Not everyone on public transport would have driven

I saw a press release from the government's uber agency on land transport (set up by the Clark Administration to get rid of the funder-provider split that saw decisions split between government agencies, making them difficult to control directly) New Zealand Transport Agency that seemed otherwise innocuous.

It is about a series of bus lanes opening in Christchurch on the main highway south of the city (curiously it links to a website that hasn't been updated since 2010 -  Christchurch has changed since then, and there is no map of the lanes actually opening - well done).  I'm not particularly objecting to the bus lanes, they may well make sense here.  What caught my eye was this absurd statement:

"A full bus equates to 40 fewer cars on Christchurch roads"

Pardon me, but this is unadulterated bullshit, whatever way you look at it.

Even if we assume that a full bus really is a full bus (people seated and standing), it might at best have 70 or so passengers.  The only way it could mean 40 fewer cars on the roads is if everyone on that bus would have driven a car or ridden in a car with someone on that bus.

That assumption is quite ludicrous.  

If a bus doesn't operate, there are two broad options for the user.  Travel by another means or don't travel at all (which can include changes in destination).  To assume all bus users would drive, or ride a car driven by someone on the bus is nonsense.   

Yes, some would.  

However, some would catch a ride with someone who is already driving.   That isn't adding a car to the road.

Some may bike, some may walk. Both of those options are environmentally preferable to the bus.

Some will decide not to travel at all, and may undertake the trip purpose elsewhere.  In the longer term, it may mean people relocate to a place closer to work, or choose a different job.  Not all trips occur regardless.   It is false to presume all bus trips are commutes.

In other words, to grossly simplify transport mode and trip choice options as being "catch public transport or drive a car" is to exaggerate the importance of public transport.  It is one option.  It can attract people from driving, but many users are those for whom driving isn't a reasonable alternative in any case.

If people are attracted from cars to buses, then all well and good.  Given the bus companies and their passengers are getting allocated a third of the road "for free", you'd hope it does work.    However, let's not pretend buses are full of otherwise drivers.  

Of course in Auckland it's even more ludicrous, because there it is trains that in part attract people from buses - but that is an uncomfortable fact the railevangelists would prefer to sideline - that many of the people riding public transport are not people who would otherwise hop in their own cars and jam up the roads, but people who wouldn't travel otherwise (and are getting a heavily subsidised trip for the privilege).

Nick Smith might be about to do some good

Yes, I am flabbergasted, but there is every potential Nick Smith might do something positive in his career for less government and more freedom.

In fact he'll demonstrate that as Minister of Local Government he will achieve more in that department than Rodney Hide.  According to the Dominion Post, he has announced the Government is looking to curb council powers by revoking the "power of general competence" introduced by then Alliance Minister of Local Government, Sandra Lee, in the first term of the Clark Administration.

The report states that "he will pare back the scope of local government functions so they will only have control of essential local services such as waste, water, roads, libraries and consents".   

If so, it will remove the power of councils to get involved in any area of public policy they wish.  You see Labour, the Alliance and the Greens supported the current wide ranging powers on the philosophical basis that councils should only be controlled by voters - that if voters elected councillors that wanted to make ratepayers pay for a street race, a wind wand, a tv station, a restaurant, a housing block, a tourism promotion in Japan or a farm, they could.  

It is a classic example of basic statism - that government should be absolutely unlimited, except for democracy. That government can buy any business, set up any activity, spend money on anything.  The only limit being the motives of the elected councillors.  The idea being the councillors represent the "will of the people" and they wont want to do anything that wastes money, because they face the penalty of being - voted out.

Now the truth is that this is little check at all on local government.  For a start, losing your council position is small penalty for wasting millions of dollars of other people's money, for putting people out of business, for being part of decisions to borrow millions that future ratepayers have to pay for or for eroding people's property rights.  It's like a company director being able to make stupid decisions for three years before shareholders can vote him down.  Imagine being able to be incompetent for three years before losing your job.

