When will adults be given full time parents?

This sort of scheme is absurd. "A smart card that subsidises healthy foods has been recommended by obesity researchers. The system was proposed in research commissioned by the Ministry of Health, the New Zealand Herald reported."

We have the nonsense that people who are overweight, are actually poor. The opposite of the developing world. The latest excuse is that "it's cheaper to eat badly". This, of course, is nonsense.

Here are some ideas:
- Pasta (without cheese);
- Soup, with bread;
- Canned vegetables;
- Water, the universal drink - or even tea and coffee.

The attitude that people are overweight because of money is the attitude that there are adults incapable of looking after themselves, that they should be wards of the state, that nanny looks after them, feeds them, spends their money and ensures they are healthy. It is at best patronising, at worst a damnation of decades of welfarism that has produced people who are no better than children, because the state houses them, gives them money to spend and expects little in return. Of course once obese, people have the delight of the state picking up the tab for health care, because it sends no price signals over the years about how much extra it will cost.

I love this at the end though "Pensioners should be excluded because they had not been found to experience food insecurity, he said."

Oh hold on, so pensioners don't have this problem because presumably they aren't so stupid as to buy unhealthy food, or they aren't so lazy to not think a little bit about their shopping?

It's time to give up on this nanny approach, start thinking about health care as a personal responsibility and move towards people paying towards their health costs. I don't support removing GST on food, as GST should simply be abolished altogether. Removing GST on food makes food relatively cheaper than other "entertainment". However, it wont make any difference to obesity.

One thing might though. Getting rid of subsidies for bus services would encourage more people to walk and cycle.

Feedback on Telecom proposal

The NZ Herald reports "The Government wants feedback on Telecom's request for a variation on its planned operational separation.

Telecom announced a three-way split of its operations as part of the previous Labour Government's 2006 decision to reregulate aspects of the industry.

Communications and Information Technology Minister Steven Joyce said Telecom recently requested the government consider a variation to the proposed plan"

Here's my feedback:

1. Let Telecom do as it wishes. The Government does not own Telecom, Telecom's shareholders do.

2. Advise Telecom it does not need government permission for any changes to its own corporate structure, and that the Telecommunications Act 2001 will be amended to remove any powers of the government to direct the Telecom as to its property rights.

The NZX50 should take a rather significant leap at that point. The mooching participants in the telecommunications industry might have to think again before expanding their "businesses" using other people's property under duress.

"Nanny state" is about defending freedom

Dr George Thomson from the University of Otago, Wellington has told delegates to a Public Health Association conference that 'public health initiatives to protect populations from the risks of the tobacco, alcohol and food industries have increasingly been labelled as nanny state'.

He of course portrays the "initiatives" as being benign measures by people who know what's best for us (doctors of course, who could dare question the good intentions of members of the medical profession, in whose hands we always want to submit our lives), and that the measures are protecting us from the "risks of the tobacco, alcohol and food industries", presumably because we are all naive children.

No Dr Thomson.

Virtually everyone knows smoking is bad for you. All children are taught it can cause lung cancer, emphysema and contribute to heart disease and many other cancers. It's no secret.

Virtually everyone knows alcohol is bad for you. Being drunk makes you less risk averse, excessive drinking kills your brain cells, causes cirrhosis and exacerbates some circulatory complaints and cancers.

Virtually everyone knows eating sweets, chocolate, snack food, deep fried takeaways and the like can make you fat, give you heart disease, diabetes, contribute to bowel and stomach cancers and other conditions.

Yet people do it. Why? Some because they like it, some because they are going through enormous stresses and strains, and getting drunk or gorging on ice cream can help you feel better.

The idea that people are naively being conned into eating, drinking and smoking is patronising and wrong - unless Dr Thomson can point out places where people don't know any better.

He thinks that the term nanny state comes from the industries selling these products:

“The increased use of these terms appears to be driven by industries that are afraid of increased control over the marketing of unhealthy products"

No it's not Dr Thomson, it is as much by individuals afraid of you controlling our choices in our lives. You don't get this, it is called freedom. Many people, fully aware of the risks, don't want to be told how to live their lives by do gooders.

He continues "There’s a need to reframe public health activity as stewardship that protects people. Governments are expected to balance the public good against the interests of big business, and to care for the vulnerable in society. We need to create the language to reflect this, which looks behind slogans and the stereotyping of opposition to unhealthy products"

The vulnerable? He means everyone. You can't target one without controlling all adults. More simply. I don't mind getting information about food, drink and other products for consumption, about the health effects, as long as I am not forced to pay for it.

However, I don't WANT your protection Dr Thomson. I'm an intelligent grownup who can make my own decisions.

He continues down a more disturbingly anti-business refrain "there’s a need to reframe and analyse businesses that inflict health damage to people, as leeches on society".

