Greens so wrong on trucks

Well why should I be surprised? The Green party response to the truckers protesting against a government that lied to them is to say "It is time to stop subsidising the trucking industry". I've fisked this nonsense before, but if you dare... read on.

You really do have to wonder how these people can say on one side of their face don't subsidise one industry, but go ahead, subsidise the competing one to the hilt!

The Greens cheer lead the renationalisation of the entire railway sector, cheer lead taxpayers subsidising rail maintenance costs, cheer lead taxpayers fully funding new railway lines which only a handful of rail freight customers will benefit from and generally slobber with excitement at the prospect of taxpayers' being pillaged to prop up their totems of twin ribbons of steel on concrete. Subsidising trains is good. Remember subsidising coastal shipping is good too, so is subsidising buses - in the Church of the Uninformed Transport Environmentalist (not quite a rude acronym) these are the holy words, not to be sullied by evidence or analysis, but full of nonsensical scaremongering.

Then they say "don't subsidise trucks".

Are trucks subsidised? Well as usual the simpleton kneejerk headline grabbing approach of the Greens obfuscates, confuses, distorts and frankly gets it very wrong.

Jeanette Fitzsimons says "At the moment, truck drivers only pay 56 percent of their costs to the economy, compared to rail freight users who pay on average 82 percent and ordinary motorists who pay 64 percent, according to the Ministry of Transport's Surface Transport Costs and Charges study from 2005"

OK let's pull that one apart:

1. "At the moment" is wrong, the study was a snapshot of 2001/2002 statistics. Before the government bought back the track or the entire railway, before it started subsidising the maintenance of the railway track and before it increased Road User Charges on heavy trucks twice. Rail freight users are undoubtedly paying less than the putative 82% and truck "drivers" (well the owners) will be paying more than they are now. That's if we accept those figures, and I don't. After all I've read the report, many times.

2. If you break down the costs, which are total costs, then we go from costs that are real and actual, to ones that are putative and notional. This is when it gets complicated.

The "56%" recovery of truck costs includes such things as return on capital of recoverable assets. Now since rail isn't expected to make a return on capital on the track and right of way, we can remove those from trucks too. Suddenly this 56% figure goes up to 72%. However that includes externalities mainly for pollution. The air pollution figure is telling, as it is back in the days when diesel was dirty with 1500ppm of sulphur (which is the dominant contributor to PM10 - particulate matter, which is by far the most damaging pollutant). Diesel now has 3% of the sulphur that it had in 2001/2002, easily stripping out the majority of the air pollution "cost". Then there is noise, which is valued at $87m. Now noise tends to be factored into property values, so arguably can be stripped out as well.

So now this 56% cost recovery figure is 91%. Remember heavy RUC has now been increased twice since then, although maintenance costs have increased as well, so let's be generous and say RUC has gone up to cover that.

We know that half of the cost of local authority roads is recovered from rates. This is deliberate and could easily be addressed by another increase in RUC (but councils better be required to cut rates in compensation). Simply recovering this additional cost from trucks would more than overcompensate for the 9% "subsidy".

Still following me? Thought not.

So the 56% is rather illusory, especially when you ask trucks to be treated the way rail is now treated, when you take into account the dramatic reduction in pollution simply through now having far cleaner fuel, and you eradicate the rather esoteric monetisation of noise. The gap is simply the cost of maintaining local roads which comes from rates - and local roads do not compete with rail.

So this subsidy is not only hypocritical, but at worst a rather insignificant contribution that is about local roads - which you could also argue is about property owners paying for access to their properties.

Funnily enough doing the same rejig for cars puts cars on the same figure of about 91%.

3. Jeanette says "It is important to remember that Road User Charges for trucks have been increased only once since 1989". This is nonsense. RUC for trucks over 6 tonnes has increased twice now as of 1 July. RUC for smaller trucks has been increased several times since 1989 (trucks 4-6 tonnes) so she is wrong. However there is a reason why RUC for heavy trucks has only gone up twice. The maintenance costs for roads have not gone up at the same rate as kms driven because of the efficiencies since 1989 of contracting out maintenance to the private sector on a competitive basis, instead of having the Ministry of Works and councils doing it. Something, no doubt, the Greens probably would have opposed as "privatisation". So revenue from heavy trucks has, pretty much, increased faster than road maintenance costs until recently, when the cost of oil has meant bitumen prices have risen considerably. So the point is, so bloody what Jeanette? Why should they go up faster than costs?

4. Jeanette says "If we want to see more of our heavy freight on rail instead of big trucks on the road, we need fair Road User Charges." Fair? You mean recovering more than the financial costs they impose? How about recovering all of rail costs? Oh yes forgot that, it's ok to subsidise the church of rail - but not roads.

Now there is no point reiterating the OTHER finding of the STCC study the Greens love quoting. You see the figures Jeanette talks of are total costs, but this doesn't tell you how much extra cost shifting a tonne of freight by rail or road imposes relative to those costs. Those are marginal costs (asleep yet?). As I have said before, the marginal environmental costs of hauling freight on a tonne km basis sometimes are higher by rail than by road (between Auckland and Wellington), sometimes similar (between Napier and Gisborne), sometimes lower (between Kinleith and Tauranga).

So you see, whether or not freight is greener by rail or road depends very much on the circumstances. However the followers of the rail religion don't want to hear that - it destroys the mythology they have around transport, which quite frankly is truly bizarre.

Will Zimbabwe run out of banknotes?

One can hope, now that according to the Daily Telegraph the German supplier of paper has cancelled its contract effectively as a political statement against the regime.

"The highest value banknote is worth Z$50 billion - which is presently enough to buy one can of baked beans."

If paper can't be sourced (which seems unlikely) then it may well bring things to a head - unless the regime effectively uses foreign currency amongst itself while impoverishing the public with its worthless "money".

Should liberal democrats take up rights of smokers?

Mark Littlewood in the Daily Telegraph argues that the Liberal Democrats ought to be more consistently liberal, and argue against the smoking ban in pubs.

Now I think the point should be more direct - this is about private property rights. The right of a pub owner (or any business) to decide what legal activities should be carried out on that property. Sadly most of those fighting for "smokers rights" don't argue that point, but think they have a "right" to smoke wherever they want - they don't. That right can only exist in public places and on private property is up to the person in legal control of the property.

However there is a wider point here. The Liberal Democrats are by and large not liberal. They argue for taxes for environmental reasons, state subsidies and intervention in others, the Liberal Democrats are the new leftwing party of the UK, wanting more government, more state spending and being opposed to privatisation. It's about time the party either went back to liberal principles or admitted the change and became the Socialist Democrats.

Truck protest

The symbolism of the truck protest is so very important - it's important because it demonstrates three things.

1. A sector that has been much maligned by this government (after all the buyback of rail is about heavily subsidising that mode to take business off of the trucking industry, with subsidies for coastal shipping about doing the same - REGARDLESS of the evidence that the government's own study demonstrates), has had enough. Labour is no friend of road freight, truck operators know this, and there are more of them than there are unionised railway workers or waterfront workers. Labour is not interested in a level playing field between road and rail, it wants to save rail because of a belief, not because of evidence. Trucking is a highly competitive industry with small margins, Labour has reduced those again without appearing to give a damn.

2. Labour broke a promise. Not one that can be obfuscated or ignored. Annette King said one thing and did another. So not only has it acted in a way that would be unpopular anyway, it has treated the road freight sector as if it doesn't even deserve the respect of openness. I have met Tony Friedlander a few times, he is a very upfront guy who likes to be informed and aware of what is going on, to avoid this sort of thing. It was always made clear that dialogue and frankness would result in at least a sense of mutual respect - Annette King has squandered this and paid the price.

3. The constant increases in transport spending have finally hit the level of tolerance. You see most of you lot swallow fuel tax increases and do nothing about it - you voted for the government to be re-elected twice. You swallow increases in rates for public transport too. Truckies make a living out of this sector. The increase in RUC has been justified because it would keep the parity between petrol tax and RUC for different types of vehicles - so because YOU accept fuel tax increases, RUC goes up as well.

So while you may cheer the truckies for putting the boot into government, ask yourself this...

Do you support a major upgrade in Auckland's rail system?
Do you support a major upgrade in Wellington's rail system?
Do you support finishing Auckland's Western ring route through Waterview with an underground tunnel?
Do you support building Transmission Gully?
Do you support building new southern and northern motorways approaching Christchurch?
Do you support putting Victoria Park viaduct in two tunnels rather than just widening it?

Just a sample, but you see the longer that list is, the more money is needed - and while you're willing to pay more fuel tax for this - the truckies aren't. So are you surprised?

So if these lines closed...

According to Stuff Dr Cullen has released a list of railway lines that were "threatened with closure" if the government didn't make you pay to buy the trains that ran on them.

