ACT on education, some hope?

Well ACT bloggers think so, although until I hear some details about policies I wont be getting too excited. Having said that I AM pleased to read that one of the policies will be education choice. Sir Roger Douglas has talked of "scholarships" for all kids. If ACT could just get that implemented, in a coalition with National - it could make a positive difference to education for the good. National on the other hand, will do nothing - like it did in the 1990s when it had the perfect chance to battle the teachers' unions and win.

Education is the one area where the damage wrought by the state is most apparent. The centrally planned and funded education system, which seeks to churn out kids production line is NOT a system for the 21st century. It is one of the three main areas of state activity that was NOT properly reformed in the '80s and '90s. Outside paying either for location or fees, most parents have little option but to send their kids to the local school - like it or not. They all pay taxes and get wildly different results.

The teachers' unions oppose school choice because it devolves authority from Wellington to schools, it means funding follows pupils, and means that schools will be driven to make their own choices about teachers, teachers' pay and how they differentiate themselves. The unions have left clout and monopoly power if the decisions are up to schools. The nonsense that teachers can't be subject to pay based on performance can be confronted. Teachers' unions argue they only do their best with what kids they get - and that they can't be blamed if the kids they get from low income areas don't do well. This is a blatant obfuscation of reality. Parents and kids know good teachers from bad - the ones that inspire kids, the ones that cause them to want to go to school, or that class, and who clearly demonstrate improvements. They also know the bad teachers who don't communicate, who aren't interested in extending the kids, who don't inspire and who do as little as they can.

By and large, most parents care a great deal about their kids' education. It is not good enough to repeat the nonsense socialist fairytale that "we wouldn't need school choice if all schools were excellent". Much like we wouldn't need choice in brands of car, or clothes, or food. It isn't going to happen. Some schools will be badly run, some will be excellent. Some teachers are abysmal, some are extraordinary. That's right PPTA and NZEI, some of your members shouldn't be teaching!

The big question should be - why SHOULDN'T parents choose what school their kids go to, and why SHOULDN'T taxpayer funding follow the child? We have had nine years of fully centralised funding under Labour to make the schools "equal". That is enough, it is time for New Zealand to take the baby steps towards more choice and accountability that have worked in such bastions of the unfettered free market as ... Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands.

No doubt the PPTA and NZEI will go on strike - showing clearly how much they really care about the education of children. They will go on strike because they fear losing members who are incompetent, and schools hiring teachers that are competent but aren't members. They fear accountability, and fear the power shifting from bureaucrats and politicians, to parents.

No, vouchers/scholarships wont be enough. No, it wont free up education from the fetters of bureaucracy and the ideology of self sacrifice, collectivism and statism that is part of the curriculum. It wont mean all kids can go to an integrated or private school, as some will have fees beyond the value of a voucher - but more will be able to, without paying twice like they do now.

There is little hope under the current environment for any other steps forward in education. I can only hope that if ACT can ever do anything if it ever is in power with National, it is this one thing.

Bureaucracy cutting: so many possibilities

One can do nothing but laugh at those who think National’s policy for not growing the bureaucracy will cause chaos and ruin. Besides being a bit wimpish, the truth is that far too many in the public sector are far from over worked and even more simply do things that are fundamentally useless.

I spent several years in the state sector, observing officials from many departments and seeing the differences in culture between them. There were always some hard working ones, and of them, some were heavily misguided – undertaking tasks that, with all honesty, did no good at all. One was to register postal operators.

Despite all the best efforts of the officials at the time, MPs, against advice, decided that when postal services were deregulated in 1998 it couldn’t be allowed for new companies to simply set up and carry mail. No. Because the Police were concerned that (wait for it) drug dealers could set up competing mail operators and use these services to distribute drugs (because you’d do that wouldn’t you?), a handful of MPs caved into pressure and decided that every company that wanted to carry mail had to be registered with what is now the Ministry of Economic Development.

This registration process includes, believe it or not, a Police vetting. That Police vetting is to ensure the director of the postal company has not been convicted of a range of criminal offences, excluding murder and rape. You can not carry mail if you have ever been convicted for possessing cannabis, but if you committed murder you can.

By the way none of this applies to couriers or trucking companies, only postal operators. Of course, drug dealers and fraudsters were all keen to get into the mail business weren't they?

It’s all completely absurd.

This is only one type of ridiculous bureaucracy that exists. There are many more throughout the public sector. The creation of endless “strategies” is another. Search the word "strategy" at govt.nz and you'll find one that is applicable to you - that you were not consulted on and which is trying to get people to do all sorts of things.

Imagine if a bureaucrat had developed an "online strategy" 20 years ago - would have been brilliant wouldn't it? You wouldn't be reading blogs now would you? You might have had to go to a community resource centre to access terminals with a central database of government supplied information.

So there are many ways to cut the state sector that National could pursue, although it might face some questioning about the one I just mentioned. Since it was something National approved when it was in coalition with NZ First.

The world watches Tibet

How much blood will China spill in advance of the Beijing Olympics?

2008 for China was meant to be a year to celebrate. Celebrate pride in extraordinary levels of economic development, and increases in standards of living for most people in China. China's coming of age, being the third biggest economy in the world (behind the USA and Japan) should see the Olympics being a showcase of a modern China, with pride.

China has faced a couple of challenges so far. One, regarding its foreign policy in Sudan, has moved somewhat. Another, is the heavy pollution remaining in Beijing - which bodes poorly for the Olympics.

but now it is Tibet. However, the primary issue for Tibet is not so much independence, which even the Dalai Lama does not seek now, but the treatment of Tibetans. The Dalai Lama seeks the same special status as Hong Kong, which would, of course, be a tremendous advancement. Sadly Tibetans face the restrictions on free speech, racism of the Han Chinese, and the fascism and corruption of the Communist Party run state that is found throughout China. Tibetans should have the right to oppose those governing them, to highlight abuses and corruption, and to be treated equally as Han Chinese by the state.

So China's Communist Party led government is trying to balance between suppressing what it sees as unacceptable dissent and challenges to its rule, and not appearing to be bloodthirsty.

China knows only too well that if it attempts another Tiananmen Square type massacre it risks boycotts of the Olympics, if not at the official level at least by individual athletes. The loss of face would be considerable. However, the West also knows the risks of offending China. Burma is easy - it is small, and can be boycotted and protested against with little cost. China is big, and it can do whatever it likes, knowing it is too valuable to too many countries to offend it.

The Daily Telegraph is carrying images of the protests, as Tibetan protestors attack Chinese premises. Many Tibetans are incensed at the Chinese takeover of the province, as Chinese are offered considerable incentives to relocate.

China will be restrained till it can take no more, as it has shown it is very willing to oppress when the rule of the bullies in the Communist Party seems threatened. If it does, then it is time to send China a message - you cannot aspire to be a global power and treat your citizens with impunity. It is not civilised.

The Communist Party and its handmaidens, the "People's Liberation Army" are fascist bullies - they seek only to tell their people what to do, push them around, arresting and executing if they get in the way. China deserves better, but for now China should consider what it has done in Hong Kong and Macau. Both regions of China now have freedoms that are unrivalled in many of China's neighbours - Tibet could be the same.

If the Communist Party set Tibet free it would suddenly dissipate an enormous amount of criticism, but at the risk of protests appearing elsewhere in China. If the killing and arrests continue, then Beijing does not deserve to host the games - it should be boycotted. The Olympics are about friendship, sport and peaceful interaction - the Chinese Communist Party led regime lies to its own people and the world, while spilling blood. That is not a fit venue for the Olympics.

Bailey's chance: our gamble

So if Bailey Kurariki gets set free, and offends again, should the victim be able to sue the state for getting it wrong that he "is very unlikely to reoffend on release"?

He apparently will get a job in the forestry industry. Yes I'd like a murderer to have access to chainsaws, saws, heavy equipment. Also an industry rife with a drug problem in certain parts of the country.

He's found "God", a bit later than when he forced Michael Choy to find out if "God" exists or not. So will Bailey tithe half of his incomes to Michael Choy's mother to compensate her?

