How the US views political freedom today

GW Bush is undoubtedly one of the most international loathed figures, it is trendy in many circles to despise him, consider him stupid. He is not above criticism, I would strongly condemn him on many quarters, not least his own promotion of an evangelical agenda. However, his recent speech in Prague deserves a 9.5 out of 10. Nitpickers may pick, but there is little to criticise in this. (hat tip Lindsay Perigo).

^

Take some highlights:

^

"The communists had an imperial ideology that claimed to know the directions of history. But in the end, it was overpowered by ordinary people who wanted to live their lives, and worship their God, and speak the truth to their children. The communists had the harsh rule of Brezhnev, and Honecker, and Ceausescu. But in the end, it was no match for the vision of Walesa and Havel, the defiance of Sakharov and Sharansky, the resolve of Reagan and Thatcher, and fearless witness of John Paul. From this experience, a clear lesson has emerged: Freedom can be resisted, and freedom can be delayed, but freedom cannot be denied."

^

"In truth, 9/11 was evidence of a much broader danger -- an international movement of violent Islamic extremists that threatens free people everywhere. The extremists' ambition is to build a totalitarian empire that spans all current and former Muslim lands, including parts of Europe. Their strategy to achieve that goal is to frighten the world into surrender through a ruthless campaign of terrorist murder...Like the Cold War, it's an ideological struggle between two fundamentally different visions of humanity. On one side are the extremists, who promise paradise, but deliver a life of public beatings and repression of women and suicide bombings.On the other side are huge numbers of moderate men and women -- including millions in the Muslim world -- who believe that every human life has dignity and value that no power on Earth can take away. "

^

"Expanding freedom is more than a moral imperative -- it is the only realistic way to protect our people in the long run. Years ago, Andrei Sakharov warned that a country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respond to the rights of its neighbors. History proves him right. Governments accountable to their people do not attack each other. Democracies address problems through the political process, instead of blaming outside scapegoats. Young people who can disagree openly with their leaders are less likely to adopt violent ideologies. And nations that commit to freedom for their people will not support extremists -- they will join in defeating them."

^

"America calls on every nation that stifles dissent to end its repression, to trust its people, and to grant its citizens the freedom they deserve.

^

"There are many dissidents who couldn't join us because they are being unjustly imprisoned or held under house arrest. I look forward to the day when a conference like this one include Alexander Kozulin of Belarus, Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, Oscar Elias Biscet of Cuba, Father Nguyen Van Ly of Vietnam, Ayman Nour of Egypt."

^

"We recently created a Human Rights Defenders Fund, which provides grants for the legal defense and medical expenses of activists arrested or beaten by repressive governments. I strongly support the Prague Document that your conference plans to issue, which states that "the protection of human rights is critical to international peace and security." And in keeping with the goals of that declaration, I have asked Secretary Rice to send a directive to every U.S. ambassador in an un-free nation: Seek out and meet with activists for democracy. Seek out those who demand human rights."

^

"People living in tyranny need to know they are not forgotten. North Koreans live in a closed society where dissent is brutally suppressed, and they are cut off from their brothers and sisters to the south. The Iranians are a great people who deserve to chart their own future, but they are denied their liberty by a handful of extremists whose pursuit of nuclear weapons prevents their country from taking its rightful place amongst the thriving. The Cubans are desperate for freedom -- and as that nation enters a period of transition, we must insist on free elections and free speech and free assembly. And in Sudan, freedom is denied and basic human rights are violated by a government that pursues genocide against its own citizens. My message to all those who suffer under tyranny is this: We will never excuse your oppressors. We will always stand for your freedom"

^

"The United States is also using our influence to urge valued partners like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to move toward freedom. These nations have taken brave stands and strong action to confront extremists, along with some steps to expand liberty and transparency. Yet they have a great distance still to travel. The United States will continue to press nations like these to open up their political systems, and give greater voice to their people. Inevitably, this creates tension. But our relationships with these countries are broad enough and deep enough to bear it. As our relationships with South Korea and Taiwan during the Cold War prove, America can maintain a friendship and push a nation toward democracy at the same time.

