Go on, take real action on global warming

Frogblog is quoting a survey saying "a majority of kiwis support taking real action to combat global warming". Fine, who is stopping them? The survey the Greens are quoting lists a whole host of "measures", which I don't have a problem with, if they involve people making their own choices or they are about getting the hell out of the way of making choices. So let's go through them, nice to get rid of the euphemisms and describe what they really are

"More incentives for households to improve energy efficiency" means forcing other people to pay others to save money by being more efficient. Oh please. How about letting electricity operate at market prices, by privatising it, and not really caring where prices go as a result?

"Incentives for businesses developing renewable energy projects (like wind, solar, wave, geothermal, hydro power)" means forcing other people to pay for businesses in the renewable energy sector that the state identifies. Another option could be to zero tax any companies primarily engaging in that sector, but that starts to become complicated, better to just reduce the burden of tax on business overall.

"Lower vehicle registration fees for fuel efficient and low-emission vehicles" means reducing money to spend on road safety promotion and Police enforcement of traffic laws. Though the main part of registration fees primarily pay ACC (which would be better off just being open to competition and choice), and also pay for road safety promotion and Police enforcement of traffic laws. So do the Greens want less spent on road safety, or money transferred from roads? Yeah you've figured it out already.

"A cash incentive to encourage replacement of energy inefficient home appliances with energy efficient ones" means forcing you to pay for people to buy new appliances. Nice, could always just cut GST on them instead, or just cut taxes overall so people can better afford them. Guess it doesn't matter if the reason people don't buy them is it is cheaper to buy others and spend the difference on something more important right?

"Financial incentives to purchase fuel efficient, low emission vehicles" making you pay for other people to buy new cars!! When was the last time you bought a brand new car? Yep very Green. Could always just cut GST on them too.

"Incentives for landowners to plant more carbon sink forests" making you pay for landowners to plant trees. Yep. Own land do you? Nope no money for you.

"New Government investment funds to help quickly commercialise new lower-emission technology invented in New Zealand" making you pay for "businesses" that aren't profitable in the hope they are. How's your business doing? Yep maybe they'd all like a company tax cut?

"Lower road user charges for diesel vehicles using lower-emission bio fuels" less money for roads because I haven't noticed the type of fuel trucks and buses use reducing the wear and tear they impose.

"A Government information programme to advise businesses and households about climate change policies and ways to help manage it" forcing you to pay to be told what to do by the government. Is it polite to call it propaganda?

"Increasing goods transportation by rail and coastal shipping" how? What's stopping those who want to, doing it now? Oh yes, it often costs more. So is this about forcing you to pay for goods to be shipped at higher than cost? Where is the evidence this will make a difference?

"Increased spending on research to produce technology to help reduce emissions" force you to pay for more research. Be more polite to ask.

"Subsidies for farmers to use fertilisers which inhibit the release of nitrogen, lowering emissions and improving water quality" force you to subsidise farms. Fertiliser subsidies went in the 1980s, and this would hurt arguing for less subsidies in agriculture at the WTO, but the Greens don't care about exports soo...

"Assistance to sell New Zealand emissions reduction technology to other countries" subsidises for marketing to countries? So governments then? So are businesses that incompetent that they need to force others to pay for their marketing?

"Replacing road user tax with a lower vehicle licensing levy for light diesel vehicles, including cars" This doesn't even make sense. So light diesel vehicles should have their road use subsidised so they pay an annual fee instead of according to usage? Buy a diesel and use it as much as you like - very Green??

"Allowing forest owners to cut their trees and replant substitute carbon-sink forests on other marginal land without incurring any emissions penalty" Yes!! DON'T do anything that penalises behaviour that can reduce CO2 emissions. That can't be hard.

"Higher road user charges for vehicles which are not fuel and emissions efficient," oh so making a windfall profit from such vehicles, to spend on what? More roads? Didn't think so. Oh to subsidise the other ones for the costs they impose. Any evidence this would work?

"Higher road user charges for diesel vehicles which do not use lower-emission bio fuels" ditto

Bar one, it is all about making you pay more to prop up unprofitable businesses or to pay people to do something that likely benefits them financially (reducing energy use).

Here are four better ideas:

1. People who believe "more should be done" to prevent climate change should do it themselves. Turn off the lights, drive less and do all this without tax or regulation. Live the ascetic low carbon footprint lifestyle, and you can tell others to do so as well, but don't force them.

2. Stop getting in the way of low CO2 business activities. Nuclear power is an obvious one (which may go nowhere but still), but also cutting taxes and regulatory barriers to establishing any such businesses.

3. Stop subsidising business activities that emit CO2. Buses would be a start, since the majority of bus users don't have access to a car, you might find they walk or cycle, or travel less.

4. Get government out of activities that emit CO2. Privately owned energy and transport companies wont tolerate unprofitable activities or poor rates of return, so wont subsidise prices or run poorly used services. Coal mining is the other obvious one, farming too. This also includes roads, which governments stubbornly underprice at peak times, and overprice in areas where roads are cheap to maintain (e.g. Canterbury).

So would the Greens support getting the hell out of the way of more environmentally friendly businesses, and stop subsidising sectors that produce emissions, stop owning businesses that produce emissions?

Three bills on Auckland mega city

The NZ Herald reports there are to be three bills setting up the new Auckland uber stadt rat, one to set it up as a legal entity and establish transition boards, a second dealing with representation issues and a third "detailing structure, functions, roles and powers of super Auckland council and local boards".