Unfortunately he will be set free, and the outlook can't be that positive as the NZ Herald reports:

Canterbury University criminologist Dr Greg Newbold said Maori focus units helped to give young people focus and a sense of identity but the positive effects were not always long-lasting.

"It's generally the case that people come out of those kinds of units absolutely positive and feeling great with terrific ideas, but when they come out in the real world the influence of their experiences in the focus units easily evaporates."

Dr Newbold said in Bailey's case it was "a great big question mark, a dirty big guess" as to whether he would reoffend, and statistics were not encouraging.

He said 90 per cent of under-20-year-olds released from prison reoffended within five years

If he blows it, he should be back - for life. That means life. Bailey, you get a second chance because the justice system lets you - you should get no other.

and don't have kids. Seriously, you can't be a parent if your own life isn't in order, and you wont know that for at least ten to twenty years.

The saddest part of this is the message it sends to young criminals - kill a man and within seven years you can be out and free. Cool eh bro?

Want to make Air NZ uncompetitive?

So Air NZ pays its Shanghai based crew less than the NZ ones. I am sure the UK based ones get paid more. It's called a market, and presumably there was no shortage of good quality applicants in Shanghai. I guess those on the left will want pay parity - always to the highest level, which would mean paying them all like UK crew - which would kill off the routes to China for starters, and then probably kill off much of Air NZ's business.

You see the routes to China are not particularly profitable - largely because the planes are used mostly by Chinese tourists paying for the cheap seats - there is little business class demand between NZ and China. So to take advantage of this market Air NZ needs to keep costs low.

The alternative is to tell Air NZ to pay the same rate - make the routes uneconomic - and then a Chinese airline will fly back in to take advantage of the growing business, undoubtedly paying even less than Air NZ.

Meanwhile those in China who don't want these jobs could refuse of course, and China isn't exactly suffering from economic malaise. The idea that those living in Shanghai are being exploited when they are paid generous wages by local standards is a nonsense - though I doubt the Greens will catch trains all the time in protest!

Yes that's how those on the left would let it happen. Winners right?

IKEA not allowed because it would succeed

Blair Mulholland has this one dead right:

"New Zealand once again proves it is a retarded, inbred backwater of drooling, xenophobic hicks"
.
Yes, according to the New Zealand Herald the Environment Court has stopped IKEA locating at a complex in Auckland because...
.
It would be TOO successful. It would "generate traffic" (you know cars would appear out of the road spontaneously, it wouldn't be people wanting to buy something they like).
.
Can't have that can we? A successful business is loathesome. Better to reopen a railway line that will lose money than allow a successful business that attracts people to drive to it. Maybe if people carry their flatpack furniture on a train?
.
Of course the Environment Court couldn't think to blame the owner of the roads in this case, Auckland City Council, for failing to manage them properly either by not building enough capacity or failing to toll them at busy times to spread demand - no. IKEA is to blame when it is successful. IKEA pays, and so do Aucklanders who might work or shop there.
.
Well fine. as Blair said so eloquently:
.
"I'd love to blame this malaise on the Labour Party, but this one is National's baby. Fuck you very much, Simon Upton. Not even your current country of residence, noted for its fortress mentality and xenophobia, has laws this retarded and draconian. So lucky you for not having to live here and deal with the consequences. I bet they have Ikea in Paris, you bastard. I hope you choke on your croissants."
.
and so look at this New Zealand. Those who might have jobs at IKEA, or have family who might have had jobs there, as well as those who might have shopped there. THIS is what the RMA does, THIS is what Labour thinks of success, THIS is what National will do nothing about and THIS is what the Green Party cheers on - it's the philosophy of zero growth.

.

UPDATE: Elliot Who and Not PC have blogged similarly.

What might ACT do?

ACT's annual conference is coming up and, given the swing against the government, it will hope that it can ride a part of that trend. However, it has an uphill battle.

ACT has done best when it looks like National can't win. That being 1996, 1999 and 2002. In 2005 ACT's vote collapsed because most ACT voters saw more hope in National under Don Brash AND because the election was such a close call. Now it has a chance to differentiate itself and sell the message that National WILL be the next government - but it needs a coalition partner to ensure it shrinks the state. The problem is that most of ACT's supporters are so keen to ensure Labour is defeated that they will want to vote National. Unless a National victory is pretty seen to be a sure thing, ACT does not face much chance of improving its vote.

Some of us hoped ACT under Rodney Hide would be more freedom oriented than before, that it could combine it laudable enthusiasm for economic liberalism with social liberalism. Sadly it has shown only limited signs of this, although the vote against banning BZP is a positive one.

So what SHOULD ACT do? Well it is very clear that with the removal of Don Brash National has moved to the left, closer to Labour than it has been for a long time. ACT should have the field wide open, with a wide range of policy choices it can put forward.

So here is a go, and no it's not radical, it's all rather minimal actually:

1. One law for all: Abolition of the Maori seats and abolition of all race based funding and legislation. Simple, it was National policy and it should be ACT's. The state should be colourblind.

2. Low flat tax: The surpluses, although wasted by Labour, could easily sustain a combination of introducing a tax free threshold and dropping the 39% and 33% income tax rates, with company tax to match.

3. Eliminating unnecessary bureaucracies: ACT should easily argue to abolish plenty of departments and agencies, from the Families Commission, to the Commissioner for Children, Ministry of Culture and Heritage, Pacific Island Affairs, Youth Affairs and so on.

4. Protecting property rights: Ideally scrapping the RMA, but at least introducing the primacy of private property rights into it over everything else. More importantly, restoring Telecom's property rights over its own infrastructure.

5. Privatisation: Proudly stating the state should not own businesses, whether it be rail, electricity, television, coal mining or the like. Allowing the private sector to finance, build and own new roads when they see it as being economic.

6. Choice in health and education: ACC is the easy one, opening all accounts up to competition. Education could start with vouchers and setting all schools free to govern themselves and set their own curricula. Health could see a shift towards an insurance model with a dedicated portion of income tax for health - which you could opt out of in favour of private insurance. The status quo is failing and only radical change will improve that. These measures are tried and proven elsewhere in the world.

7. Repealing victimless crimes: Blasphemy, the ban on BZP, bans on cigar advertising, the list is long - but it is about working towards getting nanny state out of our lives. I don't expect ACT to advocate legalising drugs entirely, but I could expect it to advocate decriminalising private usage by adults on their own property. I expect shop trading laws to be liberalised. I also expect repeal of human rights legislation, except for state agencies.

8. Reforming welfare: Time limits for all benefits, shifting the DPB to an alimony/contract model, reviewing sickness beneficaries to consider what they COULD do, allowing state housing tenants to have first option on their homes before they are sold, making at least the first $5000 tax free, no benefits for convicted violent criminals. Eliminating "Working for Families" in favour of tax cuts. What matters is weaning people off of state welfare.

9. Fight real crime: Demand accountability from the Police, preventive detention for the dangerous, and deny custody of children from convicted child abusers, rapists and serious violent offenders.

10. Ringfence local government: Repeal the "power of general competence" and constrain all councils to specific so called "public goods". Cap rates and require councils to phase out activities such as business subsidies, housing, arts and other non core activities.

It's a start, and not libertarian, but it would be a point of difference from National and a move in a right direction.

Racism on the left

Now imagine if a Maori dominated company was overseas and seeking to buy shares in a company - imagine if a national of that country said that after lowering the value of that investment "The fact that it may annoy the Maoris is just icing on the cake"

Yet Idiot Savant is saying just that - except it is about Canadians. Yes, annoying Canadians is a GOOD thing. Evil Canadians. You see, it's ok to be racist on the left as long as you are racist when a handful of the people of that nationality want to legally buy shares in an airport in your country. The British National Party would agree wouldn't they?

No doubt he would claim this ISN'T racist. However it IS racist to want the New Zealand Parliament made up of seats that represent one people by party vote and by electorates determined by demographics and geography, not race.

Confused? Well you can't ask him directly on his blog, but it is a peculiar kind of reality evasion that the left undertakes when it refuses to be TRULY colourblind.

I am. I don't care about whether one is foreign or not, or Maori or not. It is the behaviour and what an individual advocates that concerns me.

So many on the left claim to be anti-racist, but have a deep suspicion of foreigners who do business, and positively embrace racism by those they deem "oppressed". I guess if you think of people as pigeonholed in groups, then it is hard to give up a habit.

