Yes, she's at it again. Whilst I agree on one level with Sue Kedgley that Transmission Gully is a waste of money, the reason she gives for opposing it is another one of her hysterical raves.
She is claiming that by the time the goldplated boondoggle is built, "oil will have increased to a point where many Wellingtonians will not be able to afford to drive on the new motorway". She of course assumes no only that oil will get that expensive, but that there wouldn't be any replacement. You see she is almost gleeful that she thinks people will have "moved beyond the private vehicle as a means of transport".
Yes, the inexorable trend of the last 80 years of people moving towards private motorised transport will be reversed. What utter nonsense.
She continues "The Government is already spending six times more on roading than it does on superior options such as rail, which are far more efficient, safe and needed than roads" Six times!! Yes well Sue, the money DOES come from road users (you always leave that one out don't you?) and roads DO go everywhere (most of the country is miles away from any railways), so half the spending on roads is maintenance. So you'd rather roads just were potholed would you? Usual Sue Kedgley mindless rants with nothing intelligent behind them.
and Sue if rail is superior, why don't you use it regularly? Why don't you get the Overlander everytime you go from Wellington to Auckland, Hamilton, Palmerston North or the like? Or why don't you get the ferry and the TranzCoastal to Christchurch? If it is so "superior", why do you use a car at all you hypocrite?
She talks of urgent "investment" in public transport. So go on Sue, set up your own bus company, or buy some railway carriages, if you're convinced the private motor car is doomed surely you'll make a fortune out of this "investment".
No? Oh yes it's just a lot of hypocritical hysterical nonsense isn't it?
19 August 2008
Labour thinking about regulating franchising
Yep, ever the politician looking for something new to control, Lianne Dalziel is to launch a discussion document on regulating franchises.
Nothing like having someone who has never owned or sold a franchise thinking about regulating them.
Nothing like having someone who has never owned or sold a franchise thinking about regulating them.
The tribalism at the heart of Georgia vs Russia
The Guardian reports the dark local level side of this conflict - Georgians abducted and held hostage by South Ossetian militia, amid reports of it being in response to Georgians holding Ossetians.
A simple reminder that on the ground, far too much of the basis for these conflicts are knuckle dragging tribal fears - and the brutality that such brainless collectivism leads people into.
A simple reminder that on the ground, far too much of the basis for these conflicts are knuckle dragging tribal fears - and the brutality that such brainless collectivism leads people into.
Ukraine seeks to be shielded by the West
Following on from Russia's continued uninvited military presence in Georgia, the Ukrainian government has come forth seeking to be part of the US proposed missile defence system. There can be little doubt that Ukraine has been strongly motivated by Russia, which has a base on the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine, and which has always regarded Ukraine as being "its own".
The Times reports "Ukraine is insisting the Russian military must leave Sebastopol when the lease on the base expires in 2017. The Russian navy has made it clear it may refuse to do so."
Ukraine must, of course, ensure that Russians in Ukraine enjoy the full free rights as citizens, so that claims of racism or bigotry can be avoided. To date there has been no hint that Ukraine treats Russian citizens as lesser than Ukrainians. However, Russia must also defend Ukraine's right to adopt whatever foreign policy it wishes, as long as it does not threaten Russia. Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko was nearly murdered by his Russian backed opponent - so there is little doubt that Ukraine's government fears the dead hand of the fascist bear next door.
In recent history only the mad Mao TseTung and Adolf Hitler sought to take on Russia for territorial aggrandisement. The notion that Russia's neighbours threaten it is more a fantasy dreamt up by Russian nationalists and the military than from reality. Westernised Europe would rather get on with its own affairs, as would China. It is only because the Russian military retains much Cold War era capability that it still commands strength in an economy that has until recently been incapable of sustaining it.
The Times reports Dmitri Medvedev warning it will crush anyone who moves against Russian citizens. A fair point of view in and of itself, but Russia's neighbours rightfully fear imperialism from Moscow, they have after all lived under it for between fifty and eighty years.
