Beyond smacking

Sadly, the terms of the debate on this issue have been very binary focused. One side arguing against the state interfering in how parents raise children, another said saying it needs laws on the use of force to stop horrendous cases of abuse. Neither particularly enlightens about how to raise children. Some will be aware of debate and disagreement among some objectivists about this issue.

I've written here, here, here, here, and here about my hesitancy about both sides on this issue. I despise Sue Bradford's desire to nationalise parenting, as epitomised by her embrace of Cindy Kiro's Orwellian proposals, but also despise the minority in the "pro-smacking" camp who embraced corporal punishment. Notwithstanding that, I believe most parents don't like smacking kids, but also they want to have the option without the Police treating them as abusers. Most parents would do virtually anything for their kids - it is the ones who treat their kids as a nuisance that are the problem.

So what ARE good parenting techniques? Not PC has lifted the debate, and produced an excellent post with many links (and comments) which is worthy of a read by any parent or prospective parent.

So if you don't think the best way to raise kids is to fill them with shivering fear of your violent punishment of them, OR that kids should be allowed to do whatever they like with no boundaries or guidance (except Nanny State), then go have a good read. It's called taking an issue beyond the banality of politics.

James Murdoch: libertarian hero?

Authoritarianism

That's how he describes the British broadcasting regulatory environment in the MacTaggart lecture he gave to the British television industry.

and he's right. A system that coerces all people with a TV set to pay up under threat of prosecution to fund a non-commercial broadcaster that is ever expanding its TV channels and radio stations, and which pays enormous salaries to attract popular stars from going to commercial TV - but thinks it is special and always demands to force the public to give it more money. The BBC. He decries the "land grab" this compulsorily funded state broadcaster has made to be everything to everyone, whilst the private broadcasting sector has strained to compete. Indeed, the decline of regional news on commercial TV whilst the BBC well funds its own equivalent is telling. Meanwhile, many do not know that Lonely Planet is now owned by the BBC - at what point should the state own a travel publishing operation?

Meanwhile, commercial broadcasting is heavily regulated as to the amount and types of advertising, so much that one channel cannot show an Indian show because of product placement of a company that doesn't operate in the UK.

In a brilliant speech he attacks OfCom, the UK's broadcasting and telecommunications regulator, effectively implying it is useless by deciding whether it is ok to describe Middlesbrough as the worst place to live in England, or this brilliant piece of sarcasm about how Ofcom published:

"the no doubt vital guide on ‘How to Download’, which teenagers across the land could barely have survived without."

He decries how the state is more concerned with throttling capitalism and spreads fear of its influence whilst "Nearly all local authorities already publish their own newspapers with flattering accounts of their doings. Over 60% of these pocket-Pravdas carry advertising, weakening the local presence of more critical voices". This, he argues, undermines independent journalism in towns and cities struggling to make a living which CAN impartially report on how local government operates.

He argues that people should be trusted to make good choices:

"People are very good at making choices: choices about what media to consume; whether to pay for it and how much; what they think is acceptable to watch, read and hear; and the result of their billions of choices is that good companies survive, prosper, and proliferate.

That is a great story and it has been powerfully positive for our society.

But we are not learning from that. Governments and regulators are wonderfully crafted machines for mission creep. For them, the abolition of media boundaries is a trumpet call to expansion: to do more, regulate more, control more"

Furthermore he decries the idea that independent balanced news comes from a state broadcaster:

"On the contrary, independence is characterised by the absence of the apparatus of supervision and dependency.

Independence of faction, industrial or political.

Independence of subsidy, gift and patronage.

Independence is sustained by true accountability – the accountability owed to customers. People who buy the newspapers, open the application, decide to take out the television subscription – people who deliberately and willingly choose a service which they value"

You see public broadcasters have only accountability to politicians who decide whether to force the public to fund them - that's it. It is time that there was a proper debate about the role of the state in broadcasting in the UK.

However, that debate rarely happens, and one reason is because the chief beneficiary of the status quo dominates the entire broadcasting sector - the BBC. The BBC can't be trusted to impartially engage a debate about its future, if it risks coming to the answer that the BBC is unnecessary, or should be a fraction of its current size. However, it is up to politicians and the rest of the media - the media that rises or falls on attracting audiences, customers and advertisers - to hold that debate.