Ah so the pleasures people get from these products are worth nothing to you. They are not leeches, they are supplying products people want, that they choose to buy and enjoy. However, you're paid for by the taxpayer, forcibly, in other words people pay for you whether they want to or not. Who is the leech then?

He finally shows he true Orwellian hatred for freedom, by demanding the most intrusive nanny state possible by implication from this statement "Governments that allow damage to the general public are creating the ninny state, and are following corporate welfare policies, rather than the public good".

The government should protect us all from ourselves! We mere children, the state knows best, fortunately there are intelligent grownups to tell us what to do, for the "public good".

Dr Thomson, please kindly fuck off, feel free to spend your own money on promoting health living as much as you like, but when you force people to comply you're crossing a line. THAT is what Nanny State is about.

It's about freedom. Freedom to eat, drink, smoke whatever I want, as long as I am responsible for my actions. You see that is what differs us from the joyless drones who live in the likes of North Korea - where your message undoubtedly would be warmly embraced.

OECD report IS a wake up call

Tariana Turia and Annette King both think the OECD report "Doing Better for Children" is a wake up call. Sadly the people who most need to wake up, spend too much time sleeping and ignoring their kids as it is.

Tariana Turia thinks it is a wake up call to the government and you. Yes you! It’s up to you to fix these problems and you should be forced to do so, through taxes.

The response has been tragically asinine:

- Labour is calling for more fiscal child abuse to subsidise errant families;
- Jigsaw family services is calling for the same;
- Idiot Savant continues his state worshipping;
- The perpetually inert Child Poverty (in)Action Group wants to pilfer more money from successful families to increase welfare benefits (whilst CPAG itself does nothing material to help children).

Lindsay Mitchell by contrast points out that the OECD report contains a damning indictment on welfare for single parent families. She quotes "Some countries spend considerable amounts on long-duration single-parent benefits. There is little or no evidence that these benefits positively influence child well-being. Durations could be reduced and resources concentrated on improving family income during the early part of the life cycle for those children".

In other words, the OECD doesn't support the blind "more welfare" approach at all, and denies that such benefits are good for children. Ironic, when so many want to use this report to promote more welfarism, they deftly avoided that.

Many New Zealand families function reasonably well, and don’t have suicidal children or children in poverty. The people who should be waking up are as follows:

1. Everyone who breeds without the means to look after their kids: Why would you do that? Why would you produce children in poverty? The reason your kids are living in poverty is you. Yes, you.

2. Parents who abuse their kids: Apparently most of you were abused yourselves, which is hardly an excuse to repeat the behaviour. You are vile, you don’t deserve to have children, and you should be in prison and denied ever having custody of kids again. Just because Sue Bradford made it look like most parents are like you, they are not.

3. Parents who ignore their kids: Yes it isn’t a crime to always go to the pub instead of staying home and playing with or helping your kids, to never read to your children, to take little interest in what they do, to tell them that a lack of schooling never did you any harm, to be more interested in picking up men that picking up your kids’ homework or to regard your kids as a nuisance. However, you’re pretty useless as parents.

4. Politicians who insist on forcing everyone to pay for categories 1-3 above: Why are you penalising good families by subsidising bad ones? Why do you want to continue treating children as a welfare gravy train for indolent nobodies? Why wont you confront the disincentive the status quo is for good behaviour? Why do you create virtually useless agencies like the Ministry of Youth Affairs or the malignant (nobody is to blame) Office of the Childrens’ Commissioner? Wouldn’t children be better off if their parents didn’t need to work so much to make a living because you weren’t strong arming so much tax from them?

5. Staff of the Office of the Childrens’ Commissioner, and Ministry of Youth Affairs: You have failed, time to resign. 5x the suicide rate of the UK? Double the suicide rate of Australia and the US? Time to ease the budget deficit back a bit and shut those entities down.

Quite simple, if you can't afford to have kids, don't have them. If you have them, make sure you love them and dedicate a good part of your life to giving them the attention they deserve and need. Beyond that, either close your legs, take the pill, wear a condom and stop producing children you wont love or can't care for - and stop electing politicians who encourage it.

Then, people who can afford to have kids, might have more, and besides - those who think human beings are a blot on the environment ought to support people breeding less.

70 years on

It is the anniversary of the German invasion of Poland, an invasion facilitated by the Soviet Union, which saw the belated start to World War 2. A war that should have started long before, when Hitler was expanding his way through what is now the Czech Republic. According to Wiki, 6 million Poles were killed in World War 2.

Poland is now frustrated that Russia doesn't acknowledge its disgraceful role in appeasing Nazi Germany, and of course keeping Poland under 40 years of Stalinist tyranny (how many Western academics talk of Soviet imperialism?). Russia is claiming Poland conspired with the Nazis. Of course Russia now whitewashes over its own history in the Katyn Massacre.

