Blair urges people to take more responsibility

According to the Daily Telegraph, one of Tony Blair's advisors said:

.

"It is really important that you should take more exercise, it is really important you should worry about children's obesity, but we are not the ones who should make you do it."

.

In short, he is saying the government can give people information, but it is up to them as to what they do. In essence he has acknowledged that Nanny State wont work and that the problems with the NHS are due to a lack of personal responsibility. Blair himself said:

.

"It has got to be about prevention as much as it is about cure," he said. "This is important because going forward we can't afford the health care costs if we don't take some of the responsibility as individuals for our health care."

.

Indeed, Tony. A start would be to shift national insurance contributions to being personal ones, and varying them on risk, or allowing people to shift them to private providers. He wont do that though. What he might do is deregulate medicine a trifle:

.

"Mr Blair said barriers between the NHS and the private and the independent sectors needed to be broken down and more use made of the expertise available in pharmacies. Richard Baker, the Boots chief executive, has urged ministers to let doctors and consultants practise in his stores. Mr Blair praised the company for helping people lead healthy lives."

.

Heaven help the NZ Labour Party advocating such a thing.

Greens want Nanny State to nanny your kids

So the Greens support Cindy "Stalin" Kiro's grand plan to plan and monitor all children from birth till....

.

Essentially it means "Checks would be done during the first two years of a child's life, when children went to school, during their adolescent years, and in the "youth transition period" when teenagers left high school to take up jobs or enter further education. " You're paying for these checks, and would I be right in guessing that when it comes to actually checking those kids in "at risk" areas, that there wont be the staff willing to go around Kaikohe, Wairoa or Flaxmere? Far easier to check all those middle class kids in Takapuna, Karori and Invercargill isn't it?

.

A grand big nanny-state plan that has as its basic premise that parents generally don't know what is good for their kids. Now I believe that, by and large, they do. Some don't, some are so appalling at it that they should never have custody of children again. However, just because there are cases of nearly useless parents and guardians neglecting and abusing their kids, doesn't mean that Nanny Cindy should be keeping her eye on what you're doing.

.

I pointed this out before when she commented on the Kahui case. So what IS a solution? I suggest a targeted response. Let's remember that most kids turn out ok, most don't get murdered, raped or become hardened criminals. Let's also remember that the fault of those kids who are neglected and abused is not YOU, or ME, or the state, it is the parents! You see in post-modern world, we don't blame anyone for bashing their kids to death. You don't dare deprive parents of their biological children - it offends too many to say that, but in cases you should. So a few steps:

.

1. Include in sentencing for serious violent or sexual crimes the denial of future custody of current or future children if there is reason to believe the offender could, on the balance of probabilities, pose a risk to a child.

2. Deny any parents convicted of physically or sexually abusing their own children custody or the right to be alone with their own children, until the children are adults.

3. Deny any person who has a serious violent or sexual conviction welfare benefits of any kind, including state housing.

4. Have the right to use adoption and fostering to permanently or temporarily remove children from parents who repeatedly put them in danger from adults who are past offenders. It is one thing for a single parent to hook up with someone who she didn't think was abusive and boot him out/charge him if he is caught abusing - another thing to remain in the relationship knowing the kids are getting harmed. If you can't protect your kids then you lose the right to have them.

.

The failure is NOT families not getting the support they need - it is families failing the kids. People are to blame - they are to blame for hurting children, for neglecting them and for failing to be good parents. These are people you make us pay for, that sit on their arses and beat up their kids or ignore them. They are human scum - they are the cause of so much of what is wrong with society, the kids who turn out bad, the unemployable, the people that others fears, that vandalise, steal and hurt others. There are few of them, but they should not ever have children - they shouldn't breed. They don't abuse because they are poor - poverty does not make you punch a child in the stomach - it is a complete lack of any empathy, concern or willingness to be a parent, or a civilised human being.

.

Stop this nanny stating about - call scum scum - it is what most people think they are, because most people don't need their kids monitored.

.

The glee at which the planners find new ways to plan your childrens' lives is insipid and vile, and Lindsay Mitchell rightly points out that there may be an issue with inflating child abuse figures.

End to long distance rail travel in the North Island (updated)

I am slightly sad that the Overlander (Wellington-Auckland train) is ceasing to operate from 30 September, if only because it is the end of the era of long distance rail travel in the North Island. Since 1908, when the main trunk line was opened, business, tourism and simple access between Auckland, Wellington, Palmerston North, Hamilton and numerous communities in between was facilitated by train. It took two days back then, but was down to 16 hours and today 11 hours. It has gone from 3-4 trains a day to only 1, and reached it peak in the 1960s, before the Boeing 737 and cheaper cars and better roads saw people drift from the rails. Businesspeople increasingly flew and families went by car, and with competition in the air from the 1980s, more people flew. Air fares have continued to plummet as Air NZ has worked to increase the size of the market and ironically - the state owned transport operator has killed off the operation of a privately owned one running on government owner track. However, the killing off has been due to demand - neither Air NZ's main trunk operations nor the Overlander are subsidised.