Let's remember the government bought the track back a few years ago, so the lines themselves wouldn't close - someone else could have operated on them. Let's also remember that even before Labour was elected, the government owned the LAND under the track, so could always have let someone else re-lay track if the railway was going to be a good idea. So in truth nothing much would have been lost. However, let's look at the list:

- the Overlander. Not a line, but a passenger train service. Now given that Toll reinstated this train without subsidy recently, either it isn't going well, or it's a bluff. Either way it's hardly that important, just nostalgia that should say the government keeps it going.

- the North Island Main Trunk line between Te Kuiti and Palmerston North: Now that sounds like a bluff. If you close that, you essentially have dismembered the key north-south container route. If the electrified main trunk line isn't worth it then there is a serious issue about the viability of long haul rail freight in NZ. I personally doubt that would have been closed, but if the figures show it isn't worth keeping open then claims about its fuel efficiency and everything else seem specious.

- Northland: Assuming that means all lines north of Helensville (where passenger service ends or is about to), I'm hardly surprised. The trains are relatively short, lightly loaded, the infrastructure is very old, and the routes circuitous and long been height/weight limited. The scope to do more in Northland is low, which is why the proposed Marsden Point branch line doesn't have Northland Port lining up to pay for it.

- Taranaki: Assuming that means all lines from Marton (and Okahutuna) through all of the Naki. Well that means milk trains from Hawera aren't viable, nor is the container traffic. Now the line from the north to Taranaki is very expensive and hardly a surprise, but from the south is. I would expect Hawera south to be marginally viable, but the rest may well be questionable.

- Napier-Gisborne: No brainer really, a couple of trains a day is not a viable rail link. It would be missed for sentimental reasons, the logs in Gisborne leave through the Port of Gisborne, and the rest are trucked the short distance to Napier.

- Hawke's Bay line: Assuming this is all south of Napier, this isn't much of a surprise. It is at least marginal, although milk south of Dannevirke would seem to be marginally profitable.

- north of Wairarapa: Again hardly a surprise, main use is as a diversion from incidents on the Wellington-Palmerston North line. Nothing much to serve here.

- Greymouth to Hokitika: Expensive to maintain old line, a bit of dairy traffic but nothing that couldn't be trucked to Greymouth. The money on the coast comes from the coal traffic, which seems secure.

- Invercargill to Bluff and Wairio: Port at Bluff is served really by Southland which means distances too short for rail and for locations where no railway exists. Wairio is about coal and is a very old line. If the coal isn't worth moving then this line has no future.

Remaining then is Auckland commuter, Auckland-Hamilton-Te Kuiti, all of the Bay of Plenty log/timber oriented lines, Wellington-Palmerston North, Wellington commuter, Picton-Christchurch-Dunedin-Invercargill and West Coast-Lyttelton for coal.

If you leave out the main trunk (which I doubt would close), then there is a lot of rail left which appears to be profitable. So why the panic? Especially since the government owned the track anyway and could allow anyone else to use it (if they were so inclined).

UPDATE: So if you read another Stuff report it also says the Picton-Christchurch line is threatened, but then only talks about "lines in Northland, Taranaki, Hawke's Bay, Wairarapa and Invercargill." Not all then. Come on, can't the same news outfit get the same story consistent? Sheesh.

Labour legislates to allow more fuel tax

Yep according to Stuff, regional councils will be able to levy up to 5c a litre to pay for big road projects (you know the ones that the users of the road wont pay for) and another 5c to pay for transport other people use, like public transport, walking and cycling.

*

Labour is making it seem soft by requiring it only be 2c a litre in the first year, but you can be sure that local government will take full advantage of tax powers that it can't be fully accountable for.

*

This is an appalling way to raise funds for transport. It includes an excise tax on diesel, for the first time in many years, and will mean that again all motorists will pay for projects that only a few benefit from. It will also create an appalling boundary effect between regions. You can be sure service stations at the edges of Auckland and Wellington, which will be keen taxing regional councils will lose out, whereas those on the edges of Manawatu-Wanganui, Waikato and Northland will gain from having lower fuel tax. Fill up in Eketahuna not Masterton, or Levin not Otaki.

*

This tax is unnecessary, current spending on roads and public transport is at a record high. There needs to be a serious review of the quality of that spending, and the ambitious plans of ARC to build a huge electric railway system that will need enormous subsidies need some cold-hearted hard analysis. Similarly WRC's love affair with Transmission Gully needs the same. Motorists are paying record fuel prices already, and to hit many of them for the benefit of a few, for particularly poor value projects, is not good public policy.

*

National's first transport policy priority if the wins the election is to do a serious review of the economic efficiency of the projects likely to be funded by this measure, and the other major projects underway, both road and rail. Labour has poured a fortune into building roads and subsidising public transport, much of it long overdue, but I suspect it has gone too far, too fast and in the wrong ways. Of course this is what happens when other people's money starts being reallocated on the basis of politically determined strategies.

T shirt banned by NZ censors

Warning content below may offend - seriously don't read any further if you are easily shocked....

*

The tshirt concerned is from the band "Cradle of Filth" and depicts a woman dressed as a masturbating nun, with the words "Jesus is a Cunt". The woman concerned appears to be enjoying herself and her breasts are bare with her genitalia concealed only by her hand. I haven't placed a copy of the image here out of respect of Christian readers, because I want them to at least understand my point - and besides, Google will enable anyone to find the tshirt within minutes.

*

The Office of Film, Video and Literature Classification (OFVLC) has deemed the tshirt is now banned. Yes banned. It is "grossly objectionable due to its obscene content" and so is injurious to the public good. Yes you can face imprisonment for possessing that tshirt now, whether or not you knew it was objectionable. You could also face imprisonment for selling it, giving it away, letting a child see it - in fact, that's it. You see "objectionable" places the tshirt on a par with child pornography - so a tshirt of a piece of art is cross the threshold of unacceptability like a video of a child being raped and murdered.

*

Hmmm.

*
I can see why some would be upset by the tshirt. The words on the tshirt would shock and offend any Christian - but then if there was a tshirt that said the same about Charles Darwin, Ayn Rand or myself, I might be shocked, but I wouldn't want it banned. I'd think less of the person who might wear it, but that's it. Hardly a reason to make it criminal. Words on a tshirt that are not defamatory (sorry Christians, Jesus isn't alive by any objective legal definition) should not be banned - they are words, they offend but do not harm. The Society for the Promotion of Community (of Christian Fundamentalists') Standards (SPCS)said the words are "grossly obscene and blasphemous language directed at the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is worshipped, adored. praised and revered as the central Person of Christianity". As Stephen Fry once said "so you're offended? So fucking what?"
*
I am offended daily by the vileness of the actions and words of individuals and governments, I'm offended by people who don't wash and use the tube, I'm offended by foul mouthed yobs at 1am shouting outside our flat randomly, I'm offended by the BBC wasting money it took from me by force to pay exhorbitant salaries to people on commercially oriented programmes, I'm offended by restaurants that don't give me what i ordered. The world does not exist so governments can protect you from being offended.

The question I want to know, is that if it is illegal to have those words on a tshirt, is it illegal for me to even have them on this blog? Well US law protects me I expect given the hosting of this site - but if you can't write that phrase, then it has serious implications as to where the line is drawn on offending people through writing!

So what about the image? Was the woman in the image (I believe it was a photograph) forced to pose that way or reveal herself? If so, then there is an issue of assault and she would be a victim. If not, then let's think carefully - could she pose like that in someone's premises legally?

The answer is yes. There is no crime in a woman dressing as a nun, exposing herself and masturbating assuming she consents and is of age, which appears to be the case. So again, we are just talking about people who would be offended by the image. So let's deconstruct this. The person depicted on the tshirt isn't offended. The person buying or owning the tshirt isn't offended, but others not involved at all in the tshirt, except seeing it - are.

So we are to protect people from being offended from seeing an image that, in real life, would be perfectly legal to copy. This is rather unlike child pornography, where you are in serious criminal charges for attempting to undertake those activities in real life.

So why ban it? Well it appears the OFVLC is protecting Christianity and chastity, which seems rather strange as I didn't think it existed to do that. SPCS quotes this statement from the decision:

"The injury to the public good that is likely to be caused by the availability of this T-shirt originates from the manner in which it associates an aggressive and misogynistic meaning of the “harsh, brutal and generally unacceptable” word c### with Jesus Christ, and depicts an image of a chaste woman engaging in sexual activity. A fair interpretation of the messages conveyed by this T-shirt is that Christians should be vilified for their religious beliefs, and that women, including chaste and celibate women, cannot stop themselves engaging in sexual activity."

So there is injury to the public good simply by using a rude word with Jesus Christ? What if I say Kim Il Sung is a cunt? That will offend millions, but so fucking what?

The "image of a chaste woman engaging in sexual activity" is a curious description of something "bad". For starters the woman may not have been chaste, but was simply a model for the t-shirt. Secondly, the first sexual activity of all women is presumably when they are "chaste".

