Inner City Bypass Part One

In this series I will trace the history of this project, although for now I wont be doing it in chronological order. The first part actually considers the project from 1999 when Labour got elected, through till 2003 - when the decision was about to be made on whether or not to fund it. The second part will trace that decision, how the Greens were demanding Labour halt funding of the project and how the Greens failed miserably in their objective of drafting legislation that would stop it - fundamentally objective analysis showed the inner city bypass to be consistent with the government's transport strategy and the legislation as passed. The third part will be what COULD have been - the long history starting with the De Leuw Cather report in the early 1960s which included a transport strategy for Wellington including very grand motorway and railway plans, and how politics saw much of that ignored.

^

PART ONE - ACCOMMODATING THE GREENS BY CHANGING THE SYSTEM

^

One of the more significant reforms in transport funding in the late 1980s, and built upon in the 1990s was to remove politics from decisions around what road projects would get funding approval from central government. There was a good reason for this. For many years (and you can see it writ large in the USA and Australia for example), MPs in government would pull strings to get roads built in their electorates to help attract votes. It is no coincidence that Taranaki got some of its greatest road improvements when New Plymouth was a marginal National seat in the Muldoon government. The Minister of Works once chaired the National Roads Board. The result, of course, was that areas without such political patronage would be neglected, and money would be wasted on poorer projects in other areas. In short it meant that the best value was not gained for the motorists taxes.
^
As well as dedicated a portion of fuel taxes, and all road user charges to the National Roads Fund (unlike road taxes in Australia and the UK), in two steps the decisions for funding particular projects would be up to a statutorily independent board, which Ministers could not legally direct to fund (or not fund) particular projects. This board still exists, and Ministers can still not direct it on particular projects – the organisation today is Land Transport New Zealand (which succeeded Transfund New Zealand). However when you’re a political party obsessed with stopping one project, that doesn’t matter – and in 1999 the Greens had the Inner City Bypass in their sights, with their front organisation – Campaign for a Better City (led by Green party Parliamentary advisor Roland Sapsford, more about him later) having just lost its Environment Court case against Transit.
^
In 1999 Labour needed both the Alliance and Greens to govern, so with a confidence and supply agreement in place the Greens demanded something be done about “major urban motorway projects” which to the Greens meant four projects they wanted stopped:

- Auckland’s Eastern Motorway;
- Auckland’s Mt Roskill extension to SH20;
- Auckland’s Waiouru peninsula link road;
- Wellington Inner City Bypass.
^
Now the Eastern Motorway (backed subsequently by John Banks) died because it had been goldplated, so became a hugely expensive project with benefits that didn’t justify the expense. Tolls wouldn’t come close to paying for it (although a scaled down scheme may have worked). The Mt. Roskill extension (which will take SH20 from Hillsborough Rd to Richardson Rd) after some delays (more on that later) finally got funding approved in 2003 and is now under construction. The Waiouru peninsula link road is also under construction, having been supported loudly by Manukau City Council and indeed Judith Tizard, MP for Auckland Central.
^
However the Wellington Inner City Bypass was in a different league. While Keith Locke meekly opposed the Auckland projects, the Wellington one was personal. Sue Kedgley almost maniacally went on about it being a big motorway which would see the destruction of much of central Wellington, not far short of a complete lie. A 400 metre 2-lane street along an old designated motorway corridor, with all the land owned by central/local government (bought as it became available), is hardly the behemoth. However, Roland Sapsford as one of the Green’s chief negotiators and advisors took this personally. As far as he was concerned the bypass wasn’t just a road he didn’t like, it was something that viscerally cut at the heart of his being. Sapsford takes a radical view of urban transport. He was heard at public meetings saying that people simply should drive far far less and then there would be no congestion and plenty of room on the roads for vehicles with a “legitimate” reason to be there – buses, delivery trucks, disabled drivers and that’s just about it. He doesn’t believe people should own a car with more than a 1.3 litre engine, otherwise they are “evil”.
^
The Greens demanded the newly elected Labour government do all it could to stop the project. As (newly elected as Wellington Central) MP Marian Hobbs was also against the project, and other Labour Wellington MPs were quiet on it, the process began.
At this point the project was ready for design funding (which follows investigation and precedes construction).
^
The Transit New Zealand Act 1989, which then governed the land transport funding system explicitly stated that the Minister of Transport could not direct the Transfund New Zealand board on the funding of specific projects. This meant that even if he had wanted to, the first Labour transport Minister after 1999 – Mark Gosche – could not tell Transfund to delay or accelerate the Inner City Bypass. The Greens wanted him to direct Transfund in specific ways that would have effectively have done the same, but this would have likely broken the law as well. So, unless the Greens could change the law – Ministerial direction would not work.
^
However, one thing was offered up – after all, despite legislative independence, Crown entities do respond to political pressure, however indirectly it is expressed, so as an act of goodwill Transfund got Transit’s project evaluation of the bypass independently peer reviewed, hardly a radical step (in fact this sort of review was not unknown). However, unlike other reviews, which were purely inhouse, Campaign for a Better City was allowed to comment, and did extensively. The independent peer review raised a few minor issues, but did not question the fundamental analysis, the Greens were unhappy – but then Transfund was following what was then the law.
^
The inner city bypass got the tick, and was granted design funding. While that proceeded, there were some other funding issues. The was partly because the then benefit/cost ratio was between 3 and 4, whereas the funding cutoff was hovering between those levels. The Greens hoped it would come below the cutoff of 4 (which was how things were looking in 2004), but this would soon not be an issue.
^
You see, the Labour government backed by the Greens were embarking on radical reform of the land transport funding framework. The Land Transport Management Bill was at first at attempt by Labour to have more political control over funding allocations, as well as allow tolling and private investment in roads (under rather tight conditions), but with the confidence and supply agreement with the Greens, Labour had to closely involve the Greens in every aspect of policy surrounding the legislation. In effect, officials had to negotiate with the Greens, with very close involvement from the Prime Minister’s office, as a Bill that was acceptable to Labour and the Greens was presented to Parliament. The Greens supported all measures to loosen up transport funding, and were concerned that as few barriers as possible would exist to funding public transport. By contrast, the Greens wanted new barriers against road funding – carefully calculated to kill off the Wellington inner city bypass. The chief negotiator on this was Roland Sapsford – and Sapsford is savvy.
^
Without going into the detail, the Bill was crafted in order to prevent the bypass from being funded. The Greens wanted on the one hand the removal of anything that would restrict the ability of public transport projects to be funded, and on the other hand wanted the ability of “local communities” to block road projects. The negotiations and the Bill went over the 2002 election, after which United Future played a crucial role – Peter Dunne wanted Transmission Gully, but was so poorly advised that he thought that simply allowing tolling and private investment in roads would allow his piglet project to proceed. Of course, he didn’t realise it is such a dog that neither the private sector, nor tolls could ever pay for it without massive subsidies.
^
Anyway, after the election the tensions increased, as Labour accommodated the desire by United Future to be as open as possible about private investment in roads and tolling, while there was still a post election agreement with the Greens to work closely on transport issues.
^
Jeanette Fitzsimons echoed the rhetoric of Sapsford when the Bill finally passed its third reading saying:
^
“It means freeing up the roads for those who really need them – short haul goods traffic, emergency vehicles, car pools and individual cars where circumstances make that necessary. The ‘more motorways’ crowd are really the ‘more congestion’ crowd – only those cities with a balanced approach have come anywhere near tackling congestion.”
^
“Those who really need them”, doesn’t mean you. It’s actually quite a fascist approach, the idea that it might not be necessary for you to use the car and you shouldn’t if it isn’t – but the government will decide.
^
This was in November 2003, and the Greens thought they had won. The Land Transport Management Act after all was intended, with the New Zealand Transport Strategy, to put a stop to building major urban roads – or so they thought. Certainly this was not the objective of Labour, which was more concerned about mitigating negative effects, allowing more flexibility to fund the types of projects they wanted, rather than have funding dictated by economic efficiency (which it largely had been before). However I have moved too fast.... and for the Greens, the Bill had moved too slow.
^
You see by mid 2003 the inner city bypass detailed design work was coming to a close, and the Greens had used all other available legal tactics to delay the project. One was to oppose the application to the Historic Places Trust for the shifting of archaeologically significant (in Wellington!) objects in the way of the bypass. Campaign for a Better City tried to appeal the case, but the Environment Court rejected it on the grounds that it had insufficient interest in it. So having lost the Environment Court case against the resource consent, having lost the review of the project appraisal, having lost the Historic Places Trust appeal, and with the Land Transport Management Bill still in the House and finally with Wellington City Council extending the resource consent as an administrative act (after all Transit couldn’t use the resource consent because of all of these appeals), there was one final act. The Greens wanted the Inner City Bypass stalled until the Land Transport Management Bill was law. (Meanwhile don’t forget that when the Environment Court had found against Campaign for a Better City it also demanded that it pay half of the court costs faced by Transit – Campaign for a Better City dissolved because it couldn’t afford to pay – even though it was, in effect, backed by the Greens who are very capable of fundraising when they want to – clearly not so interested when their supporters are found to have wasted taxpayers’ money and time).

Five good and five bad for Labour?

