Labour's Zimbabwe election tactics?

If anything should justify universal outrage about Labour it is the report in the NZ Herald that it plans to sidestep the Electoral Finance Act, by using YOUR money through the once politically independent state sector. These come from confidential strategy notes apparently distributed at the Labour Party Congress.
.
According to the NZ Herald "in a private session on the election strategy, run by president Mike Williams, delegates were advised to distribute pamphlets on KiwiSaver produced by the Inland Revenue Department and on Working for Families produced by Work and Income. They were also advised to tell voters when handing out the pamphlets that National voted against both measures."
.
So Labour wants to use taxpayer funded leaflets about government policy to campaign - how very convenient. Of course all public servants are expected to declare to the Chief Executive their political affiliations - all such public servants should simply not be permitted to remove from their work large numbers of publicity material for political purposes.
.
This, of course, was always the problem with the nonsense about "buying elections" with private money. The incumbent government can always "buy elections" with the resources of government departments directly or indirectly, and it is compulsorily funded by taxpayers whether they support them or not.
.
So will Nicky Hagar write a book about Labour's strategy to buy the next election? Oh no, that's right, that "journalist" wants Labour to win. Meanwhile, watch Labour's blogging lackeys deny it, say the Herald is a rightwing rag or claim that it's been misinterpreted. Anything for power right?

John there IS an alternative - make the argument

So John Key has been reported by Stuff as saying that National has "ruled out" state asset sales in its next term. Why? Well don't expect any thought about it - it's simple, Key doesn't believe in much another than getting elected. Fair enough some of you will say. However, some of us want to think that he'll DO something other than not be Helen Clark and not make things worse.
.
Of course, Helen Clark is having him for toast on this. "Miss Clark said Mr Key's stance was "laughable" and could not be trusted." It is and I actually hope it can't. I hope he DOES engage in asset sales, because there is so much the state shouldn't do.
.
There are multiple reasons why the state should privatise its commercial operations, and why the abject lies spread by the left about privatisation should be confronted. Here are some:
.
1. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to invest in businesses they don't want to invest in.
2. Politically appointed boards will be less competent than privately appointed boards, because politicians have incentives to meddle and make a company less profitable than it would be otherwise - which then means there is a bigger chance of a bail out.
3. The state should not be engaged in competing with the private sector. It is unfair for private competitors to fund state owned companies through taxes.
4. Private companies can more readily raise capital to invest, update and expand than state ones - this explains why Contact Energy seems more able to fund and build power stations than its competitors.
5. Businesses SHOULD be allowed to fail if they don't perform. It's part of capitalism and the world moves on, and new businesses buy the assets and provide services for people to use. This happened to TV3 in 1991, not that most of you will remember that. Australia was hardly crippled by the collapse of Ansett.
6. Privatisation can provide new expertise and capital to grow and develop businesses. Telecom and Contact Energy are two examples of this. The refusal to allow Singapore Airlines to do the same thing for Air New Zealand is one of the reasons the firm fell over.
.
However, arguments about better performance, getting more investment and accountability will not work with most of the public. Even arguing selling SOEs to cut public debt wont wash that much, although it is still valid. John Key could advocate privatisation of a more direct kind - give away the shares.
.
Imagine if National offered to give shares to every single citizen, in equal numbers to avoid arguments, in one current SOE. This would be true public ownership. Everyone would own shares, get dividends and watch the value rise and drop - and could decide whether to sell, buy more, and appreciate a little what it means to own business. Oh and the socialists could give the shares away to their favourite charity, not that they would of course.
.
So go on John, say you'll sell just one of the three government electricity SOEs (no monopolies here, there are around seven electricity generating firms) like Genesis - with 40% of the shares going in a public float and the rest shares distributed to all citizens. The firm buying 40% would provide the expertise and capital injection, the rest would mean all citizens could vote for directors, attend AGMs and truly own shares.
.
How many Labour voters would vote to get their shares? How would it change how people felt about capitalism being all shareholders? Watch how Labour and the rest of the left would say the poor would simply sell the shares - showing their contempt for their own supporters - assuming they are all stupid or that it is wrong to give them a part of the beloved state THEY can control.
.
Go on John, it's worth a shot. You could make privatisation NOT a dirty word.

Where is Nelson Mandela?