Does the tshirt say or imply Christians should be villified? Hardly. It is anti-Christ (careful use of the word), and depicts nuns as being sexual - which undoubtedly some are, and funnily enough the law doesn't criminalise them if they do or don't. However it isn't seeking oppression of Christians, it offends their primary prophet, but it is a stretch to say it villifies them. Does it imply that women cannot help themselves engaging in sexual activity? Well it implies the one on the tshirt can't, maybe some nuns can't, but then again, so what if it does? Would a tshirt that says "slut" and depicts a woman masturbating without wearing nun gear be criminal? Would a woman wearing a tshirt that says "i'm a slut" be criminal?

Let's be clear. I wouldn't wear this tshirt, I wouldn't listen to this band. I wouldn't be impressed by someone who did wear it, but the idea that you can be imprisoned for wearing it is frankly absurd and offensive.

I know many Christians will cheer this decision - but some of them wouldn't cheer if they faced the same offence for a tshirt that might say "gays carry AIDS" or something else that reflects their own beliefs but offends others.

Censorship law should simply not exist because people get offended, it should only exist to protect victims of real crimes. No crime was committed in the production of the tshirt design, so it should be nobody else's business.

You can ban anyone from your own property from wearing the tshirt and I have no objection to a mall owner or any other private property owner telling someone to leave if they wear the tshirt. That should be your right. However, to ban possession of the tshirt generally, across the board is absurd.

So in New Zealand, wearing this tshirt in your own room is a crime. However you can have a woman doing exactly what is depicted in this tshirt and it is wouldn't be.

By the way this tshirt caused an issue in Perth, WA recently. A 16yo has been charged with "offensive behaviour" for wearing it. Yes, the Police have their priorities right, and of course the Christian right is cheering on the prosecution.

Don't believe for a moment National would change this, or even ACT. Yes I know there are "higher priorities", but think about it. If someone in your family had criminal charges for owning this tshirt, buying it off Ebay and it being intercepted by Customs and the like - and presumably even downloading the image from the internet - would you still not care?

oh and what's to be banned next?

Hattip on this case to no less than the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, forever cheering on the suppression of tshirts with dirty words and bare breasts.

Story of a couple of neighbours

One man with a kindly face, let's call him Mr. T used to do business with the man next door. He would sell him various things and the man next door was quite wealthy, he and his wife would regularly go on overseas trips and always wore excellently fitting suits. When they were away they'd have a nanny looking after the children. The man next door, let's call him Mr. R, had quite a family of kids. However he was rather cruel to them. Sometimes they would have nothing much to eat, sometimes he or the nanny would beat them, lock them in a room and hurt them again and again, and threaten them. Well this is what the kids told Mr. T, but he wasn't so sure that they hadn't provoked Mr. R. After all, the kids used to loved Mr. R, and he thinks the kids have some other friends who tell them what to think. He tries not to notice the blood, the screams and the fact that the odd kid has scrambled into Mr. T's yard looking for refuge and keeps hiding.

This has been going on for some time and the oldest kid (Master M) had had enough and has the support of the other kids to boot their father out. However, the father threatened the kids to be on his side, he told the nanny to beat them up unless they say how much they love Mr. R. Mr T. doesn't believe Mr. R would do such a thing and that it is lies spread by the outsiders, he says the oldest kid and Mr. R need to sit down and sort things out. However, when Mr T. leaves, Mr. R gets the nanny to try to catch Master M, put him in his room and gives him a thrashing for being obstinate and ungrateful. After all Mr. R has led the household for 28 years.

Things with Mr. R have been getting more difficult though. Some of Mr. R's kids have told others that a couple of the kids have been killed by the nanny or other staff, and the kids are sick of nearly starving all the time while Mr and Mrs. R go off to Italy, Egypt or the like. Mr. T says that the kids and Mr. R need to sort it out, and continues to try to help. Mr. R just tells the kids to behave or they will be thrashed, beaten, locked up and maybe something worse will happen to them.

The story isn't over though, because Mr. T has given up worrying about Mr. R's family. It's a surprise really because Mr. T and the club he belongs to used to care a lot about them 30 or so years ago when the nasty Mr. I looked after them, and treated them all as second class citizens and beat them up if they didn't stay in their place. Mr. R said they were equals and was somewhat loved for that.

Mr. T just thinks it is up to the kids to sort out whether Mr. R is head of the household or not, he doesn't care that Mr. R is armed, his nanny and housekeepers are armed, and he has killed a couple more kids to emphasise that he is in charge. The funny thing is the kids had a vote on it, and Mr. R told them that if they voted for Master M. they would all be thrashed severely, maybe even maimed or killed. Mr. R said they wanted him anyway. That was good enough for Mr. T.

Mr. T is happy believing Mr. R that the kids who he beats, starves, tortures, maims and kills want him to still run the household. He still sells Mr. R food, electricity, petrol and the like, and still has social meetings with him. He wont help the kids, they should figure it out for themselves.

Shame it's not fiction

The arts are too important to state subsidise

An excellent article in the Daily Telegraph by conservative columnist Simon Heffer (who is regularly disagree with) today argues forcefully for the arts, but equally so that state subsidies are corrosive not conducive to civilising society.



He talks of the view of composer James Macmillan:



"He observed that we are trapped in "a cultural regime which adjudicates artists and their work on the basis of how they contribute to the remodelling, indeed the overthrow of society's core institutions and ethics"; or, in sum, the view that "anything that is not Left-wing is intrinsically and irredeemably evil".



Furthermore: "He would tell me how he would attend meetings of the Society of Composers and sit aghast as profoundly untalented people sat around complaining about the lack of state funding for their "jobs". (George) Lloyd, who had hardly ever received a penny in public subsidy in his life, could not grasp this mentality."


If people wrote music that others wanted to listen to, they would not need a cultural welfare state. As Mr MacMillan has found, they go out and buy CDs, they attend public performances, and reward excellence by patronage.


Lloyd went further: he always argued that if the state paid composers to write what they liked, they would write self-indulgent rubbish."


So state subsidies can fund rubbish, no surprise there - you are forced to pay for what you don't like, as if it is "good for you".



However Heffer argues that while the moral case for ending state subsidies is clear, the arts do need money:



"I cannot, to use an old cliché, see why bus drivers should pay taxes so that I can have a subsidised seat at Covent Garden. However, I am equally convinced that, if the arts are not subsidised in some way, we shall career ever more quickly down the path to being a nation of philistines."



By that he means tax credits, I'd argue that it would be better simply to lower taxes generally so that the arts, like all other activities would be better able to thrive as people would have more money to spend on what they enjoy.



It is always curious how those who despise elitism and business success are all too keen to force elitism onto taxpayers in the form of the subsidised arts. It is a vile concept that someone who is an "artist" deserves to be paid money by force from those who simply don't like what they produce. Why can't artists that produce what nobody is willing to pay for simply be allowed to fall by the wayside?



"Those "artists" who feel the state owes them a living, and who in return embark on the destructive project Mr MacMillan so rightly identified, would have to learn the difficulty of having no merit. State funding in its present form encourages this poison in our culture and in our society. One day, we might have a Culture Secretary with the sense, and the moral vision, to reform it."

The ACC deception

So Labour says National will privatise ACC - oh I wish.

ACC Minister Maryan Street made this absurd statement:

"Putting the world-respected ACC scheme up for sale will rob all New Zealanders of the security they have enjoyed in the event of accidents, wherever and however they occur, for several decades"

*

Hold on a minute.. "world respected"? Where in the world has the government abolished the right to sue for personal injury by accident and replaced it with a state owned insurance monopoly which pays everyone the same for any accident regardless of fault? Exactly. It was investigated and abandoned in Australia and the UK.

*

"the security" she talks about is illusory. ACC is fine if you are at the top of your career and an accident robs you of the ability to undertake that work. You'll get paid off as long as is necessary. However if you were, for example, a medical student and an accident destroys your ability to be a surgeon then tough - you don't get compensated for lost future earnings, but for lost current earnings. If you are a child and get crippled by a car accident, it's the same. So much for security, and never forget that the ACC state monopoly gives you no choice - you have to pay whether or not it is adequate for your needs.

*

Now yes ACC advocates will say you don't need a lawyer, it's fast and the risk of losing a case isn't there. However, hold on I'm not saying people shouldn't take out accident insurance. They certainly ought to choose that, and then pay according to what the insurer sees is the exposure. For example, a young person who has little driving experience and plays contact sports will pay a high premium, but a middle aged person with no claims and a clean driving record will probably be rewarded. ACC does none of this. ACC does not penalise the accident prone or reward the cautious - it charges all the same, except for employers by category. However "good" employers pay the same as "bad" employers.