Maybe we'll get answers about what the new council is meant to do?

Maybe that's the time to demand that the power of general competence be abolished, as is ACT policy (and which National opposed when the Local Government Bill was being put through Parliament).

Let's take the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee in 2002 and what National said then:

"National members of the Local Government and Environment Select Committee strongly disagree with the process, policy, and detail of this bill.

National believes it will result in increased duplication of services and inefficiencies, and, when things go wrong, a lack of accountability and buck-passing. National believes Parliament should clearly define the role and function of local and regional councils.

Councils will have a freer hand to invest in particular activities but not divest in areas such as ports, housing, and water systems. This introduces a structured bias towards expanding councils and their playing an ever-increasing role in our economy and citizens’ lives. National believes that increasing the size and involvement of local government will only make harder the ambition to return New Zealand to the top half of the OECD."

Quite! So what are you going to do about it?

Phones, streets and mail not safe for children

That's my reaction to the Privacy Commissioner's absurd declaration that the "internet is not safe for children".

What is?

Travel? Talking to people on the phone? Sending letters? Talking to neighbours? Relatives? Playing sports? Climbing trees? Swimming pools? Playing in the streets?

It really becomes a matter of applying your mind to the situation, and when children are involved, an appropriate amount of supervision. Smart kids manage risk, and smart adults know the extent and degree of keeping an eye on their kids.

In the scheme of things, the internet isn't dangerous. Physically it does nothing at all other than facilitate information and conversation. Of course if you let your kids take photos and send them without permission it becomes a little riskier. If your kids seek attention from strangers then maybe it is because they can't talk to you about certain things, or they are from a home lacking a parent. As much attention should be paid to those who seek out inappropriate attention, as those who respond to it.

Meeting people you only know from the internet is risky, just as risky as pen pals once were i bet, just easier. Simple rules around never meeting people without someone else present, who is an adult, is key.

This issues comes up perenially, this time because a man was luring underage girls to talk about sex with him online. He of course is now paying a price for that, the law is strict and is in itself a deterrent. However, the internet for many kids is probably far less risky than Uncle Tom, or Cousin Jed, especially if you leave them alone, they are alcoholic, and you as parents spend large amounts of time partying, or being absent. Risks need to be in perspective. The bigger risk comes from meeting people you don't know who might abuse you. These people are often brought in by adults as friends, or partners.

However, all that gets the attention of law enforcement on the internet is not the result of adults. You see the truth is that censorship laws are producing some new perverse results - according to Wired thanks to camera phones and web cams, teenagers (they aren't children and not adults) are now being prosecuted for producing child pornography. Why? Because they take photos of themselves and send them on. In one ridiculous case a teenage couple have been prosecuted because they filmed themselves having sex, and sent it to no one.

The internet is presenting new challenges to parenting, it also means taking a realistic approach to what young people do. It is more an opportunity than a risk. It offers unparalleled access to information and entertainment. It makes it far easier for young people who feel isolated and alone to explore the world, and learn about themselves and others. In short it offers far more good than bad.

Children shouldn't be exploring the internet unsupervised, but as they get older they should be allowed more and more freedom. They will talk to friends online, they may make new ones, and yes, some will explore sexuality - like they have for time immemorial. Yes, they should be protected from being hurt and harmed by predatory adults, but given the rate of teenage pregnancy far too many are experimenting with each other in the riskiest way. Wouldn't many parents rather that their teenagers sat behind a computer looking at pictures and chatting to strangers they never meet, than went out partying, getting drunk, and risking getting pregnant (or someone pregnant) or catching something nasty?

Risk is all around, it is about life. The best gift any parent can give to their children is to nurture their ability to reason, balance risk with opportunity and make informed judgments, and to be monitored, and observed as they mature with that ability.

The internet is no different.

Bludging kiwis should thank Rudd government

$A22 billion of spending on 100 new fighter jets and 12 submarines by Australia is a substantial commitment over the next 10 years, along with confirmation that its military alliance with the US is the cornerstone of its defence policy.

Have no bones about it, this means Australia is maintaining its strong defence presence in the region and its ability to project its air and sea power around its lengthy territorial waters. It is a commitment Australia has maintained throughout the Cold War and since.

Sadly, New Zealand has eroded its military commitment to the defence of the South Pacific in several stages since the mid 1980s. It started with the effective abandonment of ANZUS when the Lange government, following extensive goading from the left of the Labour Party, took an ideological hardline against the US Navy. The Lange government refused to accept a conventional powered, nuclear incapable ship because the US "neither confirmed nor denied" it carried nuclear weapons.

Following that, New Zealand has eroded its blue water navy to 2 frigates, and eliminated its air strike capability. As a result, with New Zealand effectively unable to contribute more than 2 frigates (and the army) to an overseas actions, its contribution to the collective defence of the South Pacific is derisory, through no fault of the forces themselves.

So New Zealand should be grateful at Australian taxpayers continuing their commitment. The truth is that the New Zealand armed forces are capable of maintaining some defence of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) from illegal fishing, but not any serious attack, or assisting Australia in the likelihood of any attack.

From Lange to Clark, New Zealand governments have wimped out of defence, because New Zealanders always felt safe from invasion. The idea of contributing to a defence alliance has seemed fanciful, suiting the "independent foreign policy" stance of the so called "peace movement".

Defence is a core role of the state, and while the current government will be fiscally constrained in a recession to remedy it, it should be addressed over the medium term. Meanwhile, a big "thank you" should be extended to the Rudd government, for maintaining Australia's defence forces over the longer term, and in effect, New Zealand at the same time, whilst New Zealand can effectively contribute proportionately so little in return.