Others are doing this, so given my recent underblogging I thought I'd give my thoughts:

^

GOOD

^

1. Civil Unions. It wasn't Labour policy, but it gave legal recognition to adult relationships that should be treated exactly the same as marriage. Should've legalised gay marriage full stop, and it was made more complicated than it need be, but fundamentally this was a GOOD step.

^

2. Legalising prostitution. For most in it, it isn't a profession of choice, and for most people it is unthinkable to sell yourself. However, finally those working in this industry have some legal protection. Yes, this was made more complicated than it need be, but ultimately it must be up to adults to decide what they do with their bodies - and that includes selling for sex.

^

3. NOT surrendering on genetic engineering. For all the lies and scaremongering, Labour did not surrender completely to the anti-GE movement's hysteria. There was some courage needed on this in 2002, as TV3's leftwing pinup boy John "I vote Alliance" Campbell tried to make something of nothing.

^

4. Remaining pro-free trade. Again, despite the economic nonsense propagated by the Alliance (in the early stages of the government) and the Greens, Labour has continued to promote free trade (although it froze tariffs for far too long, and these are now going to go on a slow track of reductions). On this light it allowed Fonterra to be set up, abolishing the Dairy Board's export monopoly (at least for non-quota markets).

^

5. Clark, Cullen and Simpson run the show. Most Labour MPs are not the sharpest knives in the kitchen, most Labour Cabinet Ministers are not either. Clark and Cullen both are, Heather Simpson even moreso. Of the rest maybe only Hodgson and Goff have got some intellectual grounding worth commenting about, and Clark knows it. Labour has run a very tight ship, fools are swiftly disciplined internally, and there is no question of Cabinet Ministers running off on their own hobbyhorses. This external cohesion, despite considerable personal differences between many MPs is what people expect. It also shows how irreplaceable Clark is - without her hard work, discipline and sharp mind - the government would have fallen apart years ago. Cullen is also irreplaceable, with only Mallard coming close to taking on the Finance role, and only because he is a hard worker. When Clark and Cullen retire the rest will miss them, and Hodgson and Goff can't do all the work.

^

BAD

^

1. Frittering away enormous surpluses on bureaucracy and pork barrel schemes. Beyond any doubt, the greatest lost opportunity is Labour's willingness to literally piss taxpayers' money down the holes of policy advisors (which have grown in huge numbers, if not in quality), administrators and lots of small schemes to spend money to deliver pork to their different constituencies. Government departments have grown and grown, and delivered little in return except reams of reports and studies and strategies. Oh how Labour love having strategies. Strategies on the disabled, on the elderly, on "youf", on the environment, on local government, on transport, on energy, on the internet and the list goes on and on. However, more disconcerting is the money poured into healthcare, for little gain in productivity or quality of service. Money poured into "Working for Families" creating middle class welfare, instead of giving people back their own money. More recently in transport has been the massive increases in road costs, because of the enormous increases in spending fueling inflation in the construction sector and the ambitions of engineers always willing to choose the more expensive options. Labour has wasted billions of dollars, and the sad thing is Dr Cullen knows it.

^

2. Nanny tells you what to do. Along with these strategies and bureaucracy is an insipid chardonnay socialist view that the world would be a better place if only people were "educated" to do the right thing. Whether it be to stop smoking, exercise, eat better, drive safely, take a bike instead of drive, watch less TV, be multicultural etc etc, it is a patronising attitude that most adults can't look after themselves, but that bureaucrats in Wellington know what is best for them. What is most disturbing is that it always shys away from blaming people for being stupid or expecting them to carry the responsibility of being a lazy crystal meth addict, but to parent you, give you money and tell you to be better next time. The government treats most people like children, so it is no surprise that so many act accordingly.

^

3. Buying the election. It is very simple. Money voted by Parliament to pay for the administrative activities of the government was used to pay for one of Labour's main electoral advertising tools. It was illegal. Labour with its current mix of sycophants, voted to legalise what was illegal. The election was very close in 2005, and Labour lied and deceived the public about this until the last moment. No contrition, just sheer power hungry politics of the kind many of its members would have shouted "foul" at had National done it. Many of the same people who thought George Bush stole the 2000 election, happily cheered when their lot acted to do just that. It simply shows how blind to morality those closest to politics can be.

^

4. Local Government Act 2002. Giving local authorities the power of general competence - a blank cheque to do whatever they liked with ratepayers' money, own and run businesses, engage in any new activities - and ratepayers wonder why rates continue to rise above the rate of inflation and above the rate of property value increases. Giving local petty fascists nearly free rein, with barely any accountability (and denying some ratepayers the vote).

^

5. Meddle buy meddle. From renationalising and remonopolising ACC, to renationalising the railway network, to renationalising Air New Zealand (and refusing willing investors from saving it), to set up commissioners for electricity and telecommunications, to setting up emergency electricity generation, to unbundling Telecom's local line property rights, to increasing political direction in land transport funding, to banning certain used car imports.... an unwillingness to just let things be and let people pay for what they want, and make business decisions. This meddlesome approach means gameplaying is rife in those sectors the government in interested in. Telecommunications is an obvious one.

^

So yes mine match some of Not PC's but I have tried to be a bit different. All I'd add is that one good thing was that Labour gave the Nats the chance to rebuild after a couple of years of appalling coalitions.

Bypass my ass?

After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, the final portion of Wellington’s Inner City Bypass is open. The moaning of the Greens is not surprising, and indeed many Wellingtonians have been frustrated too. Well, half finished roads rarely show much promise, and now that Vivian Street is finally operating eastbound (it hardly goes south!) things should flow smoothly. However, it will take easily a couple of weeks before traffic light phasing it sorted out.
^
I grudgingly supported the bypass, largely because almost all those arguing against it were doing so from a position of abject ignorance, and some of its key opponents would outright lie about what it is. Sue Kedgley far too often called it a “motorway extension”, which is an enormous stretch of the truth – at best the motorway has been extended one block south, but even then not to motorway standards or speeds. In addition, the now defunct leftwing free paper “City Voice” once reported that Sue Kedgley voted in FAVOUR of the inner city bypass option when she was on the Wellington City Council – someone ought to research that some more too.
^
For me the Wellington Inner City Bypass is a stopgap – it is simply a more efficient one-way system between Taranaki Street and the motorway than the old dogleg route of Vivian/Ghuznee Street. That’s it!! It is no big deal. If you want to see serious inner city roading, check out the Grafton Gully motorway extensions in Auckland – that was a serious inner city motorway - but the Greens weren’t at all excited about that. The bypass is grossly inadequate, it will reduce congestion, but only provides a more efficient through route and removes one set of traffic lights from the trip between the Basin Reserve and the Terrace Tunnel.
^
The Wellington Inner City Bypass is in fact an abject lesson in two significant political and public policy issues in New Zealand.
^
One, is the strategy of the Greens around issues that a small number of members get passionate about. It is the abandonment of reason and analysis, in favour of emotion and a quasi-religious obsession with single issues, with the tendency to deceive and exaggerate about what is going on. It is about diverting attention from the real agenda, which is a vehement moral opposition to private motoring, and about scaremongering its members and supporters into thinking that what is happening is different from reality. The fact that Labour Government appointed boards of (then) Transfund and Transit New Zealand supported the project, along with a former Labour Mayor (Fran Wilde) and a Labour led Regional Land Transport Committee should tell you volumes.
^
The second is the fundamental failure of a politically driven process to deliver the roading infrastructure necessary for Wellington. It can be seen only too readily in how central and local government agencies, and politicians have treated the bypass vs. Transmission Gully. Transmission Gully is an extremely expensive long term solution to road access to/from the north of Wellington – it is an inefficient project (in fails to have benefits that meet its costs under benefit/cost analysis) and is a classic example of a boondoggle – a pork barrel politically motivated project with insufficient merit to justify itself. Peter Dunne is the piggy with his snout in the trough on this one, for some unfathomable reason. By contrast, Wellington had a proposal for a serious 4-lane bypass, built in a cut and cover tunnel, between the motorway and the Basin Reserve. It had a benefit/cost ratio over 2, and would, in todays dollars, cost probably about half that of Transmission Gully. It would have removed most through traffic from Te Aro and relieved Wellington’s waterfront route sufficiently that it could’ve been reduced from 6 to 4 lanes without worsening congestion. It was abandoned because of a council with insufficient vision, and because no central government Wellington politician could see what a difference such a highway would make. Labour never had the vision for it, and few National politicians did either - in fact one National Transport Minister - Rob Storey (who was a rural MP)- did more for the Greens in stopping road construction in Wellington than any other transport Minister in recent history.
^
I’ve already told the Transmission Gully story (in five parts starting here) – the last chapter being that $9 million of taxpayers’ money (note NOT road users, this is coming from the Crown account – and no, this is after ALL petrol tax is spent) is now being spent on detailed investigation of Transmission Gully. This is the pork that Peter Dunne demanded to keep Labour in power – not much really, although around ten times that will be needed if it goes to detailed design. $90 million to design Transmission Gully – seriously!
^
So today I am starting the story on the Wellington Inner City Bypass, it is a tale of high ambitions and persistence, which pitted on the one hand roading engineers and visionaries, and on the other hand local opponents to any new road construction, and more latterly the anti-road movement of the Greens.