Street goes on "Once National has traded away the protection the current state monopoly offers, accident compensation will become a lottery" Well hold on, how is it a lottery to pay premiums to the company of your choosing according to your own risk? Isn't it a lottery as to whether ACC is adequate for your needs or not? Why should ACC pay the criminal teenager who cripples himself in a burglary the same as the teenager who is biking safely hit by a reckless driver?

She quotes a Merrill Lynch report saying it is more expensive in other countries than NZ, yet the truth behind those figures is hard to extract. For example, what does a person get for being blinded or made quadraplegic in Australia compared to NZ? In other words, is the reason ACC is cheaper on first look because it IS the el cheapo option in terms of paying out?

It is interesting to take this point "the report found that without ACC - and under a scenario similar to that in Canada, the US and Australia – roughly 70 per cent of current ACC clients would only receive benefits through social security and the public health system, a significant erosion of the support they now get. ... individuals would be forced to take out private insurance in the event they fall off a ladder or injure themselves in a rugby game - and be left without accident compensation if they don’t.

Amazing, so the rest of us wouldn't be forced to insure ourselves against a rugby injury if we don't play the game? That's what the rest of the world offers - insurance based on your own risk. ACC socialises all risk and payments - so we all pay the same and receive in kind!

In addition:

- In other countries compensation is a single lump sum or series of lump sums, in NZ payments can continue for years and years while people are considered "unable to work". Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party candidate Michael Appleby has often said he is on ACC, it seemed to be the case election after election.

- In other countries not everyone who has an accident gets compensation. If you accident saw off your finger in other countries, unless you are insured for that, you wont get anything. In New Zealand you get paid. In other words, in New Zealand ACC pays you for being stupid or negligent, the rest of the world doesn't unless you pay to be insured on that basis.

It would be interesting to analyse further. Street just assumes.

She quotes a PWC report that says ACC is "best practice". Funny how nobody else adopts that. I have accident insurance now in the UK, if I was in NZ again I wouldn't rely on ACC for my own accident insurance - because I'd want a lot more than what it offers. However, Street may answer this?

Why shouldn't those who pay ACC pay less for no claims and more for risky behaviour?

Why shouldn't those who pay ACC pay more for higher levels of cover if they wish?

Meanwhile, I'm going to read this PWC report and examine what it is about - it deserves closer scrutiny to find out what questions were asked and which ones were not asked.

UPDATE: According to Stuff John Key confirms National will open up the ACC employer accounts to competition, WHICH the PWC report mentioned above says could, if properly regulated, result in improved outcomes and efficiencies. So let's be clear, Labour will oppose it, but its own report says there may be advantages in doing what National is proposing. However National wont privatise ACC, but the left somehow thinks opening the government sector up to competition is privatisation - maybe it fears no one will want to do business with the public sector if given the choice?

RUC f'up

Now I am not opposing the increase in Road User Charges, as long as it is transparently justified by the cost allocation model used to determine what all road users should pay to recover what is paid in road maintenance and construction costs.

Remember also that with all fuel excise duty now fully dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund (something I would have thought Labour should be crowing about), it means that the proportion of road spending paid by diesel vehicles dropped below what was appropriate, so the increase is likely to be justified (i.e. a diesel car shouldn't pay more for road use through RUC than a petrol car through petrol tax, on average).

However to lie to Tony Friedlander, the long standing chief executive of the Road Transport Forum - the main trucking lobby group - about RUC, is outrageous. Tony is a smart guy, though he was once Minister of Works under the Muldoon administration. If Annette King has said, "Look Tony, we wont give you notice anymore", he wouldn't have liked it, but at least she wouldn't have gone back on her word. Furthermore her own press release is deceptive, as it almost implies that only vehicles up to 6 tonnes face the increase, by only referring to examples up to that weight and attaching a document about vehicles up to that weight.

Of course what this means is that operators wont buy RUC licences in advance to avoid the increase, as has been done successfully in the past (and if managed well does provide a sudden cashflow advantage that could be invested wisely).

So something that arguably is justified as an increase has become a political nightmare by deception and sleight of hand.

Lynchers may be brought to justice

CNN reports that some new evidence has been found related to a 1946 lynching case in Georgia, USA.

On July 25, 1946, two black sharecropper couples were shot hundreds of times and the unborn baby of one of the women cut out with a knife at the Moore's Ford Bridge.

And in the days following the massacre, residents of the community about 40 miles east of Atlanta, Georgia, were tight-lipped with federal agents sent by President Truman to investigate.

Georgia state representative Tyrone Brooks has said "they think there was enough evidence in FBI files at the time to bring a case against the suspects. He said his group has identified five suspects in the slayings who are still alive."

If this proves to be the case, a handful of elderly men (they are likely to be in their 80s or so) will plead how unfair it is and cruel it would be to try, convict and imprison them.

No.

As long as the evidence stacks up, these men should be forced to fear the consequences of their action. Their families and friends should know what they did, and the lives of other elderly murderers should remain ones tinged with fear that their final years will be in disgrace, alone and behind bars.

3 stories about sex

1. A high class (!) escort agency could soon open in Dannevirke called "Promiscuous Girlz" according to the Manawatu Standard. Honestly, it's not a good start when you use "z" for "s" like some south central LA outfit. You do have to love the comment from the council though "From our viewpoint, there is bugger-all we can do about it". That service may also be available there, after all what else would a discerning Dannevirke clientele want? (who knows?).

2. Stuff reports a Brisbane couple (mother and stepfather) had the 15yo daughter sign a "contract" for him to impregnate her because the couple had already born two children with congenital diseases. It started with using a syringe, but naturally that failed so he tried the natural way. The girl finally told a family friend who encouraged her to go to the Police. The idiot said when arrested "Did you not see the f---ing contract?" Yep, because you really can sign a contract to bypass criminal law and the age of consent. You might think people who regularly have children with congenital diseases ought to get the message?

3. Stuff also reports in Papua New Guinea that a security guard forced a 15yo female shoplifter to pay for her suspected crime through sex. Charming.

Now you can see why prostitution is relatively respectable.

Review a politician

Yes go to this website and write a review of one of the Parliamentary party leaders. Very few there now, so get in and have a go. John Key has four reviews so far, some have none. So go on - give them a score!

Sue Kedgley's latest economic lunacy

Petrol prices rise (as do diesel prices). Demand for buses goes up in response, buses start overcrowding. The solution proposed by Wellington Regional Council? Increase fares, as it will moderate demand, recover the increased cost of fuel and reduce net subsidies. A great chance to lower costs to taxpayers, give bus companies more money from passengers that could be used to increase service capacity and encourage more people to walk or cycle instead of riding the bus.

No no, it's so wrong. Ignoring the value of increasing fares, Kedgley wants the money tree to be plucked to subsidise them more!! She wants people who aren't riding buses, ratepayers, to pay for those who do - to encourage people to overcrowd the buses.

It is sheer economic lunacy.

The opportunity now is for bus subsidies to end, for bus passengers to pay the costs of providing them with services, reducing demand from those who are price sensitive (and likely to walk, bike or not travel instead), providing room for those who are willing to pay, and incentivising the bus companies to put on more services to make money from the higher fares. However, Sue doesn't care about the much harangued ratepayer.

When the left is wrong about rail

Idiot Savant naturally is cheering the renationalisation of rail. Maybe no one bought him a train set when he was a kid. As is sadly the case of far too many on the left, he’s swallowed hook line and sinker the myth around Tranz Rail. There are elements of truth, but the story is far more complicated.

Though he treats the privatisation of New Zealand Rail as if it were something criminal saying “Unfortunately, the people responsible for that corrupt privatisation are still walking free” Yes, one of course is the Chairman. However, what about those responsible for this outrageous nationalization? Why are those who have taken taxpayers’ money and paid for a company around double its market price ever able to show their faces in public again? If a company director did a deal to buy another company well over the odds in price, he better demonstrate it would generate returns – actually Kiwirail will cost the new shareholders a fortune, and for what?

Well according to Idiot Savant the “private sector's focus on short-term profit led to asset stripping and running a minimal service”. Like he’d know. He is pretty much just churning out the leftwing propaganda from the era. Like he noticed that the privatised Tranz Rail increased long distance passenger rail services and ran them as such for some years before the impact of significant airfare discounting and cheaper car and petrol prices eroded patronage. The privatized Tranz Rail carried more freight per tonne km that the railways in New Zealand EVER did before. Just bigger longer trains on longer distances, many at night are invisible to most. Yes it didn’t spend up large on track, but a report in the mid 1980s said that the track had effectively been goldplated – overengineered for purpose in many cases. Privatised Tranzrail expanded its carriage of milk by rail and coal by rail, and even reopened the odd branch line for regular freight services (Dargaville). It bought a brand new ferry, which turned out to be a bit of a bad purchase, and started the Lynx Fast Ferry service which was eventually killed off by complaints against waves in the Marlborough Sounds that saw a speed limit imposed under the RMA. The last time a ferry had been bought by the government owned railways was 1983 and before that 1974, buying another and leasing a fast ferry was hardly “asset stripping and running a minimal service”.

