Road pricing petition shakes Blair

In 2006, Tony Blair invited e-petitions to be set up on his website for the public to put their names to, as part of extending democracy. This, of course, encouraged nutters galore, and there are over 3000 of them. Many are semi-literate, some are crazy (Ban 4x4 owners' clubs, ban hoodies, cull seals), but one has worked in getting attention. Nearly 1.8 million people have signed a petition against road pricing.

^

The detailed wording of the petition is:

"The idea of tracking every vehicle at all times is sinister and wrong. Road pricing is already here with the high level of taxation on fuel. The more you travel - the more tax you pay. It will be an unfair tax on those who live apart from families and poorer people who will not be able to afford the high monthly costs. Please Mr Blair - forget about road pricing and concentrate on improving our roads to reduce congestion."

^

UK government policy on road pricing is to encourage local authorities to pursue local schemes, with all surplus revenue dedicated to funding local transport projects. London and Durham do this now, and a lot of other cities are considering it too - partly to relieve chronic congestion, partly because the government is willing to fund more projects if those cities pursue road pricing.

^

However, wider than that the government has indicated a long term policy to introduce national road pricing that will vary by distance, time of day, location and vehicle type. Now this is economically rational by itself. Britain has the worst congestion in Europe on average, and while there is scope for plenty of modest road improvements (especially in London, where Ken Livingstone is opposed to increasing road capacity), the real problem is that too many people want to use free roads at the same time.

^

Fuel tax isn't an answer, Britain has the highest petrol tax in the world (50.9p/l or NZ$1.40!), and none of it is dedicated to transport (unlike NZ where it is now all spent on transport). Raising fuel tax now means that road users in the countryside or driving off peak are paying a punitive level of tax.

^

However the government has done an abysmal job of selling road pricing. For starters it has not ever responded to the nonsense about it tracking everyone's movements. Anyone with a basic understanding of GPS knows it is not a "spy in the sky" satellite - it broadcasts signals that a unit in your vehicle triangulates and determines itself where it is. GPS satellites receive nothing from GPS receivers. Secondly, the technology to be used doesn't need to transmit location data anywhere - it can be used to calculate a charge and deduct it from a prepaid card, but only transmit location data when you fail to pay. It doesn't help that the Blair government is pursuing compulsory national ID cards or has a national DNA database of everyone arrested - in other words it can't be trusted on privacy.

^

It also has failed to state clearly what has often been mentioned, that road pricing must come with a countervailing cut or removal of fuel and road tax (similar to motor vehicle licensing in NZ).

^

Most importantly, the real problem is that doing something like this nationally is a huge risk for central government. It would be far easier and less riskier to commercialise or privatise the highway network, and let it be tolled to pay for all of its costs, and then make councils operate their roads commercially too and do the same thing. In any case, national road pricing wont exist before the next election, though the London scheme has just been extended, and there may be another local scheme or two before 2010. Blair has responded to the petitioners in a way that isn't bad, but probably not convincing enough for doubters.

Malaysia is not truly Asia - fortunately

I've been to Malaysia a few times, I don't really like it that much. The television ads that seem to show worldwide "Malaysia truly Asia" grate with me. I like Satays and there are some things interesting about the country, but it is also a real Nanny State. It has been infected by Islamic politics for some years, and by legalised racism and nationalism born from envy of the success of Chinese migrants. I hoped with Mahathir having moved on that Malaysia's authoritarian ways might have eased.

^

However, now according to Stuff the Malaysian government is going to recruit spies to snoop on unmarried couples doing “unislamic” things like holding hands or kissing. This is an offence in Malaysia for Muslims. When religion and state are not separate you get this sort of Taliban-lite nonsense.
^
I actually have committed several of these offences in Malaysia some years ago, my girlfriend at the time came with me and we shared a bed, and we did break several laws on "unnatural" activities. (Apparently sharing the hotel room was an offence in itself)

^
Imagine how petty vindictive and pathetic you would have to be to spy on couples holding hands. Actually you don't have to just be an Islamist, you can be a Christian. There are plenty of Christian telltale busybodies who may cheerfully spy on and arrest unmarried couples being "immoral", let alone lock up homosexuals or people publishing tips on masturbation.