Secondly, elections are not a constraint when councillors can spend the money of all ratepayers to support vocal rent-seekers in the form of council workers, preferred businesses, non-governmental organisations or other ginger groups.  The rights of all citizens of a city or district can easily be surrendered by bribing vocal minorities with other people's money.   The cost to individual ratepayers of a single decision may be a few dollars a month, which they wont get too upset about in themselves, but which can easily curry the favour of lobbyists.

Finally, local government elections have never been a great representative of endorsement by citizens, because turnout, even in postal elections has been low, particularly in larger metropolitan centres.  Whilst rural districts can get turnout of 60-70%, urban ones can be as low as 30%.   Many people find councils mind-numbingly tedious, and activist councillors take advantage of that.  It helps that only property owners are legally liable for rates, but everyone who is on the electoral roll can vote in council elections - a majority of whom are not liable for rates.  As landlords can't simply raise rents automatically when rates rise, it means representation without taxation.  Indeed, Sandra Lee also abolished the vote for property owners in a district who are non-resident.  So you can be forced to pay rates, but have no right to vote for those who decide on how to set them.

A classic bit of left-wing envy ridden denial of the democracy they claim to support so much, tinged with xenophobia (think districts where there are high numbers of holiday homes). 

Nick Smith's reforms appear promising, although I'd argue there needs to be a more fundamental question asked as to what local government is needed for, at all.

He said "Water, roads, footpaths, libraries, local regulatory services – where you go to get your building consent, resource [consent], food safety, the dog control role"  are essential services.

Well I'd say, yes - if councils just did that, it would be one step in the right direction.  Yet one must question the others.  Water, libraries (and waste collection) could be easily privatised.  Roads require more effort, but can be commercialised (and new residential streets vested in body corporates of property owners).   Given I'd do away with the RMA, the whole building/resource consent function would be abolished.  The food safety and dog control functions could ultimately be undertaken by voluntary agencies.

Regardless of all that, I'll give Nick Smith a cautious nod in support for winding back the Local Government Act, with some advice about how to restrict councils:

-  Prohibit councils from entering into any new commercial activities, and require them to transfer commercial activities into SOE type arms-length organisations (called Local Authority Trading Enterprises once), and privatise them by sale, or distribution of shares to ratepayers, within three years;

-  Prohibit councils from entering into any activities already undertaken by central government;

-  Prohibit councils from increasing rates without Ministerial approval (which can only be up to inflation);

-  Return council elections to votes only from ratepayers, including absentee ratepayers;

-  Require councils to get out of any non-core functions within three years.

Doing this would go some way to constraining the petty fascists, the do-gooding busybodies and the numerous groups and second-handers out wanting councils to give them other people's money.

However, it wouldn't slay the biggest risk councils present to individual freedom - the RMA.

So while Nick Smith might be said to have turned a corner on this issue, he wont have really addressed how councils constrain individuals, businesses, clubs and other private organisations by eroding their property rights through the RMA.  So come on Nick, it's not too late to think again.  If they can't organise events, or be entrusted to pay their staff appropriately, why should they be trusted to take away people's property rights?

(can't wait to see what John Bank thinks of this).

New Zealanders already own them

Such is the cry of the impotent leftwing cry in New Zealand politics against privatisation of state owned businesses.  It is this position, and the infantile debate about privatisation that passes for political discourse in New Zealand that demonstrates how far removed the country can actually be from the rest of the world.

The only countries in the world that decry privatisation are the likes of Venezuela, Iran and North Korea.  In the rest of the OECD it is mainstream policy and has been for some time.  However, in New Zealand the debate is at a level that I think reflect a combination of the base level of debate through television and talkback radio, and the agendas sold by some in academia and education, pushing what can best be described as the Green/Alliance leftwing legend about the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s.

The latest phrase thrown in is just banal.

"New Zealanders already own them" or "You don't have a right to sell something New Zealanders own".

Of course it is cravenly misleading political rhetoric, like the bald faced lie that opening ACC up to competition is privatisation, because some of its customers will choose a private competitor. Like the complete blanking out of history by Labour politicians who happily consented to Michael Cullen seeking to sell part of the re-nationalised Air New Zealand to its arch rival Qantas - because Qantas was keen to snuff out any chance of the knee-capped airline becoming a bigger competitor, and Cullen was too inept to see through its rhetoric. 