Yet another victimless crime.

Stuff reports that Labour, National, NZ First, United Future and Jim Anderton have all voted to ensure you can no longer legally choose to ingest BZP. Well done Jim Anderton for pursuing a crusade driven in part by his own personal tragedy - and being blinded to alternatives, and National's most vapid MP - Jacqui Dean, for engaging in a piece of personal fascism.
.

Good for ACT - at last - standing up for personal freedom and voting against it.
.

Good also on the Greens and the Maori Party, the latter being a surprise given the views of some of its MPs on banning tobacco.
.

Nanny State has extended her tentacles to another substance that adults can ingest - and the National Party was a leading cheerleader. This alone should demonstrate to lovers of individual freedom that National IS no friend of freedom. It does so in the face of pitiful evidence of any benefits from the ban, as fisked so well on Not PC recently by MikeE.
.

However perhaps the inane statement of the day comes from Damien O'Connor - the truly switched on Labour MP for West Coast-Tasman - "I believe that party pills will virtually disappear from New Zealand following the enactment of this bill," he said.
.

Much like cannabis, ecstasy, P and all other drugs have.
.

Meanwhile the jobs from the BZP industry will either disappear or be transferred to the criminal fraternity - and those who consume it now face the risk of it being poorer quality, higher priced and being distributed along with a whole host of other drugs.
.

Now it's naughty and illegal too. However I wonder if ANY of those MPs who voted to ban it have tried it? If they haven't, why not?

British budget - just more taxes

British Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling has released his first budget and it's about tax.

Sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco are up, and the extortionate fuel tax will be up in 6 months (in the UK over 80% of fuel tax does not go on roads).

New taxes are imposed on new cars - a "showroom tax" on all new vehicles, rated at CO2 emission levels. Of course taxing new cars means it is cheaper to keep an older car for longer, increasing net emissions - but this is about tax.

A tax on plastic bags also has nothing backing up whether it will generate net benefits for the country - just an excuse for more tax, with the money going into an environmental charity slush fund. Set one up today to take advantage of it!

Then there is the "non dom" tax. Non domiciles resident in the UK for more than 7 years will have to pay £30,000 to retain their status, or face being taxed on their overseas income. That will undoubtedly have a negative effect on London's status as a world financial capital.

On the other side there is more money for the military because of the cost of commitments in Iraq, and more money on welfare - allegedly to relieve child poverty, but I guess others can make judgments as to how much extra welfare is spent on children, and not on the higher cost of alcohol and tobacco. Pensioners get more money to subsidise their energy bills (yes its funny that the compulsory state pension that you can't inherit isn't one to survive on).

and all this with £43 billion in borrowing. The UK has a huge budget deficit and growing state debt. The prospects for that being addressed in the near future are very slim indeed while Labour continues to grow the state sector.

So why overthrow the Taliban?

It takes a bit for me to agree with both Peter Dunne and Idiot Savant, but the case of Afghan student Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh is compelling.

One reason I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of the Taliban was to liberate the Afghani people from Islamist oppression. Unfortunately, instead of invading, occupying and introducing open liberal values and government, the coalition, including New Zealand, allowed a less radical form of Islamism to take over.

That is where Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh comes in. He faces the death penalty for blasphemy, for the simple act of writing an article questioning the treatment of women in the Koran. Afghanis should have free speech and should be able to debate matters of religion and morality. It is abhorrent and unconscionable for Afghanistan to murder someone for saying something that offends many.

What is worse is that New Zealand has troops there, defending the current regime. As Idiot Savant says "We wouldn't support Iran's rabid theocracy with troops; why are we supporting Afghanistan's?"

Indeed. It is time for all of the New Zealand Parliament to condemn this, for the government to raise this with the Afghani government, and demand that the sentence be commuted. Indeed apparently Condoleezza Rice and David Miliband have both raised the issue on behalf of the US and the UK.

Otherwise, all we have done is gotten rid of a set of aggressors against the West in favour of a set of aggressors against their own people.

Muldoon's back with more subsidies

Back in the bad old days of Rob Muldoon, industries would clamour for a subsidy or a tariff or import quota, to protect them, promote exports or help “encourage jobs and innovation”. Those days were largely gone after the fourth Labour government, which ruthlessly purged corporate welfare partly to save taxpayers’ money, but also to ensure a “level playing field” with the government not “picking winners”.

After an initial shock, most businesses accepted that with the government out of the game of dishing out subsidies and protectionism there was no longer the need to lobby for such things and business could get on with producing and selling.

However, this started to be eroded with Jim Anderton converting the largely policy advisory Ministry of Commerce into the more interventionist subsidy Ministry of Economic Development. The “winners” picked by Jim Anderton’s subsidy machine – NZ Trade and Enterprise – are probably not worth looking at too closely, when you write off the losers. Of course since you didn’t want to “invest” in those businesses anyway, you were the loser either way.

Now according to the NZ Herald Labour is throwing $700 million of your money away on the food and pastoral sectors to promote innovation. Business NZ Chief Executive Phil O’Reilly responds to this by saying “This is an excellent model for commercialising research, based on research-industry collaboration”.

Commercialising? Since when it is commercial to use taxpayers’ money, which might otherwise have been used by OTHER businesses for their innovation?

Nobody would argue with innovation by business, but wouldn’t it be simpler to just forget subsidies and cut company tax some more? For starters, how about a company tax rate of 15% (half that of Australia, and lets bring income taxes down to match)? How much innovation might THAT bring?

Meanwhile National, showing a growing pattern of "me to" ism, has a press release saying "National Party Leader John Key says National will make a significant increase in funding for agricultural research and development, but it does not support the model announced by Labour today.... We will make long-term funding commitments that provide certainty to the sector because we see it as a way of lifting productivity and helping to make New Zealand a smarter nation."

Um, how about letting businesses keep more of their own money? "knock knock" any policy innovation at the National Party?

Easter Sunday is for individuals not politicians

As is far too often the case, the Greens show their flagrant hypocrisy regarding their principle of "non violence" . You see, violence is ok for the Greens, as long as it is performed by the state pushing people around the way THEY like it.

My response to Sue Bradford's press release saying "Easter Sunday is for families not finance" is "Easter Sunday is for individuals not politicians".

Sue wants to prosecute shopkeepers, including sole proprietorships, that open on Easter Sunday - because she thinks the shopkeepers should "be with their families". How dare she!

Sue wants Labour Department goons, which taxpayers are forced to pay for, to WORK on a Sunday (what about their families Sue?) to find businesses - private businesses - not ones Sue owns, risks money on, works on - to charge, prosecute and fine. Non-violence? Bullshit!

Of course Sue isn't concerned about businesses, they only create jobs. She pours out concern for employees she claims are "forced" to work on Easter Sunday. How are they forced Sue? Would someone arrest them if they didn't work then? How many employees WANT to work then so they can have a different day off during the week? Doesn't matter to Sue, she knows best.

Here are some simple points Sue, which chop through your weasel words about "community" which are just about you imposing your will on peaceful people:

1. Owning a business means having the right to control when it is open for business and when it is not. That is because owners risk their own money, and don't expect anyone else to bail them out when they lose. It's private property.

2. Nobody forces any businesses to open on Easter Sunday. By contrast, YOU want to force them to be closed.

3. Nobody forces people to be customers for businesses on Easter Sunday. In fact, thousands of people do that. Funnily enough apparently their view of community and what should happen on Easter Sunday isn't yours - but you ignore them, and want to force your view on them indirectly. Nice.

4. Nobody forces people to work on Easter Sunday. Employees take up employment understanding the terms and conditions of that employment.

Sue is apparently at ease letting airline pilots, nurses, police, power station workers, farmers, bus drivers, customs inspectors, service station workers, television presenters etc etc work on Easter Sunday and do business. She is happy for state owned airline Air New Zealand to fly thousands of people across the country on Easter Sunday, but not for a gardening shop to sell some pot plants.

She is a hypocrite, and a bully - and she shouldn't decide what you do on Easter Sunday, either with your business, your family or yourself. You should. It would be nice to have a day a year when politicians just left us all alone.

