do I abstain?
In that same article he cites a New York Times article that is quite disconcerting, about how some disabled children have been physically punished. That indeed is disturbing, but then to say "Just another example of what a cruel and barbaric place the US is". Of course, it really is, a barbaric place that millions try to flee, so much crueler than New Zealand, where all children are raised by loving parents who would never abuse their kids.
Funny how he has never ever blogged about the gulags that keep children as slave labourers in North Korea. He wouldn't, of course, endorse that at all, but why do these Nazi style concentration camps, with summary executions, rampant torture, incarcerating entire families from elderly to babies as political prisoners, NOT get the same passionate attention as does the torture of Islamists in Guantanamo Bay?
Imagine if the political left actually starting protesting on a grand scale about this atrocity. Oh what government does the North Korean regime condemn the most? The USA - guess they are not all that bad then, right?
Nanny State UK - stop wasting food!
Never content with letting people make their own choices, waste food and money if circumstances allow it, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is calling for supermarkets to cease " 2 for 1 " deals that it says encourage people to buy more food than they need.
At what point do people in the UK tell these vile little finger pointers to royally fuck off and mind their own business?
Apparently it costs the average household £420 a year in food that it throws out. To which I say, so bloody what? How many households buy clothes they rarely wear? How many people buy a book they never read? In other words, who the hell made the state the guardian of waste like some sort of lemon sucking protestant ascetic during the war?
The Times reports "Households throw away 4.1 million tonnes of food each year that could have been eaten if it had been managed better, according to Wrap, the Government’s waste watchdog". Waste watchdog? Hardly, Wrap IS a waste - it is a waste of something people DON'T choose to spend money on and throw away, their own money.
Furthermore, the state continues to treat people as idiots and they respond in kind "Defra and the Food Standards Agency are also preparing new guidance to reduce confusion about date labels on food. Wrap research found that millions of people did not know the difference between “sell-by” and “use-by” dates". So bloody what? So there are people who are either illiterate or stupid. It's THEIR problem, it isn't everyone else's.
Fortunately, the retail sector has some courage and will resist the moves:
"The British Retail Consortium said it would resist attempts to restrict bogofs. “Retailers know their customers better and should be allowed to decide what’s the best policy,” a spokesman said. People who took home more than they could eat should give it to family and friends, he added."
You might hope that a Tory government would reverse the endless screed of "do what we say" parenting by the bloated state here in the UK - but with Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne already saying there will "have to be tax increases" to cover the budget deficit, I hold precious little hope. The party of Margaret Thatcher is long gone.
At what point do people in the UK tell these vile little finger pointers to royally fuck off and mind their own business?
Apparently it costs the average household £420 a year in food that it throws out. To which I say, so bloody what? How many households buy clothes they rarely wear? How many people buy a book they never read? In other words, who the hell made the state the guardian of waste like some sort of lemon sucking protestant ascetic during the war?
The Times reports "Households throw away 4.1 million tonnes of food each year that could have been eaten if it had been managed better, according to Wrap, the Government’s waste watchdog". Waste watchdog? Hardly, Wrap IS a waste - it is a waste of something people DON'T choose to spend money on and throw away, their own money.
Furthermore, the state continues to treat people as idiots and they respond in kind "Defra and the Food Standards Agency are also preparing new guidance to reduce confusion about date labels on food. Wrap research found that millions of people did not know the difference between “sell-by” and “use-by” dates". So bloody what? So there are people who are either illiterate or stupid. It's THEIR problem, it isn't everyone else's.
Fortunately, the retail sector has some courage and will resist the moves:
"The British Retail Consortium said it would resist attempts to restrict bogofs. “Retailers know their customers better and should be allowed to decide what’s the best policy,” a spokesman said. People who took home more than they could eat should give it to family and friends, he added."
You might hope that a Tory government would reverse the endless screed of "do what we say" parenting by the bloated state here in the UK - but with Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne already saying there will "have to be tax increases" to cover the budget deficit, I hold precious little hope. The party of Margaret Thatcher is long gone.
2 degrees wants more government help
Remember I posted that 2 degrees started with an advantage over Telecom and Vodafone? Well it’s becoming more clear that 2 degrees isn’t interested in competing on a level playing field. No. It wants the government to make life easier for it by forcing its competitors to charge less than they are willing to access their networks. According to NZPA it has a "Drop the Rate, Mate" campaign, which isn't as friendly as it sounds - it wants the government to use force to help its business out.
It wants mobile termination rates (which Vodafone never had regulated in the 17 years it has competed with Telecom) to be regulated because it thinks the cost is too high. Not that it would know since it isn’t interested in building much of a parallel network to the two major players, it never has been. 2 degrees, like Vodafone (when it was owned by BellSouth in the beginning) has few customers, so as a result it pays other mobile phone operators more than it receives in kind.
In fact I recall not long after BellSouth entered the New Zealand market, the CEO of Bellsouth (USA) visited New Zealand, and demanded from the then Minister of Communications (Maurice Williamson) that he regulate Telecom so BellSouth could get a fair share of the market. Williamson told him politely that New Zealand is not the United States, you can’t get politicians to do your bidding in New Zealand as easily as he thought, that BellSouth knew the regulatory environment when it invested and so should actually get out there and compete on its merits. Within a couple of years BellSouth, having underinvested in the network, and done little to attract new customers sold the business to Vodafone, which has been a roaring success.
However, after nearly 9 years of Labour intervening and regulating in the telecommunications sector, 2 degrees isn’t interested in competing on merit, but using the state to give it a hand up – again.
It has former blogger and centre-left (well he is now) journalist Matthew Hooton to do its PR. Moreso it has an interesting ragtag mob of supporters. Consumer New Zealand has always supported regulating producers, so no surprise there. TUANZ is pretty much the same, always using never producing. NZUSA has long been a platform for socialism and the Federation of Maori Authorities has a corporate interest, as it owns the frequencies (thanks to the last Labour government) that 2 degrees uses. However, Federated Farmers is an odd one. I am sure in the interests of fairness, Federated Farmers might agree to the prices of all of its commodities to be reduced so that consumers can pay less for food and woollen items.
Steven Joyce should tell them the same as Maurice Williamson. Go away and compete. 2 degrees already has an advantage in that it didn’t pay a market price for its frequencies, it already doesn’t need to build the infrastructure of Vodafone and Telecom because it is reselling their capacity (by voluntary agreement). Grow up and move on. The last Labour government agreed, it should be a swift dismissal by Joyce.