New Zealanders do not own SOEs by any standard definition of what ownership of property means.

If you own a shareholding in a business, whether by shares, or in partnership, or private equity stake, or even as a secured creditor, you have a wide range of rights in relation to the assets and liabilities of that business.

First and foremost is the right of alienation.  You can sell, gift or surrender that stake to whoever is willing to buy or receive it.  You are not forced to own it.  After all, if you were, you'd be forced to bear liabilities as well as receive proceeds from profits.  

Secondly, ownership bears the ability to gain dividends from profits and capital gains from appreciation of the assets. Conversely, it also means you bear liabilities (in the form of your assets being devalued and shareholding able to be surrendered to creditors, or rendered worthless through the market).  Ownership is dynamic.  Like owning a home, or a painting or a car, what you own can make you money, or can lose you money, but ultimately you gain or lose value according to how it is managed, used and ultimately the market for buying it.

New Zealanders do not have either of these rights in relation to SOEs.  There must be a few environmentalists who'd rather not own a coal mining business, but they can't sell out of the state shareholding in Solid Energy.  As New Zealanders individually can't sell out of SOEs, only the state can, it is absurd to claim that the state has "no right" to do so, when in fact the elected government is led by a political party that campaigned on that platform.

The government does have the right to sell any asset it holds, and indeed it has a democratic mandate to engage in its small SOE part privatisation programme.  To reject this is to claim the state should never sell anything again, and to reject the mandate of the electorate.

New Zealanders don't get dividends from SOEs.  The state does.  New Zealanders don't get a dividend cheque to spend on their mortgage, their kids' education or their businesses.  Those on the left will argue that they do get the "fruit" of government spending, but government spending is distinctly unequal among New Zealanders.  It tends to cluster around rent-seeking groups, such as employees in the state sector, businesses that receive subsidies, the state education and health sector, state housing and welfare recipients.  Is that what people want their dividends spent on?   Of course if the state was going to spend that anyway, it is arguable taxes would increase, although again, taxes aren't equal either.  If everyone had equal shares, they would get equal dividends, but the benefits (and costs) of the state are not equally distributed.

So to claim New Zealanders "own" SOEs is a complete fallacy.  They can't sell or give away their ownership, even if they wanted to.  They can't gain the fruits of ownership.  Yet they do bear the costs.  Loss making SOEs may get additional funds from the state.  Kiwirail being the obvious example.  Those who pay the greatest tax bear the greatest loss.

This "public ownership" is effectively meaningless.  It is, legally, Crown ownership.  The government owns SOEs and it is up to the Minister of Finance to exercise the rights of ownership.  The state owning something doesn't mean you own it.  It spends the proceeds on what it wants, and if it loses money, it takes it from your taxes.

Yet have you noticed how opponents to privatisation get awfully wound up about selling businesses, but the state taking your money through taxes and buying them, that;s another story.

In the past decade New Zealand taxpayers have been forced to buy an airline and a railway, but nobody who says there is "no right to sell" argues it about buying.  Apparently the state has every right to borrow or tax to make people buy a business, or invest in an existing one (take Kiwibank).  

What does that mean?  Well if you follow it to the logical conclusion, it means the state can buy up anything it likes, but never sell it.  Ultimately it means nationalising the entire private sector and all private property.

The real debate that should be had is whether it is appropriate for the state to own businesses at all.  It gets diverted because those wanting to debate are wanting to scaremonger.

It's why the Greens, Hone Harawira and others on the left raise their racist bogeyman of "foreigners" when it comes to privatisation.   The very people who cry racist whenever they find an unequal outcome between two groups they subjectively define by ethnicity, raise hackles of what is nothing more than pure nationalist hatred regarding foreign nationals or companies owning businesses in New Zealand.  The implication being that foreigners "rip people off", New Zealanders don't.  That foreigners will "take their money and run", New Zealanders never spend their money on luxuries, foreign travel or invest overseas.  Foreigners "don't understand us", because New Zealand state owned businesses have always been a roaring success and delivered just what everyone wanted.