^

By the way if you want to see what the bypass COULD have been like (and the later design was to put it all in a cut and cover tunnel), go here.

The railway religion

You, through your taxes, are paying to reopen the Onehunga railway branch line so that a new passenger rail service can be started from Onehunga to Britomart. Yes there is a railway there, but the passenger service ended in 1973 (a decision by Ron Bailey, Minister of Railways in the Kirk government – hardly a government of neo-liberal economists!). Freight services dried up some years ago with the termination of contracts for serving the wharf at Onehunga. The line simply has no economic use, unless some major freight customer wants to use the wharves at Onehunga.

^

One commenter on the NZ Herald website looks at it critically (Tony - most of the rest commenting are muppets)
^
$10 million is needed to bring the line up to scratch – that’s your taxes. As much as $5 million more is needed to build a station, that will probably come directly or indirectly from Auckland regional ratepayers. There will need to be more trains to provide the half hourly service (yes half hourly!! The tracks will sit empty every 15 minutes – imagine a new road like that!) . So another $9 million for 3 2-car diesel units for a half hourly service, double that if you want quarter hourly, double it again if you want a service that reflects the minimum efficient capacity of a passenger train (three busloads). However I’ll be conservative and argue $9 million, not $36 million for a frequent high capacity service.
^
So $24 million before we’ve carried a single passenger. There will be fare revenue, but it will recover about 40% of the operating costs (based on recent cost recovery ratios from fares) – that doesn’t include renewals.
^
So how many people will this be for? 300 more rail passengers in the two hour peak by 2011. Of that 300, only 57% will actually be at the two stations on the line, the rest will be people at the stations on the main line (catching it because of a higher frequency service, which could be achieved without spending $15 million on the line itself). So that’s 129 passengers on the branch itself. Of those let’s conservatively assume half are a transfer from the local bus service, (which I believe is a commercial – i.e. not subsidised, service). So we are down to 60 people a day. 60 people to shift mode for $24 million. $400,000 per person to shift mode!! Add in the remaining 85 on the main line (remember 171 would use the trains for the line at stations on the main line, and half of those were bus passengers), who can share the cost of the rolling stock and the subsidy, and we are down to $374,000.
^
And that’s before you’ve paid 60% of the cost of running the damned train from your fuel taxes and rates.
^
But this is a good deal according to the Greens - because trains are good, always, without fail, even services that couldn't stack up in the days the railways were run as an employment scheme with a monopoly on medium to long haul freight.
^
Of course the next step they all say is a rail service to the airport hmmmm, with a bridge no doubt. Remember the city-airport rail service in Sydney isn’t economically viable, and Melbourne looked at it and couldn’t justify it, developing an express bus service instead (which was introduced after the Citylink tollway was built, greatly reducing travel times to/from the airport). Ask yourself how many people going to Auckland airport actually start their trips anywhere convenient to the rail line between Britomart and Onehunga - why would you get the train from the North Shore (you're going to transfer downtown really?), Waitakere and Manukau or even most of the isthmus. Would Helen Clark get it from Mt Roskill? Hardly.
^
Nevertheless, this is a religion – the rail religion – devoid of economics and reason. 129 people on 4 train services in the 2 hour peak is around 33 people a train - that's called a bus load - and a train that short is NOT environmentally better than a bus, because trains are heavier and consume more fuel - that's why a general rule of thumb is you need 3 bus loads to make a train start to be worthwhile.

^

Now if you talked about the corridor being used to take trucks (and buses) between Onehunga and the Southern motorway, you might have a better case.

^

No - you're gonna to be made to pay $374,000 up front to shift one person from car to train, and subsidise 60% of that person's trips, whereas before you didn't. You could always buy them small apartments next to work instead.

Does IQ match income?

"The government thinks our IQ is based on our income" so said a young mother from one of London's less well off east/south east suburbs on BBC Breakfast TV this morning when asked about government interest in teaching parents how to feed their kids.

^

"I know about how to eat healthy and all of the parents I know too, just because we're not well off doesn't mean we're stupid. The government thinks we all eat ready meals, when I find it a lot cheaper to buy fresh food and make my own meals for the family, and they are healthier too." She said the main problem was the food supplied at schools, and the snack vending machines there, which are unhealthy. Her two kids (one had the name Zeppelin - she admitted she had been a hippy) seemed happy and healthy.

^

That's what she said -with a very strong east end accent (too strong for EastEnders) and I think the BBC Breakfast hosts were slightly taken aback.

^

You see this is a problem, do-gooding bureaucrats and MPs think the problem is that people ARE stupid and don't know how to eat and don't know smoking is bad for them, and if like concerned parents they get told enough - they might learn.

^

In most cases people continue to smoke or eat badly because they choose to do so, not because they don't know fruit and veges and freshly made food is better than fast food and snacks. Honestly, the only people who don't know better are mentally retarded.

Where is the Conservative Party?

I cautiously welcomed David Cameron as leader of the British Conservative Party. I thought he might bring some energy, ditch the old-fashioned fuddy duddy school prefect type “tell you what you do” nonsense that IS conservative, and provide an electable alternative to New Labour. Britain is one helluva nanny state, you seriously cannot believe how much the media and politicians regard government as the solution to almost anything. There are regulators for just about every sector, deregulation means reregulation, and the state is there to hand hold them all so people don’t do anything that might harm themselves – while taxing ever more and more.
^
Cameron might have sold a Conservative Party that wanted to reduce nanny state, and start to wind back the nauseating bureaucracy that is UK central and local government. Well maybe, there is a little bit of that, but the latest policy takes the cake on outflanking New Labour on the left. It is a tax on aviation. The purpose is to cut the number of flights and tax more polluting aircraft (which is ridiculous since most airlines optimise fuel efficiency with their fleets for obvious reasons, traded off against capital availability).

^
The Tories want to tax domestic flights, and to tax international flights on the basis of everyone being permitted one shorthaul (European) international flight a year (return), beyond that you pay. Consider first the bureaucracy of a ration book system for flying, but mostly consider why this is to happen – to combat climate change.
^
Reason has gone out the door on climate change policy in the UK, the two main parties believe in unilateralism with absolutely no evidence of any benefits from their climate change policies. Taxing aviation will do nothing besides give David Cameron a new source of income, though he says he will cut other taxes in exchange – which is shuffling money around. Especially as it is another tinkering of tax in the form of "a new transferable tax allowance for couples with young children". Typical politician, wont cut basic taxes - just hand out little lollies - like Dr Cullen.

^

Taxing aviation will do absolutely nothing to change temperature around the world, it wont change behaviour (airfares are too high relative to the taxes talked about for it to matter or be factored into travel decisions) and at worst will see a shift in airport hubbing away to other countries in Europe. Heathrow is the best airport hub in the world, and this may reduce its competitiveness.
^
However, besides all that, it is absolutely galling to see the Tories propose a ration card type tax on aviation as if to say “you’ve flown once, now go off and sit in your flat and think of England – you’re not allowed to fly more unless you can pay – and we all can, rah rah rah”.
^
UKIP is a hopelessly incompetent alternative protest vote, and I want rid of New Labour, primarily because of ID cards, but also because I don’t believe Gordon Brown can bring anything essentially new and exciting to free up Britain – quite the contrary. However, vote Tory and pay aviation taxes makes me go cold. Where has the party of Thatcher gone?

Britain's independent nuclear deterrent

As I write this the House of Commons has voted for the replacement of the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines, carried only because the Conservative Party almost entirely is voting with the Labour government – as nearly 100 Labour MPs have voted against it. 409 in favour, against 161.
^
The arguments put in favour of Trident are that it is inappropriate for the UK to abandon its nuclear deterrent when nuclear proliferation (Iran, North Korea) continues, potentially posing a serious threat to its security. Another consideration is that while Russia is no longer an enemy, it is not exactly a very good friend – the risk that Russia could once again have ambitions eastward cannot be foreseen 25 years in advance. Indeed, anyone who 25 years ago would have forecast a quasi-genocidal war in Sarajevo would have been looked at askance. In addition, having a nuclear deterrent puts Britain with France and the US, as the three leading Western defence powers. While the UK could certainly expect the US nuclear umbrella to be used for its defence, abandoning its nuclear deterrence would send a negative message to the US, and greatly harm bilateral relations.
^
Those against Trident believe it is a waste of money (£15 billion) that could be spent on social services (note they NEVER argue for tax cuts, funny that), but are primarily driven by two motives. First is a utopian vision for nuclear disarmament, with the naïve belief that if the UK disarms, it will encourage non-proliferation elsewhere. Those opposed to Trident are part of the so-called “peace movement” and claim to want a nuclear free world.
^
Let’s look at nuclear disarmament, which has happened on a grand scale since the end of the Cold War, with the US, UK, France and Russia all substantially reducing their nuclear arsenals since the late 1980s. This happened not because any one party unilaterally disarmed, but because the USSR – a regime far too many in the “peace movement” either supported or whose sins it ignored – was defeated economically, politically and philosophically. Had the nuclear disarmament called by the very same type of people in the 1980s occurred, the Soviet Union would not have been brought to its knees – something that far too many in the so called “peace movement” didn’t like (ignoring the Soviet launched imperialist wars in Afghanistan, Korea and the Middle East).
^
Further nuclear disarmament or the termination of nuclear programmes has occurred either because a threat was removed (South Africa) or a threat was real (Libya). North Korea pursued a nuclear weapon because it lost the Soviet nuclear umbrella and needed a tool of blackmail so its bankrupt system – and it seems to have worked. India and Pakistan had the capability for many years before “turning the last bolt”, but the sub continent’s nuclear deterrent has worked. Iran on the other hand is pursuing nuclear weapons as it embarks on its own ambition to obliterate Israel. Israel’s nuclear deterrence is just that – it has also largely worked to defend it since the Yom Kippur War. None of the almost all fascist Arab states dare touch it – and Israelis wont dare remove their greatest tool. Meanwhile, on its own, and subject to few protests from the so-called peace movement, China builds up its nuclear arsenal. However, that’s apparently ok (don't see Chinese flags burnt or major protests outside Chinese embassies).