^

"We're also applying that lesson to our relationships with Russia and China. The United States has strong working relationships with these countries. Our friendship with them is complex. In the areas where we share mutual interests, we work together. In other areas, we have strong disagreements. China's leaders believe that they can continue to open the nation's economy without opening its political system. We disagree. In Russia, reforms that were once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development. Part of a good relationship is the ability to talk openly about our disagreements. So the United States will continue to build our relationships with these countries -- and we will do it without abandoning our principles or our values"

^

"Some say that ending tyranny means "imposing our values" on people who do not share them, or that people live in parts of the world where freedom cannot take hold. That is refuted by the fact that every time people are given a choice, they choose freedom. We saw that when the people of Latin America turned dictatorships into democracies, and the people of South Africa replaced apartheid with a free society, and the people of Indonesia ended their long authoritarian rule. We saw it when Ukrainians in orange scarves demanded that their ballots be counted. We saw it when millions of Afghans and Iraqis defied the terrorists to elect free governments. At a polling station in Baghdad, I was struck by the words of an Iraqi -- he had one leg -- and he told a reporter, "I would have crawled here if I had to." Was democracy -- I ask the critics, was democracy imposed on that man? Was freedom a value he did not share? The truth is that the only ones who have to impose their values are the extremists and the radicals and the tyrants. "

^

I'd like to think the next US President could speak of the same and believe in the same.

20 years nuclear free and no better off

The long and sorry tale of the fourth Labour government's eventual prohibition on nuclear arms and nuclear powered vessels says a lot about the internal tensions in that government at the time. David Lange capitulated to the far left of the Labour party, which for reasons partly of hysteria, but mostly the insidious anti-Americanism infecting their minds, saw nuclear powered ships banned and even a banning of conventionally powered ships that the US did not categorically deny had nuclear weapons.

The background to this is something the left today is in denial about. The USS Buchanan was conventionally powered, had no means to deploy nuclear weapons, so the likelihood it would carry nuclear weapons was fairly obviously nil. Nevertheless, the US had a broad "neither confirm nor deny" policy, for obvious strategic reasons. However, the shrill harpies of the left (and it was Margaret Wilson, Helen Clark, Ann Hercus and others) didn't think that was good enough - they cared next to nothing about relations with the US. This implied a moral equivalency between the US and the USSR, which is nothing short of disgusting.

Some see it as a coming of age, and believe there was some sort of broad support by "that generation" for the nuclear ban. In fact, it split the nation and I wasn't supportive of it. Even though the Cold War saw many actions by the West that were difficult to defend morally (support for fascist dictators against communist ones), the fundamental point was that the Soviet Union and its empire was expansionist and evil. Only by denying how evil it was, how utterly oppressive, life destroying, authoritarian and anti-reason that system was, could someone see that deterring its military aggression was immoral. Most of those who now live in the EU, but who until recently were part of the Warsaw Pact see this. The supposed liberal credentials of some on the left who turned a blind eye to this must be questioned.

^

The Green Party press release on this shows clearly how anti-Western the anti-nuclear movement is. Keith Locke said:

^

"In fact, George W Bush is escalating the arms race with the Star Wars weapons programme and his nuclear missile shield, while the British government is spending billions on a new generation of Trident nuclear submarines. Nuclear Free New Zealand shouldn't shrink from criticising existing nuclear states for further developing their nuclear arsenals and delivery systems"

^

What about India and Pakistan Keith? What about Iran refusing to accept IAEA inspections? What about North Korea, a brutal dictatorship dedicated to wiping out the South Korean government, now holding nuclear weapons? What about China, itself an authoritarian one-party state?

^

The truth is that the anti-nuclear campaigners wanted the West to disarm unilaterally. Some thought naively that in some sort of John Lennon moment, the USSR and China would also lay down their arms (even though they were more than willing to execute citizens who disagreed with them), but others didn't really give a damn.

^

Without nuclear deterrence, there is little doubt that North Korea would have sparked a second Korean War (it did start the first). There is also little doubt that the USSR would have been more aggressively expansionist (think it wasn't? Remember Afghanistan).