If you want to know one reason why Air New Zealand did not get fast approval for Singapore Airlines to lift its shareholding from 25% to 49% by the last Labour government, the word "xenophobia" might explain something.

So no kiwis, you don't own SOEs - a collective of politicians exercise ownership rights over them, spend the profits arising from them, and collect from you when things are going bad for them.  You have no more right to say they can't be sold than you have to say the state shouldn't buy a car, a plot of land, or a new locomotive for Kiwirail.

The late Roger Kerr wrote extensively about privatisation, it would be a start if some journalists in New Zealand actually took some time to read some of it, such as the review of the actual performance of privatised state businesses and their history.  It would also be nice if some of them asked the politicians who oppose privatisation whether they also oppose the state buying businesses on behalf of taxpayers.

Fair Fuel UK? How to make UK fuel duty a little fairer

A nationwide campaign comes to London today, called National Fair Fuel Day, demanding that the UK government act on fuel taxes. Finally, the road transport sector and motoring lobby have cottoned onto the fact that some in the media have ignored – the high price of fuel is substantially due to government taxation. 

Some have argued that it is all about oil company gouging. Oil companies being the bogey of the left and easily pilloried. Yet whilst demand and supply do greatly influence price fluctuations, oil companies can't be blamed for much of the price of fuel in the UK.  It isn't hard to compare prices between countries, and notice that once currency fluctuations are taken into account, most of the real difference is tax.

Today, the average price of standard unleaded petrol in the UK is around £1.38 per litre, for diesel it is £1.45. However of those prices, around £0.58 is fuel duty. For the petrol there is also £0.23 in VAT (£0.24 for diesel) (on top of the retail price and fuel duty). So of the total price, the majority is tax. 

In the UK, this situation came about because of the two previous governments. John Major’s government introduced a fuel duty escalator, which increased fuel duty by inflation + 3%, which was then increased to inflation + 5%. When Gordon Brown became Chancellor of the Exchequer he raised it to inflation + 6%. So in short, it was a way to pillage the pockets of motorists, given that most revenue from fuel duty comes from road use. 

Unlike the US or New Zealand, none of the UK fuel tax is hypothecated for transport purposes. The reason being that the UK Treasury has a phobic opposition to government restricting the use of any tax revenues for any specific purpose. The history behind this being that the last time fuel tax was hypothecated was in the 1930s, and revenue was far in excess of spending on roads (which suggested the tax should have been lowered or more spending should have been made on roads). However, even compared to road spending, the fuel tax is grossly excessive.

About £10 billion is spent in the UK every year on maintaining and upgrading all roads, yet £26 billion is collected in fuel duty and £6 billion from vehicle excise duty. As these taxes wouldn’t be collected if people didn’t own or use motor vehicles, it is fair to link that revenue to that expenditure, although the left/environmental movement likes to think of it differently. 

So what should the rate of fuel duty be? Let’s reject the Treasury approach to this, and say that a dedicated roads fund could be set up which would be funded from revenue from road users. If the current level of spending is maintained it would be £6 billion from vehicle excise duty and £4 billion from fuel , or rather only 12.5% of current fuel duty. Given that there is significant deferred maintenance on road networks (and assuming this funding can replace council tax contributions to road maintenance), let’s boost that slightly by rounding it up to 8p a litre that could be hypothecated for road spending. Yes, in theory fuel duty could be only £0.08 if it was all spent on roads, with vehicle excise duty and it was used to fully fund local roads and given a small boost to maintenance.  Yes, the UK government is profiteering from the use of its own roads on a grand scale, that would make most entrepreneurs blush.  However, it's the government, so the left don't get so worked up about that, because tax is "good" because governments "spend it on everyone".

Of course cutting fuel duty by 50p devastate public finances unless there were equivalent spending cuts to match.  Not something I'm unafraid of at all, but let's proceed down a train of thought to do something a little different.

 A £0.50 cut in fuel duty would also correspond to another £0.10 off in VAT, so a £0.60 cut in fuel would nearly halve prices. That would be a major shot in the arm for the competitiveness of transport intensive industries, transport operators and motorists, but of course would dreadfully upset environmentalists, public transport operators and would increase congestion. Environmentalists would argue it would increase climate change. 