^
There is an argument that since the end of the Cold War, Europe is at peace and no longer needs nuclear weapons. This is incredibly naïve – while many ex. communist states are now EU members (indeed almost all European ones are now), Russia is not. Russia remains a state to watch. Britain’s nuclear deterrent keeps Russia from doing anything silly.
^
A nuclear weapon free world will only come will all those holding nuclear weapons at present are truly open liberal democracies, with no sectarianism and no states vowing to wipe them off the earth, with no terrorists seeking to fight jihad, and no rogue states engaging in blackmail. That means an end to Islamism, an end to Marxism-Leninism, an end to kleptocratic fascism. In other words, a truly free world of secular peaceful states.
^
Unfortunately the so-called peace movement grants moral equivalency between the UK, Iran, North Korea, Russia and China. The UK has never seriously threatened its nuclear weapons in anger, Russia (as the Soviet Union) not long ago sought to eliminate freedom and liberal democracy in the West.

Now is not the time to be naïve and pander to the one eyed hypocrisy of the so-called peace movement, which seeks as a priority disarmament of open free liberal societies, but has little interest in disarming closed, authoritarian states. Stupid or another agenda? You decide.

Accidents at Penrith station

What did they fight for?

So you risk your life for your country, for freedom and your local RSA has a few pokie machines that you like to put some money in from time to time for a bit of fun as you sit with a beer with some mates of yours. You’ve looked into the eyes of danger, maybe even directly into the eyes of those who would strip away what freedoms we have for the sake of racial superiority, the great people’s revolution or the emperor. You know how to handle your own money, shit, you handled a gun or even a plane or a boat. You can look after yourself, you helped look after the whole country and its allies. However few bother to give a damn.
^
People like the snivelling little upstart who is the gambling inspector. Maybe he was some young whippersnapper, dressed smartly in his Hallenstein’s suit, with his nasally whiny voice pointing out how your RSA doesn’t have a gambling licence and had failed to pay the problem gamblers levy (you can’t remember the last time anyone there had an addiction, except for Jimmy but hey it was only when he had had a few, and was remembering his best mate who he had to leave for dead). Looking into the eyes of that little bastard, what does he know? He wouldn’t even get his shoes dirty, and I’m sure he’d cower if you threatened to punch him.
^
Maybe he was in his 50s, one of those who is just a bit too young to have been in Vietnam, with his grey shoes, his polyester suit, large tufts of hair either side that he wets and pulls over his bald spot, sneering and officious with no respect. He thinks you’re just a bunch of gun loving old bigots, and don’t understand your responsibility to society – what a bloody arsehole – never worked a productive day in his life.
^
Both of them are the sorts I thought I’d fought to avoid, like the joyless telltale at school who ran to teacher because someone was smoking behind the bikesheds. Sticklers for rules, couldn’t turn a blind eye to those who did more for the country in one week than they will in a lifetime. No respect. No fucking respect.
^
Like Director of Gambling Compliance, Mike Hill – Director of fun regulation more like. How about the prosecuting lawyer, Mark Woolford, wonder what sort of kick he gets out of prosecuting an RSA and removing a source of fun for its members. He doesn’t believe that they have private property rights though and that people who gamble take the risk themselves on the RSA’s property. It doesn’t matter as he gets paid far more than the members even did. I wont blame Judge Lindsay Moore, though he didn’t need to have the machines forfeited – they do own them after all, not the state, though give him his due for discharging the manager without conviction. He was just doing his job.
^
That Green MP Sue Bradford is into all this though, remember her, the one who went to Maoist China, the same government whose soldiers would bury our guys standing up in holes in the ground to be prisoners in Korea. What does she know,

Helen Clark confronts food miles

It's about time and I'm very pleased, but more needs to be done. Publicity is needed in the UK on this, it is still almost invisible that there is more to carbon emissions than how far food has travelled. For every day you delay, is another day when UK media bleets on this lie, like it has today here, here, here and here.
^
Amazingly, a green oriented site has actually started to talk a bit more sensibly about this quoting the Lincoln University study.
^
How about the Nats having a policy?

The rail network is worth what?

Stuff reports that the Crown Accounts now show the rail network as being worth a ridiculous $10.6 billion, as this would be the replacement cost if tomorrow there was no rail network and you wanted to start from scratch. Imagine if Telecom's "value" was the replacement cost of its network?
^
Of course, nobody would pay $10.6 billion for it, the government paid $81 million for the Auckland network and $1 for the rest, and the total value of TranzRail/New Zealand Rail was never close to a billion dollars when it held the lot.
^
Cullen doesn’t even believe it is realistic. You couldn't charge track access charges to recover a bank deposit rate of return on an asset valuation like that, minus maintenance costs.
^
The appropriate value should be the market value – what would the government get if it sold it off, which would be, in many cases, the scrap value of the track and the sliver of land the network is on. You could make a bit out of the rail corridors in Auckland and parts of Wellington, but most of it would be a marginal addition to farm land. The value of the asset as a railway is only reflected by how much rail companies would pay to use it, and it is unlikely to be very much (with little left behind after you cover the cost of maintaining the track, signals etc).

^

The value of the rail network is as a sunk asset in most cases. Nobody seriously would build a brand new line from Napier to Gisborne for example.
^
So how much of the Crown’s net worth is this sort of snake oil?

Are you banned in China?

China, the great capitalist powerhouse of Asia is also the great censorship powerhouse. The freedom loving guys at Pacific Empire have an excellent post on this, including the link to the Great Firewall of China website - where you can check to see if your website or blog is banned in the People's Republic of China. Pacific Empire is, this blog is not as of ... right now.

^

However if you go to my blog through the firewall and THEN connect to Pacific Empire there doesn't seem to be a problem. Technological barriers to censorship are, by their very nature, subject to many many holes.

Steve Jobs on TV and education

Julian Pistorius has an excellent post on Steve Job's views on TV and how public education has contributed to it... his basic points are:

^

Most TV is of poor quality because most people want to switch off their brains.

^

Educationists want technology to fix their problems, when the problem is people, incentives and unions and administrators that don't want to confront poor performance.

^

He said "The unions are the worst thing that ever happened to education because it's not a meritocracy. It turns into a bureaucracy".

^

The full post Julian quoted from is here. As long as teacher unions continue to think that teachers cannot be paid and evaluated based on performance, they will continue to be defenders of mediocrity - and who in their right mind thinks all their teachers were equally worthy.

Charles not fit to be King

Prince Charles’s environmental fetish is well known, but I believe his latest outburst proves how completely unfit he is to be King. He wants McDonalds banned.
^
According to the Daily Telegraph, when visiting the United Arab Emirates he said “Have you got anywhere with McDonald’s, have you tried getting it banned? That’s the key”.
^
Fascist! So you want a dictatorial kingdom of old Charles? Well frankly you are not fit to be King – how can anyone trust you to legitimately be the sovereign and accept the advice of your democratically elected government when you’re just a rather loopy leftwing nutter? You’ve never had to work a day in your life, the work you have done is by choice – you are one of the most privileged people in the world, you have not the slightest idea of what it is like to risk your own money on a business franchise (and risk bankruptcy), or to have to get a basic job. Your children don’t either.
^
How you express such an explicitly political point of view, condemning a legal business operating in the UK?
^
Set aside your own prejudices about McDonalds. The bottom line is that it gives a lot of people pleasure, and a lot of people jobs. Many of you have gone there, and those who don’t are fine – you don’t have to eat at fast food restaurants. If you want to get it banned, then fine, be a fascist – be honest about it. Charles is meant to be apolitical – but he is not, and as such he is not fit to be the constitutional monarch of the UK or indeed New Zealand.

