How Copenhagen discriminates against the West

Now let's make a series of jumps, and say the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is about a problem, attributable to human emissions of CO2 and that the best way to solve it is through agreeing by international convention, for nation states to restrict emissions.

Bear with me on this, just assume this is all true.

Let's look at what countries would be bound by this. So called "industrialised economies and economies in transition" are the ones expected to shoulder most of the burden, on the basis that they have already "benefited" from using fossil fuels, emitting CO2 and clearing forests for habitation. So called "developing countries" are expected to should a far smaller burden. They were expected to do nothing under the Kyoto Agreement. This time they are expected to contribute to emission reduction targets, but should not have "their development" hindered.

The philosophy being that it is "unfair" for developing countries to not undertake the sort of economic development that industrialised countries have.

Bear with me further, and just assume this principle is fair.

What should define industrialised vs developing countries? A reasonable measure is GDP per capita, or rather what is produced in a country in goods and services divided by the population, converted into a standard currency such as the US$. There are variants using Purchasing Power Parity, but for the sake of simplicity, let's talk about GDP per Capita. A country with double the GDP per capita than New Zealand must surely be classified industrialised, right?

The countries listed as industrialised and in transition are (geographically broadly from west to east):
Canada, USA, all European Union member states (except Malta and Cyprus), Iceland, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Croatia, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Yes, that's it. Almost all of Europe, the two wealthy North American states, rich Australasia and Japan.

The GDP per capita range of these countries (using the IMF listings in Wikipedia for 2008) would be from US$133,044 per person in Luxembourg to US$3,910 per person in Ukraine. A very wide range indeed. Now it would be fair to argue Ukraine, Belarus, both having GDP per capita well under US$10,000 should not be in this category, but probably are due to Russia not wanting to be disadvantaged, but that is besides the point.

New Zealand, by the way, is at US$30,030 per person, above 14 others, but beneath 21

What's a developing country?

That is far more interesting. You see the developing country with the highest GDP per capita is Qatar. A country that has benefited hugely from exporting fossil fuels. It has a GDP per capita of US$93,204. More than THREE times that of New Zealand, yet will be expected to have a fraction of the obligations New Zealand will be signing up to. Some might say Qatar is still developing. Maybe, but then who gets the US$93,204 per annum per person if many Qataris aren't wealthy already?

It isn't the only one. Here's a list of other "developing countries" that will not have their economies hindered by the forthcoming Copenhagen agreement, all of which are wealthier per person per annum than New Zealand:

United Arab Emirates US$55,028 (oil in Abu Dhabi and a couple of fast growing airlines)
Kuwait US$45,290 (oil)
Singapore US$38,972 (just quietly keeps "developing country" status)
Brunei US$37,053 (oil)

All of these countries, all of which either make a lot of money from others emitting CO2, or running businesses that do so, a lot (like airlines).

However, that's not all. There are umpteen others that also are "developing" but are still within the ballpark of industrialised countries' wealth per head that are EU member states:

Israel US$28,409
Bahrain US27,248
Bahamas US$22,359
Oman US$21,646
Trinidad and Tobago US$19,870
South Korea US$19,136
Saudi Arabia US$18,855
Taiwan US$16,988
Equatorial Guinea US$14,941 (one guess that per capita isn't helpful in this place)
Antigua and Barbuda US$14,556
Libya US$14,479
Barbados US$13,314
Venezuela US$11,388

So why is this so? Why do a bunch of oil rich Arab states and what were once the "tiger" economies of East Asia get left out?

Why do environmentalists not call for those states to be treated as "industrialised" given they have per capita wealth similar to those that are classified as such, and indeed are often profligate users of oil, with subsidised domestic fuel and the like?

Could it just simply be that this whole agenda carries with it the old fashioned anti-colonial view that "the West must pay", and so even those who are much wealthier than many in the West can do nothing in return?

If so, why is New Zealand signing up to something that does not demand the reclassification of all countries that are within the GDP per capita range of "industrialised countries" as no longer being "developing"? Mexico, for example, has a higher per capita GDP than Ukraine, Bulgaria and Romania. So why are the former communist bloc countries being expected to change far more radically than Mexico?

Will any industrialised countries blast open this blatantly anti-Western (and Japanese and Turkish) nonsense?

Simon Mann released from Equatorial Guinea

Simon Mann was part of a group of plotters planning to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea before the Mugabe regime caught them and handed them over. He had been sentenced to 34 years, with a £12 million fine, and has been released apparently on "humanitarian grounds".

It's a shame the coup hadn't succeeded. Equatorial Guinea is an appalling dictatorship. Its current leader is only good by comparison to his insane drug addled uncle, and there is little doubt its enormous oil riches are being pocketed by the President and his family.

UPDATE: Simon Mann is a two-faced prick, demanding his co-conspirators face "justice". He may have promised the regime to wage war against them, but to now be actively assisting for their arrest is just vile. Sir Mark Thatcher and Ely Calil are now under investigation in the UK under the Terrorism Act after the dictatorship sent a dossier from Malabo. Mann is assisting Scotland Yard. In other words, legislation designed to protect the UK may be used to protect a kleptocratic dictatorship instead.