^

Malaysia isn't largely about bullying people, many of its people are kind and generous - and the Islamism is not truly Asia - the generosity and hard working attitude of many of its people are.

Ken Livingstone rips off developing country and Londoners

It is truly bizarre that one of the world's financial capitals is led by a leftwing nutter who worships Castro (leader of a dilapidated health care system, not that the UN is told the truth by the Cuban government), welcomed leaders of the IRA at the height of the bombings and now is having an affair with the latest leftwing bully, Hugo Chavez.

^

So Ken has signed a deal to buy oil (presumably diesel) from the Venezuelan state owned oil company at 20% below market prices, which will be onsold to the numerous London bus companies in exchange for those companies halving fares for welfare recipients.

^

This is truly the case of the poor of a poor country paying for the poor of a rich country.

^

So what does this really mean? Some think it is great, but when you look into it, London and Venezuela both lose.

^

On paper, it is a £32 million a year saving in fuel. London wins, Venezuela loses - welfare recipients in London are almost certainly a lot better off than the Venezuelan poor. What a socialist Ken is, ripping off poor countries to pay for his own poor.

^

However this deal isn't just about saving money. By halving bus fares for welfare recipients, there is a loss in revenue. The £1 standard fare (using Oyster cards) goes to 50p, to travel anywhere within Greater London (very very cheap), but this is for 250,000 people. Hockney council estimates that the fare loss will cost £25 million, and the Mayor's office claims maximum benefits of £16 million, so at best London gains £7 million or at worst loses £9 million. Hmmm

^

but there is more. Venezuela isn't doing this out of socialist solidarity alone. The Greater London Authority is to provide free consultancy advice to Venezuelan cities on "transport, protection of the environment, development of tourism, and town planning". After all, Caracas and London share so much. That advice isn't free of course, it means opening a GLA office in Caracas - yes the Greater London Authority will have a branch in South America. One estimate of that cost is £45 million. It better be less than £7 million clearly!

^

Even more peculiar, Livingstone goes on:

^

"At the same time it is a good deal for Venezuela. That country has started on the road of using its oil riches for the benefit of the majority of its population, which lives in cites, prioritising areas such as improving health care and the environment, public transport, better housing and town planning. This will gradually transform the quality of life for the majority Venezuela’s population, including replacing slums with modern towns and cities served by first class public services. London has invaluable expertise to contribute in this field and this will save Venezuela millions of dollars."

^

Would you take advice from officials from Greater London Authority or another city or specialist experts on health care, public transport and housing? Remember GLA has no role in health care, some role for the environment, a marginal role in housing and planning (though a major role in public transport). Notice how effective London has been in replacing slums?

^

So come on David Cameron - find a sane man to stand for Mayor, I've had enough of Ken Jong Il.

Smacking ban?

I’ll admit this debate has challenged me. I sympathise with those who don’t like smacking, but I also sympathise those who believe criminalising it is more destructive than not. I don’t like smacking, I wouldn’t use it against my children when I have some, because I remember how I felt when I was smacked – I thought it was disproportionate and thought it meant that I was hated. As a kid I figured people only hit other people when they don’t like them, as a punishment it seemed cruel to hit someone for making a mistake. I would rather have been explained to. Of course below a certain age I can’t remember being smacked, and below a certain age I wouldn’t have been easy to reason with. The question is also what smacking is – I had my hand smacked quickly when I tried to first put my fingers near something hot and was told why, I didn’t do it again.
^
So I can understand why some want to ban it – I don’t like it and don’t think it should be used – but, making it criminal bothers me. It bothers me because it lowers the threshold for state intervention in what are otherwise healthily functioning families. It bothers me because there are pretty robust laws against child abuse, and beatings and the like are illegal. It bothers me because it could be used by older children to threaten parents who attempt discipline that they’ll tell the Police. It bothers me because it seems to be unenforceable.