According to the Sunday Times, Mugabe's murdering self styled "war veterans" are back on the rampage, brutally attacking the handful of remaining white farmers, and black farmers accused of supporting non Zanu-PF candidates:
.
"When the trunk stopped they punctured the tyres, dragged the farmer out, cuffed his hands behind his back and drove him away in another vehicle. At one point one of the war veterans put a wire noose round his neck and began to strangle him. He stopped before it was too late. Meanwhile, the police had been alerted and managed to persuade the war veterans to release their prisoner"
.
Charming indeed, for a 76 year old man to endure. However, Mugabe's thieving murdering lackeys fear him losing for fear they will be held to account for their own crimes. The Sunday Times also reports that "meticulous records kept on filein a special archive in the Reserve Bank could be used against them". This includes the army chief Constantine Chiwenga, the Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri, and many other high ranking military officials and politburo members. Air Vice Marshal Henry Muchena was reported as saying that Zanu PF " did not fight a liberation war to have Zimbabweans vote incorrectly".
.
Meanwhile, there are to be recounts of results in 23 constituencies, 22 at the call of Zanu-PF. The appeasers of the Southern African Development Community, which represents 14 countries in southern Africa couldn't even agree that there IS an emergency - at best useless inert nobodies, at worst mates with Mugabe all with blood on their hands.
.
So while Thabo Mbeki does nothing while black Zimbabweans starve, get beaten up, tortured and bullied, where is his predecessor? Nelson Mandela - the great hero of South Africa, who was rightly feted for having allowed a peaceful transition from fascist apartheid rule to relatively open non-racial liberal democracy?
.
Why is he silent when fellow Africans are being so appallingly mistreated, lied to, cheated and killed by Comrade Mugabe? Well the ANC is wilfully blind to electoral fraud, putting out press releases like this, which ignore any claims of fraud, bias or intimidation. According to the Helen Suzman Foundation, the South African media is largely craven in its unwillingness to criticise Zimbabwe, because the ANC wont. It calls for targeted sanctions.
.
but it wont happen. Mandela COULD speak up, he could call for Robert Mugabe to step aside, for international monitors of a free and fair runoff election with no intimidation, and for failure to follow this to be a reason for South Africa to impose targeted sanctions. He wont, and this makes him, as one commentator put it, a fallen hero.
.
Robert Mugabe has created more damage, death, pain and suffering than Ian Smith's racist minority regime ever did - it is a damning indictment on Mandela, Mbeki and the ANC that Mugabe's past support for the fight against apartheid excuses his murderous tyranny. When human rights campaigners criticise China for propping up Myanmar and Sudanese tyrannies, they might start aiming criticism at South Africa for doing the same thing.

Woe betide those going to Lincoln University to study transport

You really have to wonder how Lincoln University's Professor of Transport Studies Chris Kissling gets any sort of credibility. I've been in the transport sector for over eight years now, and the times I mentioned Lincoln University's courses I tended to be looked at funny, and the more I heard about it, the more I knew why. They are courses that have a marginal connection to economics, and are more akin to the fantasies of fanatics than an interest in the commercial and individual needs of transport users and producers. I'd gently suggest that anyone thinking about spending NZ$140 on the book noted in this article in Stuff, consider how much better off they would be going here and downloading this study, which will tell more about transport for free than the writings of academics who are ignored by those who provide transport and (hopefully still) by those who advise government on it. Frankly Kissling needs to do some basic economics, and perhaps get some help. The claims of the future sound like the ramblings of an enthusiastic 12 year old - but remember, your taxes pay for this guy to teach!

.

Let's take the Stuff article to test some of what they say:

.

"The driverless, or electronically chauffeured, car is already being tested on designated roads in California. Kissling expects it to be carrying commuters in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch by the 2030s...Kissling says the retro-fitting of cables for broadband internet has shown the system could be applied at any time." Well driverless cars for motorways are indeed feasible, but retrofitting highways to allow it is some way off. If he really did follow this he'd look at the Vehicle Infrastructure Integration project involving US vehicle manufacturers and the US Federal Government, which is about installing intelligent equipment on new vehicles, it is not about "using wires laid under the roads". Why do you need that when there is GPS?

.

"within 25 years, he hopes to see a light-rail commuter system operating in Christchurch. This will include the use of existing rail corridors from Dunsandel and Rangiora....trains will bring commuters as far as suburban transfer stations, where passengers will switch to buses which will run on dedicated road lanes to the city centre. Smooth transfers and speedy travel will entice commuters away from their cars. Kissling says big spending will be necessary to establish such systems but "private motoring as we do it now is unsustainable". Oh dear. Why? What's wrong with efficient low emission buses, or does it justify paying the enormous premium of light rail over buses? Since when did transferring modes "entice" people away from cars? Why is private motoring unsustainable? Assertions with no evidence, like a Green Party wishlist with the taxpayer paying for something they wont use.

.

"Another 25-year scenario is the development of "smart" clothes. These could incorporate miniature computers which would open doors on command and steer people around hazardous places" Yes, the decades of infrared detectors and electric treadle mats with electronic doors must have escaped him at Lincoln University. Nothing like being "steered" by your clothes is there? Now I'm worried, is this guy sane?

.

"Kissling does not discount "smart" clothing incorporating wings that will allow people to "fly" above busy streets -- but that is beyond his 25-year outlook." Well add another zero to 25 years. Why would you even mention Daedalus and Icarus type ideas?

.

"His 25-year outlook includes computer-controlled carparking systems which remove the need for drivers to carry cash. Kerb-mounted devices will scan the number plates of cars as they park, calculate the time spent parked and charge the cost to the vehicles' owners." Well done, but not 25 years. Go to baa.com and you too can do this today, in the UK, at airport car parks.

.