"Mr Hooton said the new minister would face "ferocious corporate lobbying"." with apparently a large campaign, which wont be cheap, spent on lobbying - money presumably that could be used to build more of a network so less termination charges could be paid.
So, it is pretty clear 2 degrees is NOT a normal private enterprise, but one that seeks to make money through government favours. It would rather waste money engaging in currying favour with government than to build a network so it would need to pay less to its competitors (or indeed to negotiate with its competitors for better rates).
It's a company that believes in using force to get its own way, a company that I don't believe is moral to support.
It wants mobile termination rates (which Vodafone never had regulated in the 17 years it has competed with Telecom) to be regulated because it thinks the cost is too high. Not that it would know since it isn’t interested in building much of a parallel network to the two major players, it never has been. 2 degrees, like Vodafone (when it was owned by BellSouth in the beginning) has few customers, so as a result it pays other mobile phone operators more than it receives in kind.
In fact I recall not long after BellSouth entered the New Zealand market, the CEO of Bellsouth (USA) visited New Zealand, and demanded from the then Minister of Communications (Maurice Williamson) that he regulate Telecom so BellSouth could get a fair share of the market. Williamson told him politely that New Zealand is not the United States, you can’t get politicians to do your bidding in New Zealand as easily as he thought, that BellSouth knew the regulatory environment when it invested and so should actually get out there and compete on its merits. Within a couple of years BellSouth, having underinvested in the network, and done little to attract new customers sold the business to Vodafone, which has been a roaring success.
However, after nearly 9 years of Labour intervening and regulating in the telecommunications sector, 2 degrees isn’t interested in competing on merit, but using the state to give it a hand up – again.
It has former blogger and centre-left (well he is now) journalist Matthew Hooton to do its PR. Moreso it has an interesting ragtag mob of supporters. Consumer New Zealand has always supported regulating producers, so no surprise there. TUANZ is pretty much the same, always using never producing. NZUSA has long been a platform for socialism and the Federation of Maori Authorities has a corporate interest, as it owns the frequencies (thanks to the last Labour government) that 2 degrees uses. However, Federated Farmers is an odd one. I am sure in the interests of fairness, Federated Farmers might agree to the prices of all of its commodities to be reduced so that consumers can pay less for food and woollen items.
Steven Joyce should tell them the same as Maurice Williamson. Go away and compete. 2 degrees already has an advantage in that it didn’t pay a market price for its frequencies, it already doesn’t need to build the infrastructure of Vodafone and Telecom because it is reselling their capacity (by voluntary agreement). Grow up and move on. The last Labour government agreed, it should be a swift dismissal by Joyce.
"Mr Hooton said the new minister would face "ferocious corporate lobbying"." with apparently a large campaign, which wont be cheap, spent on lobbying - money presumably that could be used to build more of a network so less termination charges could be paid.
So, it is pretty clear 2 degrees is NOT a normal private enterprise, but one that seeks to make money through government favours. It would rather waste money engaging in currying favour with government than to build a network so it would need to pay less to its competitors (or indeed to negotiate with its competitors for better rates).
It's a company that believes in using force to get its own way, a company that I don't believe is moral to support.
10 August 2009
Helen Clark and UNDP sycophancy
If there is one thing that keeps me in the UK and which frustrates and angers me the most about the idea of returning to New Zealand (or even to Australia), it is how journalism almost does not exist in the mainstream media. At least with the Times, the Observer, the Telegraph, FT or even (cough) the Guardian, there are journalists – people not afraid to research a topic and ask hard questions, to be a devil’s advocate for the opposing point of view. Sadly, it appears that metaphorically sticking your tongue up the arse of your subject is de rigueur among New Zealand reporters
The most recent example is the sycophancy dressed as journalism being trotted out by Tracy Watkins in the Dominion Post, who has written two articles profiling how Helen Clark is getting on leading the UN Development Programme. Watkins could just as well have been working for the Labour Party to produce such inane twaddle. The first article would be better seen in the NZ Woman's Weekly or the like. I do love how the talk of scandals was brushed to one side though, "disgruntled staff" you see. Because, presumably, you only listen to disgruntled staff when they work for the private sector, not the altruistic people loving United Nations.
You can of course read the latest instalment here, which goes on about five crisis that have ravaged the world in the past year (food, financial, fuel, swine flu and climate change), though you might ask some hard questions about how many of these are real and how many still exist (food and fuel disappeared as financial came).
Watkins could have asked what have been the achievements of the UNDP, how many countries it has weaned off of aid since it was formed in 1965? The answer of course is none.
Watkins could have talked to critics of aid, especially UN based aid operations. Funnily enough she didn’t.
Watkins could have asked how much of the NZ$5 billion budget of the UNDP goes on administration, how much the average UNDP employee receives in income (tax free) and the UNDP’s travel budget? In other words she could have discussed why UN employees are some of the best paid (and least hard working) “public sector” workers in the world.
So the article is essentially an interview with Clark. Nice for Watkins to get her jaunt to New York of course, but that could have been done over the phone. Watkins could instead have used her trip to meet with different groups who have differing views of the UNDP or the UN, but that might have upset Clark – and you can’t do that can you?
She finishes with a so-called “factbox”, which says precious little.
It talks about New Zealand’s aid, ignoring aid raised through private charities and distributed through such charities, like World Vision (who I do NOT endorse). For example, talk about the aid given by the US ignores that around 80% again is given and distributed privately. In short, aid doesn’t have to involve force.
So what could Watkins have done? Well maybe she could have looked at the long list of scandals involving the UNDP and asked Clark what she’d be doing about it on her NZ$500,000 tax free salary. Scandals? You mean the New Zealand MSM hasn’t been doing its job to find out what the UNDP is about? You betcha! Watch this space.
The most recent example is the sycophancy dressed as journalism being trotted out by Tracy Watkins in the Dominion Post, who has written two articles profiling how Helen Clark is getting on leading the UN Development Programme. Watkins could just as well have been working for the Labour Party to produce such inane twaddle. The first article would be better seen in the NZ Woman's Weekly or the like. I do love how the talk of scandals was brushed to one side though, "disgruntled staff" you see. Because, presumably, you only listen to disgruntled staff when they work for the private sector, not the altruistic people loving United Nations.