Simon Mann. I'm glad you weren't killed, but now, you can go to hell.

Air NZ abandons Boeing for domestic routes

Just to show Air NZ's predominantly state ownership does not stop it from applying good commercial acumen, the NZ Herald reports that it has wisely chosen now to order replacements for its Boeing 737-300 fleet, which is almost exclusively used on main trunk domestic flights. Wise, because the global recession has meant deals are easier to get from the two main suppliers of replacements, Boeing and Airbus.

What it will mean is an end to the long history of Boeing 737s on domestic routes, which started in 1967 when the then NAC ordered them to replace the turboprop Vickers Viscount. That first generation set of 737s was at a time when 737s were not popular internationally, and there was a hard sell from a British delegation to order the now virtually forgotten BAC 1-11. Boeing proved its 737 was more promising, despite much British lobbying, and it was right. The Boeing 737, and its second and third generation derivatives has been the most successful airliner made ever, with over 6,000 produced and another 2,000 on order.

The BAC 1-11 sold 244, including bizarrely 22 built in Ceaucescu's Romania. A legacy of a deal signed in the late 1970s. NAC made the right choice.

Since then, the original fleet of 3 has expanded to 15 today, and has been renewed twice. Although Air NZ has tended to order the last of the line of versions about to go out of production. In 1985 the original Boeing 737-200 fleet bought under NAC were replaced with the updated Boeing 737-200 Advanced series (around the last ever made). In 1999 these in turn were replaced with the last Boeing 737-300 series ever made, which saw an end to the noisy 1960s generation turbofan engines well remembered by those living in Wellington's Eastern Suburbs because conversations would need to stop whilst they would take off.

The Boeing 737-300s remain in service today.

Boeing undoubtedly offered its "next generation" 737 series 700, 800 and 900, Airbus had an advantage in Air NZ already having A320s largely used to fly services across the Tasman and to Pacific Islands.

The choice of the A320 was made on price, and it enables economies to be made in having one type of aircraft. The A320 has two other advantages, it has a slightly wider cabin so enables slightly wider seats and aisle, but also carries standard cargo containers in its belly. The "next generation" 737 cannot do that, as its fuselage is still essentially based on the long out of production Boeing 707.

So good for Air NZ, new aircraft, with a lot more seats, more cargo capacity, at a good price, and economies of scale of having one small jet type.

Bad luck for Boeing having lost a sale for a loyal customer of over 40 years for its most successful type.

For passengers it should mean more seats that are slightly wider, perhaps a common fleet that may all have personal TV installed at seats and business class once more domestically perhaps (unless there will be domestic and international configuration A320s). Overall it means that in a few years time, Air NZ's entire jet fleet will be comparatively very young as the 747s and 767s are phased out over the next 5 years as well.

Tough on crime, tough on rights

Not PC posts on the government's package of measures to get "tough on crime" and notes that Idiot Savant rightfully is worried about Judith Collins apparently being gleeful about the end of the burden of proof, obviously in relation to certain laws.

This all harks back to the political populism behind seeking to be tough on crime, something I happily support. What should this mean? Well it means you need to look at the whole process of resolving crime and dealing with criminals.

The first is to ensure the Police are focusing on crime according to its seriousness and crime that involves victims. This means crimes against the person are prioritised over property crimes, which are prioritised over crimes that are against no one.

The second is to ensure the Police have the tools available to do the job effectively but fairly. That does mean having access to records of all those convicted, it means having access to fingerprint records of convicts and DNA of convicts as well. It means being able to be issued with a search warrant or interception warrant if there are, on balance of probabilities, grounds to assume a serious crime is being carried out or planned by suspects. However, it also means disposing of evidence that proves nothing, and that includes the samples of those not convicted unless they wish to have it retained. The innocent should retain that status, rather than some murky halfway house of being "known to the Police".

Thirdly, the courts should have objective law behind them and fact finding processes so that juries and judges can make appropriate decisions based on legally obtained evidence. That means courts are not occupied by victimless crimes

Finally, sentencing should do what it is meant to do, protect the public and send a punitive message. Imprisonment exists to protect people from the perpetrator committing further crime, but must also be proportionate to the offence and the harm to the victim. Fines may be appropriate if the purpose is to punish someone who is unlikely to reoffend. Young offenders might be expected to be rehabilitated for a first time offence that is not a serious violent or sexual offence.

Debate around how best to manage the criminal justice system IS the primary area of public policy that would remain under a Libertarianz government.

Sadly, this government is seeking to use a sledgehammer to deal to crime, and it is doing so on the basis the Police like to do policy in this area - "let's get those bastards and give us the tools to do it, and you'll be right, you'll have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong".

