Manchester endures rioting Glaswegians

100,000 Glasgow Rangers fans arrived in Manchester today, where the UEFA cup final was being held, with Rangers playing Zenit St Petersburg. You might think, yes sensible for a sports fan to travel to the city where a key game is being held.

.

Ah, they went to watch the game. Well yes, but on big screen TVs. You seen maybe a fifth of the fans have tickets to the match, the rest came to get bladdered and watch the game on big screens in town. Yes, they travelled to watch the game on TV! (yes they could've done it at home or at the pub since it was on ITV(free to air)).

.

Uh oh.

.

The city is packed with drunken Scots, it got so bad the city's tramway had to be shut down because it couldn't get the fans out of the way of the trams, despite the whistle and horns that blast very loud. Thousands of Mancunians couldn't get home from work as a result.

.

The Manchester City Council, believing the event was making a fortune for the city, set up three locations with huge TV screens so fans from Glasgow and Russia could watch the match and party. Then one of the screens fails five minutes into the match. What do the fans do? Throw bottles and cans at the screen (because that will help). Then, the BBC reports "there's Rangers fans throwing balls and cans at each other because the game's not on."(sic)

See Glaswegian soccer fans don't need supporters of other teams to fight, they just fight each other when they're pissed off!

Zenit beat Rangers 2-0, and a Zenit fan was stabbed as the congratulatory gift from a Ranger's fan. The Manchester Evening News website reports only eight arrests, and Greater Manchester Police consider it a success. Frankly, besides the angry crowd around the failed screen, it was!

Qantas stuffs up A380 cabin release

When Singapore Airlines highlighted the new cabins as the first airline flying the Airbus A380 "whalejet" it got accolades. From the Suites providing proper beds in cabins with sliding doors, being undoubtedly the best first class in the air, its fully lie flat wide business class seats (as wide as the pitch between typical economy class seats), and its slightly wider economy class seats with bigger entertainment screens. Singapore Airlines has something to show off and rightfully so.

.

Emirates is the second airlines to fly the A380, but has not released interior photos. Qantas will be the third, but has.

.

It's so underwhelming, some commentators think the airline has screwed up. I'd have to agree. Here are the publicly available photos. The first class looks no better than Air NZ's Business Premier but reversed the other way, the business class looks like current Qantas business class but the seat cushioning looks dishevelled and uninspiring. Economy class, yawn. Now it might be better if professional photographers and the PR wonks tart it all up (as they should've, not just let some journo take some pics), but look for yourself. Would you choose Singapore Airlines or Qantas? I don't think there is any contest... Singapore remains supreme.

Abandon the railways or just the facts?

The former editor of NZ Trucking Magazine Jon Addison has written in the NZ Herald proposing that the rail network be ripped up and the corridors used to build dedicated trucking roads. I don't agree, I think the cost of that is prohibitive in itself and much of the rail network is too narrow to make that worthwhile (don't forget most railway lines are single track, which means one way roads!). I also think that some railway lines are economically viable (2 hourly freight trains on the main trunk line isn't a bad use of that corridor).

.

However, he has made some very good points that those who worship rail as a religion, than simply a technology, often ignore:

.

"New Zealand's rail network is constrained by more than its ageing bridges and locomotives. Its 3ft 6in (1067mm) narrow gauge tracks limit the speeds at which trains can operate and its 150 tunnels are too small to accommodate double-stacked containers, which have boosted rail efficiency overseas."

.

"Taking the last of these first, the introduction of Euro 5 emissions standards in Europe this October and inevitably eventually in New Zealand will mean that in some urban environments the truck exhaust will be cleaner than the air entering its engine. Truck noise levels have also reduced significantly.

.
While the fuel used by an efficient train will be less than that used by trucks carrying the same weight, this ignores the fact that freight is invariably carted by trucks at one end of the train trip and often at both ends. And at the transition, fuel is used by forklifts or container cranes and increasingly used to maintain the temperature of freight while its waiting to be moved.

.

As far as driver efficiency is concerned, change is on the way. Most of the major automotive manufacturers are working towards driverless vehicles and some are predicting that they are less then 20 years away. All of the technology exists now, and some of it is already appearing in production vehicles.

.

Interesting stuff indeed. He concludes by suggesting that maybe converting the rail network to roads wouldn't add up, but it is worth investigating. Perhaps so. I am more convinced it could be worthwhile using the rail corridors in cities for roads, but in Wellington and Auckland too much money has been poured into passenger rail for this to be worth considering for now.

.