Fat chance with the likes of socialist Sue.

Strategic assets

For all those on the left (and Muldoonist right) who fear strategic assets, like airports, run by foreigners. Consider these airports with at least 40% of the shares owned NOT by nationals of the country they are in:

- London Heathrow Airport
- London Gatwick Airport
- London Stansted Airport
- Glasgow International Airport
- Glasgow Prestwick Airport (owned by New Zealanders no less)
- Athens International Airport
- Hamburg Airport
- Tirana Airport

- Copenhagen International Airport

SMS surveillance

For some years the Police wanted the right to tap internet communications like they could phone conversations, that right was granted after 9/11. Now the NZ Police want telcos to archive all text messages, so that, on the off chance any might be "suspect", they would all be stored.

.

As Idiot Savant points out at No Right Turn:

.

"our police want to archive everything we say, just on the oft-chance that one day they might be interested in it. But we don't let them force NZPost to photocopy every letter which goes through the mail, and we don't let them force Telecom to secretly record every phone conversation we have. We recognise and reject these as Orwellian demands, grossly invasive of privacy, and hugely open to abuse. Their demand that all TXTs be recorded and archived should be treated the same way."

.

The Police quite clearly think we are all guilty till proven innocent, or more importantly the old adage "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". Yes, that's what totalitarian regimes say when they raid homes, arrest without charge and interrogate. It's what the Stasi in East Germany thought.

.

Don't forget the next will be emails. The Police will want all emails, all records of all internet communications to be archived forever. Besides being a gross imposition upon telcos, this suggestion is a grotesque invasion of the state into personal privacy.

.

The Police needs warrants to enter private property, to tap phone lines and to open mail. They should need warrants to intercept text messages and emails too.

.

Fighting crime is the core duty and role of the Police - but it is not something to be carried out at ANY cost. Yes it would be easier if the cops could access anything of ours without a warrant. More criminals would be caught. More would be caught still if the police could arrest without charge, but one hallmark of a free society is that we accept that some criminals will be free, in order for us to all have some measure of freedom and privacy. North Korea has precious little crime.

.

According to Stuff "Police national crime manager Win van der Velde said that, though phone companies were private businesses, they also had a role as good corporate citizens."

.

Respecting the privacy of its customers is being a good corporate citizen. Warrants are they right way for the Police to start intercepting the communications of suspects.

.

However, see how quickly Labour or National hops on this bandwagon.... on the wrong side

Clinton-Obama isn't going to be

Barack Obama has decided he wont be vice president to Hillary Clinton according to the Daily Telegraph.

.

He said "You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate. I'm running for president. We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count"

.

Clearly Obama feels he can sniff victory, and Hillary's desperation. She wont be deputy when she's spent a good period of her life being second fiddle to Bill.

.

Bleh, a curse on them all - all uninterested in the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all hungry for power.

Bit late isn't it?

According to the NZ Herald "The country's youngest killer, Bailey Junior Kurariki, is an articulate, intelligent young man, who appears genuine in his desire to live an offence-free life, the Parole Board said yesterday".

Of course the Parole Board doesn't meet many articulate, intelligent people presumably.

Meanwhile, in related news, Michael Choy remains dead.

.

Nice to see the Parole Board believes one of them deserves a chance after denying all of the chances of the other - in a cold and brutal manner.

.

An offence free life is a bit late now isn't it?

Little piggies in the trough

Yes, 2 Labour MPs (Marian Hobbs and Margaret Wilson), 2 National MPs (Brian Connell and Katherine Rich) and 1 from NZ First (Peter Brown), all engaging in a farewell hurrah tour to Europe - to perk up their airpoints, flying business class on Singapore Airlines to the political hub - Milan! I've calculated around 680 airpoints dollars per MP for that - not bad when you consider an airpoints dollar is worth a dollar to spend on future flights. Peter Brown as a rabid enthusiast for shipping ought to be sailing though.

.

Now I DO know that Singapore Airlines flights to Milan are not cheap, since they have the brand new business class onboard the Boeing 777-300ERs on that route. Stuff reports the fares alone will be little short of $10,000.

.

Brian Connell, a National MP suspended from caucus for 18 months, was suggested by no less than John Key for having one of the National "places on the tour".

.

So you see, National wont stop spending your money on pointless overseas travel by MPs.

.

Brian Connell's reaction was "It was very pleasant - a nice change of circumstances" . Marian Hobbs doesn't know why your money is paying for her to go to Europe saying "I don't know too much about the purpose. I think it's about MMP. I'm not sure." It's a jolly Marian isn't it?

.

Katherine Rich, who is meant to represent people who voted National in New Zealand said the trip would be a chance to represent Parliament overseas - because that is, so important, isn't it?

.

Margaret Wilson's office said "the trip was an opportunity to establish relations with countries that were part of an enlarged Europe". Um hello? What value is there in them establishing relations with outgoing MPs? Besides we already DO have diplomatic relations with Poland, Italy, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Europe hasn't enlarged either, the countries have always been a part of Europe - the European Union isn't "Europe".

.

Peter Brown's office said "he's so excited to go on a big plane at last" (no I made that up).

.

So while Labour defends its "impeccable record" at being frugal, and National claims it will be more frugal - it's clear that while this is small fry, none have any such interest. How, as an MP, living off of the money taken from others, can you with clear conscience go on a trip that has no clear purpose?

.

UPDATE: Not PC suggests that we are better off with them taking jollies. Well I'd definitely like to see most of them go on a permanent jolly. They can't make laws while they do.

Sudan – kinder on bestiality than NZ

Whilst you would question whether women and children get much recognition for individual rights in Sudan, a BBC report suggests there is less question that zoophiles have far superior individual rights there than in New Zealand.

In New Zealand if you did what Mr Tombe did to Mr Alifi’s goat, you’d end up in prison. In Sudan you are made to marry the goat and pay a dowry.

In a case that, to be fair is actually about conversion of property, the man caught fornicating (a word some Christians say with the passion of a pervert) with a goat was told as he used it “like a wife” he should marry it such.

Given the owner was happy with the outcome, there is no reason to take this further. Certainly this is far more enlightened than the NZ way of incarcerating someone because it offends and upsets people. The very same people who in many cases would happily have the milk molested to provide milk for them! Of course getting oral pleasure from the bodily fluids of a goat is acceptable in one sense.

UK sends Iranians back to be executed

From the Independent (UK)

Mehdi Kazemi is Iranian, and came to London in 2004 to learn English. Mehdi Kazemi is gay. In April 2006 his boyfriend in Iran was executed. Under interrogation Kazemi's name was mentioned as a partner, as his father informed him by phone. Kazemi feared he too would be arrested, charged and executed - so he claimed asylum in the UK. He was refused in late 2007. As a result he fled to the Netherlands. He now faces a court in the Netherlands where he is also claiming asylum. If he fails, he will be deported to the UK - and there he faces almost certain deportation to Iran - to his certain persecution.

"According to Iranian human rights campaigners, more than 4,000 gay men and lesbians have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979."

Of course Iran is a horrid place by any human rights standards, not that you see too many protest marches in Wellington to the Iranian embassy, or Iranian flags burnt by those who claim to care about such things. No, funny that.

Now Pegah Emambakhsh, an Iranian lesbian facing a similar risk, is also facing deportation. Her partner is in custody facing fdeath by public stoning.

New Labour is so caring and compassionate isn't it? However, so is the lack of support from the so-called "peace" movement.

The sin of plastic bags?

The Sunday Times reports on how the great campaign to "ban plastic bags" now occupying the likes of great populist rags like the Daily Mail, is based on flimsy evidence.

"The widely stated accusation that the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false, experts have told The Times. They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds."

The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags.

Now you can choose not to use plastic bags yourself, but those who want people to not use them shouldn't use exagerrated false claims to do so. Frankly most people recycle them, using them as rubbish bags for household waste.

When did Labour first look to buy back the railways?

A while ago actually.

The Official Information Act request should be "All Cabinet papers, Cabinet Committee papers, papers for adhoc meetings of Ministers, notes and briefings to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport regarding the future of the railway industry, including options for government ownership and regulation since 2000".