You can of course read the latest instalment here, which goes on about five crisis that have ravaged the world in the past year (food, financial, fuel, swine flu and climate change), though you might ask some hard questions about how many of these are real and how many still exist (food and fuel disappeared as financial came).
Watkins could have asked what have been the achievements of the UNDP, how many countries it has weaned off of aid since it was formed in 1965? The answer of course is none.
Watkins could have talked to critics of aid, especially UN based aid operations. Funnily enough she didn’t.
Watkins could have asked how much of the NZ$5 billion budget of the UNDP goes on administration, how much the average UNDP employee receives in income (tax free) and the UNDP’s travel budget? In other words she could have discussed why UN employees are some of the best paid (and least hard working) “public sector” workers in the world.
So the article is essentially an interview with Clark. Nice for Watkins to get her jaunt to New York of course, but that could have been done over the phone. Watkins could instead have used her trip to meet with different groups who have differing views of the UNDP or the UN, but that might have upset Clark – and you can’t do that can you?
She finishes with a so-called “factbox”, which says precious little.
It talks about New Zealand’s aid, ignoring aid raised through private charities and distributed through such charities, like World Vision (who I do NOT endorse). For example, talk about the aid given by the US ignores that around 80% again is given and distributed privately. In short, aid doesn’t have to involve force.
So what could Watkins have done? Well maybe she could have looked at the long list of scandals involving the UNDP and asked Clark what she’d be doing about it on her NZ$500,000 tax free salary. Scandals? You mean the New Zealand MSM hasn’t been doing its job to find out what the UNDP is about? You betcha! Watch this space.
08 August 2009
Daily Telegraph odds and ends
Greek woman sets fire to British sexual assaulter: After resisting his advances, after pouring Sambuca on him to cool him down, the guy wouldn’t stop. So the woman set fire to the man, to the cheer of onlookers – gave herself to the Police claiming self defence. The young man’s dad said “He's not the kind of lad that gets himself in trouble – he's a kind-hearted, generous boy”. He now has second degree burns for being a drunken fool.
HIV genome decoded: Scientists at the University of North Carolina claim to have decoded the entire HIV genome, raising hopes of new treatments to neutralise the virus. Given that drug therapy in recent years has significantly extended the life expectancy of HIV carriers, this may well be the next chance for a breakthrough.
Beetroot juice increases stamina: The University of Exeter's School of Sport and Health Sciences has found that a glass a day of beetroot juice can help men work out for 16% longer.
Woman who drink two glasses of red wine a day have better sex lives: You might expect the University of Florence to undertake THIS study. Overall, women who drank two glasses a day scored an average of 27.3 points (sexual arousal points), compared to 25.9 for those who drank one glass and 24.4 for the non-drinkers. Whether this continues to rise with each glass is a moot point, but it no doubt makes the drink feel like it is better! No doubt it also improves the sex lives of the men (and even women) they meet too.
BBC move to cost over £800 million: Whilst businesses sometimes shift from London to the regions to save money, the BBC’s move of the sports department and Radio 5 to Manchester is going to cost money. Proving once again, how unaccountable government organizations can be when the money they have to spent was taken by force by people who may not want its services anyway.
Iran executes 24 drug traffickers in mass execution: The second biggest (known) executor of prisoners continues form (I say known, because there are more than one or two governments that do this rather informally and privately). 219 people are known to have been executed in Iran since the start of the year. The total last year was 246. Of course many don't sympathise with drug traffickers, assuming of course the said individuals had a fair trial, that they were violent and forcing drugs on people or supplying children, hmmm. Oh and Iran has a horrendous drug addiction problem, demonstrating how effective a deterrent this is!
Sonia Sotomayer confirmed as latest US Supreme Court judge: True to those who value what is skindeep over character, most of the publicity about this is that she is a Hispanic woman. That is a first for the US Supreme Court. However, this is also a woman who once said "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life”. Objective is she? The Cato Institute thinks she wouldn’t be in the running if she were not Hispanic.
HIV genome decoded: Scientists at the University of North Carolina claim to have decoded the entire HIV genome, raising hopes of new treatments to neutralise the virus. Given that drug therapy in recent years has significantly extended the life expectancy of HIV carriers, this may well be the next chance for a breakthrough.
Beetroot juice increases stamina: The University of Exeter's School of Sport and Health Sciences has found that a glass a day of beetroot juice can help men work out for 16% longer.
Woman who drink two glasses of red wine a day have better sex lives: You might expect the University of Florence to undertake THIS study. Overall, women who drank two glasses a day scored an average of 27.3 points (sexual arousal points), compared to 25.9 for those who drank one glass and 24.4 for the non-drinkers. Whether this continues to rise with each glass is a moot point, but it no doubt makes the drink feel like it is better! No doubt it also improves the sex lives of the men (and even women) they meet too.
BBC move to cost over £800 million: Whilst businesses sometimes shift from London to the regions to save money, the BBC’s move of the sports department and Radio 5 to Manchester is going to cost money. Proving once again, how unaccountable government organizations can be when the money they have to spent was taken by force by people who may not want its services anyway.
Iran executes 24 drug traffickers in mass execution: The second biggest (known) executor of prisoners continues form (I say known, because there are more than one or two governments that do this rather informally and privately). 219 people are known to have been executed in Iran since the start of the year. The total last year was 246. Of course many don't sympathise with drug traffickers, assuming of course the said individuals had a fair trial, that they were violent and forcing drugs on people or supplying children, hmmm. Oh and Iran has a horrendous drug addiction problem, demonstrating how effective a deterrent this is!
Sonia Sotomayer confirmed as latest US Supreme Court judge: True to those who value what is skindeep over character, most of the publicity about this is that she is a Hispanic woman. That is a first for the US Supreme Court. However, this is also a woman who once said "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life”. Objective is she? The Cato Institute thinks she wouldn’t be in the running if she were not Hispanic.
07 August 2009
Gather thee all at the altar of the train
Idiot Savant once again swallows hook line and sinker the totem of railways always good in supporting the unaffordably ambitious plan to build a bespoke high speed railway network in the UK. The existing network of lines that sustain speeds of 200 km/h not being truly high speed in the European context.