He goes on “No matter what happens, freight and people are still going to be moved, but the market is unable to see far enough ahead to provide for it” Really? Noticed how privatised airports tend to be no worse, and often better equipped that state owned ones. Notice how ports all effectively run as local authority owned businesses, unsubsidised. Notice how many railways were actually built by the private sector, indeed the entire US rail freight sector is privately owned and operated – and yes it carries very large volumes of freight. Some of France’s motorway network is privately owned and provided and the rest are government commercial companies. The market wont provide? More a lack of imagination, permission and crowd out by the state.

He continues with the idea that “road transport pay its real costs, rather than continuing to be effectively subsidised by the government.” He doesn’t actually know what that means I am sure. It’s often trotted out by the anti-truck pro-rail believers (it is a religion after all), when the evidence is that the road transport that competes with rail does pays its share of roading costs. You might argue about negative externalities, but then nobody pays that in any economic or non-economic activities (or charges for the positive externalities). It’s just part of the leftwing environmental religion around transport.

He then says National wouldn’t possibly level the playing field between road and rail “Instead, they're likely to "leave transport to the market", entrenching existing inequities and repeating exactly the same mistake which led to rail being run down in the first place.” Well again he’s well out based on the last National government, but then I wouldn’t ever guess what the John Key Labour lite administration might do. National before sought to require roads, like rail, to be run by profit oriented companies. What it will do in the future is anyone’s guess, but the key point is that the long held myth by rail enthusiasts that road freight has some enormous advantage over rail needs to be exposed.

There are problems with the current system of road funding, financing and management, but nothing will dramatically change the amount of freight that goes by rail for a simple reason – rail is only efficient at moving bulk or containerized freight over relatively long distances, with few exceptions. Subsidising it more is subsidizing those already using it. It’s about time the worshippers of the grand sacred religion of rail engaged their minds.

Oh and if you still subscribe to the rail good, truck bad theory, I've fisked that one before as a study commissioned by this government demonstrated that in some cases trucks have a lower environmental impact than trains per tonne km transported (in some they are higher and in some are the same). So if it's not economically efficient, if the environmental advantages are dubious and sometimes illusory, then why buy the railway at all?

Indeed Idiot Savant, why do you want taxpayers to subsidise:

- Solid Energy's coal exports to Asia;
- Fonterra's dairy export business;
- Forestry companies logging and wood product businesses?

Awfully funny position for a socialist methinks.

UPDATE: Rodney Hide tells it like it is - it's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers without any return.

Jim Anderton talks the same mythology of Idiot Savant, claiming rail is a natural monopoly. Funny how it finds it hard to compete with road freight and coastal shipping, this really isn't the characteristic of a natural monopoly is it? He scares us into thinking the Nats might sell it again - frankly who cares as long as taxpayers don't have to pay any more?!

Reading the PM's speech she makes a key mistake:

- Rail does not necessarily have a fourfold energy advantage over road for freight movements, that is long dated (1981) and discredited figure. The true figure is probably closer to 2-2.5 given improvements in roads, truck technology and the types of freight now moved. The truth is that there has been no good study done of this since then.

Tories offer solution to West Lothian question

With devolution of many policy matters regarding Scotland from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament, the unfair situation has emerged that while matters such as education and health for England remain a matter for the House of Commons, Scottish MPs in Westminster can vote on matters that only apply to England. Don't forget this applies to Gordon Brown also. His constituency is Scottish, but he apparently has the right to govern England on matters that wont ever affect his constituents.

This is the West Lothian question. British Labour wont confront it, because it likes having Scottish Labour MPs able to vote with the government. However, David Cameron is willing to confront it. The Daily Telegraph reports that the Conservative Party will require that only MPs from England will be able to vote on matters regarding England. Other MPs will not be permitted to participate.

This is a sensible position to take, it avoids any nonsense of more assemblies and the like, and removes the nonsense of matters of England being voted on by MPs from other constituent countries of the UK when it doesn't affect their constituents at all. Amazing, the UK Conservative Party isn't disappointing on this issue!

Government announces annual transport funding programme

Land Transport New Zealand (the government's land transport funding agency until now) released its final National Land Transport Programme outlining how it intends to spend your fuel tax, motor vehicle registration and licensing fees, and road user charges for the next financial year.

From 1 July it merges with Transit New Zealand, so that the funding agency gets to fund its own activities - whilst local authorities get to compete with that. Yes, Labour has reversed some of the transport reforms of the 1990s which ensured transparent competitive bidding for transport money. After all who needs to ensure value for money, or accountability when you can have one big behemoth of a bureaucracy.

$2.439 billion from the National Land Transport Fund, plus around $220 million extra from taxpayers. Yes Labour is spending your motoring taxes on transport.

$908 million is for routine maintenance of roads, the administration cost of the relevant agencies (which isn't small), the Police policing the roads (see this is managed separately but is very hard to get accountability for), and research and development associated with managing road networks.

Another $402 million is for periodic and preventive maintenance on roads, which is about renewing the whole surface (and includes bridges and the like). The precision of spending on maintenance is important and better than most countries (certainly better than the USA). Even so, Chris Olsen Chief Executive of Roading New Zealand (an industry association of contractors) says the maintenance spend is inadequate. Certainly it is at an efficient level, but it would be interesting to know if local authorities and Transit are concerned. The funding system should avoid underspending on maintenance, if politics is kept out of it.

Beyond that we have new construction with just over $1 billion being spent on roads, most on state highways. My only question is whether local roads are getting enough, especially since local authorities have to get around 45% of funds for new local roads from hard stretched ratepayers. There is a case for local road improvements being funded by road users, but ensuring local authorities are accountable for this is critical, and it is one reason I supported requiring local authorities to put their core arterial and collector networks into roading companies.

The Greens complain that not enough of road users' money goes to subsidise public transport, this year $325 million is going into it, which is nearly ten times the amount in nominal terms compared to when Labour first was elected, and $86 million more than last year. It is $100 million more than what is going into upgrading local roads - remember local roads carry half of all traffic movements and comprise over 80% of the network, but public transport's share of journeys is less than 10% nationwide.

On top of that another $49 million is to be spent on "community focused activities" (encouraging people to change travel behaviour), walking and cycling, and subsidising rail and sea freight. All activities that don't actually pay a cent into the National Land Transport Fund.

Now one thing politicians like to do with this announcement is claim that they are personally responsible for the decisions of a statutorily independent board for funding pet projects.

So it's worth having a look at this enormous document to see what really is happening with a handful of high profile projects. I thought I'd look at:

SH20-SH18 "Western Ring Road" in Auckland
Kopu Bridge replacement approaching the Coromandel Peninsula
Transmission Gully in Wellington

There are bound to be others that interest people, but well these all have a profile, some of which is undeserved:

Western Ring Route: Five sections of this route need completion, and money has been allocated to complete four of these. This will mean the Upper Harbour Motorway is finally completed allowing fast efficient trips between the North Shore and West Auckland bypassing Hobsonville. It also will mean a continuous motorway from the Southern Motorway at Manukau through to Mt Roskill, with a second Mangere Bridge relieving the bottleneck north of the airport. However it does still mean a problem between Mt Roskill and SH16 - the Waterview connection. The PM wants a massive tunnel to be built on this section (the only part of the route proposed for tunnelling curiously enough), when it could just be built on the level with overbridges like all of other sections. $5.5 million is to be spent investigating this further. All in all 4 out of 5 for the Western Ring Route, the parts worth building are being progressed at a fast pace. However there really has to be some sober thinking about the Waterview connection. Current estimates have it costing more than all of the other segments of the road built combined (and that is six individual projects), so one has to ask why this part has to be goldplated and greenplated?

Kopu bridge: $100,000 of funding to complete design. Nothing about starting construction. Hmmmm. Surely a 2 out of 5 for that, perhaps there are RMA reasons? Perhaps it too has become too expensive?

Transmission Gully: Well that $1 billion folly will get $1 million spent on completing the investigation phase, but more importantly $13 million on detailed design in the next year. That is serious money for design alone, but the total design cost is $41 million. That is more than the total road budget for some councils. So big money ploughing into it, but resource consents not yet achieved or enough property purchases. So maybe 3 out of 5 for progress, but it is an enormous waste of money.

It would be nice to think National will change things, will refocus funding towards projects that are economically efficient, less money on public transport just because it is "nice to do". It would be more nice for the Nats to change things to be more commercial, less political and seek the funding provision and management of roads to be decided based on what users want, not what politicians think is the populist "road of the year".

The Nats once did have such a policy - there is no good reason not to at least go back to that.

Police truce with mafia

This is how John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, described the Bush Administration deal with North Korea in the Daily Telegraph today.