Poland was truly one of the worst victims of the war, and the biggest losers afterwards.

Minto the socialist hypocrite

Plenty have commented on this nonsense, but my point is more simple.

If John Minto cares so much about the poor, why isn't he letting such people use his ample home for free?

He is one of New Zealand's loudest under achievers. He fought against apartheid, but largely keeps his mouth shut about the theft and corruption of his former mates at the ANC - as if it is any surprise that a bunch of African Marxists wouldn't also be kleptocrats.

He makes Matt Robson look centrist by comparison, but at least there is now a benchmark for hardline Marxist columnists in New Zealand (Robson and Trotter being the other obvious ones). The prick has openly promoted the communist Workers Party (sic)and the hysterical conspiracy theorist driven Residents Action Movement (sic) (which couldn't even convince all its members to vote last election, getting less votes than the minimum number of members to be a registered political party). Both parties so stupid they can't even use apostrophes in their names because their own members would be incapable of knowing how to use them.

RAM supports George Galloway, great friend of Syrian Dictator Balshar al-Assad, and Islamist terrorist groups working in Iraq.

The Workers Party is communist, supporting Castro, Che Guevara, the growing authoritarian rule of Hugo Chavez and is sympathetic to communists in Korea.

So you can see how much of a friend to human rights and freedom Minto is. He is a friend to those who embrace dictatorship, mass murder and totalitarianism.

John Minto, wants the state to be a thief on his behalf, and loves those who sympathise with killers. Nice.

Britain's newest friend - Libya

and look at the friend. After setting a convicted terrorist home free, Libya welcomed him as a hero.

Now as reported by the Daily Telegraph, Libya is celebrating 40 years of tyranny under Muammar Gaddafi. Half a billion pounds has apparently been spent on these celebrations:

"It was according to a German guest something that the Nazi Henrich Himmler would have been proud to produce.

Pictures of the 27-year-old colonel declaring the new regime were followed by highly partial renditions of his greatest achievements.

The leader's unique philosophy took centre stage.

The Great Universal Theory built on the theory that democracy can be perfected without representation and economics without the constraints of budgeting in an oil rich state.

Libya's involvement in funding and orchestrating terrorism and liberation struggles was extolled without a mention of the ravages to its reputation caused by implication in deadly incidents across four continents."

After all, having bombed two airliners, having bombed a nightclub, having armed and funded the IRA, having praised and hosted the murdering thugs Robert Mugabe and Omar Bashir, one can hardly be surprised.

Gaddafi is a ridiculous caricature of a dictator, in the mould of Kim Jong Il, except the latter doesn't have oil money and still sabre rattles.

By the way it is worth remembering the New Zealand links to Gaddafi. Trevor Loudon reported on how the late Syd Jackson himself admitted links to the Gaddafi regime, no doubt because Gaddafi was into supporting any revolutionaries who presented themselves. It is further worth noting how much Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Bradford, Metiria Turei, Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples glorified New Zealand's most well known friend of Gaddafi.

Human Rights Watch has its own disturbing view of Libya given the anniversary.

"The continued arrests and incarceration of political prisoners, some of them “disappeared”; the torture of detainees; the absence of a free press; the ban on independent organizations; and violations of women’s and foreigners’ rights plague the country as it tries to reintegrate with the international community. The country is dominated by one leader, who tolerates nounsanctioned criticism of his rule or Libya’s unique political system."

is one part of this summary report.

Wonder how many UK Labour MPs like their new buddy and friend?

Success of UK rail privatisation

Half hearted though it has been, as Network Rail, the private infrastructure owner, has been operating in recent years under government guarantee (and subsidies remain ridiculously high for some franchises), this article in the Daily Telegraph notes two of the successes of the UK's privatised railway operations:

- 60% more passengers than when British Rail ran everything, with higher patronage than at any time under state ownership (since 1948);
- Highest reliability since statistics have been taken.

In other words, people prefer privately run railways and they are taking people to where they want to go more reliably than the state owned one.

By contrast, very well paid RMT (rail union) head Bob Crow decries privatisation, because the rail companies make money, and because poor contractual accountability led to failures causing an accident some years ago. Apparently he hates the train companies making money, yet while they do so, they carry more people than ever before.

Methinks of course if rail passengers had to pay the real cost of services (which on some routes like rural Scottish and Welsh services, the West Coast Main Line and some commuter services), patronage wouldn't be so high, nor would overcrowding, but patronage is also due to the chronic profiteering of the UK government from fuel tax. Fuel tax went up 2p/l on 1 September, with it now being 5x the amount spent on roads in the UK. Imagine any other network utility that would be allowed to charge its customers 500% over its operating costs and investment. However, in the UK it is called the government. Perhaps if expenditure on roads more closely matched revenue collected from them, and rail fares matched cost, it may be a different story.