Let me be controversial and assume that this is correct, and accept that road users should pay for the "cost" of carbon emissions. The Stern Report claimed that the cost of climate change is around £0.14 per litre.  However, even if I add that to the road spending, fuel duty still drops by £0.36 with a £0.07 cut in VAT.

Another claim from environmentalists will be the cost of real pollution, the noxious kind that actually does affect people's health in cities. Well that’s been calculated too, and is around half of the cost of infrastructure maintenance, indicating a tax level of around £0.16 per litre. It is a cost that is declining as cleaner burning vehicles are renewing the fleet.  Again, it still means that fuel duty would drop by £0.20 with a £0.04 cut in VAT.

At that point I’d make an argument that there is a long run lack of investment in British highways, only part of which can be recovered in the short term by private investment (simply due to public sector crowd out in planning), so that an extra £0.04 a litre should be retained to be transferred at a rate of £0.01 a litre every year to the roads fund, to address 15 years of underspending.

Indeed, given the rail sector pays a small portion into this, it could be argued that tax could be recycled into paying for rail subsidies (although surely it would be simpler and fairer to enable rail operators to claim back the duty).

So what to do? Yes the government makes a fortune from road users, it collects over three times what it spends on roads. However, it also faces a massive budget deficit to cut, so in the meantime, here are my steps to remedy this, over time:

1. No more increases in fuel duty. 

2. Set up a hypothecated highway fund to which all vehicle excise duty and 8p of fuel duty goes into. Establish an independent board to determine how to allocate those funds to the Highways Agency, local authorities and the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland administrations, based on receiving bids for maintenance and capital expenditure. Have those funds allocated on transparent criteria based on cost/benefit analysis. 

3. Calculate and explicitly state that a proportion of fuel duty is to reflect climate change and pollution costs, if that is deemed necessary.  Regularly recalculate these to reflect changes in the vehicle fleet.

4. Explicitly identify the remainder of fuel duty as “surplus”, with the aim of policy to reduce that downwards by 1p a litre every year until the budget is in surplus (estimated 2016/2017), with another 1p shifted into the roads fund for additional capital works. 

5. Once the budget is in surplus, cut fuel duty by the remainder, so that all that remains is the road fund component, plus the externality charge.

Whilst I'd much rather slash fuel duty by 16p overnight, and then argue over the rest regarding externalities, these gentle steps would put some transparency around fuel duty and cease the endless increases just to pay for general government expenditure. If all the roads were privately owned, or run as a business, they wouldn’t be paid for by fuel duty, but from user charges. However, unless and until that sort of radical reform is implemented, the second best option is to treat fuel duty as being linked to road use and road spending.  It would stop penalising the road transport sector and treating it as a cash cow.

Putin's shadow is up to Russians to resist

For all of the news about the rigged Russian Presidential election, it is probably a fair assumption that he still commands considerable support.  Middle class Russians in major cities may be disenchanted, but elsewhere the strong hand and steadiness of Putin gets much respect.  

After all, Russia has no tradition of vibrant liberal competitive politics, it has a tradition of revolution, authoritarianism, corruption and subservience.

There was a chance for Russia to have joined the Western world's prosperity, modernity and traditions of individual rights and freedoms, when the Tsar was overthrown by a liberal democratic revolution.  However, it was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who overthrew the liberal revolution, and so set in a chain of events that saw tens of millions slaughtered.   Think of those killed by Lenin, Stalin and his successors, the murderous regimes installed in Mongolia, most of eastern Europe, North Korea,  Ethiopia, or how about the pact with Nazi Germany, that allowed Hitler to conquer Western Europe and which no doubt delayed the end of the war and the Holocaust.