Let's see where he makes mistakes and avoids facts:
1. No high speed rail network could eliminate short haul flights in the UK. All plans are largely to connect London with one corridor going to Birmingham, Manchester and Scotland. I wont be pinning hopes on people flying between Aberdeen and Norwich, Inverness and London or Southampton to Manchester getting trains. Many who use domestic flights connect at Heathrow for long haul flights, which is less convenient if done by rail then air. Indeed, whilst many air routes have competition, rail services curiously don't - but funnily enough when it involves trains, those on the left don't seem to care about competition.
2. He blames the lack of high speed rail on privatisation. How odd. Privatisation of rail in the UK started in 1994. The first TGV line in France opened in 1981. The first Spanish AVE line in 1992. The first German ICE trains in 1991. The first Italian high speed line in 1977. So get the picture? What stopped it happening in the UK when it was state owned? The nationalised British Rail was a bastion of disastrous investment decisions, like the high speed APT train, that was abandoned with the technology sold onto Fiat, which has since made a commercial success of it (so that it made the trains now used for the UK's West Coast Main Line between London and Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow). Indeed, getting new rail lines built in the UK is partly a problem of a planning process that is glacial due to prolific NIMBYism. The truth is that British Rail took passengers for granted, and subsidies, and just let its market share of domestic travel erode over decades. Funny how rail patronage since privatisation is now at its highest level since 1956.
3. He claims this will tackle climate change, but this buys into the myth that a subsidised railway with half empty trains most of the day is better for the environment that privately owned commercially operated flights. Airports are privately run and commercially operated. Airlines equally so. A high speed railway in the UK would be government funded, commercially run and carry considerable subsidies. Its major users would be business people, those willing to pay for fast travel. Why should their movements be subsidised? Is it not better that all users of transport pay for whatever the market charges, regardless of how high it is?
4. To top it off he says "its something we should start thinking about now" . By we he means the New Zealand Government, he wont be setting up a private company, seeking investors and borrowing money to do it (how absurd!), he wants to force you to pay some consultants to start thinking about it. A high speed railway in New Zealand, where most lines are already unprofitable and unviable, and where the highest speeds achievable at the moment are 105 km/h on short segments(whereas the UK reaches 200 km/h on it's NON-high speed lines), and with a topography that is obviously unsuited to long straight and flat pieces of infrastructure, is utter nonsense.
However, when you drink from the religion of the railway, then all spending is an "investment", all new lines are "great ideas", and everyone should be made to pay, whether they use it or not! The cost of this idea for the UK is conservatively put at £30 billion, but is likely to be far higher. The government's own Eddington Report criticised the idea of building high speed railways as poor value. He said:
"Given that domestic aviation accounts for 1.2 per cent of the UK’s carbon
emissions, it is unlikely that building a high-cost, energy-intensive very
high-speed train network is going to be a sensible way to reduce UK
emissions." and
"However, new high-speed rail networks in the UK would not significantly change the level of economic connectivity between most parts of the UK, given existing aviation and rail links. Even if a transformation in connectivity could be achieved, the evidence is very quiet on the scale of resulting economic benefit, and in France business use of the high speed train network is low."
You see the faster the train, the higher the carbon footprint, and building very long new strips of bespoke infrastructure in itself is a very carbon intensive activity. However, my argument is more simple. If the private sector wont invest in it, why should taxpayers be forced to?
At a time when the Labour government has squandered hundreds of billions of future taxpayers' money on growing the state and unnecessarily nationalising banks that should have been left to fail, this is just more wishful thinking by a government keen to bribe voters with the taxes of others - before it gets consigned to history in the 2010 election.
Meanwhile, the economically and environmentally illiterate rail junkies will cheer on pillaging other people's pockets to pay for their pet projects, not letting facts get in the way of their excitement. Much like what has already been happening on rail in Auckland.
UPDATE: It seems all three main UK political parties are ignoring quality advice and choosing to support this cargo cult of high speed rail. One consultant has already noted that 49% of UK domestic flights are to other islands or to destinations like Aberdeen and Inverness which couldn't conceivably have a high speed rail link. The Conservatives are stupidly claiming that cutting this small number of flights will remove the need for a third runway at Heathrow. Another case of flaky Labour lite?
An aviation lobby group fisks the idea further, and points out the hypocrisy of a Liberal Democrat MP flying instead of going by rail, because of speed. The Lib Dems are like the Green-lite party of the UK.
Even rail expert and enthusiast Christian Wolmar is sceptical, and this is in the traditionally socialist (and pro-Labour) Guardian. So is this the Transmission Gully of the UK? A massively expensive project that politicians get overly excited about, make wild claims about the benefits it will bring, but the truth is that it is largely an illusion?
Let's see where he makes mistakes and avoids facts:
1. No high speed rail network could eliminate short haul flights in the UK. All plans are largely to connect London with one corridor going to Birmingham, Manchester and Scotland. I wont be pinning hopes on people flying between Aberdeen and Norwich, Inverness and London or Southampton to Manchester getting trains. Many who use domestic flights connect at Heathrow for long haul flights, which is less convenient if done by rail then air. Indeed, whilst many air routes have competition, rail services curiously don't - but funnily enough when it involves trains, those on the left don't seem to care about competition.
2. He blames the lack of high speed rail on privatisation. How odd. Privatisation of rail in the UK started in 1994. The first TGV line in France opened in 1981. The first Spanish AVE line in 1992. The first German ICE trains in 1991. The first Italian high speed line in 1977. So get the picture? What stopped it happening in the UK when it was state owned? The nationalised British Rail was a bastion of disastrous investment decisions, like the high speed APT train, that was abandoned with the technology sold onto Fiat, which has since made a commercial success of it (so that it made the trains now used for the UK's West Coast Main Line between London and Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow). Indeed, getting new rail lines built in the UK is partly a problem of a planning process that is glacial due to prolific NIMBYism. The truth is that British Rail took passengers for granted, and subsidies, and just let its market share of domestic travel erode over decades. Funny how rail patronage since privatisation is now at its highest level since 1956.
3. He claims this will tackle climate change, but this buys into the myth that a subsidised railway with half empty trains most of the day is better for the environment that privately owned commercially operated flights. Airports are privately run and commercially operated. Airlines equally so. A high speed railway in the UK would be government funded, commercially run and carry considerable subsidies. Its major users would be business people, those willing to pay for fast travel. Why should their movements be subsidised? Is it not better that all users of transport pay for whatever the market charges, regardless of how high it is?