How Turkey put back membership of the EU

One of the more presumptious statements of President Obama in the past month has been to support Turkey's membership of the EU. An understandable position, but I suspect had George Bush said it, Europe would be seething with "imperialist" and damnation that the US was meddling in EU affairs. Given the USA is not a member of the EU, for it to openly express a view that it should accept a new member is rather rude at best.

However, the bigger issue itself has long been a debate between those who believe such membership would promote the acceptance of secular Turkey's modernisation, a predominantly Muslim country accepted into the European club, vs. those who fear the mass migration of Turks into the rest of the EU, swamping the state welfare, health, education and housing systems, and putting EU boundaries at Syria and Iraq, rather than Turkey as they are today. Besides 6 countries of eastern Europe, plus all of the former USSR (besides the Baltic states) remain out of the EU. A bigger case can be made for the integration of the former Yugoslav republics in the EU than Turkey.

Christopher Hitchens argues in Slate that Turkey itself has put its own case backwards by a long shot. It did this by:
- Opposing the PM of Denmark as a candidate for NATO Secretary General, because he refused to interfere with Danish newspapers publishing the famous "insulting to Islam" cartoons because he had no legal right to do so;
- Opposing the PM of Denmark as a candidate for NATO Secretary General, because he refused to shut down a Kurdish language satellite TV channel, accusing it of being sympathetic to terrorism.

Hitchens argues that these show Turkey is not willing to accept the values of the EU of free speech and tolerance, and with its continued discrimination against Kurds, and denial of the Armenian genocide of 90 years ago, Turkey has a fair way to go yet.

"Put it like this: Obama's "quiet diplomacy" has temporarily conciliated the Turks while perhaps permanently alienating the French and has made it more, rather than less, likely that the American goal of Turkish EU membership will now never be reached. And this is the administration that staked so much on the idea of renewing our credit on the other side of the Atlantic. This evidently can't be done by sweetness alone."

3 May 1979 - the day Maggie's revolution started

Yes, it's the 30th anniversary of the day that British voters turned their back on the failures of the Labour minority government of James Callaghan. Persistent strikes, growing unemployment, inflation and the general state of decay of the United Kingdom in the late 1970s meant Labour was voted out (as governments are). Margaret Thatcher was new, a woman as leader of a major political party, with the Conservatives campaigning hard to attract Labour voters. An 8.1% swing to the Conservatives came from Labour and the Liberals, with the Scottish National Party also suffering (as it supported the no-confidence vote). Britain was not to know what was about to hit it.

Thatcher turned the UK economy around, she did not, as widely believed, cut state spending in real terms. In increased on average throughout her period, but the difference is that the economy grew faster, and she shrank the size of the state through privatisation.

Inflation was tamed, a vast industrial sector that suffered from chronically poor productivity was restructured, and limits on innovation and competition were dramatically reduced. Air, telecommunications, bus, rail and energy monopolies were broken up, and entrepreneurship grew once again.

Thatcher took on the militant unions, the unions that hated secret ballots that they couldn't rig, the unions that forced workers to be members, the unions that had funding and support from the totalitarian USSR. She won, as these violent institutions (that bullied and harassed those who valued their jobs more than the unionists) were no longer in control of the economy.

She ejected the vile military dictatorship of Argentina from the Falklands, and with Ronald Reagan confronted the grand evil of the Soviet Union, until Mikhail Gorbachev demonstrated he was willing to let the shackles of Soviet imperialism be removed.

She resisted the growth of the European Community beyond being merely a collaboration of free trade and movement of people, to being an institution of subsidy and regulation. She saw the EC as reversing what she was trying to do in deregulating Britain. She has been proven right.

However, overall she turned the tide on a postwar consensus of socialist mediocrity, a view that individuals knew best how to live their lives (though sadly with a conservative streak that did not stretch to social liberalism), and that success and entrepreneurship would save Britain, not more state sector control and bureaucracy. Allowing people to buy their own state houses at a discount opened up home ownership to thousands, and started to wind back the desolate decaying depression of council house dominated Britain.

Despite much hatred of her by the left, she did not dismantle the welfare state, or the NHS or the state schooling system. All got more funding in real terms under Thatcher's rule, and all were too difficult to seriously confront and reform. She was not without faults, her big mistake was the Poll Tax, as people resisted paying more for local government - when they really needed local government to shrink further. Her warmth towards Pinochet of Chile was a tragic mistake too, her love of the free market and hatred of socialism blinded her to the brutality of his dictatorship. She was, after all, a conservative, not a libertarian.

So today Britain should celebrate what she did. She was so successful it transformed the Labour Party so that, to some extent, the Blair government continued her reforms and did little to roll back the clock (primarily it just spent more on what the government did). She did not defeat socialism in Britain, but she slashed it back - the spirit and philosophy of socialism still pumps through the veins of this country, and is seen in petty fascist local government, the continued growth in the state sector, and the stifling lack of accountability from the NHS behemoth.

Much of Britain still seethes with hatred for success and the wealthy, as can be seen by the majority support for the new 50% top income tax rate, but it at least has had a chance, and as a result of Maggie has not slipped back like Italy and France have over the past few decades. It is a country I enjoy living and working in because of this - and I hope Baroness Thatcher is aware of that anniversary, and can quietly enjoy it with loved ones.