He effectively says the collapse of the concrete tower, dramatically presented to television is not as significant as the collapse of the Bush Administration's foreign policy:

"North Korea has violated every significant agreement ever reached with the United States, and all indications are that the North is again following its traditional game plan. It is quite adept at pledging to give up its nuclear programme, having done so several times in the past fifteen years. Not once, however, has it actually taken decisive steps to do so. Indeed, quite the opposite."

His article describes how North Korea has played the West as a fool, time and time again. There is no evidence that it has stopped any activities whatsoever, its announcement that it has nuclear weapons and the subsequent deal to NOT allow full inspection of its facilities and NOT dismantle its nuclear weapon stocks shows how North Korea continues to play.

North Korea had transferred nuclear technology to Syria, which both deny, even though the ample evidence that the infrastructure destroyed by Israel in Syria was almost identical in layout to the Yongbyon facility, and that the lead North Korean engineer working at Yongbyon had visited the facilities in Syria. Israel thankfully destroyed this facility, but don't expect the so-called peace movement to be grateful - many of them will only start to be concerned if a nuclear weapon goes off in Tel Aviv, but even then I'm sure that would be "Israel's fault".

Bolton warns:

"Europeans appear overwhelmingly to favour the election this November of Senator Obama, in many respects because his foreign policy is so congenial to their tastes. It may be comforting now to think that the unilateralist cowboys are about to retire to their ranches. It will be less so when we are all confronted, as we will be inevitably, with the continuing reality of Iranian, North Korean -- and other -- nuclear weapons programs."

There isn't an easy solution to North Korea. There is no military option as it would provoke an attack of devastating proportions. However, there should be no negotiation.

North Korea has only learnt through deterrence to not attack the South or Japan, since 1953, although it has repeatedly engaged in terrorist and espionage attacks. It is one of the most evil regimes on the planet - negotiating with child torturing scum is not likely to produce an outcome morally superior to deterring it with the trigger threat of annihilation. North Korea after all has no compunction whatsoever about letting around a million of its citizens starve to death, about having tens of thousands of men women and children be slave labour in gulags and executing those who try to leave. To think that a regime capable of such profound evil is willing to negotiate an end to having the ultimate means of threatening the world, is naive. North Korea is a regime we will have to wait out for death or a coup - meanwhile, let Kim Jong Il know that if he dares start a war, North Korea will suffer massive retaliation and this time South Korean, US and allied forces will go all the way to the Yalu River - and complete the job.

Bolger the sellout

As was widely expected the NZ Herald has reported Jim Bolger has become Chairman (I refuse to call someone who leads a meeting a piece of furniture) of Kiwirail. I shouldn't be surprised though, after all he was in the Muldoon Cabinet that orchestrated Think Big, he campaigned in 1987 against the reforms of Roger Douglas, campaigned in 1990 on getting rid of the National Super Surcharge and broke that promise, and opposed Winston Peters then made him Treasurer. He'd call it pragmatic, it's simply unprincipled. He doesn't need to become Chairman of the Clark government's latest acquisition, but Dr Cullen clearly loves it "Jim, we are lucky to have someone with your skills and your dedication to New Zealand on board with us,". Yep Bolger knows how to run a railway, after all he's been part of a government that ran it as a nationalised department, part of one that privatised it. Brilliant.

Dr Cullen also said "By bringing our rail system back into public ownership - following the buyback of the tracks four years ago - we will spare future generations from subsidising a private rail operator" Well we could just NOT subsidise them at all Michael, thought of that one?

Meanwhile Helen Clark has shown her intellectual might in saying "One locomotive can pull the equivalent freight of 65 trucks," Yet with all that, the 65 trucks can run without subsidy but the train can't, because Helen, the train needs a duplicate piece of infrastructure, and those wagons are nigh useless without being hooked up together with that locomotive, whereas 65 trucks can do 65 DIFFERENT trips, or the same trip - funny how there aren't that many freight consignments requiring lots of truckloads carrying the same goods at the same time to the same place.

Of course the Kiwirail board had to include the token unionist, Ross Wilson on its board. Look forward to Jim Bolger asking future governments for more of your money to prop up Kiwirail -

Maybe it should have a new slogan

"Your railway your money subsidising their freight and they're laughing"

Tunguska a century ago

I remember reading books when I was a child about the mysterious explosion, comet, meteor or whatever it was, that hit Siberia exactly 100 years ago today. Tunguska is now widely acknowledged by scientists to have been the site of meteoroid explosion or comet fragment.

The BBC has a good write up about it here.

"Some 80 million trees were flattened over an area of 2,000 square km (800 square miles) near the Tunguska River. The blast was 1,000 times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and generated a shock wave that knocked people to the ground 60km from the epicentre."

It took 13 years before any outsider is known to have actually visited the site, and another six years for a formal expedition to arrive (remember in 1927 the Soviet government had far more pressing things to do oppressing the masses and changing them into Lenin's new men).

As the article says, had it hit central London, the entire metropolitan area of Greater London would have been razed clear as far out roughly as the M25. It's a reminder that Earth is vulnerable to the flotsam and jetsam of the universe entering its atmosphere. Almost all of that burns up. Here is hoping that those watching the sky can warn us all sufficiently in advance and allow action to be taken - after all, a large object striking the oceans would be far more catastrophic than another one at Tunguska.

Of course there is also much interesting reading on the wiki post.

Mugabe the hero

Yes who is surprised he is attending the African Union summit, among his peers, a prick to piss on. According to the Times:

"He dined at a lavish luncheon given by his Egyptian hosts, hugged heads of state and other diplomats in the corridors and stayed at the Peninsula Hotel, one of the most luxurious in this Red Sea town. “Mr Mugabe is staying there as a courtesy by the Egyptian Government,” a hotel spokesman said."

Nice to see that aid being well spent Egypt - I bet the Bush Administration is highly amused!

At least Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga isn't accepting this charade. He wants Mugabe suspended "until he allows the African Union to facilitate free and fair elections". Italy has withdrawn its envoy from Harare, and calls for all EU countries to withdraw diplomats from Zimbabwe.

National's pork for sport

National has announced a policy - yes I know it's astounding really. Quite simply it wants to force you to subsidise one form of entertainment, one type of pastime, indeed one that is responsible for a remarkable number of ACC claims every year - it's sport.

Now I've nothing against sport, I mean what sort of person would do. It is the ultimate free choice, it is engaging in competition, it typically involves some combination of skill, physical agility, physical strength, endurance and tactical ability. People almost always do it because they enjoy it, the single biggest exception is when parents make kids do it, or schools do. In fact sport is so popular that once upon a time the All Blacks played for fun not money - yes really!

So something people enjoy, that attracts thousands upon thousands to volunteer their time to coach, tens of thousands to play and millions to watch and encourage, shouldn't need forcing people to pay for it, should it?

Well the Nats think so. Instead of giving you a bit more of a tax cut, they'd rather spend your money to prop up a sports club that has done alright without Nanny State, or to increase the price of sports equipment for schools (you see suppliers see Nanny State coming when they can make money from her).

So how does John Key justify this? Let's take some choice quotes from his speech:

"It's no great revelation that New Zealand school children could do with a bit more sport in their lives. Research shows that one in three of them are obese or overweight." Well John you could say they could do with a bit less KFC, or could simply walk to school or bike, they don't need sport per se. John gets worried easily though "(Parents) tell me their kids would rather sit in front of a computer than practice down at the nets. That's a real worry. It's something our country has to change." Well John we could always have a country full of software engineers who can pay to go to the gym from their 20s and 30s, or a country full of aspiring All Blacks - wait we have a lot of the latter already.

So basically he's worried about health - he could encourage more by cutting subsidies for public transport so kids walk and cycle more, but I doubt he'd say that of course.

So what will he do?

The key plank of his policy is to give schools more money for sport "We will ... give them sports funding to use as they see fit – be it buying equipment and uniforms, hiring sports co-ordinators, or paying for service contracts with local sports clubs. We will simply ask schools to ensure that any extra dollars we give result in more students actually taking part in organised sport." So in other words, schools will want to get bang for their buck - though you do have to wonder what organised sport is? How many kids actually play physical games of some kind that aren't really sports? If so, what's wrong with that, or do schools need to organise them! Don't you four kids be playing with a ball on your own, you must be organised! Organised!!

Hmm.

Then he wants to subsidise sports clubs to take on kids - after all it's better to do that than take less tax off the members isn't it?

But wait, John Key reckons he can spend existing money better, he goes on about how much money SPARC wastes now - which of course is a reason to stop taxpayer funding of it.

What's more disconcerting about National's proposal is that it has that tinge of Nanny State about it -the kind that authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany, Maoist China and the like did with physical exercise. Nationalism, strength through joy and the like. Statements that sports means kids are "learning about teamwork and co-operation, about playing fair, and about winning and losing." really is quite nauseating. Teamwork and co-operation? Yes of course comrade, far better than individualism, hard effort, striving and competition. Though sport could be about all that too. Now there is a point of truth in saying "I think we can make a significant difference to troubled young people if we can get more of them playing sport." Well yes, but that's light years away from subsidising sport nationwide.