4. To top it off he says "its something we should start thinking about now" . By we he means the New Zealand Government, he wont be setting up a private company, seeking investors and borrowing money to do it (how absurd!), he wants to force you to pay some consultants to start thinking about it. A high speed railway in New Zealand, where most lines are already unprofitable and unviable, and where the highest speeds achievable at the moment are 105 km/h on short segments(whereas the UK reaches 200 km/h on it's NON-high speed lines), and with a topography that is obviously unsuited to long straight and flat pieces of infrastructure, is utter nonsense.
However, when you drink from the religion of the railway, then all spending is an "investment", all new lines are "great ideas", and everyone should be made to pay, whether they use it or not! The cost of this idea for the UK is conservatively put at £30 billion, but is likely to be far higher. The government's own Eddington Report criticised the idea of building high speed railways as poor value. He said:
"Given that domestic aviation accounts for 1.2 per cent of the UK’s carbon
emissions, it is unlikely that building a high-cost, energy-intensive very
high-speed train network is going to be a sensible way to reduce UK
emissions." and
"However, new high-speed rail networks in the UK would not significantly change the level of economic connectivity between most parts of the UK, given existing aviation and rail links. Even if a transformation in connectivity could be achieved, the evidence is very quiet on the scale of resulting economic benefit, and in France business use of the high speed train network is low."
You see the faster the train, the higher the carbon footprint, and building very long new strips of bespoke infrastructure in itself is a very carbon intensive activity. However, my argument is more simple. If the private sector wont invest in it, why should taxpayers be forced to?
At a time when the Labour government has squandered hundreds of billions of future taxpayers' money on growing the state and unnecessarily nationalising banks that should have been left to fail, this is just more wishful thinking by a government keen to bribe voters with the taxes of others - before it gets consigned to history in the 2010 election.
Meanwhile, the economically and environmentally illiterate rail junkies will cheer on pillaging other people's pockets to pay for their pet projects, not letting facts get in the way of their excitement. Much like what has already been happening on rail in Auckland.
UPDATE: It seems all three main UK political parties are ignoring quality advice and choosing to support this cargo cult of high speed rail. One consultant has already noted that 49% of UK domestic flights are to other islands or to destinations like Aberdeen and Inverness which couldn't conceivably have a high speed rail link. The Conservatives are stupidly claiming that cutting this small number of flights will remove the need for a third runway at Heathrow. Another case of flaky Labour lite?
An aviation lobby group fisks the idea further, and points out the hypocrisy of a Liberal Democrat MP flying instead of going by rail, because of speed. The Lib Dems are like the Green-lite party of the UK.
Even rail expert and enthusiast Christian Wolmar is sceptical, and this is in the traditionally socialist (and pro-Labour) Guardian. So is this the Transmission Gully of the UK? A massively expensive project that politicians get overly excited about, make wild claims about the benefits it will bring, but the truth is that it is largely an illusion?
Don't hit girls but...
All sounds good that. Apparently a national strategy on domestic violence includes teaching primary school kids that hitting girls or women is wrong, according to this Daily Telegraph report. Of course it's wrong, initiating force IS wrong.
However there are two rather important issues with this.
1. Why just girls? Isn’t a message that you shouldn’t hit girls going to imply you should hit boys? Or is the quite right agenda against domestic violence, led by a feminist blindness to boys or men being victims of violence? Young men are the most likely victims of assault. Why not simply say it is wrong to first hit anyone?
2. What of self-defence? In some cases it IS appropriate to hit, that is if someone ignore the rule in the first place. Flight or fight are legitimate approaches, but children need to know that if they are hit, they should be able to retaliate appropriately.
So wouldn’t it preferably just to say kids that using force to get your own way with someone else is wrong? Get them to find examples of when that is done. In fact, get them to find cases where people want to use force to get their own way, or get others to use force for them. Most political parties do, for example.
However there are two rather important issues with this.
1. Why just girls? Isn’t a message that you shouldn’t hit girls going to imply you should hit boys? Or is the quite right agenda against domestic violence, led by a feminist blindness to boys or men being victims of violence? Young men are the most likely victims of assault. Why not simply say it is wrong to first hit anyone?
2. What of self-defence? In some cases it IS appropriate to hit, that is if someone ignore the rule in the first place. Flight or fight are legitimate approaches, but children need to know that if they are hit, they should be able to retaliate appropriately.
So wouldn’t it preferably just to say kids that using force to get your own way with someone else is wrong? Get them to find examples of when that is done. In fact, get them to find cases where people want to use force to get their own way, or get others to use force for them. Most political parties do, for example.
So what happened in North Korea?
Bill Clinton knows, but he's not talking. The Korean Central News Agency is claiming, understandably, that he apologised:
Clinton expressed words of sincere apology to Kim Jong Il for the hostile acts committed by the two American journalists against the DPRK after illegally intruding into it. Clinton courteously conveyed to Kim Jong Il an earnest request of the U.S. government to leniently pardon them and send them back home from a humanitarian point of view.
However, this has been denied by an official. Obama has also said progress will only be made in relations if North Korea no longer develops nuclear weapons and stops engaging in provocative behaviour. Perhaps Kim Jong Il wanted to make peace before he passes on, what bigger coup would be than for a sitting US President to shake his hand - the great imperialist aggressor recognising it had met its match in the General Secretary of the Korean Workers' Party.
Former US Ambassador the UN, John Bolton, expressed concern that Clinton's visit showed how the US could be blackmailed through its concern for its citizens caught up abroad. The Daily Telegraph fearing that this shows North Korea being rewarded for its ill behaviour - something Bill Clinon ably did as President.
You see, the DPRK-USA "Agreed Framework" under Bill Clinton was that North Korea would be supplied with energy and technology in exchange for giving up nuclear enrichment. A total of US$1.5 billion (contributed by USA, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others) was spent on light water nuclear reactors and heavy fuel oil so that North Korea could have a nuclear power industry that did NOT produce material able to be used in nuclear weapons.
However, North Korea had its cake and ate it too. It continued uranium reprocessing, continued developing nuclear weapons AND took the technology and oil. Why did the deal happen? The Clinton Administration foolishly thought the North Korean regime would collapse after Kim Il Sung died in 1994, though the evidence for this was fairly slender. Maybe the assumption is the same now, that Kim Jong Il's death will see major change for the regime. That, at least, has more credibility.