See if the paper turns up, is released, is partly released, has everything but it's title suppressed or even its existence suppressed...

Better stuck in the 90s than the 30s

Idiot Savant thinks that the Nats are stuck in the 90s supporting the re-privatisation of the railways if Labour re-nationalises it.

Which decade was nationalisation about again?

Then again, he does think "The rail network is vital infrastructure, and it will only increase in importance in the coming years as oil prices rise and climate change policy force changes in transport modes." Which begs the question, if it will become more competitive and the government will "force" freight onto it - why he doesn't buy it?

Who would've thought

Dover Samuels could make more sense than the rest of the Labour caucus put together. As David Farrar points out, one of Samuels' best points was:

"The Treaty of Waitangi seems to be the antidote for everything from tagging to wagging school and colonisation which is absolute cultural bullshit."

He continues:

"You've got these culturally correct loony tunes who think everything's offensive come on, it's time to wake up.

"Even if the sun shone 24-hours a day there are some people some are in Parliament who will find the dark and find some sort of grievance. They want to take us back in history and blame somebody.

"Look at the Maori Party. Just on the surface of it, the branding is attractive people think `hey, I'm a Maori, I'll vote for the Maori Party'. There's a lot of people who think that way. But what have they got to deliver? I have seen the rantings and the ravings and other people's scripts being given in Parliament, but what are they going to deliver?"

Of course National will be willing to do a deal with that party, wouldn't it?

the standard of The Standard

Well this post says it all. It is about as factually correct as the Korean Central News Agency.

Take this:

“Toll has been a classic asset-stripper: buy a key piece of infrastructure that should never have been sold, take as much profit as possible with minimal investment, and force the Government to buy the infrastructure back to prevent further economic damage.”

For starters, Toll never bought the track, which this implies. In fact Dr Cullen and the Labour government did a cozy little deal with Toll to bid for Tranz Rail. The Beehive press release here makes it clear that Toll and Dr Cullen were acting hand in glove. The government was "never forced", Toll never bought the infrastructure. Utter lies.

.

Secondly, this “as much profit as possible” is rather hilarious. $34.7 million net profit after tax in 2007 is hardly raking it in on assets of $791 million. No wonder Toll wants out. The asset stripping is also a fascinating claim. How? What has been stripped? Maybe Steve Pierson knows better, or maybe he is interviewing Microsoft Word with his own manufactured delusions.

Thirdly, it claims that "lines have been closed". What? By the state? Only one line has been closed since Toll took over, the tiny Castlecliff branch in Wanganui (and it hasn't been removed). Even since privatisation the lines mothballed consists of Rotorua, Taneatua and Whakatane. Far more lines closed under government ownership in the 1980s (Kurow, Otago Central, Okaihau, Thames, Seddonville, Makareao). Not that this was wrong, but the implication is that services were dropped from those who used them - when in fact lines like Kurow had just two freight trains a week - hardly a reason to get excited.

So if the Standard has this standard of research and writing, you might ask what else it does well?

Muldoonism all round

Several blogs have commented, quite rightly, about Dr Michael Bassett's excellent column about the posturing on foreign investment by Labour. Bassett, as on of the more honourable Ministers of the fourth Labour government, clearly is non-plussed about his former colleagues being upset. Statements such as "the “whatever it takes” mentality that the Labour Party uses these days when they campaign for re-election" say a great deal.

Labour, having lost the votes of most businesspeople, much of provincial New Zealand, many Maori and most of those on middle to higher incomes, is now pandering to the Winston Peters crowd for votes. That's what Auckland airport is about, and the railways - the old Muldoonist crowd that is wary of foreign investment, the working class semi-literates who are easily fired up with xenophobic rhetoric.

Winston's Muldoonism isn't new. Back when he visited North Korea he was quoted as saying there is a lot for New Zealand to learn from North Korea. Funny how Labour chooses a man who is anti-foreign investment to be the Minister of Foreign Affairs isn't it?

Whatever it takes - Labour has spent the surplus up, to make tax cuts harder, but can also claim any spending cuts will "hurt health and education", forgetting that the increases have done little to improve either. Labour will scaremonger that National will hurt the poor and damage the fragile economic growth, that has been in decline in the last few years.

Stop worshipping the cruel NHS

The NHS is Britain's great fraud. You are forced to pay something called "National Insurance" which if it were an insurance scheme, would have been put out of business for fraud. The NHS is a politically driven bureaucracy that cares nothing for service and responding to consumers, but acts like an old fashioned eastern European Marxist-Leninist bureaucracy.

You see that in the latest news, when it denies one of its former staff eye surgery to stop her going blind. This is the sort of story you expect from those gloating how awful health care is in the USA - but no, it is socialist medicine in the UK. She is instead paying twice - paying privately £800 a shot for treatment.

So if it were suggested that under "National Insurance" you could stop paying it premiums and pay premiums for a service that works for you, the left would cry "privatisation" and "unfair" - meanwhile the system would let a former nurse go blind.

oh and the Tories wont do anything about it, because no one wants to confront the truth about the NHS - it performs abysmally. Hardly surprising, as it is the third biggest employer in the world. How can anything that big and state owned possibly be responsive?

Moral equivalency again?

Israel withdraws from Gaza - leaving it to the Palestinians to govern and manage.

Palestinians choose a government committed to engaging in aggression against Israel and destroying it - Hamas

Palestinians engage in a small scale civil conflict splitting the government between Gaza and the West Bank, leaving Hamas in Gaza.

Hamas decides to make Gaza not a haven for peace, development, economic growth and freedom, but a base to wage war against Israel - indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel proper (you know the country that is internationally recognised, not occupied territories) killing and injuring Israeli civilians.

Israel puts up a blockade against Gaza to stop entry/exit of citizens across the land border, and stops selling electricity to Gaza as retaliation. Gaza still has an open land border with Egypt.

Israel is accused of being unreasonable, against those who wish to destroy it and attack it.

Hamas continues its bombardment, Israel responds by attacking bases in Gaza from where rocket attacks continue, killing 120.

Hamas sends a gunman in to shoot children at a school in Jerusalem.

So who wants to defend those who execute children for political purposes again?

So where IS rail viable?

Now despite all the doom and gloom about the rail network, the truth is that SOME of it is commercially viable. To show this I wanted to link to a map of the network on Ontrack's website - Ontrack being the state owned enterprise responsible for the railway network, but it doesn't have one.

Wikipedia does though here >>>>

Now of that network, you can split rail into five main businesses: Coal, logs/wood products, containers, milk and commuter passenger rail. The long distance passenger rail services by themselves could never sustain any of the lines. There is other freight, but it also is of a far smaller scale than any of the others, worthwhile on a marginal basis but not on its own in most cases.

Coal is predominantly West Coast to Lyttelton, but also some from Southland to Timaru and within Waikato (Rotowaro to Mission Bush). The West Coast line is viable for coal and that's it. The other services rely on other freight to bear the cost of the lines.

Logs/timber traffic is carried predominantly Murupara-Kawerau-Mt Maunganui or Auckland. Also Kinleith to Auckland/Mt Maunganui. There is some activity in Northland and Wairarapa to Wellington. However, it is the Bay of Plenty timber traffic that matters. Despite popular misconceptions, logs are not important freight on the Gisborne line (nothing really is, despite some forecasts in recent years). There is certainly insufficient log traffic for any of the Northland lines to be viable, with only the Murupara-Kawerau-Mt Maunganui/Auckland, and Kinleith lines really retaining enough traffic to be viable.

Container traffic is essentially movements between main centres and ports. The viable routes here are the North Island Main Trunk line, and the main southern line from Picton to Christchurch/Lyttelton and down to Dunedin/Bluff, with worthwhile flows between Waikato and Mt Maunganui. Beyond that, there really isn't enough freight to Taranaki or Napier to sustain those lines for this traffic.

Milk traffic forms the last major freight traffic on the lines. These movements are mainly southern Hawke's Bay - Manawatu - South Taranaki, Southland-South Canterbury. Again, these largely use routes carrying other freight, but do help sustain them.

As far as commuter rail is concerned, in Wellington it has a future, although the Johnsonville and Melling lines are not at all viable, money is being poured into it all so is really a sunk cost. In Auckland it is a major waste of money, but again partly a sunk cost.