Meanwhile, Keith Ng in the NZ Herald has a column called "Just the Facts" where this week he challenges Richard Prebble's assertion that "it was a myth to say rail was environmentally friendly if the production of rail, locomotives and the need for trucks to take goods to destination were counted". He claims an EECA study is the most authoritative, because it claims the energy intensity of road vs rail is a factor of around 5 to 1. What he doesn't say is the basis for this comparison, because the factors vary wildly. For example, a truckload of freight from Wellington to Petone by rail will burn a lot more fuel per tonne km, than a trainload consigned from Wellington to Auckland.
.

but then he goes to Chris Kissling of Lincoln University. Yes, the same one I fisked a month ago for advocating bullet trains in NZ, "smart clothes" that automatically open doors and "steer people around hazardous places" and that the future of flying is that passengers will be drugged and stacked horizontally on beds! Kissling presumably supplies him with a European study about environmental costs, which makes rail look good, failing to point out to Keith the most recent comprehensive New Zealand study directing comparing rail and road freight environment costs -
.
I've quoted it before, the Ministry of Transport's Surface Transport Costs and Charges study.

It contradicts what Chris Kissling and Keith Ng says, showing that Keith isn't showing "just the facts", since he ignored one of the most authoritative studies. What did it say? Well it compared the environmental impacts of freight between Wellington and Auckland, Napier and Gisborne and Kinleith and Tauranga. The comparison is as follows:

.

Environmental costs per net tonne km in NZ$

Wellington-Auckland rail NZ$0.008, road NZ$0.006

Napier-Gisborne rail NZ$0.002, road NZ$0.002

Kinleith-Tauranga rail NZ$0.001, road NZ$0.004

.

So in other words, on average it is more environmentally friendly to send freight by road between Wellington and Auckland than by rail, but the opposite between Kinleith and Tauranga. In which case, Richard Prebble is pretty much right.

How to help stop the outflow to Australia

Not PC has said much of what I want to say about the first Rudd government Budget in Australia.

.

Difficult to argue with tax cuts that are matched by spending cuts and a budget surplus. This is the sort of language that the National Party can't understand, and this is a Labour government using it. Just shows how far to the left mainstream politics in New Zealand has been dragged by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, and how meekly John Key and Bill English have followed them there. The fact the Australian Greens are moaning that defence spending is 40x that on climate change shows the budget is still sensible.

.

Of course a fortune of middle class welfare and industrial pork is being spent too, as Australia squanders the good times, and the spending cuts are relatively modest, but nevertheless there is a lesson for National. How DO you close the gap in GDP per capita between Australia and NZ and how do you encourage NZers to stay?

.

Australia has a A$16,000 tax free income threshold. Adopting the Libertarianz (and now ACT) policy of a NZ$10,000 tax free threshold would be a start. However, what else does the Australian income tax regime show?

.

I used the Australian tax office and NZ IRD tax calculators to find out, using the 2007-08 year as my base.

.

A present it is as follows:

.

A person on A$180,000 (NZ$221,000) pay A$61,350 (NZ$75,258) in tax. In NZ the same amount (NZ$221,000) would see income tax of NZ$77,412. In other words you pay NZ$1,884 a year more in income tax in NZ compared with Australia.

.

The second tax rate is 40%, it cuts in at a threshold of A$80,001 (NZ$98,147) from this year.

A person on A$80,001 would pay A$19,850 (NZ$24,352). In New Zealand someone on NZ$98,147 would pay NZ$29,547 in income tax. You pay NZ$5,195 more in income tax in New Zealand compared to Australia.

.

If you earn A$40,000 (NZ$49,058), in Australia you pay A$7,350 (NZ$9,015). In NZ you pay NZ$11,059 in income tax. That's NZ$2,014 more than in Australia.

.

For A$20,000 (NZ$24,532) in Australia you pay A$2,100 (NZ$2,576). In NZ you pay NZ$4,784, NZ$2,208 more than in Australia.

.

You get the picture. That's BEFORE the current budget. That budget cuts the second highest tax rate from 40% to 37% in stages by 2010, and the raises the threshold for the 15% rate. Dr Cullen cannot even start to pretend that income tax in New Zealand is competitive with Australia. The left can go on about wages, but if wages increase in New Zealand so do the taxes - you are better off - dollar for dollar - earning the same wage in Australia compared to New Zealand.

.

So how DO the rates compare.

In Australia the first A$6000 is tax free, New Zealand has no tax free threshold.

After A$6000, Australians pay 15% until you get to A$34,000.

In New Zealand you pay 19.5% on every dollar up to NZ$38,000.

After A$34,000, Australians pay 30% until you get to A$80,000.

In New Zealand you pay 33% for every dollar after NZ$38,000 until you get to NZ$60,000.

After A$80,000, Australians pay 40% until you get to A$180,000, after which you pay 45%.

In New Zealand you pay 39% for every dollar after NZ$60,000.