Yes I know it is light years away from that motivation, but really why the hell is it the state's business how people enjoy themselves? If the entire country gave up sport and started playing computer games or cooking well, reading and playing musical instruments why should it be the government's business?

You see sadly John Key has come to a similar conclusion as Labour, he just argues about the detail of government funding, but he says explicitly "it's clear that government has a significant funding role to ensure more Kiwi kids get hooked into sport"

No it's not John, just another reason to not vote National. Frankly I'd rather more kids got hooked on reading, and respecting the bodies and properties of others than wanted to whack a ball around.

Oh and National has more policy on subsidising entertainment, John Key said "I am not going to talk to you today about National's policy on high performance sport. Having medal winners as role models is a critical part of motivating young people to participate themselves." Frankly John, if you're going to tell the bulk of taxpayers that you want to force them to subsidise people who live their lives in professional sport and all of the glory and wealth that that brings, I doubt most taxpayers would want to listen, but if you want to adopt the Chinese, East German and Australian approaches of subsidising Olympic athletes, then why don't you do it with your own money?

As Lindsay Mitchell rightfully says:

"Look. Those children who want to be involved in sport already are. Those who do not can do without the brow-beating. This is just the worst confirmation of National being a bunch of socialists. The state owns you. You will be fit."

F'ing Tracksy

Yep I know I'm not the only one. The website I use to track who you all are, where you came from, where you went, what search engine words you used, what you looked at and who linked to me etc etc is playing up big time. Tracksy simply says I've logged out when I log on.

So I may have to go elsewhere, since I need a way to find out whether searches on urolagnia, getting upgrades, Jade Goody's tits (shudder) or the like remain popular or not. For those with blogs it is fascinating how people actually find it. Disturbing when you find a post on a rather nasty crime attracts hit from people looking for "crime porn", those that enjoy reading the graphic details of some nasty violent or sexual offence, providing courtesy of the media. Anyway, it may be time to choose another excellent little spy site to keep an eye on who you all are and what you are doing.

Kiwirail?

Yes you see according to the Dominion Post, that's the new name. Kiwis have bought it, kiwis will subsidise it.

Got to love "Insiders said the trains' new livery would include a "non-Labour reddish" colour as well as the yellow front and rear required for safety reasons."

Why does it NEED new livery? Can't we just wait until the current coat of paint needs replacing? We already have three sets of colours on the network, surely Kiwis can be spared the re-branding - or is there something political about the country suddenly having Kiwirail Red on trains all over the place? Just to remind you of who made you buy it back?

However, the name may not be wrong. Nowhere else in the world does a government name a national railway after an endangered flightless bird, that was ravaged by the modern world and which today, without enormous amounts of protection, would be eaten alive by predators. It is largely loved for sentimental rather than practical reasons, is almost never seen by the everyday public except in museums zoos unless they go out at night in certain places in the middle of the North Island (ok I know that's an exagerration).

Surely the funniest thing though is that when "Kiwirail" seeks to buy trains, most of the manufacturers will think it's some third world outfit that ships furry fruit about.

Oh well, wonder where the Toll people will be now, besides booking their winter holiday to the Northern Hemisphere thrilled they ripped off a small centre-leftwing government so royally, making a handsome capital gain AND keeping the profitable road freight business on favourable terms. Well done men, you wont find a Dr Cullen again that quickly elsewhere.

No Minister rightfully criticises the "pretence of man-on-the-street, good-cunt, ordinaryness", and yes what is wrong with New Zealand Railways or Railways of New Zealand. The acronym NZR was well known (and somewhat loved) for generations.

Nicky Hager author?

Nothing shows how unbelievably lazy too many New Zealand reporters are in the MSM than their treatment of Nicky Hager. The treatment being that he is somehow an impartial "author" who strikingly only seems to produce revelations of national interest in election year, as he now has done as reported by Stuff (in the same vein).

Hager has an axe to grind/barrow to push that is too obvious to anyone who is intellectually honest. He is a long standing leftwing activist. Trevor Loudon outed Hager a couple of years ago on his blog. He is no different from Ian Wishart, except Wishart holds a different part of the spectrum, a conservative one. I treat both the same way, some interesting revelations but in substance they are both muckraking to find something worth throwing at their political opponents. They are by no means quality investigative journalists or truth seekers.

Hager is a chardonnay socialist par excellence, a member of a wealthy family (though who knows if he spends any time sharing that wealth with the needy he apparently cares about). Reagan did once say that Jimmy Carter was so obsessed with poverty because he didn't have any when he was a kid, perhaps Hager is in the same vein.

Hager campaigned against US nuclear ships entering New Zealand waters, a campaign largely directed at undermining ANZUS of course wich had widespread leftwing support. His long term involvement with the so-called "peace movement" (or rather the West unilaterally disarm and the nice Soviets and Chinese are bound to follow...) and continued association with the far left surely bring his credentials into question.

The appropriate response by the National party should be clear - yes we have consultants assisting us with our campaign. However Mr Hager, given your strong interest in having a centre left government elected why should anyone believe you will ever give more than one side of the story?

Hager is a partisan hack - his affiliation is almost certainly that of the Greens given his behaviour. My question is when will the MSM actually describe him for what he is? He isn't just an "author", he is "author and leftwing political activist". He is no more objective and balanced on the National Party than Michael Moore is on the Republicans.

Deregulating education becomes Tory policy

Well at least a move towards the Swedish model, which the left in the UK, US and NZ all remain willfully blind about. The Spectator describes it in some detail. It was discussed, wholly positively, on the BBC today. In summary in Sweden:

- Anyone can set up a school, a charity, church, private trust or private company. It can operate for profit.

- The school must demonstrate it meets certain conditions for registration (committing to a bare curriculum), but can then teach whatever it wishes and however it wishes beyond the state defined minimum.

- Parents choose the school, and funding follows the student. Parents can change schools and funding follows.

In Sweden it is a roaring success, so successful that all political parties in Parliament support the policy, except the communists. It means that consumers (parents) have the power, the schools have to be attractive to parents and pupils, and that decisions on how teachers are paid and how schools operate are made at the school level (you can see how scared teachers' unions get when central bargaining gets undermined). Some government schools have folded as a result, some local authorities have sold schools - and the sky hasn't fallen in.

It would be a great step forward if this policy came to pass in the UK, it would be too much to ask for the New Zealand National Party to actually be so bold as to consider this. Wouldn't it?

Margaret Pope

Following the NZ Herald article by Margaret Pope, repudiating Dr Michael Bassett, I have a small tale to tell about her. Quite simply I actually knew her briefly at university at around the same time as her relationship with David Lange became public.

Margaret Pope was a mature student studying law at Victoria University. She was in the same contract law class as I and to give her fair credit, she was witty and quite clever. Certainly you could see how Lange's speeches could come from this articulate and well-read woman. I was 19 at the time admittedly and of course, several of us would have casual conversations about politics. She made it abundantly clear that she despised Roger Douglas, and was quite devoted to Lange. Of course none of us knew at the time that she was Lange's mistress, that would appear in the papers later that year (1989). Pope did not come across as some hard socialist, but she also was uncomfortable with the policy focus on economic liberalism, she was supportive of the anti-nuclear policy. My impression was that she was somewhere between the left of the likes of Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson, and the Mike Moore, David Caygill centre-right.

Of course what happened between Lange and Douglas was simply that Lange used a press conference to repudiate a Cabinet decision, an experience that was bound to critically undermine confidence by Ministers in Lange's leadership. Why Lange did so is never going to be known, for those of us on the liberal right, we will simply believe he lost courage to sell flat tax and many on Labour's left contributed to his doubt, Pope presumably was part of that. Those on the left are likely to believe it saved the Labour government from splitting apart. As always, speculation on history at this level is little more than mental onanism - I look forward to reading Bassett's book because he has often come across to me as being intellectually honest, despite some on the left who prefer insults to actually debating him. After all, there is ample evidence that Lange became beholden to the Labour left on the anti-nuclear policy, wrecking NZ's relationship with the US by forcing Lange to backtrack on a commitment to the US to allow a non-nuclear powered non-nuclear capable ship into NZ (the USS Buchanan), because the US still maintained its "neither confirm nor deny" policy - but then I guess it was ok for him to do that, and to overturn Cabinet decisions when it suits him, because it suited the left. Indeed, to this day neither flat tax or nuclear ship visits are on the agenda of either major party. I doubt whether this was due to machinations by Pope, but I also don't doubt that she was unhappy with the outcome.

No WE are not at fault Tapu Misa

Tapu Misa in the NZ Herald has claimed "We are all at fault for bad kids"

What rubbish. What a completely abrogation of parental irresponsibility. I'm not to blame at all, and neither are millions of others. Bad kids have themselves and their families to blame, not the amorphous cop out called "society".