So what is left? Well surprisingly quite a lot of the network is probably commercially viable, but frankly there are quite a lot of lines that have no economically viable future, unless some major freight customer wants them:
- All lines north of Waitakere in Auckland (expensive to maintain, low capacity)
- Rotorua and Taneatua branches (simply no viable freight)
- Napier-Gisborne (with big questions to be asked about Napier south to Oringi).
- All lines in Taranaki except south of Hawera (some expensive to maintain)
- Masterton to Woodville (mainly useful as a diversion for the main trunk line!)

The reason others are worthwhile comes down to either a single major customer, or having enough general freight. The latter is really just the north-south main trunks in both islands. Now if the government could only swallow those closures (or simply opening lines Toll doesn't want to operate to others if they wish), then there might be a viable railway for the trunks and the few bulk commodities that rail can handle well.

What does THAT network look like? Well this:

Not so bad really, with dotted lines where lines probably should close in the next few years (Napier, Southland and New Plymouth). Beyond that if Solid Energy, Fonterra and the forestry sector want rail, they should buy it - since all of the lines outside the main trunk are almost entirely about them. There is no reasons for the state to subsidise their freight movements.

Certainly the track is not worth the nonsense "replacement value" capital worth on the Crown's books of NZ$10.648 billion as listed in Ontrack's annual report. Now this DOES include some prime real estate, like Wellington railway station. That is where there certainly is some value, but $5.4 billion book value for railway infrastructure is simple accounting sorcery. No one would pay that for it, not in scrap and certainly not to charge someone to use it. If the government offered it for sale, that is not what it would go for, nothing close. The $4.9 billion for the land is similarly so, given that most of the land is a sliver of a corridor.

Oh yes I did forget one thing, the ferries. They ARE worth a good bit of money - the only consistently profitable part of the railway system for decades.

Not the UN's approach to drugs

Camilla Cavendish in The Times today writes that instead of tightening up on drugs, they should be legalised and available through pharmacies like Boots and Superdrug.

Why?

She points out that part of the glamour of drugs is not with users, suggesting that those who go overboard like Amy Winehouse may put as many off it than otherwise, but with dealers. Those who can afford flash clothes, jewellery, cars and a relatively easy get rich quick lifestyle. That is the new ambition for all too many young people living in poorer British neighbourhoods.

Teenagers are being attacked and killed as the drug culture flows through much of British youth culture. She suggests that legalisation will achieve three goals at once, with only the one side effect to deal with.

Firstly, it gets rid of the drug dealer. No longer is a fortune to be made selling drugs at street corners or outside schools, but by being behind the counter in pharmacies. The link between crime and drugs ends - not only significantly reducing the violence involved, reducing pressure on prisons, but also recognising that drugs are no longer "special".

Secondly, those who are addicted could more easily and readily seek treatment without fear of persecution by the law. Many drug users are occasional recreational users, for relatively short periods of their lives - the true problem addicts are a minority, but they are the ones who need to feel free to access help.

Thirdly, as pharmacies would be responsible for what they sell, incidences of drugs diluted by other substances, anything from talcum powder to cleaner to ground glass, would end. People would get pure drugs, which would be less toxic than the black market offerings.

Yes there would be the issue of it being cheaper, increasing the opportunity to use it. However now, the price isn't a tremendous barrier. For starters, dealers are known to employ cunning techniques offering freebies and discounts, and they market heavily and directly. This would all end under legalisation. Those who want to take drugs find ways to do so, but once it is no longer forbidden or glamorous, without the criminal profits being made from it, the remaining problem could be far more manageable.

Alcohol for all of the problems arising from overuse, and use by those too young, is far more manageable than drugs. Laws can focus on supply to children, which should remain illegal.

However there is one huge barrier to any of this - it is the UN.

The UN, led by the US on this one, is adamantly opposed to legalisation. It is fighting a losing battle, but the war on drugs is lost. It is about time to switch the tables on dealers, and make life easier for those who want to use safely.

Sadly New Zealand is going in the other direction, despite the evidence, thanks to the efforts of the one man party, Jim Anderton.

Besides as I have said before, it is my body thank you.

Is "racism" the cry of the scoundrel?

Sadly, it appears to be the case in respect of Ken Livingstone's former chief race advisor - Lee Jasper. The litany of evidence building up about alleged conflicts of interest is serious damning, damning against him and Mayor Livingstone. While it is only one factor, it has certainly contributed to the narrowing of the London mayoralty race into what appears to be a dead heat between Livingstone and Conservative candidate Boris Johnson. The Financial Times now reports a recent poll showing a 5% lead by Johnson over Livingstone. So what has Jasper been up to?

Firstly, there have been allegations of Lee Jasper's improper involvement in approving funding for organisations that involve friends or associates of him, that include companies that are dormant or have gone out of business, or in one case funding a group that largely appears to put out press releases supporting Ken Livingstone.

Following that Ken Livingstone claimed the Evening Standard was embarking on a "campaign targeting black and ethnic minority organisations" - the race card to defend a scoundrel.

Now emails have emerged whereby Jasper (a married man) appears to be engaging in a very friendly relationship (sexually charged) with Karen Chouhan, a woman who runs community projects that Jasper has been responsible for approving Greater London Authority funding for. At the least this is failure to declare a profound conflict of interest. According to The Times the email informed Karen Chouhan "of his unbridled passion for her “feet, ankles, legs, thighs, bum and belly, arms, head and brain”. His feelings were particularly strong during “the first gentle dew on a golden summer morn”". He was involved in approving a £100,000 funding grant to the trust she is secretary for.

This is why he resigned, but he has also pleaded "it's a racist campaign". Apparently Lee Jasper thinks it is his race, not his behaviour that is at question - as if his race excuses what is an allegedly corrupt practice.

The Times also reported on how Lee Jasper, on £120,000 a year, lives in "state subsidised social housing at £90 a week for a four bedroom house in Clapham". This is utterly outrageous for a city and most importantly a Mayor that has spent so much attention and time on supposedly caring for the poor - when taxpayers are paying for highly paid officials to have bargain rentals. quick look at Find A Property shows weekly rents for a 4 bedroom house in Clapham start at £236.

Sorry Mr Jasper, taxpayers' money is not for you to dish out to your friends, associates or those who support Ken Livingstone. It is not racist to want transparency, no real or apparent conflicts of interest or accountability in how funds are spent. In fact, when you defend yourself by throwing such words at it, it is no defence at all. It's not YOUR money, it is Londoners money you got through force.

When Robert Mugabe is criticised for decimating Zimbabwe's economy, rigging elections, killing, destroying property, confiscating land and oppressing opponents, he calls it racism.

It's about time that such allegations were clearly seen for what they are - worthless cries in the dark by scoundrels.

Greens worship at the altar of rail with your money

Worshipping at the altar of a railway line. The Greens are advocating forcing taxpayers to pay to bail out a foreign company that owns the provision of railway services - Toll. A party that tends to be at best sceptical of capitalism and loathes foreign companies is seeking to give it a free ticket out of New Zealand with a big hand out of taxpayers' money. What an incredible sell out all to worship the altar of the railway.

The Greens love railways more than any other mode of transport. So even in an age when oil prices are at a record high, when rail cannot compete for most freight efficiently, there are major problems with rail freight being competitive for most freight in New Zealand. This puts paid to notions that "we need" railways in an age of expensive oil - it seems that it STILL isn't cheaper to send most freight by rail for all sorts of reasons (e.g. double handling, speed, inefficiency of compiling trainloads of wagon or less than wagon load lots).

Sadly the Greens are woefully ill informed about the railways at all. Jeanette Fitzsimons claims there isn't the revenue to pay for upgrades and “Nowhere is this more apparent to the public than in the state of Wellington’s commuter rail services". What rubbish. For starters, the Wellington commuter rail services get around half their revenue from taxes - whether road taxes through Land Transport NZ, or rates from the Wellington Regional Council. Secondly, with comparatively new trains recently introduced on the Wairarapa line, and all of the older electric units recently refurbished (and a major upgrade of the track, signal and electrics infrastructure underway), the Wellington system is hardly in a poor state. Toll Rail's revenues are about freight, not passenger services. So she is either poorly informed or lying to get the public's sympathy.