New Zealand motorists can at least take heart that all motoring tax money is at least spent on transport, even if 14% is spent on public transport, walking, cycling, sea and rail freight, and encouraging you to not drive at all. In the UK it is 80% spent on railways, social welfare, the NHS, schools, prisons, defence and debt servicing.

Analysis, nanny state and being economical

The OECD (far more reputable than any UN organisation) report today on young people highlights a few stats to get people excited. Within OECD (as in mostly developed) countries:
- UK teens drink the most (hardly surprising);
- Turkish teens are the most bullied but love school the most;
- Finnish teens have the best educational results (it's about keeping bad teachers out of the system and paying good teachers a lot to teach large classes);
- NZ teens have the highest suicide rate (time to scrap the obviously useless Ministry of Youth Affairs), but in the UK it is a fifth of that in NZ (does alcohol help?);
- Swiss teens have the least exercise (too much cheap public transport methinks, hehe)

Here is the report. It also says NZ average family incomes are low (so ask anyone wanting more taxes why that is a good thing). Time to read some more.

Today if you import incandescent light bulbs into the EU, you are breaking the law. So Germans are hoarding them. Another example of nanny state telling everyone what's good for them, something the EU is especially good at doing, will create a black market in light bulbs some people actually want to buy. Like children who don't know how to manage money, European residents are being told they must save energy for their own good - perhaps removing layers of subsidy and restrictions on what power companies can charge consumers (and raise prices), might be a better way of allowing people to decide how they want to save power, if at all?

The Drinking Water Subsidy Scheme is on hold. Essentially this is where taxpayers are forced to bail out the appalling mismanagement of local authorities that left local water supplies to go to rot through lack of maintenance, so that in some places water doesn't meet national standards. Good. The local people concerned should ask the local authority what happened to the rates it has been pilfering for decades, ask why it can't manage "public assets" (we hear so often how government can manage such things better than the "evil profit seeking" private sector) properly, why it hasn't heard of depreciation. Maybe they should haul some of the current and former councillors over the coals, and local authority managers. Maybe the voters should look to themselves as to why they trusted local government to supply water in the first place. In any case, it is NOT the fault of central government or taxpayers across the country to bail out such mismanagement. If people in some local authorities want better water, maybe they should just privatise what is left and - wait for it - pay for it. If not that, then set it up as a Council Controlled Organisation and, yes, pay for it. Oh and if Brendon Burns, ex. Labour spindoctor, is so concerned about the communities affected, he can go help lay new pipelines or cough up his own money - after all, what's stopping him besides his socialist principles?

The government isn't going to bail out investors in the failed Kingston Flyer tourist steam train operation. Good. It isn't a "cop out" it is treating them the same as everyone else. If you don't like it, you go down there and put your own money into it. Don't get the state to put its hands into everyone else's pockets for you. It is laudable that Kiwirail wont buy it back either. It is no more special than the umpteen other heritage railways in the country.

Give up the aspirin if you're healthy

It does more harm than good, according to a study by the Wolfson Unit for Prevention of Peripheral Vascular Disease in Edinburgh, according to the Sunday Telegraph.

"More than 3,000 men were randomly assigned to receive a daily dose of aspirin or a dummy pill and were followed up for an average of eight years.

There was no difference in the rate of heart attacks or stroke between the two groups and deaths from any cause were similar.

However there were 34 major bleeds in people taking aspirin, or two per cent, compared with 20 or 1.2 per cent of those on the placebo."

So aspirin is for headaches or prescription.... that's it...

UPDATE: Yes bollocks to my grammatical error, that I would give other people hell for... thank you Opinionated Mummy.

Japanese voters create history

Japan has spent almost all of its post war history governed by the Liberal Democrat Party (LDP). For many year it ensured stability and importantly, during the Cold War, resisted the early communism of post-war Japan. The almost continuous improvement in prosperity and living standards, including environmental clean ups in the 1960s-1980s, were under the LDP. The then Socialist Party frightened some, because of Japan's proximity to the USSR and North Korea, besides why change when everything was going so well?

Don't forget Japan has the world's second largest economy, with China only now rivalling that.

However, the LDP has long been beholden to many special interests. Japan's agricultural sector has long been the most heavily subsidised and protected. The construction sector in particular has benefited from ongoing massive state spending on roads, bridges, dams and other infrastructure, so much so that Japan has many grossly underused roads and railways. In addition, the state sector has remained immune from restructuring, and a regulatory environment that is supportive of incumbents, putting significant barriers in the way of new entrepreneurs who seek to challenge.