You see she is claiming kids reflect the "values around them". Indeed they do, the values they see at home whether it be hard working courteous and loving parents, or lazy, abusive and hedonistic ones will speak volumes - but it isn't my fault. She paraphrases Plato rather ignorantly saying "Plato talked about the best of us being the wise and the virtuous, guided by the idea of the common good for the benefit of the whole community." You know, the philosophy that most dictatorship and autocracies have adopted? The idea of telling others what to do because it is in their interests.

She then goes into "we" mode. Who does she think she speaks for? "We" this "we" that. You don't speak for me Tapu Misa, so get rid of your "we" statements, when you mean "me". Or don't you even mean that, in which case, who the hell are you meaning? Why don't you like people having individual responsibility?

She says:

"we more enlightened beings place a higher value on individual success, as measured by the accumulation of wealth; we have nurtured greed, cynicism and the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake."

Do you? I think individual success is measured by the individual, as long as you don't seek to force others to make you live, you should live your life as you see fit. Why do you nurture greed and cynicism? By the way, there is nothing wrong with the pursuit of pleasure, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others at the same time.

"We have been so intent on throwing off the shackles of religion that we have thrown out spirituality with the bath water, and with it the idea of morality, of the virtuous citizenry that a civilised society needs."

Have you? You said you went to church. Again, it's partly nonsense. There is a problem with ethical nihilism and a non-culture of hedonistic cannibalism. A culture fueled in part by welfarism, in part by cynical envy of the successful and a culture of blaming others for your own inate lack of self belief. That is more the point, but you're far far away from the solution. You see your article is about abrogating personal responsibility for one's own life and that of your children. I'm not at fault for other people's children. Maybe you need to go back to some rather simple points:

- When you have children you are responsible for them, that means materially, emotionally and spending time with them;
- The very basic values you should teach them are that they are in control of their life, but they should respect the right others have to control theirs. That means your property and body is your own, but so is everyone else's. It means you have to earn more, you have to be clever to do this, which means work;
- Success is up to you, live your life as you see fit, but respect the right of others to do the same. Do what makes you happy under these limits, and be proud, enjoy yourself, embrace and enjoy life;
- What other people think of you is not as important as what you think of yourself. Don't live for the sake of others, or how others will judge you, live for you, and let those you associate with be those who support who you are.

However, it's not as simple as saying "it's society's fault" is it?

Criminals clean up tagging

Remarkable really, I seem to recall this had long been an idea promoted - those convicted of relatively minor offences actually having sentences which do some good. According to the NZ Herald it's a success. Amazing.

The abortion debate drops a level

Now I am no friend of Ken Orr or the Right to Life movement, indeed it should be irrelevant what my views on abortion are - but the use of imagery that implies a threat to Ken Orr's life, as reported in the Press, is simply vile. The use of violence by a handful on the abortion debate in the USA is well known, and equally vile - it plays into the hands of the other side.

The debate is legitimate, those who wish to ban abortion advance the rights of a fertilised egg above that of a living person, those who wish abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy advance the idea that a foetus who could live outside a woman's body should be denied this, as its mother has that choice. Most of us think a line should be drawn between when the foetus has rights and the mother does - but the debate is important. Anyone who wishes to use force or threaten force in this debate (or indeed in any), has lost moral authority.

Barclays can go to hell too

You don't have to go far from home in the UK to find those who help prop up Mugabe's government and his Ministers, you see Barclays is banker for Mugabe's thugs and even buys Harare government bonds.

You see this is what it does:

"Barclays' Zimbabwean subsidiary lent the Mugabe regime $46.4 million (£23 million) last year through its purchase of government and municipal bonds and is one of the main contributors to a government-run loan scheme for farm improvements, the Agricultural Sector Productivity Enhancement Facility (Aspef). At least five ministers have received loans for farms seized from white Zimbabweans under the Aspef scheme, intended to boost agricultural production, which has collapsed since the seizures began

This statement defended its activities:

"[Barclays] services are critically relied upon by many of the 135,000 customers for their day-to-day operations to maintain access to banking and employment, with a benefit to the wider community. This continued presence brings the benefit of avoiding additional hardship [to that] already being experienced within the country."

I would love to know how in a country with inflation running at over 4,000,000% a year, Barclays can provide banking services worth anything to the average Zimbabwean? The local currency is worthless. It buys Zimbabwean government bonds, no doubt with foreign exchange. If it didn't participate in this market, the Zimbabwean government would have to go elsewhere, and funnily enough banks in friendly regimes like China are far from capable of undertaking the activities Barclays does.

So I'm going to find other insurance providers next week and cancel my policies. Barclays can royally get fucked. Like far too many companies today, it talks the talk about the value destroying bullshit called "corporate social responsibility", and plasters this nonsense on its website. It then has a description of the "operating environment" which ignores completely what is going on.

So go on Britain. Go take your money out of Barclays, tell them why, at this time of tight credit, it could do with a message that being bankers to those who encourage men to murder and abuse children is not ethical or moral. Barclays no doubt will claim that closing its operations will hurt locals, it may do so, but does this make up for continuing to help finance the murderous regime,to continue finance the loans to its thugs? When does it stop being moral to be bankers to dictators?

Mugabe was once a hero? Only in the heads of the willfully blind

James Kirchick in the LA Times wrote late last year about Mugabe's past, how it was whitewashed. You see the UK felt guilty for colonialism and the racist Ian Smith regime, so it tolerated the brutality of Mugabe. Kirchick wrote:

"over several years in the early 1980s, Mugabe executed what arguably might be the worst of his many atrocities, a campaign of terror against the minority Ndebele tribe in which he unleashed a North Korean-trained army unit that killed between 10,000 and 30,000 people.

Yet, even in the midst of these various crimes, Mugabe never lost his fan base in the West. In 1986, the University of Massachusetts Amherst bestowed on Mugabe an honorary doctorate of laws just as he was completing his genocide against the Ndebele. In April of this year, as the campus debated revoking the degree it ought never have given him, African American studies professor Ekwueme Michael Thelwell, who had been in favor of honoring Mugabe two decades ago, told the Boston Globe: "They gave it to the Robert Mugabe of the past, who was an inspiring and hopeful figure and a humane political leader at the time." Similarly, in 1984, the University of Edinburgh gave Mugabe an honorary doctorate (revoked in July of this year), and in 1994, Mugabe was inexplicably given an honorary knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II."

Mugabe humane? Only if your red coloured glasses mean you can't see the blood he spilt from the early years on. Anthony Daniels in First Post points out it is time Africa was liberated from its so called liberators. He says that "Nelson Mandela's description of the Zimbabwean catastrophe wrought by Robert Mugabe as a failure of leadership is a failure either of intelligence or of honesty, or of both. There comes a point at which euphemism turns into untruth; and Mugabe's regime long ago passed the stage of mere human error that the term 'failure of leadership' implies."

Noting that South Africa has only been saved from the same fate by the collapse of the Soviet Union:

"If the ANC had come to power with the Soviet Union intact - which would have been impossible without a civil war - it would have made contemporary Zimbabwe seem like a garden party."

Mugabe has done only what many other post-colonial African leaders have done. A fifth of the Zimbabwean population has fled; but a third of the population of Guinea, under the leadership of another hero of African liberation, Sekou Toure, fled. It would be difficult to say who was the worst liberator: the competition is so stiff. Africa is the one continent in which, with a few honourable exceptions, there has been little advance or progress in the last forty to fifty years. What Africa desperately needs is liberation from the liberators. But who is to do it without renewing the catastrophe?

Indeed - the great truth about Africa is not that the West has let it down, which it only has done so in part - with trade policies that have hurt it - but that Africa's post colonial rulers have, in most cases, used decolonisation as a path to personal enrichment. From kleptocracies to nepotistic autocracies, Africa has been let down badly - and only Western colonial guilt (with lashings of Soviet, Chinese and other third world Marxist support) has let that be. Mugabe is simply showing the bankruptcy of African Marxist liberation politics. Nelson Mandela stepped to one side from this because F.W. de Klerk was prepared to negotiate South Africa's transition to becoming an open liberal democracy, and because the Western world would tolerate or expect nothing less, when Gorbachev had destroyed the Soviet's totalitarian empire that once philosophically armed the ANC. Mandela's hero status in moving South Africa from the tyranny of apartheid to its tenuous relative freedom is deserved, but that is all.

He has let Zimbabwe down, and most of his ANC comrades continue to do so. His unwillingness to confront Mbeki and the evil of Zanu-PF surely stands out like a sore thumb. Yes he is an old man, and he may well have had his last public appearance - but he could have called a spade a spade. After all, who more than anyone could have changed events through his own words and eloquence, and who is more untouchable against Mugabe and his thugs than Mandela?