Let's be clear what we are talking about in the government proposals:
- Seizure of assets if you can't prove you obtained them legally. Imagine right now the effort you'd need to go to in proving how you afforded your last major purchase? Imagine now how the most sophisticated gangs would establish shell companies and manufacture invoices, receipts and the likes to ensure that they could prove enough. Most of all, ask yourself why anyone should have to prove innocence?
- Wide ranging powers to enter properties, without warrant, if the Police suspect a person who has committed an imprisonable offence is on the premises;
- Wide ranging powers to stop a vehicle, without warrant, if the Police suspect a person in the vehicle has committed an imprisonable offence;
- Wide ranging powers to enter properties, without warrant, if the Police suspect a person is about to commit a drug offence;
- Wide ranging powers to stop and search people in public, without warrant, if the Police suspect a person is carrying a weapon, including knife or a "disabling substance" (yes women, that means you carrying mace or similar);
- Wide ranging powers to search any vehicle, without warrant, if there are reasonable grounds to believe stolen property is within it;
- Powers for the Police to enter your property lawfully (i.e. unchallenged) and snoop using their eyes, ears and recording what was seen and heard;
- Powers for the Police to require you to provide passwords to access your computer and any data you store.. and so on.

More here

What needs to be asked is why this is justified, and what are the specific problems that mean obtaining search warrants is proving too problematic for the Police?

Judith Collins thinks you are protected because of judicial review, but frankly this has little credibility. Parliament is sovereign, when it takes away your rights, the courts are not likely to overturn this. The Bill of Rights Act is only useful for challenging interpretation of general provisions, but the specificity of statute can override this. Beyond that she thinks the media and democracy save your rights, but frankly the NZ mainstream media is not up to the job, as you'll see below. Besides, when the Police Minister cheers the end of the presumption of innocence, then you should be afraid.

Bear in mind of course, guilt till proven innocent is what the tax system is about (and Idiot Savant probably isn't going to campaign to change that is he?)

Following on, it is highly ironic that the president of the Police union Greg O'Connor says this:

"New Zealanders have got to wake up. P has done for this country what the Prohibition did in the US – it's entrenched organised crime."

History delivered an answer to that. Perhaps Mr. O'Connor might be asked to comment on this?

Oh and while we're at it, notice how the Dominion Post article above looks essentially like a government press release with nothing but comment from those supportive of it? Notice how Britton Broun (who was graduating three years ago) did not approach any opposition parties, defence lawyers or anyone else who might be able to comment differently on his little piece of agitprop?

Is this the free media Judith Collins relies upon for robust and vigorous debate and defence of our rights?

Caveat emptor on Destiny Church surely

That's all there is worth saying about this case from the Taranaki Daily News.

If you enter a relationship with someone who is deeply religious, or as a couple enter a deeply fundamentalist religion, and you find the religion gets between you and your partner, why should you be surprised?

Unless the church or your partner forced you, you have a mind. Use it. If you fail to do so, then caveat emptor (and with Density Church you most certainly are "buying").

As much as I have no time for religion personally, the fact remains it is voluntary for adults. The state is not. If you think Destiny Church is a rip off, then don't go and warn others to not go if you wish. If you think the government is a rip off, then your only choice is to complain, or leave to experience another one, which rips you off in a different way.

Nats torture the disabled!

Well I'd think that if I got my NZ news from Idiot Savant, who says the Nats are cancelling the invalids benefit unless people work.

He said the invalids benefit "Its (sic) paid to terminal cancer patients, people with no limbs, and the totally blind." and a lot of others too of course, but no he wouldn't tell you that.

He says the Nats are forcing people off the benefit and "we will waste millions hounding these people, and millions more on pointless and humiliating medical tests to confirm that no, there haven't been any miracles, and that they still have cancer, motor neurone, paralysis, or whatever other condition robbed them of their career. As I said: sadism - and a particularly expensive and wasteful form of it."

What banal nonsense. It is propaganda hyperbole I'd expect to see from the North Koreans.

After all, he paints National as libertarian in a ruthless way, when it is nothing of the sort, in fact you can almost see the image he paints of cigar smoking cackling about how they are going to be mean to the common people today.

What was actually said by Bill English was "Effectively we have [more than] 80,000 people where officially the welfare system has said they won't work again. We think that's a waste of those people and of their potential so we want to look at how to encourage more people off those longer-term benefits"

Nothing radical there, but no Idiot Savant thinks they should be on welfare for life, and nothing should be done about it. He bends down and kisses the welfare state for being so generous and giving, and that means he personally washes himself from ever thinking about giving a rat's arse about the people who get welfare. The state does it - all is better, and don't even think about changing it.

Now if the Nats were talking about transforming the system so that people in future made provision for permanent disability through insurance, whilst ensuring those currently on invalids benefits retained those benefits and had no disadvantage from working, then I might get interested. As it goes, Bill English is doing a little more than just letting things be as they are.

However, it is too much for an old fashioned socialist worshipper of the welfare state to even THINK the state might encourage less dependency, by, for example, making invalids benefit abatement rates parallel with tax (i.e. for every dollar you earn, the benefit is abated by the tax paid on that dollar).

International welfare state logical if.....

you believe in the welfare state at all.