There was a brief period of 11 months in 1993 when the LDP lost power, as two factions brokeaway from the party and formed a short lived coalition. However, beyond that it has held on. Junichiro Koizumi helped revitalise the party briefly, and ensured the party's re-election in 2005, but since then it has gone through 3 leaders and so its reputation is in tatters. Constantly borrowing and spending money on infrastructure has failed to revitalise the stagnant Japanese economy. Japanese voters know they have not had it so bad for decades.

So now the former socialists, the Democratic Party have won 308 out of 440 seats in the House of Representatives. It will likely form a coalition with the leftwing SDP and the liberal centrist People's New Party. It's policy agenda is mixed, including cuts to the public sector, increases in some subsidies, cuts in fuel and sales taxes, hiking the minimum wage. However, I suspect it will be able to confront some of Japan's big economic demons - and will have little choice but to slash spending and confront the massive state debt.

Japan's economic is tied up in all sorts of regulation and discriminatory treatment of businesses based on favours and preferences. For example, Japan is one of the few countries left which Air NZ needs explicit approval for any new airfares it wants to set for flights from it.

Some on the left are encouraged by the socialist origins of the DP, as it talks of being less beholden to US foreign policy, and international capitalism, but I am not convinced it will make a material difference in those areas. It will learn very quickly how little it can change, how little room there is to move.

Japan is a country that is always difficult for outsiders to read, being one of the most insular societies in the world - but it is one of the economic powerhouses, and has long needed to break away from the monopoly of political power the LDP has increasingly mishandled.

Let's hope the DP takes a chance to be brave and make some tough decisions - Japan badly needs it.

Miscellaneous kiwi news bits

Compulsorily funded Radio NZ is bemoaning budget cuts. Oh dear how sad, even though private broadcasters have faced cuts due to advertising, the stations you all have to pay for, whether you listen to them or not, doesn't like facing getting less of the money you are forced to pay to it. Of course nothing stops people donating to RNZ. Funnily enough I notice Culture & Heritage commissioned a study into RNZ by KPMG, which as anyone who has dealt with the big 4 knows, is going to give you pretty much the result you wanted. Ever since broadcasting policy left MED and went to Culture and Heritage, it has become about how the state can do more, not less.

Of course my answer to Radio NZ is simple - start attracting donations, sponsorship, and learn to ask people for money.

Tukuroirangi Morgan, one of the most high profile parasites on the public tit in recent years thinks his opinion deserves some respect. He talks bollocks about denying Maori a voice on the Auckland council, when he means "denying people like me who need a separate Maori seat to get a job because I can't do it on my own merits". This supercilious nobody will forever be remembered as the man who claimed expenses for luxurious underwear, and was a one term wonder. He was defeated by Nanaia Mahuta (and a NZ First candidate, having defected to tough man Tau's Mauri Pacific party) in the 1999 election. Of course the Mauri Pacific party has the record of getting less party votes than Libertarianz in 1999. He is sad that even with Maori seats, he so disgraced himself few wanted him to represent them. Of course, it's been a while since he had a job that wasn't about his race - but just about his skills and abilities.

Paul Holmes thinks we can learn a lot from wild animals. He is of course dreaming when he is talking about species which engage in rational reactions for their own survival, that of the tribe and offspring. There's nothing special about it, except some animals get anthropomorphised by people who think they are cute. The thing is, animals are driven largely by instinct, not reason, and compassion is linked to reproduction and pack instincts for survival. He can romanticise as much as he likes, but I would've thought he could learn more from reading than from animals.

Jeanette's economic illiteracy

Unsurprisingly, the Green Party doesn't understand why the government has abandoned setting minimum fuel efficiency standards for imported vehicles. Quite simply, it would be counterproductive.

Such standards will restrict new and used vehicle imports - that puts up the price of buying a car. So people with existing old less efficient cars would pay up to $1,500 more if such fuel efficiency standards existed than if not. So it is better to just let people pay the market price, then they are more likely to get more efficient vehicles.

This goes way over the head of Jeanette Fitzsimons who clearly thinks "if we regulate so people can only buy fuel efficient cars, they will". Not thinking that reducing the supply of a good puts up the price. It isn't the EU Jeanette, this isn't a huge market and in fact New Zealand remains so poor that a large number of imported vehicles are secondhand.

So take it slowly Jeanette:
1. There is pretty much a free market today for vehicle imports. This means demand and supply are at equilibrium keeping pressure on prices.
2. Imported vehicles are typically newer and more fuel efficient than the ones they replace.
3. Restricting the imports to only vehicles of a certain standard bans certain ones from entering the market, restricting the ability of some to buy a replacement vehicle (which while not meeting your standard is bound to be an improvement). So such people keep older vehicles for longer.
4. The remaining vehicles imported face demand but less supply, so retailers can put the price up.

The analysis demonstrated your policy was wrong.