I for one am glad at the revolution she brought, she had more courage and fortitude than any of the spineless little men she led, and the ones she needed to fight to get where she was. The Conservative Party sadly being a repositary of too many privileged mediocrities. I wish the Conservatives could have the courage to complete the job, and that the philosophical arguments for less government can be argued more forcefully. Perhaps one day, and perhaps Britain can start to be grateful for what she did.

UPDATE: The Sunday Times says "It's time to invoke the spirit of Maggie".
The Times reports on seven born at the time, only one who is wholly negative, some have shown the entrepreneurial spirit she helped unlock.
David Aaronvitch (typically centre left) in the Times writes how those in 1979 couldn't have anticipated what was to come, from the winter of discontent and the punk era to...
The Daily Telegraph has comments from friends and foes alike, but has a whole section on her (unsurprisingly)
The Daily Telegraph asks David Cameron to dare to be unpopular

"Mr Cameron will need a degree of commitment and courage at least as great as Margaret Thatcher’s, because if he is to have any chance of success, he will have to pursue policies which generate as much anger, bitterness and unpopularity as those of the “Iron Lady”. That, of course, should not stop him – any more than it stopped her"

Or if you want to see the slithering beast that she helped slay read the comments on the Guardian's pathetic little piece, where she is blamed for British kids being obese

but the leftwing Mirror is at least dignified.

Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail laments how she failed, as Major and Labour afterwards did much damage.

Gordon Brown's popularity

Gordon Brown went on Youtube in the past week, though you have to wonder at his incongruous smiles in the video. The Daily Mail reports that a Downing Street spokesman said "it had banned comments on its own site – where the video was also published – because the task of ‘moderating offensive comments would be too arduous’."

However, it doesn't beat the British Government's efforts to be democratic, by allowing people to set up e-petitions to go to the Prime Minister. What a great idea Kalvis Jansons thought.

Just check out which one is by far the most popular.

(Hat tip: BBC Have I Got News for You)

Hard left against Auckland uber city?

Well there is a website against it, and frankly if what it is saying about the supercity is true, I might be far more relaxed about it.

Sadly, I think not.

It suggests "Water, Transport, Waste management, Parks etc will
become Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s)" so would be at arms length, run professionally to deliver good service and recover costs from those willing to pay for the services, and wouldn't be subject to politicians pillaging ratepayers or manipulating the provision of services to meet narrow interests.

It suggests "We the public will pay for services we already own outright." You know, because it costs nothing to supply water, roads or collect rubbish. Once you own something you never have to pay to use it ever again, or maintain it. What mindless drivel

Then "Our Public assets will be Commercialised, Corporatised and then Privatised. Metrowater is a perfect example of profiteering from essential public services. The intention is to set up one giant metrowater and spread user pays for waste water across the entire Auckland region." If only! Food is a perfect example of profiteering from essential public services. So is clothing. Why the fear? England has fully privatised water, and nobody has dehydrated as a result. Why shouldn't users pay, unless of course you use a lot and think others should pay for you by force.

The inane errors in the arguments conclude with the ideal "Originally Auckland was run by the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and Borough Councils, this model was dismantled in the 1980’s under Rogernomics so private companies could profit from public services. The destruction of this system was called amalgamation."

Yes the ARA presided over an uninterrupted continuous plummet in bus patronage as it ran its starved bus monopoly into the ground, underinvesting, with no bus priority systems and no transfer ticketing. Well done. Auckland's water, wastewater and stormwater starved too, so much so there is a huge backlog of stormwater work still being done. It grossly underinvested in Auckland airport so much that Air NZ spent its own money upgrading the domestic terminal, the then Ansett built its own terminal, and the international terminal could barely handle growing demand. Oh and road investment in Auckland was starved so much that designated corridors to complete the South Western Motorway, Henderson and Central motorways were abandoned.

Oh it was dismantled so that ratepayers could get better services at lower cost than council run monopolies that arrogantly didn't give a damn about customers. It has partly worked.

This campaign is being led by Penny Bright of the Marxist "Water Pressure Group", who think water is a "right" so nobody should have to pay for it, which begs the question how you maintain the system and operate it. The rabid mob don't care as long as the users don't have to (force anyone but the users to pay). It has support from leftwing rag "The Aucklander" and cheekily links to an Owen McShane article damning the super city for very different reasons.

The rhetoric is all about democracy, which of course means pillaging a minority to pay for what a minority say is good for the majority.

So it's kind of funny. The hard left think the supercity is about privatising Auckland by stealth, libertarians think it is plain old amalgamation while keeping the left's vision of fully empowered intrusive local government.

Who is right?

ACT calling for voluntary student union membership

which is welcome. It is one reason people voted for ACT (I thought they also supported less local government, but not a peep about that).

So come on Anne Tolley? Do you believe in change and freedom, or do you support compulsory membership of the youth training camps for Labour and Green politicians called student unions?

Broadband initiative should be shelved

Rather than duplicate the good work of someone else, the press release from Libertarianz spokesman Luke Howison on the government's broadband proposals says it all for me:

While the proposal tries to present itself as forward-looking and visionary, it is really just about identifying a currently fashionable investment and then throwing huge amounts of taxpayers' money at it. It is very easy to be visionary when you are spending someone else's money and have no accountability for the financial success of the investment.

The best thing the government could do would be to remove the barriers to private sector investment in telecommunications and to accept that if there isn't enough customer demand that investments will be (and should be) directed elsewhere.

