Tfl incompetence

On Sunday my girlfriend and I were driving to Norfolk, with a rental car (and don't give me "take the train" finger pointing, as the car was full with possessions as she is moving there for five days a week for work reasons), and to undertake this journey should be straightforward. We live not too far from the A406 North Circular road (around 40% of a circular route) which is 3 lanes in each direction over much of its length.

^

It was a wet day and a busy one, with a considerable amount of holiday traffic - including some tube replacement buses - and so you might wonder why Tfl authorised its contractors to close to one lane each way the underpass (under a railway line) between New Southgate and Colney Hatch lane. Why were the second lanes closed (the road already narrows from 3 to 2 lanes each way because this is the beginning of an awful gap in the A406)?

^

Very simple. Contractors were scraping unauthorised posters from the walls of the road underpass.

^

Were they doing this on a roadway? No, in fact there are very wide footpaths where the workers were working. Traffic passed beside them quite safely (as pedestrians can walk through this underpass).

^

Were they doing work in the road median? No! The only reason the central lanes were closed was to create a space for the contractors' vehicles to be parked!! Parked!!

^

The resulting tailback added 20-25 minutes to a journey of about a mile eastbound, it was easily a 2 mile tailback westbound.

^

So for some inexplicable reason, TfL authorised the contractors to close lanes in the middle of the day so that some cleaning activity could be carried out. Now, let's just assume for the sake of argument that it wasn't just to park the trucks somewhere (there is an adjacent service station and vehicles could have been parked less than 100m further away on the road without closing both lanes), and there is work in the middle of the road...

^

Why isn't this work carried out at night? Dare I say, in Australia and New Zealand such work on a major arterial route which halves the capacity of the route would be carried out in the wee small hours. Yes you pay people more, but this is nothing compared to the cost in lost time, fuel and the safety risk of traffic slowing from 50mph to a stop-start crawl - something that clearly doesn't seem to matter to Tfl. Heaven help you if you catch the Northern line replacement buses that were stuck in the jam in the other direction.

^

I can put it down to either:

- Sheer incompetence either driven by failure to appraise whether it is cheaper for London to pay to do this work at night or to do it on the cheap, and create huge traffic jams;

- An obsession with public transport and little interest in highway management, and little interest in minimising congestion through better traffic management.

^

Tfl should be split in two - one body dedicated to managing public transport franchises and another dedicated to managing London's highway network. The latter should have a hypothecated stream of funding prioritised to road maintenance, with specific output goals of minimising incident or planned congestion, and maximising the efficient and safe operation of the network. To do this means a major political change in the Mayoralty and the Greater London Assembly. London has one of the worst urban highway networks in the Western world, the north circular (A406) is incomplete and erratic, the south circular (A205) is a circular by signpost only, it is about time that London's road network was properly managed and funded. London's road users already pay enough to use it!

Removing accountability for highway funding

What do you do when a Crown Entity isn’t performing? Do you fire the Board, do you require its funding body (which is meant to be at arms length and independent from the other entity) to hold it to account? Do you stop telling it what to do, which overrides its usual processes for determining how best to perform its tasks? No – if it wastes money, you merge it with its funding body – so that it doesn’t even need to justify to another entity what funding it needs – it can fund itself!
^
That is the main announcement by the Minister of Transport with the “Next Steps in the Land Transport Sector review”. It wont result in more efficient outcomes, it will result in the abolition of a structure that has been touted around the world as being a leader – what it will mean is that Transit will no longer need to bid for funding for its projects – it will simply ask itself, and local authorities will need to ask Transit. Transit Chief Executive Rik van Barneveld must feel burnt perhaps as much as former Land Transport Safety Authority Director David Wright, when LTSA was abolished, largely because of ongoing political disenchantment with its performance. Now Transit is in the gun, and while not blameless, it is more the fault of Ministers who would not let the system do what it is meant to do – Minister much prefer to meddle and interfere. Van Barneveld must wonder what he could have done, as he has been adept in responding to Minister's calls, and he is far removed from David Wright, who had little understanding of how much the LTSA was hated by the public, and how much Ministers were concerned about this.

^
The announcement today that the government wishes to merge Transit New Zealand (which is responsible for operating the state highway network) with Land Transport New Zealand (which allocates funding to Transit and all local authorities for land transport) will be a disaster. You see, Transit and Land Transport NZ WERE the same entity until 1996 – it is the reason Transit has the name “Transit” which everywhere else in the world means “commuting”, because Transit used to run the state highways and allocate funding to, well, itself and local authorities.
^
The problem before was that, as is unsurprising, if you are a funder and a provider, you’ll fund your own activities first, and treat the bids for funding from the 85 local authorities as secondary. So Transit was split, and Transfund was set up as a specialist independent funding body. Transfund has since been merged with the Land Transport Safety Authority to become Land Transport New Zealand. However, in recent years Land Transport New Zealand/Transfund has been less than proficient at holding Transit to account for its spending decisions. Why?
^
Firstly, contrary to official advice, Labour has refused to remove common board members between Transit and Transfund/Land Transport New Zealand. Jan Wright and David Stubbs were until recently, Chairs of Land Transport and Transit respectively, but also sat on each others Boards. Garry Moore incredibly, as Mayor of one of the local authorities that bids for funding from Land Transport New Zealand, is on the Board of Land Transport New Zealand AND the Board of Transit. Now this isn’t intended to cast aspersions on any of these people, but how can you expect Land Transport New Zealand to hold Transit to account, when it has common board members.
^
Furthermore, the ability to hold Transit to account has been severely compromised by Ministers telling Transit what they want. Transit isn’t simply sitting back and evaluating what projects need building, it is getting political direction that Ministers expect certain projects to proceed because Ministers think they are a good idea. Of course when there are political expectations, costs go up and when contractors understand that there are political expectations, they ask for whatever they want from Transit – then Transit asks Land Transport New Zealand, and it is also expected to fund what Ministers want (even though legislation is meant to ensure Land Transport NZ is statutorily independent from Ministers).
^
One of the criticisms of Transit has been that costs have got out of control, when in fact, this is the fault of a combination of:

- the Land Transport Management Act (blame Labour, Greens and United Future) for encouraging expensive “green plating” of road projects;
- Land Transport New Zealand for not being pro-active in disciplining Transit as to how much project scope creep should be limited;
- Ministers who wanted projects progressed with little regard for cost;
- Transit itself, when statements were made that projects should be progressed “regardless of cost” (in reference to Transmission Gully), in addition if Transit was unhappy with either Land Transport NZ or the Ministry of Transport’s monitoring, it would meet with Ministers directly. Indeed, government appointed board members would always have direct access to Ministers, overriding the independent advice of officials.
- the Clark Labour Government attitude to official advice that went contrary to policy, which tends to suppress the “free and frank” expression of views that officials are meant to be able to share. In this environment, telling Ministers that the people they have appointed (e.g. the President of the Labour Party) are not doing their job properly would have been a CLM (career limiting move). The introduction of a regional fuel tax is a classic example, it failed miserably in the past, but Ministers did not want to hear advice on this.
^
By contrast, what should happen is that Transit is entrusted to manage the state highway network, identify problems (congestion, safety, inefficient routes) and prepare a programme of works, evaluated on the basis of cost and benefit, and present these to Land Transport NZ for funding. Land Transport NZ should, when looking at Transit’s programme and the programmes of the 85 local authorities, prioritise spending across them all – with reference to the government’s strategic transport objectives.
^
In the past, when economic efficiency was the primary measure of spending on roads, in most cases the best projects, for the money, were implemented. There was a tendency to be risk averse and not advance more expensive, high risk urban road projects, prioritising rural realignments and the like. However, by and large, the system did ensure high value for money, and kept control of costs. It was helped by any increases in funding being rather discreet and progressive.
^
Today, economic efficiency is only one factor in deciding what roads to build, and Labour has increased funding for roads many many times over, at a rate which has been inflationary. In short, Labour has so dramatically increased funding that Transit has been stretched to get things going – and that stretching has meant more staff, more contractors and the contracting industry demanding more and more to meet demand. You don’t go from having only two large road projects under construction in Auckland at any one time to eight without the cost going up. ^

In addition, as Labour has demanded that certain projects “must” proceed, then contractors understand the market when the government isn’t going to say no. In the past, plenty of projects were delayed because detailed investigations saw the costs skyrocket, putting discipline on those costs and seeing funding go elsewhere for more worthwhile projects – now everything is going to get built.
^
The only bright side of the announcement is that all fuel tax revenue will be dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund. This should be welcomed, and in fact is simply applying 2005 National Party policy. The other point to note is that National Spokesman Maurice Williamson has it dead right – which also should be welcomed. Maurice should know what he is talking about, he was the Minister who split Transit up in the first place! Kudos for Maurice for taking a responsible stand on this.
^
The Greens will like this, because they don’t really believe in financial accountability and economic efficiency and will hope that Transit’s road engineer culture will get watered down – when they should be considered that the new entity will prioritise state highways over everything else. The Greens have long hoped they could dramatically change transport policy, they have, as well as presided over the biggest road building programme New Zealand has seen since the 1960s. I suspect that Peter Dunne wont care as long as Transmission Gully gets funded (since it is his own pet piece of prime pork), and neither will Winston care as Harbour Link (Tauranga's second harbour bridge) has already been funded (Winston's pork).

^

Personally I like the idea that Transit be made into a state owned enterprise and its gets funding from Land Transport NZ based on a per km payment for all the traffic on its network (based on fuel tax/road user charges) and then spends the money on its network. Then motorists can contract separately with Transit (opting out of road taxes) to use its network.

What's next

Well I've been home and I'm on my way back.

Some simple questions....

Why is service in almost all cafes and restaurants in New Zealand superior to that in almost all cafes and restaurants in the UK? (not the Richard Pearse Restaurant in Timaru, where it varies but the food was good)

Why does TV3 bother with news at all? (Why do NZers bother with TV at all?)

Why is air pollution in Timaru worse than in London?

Why has nobody said the Wellington Inner City Bypass is a half arsed stopgap that should be replaced by a cut and cover motorway?

Why did nobody think that the Wellington Inner City Bypass means that the end of the motorway dumps traffic on the capital's rather revolting red light "district" with that vile looking adult bookshop on the corner of Vivian and Cuba Street now one of the features greeting visitors? (before it wasn't so visible going towards the motorway)

Why is Air NZ almost unfailingly good to me, going out of its way to give me service beyond expectations? (I know others with different experiences)

Why is there a man who has worked in two government departments in the last few years or so tried both times to ban Christmas parties/celebrations, and succeeded? Will he succeed again at his latest locale?

Why is it inflationary for New Zealanders to spend their own money the way they choose, but not for Dr Cullen to spend their money the way he chooses?

Why is what was once 2XSFM now 92 More FM Manawatu - what was wrong with 2XS, why does nearly every radio station in the country have to be some bland variation on a national brand? (and yes I know it is because listeners don't care).

Why does what a cop did with a bestiality film over 2 decades ago matter -except to a news media that thrives on anything prurient in a country with, by and large, bugger all news.

How can a small cafe in Upper Norsewood do coffee better than most places in London?

Why does Radio NZ news include items that are little short than government press releases? The BBC doesn't, and it is hardly politically neutral.

Why does it appear that no one is standing for Mayor of Wellington who believes the council should do less and take less money from ratepayers?

Will the NZ Maori underclass get as bad as the British white trash underclass?

Why is there no history department at Rongotai College?

What does Mark Blumsky do to bring the government to account and demonstrate National is a government in waiting?

Why is it ok for the Australian women's soccer team to tour North Korea but not the Australian one-day cricket team to tour Zimbabwe? Is it because enough Zimbabweans are fortunate enough to live in Australia, whereas North Koreans are few and far between? or is there an inkling of truth in Mugabe's comment that this is racist?

Why does the 38 By the Sea Motel in Petone bother having Prime TV tuned in, when the reception is so shite, even though there is a clean line of sight to the transmitter tower?

Why are there Tararua, Masterton, Carterton and South Wairarapa District Councils, within one hour's drive between them all?

By what measure of naivety does anyone think that boy racers can be stopped unless either:
1. Boy racers are rounded up and put in prison until their balls drop and they are useful;
2. Roads are privatised and road owners face nuisance lawsuits from adjoining property owners unless they charge boy racers enormous tolls;
3. Brainless bimbettes stop seeing the measure of boy racers' cocks in the way their (largely) sad little mass production cars look like tacky white trash bogan wet dreams;
4. A culture of respect, personal responsibility and guilt for hurting, harming or disturbing others is inculcated by the education system and parents.

This blog is about to be revamped, revitalised and a new life, purpose and energy put into it.

It is time to suck the marrow out of life.

Sarkozy isn't Thatcher

While I am somewhat pleased that the vile Royal has been defeated (her warnings of riots if she doesn't wins spoke volumes - she'd rather win out of fear than positive reasons to support her), Sarkozy will - at best - tinker.

The more I have heard and seen from him, the more certain things come out. He has advocated using the EU for protectionism against the world, but that France should be more open and competitive in Europe.

France is not yet desperate enough for Sarkozy to be able to do what he needs - he needs to break the back of state welfarism, of a welfare state that pays people to do nothing, that penalises councils for not building enough soulless public housing.

That is why, on balance, I believe France will endure some tinkering, the worst of what France has will be amended - much like Germany under Angela Merkel - but it will simply stop France slipping further behind.