Local government - fascist and wasteful

Recent reports of the latest Auckland City Council junket are not surprising. Sister City status is nothing more than a way for councils in both cities to justify expensive holidays in each others’ cities for nothing more than a junket. The trip by three to Hamburg to discuss an “economic alliance” is bullshit – absolute bullshit. For starters, what does Auckland sell that Hamburgers (yes yes) want to buy? Is Auckland City going to Hamburg to demand that Germans lobby for the EU to open up its agricultural market? Does Hamburg have so much in common with Auckland that Auckland can learn? Hardly. If Auckland wants expert advice on anything it ought to turn to its own advisors, who get paid for the job and for consultants on a case by case basis. Would they hire three consultants from Hamburg to fly over and advise Auckland on… whatever? No. It is what it is – a junket – a junket that Auckland property owners pay for compulsorily because Auckland voters chose that council and the Labour led government gave carte blanche for councils to do what they want.
^
Of course Daily Telegraph reports the UK faces the same, petty fascist councils wanting to interfere almost endlessly. Prosecuting people for not recycling a piece of cardboard, or putting an envelope in the street rubbish bin that a person carried from home, charging exhorbitant parking fees because you have the wrong car.
^
The thing is almost nobody standing for local government wants councils to do less and spend less. Seriously, even the non explicitly leftwing candidates are, almost to a T, big government oriented.
^
New Zealand adopted the UK model for local body powers – so watch and learn. Local government in the UK is responsible for far more than in NZ (education and police for example), but its standards are lower than what I’ve seen in some NZ councils.
^
Rodney Hide had a Bill that would’ve been a useful first step to dealing with this, but we see what happened to that. Maybe this year you’ll all vote for councils that want to do less and do what they are meant to do, better and more efficiently. I’m not holding my breath.

Do you care about the roads?

Well respond to Transit’s draft 2007/2008 Land Transport Programme, which lists the road projects Transit will be seeking funding for in the coming financial year and the priority given to them. Remember Transit does not fund anything, Land Transport New Zealand does, and Transit is purely state highways, not public transport.
^
You can be sure that politicians who go on about their pet projects don’t bother to make a submission, but you should if something you think is worthwhile has a low priority or vice versa. Transit is seeking to spend $1.25 billion next year, of which £1.16 billion will come from your road taxes (the rest from borrowing against future toll income). The draft programme gives you maps showing where projects are and lists of projects and descriptions of what it sees as major issues.
^
However Transit has taken a different approach to presenting all this information. You no longer get the estimated costs of future projects, lest it show that costs escalate year by year. You no longer get proposed exact years for starting construction, lest a project be advanced or another dropped. Much of this makes sense, but there are estimated costs behind major projects that Transit is not publishing
^
You have until 30 March to make a submission.

Given my Wellington heritage, the main points for Wellington appear to be:
- Starting the Dowse to Petone interchange on the Western Hutt Rd (gets rid of the first two sets of traffic lights leaving Wellington and provides a new entrance to Hutt City from the south, relieving Melling bridge);
- Completing design and starting construction of Stage 1 of the Kapiti Western link road (a new route starting halfway between Waikanae and Waikanae Beach to Raumati via Kapiti Road, taking local traffic off of the highway);
- Designing and starting construction on an interchange at Haywards to replace the traffic light intersection between SH2 and SH58;
- Investigating and designing a major improvement to the Basin Reserve, meaning probably a flyover from Mt Victoria Tunnel to Buckle Street across the northern corner of the Basin (relieving bottlenecks around the Basin in the AM and PM peaks);
- Investigating and designing Transmission Gully.
^
Hardly grand road building when only three major construction projects are set to start, (given one is complete and two more are about to be completed in the current year, it is really about maintaining the same level of activity). Of those three, two are just about getting rid of traffic lights on four-lane highways to make them run more efficiently, and the third is about providing a safer local connection in Kapiti Coast so that traffic (including cyclists and pedestrians) don’t have to mix with highway traffic. I’d be interested to see what Tom Beard thinks of this.
^
Aucklanders can take heart that it is full steam ahead with a bunch of projects to be completed in the next year, and more to start such as the Hobsonville deviation (which will link the NorthWestern motorway to the soon to be completed Upper Harbour Bridge duplication and Greenhithe motorway to build a complete Upper Harbour Motorway from the North Shore to Waitakere), and Brigham Creek extension pushing the North Western motorway further towards Kumeu. Meanwhile lots of large motorway projects continue to be under construction, from the ALPURT motorway extension from Orewa to Puhoi, to extending SH20 north to Mt Roskill and south to the Southern Motorway. Most of this is a backlog of work that should have been built years ago.

AJ Chesswas abandons blogging for lent

The renowned Christian fundamentalist blogger AJ Chesswas is applying his own approach to life and is not blogging through Lent. He has a lengthy explanation here. However he says:
^
“I need to slow down and absorb a bit more of life. I need to feel again. And, obviously blogging is a distraction in this regard.”
^
Fair enough too. He goes on “It is after all my most distracting and compulsive addition, and self-denial is what lent is all about”. The state really ought to regulate it!

^

He gets his last word in on a number of things, the highlights for me are:

^

“Smacking is crucial to communicating respect for parental authority to our children, and for helping build good taste and manners, so make sure Sue Bradford doesn't get away with trying to ban it” Why I agree it shouldn’t be banned, smacking is NOT crucial, in fact I regard it to be a failure of parenting. Violence does not communicate respect, in me it communicated power and an unwillingness to communicate anything besides “I’m bigger than you and I can inflict pain on you to make you do what I want”. Smacking builds good taste?? “Oh Michael likes coprophagia because he wasn’t smacked” (don’t look up the word).

^

“British identity is alive and well both in the motherland and in her colonies” Well perhaps, though if he visited here recently he’d know it is a matter of much debate. The colonies? You mean Pitcairn? Gibraltar? St. Helena? Tristan da Cunha? New Zealand stopped being even the vestiges of a colony in 1946.

^

“Ecological and social issues are directly related to one another, and can only be resolved through decentralisation and an agrarian revival of faith, farm and family” Well so he’s joining the Green Party? Decentralisation of what? This could mean being a libertarian, but agrarian revival? We’ll all be in the cornfields singing Kumbayah with the family? The planet will be saved by everyone farming?? Africans will be thrilled they have the ideal life.

^

“The only legitimate place for the expression of human sexuality is within a heterosexual marriage of a man and woman who are committed to each other for life.” Who decides legitimate? A Naki farmer interpreting books written centuries ago, the preacher of the church of the Naki farmer, or the people whose bodies actually have to undertake this? Presumably this married couple can enjoy oral sex, as an expression of human sexuality? (nope, but then AJ thinks that most people find this completely abhorrent).

^

“Bill English is much more preferable than John Key” Sorry AJ he wont sleep with you, despite you posting his image more often than David Farrar posts images of sexy women. About the only difference so far is that Bill English decimated the National Party in 2002, John Key hasn't.... yet.

^

“A woman with a strong desire for faith, farm and family is much more preferable than a woman with a strong desire for cosmetics, cars and career.” Each to their own. I’d pick the latter myself, though a strong desire for cosmetics doesn’t impress me, but career and cars are fine by me.

^

I wouldn't mind if he simply made these statements as ways to live his own life.

Nanny State comment of the day

“We know that more and more people are beginning to realise the dangers of smoking.”
^
Beginning? Hell, the evidence has been around since the 1950s, I was aware of it as a child and virtually everyone I ever met who smoked was well aware of it. How damned stupid or insular do you have to be to not know? If you are that stupid then frankly fine – you are like the people who ignore level crossing barriers or handle appliances with wet hands – it isn’t just a mistake it’s systematic stupidity. I don't give a damn about people who are stupid, they are the bane of my life (and it's amazing how there is a link between stupidity and violence).

^
We are so glad that Damien O’Connor, Associate Minister of Health and Minister of Blokey Real Men Affairs, has figured out that in 2007 people are “beginning to realise” how dangerous smoking can be. Maybe it has taken that long for enough of his constituents (particularly those who vote for him) to realise that?

^

One piece of advice Damien, people do things that are dangerous at times even though they know this, because they value SOMETHING ELSE. Adults can make their own decisions and if they decide to smoke, they take the risk with their own bodies. You see people don't always live in a world of being safe and good.

Mile high

Ridge and Loos try it on on Air NZ flying from London to LA.

The NZ Herald reports that:
“Passenger Rachel Bernam, told London newspaper The News of the World: "It was pretty obvious what was going on." She added: "They started snogging and then she disappeared under the blanket. I was shocked - it was then the steward told them to knock it off." An Air NZ spokeswoman said the airline was "not at liberty" to discuss individual passengers. "However, we can confirm there were complaints in the premium cabin on NZ1 on February 2 that required cabin crew to ask a couple of passengers to modify their behaviour"

^
However the Brisbane Courier Mail tells more:
“Ridge was busted receiving oral sex from girlfriend Rebecca Loos on an Air New Zealand flight from London to Los Angeles last week. Crew had to interrupt the pair after passengers complained. "It was pretty obvious what was going on. She was giving him oral sex . . . and he was loving it," said passenger Rachel Bernam, seated behind the former league star.”

^
Now there are planes and seats better suited to this than the Air NZ business class pods. For starters, the bathrooms at the back of a 747 are many and not well monitored, especially at night. The rear of the front cabin (nose) on a 747 tends to be quite discreet and private, the back rows especially. The upper deck isn’t as good as it seems, because the galley is at the back and the crew rest areas and cockpit at the front. There is another crew rest area which most passengers are unaware of, but unless the crew want to share you, you’ll get no chances there. Some Airbus A340s have downstairs toilets or galleys (Thai, Cathay, LAN, Aerolineas Argentinas all fly these to NZ).