^

As ACT's Heather Roy has pointed out, the ban on nuclear propulsion was largely motivated by dangers that are imagined rather than real. Indeed, the Somers Report (dismissed wholeheartedly by Labour) points out how the US naval fleet emits less radiation than Auckland hospital does in a year. The nuclear propulsion ban is irrational and childish. Rational debate on this is almost impossible, as many on the left don't want it, and take an approach to risk management that the Greens love - prove it is safe. Well, on that basis nobody should ever use motorised transport, or eat almost anything.

^

Phil Goff's naive press release (honestly does he believe this crap? He's smarter than that) calls for worldwide nuclear disarmament. The simple truths are:

- Some countries will not disarm, even if others will. It would be foolish for our allies (US, UK and France) to disarm unilaterally, while other states that are not allies wont (China, Russia, North Korea).

- Verification of nuclear disarmament is impossible with dictatorial regimes, so any commitments cannot be confirmed independently. In other words, while Russia, China and Iran are authoritarian and non-transparent regimes, any agreement to disarm cannot be trusted.

- The ability to manufacture nuclear weapons will never go away.

^

In other words, until the End of History IS true, unilateral or multilateral disarmament by Western countries and Israel, of their nuclear deterrents is very unwise. If most countries co-existed peacefully without aggressive intent, without wanting to destroy other governments (like Iran, North Korea, Russia and China all do to greater or lesser extents), then nuclear weapons would be redundant. It wont happen because a peaceful country that threatens no one bans its allies from visiting with their vessels.

^

The number of nuclear weapons in the world declined significantly after New Zealand banned nuclear weapons/nuclear powered ships. You'd have to be mentally unhinged to believe the two events are linked. The reason it happened was because the USSR dismantled Marxism-Leninism, let go of its oppressive empire in eastern Europe and no longer threatened Western Europe, the USA and its Asian allies. Russia, the USA, France and the UK have all cut their arsenals. The USA and Russia by over half. It was Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher, George Bush senior, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin that did most for reducing nuclear arsenals

^

New Zealand can claim not one iota of credit for that.

The abolition of sedition

Something to celebrate!

^

"The Government introduced a Bill to Parliament today to abolish New Zealand's sedition laws. The Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill was introduced by Justice Minister Mark Burton who also tabled the Government's response to the Law Commission's report eforming the Law of Sedition.

^
The Bill will repeal and not replace sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act 1961, which sets out the seditious offences.

^
"The sedition provisions infringe on the principle of freedom of expression and have the potential for abuse," Mark Burton said.
^
"The Government agrees with the Law Commission's finding that the present law of sedition attacks the democratic value of free speech for no adequate public reason.""

^

Wonderful stuff, repealing law and not replacing it. A (rare) step forward in individual freedom, and I hope all parties in Parliament support it.

The real cause of African poverty

The Ayn Rand Institute has an excellent press release describing the true moral status of the claims of those who want the G8 to bail out Africa's poverty. Africa is not poor because we made it so.

^

It says:

^

"Africa is poor because it is rife with bloody tribalism and superstition--ideas that in the Dark Ages kept the Western world as poor, if not poorer, than today's Africa. If aid advocates were genuinely concerned with helping Africans, they would campaign for political and economic freedom, for individualism, reason and capitalism, for the ideas necessary to achieve prosperity."

^

Indeed, but what happens when Tony Blair meets Thabo Mbeke, a practitioner of superstition and backer (by deed if not word) of the murdering destructive Robert Mugabe? He says very little. South Africa is slowly but surely sliding down the path that destroyed Zimbabwe and did little for the rest of Africa. Talk of promoting property rights, individual freedom and rights is seen as "culturally inappropriate", when it is fundamental to human development, growth and prosperity.

^

Reason will save Africa, superstition, ethnic squabbling and corrupt kleptocracies will continue to milk Western aid for the benefit of few, whilst the majority scratch out a living.

^

Similarly, removing barriers to free trade to and from Africa (which means the West opening up and Africa opening up) will greatly reduce costs of doing business in Africa and open markets to African goods and services.