A new low on Kennedy

Mary Jo Kopechne might have thought her death by drowning was "worth it", given the career of Ted Kennedy.

So says Melissa Lafsky in the Huffington Post.

Given she said "Disabled? Poor? A member of any minority group? Then chances are your life is at least somewhat better because of Ted Kennedy." Yes, you all owe him so much, because he wanted to take more of your taxes and regulate the world so people like you had a chance, because without the services of a wealthy morally bankrupt politician, your life wouldn't have been so good.

Is it not so disgustingly evil to think you might speak on behalf of a dead woman to say her death at the hands of a drunken lech was worth it because of what he did with his life?

Should Melissa now offer herself on the altar of some politician so she can be left to die somewhere and someone else speak on her behalf and say "never mind, she'll think it was worth it given what the guy who left her to die did with his life".

Beyond smacking

Sadly, the terms of the debate on this issue have been very binary focused. One side arguing against the state interfering in how parents raise children, another said saying it needs laws on the use of force to stop horrendous cases of abuse. Neither particularly enlightens about how to raise children. Some will be aware of debate and disagreement among some objectivists about this issue.

I've written here, here, here, here, and here about my hesitancy about both sides on this issue. I despise Sue Bradford's desire to nationalise parenting, as epitomised by her embrace of Cindy Kiro's Orwellian proposals, but also despise the minority in the "pro-smacking" camp who embraced corporal punishment. Notwithstanding that, I believe most parents don't like smacking kids, but also they want to have the option without the Police treating them as abusers. Most parents would do virtually anything for their kids - it is the ones who treat their kids as a nuisance that are the problem.

So what ARE good parenting techniques? Not PC has lifted the debate, and produced an excellent post with many links (and comments) which is worthy of a read by any parent or prospective parent.

So if you don't think the best way to raise kids is to fill them with shivering fear of your violent punishment of them, OR that kids should be allowed to do whatever they like with no boundaries or guidance (except Nanny State), then go have a good read. It's called taking an issue beyond the banality of politics.

James Murdoch: libertarian hero?

Authoritarianism

That's how he describes the British broadcasting regulatory environment in the MacTaggart lecture he gave to the British television industry.

and he's right. A system that coerces all people with a TV set to pay up under threat of prosecution to fund a non-commercial broadcaster that is ever expanding its TV channels and radio stations, and which pays enormous salaries to attract popular stars from going to commercial TV - but thinks it is special and always demands to force the public to give it more money. The BBC. He decries the "land grab" this compulsorily funded state broadcaster has made to be everything to everyone, whilst the private broadcasting sector has strained to compete. Indeed, the decline of regional news on commercial TV whilst the BBC well funds its own equivalent is telling. Meanwhile, many do not know that Lonely Planet is now owned by the BBC - at what point should the state own a travel publishing operation?

Meanwhile, commercial broadcasting is heavily regulated as to the amount and types of advertising, so much that one channel cannot show an Indian show because of product placement of a company that doesn't operate in the UK.

In a brilliant speech he attacks OfCom, the UK's broadcasting and telecommunications regulator, effectively implying it is useless by deciding whether it is ok to describe Middlesbrough as the worst place to live in England, or this brilliant piece of sarcasm about how Ofcom published:

"the no doubt vital guide on ‘How to Download’, which teenagers across the land could barely have survived without."

He decries how the state is more concerned with throttling capitalism and spreads fear of its influence whilst "Nearly all local authorities already publish their own newspapers with flattering accounts of their doings. Over 60% of these pocket-Pravdas carry advertising, weakening the local presence of more critical voices". This, he argues, undermines independent journalism in towns and cities struggling to make a living which CAN impartially report on how local government operates.

He argues that people should be trusted to make good choices:

"People are very good at making choices: choices about what media to consume; whether to pay for it and how much; what they think is acceptable to watch, read and hear; and the result of their billions of choices is that good companies survive, prosper, and proliferate.

That is a great story and it has been powerfully positive for our society.

But we are not learning from that. Governments and regulators are wonderfully crafted machines for mission creep. For them, the abolition of media boundaries is a trumpet call to expansion: to do more, regulate more, control more"

Furthermore he decries the idea that independent balanced news comes from a state broadcaster:

"On the contrary, independence is characterised by the absence of the apparatus of supervision and dependency.

Independence of faction, industrial or political.

Independence of subsidy, gift and patronage.

Independence is sustained by true accountability – the accountability owed to customers. People who buy the newspapers, open the application, decide to take out the television subscription – people who deliberately and willingly choose a service which they value"

You see public broadcasters have only accountability to politicians who decide whether to force the public to fund them - that's it. It is time that there was a proper debate about the role of the state in broadcasting in the UK.