.

I caught the Northerner and the Overlander, and its predecessor the Silverfern, several times as a student and as a child, as well as trains to and from Napier to visit relatives. It was a relaxing way to travel, and in recent years has been air conditioned, with reasonable food and comfortable seats - but alas, no more passenger trains on the Main Trunk line (outside Auckland and Wellington commuter runs).

.

It is for good reason it is ending. It's unprofitable, and newer more comfortable buses undercut the train at the budget end, and cheap airfares at the top end. Certainly I've not thought about catching a train from Wellington to Auckland for around 14 years or so. The trip is also not really scenic enough to attract tourists, there are some great scenes in the central plateau but most of the trip between Wellington and Hunterville and Te Kuiti to Auckland is dead boring.

.

The Greens are claiming that "peak oil" will bring it back, but they are dreaming. For starters, Toll can run the Palmerston North-Hamilton service with electric locomotives but it is not worth it. As I blogged about a few weeks ago, the high price of petrol is benefiting buses because they are newer and more fuel efficient - but there simply isn't enough people travelling Wellington to Auckland on a budget willing to take an 11 hour train trip. Flying is such an enormous time advantage that it is beyond belief that one would do anything else. Fortunately the Greens aren't asking for a subsidy but that the infrastructure be retained - since the main trunk line is one of the most profitable sections of railway for freight (on average a train every hour), I doubt it is at risk.

.

By the way, do the Greens take the Overlander every time they travel between Auckland and Wellington and the centres in between? Honestly, do they?

.

Anyway, if you want to take a trip before it goes, just to see the scenery or show your kids what its like to go on a big train (because you can be sure the last trips will be filled with rail nuts and Sue Kedgley catching the train for the first time, like she did with the Bay Express a week before it stopped), go here and get a ticket.

.

UPDATE: The RMTU chief Wayne Butson wants you to subsidise his members’ jobs and those who want to catch the Overlander. Given you don’t subsidise the bus or airline companies that compete with it, why the hell should you subsidise the train? (the train was subsidised from the 70s through till 1988, when Prebble told the Railways that the government wasn’t into subsidising long distance passenger train travel, and suddenly the service improved dramatically, and it stopped losing money).
.
Butson claims “We have a rail network which is supposed to pay its entire cost of operation through the operator at the same time as we have a national roading system which is available for any commercial entity to use at minimal cost when the vast burden of the infrastructure is paid for by the private motorist.” He is talking nonsense. The government is pouring taxpayers money ($200 million) into the rail network, which is hardly being paid by the operator. Given the train has largely lost out to airlines, the road network is only part of the competition and bus operators pay road user charges (which are not “minimal cost”) to use the highway. That RUC easily pays for the damage caused by the buses to the highway, a review carried out five years ago proved that.
.
Fortunately, the Greens aren’t calling for it to be subsidised, which is surprising but good.

.

UPDATE 2: The Waikato Times reports Hamilton East MP, David Bennett (National!) saying the government should intervene to ensure the Overlander continues! What sort of muppets are National getting selected as candidates? If Labour and the Greens wont "intervene" what the hell is a National MP asking for? Is he is in the right party?? Shouldn't Don Brash be giving him a right bollocking?

.

UPDATE 3: Ruapehu District Council's Mayor wants you (through the government) to be forced to pay to subsidise the train, because its loss will cost jobs in the district. Yes it will. However, it is a privately provided service. Presumably the councillors concerned used the train several times a year? There is nothing stopping anyone else wanting to start a service on the route once Tranz Scenic has withdrawn. It is one reason, after all, why the government renationalised the rail network from Tranz Rail. So roll up, roll up, if you care, put your money where you mouth is - either invest in another train, or use it between now and September enough so it is worthwhile for Tranz Scenic to keep.

.

UPDATE 4: Stuff report the subsidy Tranz Scenic sought to keep the Overlander was $1.75 million p.a. with a $0.5 million capital injection! That's over $32 per passenger. Dr Cullen was smart enough to say no. Jeanette Fitzsimons says the $120 million spent on maintaining the rail network is peanuts compared to roads - no shit sherlock - got a railway going to every house, every shop, every farm and every town?

