John, sorry to say it but told you so.
How many more swings at the ball is Nick Smith going to be allowed before you realise what a liability he is?
Now on my other points:
1. Peter Dunne needs to be pushed to one side eventually, you'll be rewarded for abolishing the Families Commission.
2. I said ACT should deal with the RMA, give Environment to Roger Douglas.
3. The Maori Party is harmless so far.
4. ii - Education Minister is who? Anne Tolley. Well we'll see.
iii - Steven Joyce was the right choice for Transport, well done.
5. You are warming to this, which is good.
6. Oh the RMA review is a Nick Smith special, like I said, hand this to Roger Douglas.
7. I doubt you've done this, but I'll wait and see.
8. Go to Sweden and the Netherlands next time you're in Europe. Take Anne Tolley. Learn how education deregulation works, and make sure enough braindead TV journalists follow.
9. Is Tim Groser's ticket to Washington booked yet? Why not?
10. Read Reisman yet? You just might have.
31 March 2009
30 March 2009
Helen Clark too hard working for UNDP
Well, I'd abolish the UNDP of course. Like all UN organisations it is a bloated bureaucracy which employs many people for whom hard work is something they'll never be accused of experiencing. I've spent plenty of time dealing with UN organisations, some of the curiosities were the compulsory morning and afternoon tea breaks, half an hour each, and the two hour lunch break, with 5.30pm being the absolute latest working period. 9.30am-5.30pm minus three hours! Criticise Clark for many things, but she was a hard worker - she worked long hours ensuring that her largely mediocre ministers didn't screw up completely.
Tax free pay, accommodation and medical allowances, flying business class everywhere. It is a racket that many on the left are only too happy to suckle from. A racket that treats all countries as being equal, whether it be Sweden or Belarus.
The UNDP has been subject to allegations of financial impropriety in North Korea, a place where Medicins sans Frontieres chose to leave because it couldn't guarantee that its aid would get to the needy instead of the military and the party.
Clark will continue to live off the back of taxpayers, people forced to pay for her. However, she is likely to be heading this rather awful organisation which may get the better of her.
What SHOULD happen is the UNDP should be privatised, and be an agency run and led by people who want to help international development, by voluntary donation of their time and money - not lazy barely employable bureaucrats who are more interested in protecting their vested interests.
Tax free pay, accommodation and medical allowances, flying business class everywhere. It is a racket that many on the left are only too happy to suckle from. A racket that treats all countries as being equal, whether it be Sweden or Belarus.
The UNDP has been subject to allegations of financial impropriety in North Korea, a place where Medicins sans Frontieres chose to leave because it couldn't guarantee that its aid would get to the needy instead of the military and the party.
Clark will continue to live off the back of taxpayers, people forced to pay for her. However, she is likely to be heading this rather awful organisation which may get the better of her.
What SHOULD happen is the UNDP should be privatised, and be an agency run and led by people who want to help international development, by voluntary donation of their time and money - not lazy barely employable bureaucrats who are more interested in protecting their vested interests.
Yet another reason for Auckland not to be a supercity
Gary Taylor likes the idea.
He likes it because it can strengthen planning of where and how development can take place. He likes it because it can push his vision of "sustainable urban form" retaining urban growth limits. Given he says it is good for the environment, you can see where this is heading. Greater Auckland City will be a behemoth of a planning monster.
He likes it because it can strengthen planning of where and how development can take place. He likes it because it can push his vision of "sustainable urban form" retaining urban growth limits. Given he says it is good for the environment, you can see where this is heading. Greater Auckland City will be a behemoth of a planning monster.
The debate, of course, should be what is the role of local government?
Until you answer that question, the form it would take is pointless to discuss.
Sunday Star Times asks idiot about transport
Well if you read this article by Esther Howard in New Zealand's leading leftwing rag - the Sunday Star Times, you wouldn't be that enlightened about Auckland transport. She talked to three leading international gurus and an Auckland expert, none of whom actually presented differing views from each other.
Paul Mees is a radical advocate of endless subsidies to public transport, and is rabidly against private transport. He does not present evidence for his claims, and is not widely acknowledged as being of great standing in urban transport circles in Australia and New Zealand. He wants an end to road building, and to pour money into public transport, putting high density Zurich on a par with Auckland. He gives no evidence whatsoever for his claim that this would reduce congestion.
Paul Bedford is another public transport enthusiast, wanting trams galore and also anti-roads. Again, someone who gives no evidence that spending a fortune on public transport will ease congestion.
Professor George Hazel is a bit more sensible. Another supporter of public transport, but more intelligently also promotes integrated ticketing and payment systems. He suggests people get credits for using public transport off peak.