The equivalent in UK history is 1972- with Ted Heath, who tried to reform the British economy, but failed - and Britain had to endure 7 long years of discontent, strikes and stagnation. Stagnation that proved the economic bankruptcy of statist big government socialism, and kept the Labour Party out of government for over a decade - in other words, until it rejected socialism.

Sarkozy could prove me wrong - 53% of the vote is a decent mandate for change. However, Italy under the vile Berlusconi, and Germany under Merkel have both been disappointing (Italy continues to slide backwards). Sarkozy will face a hard summer, those who suck off of the state tit in France, or the EU tit or indeed wish to pretend that they are owed the monopolies and privileges of the state, will protest and fight - but the majority of French voters resist this. It will be a sign of how little interest some socialists have in democracy as to how many of them are with those damaging property when the protests come.

Blair wont be too upset

British local election results (which started coming in at 11.30pm!!) have been a mixed bag.

If this was meant to be a blow against Blair and the war in Iraq, it was not. Labour took a hit, but not an enormous one. The anti-war Liberal Democrats have done badly. The Blairite middle ground has shifted to the Tories, but Blair can resign feeling rather smug.

Headlines

Scottish voting turmoil, ballot counting disaster.

Labour loses Wales, just - but likely to govern with support from others.

Labour loses many councillors, but Tories gain not as much as hoped.

Liberal Democrats lose councillors, largely sidelined.

Scottish elections marred by technical problems with electronic voting, and substantial numbers of Scots not understanding the combination of STV and First Past the Post on ballot papers and spoiling them by mistake. Up to 100,000 spoilt ballots. Too complicated or poor communications? Labour, Lib Dems and minor parties have lost seats, SNP doubled number of seats. Greens and Scottish Socialist Party have lost seats (something to be grateful for!).

Welsh Assembly - 52 seats, Labour lost 3 to Plaid Cymru, so no longer has majority. More results to come, but Labour has lost 8.5% of the vote, with most of that going to Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives. Likely outcome, Labour will need to get agreement of either Lib Dems or Plaid Cymru to govern. Darker outcome, BNP nearly won a regional representation seat in the assembly one seat getting 9.4% of the regional vote in Wrexham.

English councils - Good wins for the Conservatives, but not as good as hoped. Still no councillors in Manchester or Liverpool City Councils, although some gains in neighbouring councils. 15 more councils move to Conservative majority control (from previous "no overall control") with 318 new Conservative councillors. Labour lost 5 councils and 163 councillors. Liberal Democrats must be concerned, gaining one council but losing 97 councillors.

English share of the vote:

Conservatives 41%

Labour 27%

Lib Dems 26%

Others 6%

Tories will be relieved, the gains are enough to celebrate, but not the overwhelming victory that was hoped for.

Labour will also be relieved, the losses of the Lib Dems mean Labour remains in second place. The anti-Blair media has been playing up a major defeat - this hasn't happened. There have been some substantial losses, but it is better than expected.

Liberal Democrats have lost a great deal, with the Tories winning as much from them as from Labour. The Liberal Democrats of course have lost their policies to the Tories, and now stand for nothing besides being against the war in Iraq, and more taxes. This election was clearly not a referendum on Iraq.

Greens have gained one seat, but overall result will be disappointing. Largely sidelined (and lost in Scotland).

BNP disappointed thankfully, but did gain a lot more votes in Wales.

UKIP has been virtually irrelevant.

In conclusion, while more results are coming in (too soon to make a call on Scotland), it was a general swing towards the Tories and away from Labour (and the Lib Dems). Natural this far into a government that has been in power for 10 years. Nothing too dramatic.

Off I go

I'm flying back to NZ for a wee while, just to do what I must do.

The Union or nationalism?

On Thursday there are several sets of elections across the United Kingdom. There are umpteen local council elections which will, no doubt, see extensive losses for Labour and significant gains for the Tories and maybe, if they are lucky, the Liberal Democrats. Peculiarly, local elections in the UK are a direct reflection on national elections - I wont be voting because London council elections were last year - but the campaigning I have seen is largely a mirror of a national campaign. Party political broadcasts have lied en masse about national issues, not matters that are relevant to local government. What is even more peculiar is how it will be seen as a referendum on Blair, even though it is commonly accepted that Blair will be PM for only a matter of a few more weeks.

However the election generating perhaps the greatest interest is the one for the Scottish Parliament - the one that gets to spend tax collected from Scottish taxpayers (and then some) to fund Britain's most socialist regional government.

Labour is unlikely to be able to form the next Scottish government, with the Scottish Nationalist Party, led by the socialist Alec Salmond poised to have a plurality of seats, though insufficient to govern in its own right. The SNP is likely to seek a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. The Scottish Conservatives are unlikely to join in coalition, since the Tories are committed to the Union.

The SNP wants a referendum on Scottish independence within three years, and is unlikely to be satisfied governing without it. The SNP is driven primarily by a very socialist big government agenda, as well as a peculiar chauvinism and belief that North Sea oil revenue could fund a massive welfare state and a whole host of lunatic pet projects. Not that the other parties are that much better, all offering bribes ranging from free laptops for school pupils, broad based family welfare schemes and the like. Even the Tories aren't much better.

Scottish nationalism is a form of childishness at best, a belief stirred up by centuries of bigotry that Scotland is hard done by, and that London is distant and Scots have little say in what goes on there. Well, Scotland helped Labour win the last election. Scotland has 59 seats, of which 41 are Labour. If Scotland had been independent, Labour would have won by only 21 seats, a difficult to manage majority in a Parliament of 587. Note also who the next PM will be - a Scot, and the current and last leaders of the Liberal Democrats have been Scots.

If Scotland had independence, it would lose subsidies from England, but would not be poor enough to gain much from Brussels (maybe in the days before Bulgaria and Slovakia joined the EU, but not now). From a foreign policy perspective Scotland would be small fry, it wouldn't have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, it wouldn't be in the G8, it would be a small European country that could throw about the weight of Finland, with similar populations. It's GDP would be about the level of Singapore (albeit with 70% more people - which tells you a lot about its true wealth), so we are talking about throwing not much more than New Zealand about. Given the inclinations of much of the SNP, I suspect the independent Scotland would eschew Nato, after all, George Galloway was a Scottish MP when he was with Labour.

The SNP is promising that if Scots didn't like independence, they could rejoin the Union - if, of course, the UK wanted it back.

I am split on this. I have blogged earlier about how I thought that the best thing was for Scotland to become independent. This would get the nationalism out of the way, but most of all the socialism. It would remove the deeply leftwing Scots from the UK, allowing Scotland to go through the pain of experimenting with Marxism - and the cost it will impose in encouraging its best and brightest to leave, and encouraging more businesses to flee. It will fail and Scots need to see it first hand before acknowledging that there must be a better way - they could do worse than look at one of their own sons - Adam Smith. However Scots need to learn the hard way, much like the Irish who have reaped the benefits of lower taxes and a more open economy.