^
So some basic rules of thumb:
1. The bigger the plane the better your chances. Boeing 747s and Airbus A340s are the biggest in the air now, the A380 may offer even more chances.
2. The more exclusive the cabin the better your chances. This is mainly because some airlines make the first or business class toilets bigger, and there are more of them per passenger. It also reflects bigger more private seating, but that is all.
3. Do it in the dark. Wait till after dinner on an overnight flight and then slink off when the lights are dimmed. By then the crew are doing little, most people have their earplugs and eye masks on.
4. Find banks of toilets that are not monitored. Rear ends of planes that don’t have galleys are best (747s) though this goes against rule of thumb 2.

Rail crash

The only point I want to make of this is how wonderful technology is that this train has survived crashing at 145 km/h with only one fatality. None of the windows broke, none – the Italian made tilting trains (Pendolinos) that Virgin uses are clearly a winner! The carriages are by and large intact, which is a far cry from previous rail disasters. The nay sayers who regard rail privatisation as the source of all ills may look at Virgin Trains having leased trains that have three times the crash resistance of the required safety standard. It helps that the competitive pressure through the franchising system incentives private rail operators to operate trains and services that maximise revenue (and Virgin Trains has done quite well in winning passengers from other modes).
^
Yes there are issues around the track at this particular location on this occasion, and Network Rail may well be culpable. However, rail accidents are going to occur from time to time. What this train has proven is that it is possible to protect people from death and serious injury at high speeds with good design. Imagine taking any road vehicle and sending it off the road at 145 km/h.
^
It gives me added comfort as I catch these trains nearly every week!

Should incest be legal?

This will stir people up.

^

Patrick Stübing and Susan Stübing are taking a case to Germany’s constitutional court to get a law overturned. Patrick Stübing is 29 years old and his sister Susan is 24, he was given a sentence of 2.5 years for incest. They are adults and in love. He was adopted in east germany at the age of 4, and was not allowed to find his biological family until he was 18. The details are in this story in The Independent, but in short they fell in love and had four children, all but one is in care and two have “mental damage” from inbreeding. Patrick has been in jail twice, his sister in the care of social services. Patrick has since chosen to be sterilised, but his relationship with his sister remains criminal. You might think they are probably stupid or ugly or something else, you know the sort of things that lesbians get accused of as to why they don't want sex with men. I don't know if they are or not, and frankly it doesn't matter. The concern in Germany is that the law against incest has its origins in the Nazi era - which makes sense if it is all about reproduction. In NZ and the UK it has religious origins, even though it is impossible for the bible to make sense without incest (who did Adam and Eve's kids breed with?).
^
Now the first reaction of most to this is rather quick judgment. Starting with “eww yuck”, which frankly is irrelevant. I can think “ew yuck” if I think about sex with most people I know, or meet. What you think of a particular relationship is per se, neither here nor there. Secondly, remove any questions of abuse or violence, as there is none. Presumably the sexual relationship started once his sister was of legal age, as prosecution for that would have followed as well. Besides, today they are both adults. Thirdly, the issue that most raise is “what about inbreeding”, in which case I would ask, what is your eugenics policy?
^
It is not illegal in Germany (or New Zealand) for people with hereditary diseases from having children even when there is a very high chance the disease will be passed on. Two of the four children the couple had were “mentally damaged”, but the other two were not. It is not a good idea for siblings to reproduce, but should it be criminal?
^
Furthermore, given the couple can no longer reproduce, why is it anyone else’s business whether an adult brother and sister live together as a couple and have sexual relations? Ask yourself if your revulsion is no more different than the revulsion 20-30 years ago for same-sex relations, and whether that revulsion justifies a criminal record. Who are these people harming? Is the “yuck” factor enough to put someone in prison? Seriously!
^
Finally, the word incest automatically brings to most people images of abusive relationships, and these do exist and the law exists to rightfully prosecute the offenders. However, some brothers and sisters (and sisters and sisters etc etc) do engage in sexual play in their youth. Would it be more appropriate to treat incest as a factor to consider in sentencing in cases of abuse, rather than for it to be a crime in itself?

^

By the way, about twice a year a similar case arises in New Zealand between adult siblings, and typically the man gets convicted. I wonder why?

Eco-labelling - our saviour or our undoing.

According to the Daily Telegraph, UK Environment Minister David Milliband is to announce today that he is considering eco-labelling for food that will outline the amount of greenhouse gases used in production and transport of food. This will be greeted with cheers from European farmers, even keen to suckle the Brussels tit and ever keen to block out food imported from more efficient food producers. However, as has already been explained it should not be a matter of simple reporting “food miles” – one of the greatest green crocks of our time, but the total cost of production.
^
Now I oppose compulsory labelling. If the producer doesn’t want you to know something about the food then you have the choice of buying it or not. However, New Zealand should agree to provide input into this analysis, which will surely be impossible for all food imports, but also provides an opportunity to do two things:

^
First, is to transparently and objectively determine the entire carbon impact, which in many cases benefits New Zealand farmers. However this wont happen without a fight. British farmers will baulk when NZ cheese appears in supermarket coolers with a lower greenhouse rating. However, lest Britain be hauled up in front of the WTO, it must not be a barrier to free trade.
^
Secondly, how about identifying food by subsidy levels, e.g. 25% of the cost of producing this block of cheese was paid for by EU subsidies, or US subsidies etc etc. Now that wont happen, but the first could be pushed for. We can’t sit back and let this be defined by those with the loudest voices, as the “Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will work with producers and retailers” according to the Daily Telegraph. This doesn’t mean our producers or importers. Stop sitting back New Zealand, bloody well do something!

Brian Rudman is intellectually vacuous on transport

Brian Rudman has been the Herald's leftwing pinup columnist for some years now. In that time he has rallied for several causes, one is his tired old conservative leftwing view on transport. It's a view that few transport officials take seriously, unless of course, you sit on the left hand side of the Auckland Regional Council. Given his prominent column, he is an opinion maker in Auckland - there ought to be a corresponding opinion piece given by someone at least armed with facts. Rudman's view is rather simple - Auckland bureaucrats get it right, Wellington bureaucrats get it wrong - in fact both get it wrong and right at times, but hey simplicity is easy isn't it?

^

According to Rudman, Auckland's transport problem would be fixed if only an absolute fortune was poured into rail, including a large underground electrified rail loop in the central city. The cost of this is in the multiple billions, but never mind he thinks government (that means you) can pay for it. Never mind that 88% of Auckland's employment is not located in the wider central business district, so that 4 out of 5 commuters (let's be generous and assume 8% could catch trains between locations outside the CBD) would find no use for this. Never mind that the ARC's own CS First Boston report indicates that the full rail business plan would improve average traffic speeds on the parallel motorways by less than 0.5 km/h. Never mind that the Ministry of Transport/Treasury's own analysis said that Auckland's congestion could not be fixed by spending up large on public transport.

^

Now he is bleeting on about buses, the much ignored mode of transport in Auckland. The mode that saw ever decreasing patronage over thirty five years under local authority ownership and control, retrieved from decline after privatisation in the late 1990s. In his latest doggerell, Rudman calls the current model for bus regulation and funding as the "disastrous" Thatcherite model, but fails to note the appalling standards of service, chronic underinvestment and ever growing subsidies (and declining patronage) of the old system. This system that has "dogged" Auckland for 15 years has only been operating fully for 9 years (check the legislation Brian) and for most of those years has seen increases in patronage, a reduction in the average age of buses operating, the first air conditioned buses and most of this without substantial increases in subsidies. This doesn't suit Brian's socialist unprofessional viewpoint.

^

He unashamedly takes ARTA's view on bus regulation, not challenging any of the notions like how "That most civilised cities used the simple contracting model they were proposing". Well actually they don't Brian, most provide the services themselves and see ever declining patronage, look to the US for such examples - where union dominated operators run by councils run adequated fleets with ever growing subsidies and ongoing declining patronage. The "extremely unattractive" model run in Auckland actually has saved ratepayers a fortune and seen patronage increases. However, you'll need to look elsewhere for a columnist who might hold ARTA to account. He did note that 26% of Auckland bus services are unsubsidised, and these carry 46% of all bus trips - so nearly half of all trips don't need a dollar of taxpayer money? Extremely unattractive only to those who are bent on control. He twisted stats to say "Is it pure coincidence that in the 15 years the current model has been in place, bus patronage growth in Auckland has been the worst in Australasia - down 34 per cent relative to population?". No Brian, the current model has been in operation since 1998, and it is NOT the worst in Australasia, in fact there have been declines in the last two years largely attributed to the collapse of the Asian language student industry in Auckland (where large numbers rode on buses on corridors in the isthmus) and the replacement of some services with his much loved trains. He fails to note the reason why Stagecoach pulled out of commercially running some services is because of competition with highly subsidised rail. He claims reforms will make the trains run on time, even though they are all currently subject to a contract with ARTA that ARTA specifies.