One of the latest little "hands in the air" scandals to hit Britain is the news about the 38,000 children in Poland receiving British child benefits because their parents are working in the UK.

The EU of course means that all European citizens are, well, European citizens. British, Irish, Polish, Italian, Portuguese, Greek, Romanian or French, you are all entitled to live, work and claim health, education and welfare in whatever country you are in. So if you live and work in the UK, you can claim benefits for children that may be located elsewhere in the EU, at the UK rate. Now the vice versa would apply as well, but good luck to a Brit working in Poland and getting Polish benefits for their children (if there are any), because they will, understandably, be much lower.

The welfare state concept is based on the idea that we are all our "brothers' keepers", so that people who are in need of income assistance (or income at all) get it from the state, paid for compulsorily by you. Of course take it further and it is based on there being an unwritten, unconscious and unagreed obligation. Your very existence means you must pay for others to survive, and their very existence and poverty means they are "entitled" to welfare.

So the question comes, if it is good enough within border, why not internationally? After all Polish children are far more needy than most British children. Why stop there, why not have a global welfare state where taxes are taken from those with the ability to each according to their needs (you know where THAT came from don't you?)?

Isn't anything else racist, xenophobic and morally wrong? After all, if the welfare state is moral, it must surely be moral internationally. Couldn't those on the left argue that such trans-border poverty is "racist"?

The answer of course is no. It isn't moral to maintain the welfare state. It isn't moral to force people to pay others to have an income. The answer to Britain's dilemma of paying the welfare state of others is to phase out its own.

It could start by telling the EU it is eliminating payments to other countries, and then all new migrants are told they will never have a claim on welfare, in exchange for exemption from the PAYGO tax otherwise known as "national insurance". From then starts the long weaning process off of the welfare state, which will see support for the poor move from compulsion to choice, from the state to the private voluntary sector. However, nobody dare even talk of such a thing in the UK today.

Have we not learnt from 1989?

Janet Daley in the Daily Telegraph asks:

"Why do the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the anniversary of which we have been commemorating in a low-key way, and the collapse of communism which followed feature so little in the education curriculum and in the popular renditions of modern history?"

Indeed. She thinks those who had responsibility for curriculums and many commentators were shocked by the sudden implosion of the political system that had kept half of Europe under its jackboot for nearly half a century.

She notes that while Marxism expected capitalism to collapse, it collapsed instead, at least in its most hardened forcefully imposed form, but capitalism simply cannot:

This brings us to the delusion permitted by historical ignorance about the present economic crisis: capitalism, whatever the BBC says, has not collapsed. The banking system very nearly did, but that is a different thing: the banks are simply businesses through which capital flows. They were badly run and they failed due to mismanagement. Capitalism was badly served. But it has not – and cannot – collapse for the same reason that it cannot be overthrown: because it is not a structure that is imposed from above whose perpetrators can be forcibly dislodged.

Yes, you see capitalism is about individuals, about them applying their minds to the world around them and seeing how they can offer people goods or services in exchange for money (or goods and services), and then paying others to provide them services (with minds and hands) to assist in that production. Capitalism is simply human.

She says that if there was a greater observation of what 1989 was about (perhaps especially in Europe where far too many were enthralled by the eastern bloc as offering an "alternative way") it would teach us far more of the risks of rejecting capitalism and the human condition:

"If we had dared to look long enough at the events that followed 1989, as have many of those Eastern European countries which lived through them – if we had produced the plays and films and television documentaries and school texts that they had actually deserved – we might now have a fuller appreciation of the terror that follows from the need to extirpate individualistic impulses. An ideology that attempts to re-engineer human nature in the name of the collective good did not, as its founders had believed, require just a "temporary dictatorship" but a permanent one that bred corruption, victimisation and – most paradoxically of all – a bleak, inexorable poverty both of material goods and of aspiration which eventually became intolerable."

Indeed, nothing must frustrate the left more than the current recession NOT being a collapse of capitalism and not causing people to embrace the reality evasion of Marxism. However, it is timely at the end of this year to remind us all, and the young who knew not of what things were like in eastern Europe, of what the brave people of those lands were seeking to escape in that year.

The cold bleak crushing brutality of the steamroller of socialism.

Tell the truth on drugs and get fired

This is exactly what happened to Britain with the Chairman of the Home Office's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David Nutt. He has been followed by Dr Les King also a member of the Advisory Council.

Professor Nutt said that cannabis has had its classification, for legal purposes, "upgraded" to Class B status for political reasons. He was removed because his comments were seen as political and unacceptable.

He claimed alcohol can be more dangerous than cannabis or ecstasy, which of course goes "off message" with the view the government wishes to express - simply that drugs must be worse, hence they are illegal. The truth is more than those who want to ban harmful substances know it is far too difficult and publicly unacceptable to ban alcohol, so demonise those that are banned as being worse.

Of course all drugs, including alcohol, can have serious health effects and affect brain functioning. There can be no doubt of the danger, but it appears that having an honest rational debate about this is beyond the capability of the British government.