You see Kim Il Sung had ruled North Korea with an iron fist since the country was founded in 1948, Kim Jong Il entered the public eye in 1973 and was anointed successor in 1980. Plenty of time to ensure enemies are dispatched before his father died in 1994. It hasn't quite be long enough since then for Kim Jong Un.
So, will we find out what was said between Kim and Bill? Whilst the two women have been fortunate, does this episode provide a chance to break down barriers with this antagonistic brutal regime, or does it bolster it?
Clinton expressed words of sincere apology to Kim Jong Il for the hostile acts committed by the two American journalists against the DPRK after illegally intruding into it. Clinton courteously conveyed to Kim Jong Il an earnest request of the U.S. government to leniently pardon them and send them back home from a humanitarian point of view.
However, this has been denied by an official. Obama has also said progress will only be made in relations if North Korea no longer develops nuclear weapons and stops engaging in provocative behaviour. Perhaps Kim Jong Il wanted to make peace before he passes on, what bigger coup would be than for a sitting US President to shake his hand - the great imperialist aggressor recognising it had met its match in the General Secretary of the Korean Workers' Party.
Former US Ambassador the UN, John Bolton, expressed concern that Clinton's visit showed how the US could be blackmailed through its concern for its citizens caught up abroad. The Daily Telegraph fearing that this shows North Korea being rewarded for its ill behaviour - something Bill Clinon ably did as President.
You see, the DPRK-USA "Agreed Framework" under Bill Clinton was that North Korea would be supplied with energy and technology in exchange for giving up nuclear enrichment. A total of US$1.5 billion (contributed by USA, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others) was spent on light water nuclear reactors and heavy fuel oil so that North Korea could have a nuclear power industry that did NOT produce material able to be used in nuclear weapons.
However, North Korea had its cake and ate it too. It continued uranium reprocessing, continued developing nuclear weapons AND took the technology and oil. Why did the deal happen? The Clinton Administration foolishly thought the North Korean regime would collapse after Kim Il Sung died in 1994, though the evidence for this was fairly slender. Maybe the assumption is the same now, that Kim Jong Il's death will see major change for the regime. That, at least, has more credibility.
You see Kim Il Sung had ruled North Korea with an iron fist since the country was founded in 1948, Kim Jong Il entered the public eye in 1973 and was anointed successor in 1980. Plenty of time to ensure enemies are dispatched before his father died in 1994. It hasn't quite be long enough since then for Kim Jong Un.
So, will we find out what was said between Kim and Bill? Whilst the two women have been fortunate, does this episode provide a chance to break down barriers with this antagonistic brutal regime, or does it bolster it?
05 August 2009
Clinton gives Kim Jong Il some propaganda
After arresting two US journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, at the border with China, North Korea has been keen to extract booty from the US for their return. It now seems it has extracted a great propaganda coup, by getting Bill Clinton to meet Kim Jong Il.
The two women were arrested amid the following claims expressed by the Korean Central News Agency, which holds a monopoly on legal reporting from within North Korea:
“The investigation proved that the intruders crossed the border and committed the crime for the purpose of making animation files to be used for an anti-DPRK smear campaign over its human rights issue.”
“At the trial the accused admitted that what they did were criminal acts committed, prompted by the political motive to isolate and stifle the socialist system of the DPRK by faking up moving images aimed at falsifying its human rights performance and hurling slanders and calumnies at it” or so says the Korean Central News Agency.
The TV channel the women worked for is owned by Al Gore (it’s an internet TV channel) and Al Gore had offered to go visit, but the North Koreans refused, wanting a big hitter. So Billy has come to Pyongyang. Not the first ex. President (Jimmy Carter has been more than once), but certainly it will have a significant impact, especially now CNN is publishing images showing Clinton with Kim Jong Il.
You can already see it by the headlining of the article on the Korean Central News Agency website – which tells not of why he is visiting.
The poor women arrested and languishing in a North Korean prison of course face a grim future if not released. Their “crime” of course was to enter North Korea illegally, to report on the scandal of women trafficked to China for money.
Obviously some good will come of the visit if the women are released (without a bribe) and if anything useful can be gained from meeting Kim Jong Il (to get some sense of how well the chap is). However, Kim Jong Il will see it as more important, as Clinton is the highest profile American to visit North Korea in years.
However, one small group of sympathizers of tyranny will be upset. The Facebook group supporting the arrest of the women is here. A vile little North American retard who is either too stupid to read Orwell or too evil to embrace individual rights joins a small coterie of fools who are no better than modern day holocaust deniers.
So once Bill Clinton returns, presumably with the women he sought to recover (he can't fail, can he?) then some questions need to be asked:
1. Were the women be released at no cost to the US taxpayer? (presumably excluding the likelihood that they are already paying to fly Clinton there).
2. Did Bill Clinton ask that North Korea take major steps to reduce its oppression of its own people, in particular cease imprisoning children as political prisoners (from infants)?
3. Will the move have helped to reduce the tension on the Korean peninsula, including the risk of an aggressive war by North Korea?
4. Will Clinton's visit be likely to reinforced the current regime or help encourage liberalisation and reform?
My guess is the answers are no, no, no and reinforce the current regime.
The two women were arrested amid the following claims expressed by the Korean Central News Agency, which holds a monopoly on legal reporting from within North Korea:
“The investigation proved that the intruders crossed the border and committed the crime for the purpose of making animation files to be used for an anti-DPRK smear campaign over its human rights issue.”
“At the trial the accused admitted that what they did were criminal acts committed, prompted by the political motive to isolate and stifle the socialist system of the DPRK by faking up moving images aimed at falsifying its human rights performance and hurling slanders and calumnies at it” or so says the Korean Central News Agency.
The TV channel the women worked for is owned by Al Gore (it’s an internet TV channel) and Al Gore had offered to go visit, but the North Koreans refused, wanting a big hitter. So Billy has come to Pyongyang. Not the first ex. President (Jimmy Carter has been more than once), but certainly it will have a significant impact, especially now CNN is publishing images showing Clinton with Kim Jong Il.
You can already see it by the headlining of the article on the Korean Central News Agency website – which tells not of why he is visiting.
The poor women arrested and languishing in a North Korean prison of course face a grim future if not released. Their “crime” of course was to enter North Korea illegally, to report on the scandal of women trafficked to China for money.