^

A couple of weeks or so ago he took the Winston Peters approach to congestion charging, a populist no - even though it has proven to work in Singapore, London and Stockholm. He misconstrued the results of the study on Auckland road pricing as negative, when in fact it said that congestion could be considerably reduced if Auckland adopted congestion pricing. He claims "For years this region has received less than its proportionate share of national road and transport funding." without identifying what a "proportionate share" means. If he means by population, then Auckland can claim that for just about everything involving government - but I doubt he'll go tripping around the South Island, Northland, East Cape and Wairarapa demanding "Auckland's fair share". If he means according to where money is best invested, he'll find funding has generally followed where it can best deliver bang for the buck - but I didn't think Brian cared much about efficiency. Besides, it is not the point - when demand exceeds supply for someone that is essentially free, the price should go up to ration it. You see Brian can't figure out that having roads priced the same regardless of time of day or location (socialist pricing) is the problem, and that road pricing COULD be introduced to replace fuel taxes and ratepayer funding of roads - but he doesn't understand that. Nowhere in the world has congestion been solved without pricing, unless you count banning cars.

^

Before that he moaned about Wellington Regional Council short listing suppliers for new electric trains while "Despite what seem like 101 reports in support of Auckland's passenger train network going electric, they who know best in Wellington keep asking for yet another report". Mainly because no report has actually said there are net quantifiable benefits in electrifying Auckland rail.

^

He criticised the Ministerial Advisor Group report on roading costs because it criticised the exhorbitant cost of the Victoria Park Tunnel proposal (which is about increasing the lanes on State Highway 1 from spaghetti junction to the southern approach to Auckland Harbour Bridge from 4 to 6 lanes by putting 3 lanes in a tunnel, while converting the viaduct to 4 lanes southbound), which in a highly overengineered solution when a duplicate bridge could do the job for a fraction of the cost. However he doesn't say where the extra money should come from to support his green-plating.

^

Other things Rudman knows little about include:

- Motorway ramp metering (it works well in the USA, reduces the likelihood people use expensive motorways for short trips). He could argue for far more information on electronic roadside signs to divert motorists from incidents instead;

- For Auckland transport the "obvious answer is everything to be publicly owned" by the same entity, in other words the model Auckland had for decades. In other words, no pressure to innovate, be efficient and full capture of subsidies. So obvious that no officials recommended it.

^

Rudman is clearly an intelligent man, but his columns are as partisan and one-sided as you can get. You'd hope one of the Herald's leading columnists might argue the alternative point of view as having some merits, but he doesn't. He is vacuous on transport, he is mostly wrong and almost anything ARTA says he will swallow.

She's a racist though she doesn't know it

Tariana Turia is racist and does not believe in democracy.

^

Her newest concern is that more migrants coming to New Zealand have white skin, compared to Maori breeding. Why should the colour of the skin of citizens matter, unless you judge people by their race and ethnicity, rather than what they do? You see, Tariana judges you first by your skin colour - it just happens she thinks the most of you if you are Maori.

^

She's called for restrictions on immigration because of what it means for Maori political representation - presumably, she doesn't like the fact that a cornerstone of liberal democracy is one adult one vote.

^

Stuff reports how she claims it ISN'T about race because, in the bizarre post-modernist world of identity politics, it is absolutely impossible for a non-white person to be racist to a white person - in Tariana's world racism is about judging people on the basis of race, but white people judging people on the basis of race. She is quoted as saying "No, we aren't playing the race card, because we are not talking about Asian immigration. In actual fact, the majority of immigrants who come to this country come from Great Britain, from Europe, from Canada, from Australia." . How dare they!

^

How dare people with skills, education, talent and aspirations to live a better life come from those places. Anyway, in Tariana's world these people are second class compared to every single person of Maori descent - the people she prefers.

^

Helen Clark has wisely refuted Tariana Turia's mad assertion that immigration is a cunning government plot to dilute the Maori population (yes I can see Labour doing that can't you?) saying "Our country has been built on migration. You're part of it, I'm part of it, our forefathers were part of it".

^

Indeed Helen.

^

John Key is quoted as saying "But that is a very small issue in my view in relation to the bigger one of what not having those people coming to New Zealand would represent."

^

John it ISN'T an issue - but you want to get into political bed with this racist lunatic for power don't you? Just like National did in 1996 despite Winston's asian baiting. John you could've agreed with Helen - she's right, you're a wimp.

Iran continues to ignore the international community

According to Associated Press The International Atomic Energy Agency has found that Iran has ignored a UN Security Council ultimatum to freeze uranium enrichment, but in fact has expanded its programme. In addition, Iran has done nothing to answer questions from the IAEA about the programme and has severely restricted the access of inspectors to site they previously could visit

^

Reuters says:

"Iran had installed two cascades, or networks, of 164 centrifuges in its underground Natanz enrichment plant with another two cascades close to completion. This represented efforts to expand research-level enrichment of nuclear fuel into "industrial scale" production. It said Iranian workers lowered into the plant an 8.7-ton container of uranium hexafluoride gas (UF-6) to prepare to start feeding centrifuges, which can enrich the material into fuel for power plants or, if refined to high levels, for bombs."

^

Swissinfo reports that Ahmadinejad has vowed to keep continuing its nuclear programme saying "If we show weakness in front of the enemy the expectations will increase but if we stand against them, because of this resistance, they will retreat". The enemy? I thought it was a peaceful programme - why are there enemies if it isn't about war?

^

Of course Iran has been bolstered by:

1. The chaos in Iraq, backed up by the substantial reduction in the US/allied willingness to persist in Iraq;

2. North Korea gaining a deal to get free oil in exchange for freezing its nuclear programme, now that it HAS nuclear weapons;

3. Little Western appetite for military action (the high number of potential targets).

^

Some will say, fine, let it be - and wont be worried until Iran uses a weapon, in which case it will be the fault of the USA. Some may want war, but that is impracticable and I think unnecessary. What is needed is sanctions - freezing of Iranian state bank accounts, banning of Iranian aircraft from EU airspace - it has to hurt to Iranian economy. Iran is a nation predominantly of young people, predominantly of people who don't subscribe to Islamism, and they simply need a reason to stand up to Ahmadinejad and his bullies.

^

The risk of Iran using nuclear material itself or through its terrorist proxies is not worth doing nothing. The European approach has failed, what would've been the US approach is too late and likely to be counterproductive. Now is the time to isolate Iran. Blair is opposed to military action, Bush is balancing up the need to do something vs domestic political backlash.

^

and yes Prime Minister that means the lucrative NZ-Iran trade must halt as well as that of our allies and friends, or is it only French and US nuclear activities that get the Labour party excited? What I would love to know is why multilateralists, that are always keen to hold the US to account, are so silent on Iran? Where are the Iranian flags being burnt in the street?

Be Lazy - the Union told you so

The Trade Union Communists, I mean Congress, is calling for all Brits to “work to rule” meaning to finish work on time, and no later, and to have a full lunch hour. This is because the TUC claims that employees are “ripped off” as employers get £23 billion of “free work”.
^
Well fine – let’s all do that, do nothing more than you absolutely need to. Why don’t doctors do that? “shift over, sorry I can’t fix you”. Just think if everyone did this! Just imagine how many small businesses could function on that basis?
^
It is classic socialism, the worship of being average and it is the reason the TUC doesn’t understand the huge bonuses a few thousand in the City of London get for working enormous hours under much pressure.
^
I haven’t had a successful career because I did 9 to 5, or always had an hour’s lunch, in fact that would be exceedingly rare. That’s why I don’t need the TUC, I am prepared to work and have an employer who rewards it .
^
So Work Your Proper Hours Day is a waste of time. Employers ought to respond to employees who do this though. Employees caught using stationery, telephones, internet access, pens and the like for private purposes should have that deducted from their salary. This includes spending time online during “proper hours” or talking to friends or the like.
^
So how about Do Nothing But Work While at Work Day. I’m sure the TUC will back.

Ban alcohol advertising will fix binge drinking?

According to the Daily Telegraph, Professor Ian Gilmore, head of the Royal College of Physicians, has called for a total ban on alcohol advertising because it will combat Britain's binge drinking culture.

^

No it wont.

^

The only thing that will make it change is when more people want to be conscious more often than not, rather than escape their own lack of self esteem and their own lives.

^

They wont drink less because there is no advertising - the Soviet Union is the classic case. Advertising affects choice of drink not the choice TO drink, and children learn early on that alcohol is a grown up taboo thing, and people have fun taking it and laugh at the stupid things people do when drunk.

^

The answer is culture, not regulation.

Egypt’s lack of free speech

It is sad that one of the bulwarks against Islamism in the Middle East -Egypt - is brutal towards free speech.

^

Hosni Mubarak is a dictator – he is no doubt better than having an Islamist regime, and he has maintained peaceful relations with Israel – but he is a dictator. Political dissent has few outlets in Egypt, and that is sad because it fuels dissent in the major independent institution in the country – mosques. I know the alternative for now is an Islamist regime - which would be far worse. As No Right Turn points out "In a free society, criticising an educational institution and the government should not be a crime. But Egypt is not a free society". The bubble of Islamism is only encouraged if criticism is suppressed because it will rally opposition towards Islam - as in Iran.

^

Hosni Mubarak is big and bright enough to not do this, to grant Abdel Kareem Soliman a pardon, and allow criticism of government and Islam. The US administration should exercise pressure as well.