For otherwise, the broadcaster that runs seven TV channels and ten national radio networks (plus numerous regional stations) will continue to say it is good for us, and please can it make us pay it more.

So James Murdoch is the libertarian hero of the day - confronting the authoritarian regulatory structure of broadcasting in the UK, which stifles the private sector, whilst allowing the BBC to be an ever growing leviathan of unaccountability. The BBC isn't good for us, just because it is convinced that it is, and makes us pay for the privilege of seeing and hearing it say so.

UPDATE: Amanda Andrews in the Sunday Telegraph says the BBC budget should be cut by a third. A good first step, I'd sell all BBC regional radio, BBC Asian Network. Radio 5 and 5xtra, Radio 1, 1 xtra, Radio 2 and CBBC. Cbeebies and BBC3.

For those want to "invest" in public transport

You believe the price of petrol is going to go sky high. As a result people will drive a lot less and want a cheaper alternative.

Really?

So here's a way you can do it, without force.

Take your savings, in fact set up a company, and speculate on oil futures. Buy as much as you can. It must be a safe investment, and watch your capital grow.

From the massive windfall profits you make from this, use it to invest (you always say invest) in public transport. Hybrid buses or indeed new trains. By then peak oil will be so obvious, that you could have borrowed from the bank to do so. People will be gagging for public transport so much, you'll get many investors willing to join you. New Zealand has a free market in public transport, just set up a bus company and go for it. In fact, the government may be happy for you to buy trains and run them on its track.

Run services, charging fares to cover costs (you're not into profits), so that people get the alternative you care so much about. Yes the trains may take longer, but surely with the empty roads you predict, the hybrid buses will operate with ease, quickly and efficiently, full of eager fare paying passengers.

Not willing to put your money where your mouths are? Well keep your hypocritical hands off of everyone else's.

So what's the transport funding about?

The NZ Transport Agency (yes it used to be Land Transport New Zealand, and before that Transfund) has announced its three year funding programme for roads and public transport. It used to be an annual announcement, so it is a positive change to announce three years worth of spending, which given the length of transport project makes some sense. Bear in mind that the whole legal and bureaucratic arrangements are ones set up under the previous government.

The government's announcements are telling. There has been a boost for roads compared to public transport, but nothing like what the opposition are saying. Given virtually all of the money being spent comes from road users it should hardly be a big deal to have most of it going on roads or services related to roads. Steven Joyce's press release lists a number of projects that are to be progressed, none of which are bad projects, though I note that Transmission Gully has no additional construction funding. The programme itself lists the construction costs of Transmission Gully at over NZ$1.4 billion. A ridiculous sum when upgrading the existing road would be unlikely to cost NZ$1 billion. Steven Joyce himself appears to be warming up the public to Transmission Gully being dumped. Good.

Anyway, so what is worth noting?

The proportion of spending on state highways is 59% up from 51% under Labour. There are big new projects, like committing money to build the Waterview Connection in Auckland, over the property rights of locals, the Te Rapa Bypass north of Hamilton and the Tauranga Eastern motorway (which will be tolled to pay part of the cost). Most of the rest of the spending is on already committed projects and maintenance. Notably, funding for Police enforcement of traffic laws is not increasing beyond inflation. I expect better performance will be sought under THAT contract. No, the Police don't get revenue from traffic fines either.

Money to subsidise public transport is becoming more focused, on projects that actually reduce traffic congestion, optimise service operation (?) and improve fare recovery from passengers (in other words wean services off of subsidies). 57% of public transport money is spent in Auckland, although 48% of public transport usage is there. Think about whether that's working.

From my perspective it is largely business as usual. The good thing is that all taxes from motorists are now spent through this, although it was Labour that introduced that, after National campaigned on it in 2005. It is also good that roads now get more of the money, 86% of spending is on roads or road related activities (planning roads, operating and policing them). However, this bureaucratic system still doesn't provide a link between users and the supply of roads. How do we know the projects are worth building? From a bureaucratic cost/benefit exercise and judgment. The fact remains all the money from road users goes into a pool and it is spent based on how users are perceived to "benefit" from the spending, not whether the money raised in an area or on a road is spent on that road or nearby network. There are huge cross subsidies, users in some areas undoubtedly pay too little, others pay too much, and demand isn't influenced by price - for example, it should be very cheap to use roads at the quietest times, but expensive when they reach capacity.