Indeed, it would be the best thing for the Tories, and Labour knows it would be a major blow to that party.

However, I also resist the separation of the Union. Besides sports, the integration between England and Scotland is enormous - this essence of being British. My heritage is part Scottish, and I live in England - I love Scotland to visit, and there is much about the Scottish character to love - hell, I was brought up on it. So I will be sad to see Scotland separate from England, and would prefer that - if there is to be a federal United Kingdom, then Scotland raise the taxes it needs for its socialist schemes, and Scottish MPs in Westminster only get to vote on British laws, not English ones.

I suspect the SNP will do well, primarily as a protest vote against Labour - a tired government, with little inspiration from Gordon Brown. An alternative is that a second place Labour could coalesce with the Lib Dems to thwart the SNP - which wont satisfy many Scots voters.

The case for Scottish independence would be strong if the Union gave Scotland less than it got, and if Scotland had good reason to feel cheated by it. The reality is the opposite, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, a world power, one of the four main countries of the EU, a nuclear power, and home of one of the world's leading (if not the leading) financial capital.

England would probably be wealthier without Scotland, financially, but Britain would be less Great. The SNP will not get 50% of the vote, so cannot claim there has been a strong vote for independence - Alec Salmond should know that. However, it will still seek a referendum, which is a second battle. If the Lib Dems support an SNP government, then they are implicitly neutral on a referendum on independence.

So 3 May may be a step along the path to Scottish independence - for the sake of Scots, they should reject the SNP, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, all of whom represent politics that hold talented Scots back with (or chase them away from ) Warsaw Pact sized government intervention in the economy. However, if Scots continue to be, by and large, socialists - let them go the whole hog and learn a lesson - a lesson of the banality of nationalism, the bankruptcy of socialism, and the need to generate wealth through work not the state. The price of that lesson is a generation of unemployment and stagnation, a high price to rid Scotland of its cloth caps, red flags and 1940s style politics.

Memories

"You're as good as anyone else, and a damned sight better than most"

"Don't ever forget how very very proud I am of you, like a son to me, I couldn't be prouder"

"Don't ever forget how incredibly special you are to your parents, and how much they have given you, they have helped make you into one remarkable young man"

those are things you would say

I am lucky to have known someone who knows the dignity of the self, who doesn't ever let that falter and who demonstrates the same - the quality of not following the herd, of not being concerned of what others think, of not doubting anything about you. No deceit, no pretences, no spin, no weasel words - pure honest passionate humanity, knowing strengths, admitting weaknesses, but not denying the self and what is worthy of that. You taught me what I needed to learn to be able to say "amo". Enlightenment man indeed.

It was...

listening to Bach, Beethoven, Rimsky Korsakov, Wagner

discussing history, politics, education, love and life, people

what I learnt of cultures ranging from Chinese, to Pacific to Jewish.

sharing moments of grief, delight and laughter

while sipping fine Scotch or brandy

looking out upon the harbour or the lights and sky at night

a haven from the world, a beacon that always shone inside me

a place I was welcome, free and which I took with me and is where I always am.

my mentor, my friend, my lifelong inspiration.

the true legacy of one lies in what of oneself is passed onto others

I carry so much of that, and through all the grief and the regret that you were unable to travel out here, it is that privilege that will bring me strength.

I may say thank you, but I know the greatest thanks for you are in seeing me living.

Farewell you beautiful man.

Tyranny of distance

What do you do when you live in the UK and find out one day after the event, that a very close friend, as good as family, has died - and the funeral is too soon to fly over for?

Stupid celebrities

The latest is Sheryl Crow who wants everyone to use one square of toilet paper per toilet visit. Does she shit little self cleaning pellets or something? Seriously, the idea is revolting, although men could presumably save up their single ones for the main event. Silly cow, especially silly for even mentioning it!

^

Of course this follows Madonna, who is so concerned about CO2 emissions, she flew on a private jet to Malawi (yes you can fly to Lilongwe, via South Africa, from London), and is opposed to the London congestion charge (presumably she is too stupid to remember paying). She has quite a carbon footprint.

^

Play your music and shut the fuck up

Anzac Day

There is no trace of it where I am at the moment (north of England), but I am quietly commemorating it.
^
Not PC has made most of my points, in that war is the second worst state of being for any country. The only thing that would've been worse than World War 2 is surrender.
^
Very few people in New Zealand today lived through war – directly. I don’t mean the country being at war, but the fighting being far away, which in itself is bad enough for the families of those fighting – but war on your doorstep. In that respect New Zealand is fortunate because of its isolation from invasion. Australia is less fortunate. East Asia carried a tremendous cost during World War 2, and subsequently in Korea and Vietnam specifically. The UK bore a high cost in World War 2, though this was little compared to the cost born by citizens of most other European countries (with the exception of those too gutless to do anything to fight the evils of fascism – there is nothing honourable in neutrality in World War 2, how can it be moral to be indifferent to the bigoted murderous tyrannies of Nazi Germany or militarist Japan?).
^
Those who have lived through war have seen many things most of us would choose to not think about. The destruction of buildings, places, utilities we take for granted, the fear of being bombed or shot, the disintegration of normal life in pursuit of day to day survival and avoiding death. When all people do is that, there is little capacity to build, grow or have recreation. At worst, war sees the death and injuries of people, day after day. It is not like a one-off accident, because in war most of the deaths are deliberate. The enemy is out to destroy you, to destroy the means to retaliate, it is out to defeat you so it can conquer and pillage.

^

Part of the price of this is destruction, the death of civilians - but then one should never forget who started it. World War 2 was started by Germany and Japan, the Korean War by North Korea, the Vietnam War by North Vietnam. Fighting war to fight tyranny is a virtue, appeasing tyranny is being complicit in the spread of evil - as Neville Chamberlain was to the peril of millions.

^
Consider how the allies treated Germany and Japan after the war, how its citizens were treated, cities rebuilt, infrastructure repaired and modern thriving peaceful liberal democratic countries built. Consider how Germany and Japan treated those who it conquered. It was true imperialism, at best pillaging the natural resources, at worst executing the local population or using them for military experiments.
^
The so-called “peace” movement would have you surrender for that. It is not that different from saying you shouldn't defend yourself against a murderer, rapist or thief - because you don't want to hurt the source of the harm.
^
Liberal democracies don’t go to war lightly. Wars are expensive in terms of money and lives, and unpopular. Liberal democracies go to war in defence of themselves and their allies. Korea and Vietnam were both about that. In the first instance the war ended roughly at the same point as where it started, before North Korea attempted its conquest of the south. In Vietnam, the non-communist allies were so incompetent and unpopular that none of what the West could do saved a rotten regime from being conquered by another rotten regime, which was more popular. More recently, Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been engaged in war had their respective government not started them by their own aggression.
^
I understand why people oppose the glorification of war, but ANZAC Day does nothing of the sort. Those who reject commemorating it are happy enough to have the day off work, and are happy enough to enjoy the freedoms protected by those who did fight.
^
Those who do not recognise that are either naïve, stupid or sympathetic to tyranny.