Lauren Booth in the Mail on Sunday has a tale of her own life that outlines perhaps why all of this doesn't seem to wash with some of the public, for as a child her parents smoked weed and would drink, the effects were different:

"Because in my home, as in far too many others, the question wasn’t what was legal and what wasn’t, nor what was cool or what was not. It was this: laughing adults, stoned on illegal weed or violent, frightening ones, drunk on legal lager?

She rightfully calls for a more informed debate on why people do become addicted to substances, but this step just takes things backwards".

Food, booze, spiders, breasts, idiots, Chirac, trick or treat and trolley buses

From today's Daily Telegraph:

A chef produces what he claims is the world's healthiest meal, a chicken and blueberry curry with goji berry pilau rice, which given the chef is British-Indian, makes some sense. Now the combination sounds interesting. Each serving contains the nutritional equivalent of 49 helpings of spinach, 23 bunches of grapes or nine portions of broccoli. The recipe is in the article, and given

"Each plateful contains 25,000 'ORAC' units - the scientific measurement of antioxidants in foods.

Foods higher on the ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) scale have been proven to counter the onset of cancer, Alzheimer's, coronary heart disease and diabetes.

Most “healthy” meals like salads have less than 5,000 ORAC units, while traditional curries have fewer still."

it has to be worth a taste.

The French are drinking like the British. Is it true? Well this is Celia Walden simply describing her own observations in France, for what that is worth.

There are 750 million spiders in the UK. Breeding conditions have apparently been favourable, and let's bear in mind that they are fairly harmless.

India Lenon, a student at Oxford writes about the Cambridge female students who chose to pose semi-naked for a student publication called The Tab. She says:

"And if these girls are clever enough to know what they are doing, we might even have to accept that the ones in the national press do to. And then we might have to let go of one of the finest bugbears of modern feminism. But we wouldn’t want that, now would we? So it is far better to assume that the female students of Cambridge University, just like Stacey, 22, in The Sun, are too thick to make their own decisions. That way we can carry on sticking up for them."

Quite, although men aren't apparently allowed to comment on such things.

Newest winners of the title "world's stupidest robbers" are these pair who used marker pens to "disguise their faces". Children can do a far better job.

Jacques Chirac is facing charges of embezzlement from when he was Mayor of Paris, the accusation being he awarded contracts for non-existent work to friends or associates. Gee who'd have thought?

The Vatican joyfully condemns Halloween calling it "a pagan celebration of "terror, fear and death". Given everyone I've known who has done anything with it just regards it as a bit of fun, isn't it being a tad too serious? I don't think Halloween is competition for other religions. Indeed, could not the commemoration of a crucifixion be seen to be about terror, fear and death too?

Poneke will be pleased that trolley buses are likely to return to the UK (with CGI video), in one city at least. Leeds is pursuing a state of the art system, and apparently has most of the funding needed to do it, as it is a fraction of the cost of putting in a tram system. It will have dedicated lanes and is certainly the first city in the English speaking world to build a new system from scratch in many many years. If successful, it could mean the era of expanding tram systems in the UK could come to an end - £20m per mile for a trolleybus line including buses compared to around £45m per mile for light rail (in Edinburgh) means you better have a need for more than double the capacity.

City AM on the US "recovery"

With all the excitement of the "obvious" economic recovery in the US, and the farcical sleight of hand by the Obama Administration claiming it has "created job" by taking from Peter to pay Paul, City AM's Allister Heath has a more measured view...

America’s growth rebound is good news as far as it goes. But the bulk of the third quarter’s growth rate was attributable to car purchases, construction and state spending. I still believe in a global square-root shaped recovery: a growth spurt starting in the third quarter, followed by a lengthy period of stagnation as budget deficits are cut and consumers deleverage. We shall see.

Bearing in mind car purchases were driven in part by subsidies, construction likewise, about the only US state spending that may have a productive spin off is spending on infrastructure that the private sector is crowded out from that is starved (such as roads), but that alone wont offset the net deadweight sunk cost of all of the other state spending.

The Obama and the Bush Administration both gambled that to NOT print money and spend it would make things worse - the question is whether it has simply made it gentler but last much longer, and for the cost to be born not by those who participated in the riskiest activities, but by future generations of taxpayers who gain nothing from current non-capital based government spending.

So despite the hype, a substantial number will not believe the recession is over yet, for right now there may simply be a government (future taxpayer) funded bubble of speculation and demand, that will be spent in the not too distant future.

Socialism rules on water

or so you'd think from the Herald comments section on water privatisation.

Profits are evil, you shouldn't expect a return on money spent on assets, no of course not. I'm sure all those posting would work for a stipend to cover the costs of going to and from work wouldn't they?

Foreign companies are evil, not like New Zealand local government, it would never rip you off would it? Those people who can take your money by force, borrow money and make you pay it back by force. Yep nothing like government to look after you.