^

Most of those who say they care for Africa only demand money, money and more money, ignoring the families of African politicians who jet into Heathrow to go shopping at Harrods, staying in 5 star hotels. Wiping debt, only for new debt to be borrowed. Why not? It will be wiped again. As the Ayn Rand Institute points out:

^

"advocates barrage wealthy nations with reproaches and accusations of stinginess. Such abuse is necessary to induce the unearned guilt which impels Western leaders to do penance by sacrificing billions more in aid."

^

There is nothing wrong with private aid, donations through voluntary agencies who do genuine benevolent good work in such things as disease prevention, installing wells, education programmes and the like - directly helping those in need. However, the agenda that should be pursued should be primarily:

- Liberalise trade. The West can open up markets and stop subsiding exports into other markets that African countries cannot compete with;

- Isolate brutal regimes. Don't supply intergovernmental aid to those that do not reform, treat them with contempt and starve them of aid, debt and arms, so they can no longer persecute their people or live the high life off of them;

- Promote friendly relations with those who do work towards less corruption, transparent and independent judicial systems, enforcement of property rights and the advancement of reason.

She said the "n" word

Dare I make a big deal out of this, but UK Big Brother contestant "Emily" has been evicted in short notice from the Big Brother household for using the phrase ""Are you pushing it out, you nigger?" to contestant Charley while she was dancing.

^

Channel 4 is obviously very nervous.

^

On the side, I find it sad because Emily stated that she values education above anything else, and appears quite bright and articulate, and quite hot. Charley on the other hand is the perfect example of a parasitical nobody, unemployed living off of the income of her premier league footballer cousin who makes sure she can buy what she wants and goes to all the right parties. She is completely image obsessed and thinks she is special because she meets celebrities.

^

Here is a summary of the contestants, and seriously, most of them are not worth watching, except of course there is one man and (now) ten women, six of whom he could only even vaguely be interested in, probably one seriously (and she thinks Victoria Beckham is a role model!).

Helen Clark seeking the Pacific Islander vote

Just over a month ago someone very close to me passed away. He worked for many years in Pacific Island communities, working and living in the Pacific, and knew it well. He was a long serving teacher, Justice of the Peace, and known well and respected in various communities, Roman Catholic and Jewish. He worked long and hard hours, enjoying both teaching and his small business dealing in fine arts. Indeed, as a teacher he inspired several thousands over the years, some of whom are now working all over the world. He was a generous man, independently minded, well spoken, but also did not tolerate rudeness or those who wouldn’t take responsibility for themselves. He enjoyed a whisky, loved good food including steak, liked his toast hot fresh and dripping with butter. Indeed, he enjoyed a smoke in social circles.
*
However, Helen Clark didn’t go to his funeral, thankfully. He would have hated it, since she didn’t know him, and he despised her politics. However, he did a lot for the community and others, in fact I think he probably knew more about Pacific Island cultures (having lived on various islands for years) than Helen Clark.
*
No, she went to the funeral of a Pacific Island woman, whose claim to fame is dying because of a combination of her lifestyle (which was not adequately changed to take into account doctor’s advice), the public health system (which let her stay at home rather than remain in hospital, which was probably an error of judgment), and her family’s failure to pay the power bill and preference for praying rather than take her to hospital. A series of unfortunate but hardly unpreventable events.

*

Helen Clark spoke at Mrs Muliaga's funeral, as of course one does when you never knew the person who died. I simply don’t care about Mrs Muliaga’s death, I don’t have enough time or energy to grieve for those I didn’t know. Mrs Muliaga meant as much to me as the other 80 people who die in New Zealand every day. If it were different, I would never live, I’d grieve day after day, and it would show what little value I did have for those I DO love and care about.