Regional petrol tax (sigh) again?

So a regional petrol tax is proposed for Auckland, a really stupid idea.
^
Why?
^
1.Last time it was tried (early 1990s by National, but don’t expect them to remember it) to help fund Auckland and Wellington public transport, the oil companies levied the tax across the country at a level equivalent to what it necessary to raise the same revenue from only Auckland and Wellington. Why? Because petrol is taxed at the “border” it is the equivalent of a customs duty, and it is was administratively simpler to simply apply it to all petrol sold across the country. Unless a new retail sales tax is applied to petrol on top of fuel excise duty, and oil companies are legally forced to charge it in Auckland alone (better define that), this tax is likely to be applied to the whole country at a lower rate.

^
2.Even if it IS applied to Auckland only, it will kill off service stations not far from the Auckland “border”, after all, why would you fill up in Pokeno if you could go to Mercer and pay 10c a litre less?

3. If you have a diesel or LPG vehicles you pay NOTHING extra. Why? Because diesel vehicles don’t pay a fuel tax (because the majority of diesel is not actually used on the roads, and a diesel tax for road use would mean a refund scheme for that diesel), but instead pay road user charges (which charge according to distance and weight). Since road user charges are bought in advance, and there is no way of detecting where in the country they are bought (or used), expect sales of diesel cars to go up in Auckland to avoid the new tax.

4. The money raised isn’t to be spent on roads, but on a rail electrification scheme that at the very best could serve perhaps 10% of Auckland commuters (though so could improved buses at a small fraction of the cost). 87% of Aucklanders don’t work downtown, and around 40% of the remainder wont be anywhere near a railway station. Perhaps an additional 2% work near a station outside the city, but in short this project will do next to nothing for most Aucklanders – except those living near a station who work in town and would rather ride a train than a bus.

This tax is to force you to pay for most of the cost of their journey to work, because the fares raised from these trains pay around a third of the operating costs, and they wont pay a cent towards the capital costs.
^
This idea is going ahead, despite official advice, because Helen Clark wants to electrify Auckland rail – it’s like a toy, a big expensive toy she wants to leave for Auckland and be remembered for it. Despite record levels of transport funding through both road user taxes and Crown funding through Land Transport New Zealand (LTNZ), it is telling that LTNZ is NOT willing to fund electrification of Auckland rail. This tells me it is an inferior project to all of the other road and public transport projects that it funds, remember it is spending $2.3 billion this financial year, this is 2.5 times the funding it allocated in the year Labour got elected, and this is after Labour changed the legislation around LTNZ so that public transport projects could be funded at a lower threshold for appraisal than road projects.
^
The Greens will support it because they have a fetish for electric trains – the economics don’t matter, it is a matter of pure faith that forcing people to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for trains they will never use is “good”. It is a matter of faith that this will reduce congestion, even though there is a not a single city in the new world that has electrified an existing railway service and seen traffic congestion reduce on the parallel corridors because of the electrification. If you can find, please show me the report on the marginal congestion costs for the parallel corridor before and after the electrification – because I actually would like to see the conditions necessary for that TO work.
^
This is about totems – Helen Clark and Michael Cullen are building a electric network of totem poles in Auckland, paid for by a stupid tax that is probably going to be paid for by all petrol motorists, but not paid for at all by around 15% of Auckland motorists who don’t use petrol. Setting aside the foolishness of heavy subsidies for public transport, a network of bus priority lanes across Auckland and luxury buses could do nearly the same job for a fraction of the price – but no, we must bow down to the altar of the railway.
^
Auckland is not London, Paris or New York, where new electric metropolitan railways can make a difference (in a few cases). Auckland’s entire rail network carries 3.8 million trips a year with around 70 carriages, in London the Waterloo and City tube line (perhaps one of the least used) alone carried 2.5 times that with 20 carriages (and no the tube cars do not have 3.5 times the capacity of the Auckland ones, they would be lucky to be able to carry double).
^
That gives you some indication of the difference in economics.

By the way, you already pay a 0.66c a litre tax to every territorial authority in the country (it's the same for them all making it easy to distribute), you might ask Auckland City Council and all of the others whether they spend their share on transport? Go on, few of the so called journalists in the New Zealand media can be bothered to research these things you see.

^

Oh and why are Auckland roads congested? Simple. Everyone pays the same to use them regardless of demand - it is tragedy of the commons. Singapore charges according to demand and congestion is kept at a low level - but no doubt most of you think public ownership and funding of roads works, even though virtually everywhere it happens you get chronic congestion in major cities.

nрощальное Boris

Given my very long hours working at the moment (midnight is a good time to finish and start again at 0830), I am saying not much, but it is important to comment on Boris Yeltsin, because he hammered in the last nails for the coffin of the Cold War.

^

Baroness Thatcher said "He deserves to be honoured as a patriot and liberator.” She is correct. His passing isn't mourned by the leader of the current Russian Communist Party and wont be mourned in Pyongyang or Havana. Indeed neither of the monopoly news agencies in those countries have reported his death yet, the official (and only legal) viewpoint no doubt not finalised yet. That was how the USSR once was, and that is all that is left of its legacy thanks, in part, to Yeltsin.

^

Yeltsin was a reformer, who believed in more freedom. By and large he did not censor the Russian press, unfortunately that has been a short period of freedom in Russian political discourse that is now somewhat suppressed (although current Russian authoritarianism still pales compared to life before Gorbachev). Yeltsin is responsible for confronting the bullies who orchestrated the "putsch" against Gorbachev in August 1991, his courage in doing so brought the downfall of the USSR. Citizens of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, now citizens of the European Union instead of the Soviet Union can thank Yeltsin for his determination, because the Baltic States gained their liberty shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, the rest of the Soviet Union has not fared so well, ranging from some liberty in Ukraine to totalitarian madness (now easing) in Turkmenistan.

^

His strength was his firm belief that Marxism-Leninism had no future, and that setting Russians free from the shackles of that oppressive system was a priority. His weakness was in not being able to build up the institutions needed to replace it. The justice system, without adequate protection of property rights, contracts and with enormous corruption in the police force saw the excesses of the Soviet state transferred in part to organised crime. His willingness to privatise and dismantle state monopolies was not matched by the patience to establish a means to privatise the behemoth of Soviet businesses in a way that gave all Russians a fair stake in those businesses. The crisis in the rouble, the fiscal crisis of the Russian state (unable to pay wages on a regular basis, providing another route for corruption) saw "firesale" privatisations that clever Russian entrepreneurs took advantage of. Desperate Russians sold their privatisation vouchers for cash, while the shares of major energy, media and telecoms concerns went for excessively low prices (remembering that foreigners were not entitled to buy them).