However, as long as government builds things, most people are happy. For now. Also, to be fair, New Zealand does this bureaucratic funding of roads far far less politically and more objectively than most countries. Bridges don't collapse due to lack of maintenance, and big new roads to nowhere don't get built, anymore. It's just the railway that's the biggest drain of pointless spending now, but most of the money on that comes from taxpayers directly, not motorists.

Other comments?

Darren Hughes says local roads will suffer, as they get no real additional money. The reason given is because councils have to increase rates for government to match more spending on roads. There is a serious issue here, but it would be better fixed by allowing councils to set charges for using their roads and replace rates funding with property access levies on roads where charges don't pay enough for maintenance. Hughes is talking nonsense on public transport though. Surely if public transport patronage rises, higher fare revenue should mean lower subsidies, although Labour's subsidy scheme encourages the opposite. The truth is Labour can criticise little, since National has largely continued Labour's funding allocation process. All it has done is scrap the pointless rail and sea freight spending and directed that and some public transport funding allocations to state highways.

Sue Kedgley of course talks mindless nonsense about the announcement:
- More than half of the NLTP budget ALWAYS went into state highways Sue, but then half the money came from motorists USING state highways.
- Yes every $7 spent on roads (including maintenance) $1 is spent on public transport, forgetting that another $1 is spent by ratepayers and yet another $2 is spent by the fare paying public. You see Sue, with one exception, roads aren't tolled. Oh by the way, for every person riding public transport, another 18 or so are driving or riding in a car.
- "It is especially disturbing to see almost no funding going into rail and sea freight - we have to shift our freight to these modes or else risk serious damage to our economy when the price of oil rises" What do you call subsidising Kiwirail from taxpayers Sue, and do you think Queenstown, which has no rail or sea freight at all, has been seriously damaged as a result?

The economic illiteracy and complete factual evasion of the Greens continues to astound.

ARC Chairman Mike Lee is cheering it on, proving it still has too much money for public transport.

ex. ACT MP and Rodney Mayor Penny Webster is upset that the dog of a project, the Penlink bridge, wont be getting special subsidies. So it either stands on tolls and property levies or wont be built. Good.

So let's not get too excited because reporters just report on press releases. Be grateful your motoring taxes are mostly going on roads, and if you are interested look here for your region to see what you'll be getting or not getting. Don't get excited if you're in Invercargill though, move along, nothing to see here (quite right too).

High speed rail not environmentally friendly

It's curious that the government backed private company that runs Britain's rail infrastructure - Network Rail - is promoting an extremely grand plan to make taxpayers pay for a high speed rail line from London to Edinburgh. £34 billion is the cost of a line from London to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh. It would cut travel time from London to Edinburgh by rail to 2 hours 9 minutes.

See according to the Guardian, a consultancy report 2 years ago said there would be similar CO2 emissions from building and operating a high speed railway between London and Manchester as there would be to fly the route. The difference being that aviation on the route needs no subsidy. It would be better to improve capacity on the existing line through removing bottlenecks and improved signalling.

So the environmental advantages are at best dubious, and the economic costs are enormous. A massive transfer from taxpayers to business users of trains.

If there is congestion on the current rail network, that simply means fares are too low at busy times, so they should be raised so overcrowding can be reduced and revenue raised to put in extra capacity as it is needed. New lines when existing lines have ample capacity most of the day are unlikely to be particularly a good choice.

Of course the fetish for the moment is that flying is evil, as is driving, despite people continuing to choose those options. The truth is flying is largely a commercially run private business. Road transport involves privately provided vehicles paying excessive taxes to use roads managed bureaucratically. Railways involve a mix of commercial and subsidised services on subsidised tracks. Maybe of the highways were privatised, and charged commercial tolls reflecting demand, the excuses to subsidise railways would start to evaporate?