*

How many more New Zealanders has Helen Clark met in the discharge of her duties whose funerals she will never go to? People of all ages who may have received awards and accolades, there will be thousands for the years she has been in Parliament.
*
Now you see what value Helen Clark puts on grief – it’s a PR stunt. Not content to let Mrs Muliaga’s family and friends grieve in peace, genuinely and honestly. It became a media circus, which Clark gleefully participated in.
*
A funeral is about grieving for someone you knew, whether close or as an acquaintance, but rather someone who had a personal impact upon your life. You need not have met the person, but you can respect some work the person has done, whether it be literature, art or something that meant something to you. It shouldn’t be about guilt or PR, which is what Helen Clark has done.
*
Clark said “What has been simply inspirational through these sad days has been the spirit of forgiveness that has radiated from this family - far more than could humanly be expected”. Inspirational how? How does Helen Clark intend to use this? Will she forgive Ian Wishart, Don Brash, the exclusive Brethren or anyone else she likes to vilify? I hardly think so. What sanctimonious rot. Will Helen Clark go to the funerals of crime victims? How about the funeral of those killed by dangerous driving? Will she find inspiration with every death?
*
Will Pacific Islanders rally towards Labour at the next election because of this nonsense? Helen Clark thinks so. How despicably patronising that like some colonial mistress she can trot along to a funeral, say some words as if she knew Mrs Muliaga, completely ignore that one of HER hospitals let her be discharged in her condition, and expect the Pacific Island community to go “oh that Miss Clark she’s so caring about us, we will vote Labour again next year”.
*
Regardless of the results of the Police inquiry, and indeed regardless of your personal views on blame regarding the cut off of power, Clark hopped on this sad death as a PR stunt.

*

UPDATE: Apparently Mr Muliaga invited Helen Clark to the funeral specifically. In that case she was welcomed, and it is inappropriate to criticise that specifically. However, outside of that case I do wonder if the PM will attend any funeral of New Zealanders that she did not personally know, that family members invite her to? What is the criteria by which the PM decides whether or not to attend funerals of people she did not know?

5-0

Well done Team New Zealand, winning the Louis Vuitton Cup, in what is almost certainly the first government sponsored syndicate in America's Cup history (which also happens to help Emirates in its publicity efforts).

^

You ought to cheer, it is your victory even if you didn't like yachting, Helen made sure you were forced to pay.

Recycling con - I told you so

Back in July 2006 I mentioned how contaminated paper can't be recycled, and have commented about the fascist lengths that some councils in Britain go to in criminalising people who don't follow the, what I call, faith based initiative of recycling.

^

I asked that it was about time that someone fisked this in the mainstream UK media, and The Times has:

^

The issues are:

- Combining recyclable materials making it inefficient and wasteful to separate them out, leading to cases such as "A paper recycling company in Kent is sending to landfill 9,000 tons a year of cans, bottles and plastics. These have been mixed up with the paper and the firm does not have the capability to process them. " and "A Warrington-based aluminium processor, regarded as a world leader in its field, is regularly rejecting British waste because it is so poorly sorted".

- Contaminated recyclable material which is virtually unusable. "Britain’s biggest glass recycling company is sending tons of glass to roadfill because it is so contaminated. ".

^

Recycling has always happened, it has long been efficient to recycle car bodies, aircraft fuselage, unsold newspapers and magazines, and glass bottles if people hand them in. However, the obsession with recycling has a fervour surrounding it that means if you don't recycle some see you as an "environmental vandal".

^

Don't forget:

- Paper is biodegradable, it is produced from a renewable resource (trees);

- Glass is made from silicon, which the second most abundant element on earth. Silicon comes from sand, ask yourself how scarce that is;

- If recycling everything made economic sense, it would be happening by now, and don't say there is an environmental cost, until you've costed it. The environment cost of landfills is not infinite, despite the Green rhetoric.

Peace protests against Russia perhaps?

"It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the US is located in Europe and will be threatening us, we will have to respond. This system of missile defence on one side and the absence of this system on the other . . . increases the possibility of unleashing a nuclear conflict" so said Russian President Vladimir Putin in an interview with The Times.

^

Part of the strategic nuclear potential of the US has been located in Europe for decades, but then so has the Russian one, and still is. The missile defence system is aimed mainly at rogue states (Iran in particular) but Russia is, after all, not always that friendly and far from being a friend of liberal constitutional democracy and rule of law. Putin is dreaming if he thinks the US might attack, but then Putin is propping up a Stalinist dictatorship in Belarus and continues to play his strong man card against more open regimes in Ukraine and Georgia.