^

It is tempting to focus on his shortcomings such as alcoholism (which was more an embarrassment than anything else), the disaster of Chechnya (which should simply have been granted independence and been left alone) and effectively anointing Putin as his successor. Putin is a disaster for freedom, but he offered Russians the order and control that they yearned after Yeltsin failed to build the core state institutions needed under liberal democracy. Sadly liberal democracy seems largely absent from modern Russia, but most Russians are more pleased with the order under Putin (and the growing economy largely due to the high price of oil and gas) than the lurches from crisis to crisis in the 1990s under Yeltsin.

^

However Yeltsin should be seen as, on balance, a hero, although like most, a very flawed one. Had he not stood up to the putsch in August 1991, the old Soviet Union could have at best been plunged into a civil war, at worst back to the dark ages of authoritarianism and confrontation with the West (albeit without much of its lost empire). It is that he should be thanked for. Sadly it was a lost opportunity, probably because seventy years of an oppressive, brutal, anti-life, single-minded, irrational system built and sustained on lies that could only be challenged at one's peril, stripped the spirit of individual initiative, responsibility and genuine community from generations of Russians. A people, most of whom were used to be told what to do, where to go, what to buy, what to produce and expected to do their work and be grudgingly happy, or else. A soulless system based on telling other people what is good for them, scaring them into accepting it as it is, and damning those wishing to do better for themselves, worshipping those who sacrifice themselves.

^

Yeltsin stood for something better, it is a shame he didn't appear to know what it was, other than it wasn't what he had experienced under the Communist Party.

^

FOOTNOTE: It is notable how the UK papers have responded to this news:

^

The Times reported on its front page that Yeltsin buried communism and what was most notable was how his death was not reported as the death of previous Russian leaders "Television screens in Russia did not go blank yesterday. The music of Tchaikovsky did not play. The greatest legacy of Boris Yeltsin’s extraordinary life was the ordinary manner in which his death was announced. " Anatoli Chubais noted that "He brought us from captivity into freedom. He took us from a country of lies . . . to a country which tried to live in truth"

and this quote from Michael Binyon rings true "Yeltsin tore his country away from its crippling past and offered it the chance to become a respected moral member of the world community. Russians have still not found their place there. But without Yeltsin the search could not have begun. "

^

The Daily Telegraph also reported his death on the front page, with John Kampfner noting "out of the chaos that often epitomised the 1990s, something has grown that I believe has not been extinguished. Thanks to Yeltsin, and, to a lesser degree, Gorbachev, a whole generation of Russians has become used to international travel. Much has, rightly, been made of the "Cartier, Courchevel and Chelsea" set, as they call themselves, but foreign travel and foreign influences are not just the preserve of the super-rich. Many ordinary Russians now live lifestyles that are similar to those in the West - holidays in, say, Cyprus, trips to Ikea, that sort of thing." What we in the West take for granted, is now becoming accessible to more and more Russians. Daily Telegraph obituary here.

The Guardian, apologists for the Soviet Union's apologists said Yeltsin was a destroyer not a builder. Which is largely true, but he did destroy the most evil empire of the 20th century.

The Independent continues its fetish on global warming, pointing out an apparently new island appearing off the Greenland coast. Nothing on Yeltsin on its scaremongering front page.

Remembering NZ culture

New Zealand culture, almost forgotten. A kids show called “A Haunting We Will Go” starring a Count Homogenised, who was vampire like but loved drinking milk.
^
Virtually no sign of it appears online, except kiwis asking about it.
^
Someone must have a video recording of it somewhere, or have acted in it or the like. How good (or bad) is TVNZ in archiving its past?

^

even more parochial is Buzz O'Bumble and Lindsay Yeo. As a Wellington kid, this was part of the staple morning radio diet in the car on the way to school. Of course, absolutely nobody outside Wellington in the 1970s and 1980s knew anything about this, and there were records! Buzz O'Bumble and his girlfriend/wife Belinda, but funniest of all their kids were Bimbo, Bonnie and Bobo ("three little bees we all know" so went the song). So politically incorrect was Wally Weta (who was bad, which is wrong nowadays because they are endangered yada yada yada, but I knew as a kid that they look scary and horrible so i didn't care did I?). Lindsay Yeo apparently did Buzz's "voice" by some humming with a comb and a piece of paper (well sounded like it).

^

Lindsay Yeo of course is now a memory for Wellingtonians, appearing mostly on local TV ads as a voiceover, he went from number one to slide down the ratings pole before disappearing off air when 2ZB became Newstalk ZB and Classic Hits was set up. However, I DO thank Lindsay Yeo for having created Buzz O'Bumble (and who can forget the song sung by a group of kids, maybe Yeo's kids who must now be in their 30s) which simply went "Buzz O'Bumble Buzz O'Bumble Buzz O'Bumble Bee..... " ad infinitum or with a "have a banana" thrown in for comedy effect.

^

there is also Chic Littlewood and Chic Chat (with Willie McNab) and Chic Littlewood is at least still around and getting work.

Tough on youth crime?

Two people killed and two seriously injured because a 16yo brat thought he could do what he liked.
^
His punishment? 3 months supervision. He’s away laughing, the poor bubba.

^
Look how effective the criminal justice system is. The NZ Herald reports he had first embarked on a criminal life five years ago. At 11! Last year he faced 43 motor vehicle, burglary and theft charges.

^
43!

^
So every time he steals, violating people’s property and their lives, he’d get the proverbial wet bus ticket and be told “don’t be so naughty”, and he does it again and again.
This time he deserves ten years. Ten years will deny him a good part of his youth, given he has denied life to others and doesn’t care. Meanwhile his parents can be sent the bill if they think he isn't a grownup yet.
^
Either he is a child and they are responsible, or he is an adult and can be punished. How much damage can an individual cost in terms of property, people's personal wellbeing and time before you decide that it is time to protect people from a petty thug.

^

and yes I know he wont come out better, but you might have avoided hundreds of thefts, burglaries and the like, and even deaths and injuries by keeping him locked away.

^

See how little of a disincentive the criminal justice system to youth offenders?

Women are special according to AA

American Airlines thought it was clever targeting women with a special website dedicated to female travellers. According to the New York Times, many women are far from happy about being patronised by the airline, and treated like they have "special needs".