70 odd years of Marxism-Leninism has brutalised Russians, it has made them cynical of politics, as it became a tool for personal advancement, for corruption.  It was a path for sociopaths and psychopaths to have fruitful careers.  The state was an instrument of fear, that nationalised lives, brains, property and ideas.  Those with ambition, entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity either had to surrender it to the "good of the working class", or to be ironed flat, to surrender themselves, their creations and their ideas.  For under "really existing socialism", individuals were to be categorised, classified and to worship those who used their hands, not their heads, who followed orders and did manual labour, not creating inventions and innovation.  The rivers of blood, echoes of screams, corpses, tears and bones arising from that system left those remaining a different people from those of western Europe in some ways.  Brutalised and hardened, cynical and saddened.  

Mikhail Gorbachev set them free to complain, to know the truth and talk the truth about the system, the economy, but retained the system that kept them in chains, and which was already corrupted beyond repair.   He faced a coup by gangsters wanting to turn the clock back and was saved by Boris Yeltsin, who then embarked on reforms on a grand scale.

The privatisations of the 1990s were well intentioned, but easily hijacked as a people who had never owned shares were offered easy money by entrepreneurs and gangsters as they hoovered up former state monopolies.  The oligarchs were born, meanwhile the institutions of state that mattered remained corrupted.  The underpaid police, the courts, the prisons and a justice system with literally no history of objective justice, of appeals, of challenging evidence of checks and balances.  

It was ripe to be bought, to be undermined before it even started.  Property rights weren't even embryonic, they were stagnant and subject to whim.  

It was from this disorganisation, the emergence of the oligarchic state and an economy that had its archaic heart decimated by truth and the end of subsidies, that a non-descript former KGB bureaucrat emerged to become Yeltsin's choice as successor.

Putin dreamt of being a spy as a child.  He joined the KGB, went to East Germany to train agents of foreigners, but as he did his work, it was being undermined.  Perestroika saw funding and interest in his work decrease, and then when Gorbachev insisted on letting East Germany go, he saw his position shifted back to the USSR.  In short, Putin saw what he had worked for eroded, he saw rapprochement and friendship emerge with those he had been taught were enemies, and he took the traditional Russian view that is suspicious of the outside world.  

So he threatened, bullied and killed journalists who questioned him, who questioned his state and his party.  He ran elections where pre-selected opponents from the fascist and communist parties he sympathised with ran flimsy campaigns, and the real opponents were excluded.

For some time Russians were complacent, because it coincided with rises in oil and gas prices, and a flood of foreign exchange as a result.  The new money saw the state flushed with booty, able to spend on jobs, welfare and pay rises for the military and the wider state.

Yet the good times were not for all, and entrepreneurs, intellectuals, creative Russians, those not connected to the state or oligarchs, those affected by corruption, by the random whims of the state, and those not enamoured by the mindless hedonistic wild west of Russia's energy fuelled wealth, were less than happy.  Those with the education and the means leave, for they see little future in a society dominated by an authoritarian corrupt gangster state.  The unpredictable, unreliable, corruption fuelled state couldn't be relied upon to respond to assault, theft, rape or murder, when it was owned by those who committed those crimes, and would commit them itself for the state or for themselves.   That's ignoring the nasty under currents of racism, anti-semitism, sexism and overall bigotry that ran through the society.

So now some have spoken up, some are being brave, some are wanting something different.  However, it isn't enough, for now.  Much money in Russia depends on having a state willing to use force or to be absent when it fits its interests, and the state keeps many in employment.   Many Russians like having a strong man in charge, they have known little else except for 10-15 years of "chaos", unemployment and what has been portrayed as "weakness" and "humiliation".  For over a decade young Russians have been taught about the glory of the Soviet Union, with absolutely no contrition or reflection on what happened in that era.

Putin will last a few years, but it will be Russians themselves who will need to throw off him and his regime, and demand change - and to do so, they need to stand together and fight for it.  If they don't, Putin will continue to preside over a shrinking country, with shrivelling population, a military that bites and barks, but which is increasingly ignored by all beyond its immediate former satellites which it can bully (like Georgia and Ukraine), and be left behind.  Despite Putin's clear schadenfreude over the global financial crisis, he has nothing to gloat about.  Indeed, the very cynicism that saw the Soviet house of cards collapse ultimately will do the same to his system, with the one component present that the USSR didn't have - the internet and other communications technology means he has not got control of growing parts of the media.   

The game continues...