John Key will do a deal, he'll sell out National to a neo-Marxist authoritarian racist political party and the result will be more taxpayers' money to organisations that this party thinks are important, and the Maori seats (and local authority Maori seats) will remain. This party that only now acknowledges that the situation in Zimbabwe is bad, but carefully doesn't blame Mugabe or Zanu-PF, that hitches itself to the Barack Obama groupies (ignoring that he votes for higher agricultural protectionism), will be embraced by National.
After all, it needs policies to come from somewhere other than Labour doesn't it?
11 July 2008
Posh isn't that posh
Victoria Beckham flying Air New Zealand (according to The Sun)?
Seriously, how poor is that!
Now I'm not saying Air New Zealand is bad. She would have flown Business Premier, which is one of the better business classes around.
However that is my point - it is BUSINESS class. A class that anyone one a high income can afford. Air New Zealand has no First Class.
What the hell is she doing flying LA to London on business class?
She should be on a private jet - it's how Simon Cowell and Sharon Osbourne travel between California and London. Is David getting too cheap?
Even if that wasn't available, how about first class? BA and Air France both have perfectly reasonable First Class cabins on direct flights on that route. United and American also have First Class, but Air NZ would be as good.
Oh and so why is this in the news in the first place? The flight had a bird enter an engine before takeoff so was cancelled and she was allegedly in "airline pjs and no makeup" which wouldn't do to return, and it wouldn't do to be bussed to the terminal (yes read the Sun if you care). Now I know Air NZ doesn't have pjs (unless this is a very new and welcome addition to the service), so she was taking used airline pjs!
Anyway, unless there is some record shortage of private jets, this is not the way someone of her wealth should be travelling. It's how I travel.
Seriously, how poor is that!
Now I'm not saying Air New Zealand is bad. She would have flown Business Premier, which is one of the better business classes around.
However that is my point - it is BUSINESS class. A class that anyone one a high income can afford. Air New Zealand has no First Class.
What the hell is she doing flying LA to London on business class?
She should be on a private jet - it's how Simon Cowell and Sharon Osbourne travel between California and London. Is David getting too cheap?
Even if that wasn't available, how about first class? BA and Air France both have perfectly reasonable First Class cabins on direct flights on that route. United and American also have First Class, but Air NZ would be as good.
Oh and so why is this in the news in the first place? The flight had a bird enter an engine before takeoff so was cancelled and she was allegedly in "airline pjs and no makeup" which wouldn't do to return, and it wouldn't do to be bussed to the terminal (yes read the Sun if you care). Now I know Air NZ doesn't have pjs (unless this is a very new and welcome addition to the service), so she was taking used airline pjs!
Anyway, unless there is some record shortage of private jets, this is not the way someone of her wealth should be travelling. It's how I travel.
The new cheaper Aston Martin
Hey guess what, I've found an Aston Martin that is cheaper than a new DB9, it does almost everything as good as the DB9 but starts at £83,000 instead of £110,850. It's the V8 Vantage.
Problem is, of course, I have money committed at lots of other things, so like hell can I afford either one.
Problem is, of course, I have money committed at lots of other things, so like hell can I afford either one.
However, the idea that you shouldn't pursue something you can't afford doesn't bother some Wellington local authorities. According to the Dominion Post they are crowing about how the new design for Transmission Gully "saves $275 million". Hmmm really? It "saves" money that actually nobody has in the first place, just like the V8 Vantage is a saving over the DB9.
You see the potential users of Transmission Gully wont pay anywhere near enough money to pay for more than maybe 10% of the road's financing costs, the project itself costs more than all road projects underway throughout the country in one go, and even the money earmarked by the government for it is less than half the cost.
So Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast is dead right when she says "At the moment you'd be hard pressed to start it at all" and that it is in never-never land without a vast increase in funding. However the money can't come from road users without an increase in fuel tax, of around 5c/l ACROSS THE COUNTRY, which would raise about $150m a year. You might ask why you in Auckland, Hamilton, Napier, Christchurch or anywhere else should pay more for petrol largely so people living in the Kapiti Coast north of Wellington can have a choice of routes to get to work in the morning.
You see Transmission Gully is a very expensive solution looking for a problem. Safety isn't it, as relatively modest amounts of money have been spent on upgrading the current road. Congestion isn't it, as it is now pretty modest at peak times, and congestion north of the route is far more significant (which it will exacerbate). The only remaining argument is the bizarre notion that Wellington needs another route out and in in the event of an earthquake. Of course given the Rimutaka's have a road, and there is a port means this is rather specious. What is this route meant to do?? Is it worth $1billion of money from those who never benefit from the project to pay for some rather peculiar insurance policy?
Porirua Mayor Jenny Brash is well intentioned, but basically this is an enormous project to benefit a few suburbs in her city - Kapiti wants it because it is a subsidy for Kapiti dwellers commuting to Wellington.
I typically believe it is better to build roads than railways, but roads shouldn't be built when the users aren't prepared to pay for them. Politicians are looking for ways to make you pay for a road that you don't use - this is a small example ($1 billion) that is about having a cool head and saying no. Labour isn't saying no, but passing it on to local government (and giving it petrol tax raising powers!), Peter Dunne is addicted to this road, and National wont say anything because it doesn't like saying no. Wellington can't afford an Aston Martin.
You see the potential users of Transmission Gully wont pay anywhere near enough money to pay for more than maybe 10% of the road's financing costs, the project itself costs more than all road projects underway throughout the country in one go, and even the money earmarked by the government for it is less than half the cost.
So Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast is dead right when she says "At the moment you'd be hard pressed to start it at all" and that it is in never-never land without a vast increase in funding. However the money can't come from road users without an increase in fuel tax, of around 5c/l ACROSS THE COUNTRY, which would raise about $150m a year. You might ask why you in Auckland, Hamilton, Napier, Christchurch or anywhere else should pay more for petrol largely so people living in the Kapiti Coast north of Wellington can have a choice of routes to get to work in the morning.
You see Transmission Gully is a very expensive solution looking for a problem. Safety isn't it, as relatively modest amounts of money have been spent on upgrading the current road. Congestion isn't it, as it is now pretty modest at peak times, and congestion north of the route is far more significant (which it will exacerbate). The only remaining argument is the bizarre notion that Wellington needs another route out and in in the event of an earthquake. Of course given the Rimutaka's have a road, and there is a port means this is rather specious. What is this route meant to do?? Is it worth $1billion of money from those who never benefit from the project to pay for some rather peculiar insurance policy?
Porirua Mayor Jenny Brash is well intentioned, but basically this is an enormous project to benefit a few suburbs in her city - Kapiti wants it because it is a subsidy for Kapiti dwellers commuting to Wellington.
I typically believe it is better to build roads than railways, but roads shouldn't be built when the users aren't prepared to pay for them. Politicians are looking for ways to make you pay for a road that you don't use - this is a small example ($1 billion) that is about having a cool head and saying no. Labour isn't saying no, but passing it on to local government (and giving it petrol tax raising powers!), Peter Dunne is addicted to this road, and National wont say anything because it doesn't like saying no. Wellington can't afford an Aston Martin.
10 July 2008
ACT on law and order
Gonzo Freakpower (Will De Cleene) posts on his concern with the ACT law and order (or as they call it "Crime and punishment" policy) as it seems to approve of extensive surveillance. Specifically he mentions this comment:
"It is easy - if we have the right relationship with our traditional allies and they provide us with intelligence - to observe the movement of cars and individuals without the need for kicking in doors or planting bugs and GPS locators (although, clearly, the latter technologies have their role)."
and more. Which is somewhat disturbing. The trend towards surveillance of the innocent has been increasing in the UK and the US, and should stop in NZ. Sadly ACT doesn't get this.
However, I did think Heather Roy just touched upon something important when she said this is a political initiative:
"* Disruption to the gang's 'customer market'. Prostitution reform helped this. State run gambling helps this. Banning marijuana and party pills does not help, but provides them with customers."
Yes it implies some form of legalisation of marijuana and party pills. May not be full legalisation, but it might see some liberalisation that takes attention from peaceful adult use and focuses on children and harm minimisation.
So ACT, give up on surveillance and the big brother state - but think more about how to not use the criminal justice system to deal with how people run their own lives. One step back, one step forward?
"It is easy - if we have the right relationship with our traditional allies and they provide us with intelligence - to observe the movement of cars and individuals without the need for kicking in doors or planting bugs and GPS locators (although, clearly, the latter technologies have their role)."
and more. Which is somewhat disturbing. The trend towards surveillance of the innocent has been increasing in the UK and the US, and should stop in NZ. Sadly ACT doesn't get this.
However, I did think Heather Roy just touched upon something important when she said this is a political initiative:
"* Disruption to the gang's 'customer market'. Prostitution reform helped this. State run gambling helps this. Banning marijuana and party pills does not help, but provides them with customers."
Yes it implies some form of legalisation of marijuana and party pills. May not be full legalisation, but it might see some liberalisation that takes attention from peaceful adult use and focuses on children and harm minimisation.
So ACT, give up on surveillance and the big brother state - but think more about how to not use the criminal justice system to deal with how people run their own lives. One step back, one step forward?
Iran sabre rattles
According to the BBC, Iran has test fired nine missiles, including a new missile with the capability of hitting Tel Aviv. Is Iran trying to provoke or trying to deter? This wont deter, it will scare - and scared Israel is more likely to strike. Ahmadinejad may want war, because he isn't very bright. However, I doubt that many in Iran are happy about this move.
I fully expect the so-called "peace movement" to hold instantaneous protests at Iranian embassies, burning Iranian flags and calling for Iran to stop threatening its neighbours. Look forward to seeing some protest in Roseneath in Wellington for example.
Wont happen though will it?
The so-called "peace" movement never ever protests against militarism by anti-Western states, like Iran, North Korea or Russia. Yes remember those protests? The so-called "peace" movement is uninterested in peace, only surrender and disarmament.
It will be exceedingly dangerous if there is an attack on Iran in self defence - but given the choice between that and a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, it is no choice at all. Since 1979 Iran has been consistently the most pernicious influence in the Middle East, providing financial, military and spiritual succour to terrorists there and elsewhere (the IRA included at one time). It is a thoroughly vile and despotic regime. The preference has to be that Iran backs off, Ahmadinejad is displaced, it opens up its facilities for inspection and it backs off from its Islamist imperialism.
I fully expect the so-called "peace movement" to hold instantaneous protests at Iranian embassies, burning Iranian flags and calling for Iran to stop threatening its neighbours. Look forward to seeing some protest in Roseneath in Wellington for example.
Wont happen though will it?
The so-called "peace" movement never ever protests against militarism by anti-Western states, like Iran, North Korea or Russia. Yes remember those protests? The so-called "peace" movement is uninterested in peace, only surrender and disarmament.
It will be exceedingly dangerous if there is an attack on Iran in self defence - but given the choice between that and a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, it is no choice at all. Since 1979 Iran has been consistently the most pernicious influence in the Middle East, providing financial, military and spiritual succour to terrorists there and elsewhere (the IRA included at one time). It is a thoroughly vile and despotic regime. The preference has to be that Iran backs off, Ahmadinejad is displaced, it opens up its facilities for inspection and it backs off from its Islamist imperialism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)