^

It talks about women connected to each other, because after all, an airline that is not sex specific clearly baffles women, and they feel alienated to those big phallic things called planes! No wonder women (ha!) need a special website, which when you look at it, has exactly the same information that I'd expect it to have for men - except it's a women's page (all breath "aaaaaaah") so you can't feel oppressed by the testosterone of aviation (which let's face it, is about planes and jets and speed, damned manly stuff right?).

^

However, it does have slightly different advice for safe travel. Points like "If you need directions, ask other women or couples". Yes, don't trust those men, they are just out to lure you back to his dungeon for a good ol' bondage and discipline session. Couples, after all, are always safe, none of them are twisted and perverted.

^

One comment on this attempt is:

^

"As a female frequent traveler for both business and leisure, I’m quite indignant that AA thinks this kind of silly fluff is going to appeal to me. I want a clean plane, a comfortable seat, and good service at a fair price (not cheap, just reasonable). That’s what my husband wants. That’s what my colleagues of both genders want.”

^

Yes American Airlines is a private company (mollycoddled by US protectionism that reserves the domestic airline industry to US owned airlines, and the subsidies thrown at it), and can do what it likes, but there remains an absolutely yawning gap between the standards of virtually all US airlines and the likes of BA, Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific and even Qantas and Air NZ.

^

This is because US consumers don't demand better, and because the US airline industry lobbies for less competition.

Congratulations Tesco

How sad it is to see and hear the evil envy dripping rhetoric from the BBC (which every TV owner is forced to pay for), about Tesco (which nobody is forced to pay for).
^
Tesco has made a record profit of £2.6 billion. I would like to say simply – well done! This is a 20.3% increase in profit on last year, with a 10.9% increase in sales. Why has this happened? Two reasons:
^
1. Tesco is selling what people want to buy at a price they are willing to pay;
2. Tesco runs an efficient tightly managed operation that keeps costs down low (and as a result avoids waste).
^
Tesco has not got a statutory monopoly, or a de facto monopoly (there are plenty of shops selling the different merchandise Tesco sells), nor is it subsidised (unlike many of its suppliers, such as European farmers who whinge and moan about their buyers wanting a good price – which effectively means they want consumers to pay more).
^
Britain is the only country I know of that considers a market with four major retailers, all competing vigorously on quality and price, and umpteen smaller retailers, a “monopoly problem”. What is DOES have is an envy problem, arising from middle class Guardian reading, Radio 4 listening wankers who decry that Britain doesn’t always have the smattering of small, high priced, low variety shops that add so much quaintness to the shopping experience – while at the same time they sneak off to Waitrose to get their organic mungbean surprise (or whatever).
^
Tesco succeeds for the most democratic of reasons – people choose to shop there. Despite all of the media bashing by the envy classes (who look down their nose at the average family who simply want cheap good quality groceries, instead of locally grown or fair-trade organic, hand made, in season chelseaberries), shoppers have voted with their pounds and pence. It is a more honest expression that any vote at any election.
^
You don’t see people traipsing into Tesco begrudgingly wishing that everything wasn’t so expensive, or the selection were better or that the queues were shorter, like they do with the state owned Post Office here in the UK. They go out of choice. Within 15 minutes walk of my place I can choose Tesco, Waitrose, M&S, Sainsbury’s or Budgens, and a smattering of smaller retailers each of whom sells some of the things those shops sell, usually at a higher price, and sometimes at better quality. I go to Tesco when it offers the best deal for what I want.

^

According to the BBC Fiends of the Earth claim that "The supermarket giant's market dominance is bad news as it allows it to dictate conditions to suppliers and to drive High Street stores out of existence". Well tough shit frankly. Suppliers are in business, they don't exist as charities, and British farmers in particular are already protected and mollycoddled by Brussels, unlike Tesco. Perhaps when they face the full force of competition from efficient and more environmentally friendly suppliers they can talk, and then maybe they might start embarking on more efficient production techniques and respond like businesses, rather than like spoilt children. After all, Tesco's suppliers would love to be monopolies screwing Tesco and consumers for all they can. The High Street stores go out of business because people don't want to shop there, because they can't buy what they want at a better price. What do Fiends of the Earth expect?
^
Tesco is a highly successful British company embarking on a worldwide expansion. The sort of expansion that should make it and its shareholders proud. The global presence usually seen in large firms from the USA, Japan, continental Europe and the like – you know the flipside of those who bemoan how the British car sector has largely disappeared. They forget that Britain’s recent economic success has been on the back of the service sector. Long may it grow.

Green fascism

Russel Norman telling you how to live you life:
^
“In a world of poverty and starvation, to spend $109,000 on a gas guzzler is downright wrong in my opinion. If you’ve got that much money spare, donate it to Oxfam and get a normal car.”
^
Why stop there? Why should you own a boat, or indeed a holiday home, or a second car, or how about designer clothing, or how about a house that has more bedrooms than the number of inhabitants, or how about that overseas holiday?
^
It is comments like this that simply want me to tell the likes of Russel Norman to fuck off.
^
Besides how leftwing and deluded Oxfam is on many things, what right does he have to tell anyone how to spend their own money?
^
If I want a luxury car, then so be it – I am likely to get something called pleasure from it – happiness, and I’m willing to pay for the petrol. I am not making Russel pay for ANYTHING, it is my money. Besides the lump of taxes the state gets from this exercise (which Russel will happily want to decide on where that is spent), it employs people producing and maintaining the car, but most of all – it is MY life.
^
Russel may think he knows best how to run other people’s live, to dictate how they spend their money, to give people guilt trips about spending money on what he thinks is “wrong” vs what others like. I think fairtrade goods are a complete scam, hiking up the price of products so that everyone along the way can cream an “over market” premium, whilst encouraging poor people in developing countries to produce goods that are in overproduction. However, Russel probably buys them. I think it is a waste of money to buy anything produced by Michael Moore – a socialist fatcat who flies first class and enjoys the high life while bleating on about poverty that he never actually experiences. I also think it is downright wrong that ultrarich “celebrities” vomit forth platitudes about “saving the planet” and making average citizens feel guilty, while they consume goods and services without that guilt.
^
The problem is Russel has the strange Green religious obsession about being “anti-car”.

Want to be forced to fund political parties?

I don't want to say too much on this.
^
Whatever way you cut it, this is compulsory funding of political parties.
^
Nobody spinning this one way or another can escape that it is making you pay for the activities of a voluntary association that you may or may not have ever chosen to join or support financially.
^
You might ask why everyone isn’t forced to pay for all other voluntary associations?
^
You should. You’ll be told “that would be ridiculous and unaffordable”, and that would be correct.
^
You next question should then be – why should I be forced to pay for YOUR voluntary association? Why is YOUR one more important than mine?
^
You may ask why the proposal is NOT that all political parties should get the same amount of money, after all, the advocates of this often go on about equality, and how unfair it is that some have more than others. They spit out their own jealous venom at those who are richer than others. However no, the biggest recipients will be the two encumbents
^
You may ask what the proposal means for you wanting to fund a campaign by your own money – remember it “your” money. Money you haven’t stolen, defrauded or cheated from anyone else, but money you have property rights over (something politicians don’t often understand).