Obviously some good will come of the visit if the women are released (without a bribe) and if anything useful can be gained from meeting Kim Jong Il (to get some sense of how well the chap is). However, Kim Jong Il will see it as more important, as Clinton is the highest profile American to visit North Korea in years.
However, one small group of sympathizers of tyranny will be upset. The Facebook group supporting the arrest of the women is here. A vile little North American retard who is either too stupid to read Orwell or too evil to embrace individual rights joins a small coterie of fools who are no better than modern day holocaust deniers.
So once Bill Clinton returns, presumably with the women he sought to recover (he can't fail, can he?) then some questions need to be asked:
1. Were the women be released at no cost to the US taxpayer? (presumably excluding the likelihood that they are already paying to fly Clinton there).
2. Did Bill Clinton ask that North Korea take major steps to reduce its oppression of its own people, in particular cease imprisoning children as political prisoners (from infants)?
3. Will the move have helped to reduce the tension on the Korean peninsula, including the risk of an aggressive war by North Korea?
4. Will Clinton's visit be likely to reinforced the current regime or help encourage liberalisation and reform?
My guess is the answers are no, no, no and reinforce the current regime.
04 August 2009
Pacific aid a waste of money?
The NZ Herald reports that Foreign Minister Murray McCully says that aid to Pacific Island countries is achieving little, despite millions of dollars being poured into the "Pacific Islands Forum" (formerly South Pacific Forum).
Quite right. The Forum has long been a typical intergovernmental organisation, filled with less than busy hardworking bureaucrats, more keen on earning high salaries that achieving much at all. In fact it demonstrates quite clearly what the approach to aid in the Pacific should be.
Firstly, if there is to continue to be aid, it should go to private charities and organisations that are motivated to achieve charitable good in the region.
Secondly, state aid should be phased out. New Zealanders who want to help Pacific Island states should donate their own money themselves (as they should for all states). Government aid creates appalling incentives of dependency, little interest in the recipient weaning itself off aid, and strong incentives to engage in rent seeking along the way. Rent seeking by bureaucrats, by aid distributors, by suppliers to aid agencies and ultimately recipients.
In other words, offering something for nothing will do precious little to generate a sense of independence, or to perform well. Remember. Africa has received increasing aid over 50 years, and much of it remains a basket case. By contrast, the likes of Chile and South Korea have adopted different national policies - of being oriented towards entrepreneurship, investment, governments that allow enforcement of contracts, and respect property rights (as well as having, now, vigorous open liberal democracies and independent judiciaries).
So when Murray McCully wants to "encourage Governments to adopt good fiscal practice, undertake some economic reform to become more globally competitive and encourage trade, and ensure aid is not squandered". He might want to tie aid to such reform, before phasing it out. After all, if you want the Pacific Island states to grow up, it might be about time to show them how and let them be.
Quite right. The Forum has long been a typical intergovernmental organisation, filled with less than busy hardworking bureaucrats, more keen on earning high salaries that achieving much at all. In fact it demonstrates quite clearly what the approach to aid in the Pacific should be.
Firstly, if there is to continue to be aid, it should go to private charities and organisations that are motivated to achieve charitable good in the region.
Secondly, state aid should be phased out. New Zealanders who want to help Pacific Island states should donate their own money themselves (as they should for all states). Government aid creates appalling incentives of dependency, little interest in the recipient weaning itself off aid, and strong incentives to engage in rent seeking along the way. Rent seeking by bureaucrats, by aid distributors, by suppliers to aid agencies and ultimately recipients.
In other words, offering something for nothing will do precious little to generate a sense of independence, or to perform well. Remember. Africa has received increasing aid over 50 years, and much of it remains a basket case. By contrast, the likes of Chile and South Korea have adopted different national policies - of being oriented towards entrepreneurship, investment, governments that allow enforcement of contracts, and respect property rights (as well as having, now, vigorous open liberal democracies and independent judiciaries).
So when Murray McCully wants to "encourage Governments to adopt good fiscal practice, undertake some economic reform to become more globally competitive and encourage trade, and ensure aid is not squandered". He might want to tie aid to such reform, before phasing it out. After all, if you want the Pacific Island states to grow up, it might be about time to show them how and let them be.
Hamas kids TV praises suicide bombing mother
CNN reports that al Aqsa TV (run by Hamas) has broadcast a children's show (Tomorrow's Pioneers) where it glorifies that a mother blowing herself up in a suicide bombing is doing more for her children than anything else. It is designed to convince children that if their mother gets ready for such a "mission" then it is for their good. In other words, Hamas is promoting a death cult to children.
None of this is new. Al Aqsa TV has used this childrens' programme variously to promote "wiping out the Jews" and promoting martyrdom as a good thing for children.
Want a summary of the episodes? Try this Wiki article, and see for yourself how to have childrens' programming that worships death, murder and suicide. Think how much this puts back any efforts at peace with Israel, and why so many Israelis think so little of Palestinians when some of them elect these sorts of people to government.
Prepared to treat Israel and Hamas as morally equivalent still?
None of this is new. Al Aqsa TV has used this childrens' programme variously to promote "wiping out the Jews" and promoting martyrdom as a good thing for children.
Want a summary of the episodes? Try this Wiki article, and see for yourself how to have childrens' programming that worships death, murder and suicide. Think how much this puts back any efforts at peace with Israel, and why so many Israelis think so little of Palestinians when some of them elect these sorts of people to government.
Prepared to treat Israel and Hamas as morally equivalent still?
The nonsense of relative poverty
Socialists have long argued that measurements of poverty should not be on the basis of actual subsistence - those who do not have the basics for survival of food, shelter, clothing etc. - but on relative wealth compared to rest of the country within which someone lives.
This of course means that the poverty level for those in your average developed modern Western country would be abundant luxury for someone in Bangladesh, Chad or Paraguay. Relative poverty is a combination of socialism and nationalism (why, for example, is the comparison only with people in the same country? Wealth is not distributed by governments, well not good ones).
The BBC has on its website a graphic comparison of what relative poverty means. It comes from a report which states that pensioners in the UK are poorer, relatively speaking, than pensioners in Romania. That seems intuitively nonsensical, but it is what relative poverty does.
Move the interactive graphic on that website to see what happens when you change the median income. If incomes rise rapidly, so does the poverty threshold. The wealthiest country has a poverty threshold that would be above average income in many countries, but if wealth was destroyed systematically (the Khmer Rouge and Zanu-PF being recent examples), the numbers in poverty could arguably decrease- because the poverty measure drops dramatically.