Foreign companies will price gouge and milk horrendous profits with privatisation. Even though this would seriously cut demand, and people would find alternatives (not easily mind you, but people can collect rainwater, bathe at pools, beaches or lakes, get watertanks, wash sparingly). Even though many rural water schemes today are falling apart because of gross underinvestment by councils. Blank all that out. Blank out the general public actually buying shares in water companies or even privatisation involving giving shares away. Real public ownership comes from politicians running things doesn't it?

Water is a "human right", which you need to infringe on the rights of others to provide. Funny how food is different. So if there is no water supply is someone having their human rights abused? Another bogus "right", bogus because it demands you force someone else to pay to make it happen - no genuine rights require anyone else to do anything, just let people be free.

Water is free, ignoring that it costs money to treat it, to pump it, to build and maintain pipes to reticulate it, and then to carry away the wastewater and treat it before ejecting it. Blank all that out.

"Electricity was privatised", just blank out the fact that 70% of the electricity market is held by three STATE owned enterprises (but leftwing hysteria is just catching).

The railways were "destroyed" even though a third of all railway lines were closed under state ownership, and when renationalised the railways were carrying record levels of freight on a per tonne km basis. Blank all that out, the myth is that something really valuable was destroyed and bought back for nothing - when in fact it was a business with a lot of sunk assets that needed to be fully depreciated, so it could focus on what it was good at. Another part of leftwing legend.

Finally, not one of the Marxist gits who post even consider that food, petrol, clothing and most housing are privately provided, most regarded as essential to most people, along with umpteen consumables like light bulbs, furniture, appliances etc. All by private companies, many foreign owned.

If you believed this showed what most New Zealanders thought you'd have good reason to understand why the GDP per capita of NZ is so absymal, being full of whinging non-entrepreneurial worshippers of the state, with a malignant view of economic incentives and overwhelming trust in government.

Who inculcates this hysterical hatred of private enterprise, belief business is just out to rip everyone off, overwhelming trust that state ownership makes things better and attitude of near class warfare about the provision of services that quite happily get done privately elsewhere?

Laws is wrong, but

he is expressing the frustration of those who see an underclass of violent, negligent and destructive people breeding, producing children who face a bleak and difficult future.

His solution as described in the Dominion Post is wrong. Damned if taxpayers should reward people for being indolent, otherwise it becomes a career option for the stupid - be sufficiently vile and threaten to breed and get someone else's money for nothing. It has been deliberately misconstrued as "totalitarian", as if people have a right to be appallingly bad parents, when the likes of Cindy Kiro (backed by Sue Bradford) did advocate a totalitarian solution, yet no mainstream media ever picked up on it.

However he has a point. A point that the Child Poverty (in)Action Group misses, because it worships at the altar of "higher benefits" rather than genuinely combating the lack of ambition and the feral behaviour of so many in poverty. Barnadoes Chief Executive Murray Edridge rightfully says any child could become a doctor but he is wrong in saying "as long as there was community support for them", as he implies that good parents are expendable. The truth is that they are not. Sue Bradford even trots out the usual "more resources" nonsense to combat violence.

No, you don't need money to stop killing your kids.

The fundamental problem is twofold.

Firstly, people are paid to breed. Many who are don't abuse their kids, but they inculcate a culture of entitlement. A belief that everyone owes them a living and should pay to raise their kids. However, you can be a murderer, rapist, violent criminal, burglar or fraudster and still be paid by the state to raise kids, and get more money with every child you have.

The first simple thing to do is to prohibit all people convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence from ever being able to claim welfare. That includes anything for raising children.

Oh, but what about the kids? Indeed, the parents should have thought of that. They are responsible for the children, they bear the burden of paying for that. If people want to help, they are free to do so voluntarily. However, taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for criminals to breed - simple as that. After that, you might ask whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for anyone to breed.

Secondly, the state needs to be willing to remove children from their parents when they abuse them or become an accessory to abuse of them. The threshold should be high, but effort should be put into intervening when there is clear evidence of criminal behaviour towards the children, or fundamental neglect. Indeed, it should be considered in sentencing whether criminals should be permanently denied custody of their children, if the offending is serious or the children were used as accessories.

Finally, parents who clearly can't look after their kids should surrender them as a last resort, those who say they care about child poverty might actually think about doing something about kids in those situations, rather than complain the government hasn't done it.

There has always been an underclass that neglects and abuses children, what we know now is that it is more publicised, and cases appear to be more frequent. However, the answer to this underclass is to stop feeding the attitudes of dependency, victimhood and blame passing that welfarism promotes, and indeed more than a few on the left promote (the nonsense that capitalism stresses people out so much, they turn on their children).

If only Labour were right

Phil Twyford, (Labour's list MP with a non-existent profile) says of the government's Auckland mega council plans:

"Council-controlled-organisations are to be established for water, transport, community services (including libraries and community houses), land development, the waterfront, and economic development. Each of them will report to a council-owned holding company."

The HORROR. Like electricity, the railways, NZ Post, Air NZ all under Labour. Too many function though surely?

It's not enough though, Phil is concerned that if his train is late, he wont get a swift response from the Mayor - because the Mayor gets involved in day to day activities right?