Confiscating Telecom's property rights happens to have coincided with the end of competitors rolling out networks. Perhaps returning those property rights would have the opposite effect? Or are the soothsayers about how much prosperity and HD video porn fibre to the kerb will bring a bunch of enthusiasts that want everyone else to help pay for what they are interested in?

Another funny week from Catherine Delahunty

From the funniest REAL Twitter account of an MP

"Lots of laughing and shouting in The house today but no food labelling commitments or healthy food in schools for tamariki"

No that's right Catherine, all the healthy food has been taken away, if it isn't compulsory it isn't there!

"Mad scientists at select commitee read my blog later"

That's incomprehensible, but she'd know mad.

"We just spent a week on hold trying to get a new phone isnt the free market efficient?"

Why didn't she just pop down to a shop and buy one? Who sits on the phone for a week? Of course if it is about phone lines and she lives in the boondocks it isn't a free market, as Telecom is forced to supply lines to remote places at a fraction of cost - so it is socialism at work.

Abbas should intervene over Palestinian death sentence

Whaleoil reports on a man issued the death penalty by a Palestinian Authority military court for selling land to a Jew. He has also had all his property confiscated.

Reason? It breaches Palestinians "laws" dating back to 1953 (what country was that then?) than include bans on trade with Israelis, a trade embargo with Israel and banning selling land to Jews.

He has no right of appeal

The death penalty must be confirmed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, hopefully President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton will give him a short phone call to confirm this.

UK leaves Iraq

The British Army officially ends its presence in Iraq today. Well done!

The Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein was not a moral government, but rather an illegal dictatorship of aggression founded on lies and torture. The multiple aggressive attacks on neighbours (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel) and its own citizens simply reinforced that crime. It was an illegitimate tyranny that a coalition of like minded states had the moral right to overthrow.

The British Army can be proud of its legacy in Iraq, despite some mistakes and instances of appalling behaviour. It is hoped that some accountability can be had for instances of inappropriate use of force against civilians. However, one should bear in mind the cruelty and mass murder of the Iranian and Al Qaeda backed militia and terrorists who sought to transform Iraq into an Islamist tyranny. Part responsibility for this was appallingly poor planning on behalf of the US and its allies about what to do after overthrowing the Hussein tyranny. That was by far the biggest mistake.

Basra is better off now that the British Army has seen off both the Hussein tyranny and the Islamist insurgency. The Stop the War Coalition would have preferred Basra live under the Ba'athist gangster like Hussein tyranny - because governments that oppress their own people are apparently better than wars to overthrow them.

Tragically 179 British men and women lost their lives to this cause, and there are rightful calls for an inquiry into the British participation, with my concern being accusations the troops were poorly equipped and under resourced, as well as the lack of planning and follow up after the initial mission had been completed. Many lives, both civilian and military might have been saved had planning been more thorough. For now, perhaps British taxpayers will be relieved that the withdrawal will save them money!

(Unlike some, I don't believe that attacking a dictatorship to overthrow it is illegal or immoral)

Chrysler bankrupt but wait...

it's not that simple as the BBC reports

You see Chrysler isn't going bankrupt, being wound up and sold. It is Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

No.

US taxpayers will pour US$8 billion into the "new" Chrysler, to be 20% owned by Fiat, 8% owned by the US Federal Government, 55% by VEBA (union trust fund), 2% owned by the Canadian Federal Government and Ontario government jointly.

6 out of 9 member board will be appointed by the US Federal Government.

"No jobs will be lost in the short term" and No Chrysler plants in the US will close, says President Obama. So opportunities for efficiencies are where?

It already had a US$4.5 billion loan from the Federal Government.

The lesson is simple in the USA of Barack Obama - if you have a big enough business, don't worry, you wont take the consequences of bad decision making, everyone else will.

4 billion to watch the Rugby World Cup?

Sorry John? You must mean every time an individual watches a game.

It doesn't stack up.

World population in 2011 will be about 7 billion.

Over 4 billion of those are in Asia, and let's face it, you'd be lucky if 1% of that population were rugby fans. The big countries (China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia) are not rugby nations, it is a minority activity in all the others, so let's assume 40 million watch in Asia.

Another 1 billion are in Africa, South Africa is 50 million and Zimbabwe has 12 million. Let's assume all of them, and 1% of the remainder, so another 10 million to be generous. That's 72 million in Africa.

Around 730 million are in Europe. Let's be ridiculous and assume all of the UK, Ireland, France and Italy watch, and 5% of the rest. 200 million or so.

Around 600 million are in Latin America/Caribbean. Assume all of Argentina, and 1% of the rest, so say 100 million.

Around 340 million in North America. Be generous and assume 5% give a damn, that's 17 million.

And let's assume all 35 million in Oceania, including Australia are keen.

So that's less than half a billion. Assuming every man, woman and child watches, which is a bit mad, so we should round it down to 400 million.

Plus ça change - government advisors aren't new

Idiot Savant damns the Nats for installing their own handpicked "purchase advisors" taxpayer paid, to provide advice that the Nats presumably don't think the state sector can.

It does not particularly surprise me, partly because I can't see any real shift from what Labour did.

Idiot Savant says:

"As for why English is doing this, it seems he trusts neither the public service, or his newer Ministers - so he's planting personal spies in their offices to micromanage them and ensure that they "[produce] outputs that align with government priorities".