In other words, relative poverty damns successful economies by the implicit demand that "something be done" to ensure everyone gets their incomes uplifted by prosperity, whether they contributed to it or not. It rewards failed economies, because if people are roughly on average destitute, it's "ok" - at least there aren't too many people wealthy compared to those seriously destitute.
Of course this sort of analysis of "relative poverty" fuels the likes of Help the Aged in the UK, and the Child Poverty (in)Action Group in New Zealand, who simply demand more money be thieved from taxpayers in the middle and upper incomes, to give people at the bottom more - regardless of whether they did anything for it. It encourages dependency and wants to reward poverty, regardless of whether poverty actually means not being homeless compared to not being able to afford Sky TV, or fill up the petrol tank.
After all, two of the groups people appear most concerned about for poverty are the elderly and children. The elderly could see poverty relieved if they saved for their retirement and weren't taxed on their retirement savings or income. Old age is rather predictable. The poverty of children is the fault of their parents, who are (or should be) primarily responsible for paying for them. Breeding isn't compulsory, but too many think it is a right that demands others to pay for it. Both could be addressed in part by personal responsibility, with those who are poor through misfortune able to be helped by charities. You don't notice the Child Poverty (in)Action Group ever raising funds to feed some children do you? No - it just lobbies for the state to put its hand in your pocket to pay more welfare.
Poverty will, of course, always exist, if the relative poverty measure is retained. There will always be people who through incompetence or misfortune earn less than 20% of the median income. If you think that is a problem, then instead of expecting the government - such a quick response and competent authority as it is - to do something, why don't you?
That, of course, isn't really the answer anyone on the left likes to promote.
This of course means that the poverty level for those in your average developed modern Western country would be abundant luxury for someone in Bangladesh, Chad or Paraguay. Relative poverty is a combination of socialism and nationalism (why, for example, is the comparison only with people in the same country? Wealth is not distributed by governments, well not good ones).
The BBC has on its website a graphic comparison of what relative poverty means. It comes from a report which states that pensioners in the UK are poorer, relatively speaking, than pensioners in Romania. That seems intuitively nonsensical, but it is what relative poverty does.
Move the interactive graphic on that website to see what happens when you change the median income. If incomes rise rapidly, so does the poverty threshold. The wealthiest country has a poverty threshold that would be above average income in many countries, but if wealth was destroyed systematically (the Khmer Rouge and Zanu-PF being recent examples), the numbers in poverty could arguably decrease- because the poverty measure drops dramatically.
In other words, relative poverty damns successful economies by the implicit demand that "something be done" to ensure everyone gets their incomes uplifted by prosperity, whether they contributed to it or not. It rewards failed economies, because if people are roughly on average destitute, it's "ok" - at least there aren't too many people wealthy compared to those seriously destitute.
Of course this sort of analysis of "relative poverty" fuels the likes of Help the Aged in the UK, and the Child Poverty (in)Action Group in New Zealand, who simply demand more money be thieved from taxpayers in the middle and upper incomes, to give people at the bottom more - regardless of whether they did anything for it. It encourages dependency and wants to reward poverty, regardless of whether poverty actually means not being homeless compared to not being able to afford Sky TV, or fill up the petrol tank.
After all, two of the groups people appear most concerned about for poverty are the elderly and children. The elderly could see poverty relieved if they saved for their retirement and weren't taxed on their retirement savings or income. Old age is rather predictable. The poverty of children is the fault of their parents, who are (or should be) primarily responsible for paying for them. Breeding isn't compulsory, but too many think it is a right that demands others to pay for it. Both could be addressed in part by personal responsibility, with those who are poor through misfortune able to be helped by charities. You don't notice the Child Poverty (in)Action Group ever raising funds to feed some children do you? No - it just lobbies for the state to put its hand in your pocket to pay more welfare.
Poverty will, of course, always exist, if the relative poverty measure is retained. There will always be people who through incompetence or misfortune earn less than 20% of the median income. If you think that is a problem, then instead of expecting the government - such a quick response and competent authority as it is - to do something, why don't you?
That, of course, isn't really the answer anyone on the left likes to promote.
03 August 2009
2 degrees isn't competing on a level playing field
Now there has been much publicity about the new mobile phone network "2 degrees" with many TV ads.
What 2 degrees isn't telling you is a little about its history.
How did 2 degrees get its radio spectrum? Telecom and Vodafone both bought their spectrum in open competitive auctions. 2 degrees didn't get it that way.
You see, it was part of a deal that the last Labour government did to shut down Maori claims for the radio spectrum (which of course was often used before 1840!). The Waitangi Tribunal at the time believed that radio spectrum is a taonga and so shouldn't be sold, Labour allocated one of the 3G mobile phone spectrum networks to the "Maori Spectrum Trust" at a discount price, with some taxpayers' money to "develop it". Neither Telecom nor Vodafone ever used taxpayers' money to develop its cellphone networks. That Trust teamed up with a Zimbabwean company (Econet), which has since sold its shareholdings on. 2 degrees has had various private sector backers along with the Trust.
So, in effect, 2 degrees has radio spectrum at a discount rate, and has been subsidised to develop it.
What 2 degrees isn't telling you is a little about its history.
How did 2 degrees get its radio spectrum? Telecom and Vodafone both bought their spectrum in open competitive auctions. 2 degrees didn't get it that way.
You see, it was part of a deal that the last Labour government did to shut down Maori claims for the radio spectrum (which of course was often used before 1840!). The Waitangi Tribunal at the time believed that radio spectrum is a taonga and so shouldn't be sold, Labour allocated one of the 3G mobile phone spectrum networks to the "Maori Spectrum Trust" at a discount price, with some taxpayers' money to "develop it". Neither Telecom nor Vodafone ever used taxpayers' money to develop its cellphone networks. That Trust teamed up with a Zimbabwean company (Econet), which has since sold its shareholdings on. 2 degrees has had various private sector backers along with the Trust.
So, in effect, 2 degrees has radio spectrum at a discount rate, and has been subsidised to develop it.
It also isn't developing its own network to cover the country, no, it is using Vodafone's, at commercially negotiated rates, but always with the threat of the state regulating them, and with the threat that if Vodafone or Telecom told it to "go build your own" network, the government may regulate for access - like it already has to Telecom's network.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)