^

Think about what it will do to that, your choices will be restricted.
^
In North Korea, Ceaucescu’s Romania, and indeed under any totalitarian government, the one think people could never escape was politics. In a free society it is something people take for granted. You need not vote, you need not be a member of any political party, in fact you can enjoy getting on with your own life peacefully.
^
Those of us in politics sometimes think that those who are completely outside it and do nothing about it are stupid, naïve or even lesser people as a result. In fact, some of those outside politics simply think there is something more interesting than choosing or supporting people who, by and large, want to tell others what to do. Unfortunately those outside politics make the biggest mistake by thinking it will all be ok, until they find some politician has actually interfered with something that matters to them.
^
I have voluntarily supported several political parties in my life, including one very small one. One reason I never joined a trade union was because I refused to support the Labour Party by proxy (another was because I didn’t think it offered me anything).
^
Political parties have come and gone in New Zealand’s history, and maybe one day Labour and National will go too. The spectre of this has haunted both parties quite recently, but survival is a fairly strong incentive to change.
^
I don’t care which part of the political spectrum you come from – it is absolutely immoral to force private citizens to pay for political parties – organisations that are not publicly elected, and are not accountable to anyone for their activities.

^
People elect political parties based upon the individuals put on the party lists and a desire for those people to govern – but they do pay taxes to fund government NOT the parties. It is the job of MPs to represent the views of their electors and to govern or to oppose. That is what they are paid to do. We do not pay political parties directly through taxes because it opens the door to corrupt, biased funding that nobody can be clearly accountable for.
^
Quite simply, if a political party cannot convince people that it is worth funding by their own choice, then by what twisted logic is it moral to force them to do so?
^
The argument that “the Labour Party exists for your own good” does not wash – in fact it is eerily reminiscent of the attitude taken in one party states. Now "the two main parties are good for you, and the smaller ones a bit less good for you, and the smallest not at all".
^
And no, the fact that some other countries do it is not a rebuttal. In fact is the argument of a person without an argument – it is like the child who tells his parents “but Johnny’s parents let Him do it?”.
^
So that is it – do you want to be forced to pay for political parties? And if so, why aren’t you paying for them now? Why can’t you and your supporters convince people to choose to pay for political parties?

French Presidential elections - Sarkozy please...

France’s Presidential elections are important for the world and for New Zealand. France is the 7th biggest economy in the world (on a PPP basis), and it is one of Europe’s dominant powers, a nuclear power (both militarily and in electricity generation, with over 70% of its needs met by nuclear power), and without doubt the most important roadblock to achieving substantial liberalisation in agricultural trade, with perhaps the important exception of Japan.
^
France inspires romance, and has an arrogance than in many ways can be understood. It is little coincidence that the term “joie de vivre” seems to mean more in French than its English translation. Examples of French prowess continue to impress, such as its recent achievement in rail engineering (who can fail to be impressed by a rail speed record of 575 kph– albeit at a cost the French media tends to ignore. France’s relative wealth has been static for some time, it simply has a state and an economy that is not conducive to new business, tends to ossify large state owned infrastructure companies, shielding them from competition. This economic stagnation is not yet fully reflected in its social services. Healthcare continues to be the envy of many in Europe, but growth last year was the 2nd lowest of any EU member state.
^
France’s malaise can be seen in how it has slipped in per capita GDP (PPP basis) to between 17th and 23rd depending on measurement, leaving it rivalling Italy for being bottom of all western European states besides Spain and Portugal. 25 years ago France was 7th, a parallel somewhat akin to the slide New Zealand suffered from being 1st or 2nd in the 1950s to being 22nd by the 1980s.
^
Unemployment remains high at 9%, exacerbated by labour laws that make it difficult to fire, that keep the working week at an underproductive 35 hours by law, while the fiscal situation has bled red ink for some time. Public debt at 66% of GDP is costing more and more of the high tax take. The rejection of the EU constitution was the delivery of two messages, one was the curious hard left anti-globalisation message that rings strong in France and which is about hanging onto what France has. The other was a rejection of the status quo, fed up with the Chirac years of saying much but doing little.
^
So for many in France this time the Presidential elections are about the decisive question about what happens about the French economy. The 2002 election saw the socialist candidate Lionel Jospin fail to oust racist old fool Jean Marie Le Pen from the runoff, so that the runoff election was a case of Chirac being the lesser of two evils. This time Le Pen is still promoting his filth. However there are three other serious candidates.
^
The poll leader is Nicolas Sarkozy, who is touted as the Thatcher of France, but frankly if he proves to be as liberal as Blair it will be a surprise. He plans to liberalise labour laws, lower taxes, cut public debt and give universities more autonomy. He clearly is the only candidate interested in serious reform, and the fact he remains ahead in the polls indicates a substantial French acceptance of the need. He wants a new slimmer EU constitution, which is clearly welcome.
^
Closely behind is Segolene Royal, the socialist candidate who has consistently been behind. She, by and large, represents the past, including increasing the minimum wage, pensions, abolishing flexible employment contracts for small firms and create half a million subsidised jobs. She wants a big socialist EU, though her weirdest comment has been “Chinese courts are more efficient than French ones”. Her plans are expensive, she wants new public housing, a big spend up on education, on other words she is promising much with no way to pay for it.
^
The possible dark horse is Francois Bayrou, a centrist candidate who embraces some modest reform, he wants fiscal prudence, mild tax cut, but would also renationalise gas and electricity utilities, and is a huge fan of agricultural subsidies. He polls closely behind Ms Royal.
^
So next weekend the question will be, who will be in the runoff. Most likely it is Sarkozy vs Royal, in which case Sarkozy will probably win. If it is Sarkozy vs Bayrou, Bayrou may win.
^
However, from a libertarian point of view there is little to be cheerful for, but to hope that for the sake of the French economy, the EU and international trade, that Sarkozy wins. As the man least enamoured about subsidies and a big EU, he is likely to be most conducive towards moving on trade in agricultural commodities in coming years, and to reject the big bureaucratic centralised EU that is the dream of many European socialists, keen to snuff out diversity across the 27 member states.

^

Sarkozy is far from perfect, he still embraces microeconomic meddling, he engages in negative rhetoric about immigrants and is far too hostile to Turkish membership of the EU - which while problematic, should not be rejected outright.

^

So my greatest hope is at least that Sarkozy gets through to the second round (the French Presidential elections demand a runoff between the two top polling candidates if none gets 50% in the first round), and that Le Pen does not. The former is necessary to save France from those who look backward, and the latter is necessary to save France's reputation.