"Kissling objects to aspects of Christchurch's parking system. The "early bird" provision, charging a lower rate for parking all day in a parking building, while giving access to the best parks at ground-floor level, is contrary to transport policy, he says. The lack of integration between civic and privately owned parking buildings in signage telling motorists of spaces available is confusing to visitors, he says." So they should be nationalised should they? Contrary to transport policy, well we should fix that shouldn't we? So Kissling is a bit of a fascist, if you own property and get best use charging people low prices for all day usage, it shouldn't be allowed. Actually his concern is congestion - which is about how roads are managed, not parking. However, he seems to never mention road pricing - funny that.

.

"His 25-year view includes electronic check-in with "a walk-through portal in front of a camera lens" that scans passengers." Visited an airport lately? Electronic checkin is the norm, and the IRIS system at many UK airports bypasses immigration checks. Hardly revolutionary.

.

"Kissling's wish-list for transport in New Zealand includes "serious investment" in railways, to broaden curves, smooth gradients and widen tunnels. Only then could trains run at speeds to challenge road haulage, he says." Go on Kissling, "invest". Explain why people who don't use railways should do this? By what insane economic analysis does this make sense?

.

"There is a place for swift rail (like Japan's bullet trains) in New Zealand, from Auckland to Hamilton and perhaps Tauranga." Cost? Business case? Thought not. Utterings from a train fanatic with no basis in economic reality.

.

"He says coastal shipping suffers from unequal competition with international shipping lines, while trucking benefits from paying an inadequate amount towards highway building and maintenance." However users benefit from the cheap cost of sea freight cabotage using ships that are already moving between domestic ports, which he ignores. Where does he get that trucks pay an "inadequate amount" towards highway building and maintenance? If he is true, why not increase those charges? No, let's pour billions into railways!

.

"Kissling's and Tiffin's new book has been greeted in other countries for presenting a global context for transport and analysing many issues involved." Well the Observer in the UK has reviewed it glowingly (idiots), and that has noted some more mad ideas:

.

"Pilotless planes would be flown closer together, automatically rerouted to avoid bad weather, and would be less vulnerable to hijackers. · Passengers would be given sleeping pills and stacked horizontally on beds" Great! Because pilots don't reroute planes around bad weather already, and because pilotless planes can't be hijacked, and we all want to take drugs and travel like freight. Funny how he isn't predicting low emissions carbon fibre planes, oh sorry that's real.

.

but surely the best is this "Virtual reality technology would allow people to meet in cyberspace, saving travel for more personal occasions"

.

Amazing, a book written in 2007 predicting video conferencing and.. the internet.

.

So if you are planning on studying transport at Lincoln University I'd suggest, gently, don't. If the Professor engages in flights of fancy that are either economic nonsense, technical nonsense or... already existing, then you really don't want to spoil your CV by looking like you've had your head filled with such adolescence.

Compulsory third party insurance nonsense

So Stuff reports that Associate Transport Minister Harry Duynhoven has finally decided to completely ignore all official advice, and institute compulsory third party insurance for motorists.

.

Oops not that the report says he ignored official advice, but go on - make an Official Information Act request on the matter- you'll find numerous papers written on this saying what a dumb idea it is, politely.

.

Now, I'll hear you say, what about that bastard who ran into my car and wasn't insured? Well what about him? Were you insured? Did you insurance company provide cover against the uninsured as many do? If not, then well you took the risk didn't you? Besides, do you think making it compulsory makes it universal? All compulsion will do is add to the penalties for those who don't wish to be insured, and a few more will become insured - after all, if the threat of being sued by someone else's insurance company isn't enough of a threat, a fine wont do more.

.

Ah but it exists in other countries. Um, no you're not quite right there. Compulsory Third Party Insurance in other countries is typically about personal injury cover, not property cover. In New Zealand this is irrelevant since there already is compulsory third party injury cover, which you pay at the same rate regardless of your driving record - ACC does that for you, it's a monopoly that treats the driver with the clean record the same as the recividist drunk driver - but that's the state for you - it's equality after all!

.

The claims made about this nonsense policy have little evidence to back them up. Duynhoven's claims about the effects of compulsory third party insurance overseas are such rubbish, because the premiums are about INJURY cover. The INJURY cover premiums vary according to driving records in Europe, but they don't in New Zealand, because New Zealand is the only country with nationalised no-fault socialised injury insurance (which means you can be accident free or be a serial killer by accident, and your premiums don't change).

.

Certain parts of the country, such as East Cape, the far North and the Chatham Islands have low levels of Warrant of Fitness, Motor Vehicle Registration and Drivers Licence compliance, and many don't have insurance. This will just be added to the list. The excuse that it will address "bad driving" raises the question - why aren't dangerous drivers simply denied licences for longer, or face imprisonment for dangerous driving causing death? In other words - is this just another sound bite for election year which, when you look at the evidence, isn't worth it?

.

but will National oppose it? It COULD suggest an alternative - open up the ACC motor vehicle account to competition, so good drivers could choose a private insurer who rewards good behaviour. That MIGHT make a difference, but that would weaken the holy grail of ACC socialism - no fault, no blame, everybody pay the same.