Classic Boris Johnson and Qantas's new business class service

Conservative MP Boris Johnson’s latest Daily Telegraph column highlighting the hypocrisy of certain tabloid newspapers which on the one hand luridly post headlines and images involving gratuitous sex, while also being part of the “outrage” community who forever bemoan the filth on television, perverts and the sexualisation of society. Johnson is often hilarious, usually unintentionally, but did have the balls to take on Jamie Oliver on school meals.
^
He was motivated by one Qantas flight attendant granting Ralph Fiennes business class service (from Darwin to Mumbai), which came to light because the damned silly woman sold the story to the Mail on Sunday (here) - the trashiest tabloid if only because it is the one that most pretends to be about news, but is actually carefully cloaked anti-foreign, populist, reactionary bullshit. The Mail doesn’t do the phwoar tits and arse of the Sun, but its no serious paper either.
^
By the way, this is the juicy bit from the Mail on Sunday, because I know if you aren’t interested, you stop reading:
^
“There were only 12 passengers in business class that night. Then, as she was preparing to go on her break, Fiennes made an unexpected suggestion. Lisa said: 'We had chatted a bit about India - where I've been five times - and his movies. 'When I told him I was going for a break, he said, "I might come and visit you for a chat, if that's OK." I was a bit surprised, but also thrilled. I said, "Sure."' Lisa admits she was smitten by the star, but says she did not make the first move and had no thought of what might happen next.

^
It was 11pm and most of the other passengers were asleep. Lisa retired behind the curtained crew area, next to the cockpit, took off her shoes and put her feet up. But moments later she was interrupted by Fiennes.

^
'I'm sorry, were you sleeping?, he said. 'No,' she replied. 'Come in and take a seat.'

^
Lisa is not proud of what happened next, but she found Fiennes 'irresistible'. 'At first we just chatted,' she said. 'He sat really close to me. He told me he was learning lines for a new movie with Colin Farrell, playing the part of a gangster. He said he was practising his cockney accent. 'I asked him to give me an example. He did and it was really good. I told him again that The English Patient was just the best movie, but he said, 'That was over ten years ago. Why don't people value my later work?'

^
'I apologised and said I didn't mean to offend him. I guess we talked for about an hour about lots of different things. He thought it was funny that I lived alone with my dog, a Lhasa Apso-poodle cross called Finn.' Fiennes told Lisa he was touring Indian villages for Unicef to talk about AIDS awareness. He asked what she would be doing in Bombay, where she was staying, and said, 'Do you want to meet up?' Stunned and deeply flattered, Lisa said: 'Yeah. That would be cool.'

^
By this point they were sitting so close their faces were just inches apart. Lisa said: 'He held my hands. Then he started kissing me. The kissing was very passionate and his hands were all over me. I just melted.
^

'He was caressing my neck, holding my head and he started undoing the buttons on my dress. The way he was going, he would have made love to me right there.

^
'I was very turned on and so was he. I had butterflies in my stomach. I was touching his face and his hair. He had beautiful skin. I was undoing his shirt as well. It was a bit surreal, like a scene from one of his movies.

^
'But I was afraid my supervisor might pull back the curtain and catch us. Eventually, I couldn't bear it any longer. I just grabbed his hand and said, "Come in here a minute."

^
'By this time, we had half our clothes off and I didn't care about anything. I led him into the cabin lavatory next to where we had been sitting and locked the door. 'Ralph was a great lover. And I thought if I was going to get the sack, it would be worth it. I knew it was against the rules and wrong but I didn't care.

^
'I was a bit shocked that he didn't wear a condom. Looking back, I think of it as dangerous behaviour and hypocritical given that he was going to India to talk about AIDS. 'He asked me, "Have you ever done this before?". I said, "No, never." I asked him the same question and he said, "No." 'The only strange thing was that he kept his eyes open the whole time, staring at me intensely, although we were kissing madly.

^
'I realised that people would miss me and wonder where I was as my break was almost over. I told him we had to get out of there quickly. 'I helped him get dressed and he told me that when he got out of the toilet he would press his call button to distract the other flight attendants so that I could leave.

^
'But a male member of staff saw Ralph come out of the toilet and he saw me lock the door after Ralph. When I came out, the member of staff was still there. I prepared to get back to work but the cabin manager wanted a word with me. She asked, "Did you go into the toilet with a male passenger?"

^
'I said, "No." But she said three people saw me do it. She told me I had crossed the line and that she was going to report me when we got back to Sydney. 'Ralph called me over and asked, "Is everything all right?" I told him, "No,"and sat down next to him. He was very concerned, but I downplayed it and said I would sort it out.

^
'I knew I was in big trouble. I was ordered to spend the rest of the flight working in economy and I was the talk of the other cabin crew.”

Ralph Fiennes' publicist says the flight attendant was the aggressor. Nevertheless, she's out of a job and he's sitting back with a new boost of publicity and will be forgiven - after all, he's a man women find beautiful - and they are always forgiven. While some say this episode is good for Qantas, I think it is the exact opposite. When you are famous and fly you don't want the cabin crew to be selling stories of your trip - discretion is the key. Quite a few celebrities (Sarah Michelle Gellar) fly Singapore Airlines (where you wont get this sort of service of course), and you hear nothing of it.

Road pricing petition shakes Blair

In 2006, Tony Blair invited e-petitions to be set up on his website for the public to put their names to, as part of extending democracy. This, of course, encouraged nutters galore, and there are over 3000 of them. Many are semi-literate, some are crazy (Ban 4x4 owners' clubs, ban hoodies, cull seals), but one has worked in getting attention. Nearly 1.8 million people have signed a petition against road pricing.

^

The detailed wording of the petition is:

"The idea of tracking every vehicle at all times is sinister and wrong. Road pricing is already here with the high level of taxation on fuel. The more you travel - the more tax you pay. It will be an unfair tax on those who live apart from families and poorer people who will not be able to afford the high monthly costs. Please Mr Blair - forget about road pricing and concentrate on improving our roads to reduce congestion."

^

UK government policy on road pricing is to encourage local authorities to pursue local schemes, with all surplus revenue dedicated to funding local transport projects. London and Durham do this now, and a lot of other cities are considering it too - partly to relieve chronic congestion, partly because the government is willing to fund more projects if those cities pursue road pricing.

^

However, wider than that the government has indicated a long term policy to introduce national road pricing that will vary by distance, time of day, location and vehicle type. Now this is economically rational by itself. Britain has the worst congestion in Europe on average, and while there is scope for plenty of modest road improvements (especially in London, where Ken Livingstone is opposed to increasing road capacity), the real problem is that too many people want to use free roads at the same time.

^

Fuel tax isn't an answer, Britain has the highest petrol tax in the world (50.9p/l or NZ$1.40!), and none of it is dedicated to transport (unlike NZ where it is now all spent on transport). Raising fuel tax now means that road users in the countryside or driving off peak are paying a punitive level of tax.

^

However the government has done an abysmal job of selling road pricing. For starters it has not ever responded to the nonsense about it tracking everyone's movements. Anyone with a basic understanding of GPS knows it is not a "spy in the sky" satellite - it broadcasts signals that a unit in your vehicle triangulates and determines itself where it is. GPS satellites receive nothing from GPS receivers. Secondly, the technology to be used doesn't need to transmit location data anywhere - it can be used to calculate a charge and deduct it from a prepaid card, but only transmit location data when you fail to pay. It doesn't help that the Blair government is pursuing compulsory national ID cards or has a national DNA database of everyone arrested - in other words it can't be trusted on privacy.

^

It also has failed to state clearly what has often been mentioned, that road pricing must come with a countervailing cut or removal of fuel and road tax (similar to motor vehicle licensing in NZ).

^

Most importantly, the real problem is that doing something like this nationally is a huge risk for central government. It would be far easier and less riskier to commercialise or privatise the highway network, and let it be tolled to pay for all of its costs, and then make councils operate their roads commercially too and do the same thing. In any case, national road pricing wont exist before the next election, though the London scheme has just been extended, and there may be another local scheme or two before 2010. Blair has responded to the petitioners in a way that isn't bad, but probably not convincing enough for doubters.

Malaysia is not truly Asia - fortunately

I've been to Malaysia a few times, I don't really like it that much. The television ads that seem to show worldwide "Malaysia truly Asia" grate with me. I like Satays and there are some things interesting about the country, but it is also a real Nanny State. It has been infected by Islamic politics for some years, and by legalised racism and nationalism born from envy of the success of Chinese migrants. I hoped with Mahathir having moved on that Malaysia's authoritarian ways might have eased.

^

However, now according to Stuff the Malaysian government is going to recruit spies to snoop on unmarried couples doing “unislamic” things like holding hands or kissing. This is an offence in Malaysia for Muslims. When religion and state are not separate you get this sort of Taliban-lite nonsense.
^
I actually have committed several of these offences in Malaysia some years ago, my girlfriend at the time came with me and we shared a bed, and we did break several laws on "unnatural" activities. (Apparently sharing the hotel room was an offence in itself)

^
Imagine how petty vindictive and pathetic you would have to be to spy on couples holding hands. Actually you don't have to just be an Islamist, you can be a Christian. There are plenty of Christian telltale busybodies who may cheerfully spy on and arrest unmarried couples being "immoral", let alone lock up homosexuals or people publishing tips on masturbation.

^

Malaysia isn't largely about bullying people, many of its people are kind and generous - and the Islamism is not truly Asia - the generosity and hard working attitude of many of its people are.