Not surprising, neither did Helen Clark. Heather Simpson was her personal appointment as Chief of Staff, but was often referred to as the "Associate Prime Minister" as Cabinet papers would go through her first, as Helen's trusted sidekick. Ministers regularly got a roasting for not reflecting "government priorities" with their papers, and that was partly because after 15 years of a public sector advising governments from Lange to Shipley (which all had a free market bent), many departments were not trusted.

It went further, Ministers appointed their own political advisors, but had to get approval for this. Michael Cullen had more than one. These political advisors were on the Ministerial office payroll, but personally selected by Ministers, and would be the primary interface many departments would have with Ministers. It was helpful when senior Ministers had large or multiple portfolios, as it meant Ministers devolved workload to the political advisors, but it also kept Junior Ministers in check.

Political advisors would co-ordinate together, and would run cabinet papers past Heather Simpson, before the Minister concerned would submit the paper to cabinet committee. Few Ministers were brave enough to submit papers themselves without Heather's approval, only the most senior Ministers could do so (Cullen and Anderton are ones known to do it).

So for Idiot Savant to say "So under National, we'll have the public service, and a parallel bureaucracy of handpicked hacks overseeing them. And all at taxpayer expense, of course." I'd say, well, just like Labour then?

He is right though in saying "If this is what National calls a "cleanup", I'd hate to see what they think is a "problem"..." unless, of course, these "purchase advisors" are temporary, and a different approach to Cabinet is now apparent.

UPDATE: The Standard is adopting its usual "see no evil" view of the Labour Party saying what National is doing is unprecedented. Labour had its own political advisors, but The Standard is willfully blind when its own political allies do something it accuses the Nats of.

Student unions are an arm of government?

Yes that's the argument made by Tony Milne at Just Left criticising David Farrar:

"Instead he advocates for student associations to become voluntary. The equivalent of course is the public refusing to pay their taxes when the Government does something they don't like."

My response to that is fairly clear:

Tony that is absolute bollocks, student unions are not like some arm of government, they are associations no different from a political party, industry association, trade union, environmental group, sports club or the like. This same old tired argument gets trotted out time and time again.

Governments have a monopoly of the use of legalised force against citizens. This is typically used to protect citizens from each other and from invasion. Local government has specified devolved statutory responsibilities regarding the enforcement and operation of certain laws (e.g. RMA, dog laws, food premises).

Student unions do not by any stretch of the imagination carry out any statutorily defined functions or have a legal right to use force in any way - except to force students to belong.

I don't "belong" to the New Zealand Government, nor Wellington City Council or Wellington Regional Council. All those entities have legally defined powers related to my behaviour in public places and the use of my property, student unions have none of the sort (all the powers they have are private property rights).

There is a fundamental human right of freedom of association. That means if I don't want to belong an association because I do not want it to represent me (which is the core function of student unions), then I shouldn't be forced to. Whatever other services student union's provide can largely be rationed by showing a membership card, or other techniques that, remarkably, virtually all other voluntary associations manage. For example, associate membership just to use certain facilities and not cross subsidise the political activity.

I know the left pined for compulsory trade union membership after the Nats abolished it in 1983 and again in 1991, but it is no different.

Yes members can vote, but why should one vote in an organisation that you don't believe in, that you don't want representing you, and which doesn't deliver what you want.

The truth is that student associations oppose voluntary membership because they are scared shitless that most students would rather keep the money than support a student association if they use few to none of the facilities, and don't agree with the fringe Marxists who run the show.

Of course Marxists have never been known for their belief in individual rights.

This follows up the appaling case of some turd at Salient spamming Big News, and then when Dave at Big News outed it, Salient threatened a defamation law suit, until it was outed that Dave was right. Salient thinks an apology makes up for someone being threatened with a lawsuit. Like kids left with the liquor cabinet open, they behave as if they are responsible to no one, because they aren't.

It also follows up the ANZAC Day celebrates war, so we wont celebrate ANZAC Day view of the communists running the VUWSA. In the past a couple of VUWSA Presidents have had the audacity of laying communist wreaths, happy to insult veterans of the Korean and Vietnam Wars, as if it would have been better had Kim Il Sung made all of Korea a totalitarian hellhole instead of half.

Most students don't vote at student union elections for some obvious reasons, many go to university to go to lectures and tutorials, not to spend time figuring out how to vote. Most students get little chance to really understand the candidates (it's a bit different from a general election!), and so many candidates are mediocrities that nobody can be bothered voting for.

Most students will see their vote not counting at all, because student unions are almost always run by leftwing activist types, so the student union is not seen as relevant to them.

David Farrar is dead right, Anne Tolley should be putting voluntary student union membership on the agenda (although she's never struck me as a supporter of individual freedom in the past). The primary opponents will be Labour and the Greens, both of whom treat student unions as training boot camps for future candidates, but it is ACT policy, and National might get some kudos from students by making student associations truly accountable.

It is about freedom, fundamentally.

Everyone is equal but?

Idiot Savant has said that it is a "fundamental principle that everyone is born equal and should be treated as such" in damning Kevin Rudd's opposition to gay marriage or civil unions.

I agree, the state should treat everyone equally, the state should be blind to race, sex and (NIOF*) sexual orientation.

However, he doesn't carry that view consistently.

He has called abolition of the Maori seats (without the "consent of Maori") racism, although Maori seats do not treat everyone equally by definition.

He supports government policies requiring the state and private sector to give preferential treatment to women in employment;

He supports government policies to spend more on Maori health proportionately than other citizens, because Maori do not “choose” unhealthy lifestyles

He damned Don Brash for promoting equality before the law saying “Brash is just the latest in a long tradition of beneficiaries of unequal status quos using egalitarian arguments to defend their advantages. But the sort of formal, legal equality that they espouse is about as useful as the formal, legal guarantees of human rights in the old Soviet constitution.”