Of course, the tax free threshold does mean that you have to earn more than A$180,000 before you pay more than you do in New Zealand. So you might wonder why tax policy in New Zealand is to penalise around 99% of the population, relative to Australia.

.

So while political parties wonder what might help stop the brain drain, they may look plainly at tax rates.

UPDATE: And the Dominion Post reports that someone on NZ$30,000 would pay 37% less in tax living in Australia compared to New Zealand following the Australian LABOUR budget. How wilfully blind can the left be that tax isn't an issue? It was also noted that with that budget, Australians have had ten years of continuous tax cuts, whereas New Zealand has had eight years of no tax cuts and one year previous of a tax increase. Nevermind, New Zealanders really don't know best how to spend their own money compared to Dr Cullen do they? That, after all, is what Labour and the Greens believe, do you?

Rapist has a right to housing in the UK

The Daily Telegraph tells the tale of Michael Clark. He is a charming fellow, he's a welfare beneficiary. Until recently, his criminal portfolio included the following:

.

- Three years for sexual assault of a woman:

- Seven years for raping a woman in her own home;

- Three years for sexually assaulting another woman;

- Conviction for assault;

- Two convinctions for assaulting police officers including biting the testicles of one.

.

After completing his sentence for the sexual assault he moved to Leeds. Like the useless man he is, he went to the local council wanting to be housed. The council refused. He hadn't been a resident before, besides his criminal record hardly made him a priority. However, the charity "Shelter", who he apparently approached, told the council that it couldn't refuse him as it could face judicial review for - wait for it - infringing upon his human rights.

.

You see, in the UK, a convicted rapist has the right to force the rest of us to provide him with housing. Whilst others struggle facing mortgage foreclosures, and paying rent, they are forced to pay council tax so criminals can have somewhere to live. That's the caring loving embrace of socialism, embracing the criminal whilst a clasped fist is ready to threaten you if you don't pay FOR him.

.

So the council found him privately provided accommodation and he went on a benefit. Parasite is the correct word. He became friends with a family two houses down from him. Although he was on the Sex Offenders' Register, they had no idea who he was. His sentence included no post release supervision or probation, so he was free. So one day, he entered the family's home, inside was Zusanna, 14, who he sexually assaulted, then he stabbed her, stomped on her head and slit her throat. After doing that he went to the Post Office to get his benefit and took a trip to Blackpool.

.

He is now doing thirty five years for her murder and sexual assault.

.

So who is responsible for this monster being funded and housed to commit crimes, again and again?

.

Well the Police claim that "regular checks" were being made on him and he was being "managed in the community". Clearly. It would be easy to blame the judiciary for not sentencing him to preventive detention with him already having a string of violent offences including those of a sexual nature. After all, how many times should someone be allowed to ruin people's lives before they should be locked away for good.

.

Leeds City Council claims it was not concerned about his rights, but mentioned that Shelter warned of judicial review if it continued to refuse to house him. So the council capitulated. Of course it should have refused, but if its legal advice was that it is futile then it had to find a place for him. Placing him close to a family could be seen as negligent, although where DO you put a convicted rapist?

.

Shelter denies asking or threatening a judicial review, although it did say "Questions need to be asked as to why this young girl and her family were housed next to a known sex offender" as it appears they moved in after Michael Clark had been housed. Why should they be the ones who are inconvenienced because of a piece of pond scum? I'd prefer if Shelter actually used its OWN money to pay for him to live somewhere if they give a damn.

.

So who is to blame? Well it is political. Politicians pass the legislation for sentencing. 35 years for murder of a young girl is a nonsense. The man should have life, the man should have had tougher sentences for being a repeat violent offender, and he should have been monitored given he was already determined to be too dangerous to release back into his home town! However, there aren't enough prisons (politicians decided that one).

.

Secondly, politicians granted everyone, including convicted violent criminals, the "right" to housing. What this means is that everyone else is forced to pay for those who aren't able and/or willing to work to make enough to pay for somewhere to live. It's not a right at all of course, because if everyone claimed it - it could never be delivered. It only "works" because the majority of people can pay for their own housing and their incomes can be pilfered to pay for others.

.

So what should happen? Recidivist violent dangerous criminals shouldn't be free -simple as that. They should be in prison, for life, to protect the rest of us. All those with convictions for violent offences should have no claim on the state for welfare or housing. You are worried they will starve or steal? Go give them some of your charity, go on, help them. I couldn't care less if the likes of Michael Clark were found drowned in a stream, he has no interest in living a peaceful existence leaving others alone - he is a threat, but if someone wants to save them, go for it.

.

However, in the UK, you can be a rapist, come out of prison and you can expect everyone else to pay for you to live and be housed.

.

Socialism is so fair isn't it?