There are chronically negligent and despicable parents out there in droves, and it can be seen in those that use an extended family for parenting purposes – which leaves many adults partly responsible for kids, including teenagers responsible for children. Banning smacking will do nothing about this. It wont stop James Whakaruru’s mother, who handed the child’s murderer the vacuum cleaner pipe used to beat him to death, from having more children, hooking up with dysfunctional men who have further access to abuse her children – while she does nothing. It wont stop the state paying for these people, or paying welfare to convicted violent offenders, or stop violent offenders from having custody of children. At best it will send a message of non-violence, at worst it will criminalise otherwise good parents, who social workers, doctors and others will dob in for a smack on the bum.
^
I don’t like those defending it because they think it is a legitimate way to punish children, the only reason to not change the law is because criminalising this behaviour outright will go too far. If anything, there may be a case for reviewing and defining what is acceptable and what is not. However that is a tweak, perhaps defining physical abuse as any hitting that causes bruising. Think about this, if you are attacked by a child (remember this could be between ages 12 to 18 depending on who you talk to), would retaliating be counted as abusive? Imagine children accusing people of smacking them – with no evidence – adolescents aren’t stupid when they want to be despicably manipulative.
^
As Not PC says, the laws as they stand have done little to stop many many cases of abuse. Sue Bradford has a wider agenda, and you see it in Childrens’ Commissioner Cindy Kiro – it is the state having a greater and greater role as parent – in funding children, regulating children, regulating and funding their health and education, media, housing. No Right Turn supporting the Bill says in respect of most parents smacking "they are highly unlikely to be prosecuted unless the assault is considered serious enough to warrant it" in which case, doesn't the law adequately cover that now?
^
Child abuse is a complicated problem, and banning smacking will at best stop parents from whacking their kids in public, a humiliating practice for the child. This will be deterred and that is that – but hardly a great win.
^
If you’re serious about reducing the rate of abuse, then perhaps policy needs to be tough. How about this?

- Those convicted of serious child abuse are banned from living in any household with people under 16 or being alone with any child. This should be part of sentencing, beyond a certain threshold this should be a matter of course. Breaches of this will see prosecution and imprisonment. Those who are accessories to this also face prosecution (so mothers who love convicts may become convicts themselves);

- Eligibility for welfare and state housing is denied to anyone convicted of a serious violent offence (anything beyond mild single assaults), second time round you lose access to state health care and national superannuation (go ask for charity, see who cares after you ruin the lives of others);

- Parents/guardians able to be charged as accessories if their child is physically or sexually abused in their presence, and the crime has not been reported promptly.
^
A useful measure is to remove those who brutalise and destroy childrens’ lives from being able to receive money from the state, and from having access to children in the future including being parents. By the way this applies to rapists too. Once you have brutally violated another person, you have no right to expect any of the privileges of state, except to be left alone with those who choose to be with you – children don’t count in that.

^

I hope the smacking ban does not proceed. I would like smacking to end as a culturally acceptable practice, I don't believe banning it achieves that - I believe it deflects attention from it and is an "easy" answer, but then some on the left are strangely reluctant to take away welfare and privileges from violent criminals.

Airline passengers charged by weight?

Given how strict some airlines get about checked luggage, and the growing obesity of airline passengers, an enlightened airline policy could be to combine weights of passengers and luggage to determine if there is an “excess” fare. This means instead of a standard 20kg policy for checked luggage it should be total passenger/luggage weight of (in economy class) say 113kg = 85kg body plus 28 kg for hand and checked luggage. If you weigh 65kg, you get 20kg more luggage, at 110kg you get 3kg to carry/check in, unless you pay more.
^
At a certain point girth has to matter too, the narrowest Air NZ seat is on the Boeing 737 at 17 inches, so that’s the test. If you can’t fit 17 inches without overlapping, buy another seat (or on international flights go up a class, where it doesn’t matter as seats in premium economy and business overlap).
^
It’s green too – reduces fuel consumption on planes, reduces demand for flying and it would also encourage more people to lose weight.
^
Now it shouldn’t be government policy, but I wonder how many people would choose an airline if they could take more luggage if they weighed less, AND knew they could have a seat without someone encroaching on their space?