^

I'm looking forward to the so-called peace movement organising protest marches with Russian flags to burn, outside Russian embassies at Putin's sabre rattling. However, it almost never in its history of protesting nuclear weapons would ever confront Russia or the USSR - which spoke volumes about its true agenda, largely hidden to many of its supporters (and well known to Moscow, which in the Cold War delighted to watch protests at Western nuclear facilities, given that any totalitarian regime can avoid such inconveniences).

^

The US missile defence system if put in place in Poland and the Czech Republic, should not surprise Russia. After all, the Soviet Union invaded and occupied those countries with its puppet regimes from not long after World War 2 until 1989, when Gorbachev declared they were on their own - and like the meek little cowardly bullies those regimes were, they fell. Poles and Czechs may rightly feel somewhat fearful of the bear to the east, which has done little for it - the liberation from Nazism was like going from the fire to the frying pan.

^

Putin concluded "We have brought all our heavy weapons beyond the Urals and reduced our military forces by 300,000. But what do we have in return? we see that Eastern Europe is being filled with new equipment, two positions in Bulgaria and Romania, as well as radar in the Czech Republic, and missile systems in Poland. What is happening? Unilateral disarmament of Russia is happening".

^

and Mr. Putin, if you think there is any appetite by the Western world to attack you, you're dreaming. Bulgaria and Romania lost two generations to a previous version of Russian imperialism, why should you be surprised that it is suspicious of Russia?

Some answers to Jeanette's questions

"Firstly, at what level did they plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions and who will the get permits?"

None, as a country with a growing population and economy, it would be unwise for the state to set as a goal capping greenhouse gas emissions, which may cost the standing of living of the population. Most countries in the world are not intending to restrict economic growth because of this one environmental concern, neither should New Zealand - but the government should adopt economic policies that get out of the way of environmentally friendly developments and end the socialist way that some key infrastructure (especially roads) are managed, funded and charged for. This will benefit the economy and the environment.

^

"Secondly, how much bigger are they prepared to allow the dairy industry to grow given its damaging effects on water quality, water allocation and climate change?"

^

Given that the New Zealand dairy industry has a lower climate change impact than the dairy industries of many other countries, as much as it can grow without state intervention. Issues of water supply will be dealt with by the privatisation of waterways through farms and the institution of property rights over water. This will incentivise the cleaning up of rivers and streams. If you don't want the dairy industry to grow, then stop drinking milk and eating cheese, yoghurt et al.

^

The statement that "Climate Change is the biggest looming threat to our economy and our civilisation" is sheer nonsense. The biggest looming threat is a failure to achieve agreement at Doha on trade liberalisation and a new wave of environmentally driven protectionism on trade and travel, that effectively destroys many export markets and the tourist industry.

^

“The third question for John Key asks what he intends to do about the people he has labelled as the ‘underclass’. Will you make a public commitment now that benefits levels will not be cut and the conditions for receiving them will not be made more stringent under any government you lead? Will workers still enjoy the options of seeking collective agreements? Will the minimum wage be frozen at the level you inherit or will it continue to rise? Will we see bulk funding or vouchers introduced in education?”

^

How about cut taxes, make the first $10,000 everyone earns tax free in the first budget. Cut GST from 12.5% to 10%. In other words, let people have all of their money while they struggle on low incomes.

^

What do you intend to do about the underclass, Jeanette, with your own time and money? Answer that question before you force others to spend theirs.

^

Benefits should be kept at current nominal levels and eligibility be tightened as the economy grows. Time limits on benefits would be helpful. What have benefits done for many of the underclass other than give a whole cross section a lack of motivation to do anything other than persist in their situation? Why is it caring to force New Zealanders who work hard for themselves and their families to pay for those who do not?

^

Of course workers will have the options of seeking collective agreements and individual ones, we are not into banning things like you are.

^

The minimum wage should be abolished as an incentive to encouraging more jobs, especially seasonal unskilled work like picking fruit. We don't believe in banning jobs.

^

There should be vouchers in education as a first step. You'll be surprised, Jeanette, how the underclass often do want their kids to do well, to be well educated, but find the schools which treat all kids the same aren't that good. They want to choose the education their children have - "their" children, not yours, not the state's. You're doe eyed naivety that all schools should offer equal education is about as brainless as expecting all rental homes to be of a similar standard or all restaurants. Vouchers are one step forward, and by the way, private and integrated schools should be set free to set their own curricula. Parents, by and large, can make the best decisions for their kids on this, despite what you think.

