So you want a new Prime Minister?

Well New Zealand, after nearly nine years of Helen Clark telling you what to do, Michael Cullen spending a third of your money, buying back an airline that would've survived had he just let Singaporeans buy it, buying back a railway that would've survived (albeit smaller) had he just let it be, and pouring a fortune into growing the bureaucracy and improving health care (noticed that?), you want a new team.

Clark has been getting support from Mr. Anderton, and on and off the Greens, United Future and NZ First. So really you wont want to be giving any of that lot a chance will you?

So now that you've come looking you need to say what you want in a new Prime Minister. You know he (unlikely to be a she this time round) will bring a whole new team on board, which other than the word "new" isn't saying much until you judge what they will do. So what do you want to change?

Oh. You're just "fed up with the current lot"? You want to "give the other lot a go"? Yes I understand you don't like Labour and Clark (besides that third of you who either notice all the money that Labour took from others to give to you, or don't trust anyone else), but what do you want to change?

Too much tax? Well that John Key fellow says he'll cut that, don't ask how much, he's not saying yet.

You don't like the government wasting money? Well John Key wont shut down any departments, he says he'll be more prudent, but he doesn't really want to do much different at all.

You don't think health care is getting better? Well John Key wont do much different either, he's still running it all bureaucratically, making everyone pay the same whether they look after themselves or not.

You don't really know WHAT you want do you? You don't seem to want less government, you don't seem to want more government, you don't want to make your own decisions about education, healthcare and retirement.

You just want different people, same policies right? That must be why you're choosing National.

Because if you wanted to go to the left, the Greens would be doing well.
If you wanted to have less government ACT and the Libertarianz would be doing well.

Funny lot you are really - and what's the bet that after three more years you'll be complaining that things aren't any better. However, I guess TVNZ and TV3 news pander to your rather banal view of the world - you're convinced governments can "fix things" rather than being the cause of the problem, you're convinced you can't be trusted to choose the schools for your kids and for the funding to follow the kids, you're convinced that you're better off letting politicians and bureaucrats sort out health care rather than buy your own insurance, and you like being made to own power companies, accident insurance, postal company, banks, airline, railway and covering the losses of any of them.

Not only that you seem to want the government to take more taxes to spend on building a telecommunications network you might not use, even though elsewhere in the world the private sector seems happy to finance and do it themselves. You want the railway that you almost never use to have more money spent on it than it is worth, because you want to subsidise moving coal, milk, logs and containers. You want to pay for an emissions trading scheme that wont make a jot of difference to so-called climate change.

So you're not voting for change are you really? You just want new faces.

Where does the bear's paw hit next?

With Russia now comfortably ensconced in parts of Georgia, complaining when the US sends a military transport to Tbilisi airport (why should it be of concern to Russia if a sovereign neighbour has a friendly neighbour visiting?), occupying parts of Gori, and essentially lying about withdrawal - where next?

Well Russia appears willing to respond when "provoked" and the Daily Telegraph has outlined why some other Russian neighbours are nervous - particularly Ukraine, where Russia has a naval base in Crimea.

What it does mean is that NATO membership expansion should continue, with Albania and Croatia clearly next in line, with Bosnia and Montenegro next. However the bigger issues are Georgia and Ukraine.

Both have been delayed in receiving a "membership action plan" for NATO, partly to appease Russia - which is a shame, and the consequences are clear. What happens if Ukraine ceases to extend Russia's lease on the land in Crimea for its base? What happens if Russia effectively annexes Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Oh and by the way, noticed the protests from the so-called "peace movement" at Russian embassies, burning Russian flags for its military aggression? Me neither.

China's latest Olympic lie

Since the Communist Party came to power in China, its regime has long presented a show pony to the world of how much the Han Chinese dominated one party state respects and listens to the ethnic minorities of China. It is not only sensitivity about what the world thinks, but also to present a united "one China, many faces" ideal. It is most regularly seen at the Congresses to the Communist Party of China (CPC) where representatives from provinces such as Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia are all expected to wear traditional "national" dress, to distinguish them and show that the CPC grants and commands respect (and obedience) from the Chinese ethnic minorities.

In the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony the same was seen with 56 children dressed in the native costumes of ethnic minorities within the People's Republic of China - except they were all Han Chinese children according to a report in the Daily Telegraph.

Again Chinese officials have been willing to answer obfuscate questions around this saying "I would argue it is normal for dancers, performers, to be dressed in other races' clothes".

The unspoken truth about China is that it is quite racist, it is the norm to regard other ethnic groups as inferior. Don't forget the Han Chinese form around 90% of the population of China (including Taiwan) and there has been no need for China, unlike the USA, ex. European colonial powers or subjects, to confront racial bigotry.

The fact the children are Han Chinese will be neither here nor there to most Chinese, and yes in truth it is of small consequence - but it does raise the question as to why the Chinese Communist regime did NOT simply find some children from the ethnic minorities. It also raises the question of the truth of how these ethnic minorities are treated by the state - we hear much about Tibet, but what do we not know? Maybe it isn't much different from the majority, maybe not, and not having a free press means people outside China will predominantly assume the worse.