However, that debate rarely happens, and one reason is because the chief beneficiary of the status quo dominates the entire broadcasting sector - the BBC. The BBC can't be trusted to impartially engage a debate about its future, if it risks coming to the answer that the BBC is unnecessary, or should be a fraction of its current size. However, it is up to politicians and the rest of the media - the media that rises or falls on attracting audiences, customers and advertisers - to hold that debate.

For otherwise, the broadcaster that runs seven TV channels and ten national radio networks (plus numerous regional stations) will continue to say it is good for us, and please can it make us pay it more.

So James Murdoch is the libertarian hero of the day - confronting the authoritarian regulatory structure of broadcasting in the UK, which stifles the private sector, whilst allowing the BBC to be an ever growing leviathan of unaccountability. The BBC isn't good for us, just because it is convinced that it is, and makes us pay for the privilege of seeing and hearing it say so.

UPDATE: Amanda Andrews in the Sunday Telegraph says the BBC budget should be cut by a third. A good first step, I'd sell all BBC regional radio, BBC Asian Network. Radio 5 and 5xtra, Radio 1, 1 xtra, Radio 2 and CBBC. Cbeebies and BBC3.

For those want to "invest" in public transport

You believe the price of petrol is going to go sky high. As a result people will drive a lot less and want a cheaper alternative.

Really?

So here's a way you can do it, without force.

Take your savings, in fact set up a company, and speculate on oil futures. Buy as much as you can. It must be a safe investment, and watch your capital grow.

From the massive windfall profits you make from this, use it to invest (you always say invest) in public transport. Hybrid buses or indeed new trains. By then peak oil will be so obvious, that you could have borrowed from the bank to do so. People will be gagging for public transport so much, you'll get many investors willing to join you. New Zealand has a free market in public transport, just set up a bus company and go for it. In fact, the government may be happy for you to buy trains and run them on its track.

Run services, charging fares to cover costs (you're not into profits), so that people get the alternative you care so much about. Yes the trains may take longer, but surely with the empty roads you predict, the hybrid buses will operate with ease, quickly and efficiently, full of eager fare paying passengers.

Not willing to put your money where your mouths are? Well keep your hypocritical hands off of everyone else's.

So what's the transport funding about?

The NZ Transport Agency (yes it used to be Land Transport New Zealand, and before that Transfund) has announced its three year funding programme for roads and public transport. It used to be an annual announcement, so it is a positive change to announce three years worth of spending, which given the length of transport project makes some sense. Bear in mind that the whole legal and bureaucratic arrangements are ones set up under the previous government.

The government's announcements are telling. There has been a boost for roads compared to public transport, but nothing like what the opposition are saying. Given virtually all of the money being spent comes from road users it should hardly be a big deal to have most of it going on roads or services related to roads. Steven Joyce's press release lists a number of projects that are to be progressed, none of which are bad projects, though I note that Transmission Gully has no additional construction funding. The programme itself lists the construction costs of Transmission Gully at over NZ$1.4 billion. A ridiculous sum when upgrading the existing road would be unlikely to cost NZ$1 billion. Steven Joyce himself appears to be warming up the public to Transmission Gully being dumped. Good.

Anyway, so what is worth noting?

The proportion of spending on state highways is 59% up from 51% under Labour. There are big new projects, like committing money to build the Waterview Connection in Auckland, over the property rights of locals, the Te Rapa Bypass north of Hamilton and the Tauranga Eastern motorway (which will be tolled to pay part of the cost). Most of the rest of the spending is on already committed projects and maintenance. Notably, funding for Police enforcement of traffic laws is not increasing beyond inflation. I expect better performance will be sought under THAT contract. No, the Police don't get revenue from traffic fines either.

Money to subsidise public transport is becoming more focused, on projects that actually reduce traffic congestion, optimise service operation (?) and improve fare recovery from passengers (in other words wean services off of subsidies). 57% of public transport money is spent in Auckland, although 48% of public transport usage is there. Think about whether that's working.

From my perspective it is largely business as usual. The good thing is that all taxes from motorists are now spent through this, although it was Labour that introduced that, after National campaigned on it in 2005. It is also good that roads now get more of the money, 86% of spending is on roads or road related activities (planning roads, operating and policing them). However, this bureaucratic system still doesn't provide a link between users and the supply of roads. How do we know the projects are worth building? From a bureaucratic cost/benefit exercise and judgment. The fact remains all the money from road users goes into a pool and it is spent based on how users are perceived to "benefit" from the spending, not whether the money raised in an area or on a road is spent on that road or nearby network. There are huge cross subsidies, users in some areas undoubtedly pay too little, others pay too much, and demand isn't influenced by price - for example, it should be very cheap to use roads at the quietest times, but expensive when they reach capacity.