"If the trains aren't running on time, or the footpaths aren't being maintained, the mayor will have to talk to the CEO of the holding company who will have to talk to the CEO of the council-controlled-organisation. who will have to talk to the contractor who is delivering the service."

Um, well given the government owns Kiwirail, and the ARC already contracts a private company (Veolia) to run the trains, how would that change Phil, given that's the arrangement that was in place when Labour set it all up?

However he presents the best claim next, he's scared his little friends will be lost:

"This is corporatisation gone mad. There will be nothing for the elected politicians to do. I don't know why people would bother standing for office under this model. It will be impossible to hold the politicians accountable because they won't have the power to deliver.

Phil Twyford said a rump CEO of the Auckand Council would be left to administer corporate functions like information technology, human resources and finance, and public relations."

I'll believe it when I see it, and I'm convinced it isn't true, but if it is..

speed the day. I'll take back most of what I said about the mega city proposal.

If it can stop local politicians in Auckland from meddling in operations, from pushing their own little agendas at the expense of ratepayers, from even turning up to council meetings, it will be a great step forward.

Shame it's almost certainly vacuous hyperbole.

UPDATE: Let's remember how trains in Auckland are run at the moment...

The ARC has a council controlled organisation, called ARTA (set up under the last government) to CONTRACT OUT management of the passenger rail service, which it has done so to a company called Veolia. A private company. Veolia runs the trains, ARTA owns the trains (Kiwirail owns some too which are leased to ARTA), Kiwirail owns the tracks. Kiwirail is an SOE, effectively another arms length commercial organisation. So anyone complaining about the trains in Auckland going to a local politician would see that person following quite a trail of organisations down the line.

The Labour Party is complaining about the trains being just LIKE that, yet set the trains up to RUN like that.

So is Phil Twyford so stupid that even he doesn't bother to research the governance arrangements in Auckland for rail transport set up by the last Labour government before complaining about the current government doing what he says, is the same thing?

More language misrepresentation

Except this time it is the NZ Herald, simply getting things wrong.

The government is removing a restriction on councils that will allow them to freely choose to privatise water or to contract out the construction, operation, financing and management of water supplies to the private sector.

So why have a headline "Should water and wastewater services be opened up to private competition?"

You see there are no statutory restrictions on providing competing water or wastewater services, although councils would no doubt use the RMA to make it difficult. So this isn't about competition, it is about allowing councils to choose privatisation.

So like the ACC issue, privatisation and competition are being mixed up.

To be fair, it is unlikely that there would be competition in reticulated water supplies or waste water. That's not to mean there aren't potential alternatives.

People can, of course, buy bottled water, establish rain water collection systems, or could establish businesses to buy water in tanks. Waste water need not be carried away in pipe, but could be collected in sumps that can be emptied. Indeed, many people in rural areas and small towns do just that.

However, again, this is besides the point. All that is happening is councils will be able to use their "power of general competence" to privatise to a greater or lesser extent.

The very same people who wanted councils to be empowered, don't trust them to decide what to do with water and waste water services - funny that.

Sue Bradford's valedictory

It is hardly a surprise I have little time for Sue Bradford. A (former?) Maoist who doesn't get her communist past seriously questioned by the mainstream media, who is a joyous worshipper of big government is hardly going to be a great defender of individual freedom. However I will give her one credit, on select committees she was courteous to Libertarianz submitters.

So her valedictory speech has little special to note. Take this:

"It continues to sadden me that so many people, particularly in the world of blogs and talkback, so casually dismiss New Zealand MPs as corrupt, or lazy or incompetent, or all those things simultaneously." Yes is it surprising? She isn't exactly the model of a competent citizen, and the way MPs so readily support granting vested interests financial or regulatory privileges is telling.

She's rightfully controversial for Section 59, and in saying this: "there is a job for all of us to do in working for a society in which all children and young people are treated as worthy of innate respect, rather than as the property of their parents." she seems to imply that those who don't beat up children have a responsibility to the children of those that are beaten up. Sadly her profound failure to attack those who neglect, rape, beat and murder children, rather than paint most parents with the same brush, must be the greatest disappointment. She supported Cindy Kiros' proposed nationalisation of children which would have been the most profound attack on the family in the country's history. She may have had the best of intentions, but the worst of means and where a sniper's rifle was needed to attack truly vile parents, she preferred the scattergun.

She doesn't particularly believe people are to blame for their circumstances, describing women in prison as "mothers and babies who are caught up in this particularly tragic set of circumstances". Presumably because the mother is a criminal Sue? The babies DO deserve contact with their mothers, but being caught and convicted for committing a crime isn't "being caught up in tragic circumstances".

Sadly she also has learnt nothing from economics, and doesn't see the inherent contradiction in this statement "Capitalism is not providing the answers we need to find a way forward, and some of us at least must be brave enough to seek out viable, democratic and peaceful alternatives." Well Sue, every other alternative is NOT peaceful, it requires you do violence to peaceful people interacting voluntarily, perhaps the problem is that you're not willing to just use non-governmental organisations to achieve what you want through persuasion, not force.