So formal, legal equality is useless then. The state should treat individuals differently on the basis of race and sex. If you're born Maori, you have guaranteed political representation, but not if you're born gay, or become a Muslim, or are a libertarian. If you're born Maori, the state should spend more money on your healthcare, not because YOU'RE unhealthy, but because on average others like you are.

Are redheads more likely to suffer mental illness? Blondes more likely to catch STDs? Brunettes more likely to be hired to managerial positions? Maybe someone should investigate and get the state to interfere to "fix" this.

So treating everyone equally isn't much of a "fundamental principle" then is it?

* Non Initiation of Force. Rapists of adults and children are not entitled to equal treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation.

What's wrong with David Shearer?

I have read his article on "Outsourcing security" (thanks DPF) where he makes a strong case for allowing mercenaries to be contracted to protect civilians in the midst of a civil war, or governments seeking to terrorise a local population. He also wrote "outsourcing war" which continues on a similar vein

Imagine, for example, if such a group were placed to protect Tamils in Sri Lanka, or the people of Darfur? Indeed, what good they could do in protecting ships from Somali pirates!

The man seems to have character, indeed far more than any other Labour candidate, and dare I say most National candidates. John Key's cheap shot that "he wants to privatise the army" is nonsense, and unfair. He no more wants to privatise the army than National wants to privatise ACC.

David Farrar appears to be supporting the guy, quite right too, although is also publicising his pro-mercenary views more to "foment happy mischief" I suspect.

Of course Labour passed legislation banning New Zealand mercenaries, led by Phil Goff himself. The Greens, supported it (why let civilians defend themselves? war is bad no matter what).

National opposed the Bill, so I would have thought the right thing for National to do is support his candidacy, on one level anyway.

However, his views on many other topics are unknown, and so he can't be judged, good or bad, without knowing those. Being a member of the Labour Party of course, instantly raises some obvious suspicions, but I haven't heard any substantive reason to be against him yet.

If National opposes him, because he has a policy National implicitly supported in the past, then you have to wonder whether National regards politics to be just a game of point scoring, or is about principles? (Then again, isn't that question just tautological?)

The beginning of the end of the Progressives

With the announcement that the Progressives (which have long just been the Jim Anderton fan club for Labour supporters) are not standing in Mt Albert, how long before Jim Anderton retires, along with his party?

Clark gone.
Cullen gone.

Surely the man who was Deputy PM from 1999 to 2002, who brought Kiwibank, converted the Ministry of Commerce into the Ministry of handing out subsidies Economic Development, has nothing more to add?

What Dr Cullen's valedictory ignored

Dr Cullen’s valedictory speech is the cause of much fawning from the Labour side. The best that can be said for Dr Cullen is twofold:
- He is witty and entertaining (which of course would be fine if he hadn’t had his hands on your wallet);
- He kept his less intelligent colleagues away from totally destroying the national finances. In short, despite the mistakes he did make, he said “no” a lot.

“He cited tax reform, the creation of the Cullen Fund, and Working for Families as among Labour's major achievements.” On tax reform presumably he means GST. Labour certainly simplified and broadened the tax base, but it did mean people paid more tax.

However, the Cullen Fund is a very mixed achievement indeed. Yes it shows the government is better off investing taxpayers money rather than running a PAYGO pension, but it doesn’t address the fundamental unfairness of national superannuation. Everyone pays, to different degrees, but not everyone receives what they paid in, and more importantly some receive nothing because they died before they were eligible.

Working for Families extended welfare to the middle class. Instead of granting tax cuts, it targets credits and payments to people regardless of whether they earned the money in the first place. It expands the state’s role in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, who now must be grateful that the benevolent state is helping them gain a living – it would have been cheaper, simpler and fairer to grant tax cuts.

He responded to calls about NZ being a Nanny State saying “"New Zealand is, in fact, far less of a nanny state than it was in 1981 in terms of both social and economic freedoms.”

Well hold on Michael, was that you who did that? No it was mostly the previous Labour government and National government that followed it. It was Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson on economic freedoms, and personal freedoms? Well that depends on what you are talking about. Alcohol? Yes Smoking and drugs? No Homosexuality? Yes Censorship? No. The record is mixed, and the last Labour government did precious little to enhance freedom and a fair bit to erode it. Helen "the state is sovereign" Clark was no fan of individualism.

In the transport sector few know that Cullen essentially ran the show on the railways, and pushed for spending more on roads, largely because, with the exception of Pete Hodgson, the transport ministers were all fairly lowly ranked (Gosche was largely sidelined for example). Policy on Air NZ, railways, Auckland transport and highways funding was driven substantially by Dr Cullen. Having the purse strings means you can do that. Which of course brings me to his low points:

1. Refusing to allow Singapore Airlines to bail out Air New Zealand (by owning 49% of it), preferring to listen to Qantas which had a vested interest in kneecapping Air NZ as a competitor, and having the whole South Pacific aviation market to itself. Then “having to bail out Air NZ” when he need not have. His interference in what was then a privately owned company was palpably incompetent.

2. The ongoing fiasco over rail. Buying the Auckland rail network at 4 times its market value. Buying the national rail network for $1 and then not enforcing track access charges against the company granted monopoly access rights. Then paying 50% over the market price for “Kiwirail” when it knowingly would almost never make a return on capital. It has destroyed over $200 million of taxpayers' wealth, and counting. His own justifications, were a joke.