Finally, food miles under attack

Front page of the Sunday Telegraph and a large feature inside it raises the point that has been made all along on this blog and elsewhere, that food miles are an inaccurate measure of the environment impact of food production and distribution - but one that the inefficient European farming sector (propped up as it is by tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers' funds) milks. I shouldn't put all European farms on the same level, it is fairly clear those in the east are more efficient, since they get a fraction of the subsidies of French farms.

^

The point is made that:

^

British lamb takes, on average, 2849kg of C02 for every tonne raised

New Zealand lamb takes, on average, 688kg of C02 for every tonne raised including shipping it to the UK

^

British apples are "greener" in autumn and winter, but not in spring and summer when importing them from New Zealand is better than keeping stock in storage.

^

A similar story applies to lettuces, tomatoes and strawberries, as the growing season for such veges and fruit is short in Britain, requiring heated greenhouses. It is better to import them from Spain.

^

Even importing beans by air from Kenya or Uganda is more environmentally friendly than growing locally.

^

However, onions can be grown in the UK for 14kg less C02 per tonne than importing from NZ.

^

Still, it's a start in breaking down this nonsense about food miles. Some of the details are listed here. The Guardian reports the same point, with no figures or mention of NZ.

^

The solution is cold turkey on the CAP step by step:

1. Eliminate all export subsidies by the EU (stop distorting foreign markets by your protected grub);

2. Eliminate all non-tariff barriers to agricultural imports in the EU (quotas and specific bans);

3. Put a ceiling of 100% on all agricultural tariffs ratcheting down to 75%, 50% and 25% each year, do the same to subsidies capping them in nominal terms and reducing them annually to zero.

^

Meanwhile Sarkozy threatens to veto WTO talks over agriculture - see he isn't Thatcher after all.

Clark and Tizard on power

It's outrageous Clark has waded in on this, judging the contractor so quickly, instantly believing one version of events - but then she is Prime Minister and should be expected to have opinions on everything her subjects do.

^

However I did laugh with this comment:

^

"Labour MP Judith Tizard said when she was on the Auckland Electric Power Board from 1977-1983, it had a no-disconnections policy in cases when people genuinely could not afford to pay the bill."

^

So you might ask why Auckland had a blackout due to underinvestment in its network some years ago?

^

Desperately blaming the Nats for this - because of commercialisation of electricity, something that started under Labour, in fact Clark was in Cabinet at the time. Never mind it has nothing to do with that, never mind that it was a state owned enterprise that took over a locally owned company.

^

Name one thing Judith Tizard has done for Auckland, and cutting ribbons on road projects that had nothing to do with her doesn't count.

Anti-globalisation protesters are communists

The usual travelling roadshow of naive young dreamers and old-fashioned hate filled socialists are causing trouble in Rostock, Germany, protesting the G8 summit. It should be noted Rostock is in the former GDR, which had the Stalinist regime of Erich Honecker until 1989. The flying of the hammer and sickle flags there, when millions were watched and thousands imprisoned, tortured and murdered for questioning the GDR regime is disgusting.

^

The rather inane BBC is talking about far left groups as if they are benign compared to far right groups. The communists protesting at the G8 are no better than neo-nazis, both back the oppressive use of state violence to tell people what to do and what not to do.

^

There are reasons to protest at the G8. You could protest:

^

1. Russia's continued slide towards authoritarianism.

2. The impoverishment of primary producers throughout the world due to heavy protectionism for agriculture by Japan, the EU and the USA, and the negative environmental impacts of that protectionism.

3. The unwillingness of the G8 to get the Doha round to make much progress in liberalising world trade (a major step towards lifting standards of living).

^

The protestors are intellectually vapid. Poverty in African is largely due to governments in Africa being corrupt kleptocracies in many cases, more than happy to use aid to pay for their families to go on shopping trips in Knightsbridge, London. These countries do little to protect property rights (necessary for people to protect what they produce and own, and without that poverty exists) or have independent judiciaries and police. It also isn't helped by the lack of free trade in primary products, as the EU and USA subsidise exports of agriculture undermining the export competitiveness of many other countries, and block or highly tax imports from those countries.