She claims Toll "cannot afford to pay the track access fees that were always part of the deal with Government". Really? Does she have access to Toll's accounts? Could it just be gameplaying with a government that is soft on rail?

The government is already spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars on upgrading the rail network, but even that isn't enough. Why?

Well that is the question the Greens should answer. It isn't because trucks are underpaying to cover road maintenance costs, generally they aren't. It isn't because trucks have far higher environmental costs per tonne km than rail, because the government's own study points out that it varies considerably by route (in some cases rail is lower in some cases road is lower).

I suspect it quite simply is because - notwithstanding the low cost of RUNNING a train to carry a lot of freight, the handling of freight to load and unload a train, the time/cost of warehousing freight (effectively) in assembling/disassembling a train, the high capital cost of railway equipment, the limitations on the NZ railway network placed by many low tunnels (and almost always a slower alignment than roads), rail can't compete for most freight. It can compete for hauling bulk commodities, such as coal and milk, and to a lesser extent logs. It can compete for long hauled containers, but that's about it. Rail is a very heavy, capital intensive mode with its own corridors that, by and large, get little use compared to roads. For example, the Napier-Gisborne railway on average has one train each way every day. Imagine the road having one truck (or even the dozen or so that would replace the train). That one train would have to carry the full cost of maintaining and operating the line, whereas the road has many vehicles to spread the cost over.

Passengers are a peripheral activity, unlike the UK, in NZ long distance passenger rail is about scenic tourist trips by and large.

So the Greens might have to look beyond the altar of rail and dispassionately ask why it isn't working to do what they want. Given the very high cost of diesel, the notion that rail can "save the day" when it clearly is failing to do so, seems spurious. Similarly, as the environmental costs of road and rail freight are not that dissimilar, the alleged "green" benefits of rail freight seem equally spurious.

so when will the Greens stop worshipping rail, and start supporting evidence?

Bill English says Nats might sell railways, again..

Remarkably, after reports that Dr Cullen is looking to spend some of your money on making you buy a railway, National's Finance Spokesman Bill English shows that he has some principles and courage as he has been reported by the NBR as saying that "If the purchase was completed then a National government would get out of the business as quickly as possible."

First he says "We certainly wouldn't be buying Toll. The worst thing for our railway network would be for the Government to take it over using the OnTrack company". Ok...

then seeking to get out of the business as quickly as possible, although then he flip flops a little "We would go out and look for an operator and then you would have to decide whether they come in to operate it and the Government retained ownership or you sell it to them".

Why would the government retain ownership? How does that do anything for the taxpayer?

Of course Winston Peters wants to buy it back, it's not his money after all. He thinks it is a "buyers' market" - well go on Winston, make a bid with your money and those you can convince. Ask the Greens to help. Although the test of most nationalisers is that they will never risk their own money to do it. Funny that.

Abolishing income tax?

No Minister has posted about how the UK Libertarian Party has proposed abolishing income tax, by simply cutting government spending to where it was 5 years ago, given how high VAT is (17.5%).

He asked in relation to New Zealand "How much scope is there for a radical overhaul of our tax structure? Perhaps this is a task for Peter Cresswell and others to consider. How detailed are the NZ Libz with their policy prescriptions? Or is abolishing income tax 'pie in the sky' here too? Does ACT offer anything here?"

Well the Libertarianz (NZ) DOES have detailed policy on tax, on the party website here. It actually proposes the OPPOSITE tax reform, with all OTHER taxes being abolished other than income tax, which would be set at a flat rate of 15% with a $10,000 tax free threshold. This would be a transitional measure which itself would be phased down.

Why leave income tax and abolish others? Well it is a matter of two things.

Firstly, other taxes are largely invisible to the general public. GST, residents' withholding tax and various duties are paid, and the public treats these as part of the cost of goods or earning interest at the bank. It would be far preferable to notice that the cost of government is transparent and you pay that, rather than it hidden in multiple other taxes.

Secondly, abolishing all of the other taxes will lower compliance costs for businesses, end the "black economy" nonsense about paying under the counter for goods and services, and dramatically simplify tax arrangements overall.

How would this be paid for? Well by dramatically shrinking the state. Libertarianz has proposed alternative budgets for some years.

Now I remember Sir Roger Douglas proposed abolishing income tax in his book Unfinished Business, and it was originally ACT policy (he replaced income tax with compulsory health insurance, superannuation and education). ACT policy has been flat tax and more recently two step income tax. I'd be interested to see if ACT revives flat tax for 2008, but for now Libertarianz is the low flat tax party.

Don't want to buy a railway?

Tough - Dr Cullen is going to make you, if he can get away with it.

Not satisfied with spending $81 million for the Auckland rail network, when Treasury valued it at best at $20 million, not satisfied with spending $1 for the rest of the national network.

Not satisfied with spending from general taxation:

- At least $450 million to upgrade the Auckland rail network (track, signals and platforms) from 2005;
- $100 million per year for six years from 2007 to upgrade Auckland and Wellington rail networks;
- $25 million in 2008/09 and again in 2009/10 to upgrade the national rail network;
- $100 million upfront in upgrading the national network from 2003, and $25 million annually from 2004 to 2007.

Noting than absolutely none of that spending will boost the net financial value of the rail network at all (it is unlikely to be able to be sold for the amount being spent on it), now he wants to spend $500 million buying the whole lot according to Stuff. Toll wants $700 million, but presumably Dr Cullen will threaten "the state is sovereign" to force a compulsory nationalisation.

Toll is already paying the government $9 million per annum less than Ontrack (the Crown company which owns the rail network) is charging for its use. You might think Ontrack could simply tell Toll to stop trespassing, or to tell Toll that it will invoke the rail access agreement which means other companies can provide rail services on the network if they drop below a certain level. Yes, in case you didn't know, the "ownership" the Crown has of the track also gives Toll a monopoly on the use of the track, as long as it maintains a minimal level of service on the track.

Now a business minded government would take Toll to court to pay what is owed, or start confiscating rolling stock for part payment of the track access charges. After all, if a trucking firm doesn't pay road user charges to use the government's state highways, it faces being fined and the unpaid charges recovered, likewise airlines using airport.

No, after pledging to spend over $1 billion on its OWN assets, it wants to spend over $500 million buying the company that uses them which doesn't even pay what the government charges.

What this will mean is we will be back to the days before privatisation, when the railways lost money - and either were subsidised heavily (1982-1988) or getting bailed out regularly (1982, 1988, 1990).

Maybe the truth just hurts too much, maybe the government needs to give Toll the rail network back and say - make a go of it, and if you can't, then sell it to whoever wants it. While it's at it, it could sell the state highways as well, now that WOULD be worth a fair bit.

but what would John Key do?

How bad is it to get infrastructure built in Britain?

One post on an aviation message board says this about how quickly this writer thinks Heathrow Terminal 2 will be replaced (this isn't serious, but has a few elements of truth):

This is Britain we are talking about.

My predicted timeframe:

Oct 2008 - stop using T2.

June 2009 - Submit public tenders for various designs for its replacement.

July 2009 - All designs rejected by local residents.

August 2009 - A rare and previously thought to be extinct breed of dust mite is discovered in T2.

Late-August 2009 - A charity single entitled "Save the Mites = Save our future (and our Children's future)" is released by two ex-Pop Idol nobodies. It goes straight in at number one.

September 2009 - Local residents set up an action group called T.W.A.T.S - (Team Worried and Against Terminal Success) which pickets Parliament to demand that the area is left for animals to graze on, as anything other than this course of action represents what basically amounts to Planetary Homicide. They lodge their formal complaints to the planning commission, which rules that in light of the new complaints against the massive expansion of Heathrow airport and the obvious and irrefutable damage replacing the terminal building will do to London’s green belt, that all previous planning permissions and tenders are null and void. A new planning process is started.

October 2009 – T.W.A.T.S chain themselves to a chainlink fence on the airport perimeter and are forcibly removed by police.