High density housing and public transport not the answer

Not PC has done a great job of fisking the anti-sprawl dogma that completely dominates most NZ, Australian, UK and many US local authorities, who have taken on the mantra that says:

.

1. The problem with cities is that people "drive too much" and use "too much land". They use too much energy.

2. Less land and less driving would occur if everyone lived closer together, and the places they want to go (work, shops, leisure) were all sited in centres.

3. People should lived in high density housing around corridors for public transport, which is a good thing, because it means people don't drive.

4. The best public transport is rail, because it just is, it doesn't involve roads. It is also the most expensive, but don't let that put you off, people like trains more so it is worth paying 3-4x the cost of buses. You need lots of people living close together near railway stations all wanting to go to the same places.

5. People buying big houses with sections on their own are bad, because it wastes land and energy, and they are far away from everyone else - this means they drive needlessly and are "dependent" on their cars. People in apartments living on top of each other are good, because the use less energy and can walk places more.

.

What they ignore is that high density living doesn't mean people don't want cars, also because planners want you to live in an apartment doesn't mean you do. People still want houses and they don't want to live next to the railway.

.

An article in the Toronto Globe and Mail by Margaret Wente continues to make the point:

"The idea that people will use public transit to get to work ignores the fact that most people don't want to live near their work. And because people are so mobile, they no longer have to. On top of that, people use their cars for much more than commuting. According to one study, 20 per cent of all trips by auto are for work, 20 per cent for shopping, and 60 per cent for things that are "social." The idea that public transit can replace the car in people's busy lives is a fantasy."

.

Indeed it is, you see public transport can be sustainable and profitable (unsubsidised). Half of the buses in Auckland used to be like that, until the ARC started pouring money into rail and making some of the bus routes no longer viable. Hong Kong and Singapore's metros make profits. The London Underground is not far short of breaking even too.

.

PC blogged about the book by Robert Bruegmann: Sprawl a Compact History. Margaret Wente quotes from it:

.

"Very few people believe that they themselves live in sprawl. Sprawl is where other people live, particularly people with less taste and good sense than themselves. Much anti-sprawl activism is based on a desire to reform these other people's lives"

.

Indeed, and Wente herself is pretty good on figuring out what the solutions to urban air pollution and congestion actually are. She said:

.

"If we really wanted to tackle smog and congestion, we wouldn't be fantasizing about massive new investments in public transit. We'd be investing in transportation infrastructure, less polluting fuels, more intelligent roads and vehicles with sensors to control traffic flows, peak-time user fees and more flexible forms of public and private transport, such as group taxis. But you won't find the planners talking about these things because, to do so, they would have to concede defeat to the unwholesome lure of the automobile -- to say nothing of the overwhelming preference of the public. And that would be very, very wicked."

.

Given I have heard one of the Green Party's key advisors on transport say that anyone who owned a car with an engine above 1.3 litres is evil, then I find it hard to believe that those on a mission to promote trains and not roads, are simply just on a crusade. Private transport is hear to stay, it is roads that need to be managed better.

Market working again! *sigh*

According to Stuff new large car sales have plummeted, because of petrol prices. From around 24% of the market in 2000 to 11% today, that's quite a shift - it may be because of demographics too (baby boomers kids starting to leave home, so large cars are less needed), but nevertheless consumers are reacting to market based price signals, and buying more fuel efficient cars because they want to.
.
Not because some nanny statist environmentalist wants them to, not because of some tax incentive, or preferential motor vehicle licensing fee or the rest, but because they want to.
.
Amazing really – a resource becomes more expensive and more scarce – the government and environmentalists worry themselves silly that it will run out and demand that something be done so people don’t keep “wasting it” – the price goes up, and consumers make their own judgment about whether they are willing to pay or not, and quite a few choose to save on fuel (buying smaller cars, catching public transport). Money goes from buying large cars and more petrol, to smaller cars and other things, or buses.
.
Planners can’t make this happen. It is the decisions of thousands weighing up how best to use their own money – and they happen to know better than the government.

.

Unfortunately, former Labour Cabinet Minister Peter Neilson (now Chairman of the Business Council for Sustainable Development) wants the government to use YOUR money to subsidise the price of buying new small efficient cars. Why should you, whether you own a car or not (and many don't), especially since most people don't buy brand new cars, subsidise those who do? Neilson calls for up to $3000 per vehicle. $3000!!! Money that you could spend on your kid's education, or shoes, or a holiday, or books, or a secondhand car. Hopefully the Greens will reject a subsidy for car ownership.

.

By the way I noted a report in the Times motoring supplement (not online) that sales of hybrid cars are declining, because motorists are increasingly wary of paying the premium for a car that isn't that much more fuel efficient than many new diesels - in addition, the resale value is poor.