Branson the whinging entrepreneur

I have before said that Sir Richard Branson or "Beardie" as Jeremy Clarkson likes to call him, is far more about style than substance. One need only see his latest bleatings to show how little of a true entrepreneur he really is.

British Airways, American Airlines and Iberia (and to a lesser extent Finnair and Royal Jordanian) are all seeking immunity from competition authorities in the EU and USA to allow them to codeshare and more closely integrate their networks. Hardly surprising with high jetfuel prices, intense competition between and within Europe and North America, and as all three are in the OneWorld alliance.

Skyteam alliance airlines Air France/KLM (which has by far the plurality of slots at both Paris Charles de Gaule and Amsterdam Schiphol airports) already have this with partner airlines Northwest and Delta, as do Star Alliance airlines Lufthansa and United. Lufthansa has dominance in airport slots at both Frankfurt and Munich.

Beardie is upset because BA has 42% of slots at Heathrow, and American around 6%. He said "If this monster monopoly is approved it will be third time unlucky for consumers. It will still be bad for passengers, bad for competition, and bad for the UK and US aviation industries."

Let's see what this "monopoly" looks like:

London to New York you can fly on BA, AA, Virgin Atlantic, Delta, Continental, Air India, Kuwait Airways.
London to LA you can fly on BA, AA, Virgin Atlantic, United, Air France, Air NZ.
London to Chicago you can fly on BA, AA, United, Virgin Atlantic, Air India.

Of course you can fly indirectly on these routes through Europe, Canada and other US destinations on umpteen airlines, a lot cheaper than the direct routes typically.

There is also no legal restriction on any US or European airline entering any TransAtlantic routes (although landing slots at Heathrow are at a premium, Delta, Continental and Northwest got some earlier this year without enormous effort). Monopoly? Hardly!

Let's compare that to trains between London and Manchester - how many operators run that? Oh yes, one - Virgin Trains, and it gets hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidies from British taxpayers to do this. Of course there is competition by air and road Beardie would say, of course he would - he isn't involved in monopolies now is he?

So why does BA have so many slots? Well Heathrow is BA's hub, like Frankfurt is Lufthansa's and CDG is Air France, and Schiphol is KLM's. You don't operate an airline that flies within the UK or around Europe at all, so it's no bloody wonder you have less. There are, of course, several European airlines over the years that have gone bust you could have bought and revived, but I don't see you doing that - not going to buy out and rename Alitalia, Virgin Italia?

You might see what Chairman (and majority owner) of BMI - Sir Michael Bishop - another competitor of yours (and BAs), with the 2nd highest number of slots - has said instead "I think things have changed after open skies and they are not setting any precedents. What BA is asking for is what both the other major alliances already have." according to the Daily Telegraph.

So Beardie - compete, make your own arrangements (you already have a codeshare deal with Continental, but I'm sure it's not as lucrative now Continental has agreed to join Star Alliance) and don't pretend that somehow AA gives BA anything more except closer integration to the US domestic market. Why don't you fly from Frankfurt, Schiphol or CDG? Why don't you seek to closely integrate with BMI? Why is Singapore Airlines finding it hard to sell its 49% stake in your floundering airline?

A real entrepreneur responds with a competitive challenge by outsmarting and outdoing the competition - stop running to Nanny State to protect your business and work it out - an airline dedicated to nothing but long haul flights from the UK, with only a smidgeon of partners feeding it, is not a sustainable business. It's not the fault of BA that it's figured out where the future is and you haven't. What are you scared of? Most British business class travellers wouldn't touch American Airlines for obvious reasons and if fares "go up" you benefit if there is less capacity on the route? Or is this maverick "I'm all for competition" all style over substance?

Is that why you're spending money lobbying Barack Obama and John McCain to protect your impotent business?

Why phase out national superannuation?

Read this Op-Ed from the Ayn Rand Institute published on SOLO - replace Social Security in the US context with National Superannuation in the New Zealand context.

Add in the fact that those who die before they reach retirement age get nothing, nor do their spouses or children or anyone else in their will, from the years of compulsory contribution by taxes. The state has thieved those taxes to pay for someone else or something else. This particularly affects Maori, who have lower life expectancy.

National superannuation is an enormous fraud, and it is about time that it was slowly phased out to let people choose how to save for their retirement. The most painless way would be to cease increasing national superannuation in nominal terms, and recycle the savings through tax cuts.

However I advocate a far more aggressive approach. One option is that people of certain ages are told they will receive a range from 90-10% of current national superannuation on retirement, nominally. In return, all people of those ages get a tax cut to allow them to save, invest or whatever. On retirement the state pays out the proportion that was promised and no more. A simpler approach would be to grant people a lump sum to buy a contributory pension or any investment, with provision for those too close to retirement to invest (given they spent most of their lives paying tax for others to have national superannuation).

Is it not telling that the fraud of national superannuation isn't even on the agenda in New Zealand? What other retirement fund could get away with the shockingly poor returns of national superannuation?