^

The protestors current pinup boy Hugo Chavez is now into shutting down broadcasters that disagree with him - the lack of interest in this by many on the left speaks volumes.

Urophilia or watersports

David Farrar has posted wisely on this, and I add just a few points:

^

1. The acts depicted in the DVDs imported by the man concerned are legal, in real life. Anyone could undertake them in the comfort of their home and there is no crime committed. What the law does is criminalise the photographing, filming or even writing about it, and also criminalises those viewing any of the above. Yes urophilia erotic stories are a crime in New Zealand, though you'll find ample at Alt Sex Stories website, because, you see, such stories are legal in the United States (you know that bastion of Christian conservatism - the Constitution guarantees it as free speech).

^

If you want to ban viewing acts that are legal in real life, then perhaps you should lobby to ban anyone peeing on any one else for sexual purposes, and that opens up a whole range of potential bans. Ones that religious conservatives, whether christian, muslim or others, would no doubt enjoy, but which would be a fascist imposition upon the private lives of consenting adults. Adults own their bodies, the state does not. I've known more than one woman who has said she likes watersports.

^

2. Even regardless of legal status, urophilia (assuming it is consensual) is a victimless crime. Just because it is not something you would do, is not something that others should be stopped or criminalised from doing, let alone criminalised for reading about it or watching others do it. No doubt threesomes offend plenty of people, as does men dressing as women, women dressing as schoolgirls for sexual titillation of men, masturbating with stuffed toys, or indeed relatively common sex acts like fellatio and cunnilingus (if you need a link to find what they are then you shouldn't be searching).

^

I remember when Libertarianz raised this very point when the Film Videos and Publications Classification Bill was in Parliament, pointing out how absurd it was that these acts are legal but depictions of them are illegal, and that pornography of urophilia is very widely available online because it is legal in the USA and many continental European countries.

^

The response to this was that David Cunliffe simply went into a tyrade of "why should we do what the USA does" in an insulting rant, instead of debating the point. In other words, he lived up to the silent T in his surname. The point is, of course, that no MP wants to be known as a defender of free speech, for people who want to watch videos of those peeing. In fact the penalties were raised for producing or viewing urophilia, because it is in the same category as child pornography - being objectionable - which is absurd!

^

However, the businessman in question is now getting his life ruined because Labour and National MPs prefer to side with the likes of Brian Tamaki. Even the Greens have said nothing and they like to claim they are "liberal" - my arse!

^

Censorship law should simply be a reflection of criminal law, in that those who record real crimes with or as the offender are accessories to the crime, and the recording is evidence. Urophilia is not a crime, and any depictions of it should be nobody else's business. Otherwise you believe in patrolling people's bedrooms!

Tfl incompetence

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

I can put it down to either:

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

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

^

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

Removing accountability for highway funding

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

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

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

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

^

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

What's next

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

Some simple questions....

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

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

Why is air pollution in Timaru worse than in London?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is there no history department at Rongotai College?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is time to suck the marrow out of life.

Sarkozy isn't Thatcher

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blair wont be too upset

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

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

Headlines

Scottish voting turmoil, ballot counting disaster.

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

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

Liberal Democrats lose councillors, largely sidelined.

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

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

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

English share of the vote:

Conservatives 41%

Labour 27%

Lib Dems 26%

Others 6%

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

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

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

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

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

UKIP has been virtually irrelevant.

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

Off I go

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

The Union or nationalism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memories

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

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

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

those are things you would say

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

It was...

listening to Bach, Beethoven, Rimsky Korsakov, Wagner

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

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

sharing moments of grief, delight and laughter

while sipping fine Scotch or brandy

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

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

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

my mentor, my friend, my lifelong inspiration.

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

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

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

Farewell you beautiful man.

Tyranny of distance

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

Stupid celebrities

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

^

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

^

Play your music and shut the fuck up

Anzac Day

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

^

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

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

Regional petrol tax (sigh) again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

^

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

nрощальное Boris

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

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

^

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

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

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