The Times reports "Ukraine is insisting the Russian military must leave Sebastopol when the lease on the base expires in 2017. The Russian navy has made it clear it may refuse to do so."
Ukraine must, of course, ensure that Russians in Ukraine enjoy the full free rights as citizens, so that claims of racism or bigotry can be avoided. To date there has been no hint that Ukraine treats Russian citizens as lesser than Ukrainians. However, Russia must also defend Ukraine's right to adopt whatever foreign policy it wishes, as long as it does not threaten Russia. Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko was nearly murdered by his Russian backed opponent - so there is little doubt that Ukraine's government fears the dead hand of the fascist bear next door.
In recent history only the mad Mao TseTung and Adolf Hitler sought to take on Russia for territorial aggrandisement. The notion that Russia's neighbours threaten it is more a fantasy dreamt up by Russian nationalists and the military than from reality. Westernised Europe would rather get on with its own affairs, as would China. It is only because the Russian military retains much Cold War era capability that it still commands strength in an economy that has until recently been incapable of sustaining it.
The Times reports Dmitri Medvedev warning it will crush anyone who moves against Russian citizens. A fair point of view in and of itself, but Russia's neighbours rightfully fear imperialism from Moscow, they have after all lived under it for between fifty and eighty years.
18 August 2008
Even Austria's left-right coalition privatises
Austria has a grand coalition government, in that the two main parties of right and left are working together. The Social Democratic Party on the left would surely not look far out of place alongside the NZ Labour Party, and the Austrian People's Party is a conservative party of the right.
Their government has just voted to privatise the remaining state owned shares in Austrian Airlines, which is already 57% privately owned. Presumably it doesn't fear an invasion of foreigners (apparently Lufthansa and Turkish Airlines are both interested) despoiling the sovereignty of Austria.
Yet the National Party, seeking to govern alone, wont even engage on privatisation. Why is this? is it:
- The abject failure of the acolytes of privatisation to publicise its successes, demolish the arguments of its failures;
- The braindead ineptness of the mainstream media which so often parrots what politicians and lobby groups say, and rarely investigates what politicians claim unless it is about scandals and juicy titbits that have next to no impact on the general populace;
- National's complete intellectual bankruptcy, in that it doesn't have the confidence or capability to argue against the leftwing "common knowledge" about privatisation in New Zealand;
- National really having a secret agenda to privatise, because it holds the voting public in contempt - much as it did in 1990 when it promised to abolish student fees and the superannuation surtax, but really didn't intend to do so.
If it is the first two, then those of us who believe in less government need to confront, head on, the bankrupt arguments and outright distortions of the left. It means a sustained effort to be bold - it is not a task the National Party is equipped to do.
Their government has just voted to privatise the remaining state owned shares in Austrian Airlines, which is already 57% privately owned. Presumably it doesn't fear an invasion of foreigners (apparently Lufthansa and Turkish Airlines are both interested) despoiling the sovereignty of Austria.
Yet the National Party, seeking to govern alone, wont even engage on privatisation. Why is this? is it:
- The abject failure of the acolytes of privatisation to publicise its successes, demolish the arguments of its failures;
- The braindead ineptness of the mainstream media which so often parrots what politicians and lobby groups say, and rarely investigates what politicians claim unless it is about scandals and juicy titbits that have next to no impact on the general populace;
- National's complete intellectual bankruptcy, in that it doesn't have the confidence or capability to argue against the leftwing "common knowledge" about privatisation in New Zealand;
- National really having a secret agenda to privatise, because it holds the voting public in contempt - much as it did in 1990 when it promised to abolish student fees and the superannuation surtax, but really didn't intend to do so.
If it is the first two, then those of us who believe in less government need to confront, head on, the bankrupt arguments and outright distortions of the left. It means a sustained effort to be bold - it is not a task the National Party is equipped to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)