November 2009 – T.W.A.T.S climb in the roof of T5 and splash red paint all over the place to illustrate the murder of the green belt. One tries to break a window and falls to his death. “Stinky” as he is known, of no fixed address, is immediately Martyred. The local Government releases a statement expressing their sincere sorrow at his death. His wife/partner “Crusty” also of no fixed address, sues BAA for having lax enough security to let them in in the first place, and is awarded three million quid in damages. She cuts her hair, has a bath, moves to Kensington, sets up an advertising firm and buys a Range Rover.

December 2009 – Local residents not affiliated to T.W.A.T.S pre-emptively sue the Government for millions because of the emotional hardship so brutally inflicted on their lives by the grim edifice of the new terminal, in whatever form it may take. A Government investigation board is appointed to appoint a committee to do a study of the plans.

June 2010 – Committee appointed.

October 2010 – Committee convened for half an hour.

April 2011 - Committee convened for an hour and ten mins.

November 2011 - Committee convened for a seventeen minutes.

December 2011 – Preliminary findings are released. They say – “It is the opinion of this Committee that a public enquiry should be convened to assess the lawsuit brought by local residents. Once this is complete planning process may begin on the new terminal”

June 2012 – New committee convened which meets for three mins in a bar in Whitehall before taking a treasury credit card to Spearmint Rhino. Signs are put up all round the now derelict and crumbling T2 site that say that BAA is ‘Caring for your future’

November 2012 – T2 blows down in a moderately strong wind. A national day of mourning is held for the dust mites which it is presumed all perished. A charity single rework of Elton John’s ‘Candle in the Wind’ is released, sung by Jason Donovan and a class of primary school kids from Bromsgrove, entitled “You weren’t just a dust mite to me (Give peace a chance)” – its rockets straight to number one.

December 2012 – Work begins on clearing the site. Local residents complain about the noise of the drills and diggers (over the noise of the planes) which are causing emotional problems and successfully get an injunction to prevent the contractors from using any mechanical tools at all. The rubble is moved by hand. Local residents win more millions in compensation, because BAA should never have allowed the building to collapse in the first place.

December 2013 – the site is cleared. The fourth appeal of the planning permission is in the process of being dealt with in the High Courts.

April 2014 – The local residents take their case to the European Court of Human Rights in The Hague.

June 2014 – Final design, an award winning masterpiece of modern design and technical genius from Sir Norman Foster is dismissed on costs grounds. A rival bid from Botchitt & Scarper Ltd is accepted. The commission expresses ‘concerns’ that the design does not have any gates, and that the water feature and timber decking in and around the hard stands are unnecessary.

November 2015 – Work begins.

December 2016 – Work finishes. BAA make a massive glitzy launch and much is made of the fact that it came in with no work overruns and actually early. Rather less is made of the fact that the work is 395% over budget.

March 2017 – Structural engineers state that the building is unsafe. It transpires that the contractors had just poured tar over the ground and stuck beams into the tar. The site foreman, a Paddy O’Murphy, went on record as stating that “It was fine mate, its fine for people’s drives, and its fine for de terminal tingy dat we’re doing for ya’s. Do ya like Dags?”

April 2017 – Botchitt & Scarper Ltd is found to be a fake company. Nobody at the planning commission bothered to do any due diligence because they all had their drives done as a bonus. The new T2 falls down in a light breeze. An Al-Qaida carbomb is blamed.


May 2017 – Local residents sue again for emotional distress caused by the length of the planning process.

July 2021 – A new terminal design is approved.

May 2027 – The new T2 is opened. It was fifteen years late and cost more than nine-billion pounds all told, or 30% more than an entire brand new airport in the Thames Estuary.

(btw, the truth is that Heathrow Terminal 2 is to close within the next year or so, to make way for the new Heathrow East terminal. All the airlines using Terminal 2 are being relocated to Terminals 1, 3 and 4 after BA is relocated out of Terminals 1 and 4 and into Terminal 5 next month)

Bill English says "Like Labour, National...."

That's right, the Greens set the agenda, Labour follows and National? It just nods.

.

Well why should I be surprised? After Sue Kedgley’s rant, Michael Cullen listens and what does the Opposition spokesman on Finance do? Bill English basically agrees there is a problem with foreigners (shock horror) owning a majority of shares in Auckland airport (and undefined “strategic assets”), the only difference is he doesn’t think the facts are the way Cullen says.

His criticism is NOT that it is ok to interfere with private property rights, no. He happily cheerleads on the Overseas Investment Commission and its pointlessness. His criticism is that there is no evidence that the Canadian Pension Fund wanted control of the airport (presumably if they did, well it would be a different story wouldn’t it?). Which of course means that we “shouldn’t be afraid”. As if there is anything to be afraid of, except for the paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists who usually reside at NZ First, the Alliance and the Greens.

English’s first press release said “National believes that local control of taxpayer-owned strategic assets is important”. A bizarre tautology if ever there was one. How the hell would it not be locally controlled if it was taxpayer owned?

Then his second press release said "Like Labour, National believes retaining the control of strategic assets is important”. Who retaining control Bill? What are strategic assets? Most importantly, why?

What the hell was going to happen? The entire Wellington city bus fleet was foreign owned for over a decade, along with the major Auckland bus fleet. One of the two major cellphone networks is entirely foreign owned, as is the second major telecommunications company, and the second and third airlines. The second and third major television companies are predominantly foreign owned, as is the dominant pay TV operator, and the majority of commercial radio stations. New Zealand is entirely dependent upon foreign owned motor vehicle manufacturers. Almost all sugar and oil comes from foreigners too, as do pharmaceuticals.

So when the election comes, and you are tempted to tick National for your party vote remember Bill English saying “Like Labour”. Ask yourself if you want National to govern alone when it picks up its political philosophy from the Greens, and tick a party that doesn’t.

.

UPDATE: Stuff says National wont block the airport sale - but well, that is only if it is on a minority shareholding basis. It reports John Key saying "If it's a majority ownership it's a very different situation". So in other words John Key agrees with Sue Kedgley - simple as that. If you want Green party policy on foreign investment, vote National!

Obama the protectionist or the opportunist?

Barack Obama has, disturbingly, made a lot of noise about NAFTA – the North American Free Trade Agreement – which opened up free trade in most goods and services between the USA, Canada and Mexico. Obama, seeking votes from protectionist oriented businesses and trade unions, has called for NAFTA to be renegotiated, essentially to force US environmental and labour regulatory standards upon Mexico. Apparently that sort of imperialism is ok by the left.

However, CNN reports a memo by a Canadian consul official in Chicago, about a meeting with Obama’s economic advisor – Austan Goolsbee – suggests differently. According to the Daily Telegraph , it says “the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political manoeuvring than policy”

Which is positive of course for those of us who aren’t Marxists or nationalists, but doesn’t paint Mr Obama all that well from an integrity point of view.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Mr Goolsbee denies it of course “This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy', that's this guy's language. He's not quoting me." The Canadian Embassy, to be fair, is embarrassed that a document from one of its officials is being used for political purposes saying "There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Sen. Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA." Though I am sure the Canadians will be relieved if he will!

Hillary Clinton is making hay of it of course. NAFTA has been highly positive both for US consumers (as it has reduced costs for goods and services) and US producers (sourcing cheaper inputs and the rapidly growing market of Mexico) as well as Mexico. A stable growing Mexico will not only reduce poverty there (which apparently Mr Obama doesn't give a damn about), but also provide a wealthier market for US made goods AND reduce incidents of illegal emigration to the US - because there are jobs in Mexico.

.

US leftwing imperialism to disallow Mexico from competing on the basis of what it largely can offer - lower cost unskilled and semi skilled labour - would impoverish both Mexico and the US. Mexicans without jobs can hardly fight for higher wages and working conditions can they now?

Canadian Pension Plan boxes on

It appears it isn't prepared to give ground, no doubt encouraged by the plummet in the sharemarket price of Auckland airport shares. Given that Canadian Pension Plan only is seeking a minority shareholding anyway, you'd have to wonder how it would meet any of the xenophobic tests of "control". If the purchase does go through, then Dr Cullen will have only succeeded in one thing - decimating the price that Auckland airport shareholders could OTHERWISE get for their property. Canadian Pension Plan could always just offer less, given how Dr Cullen has just destroyed wealth.

Something governments are awfully good at.