Stuart Donovan from Auckland is even more sensible, as he promotes ending requirements for developers to provide parking (but then advocates taxes on parking). He supports replacing fuel taxes with tolls, at least this would ease congestion.
Paul Mees is a radical advocate of endless subsidies to public transport, and is rabidly against private transport. He does not present evidence for his claims, and is not widely acknowledged as being of great standing in urban transport circles in Australia and New Zealand. He wants an end to road building, and to pour money into public transport, putting high density Zurich on a par with Auckland. He gives no evidence whatsoever for his claim that this would reduce congestion.
Paul Bedford is another public transport enthusiast, wanting trams galore and also anti-roads. Again, someone who gives no evidence that spending a fortune on public transport will ease congestion.
Professor George Hazel is a bit more sensible. Another supporter of public transport, but more intelligently also promotes integrated ticketing and payment systems. He suggests people get credits for using public transport off peak.
Stuart Donovan from Auckland is even more sensible, as he promotes ending requirements for developers to provide parking (but then advocates taxes on parking). He supports replacing fuel taxes with tolls, at least this would ease congestion.
So you see, high standards of journalism again in New Zealand newspapers. No one who believes in efficient management of roads and free market transport was asked. The answer, you see, is to run all transport commercially - roads and public transport.
Nick Smith the Green Party's Cabinet Minister in drag
What a f'ing surprise! Nick Smith - the man John Key should have relegated to the back benches, and who I called on Nelson voters to reject in favour of Maryan Street, is calling for a new bizarre tax - this time on plastic bags according to the Dominion Post.
Hello??!! Nick, if you want to be in the Green Party, join it.
A 5c tax on every plastic bag is allegedly based on the "polluter pays" principle. Paying for what though? This is when the advocates shut up.
Smith says "We are a country of just four-million people, we use over a billion bags a year, and to me that's excessive". Oh sorry Dear Leader Nick, we are using them too much, like bad little children wanting to carry our shopping in multiple bags, then using them for rubbish disposal. We ARE naughty, go on tell us off.
The proposed tax would raise revenue to go back to supermarkets. Odd indeed. Especially since some shops already charge for bags, like Pak n Save in the North Island. So there IS choice. Nick doesn't like that though, as any good Green MP he believes in using force - force is good.
The supermarket sector prefers a voluntary approach, but is gutlessly supporting the proposal if the government mandates it (presuming glad the government wants to impose a tax to give money to supermarkets).
The same report says they comprise only 0.2% of waste but don't biodegrade. The appropriate response is "so what", largely because as long as people pay for landfill use (which many do not because councils subsidise them), then it is irrelevant. You see, that is the only issue.
So my solution is far more direct. Landfills should be privatised. All councils should be required to put landfills into profit-oriented Council Controlled Organisations, and to privatise them. That would mean everyone has to pay for rubbish collection and disposal, at market prices. Then, polluters would be paying, because as long as you pay for what you throw away, and it goes somewhere that does not leach onto neighbouring land, then who cares?
Unless, of course, you worship the ideology that throwing away anything is bad.
Hello??!! Nick, if you want to be in the Green Party, join it.
A 5c tax on every plastic bag is allegedly based on the "polluter pays" principle. Paying for what though? This is when the advocates shut up.
Smith says "We are a country of just four-million people, we use over a billion bags a year, and to me that's excessive". Oh sorry Dear Leader Nick, we are using them too much, like bad little children wanting to carry our shopping in multiple bags, then using them for rubbish disposal. We ARE naughty, go on tell us off.
The proposed tax would raise revenue to go back to supermarkets. Odd indeed. Especially since some shops already charge for bags, like Pak n Save in the North Island. So there IS choice. Nick doesn't like that though, as any good Green MP he believes in using force - force is good.
The supermarket sector prefers a voluntary approach, but is gutlessly supporting the proposal if the government mandates it (presuming glad the government wants to impose a tax to give money to supermarkets).
The same report says they comprise only 0.2% of waste but don't biodegrade. The appropriate response is "so what", largely because as long as people pay for landfill use (which many do not because councils subsidise them), then it is irrelevant. You see, that is the only issue.
So my solution is far more direct. Landfills should be privatised. All councils should be required to put landfills into profit-oriented Council Controlled Organisations, and to privatise them. That would mean everyone has to pay for rubbish collection and disposal, at market prices. Then, polluters would be paying, because as long as you pay for what you throw away, and it goes somewhere that does not leach onto neighbouring land, then who cares?
Unless, of course, you worship the ideology that throwing away anything is bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)