She concludes as a collectivist that "Unless we are willing to challenge the status quo, to examine power relationships and inequality, and do something about addressing core issues, nothing will change for the better for those who have least, or for the natural world our species is so bent on destroying."

It's a shame that someone so passionately interested in people, is so indisputably tied up in believing people do not have individual responsibility and freedom to change their lives, that so many are perpetual victims, and that the route to improving people's lives is not their own efforts to create, produce and convince others.

Rodney Hide's going to harm you!

That's effectively what Sue Kedgley is saying about Rodney Hide's announcement of very modest (tinkering) changes to the Local Government Act to put water on a similar footing to other local government activities (whereas before private sector involvement was severely constrained).

She said:

"This has the potential to be hugely harmful to the public,"

How Sue? Will private managers pour poison into the supply? Will they use it to drug the population en masse? Will they turn off the supply and sell the water to (spit) foreigners? Will there be no water left??

Then she said: "This theft of the public's assets is alarming and dangerous."

Hold on, so letting COUNCILS decide what to do with the assets they control, under the principle of the power of general competence that YOU support, is alarming and dangerous? Presumably because you actually want to force councils to hold onto assets because of your own hysterical belief in government ownership.

Kedgley twists and manipulates the truth saying "That would give private interests free reign over the whole water management process and effectively wrest control from local councils". No, councils could grant control TO private companies. It doesn't wrest control at ALL, but gives councils freedom to offer it.

Who is it a danger to? Who is thieving what exactly?

Yet Sue has a rival, with the inane pronouncement from the hysterical Penny Bright that "water services should never be run to make a profit. Affordable water was a basic human right."

What's food then you silly bint? Should councils supply that too? Should we all just stop paying for water and say "it's a human right, bring me it"?

The Water Pressure Group's website hasn't been updated in 7 years, which tells you a little about what an incompetent little group of Marxist mediocrities it is. Penny Bright opposes commercialisation and privatisation of water supplies, despite England managing rather well with it, but this issue, like ACC, is being treated by the left as a beat up.

In the UK, of course, water was privatised in England and the World Bank wrote a report on it here. The result being that while prices went up, there was an 83% increase in capital spending to fix decaying infrastructure which meant all water companies became compliant with drinking water standards. It has also meant more prudent use of water, as many pay for what they use - better use of resources being something the Greens care about, until it clashes with their Marxist bias.

Rodney should, of course, force all councils to separate out their water activities into companies and divest them, either by sale or giving shares to ratepayers. Then water can be treated like other utilities, those who use the most will pay appropriately, the capital cost of infrastructure can be spread over the life of the assets, and it probably will be good for the environment too.

However, since when have the Greens put the environment ahead of ideology?

Turmeric kills cancer cells

Want an excuse to have curry? Here it is.

The BBC reports the Cork Cancer Research Centre has found that the spice turmeric kills gullet cancer cells within 24 hours of contact. The chemical curcumin is responsible.

Letter to Ahmadinejad

On his birthday, Mein Javedanfar in the Guardian has written an open letter to Iranian coup leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He says, among other things:

"Mr President, you would do well to stop thinking that you are proficient in all matters. Although you have better academic credentials than many of your predecessors, your narcissistic behaviour is driving the country into the ground. Meanwhile with your reckless outlandish speeches, you are tarnishing the millennia-old reputation of Iranians as tolerant people."

Quite. He would be an international joke if it weren't for the sleight of hand on nuclear matters.

"Iran's economy, despite vast natural resources, is the pity of the Middle East. The Iranian passport is the fourth worst passport in international leagues. Even Lebanon, whom you supply with millions of dollars every year, requires a visa for Iranian visitors.

However, Iran has one thing that should be the envy of this world, if it already isn't. And that is its young people. Many of its students trounce western students in maths and science competitions. Unfortunately, you have imprisoned many of them and killed others because they want a genuine recount of the presidential votes."

Mein makes the point that Ahmadinejad is looking a lot like the former Shah of Iran, distant, out of touch and increasingly dictatorial. He suggests that Iran should be a proper liberal democracy with:

"Elections where the people decide, and not the leadership. Where Iranians are not tortured or killed for their opinion, in their own country. That day, Mr President, could already be on its way. The people of Iran are the country's most powerful asset. Ignoring and abusing them has been perilous before, and could be again."

It would be appropriate, of course, for Iranians oppressed by this feeble minded megalomaniac to give themselves a present - as it would be quite moral to put a bullet through his head for all that he has done and the abject brutality of the regime he leads.

He does, after all, lead a regime that executes children.

10 myths you learn from school

The Times has them today including:

Napoleon was short - he was 5ft 7, which was average, then.

Vikings had helmets with horns, no they were buried with helmets and drinking horns.

Edison invented the light bulb. No, Joseph Swan did.

Mice like cheese. No they prefer sugary food.

Humans evolved from apes. No, humans and apes have common ancestors.

Read the rest here.