However, as long as government builds things, most people are happy. For now. Also, to be fair, New Zealand does this bureaucratic funding of roads far far less politically and more objectively than most countries. Bridges don't collapse due to lack of maintenance, and big new roads to nowhere don't get built, anymore. It's just the railway that's the biggest drain of pointless spending now, but most of the money on that comes from taxpayers directly, not motorists.

Other comments?

Darren Hughes says local roads will suffer, as they get no real additional money. The reason given is because councils have to increase rates for government to match more spending on roads. There is a serious issue here, but it would be better fixed by allowing councils to set charges for using their roads and replace rates funding with property access levies on roads where charges don't pay enough for maintenance. Hughes is talking nonsense on public transport though. Surely if public transport patronage rises, higher fare revenue should mean lower subsidies, although Labour's subsidy scheme encourages the opposite. The truth is Labour can criticise little, since National has largely continued Labour's funding allocation process. All it has done is scrap the pointless rail and sea freight spending and directed that and some public transport funding allocations to state highways.

Sue Kedgley of course talks mindless nonsense about the announcement:
- More than half of the NLTP budget ALWAYS went into state highways Sue, but then half the money came from motorists USING state highways.
- Yes every $7 spent on roads (including maintenance) $1 is spent on public transport, forgetting that another $1 is spent by ratepayers and yet another $2 is spent by the fare paying public. You see Sue, with one exception, roads aren't tolled. Oh by the way, for every person riding public transport, another 18 or so are driving or riding in a car.
- "It is especially disturbing to see almost no funding going into rail and sea freight - we have to shift our freight to these modes or else risk serious damage to our economy when the price of oil rises" What do you call subsidising Kiwirail from taxpayers Sue, and do you think Queenstown, which has no rail or sea freight at all, has been seriously damaged as a result?

The economic illiteracy and complete factual evasion of the Greens continues to astound.

ARC Chairman Mike Lee is cheering it on, proving it still has too much money for public transport.

ex. ACT MP and Rodney Mayor Penny Webster is upset that the dog of a project, the Penlink bridge, wont be getting special subsidies. So it either stands on tolls and property levies or wont be built. Good.

So let's not get too excited because reporters just report on press releases. Be grateful your motoring taxes are mostly going on roads, and if you are interested look here for your region to see what you'll be getting or not getting. Don't get excited if you're in Invercargill though, move along, nothing to see here (quite right too).

High speed rail not environmentally friendly

It's curious that the government backed private company that runs Britain's rail infrastructure - Network Rail - is promoting an extremely grand plan to make taxpayers pay for a high speed rail line from London to Edinburgh. £34 billion is the cost of a line from London to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh. It would cut travel time from London to Edinburgh by rail to 2 hours 9 minutes.

See according to the Guardian, a consultancy report 2 years ago said there would be similar CO2 emissions from building and operating a high speed railway between London and Manchester as there would be to fly the route. The difference being that aviation on the route needs no subsidy. It would be better to improve capacity on the existing line through removing bottlenecks and improved signalling.

So the environmental advantages are at best dubious, and the economic costs are enormous. A massive transfer from taxpayers to business users of trains.

If there is congestion on the current rail network, that simply means fares are too low at busy times, so they should be raised so overcrowding can be reduced and revenue raised to put in extra capacity as it is needed. New lines when existing lines have ample capacity most of the day are unlikely to be particularly a good choice.

Of course the fetish for the moment is that flying is evil, as is driving, despite people continuing to choose those options. The truth is flying is largely a commercially run private business. Road transport involves privately provided vehicles paying excessive taxes to use roads managed bureaucratically. Railways involve a mix of commercial and subsidised services on subsidised tracks. Maybe of the highways were privatised, and charged commercial tolls reflecting demand, the excuses to subsidise railways would start to evaporate?

Daily Telegraph columns of the day

Janet Daley on the Kennedy legacy, the truth behind the higher profile Kennedy men that seemed to go largely ignored, how one could have a private life of intense shallowness, whilst opining the highest moral standards publicly. Political hypocrisy came of age, was known and ignored.

Philip Johnston on the failure to address welfare. Instead of tackling the problems of an underclass dependent on the welfare state, Labour tinkled "From 1999 onwards, the government – ie the Treasury – abolished family credit, introduced working families' tax credit, introduced the disabled person's tax credit, introduced a childcare tax credit, introduced an employment credit, abolished the married couple's tax allowance, introduced the children's tax credit, introduced a baby tax credit, abolished the working families' tax credit, abolished the disabled person's tax credit, abolished the children's tax credit, abolished the baby tax credit, introduced a child tax credit, abolished the employment credit and introduced a working tax credit" so that "five per cent of British men aged under 50 are still classified as ill or disabled – three times higher than in Germany".

Doesn't matter, people on welfare all vote Labour anyway don't they?