3. The waste of money in health. How there was next to no increase in productivity for an over 50% increase in health spending in real terms. Money down a black hole (which even he would privately admit).

4. The unnecessary “sin tax” of 39%, cutting in at the ridiculously low $60,000 which sent a signal that under Labour, successful people were to be penalised.

5. Letting the state sector grow, with little to see for it beyond more bureaucrats and policy wonks, and little improvement in advice. It soaked up hoards of mediocre university graduates in Wellington, bright eyed, bushy tailed and keen to do what they were told, without questioning the fundamental wisdom of any of it.

6. "We won you lost eat that" attitude shortly after the 1999 election when dealing with the business sector. Imagine the Nats doing that to the union movement.

So while most will miss the wit and humour of Cullen, I wont miss the fact he was Helen Clark's right hand man in taking from everyone, and being the great renationaliser when he need not have been. He expanded the welfare state, the commercial role of the state and frightened off a major foreign investor (Singapore Airlines) because of his own pig-headedness and attitude to some foreign investment. If the best that can be said is it could have been worse, it is a low threshold to cross for success.

Clark needed Cullen, he was the only person in the Labour caucus that business started to trust, and who was seen as a fairly safe pair of hands to deal with the economy (she certainly wasn't seen that way). Sadly, he squandered so much of the proceeds of surplus for more welfare, a bigger state sector and more spending on health and education, with very mixed results, that now in recession the country faces a huge deficit.

Bill English is stuck with having to the dirty work of cutting this bloated state sector down to size to deal to the deficit - that is Dr Cullen's true political legacy - growing the state so much in nine years that the Nats have to have courage to reverse his work - and you all know what Labour's reaction to that will be.

Cindy Kiro's swan song - blame everyone for abuse

The Dominion Post has published an article interviewing Cindy Kiro as she leaves the role of Childrens' Commissioner. While Kiro undoubtedly is a passionate and honest advocate for children, her collectivist way of thinking remains.

She says the risk factors for child abuse are "long periods of neglect, harsh physical punishment, caregivers being unemployed, drugs, a history of spousal abuse". Hold on. The first two of those ARE forms of abuse. Unemployment is a risk, but intergenerational welfare is moreso one. Other risk factors are criminality, poor education and unplanned/unwanted children.

She says the reason for child abuse is "It's pretty simple actually. The reason they're so high is that we tolerate violence to children."

Who is this "we"? She could have said "some people", she could have said "many", but no "we" tolerate violence to children. Because "we" all do, "we" all must be part of the solution.

Then she said "I actually feel quite optimistic about the next generation of parents. I think they are much more conscious of their parenting and they want to do a really good job." As opposed to the past ones, who were abusive and didn't want to be good parents.

She concludes by supporting her highly paid role "Somebody has to be there to step up. Somebody has to make sure that when laws are made, what's happening for children and young people and their best interests are at the forefront. And that's not a simple job."

Actually Dr Kiro, it should be the part of any good Justice Ministry to take into account the impacts of all laws on different groups of people. You were an advocate for surrendering the freedom and privacy of all families for a terrifying level of state surveillance all because you believed that "we" tolerate violence.

Most parents and most families do not abuse their kids, they love them more than you ever will, and do more for them than you ever will. It's about time that you focused your efforts on the minority who do abuse and neglect, instead of thinking you should be doing your bit for all kids.

Thankfully you'll no longer have the power and influence you have had.

Time to use your Qantas Frequent Flyer points

Not only because it is easier whilst Qantas flies domestically within NZ (although you can still use them on Jetstar), but Qantas is reporting a major drop in premium business to the point where it is contemplating reducing the number of business and first class seats from some of its planes.

That means if you have Qantas Frequent Flyer points and want to book an upgrade, or a flight in one of the civilised cabins, then the time is now - clearly there are plenty of seats for the picking.

Your chances are higher if you have status of course, but in a recession there are always reasons to be optimistic - and whether you're going from economy or premium economy to business, or from business to first, it is a good way to use frequent flyer points, and to appreciate the difference between flying misery and flying in a civilised way.

Police picking on the victim... again

Oh dear, Andrei at NZ Conservative blogs about the case of Zhuofeng "Titan" Jiang.

His brave story is told in the Dominion Post. It's almost too easy to guess.

Thug attempts armed robbery of takeaway shop, having already fired a warning shot into the floor and pointing the rifle at a 19yo worker. Owner confronts thug and wrestles rifle from him, shoots the floor and then the thug in the leg. Thug runs off in agony.

Jiang rightly said "I was not scared. I would do it again. I hate these people. I will never give them any money".

Police response?

Threatening prosecution of the shop owner. A civilian who the Police could not protect, and took 10 minutes to respond to (although Jiang claims it was 25 minutes). Now the Police are also "hunting a fat man, 1.8 metres (6ft) tall, wearing dark-coloured clothing".

Yes, the Police should warn that people are taking big risks by retaliating, but when the public are denied having the right to defend themselves, when the Police are patently incapable of acting quickly to respond, what are people meant to do?

It would be nice if the Police acknowledged that the owner's actions were understandable, and the Police priority is the thug who started it all in the first place.

Sorry Rodney, it doesn't answer the question

Rodney Hide attempts to answer concerns about the Auckland super-city in the NZ Herald.

He makes a minor mistake:

"Instead of .... eight local transport entities.... there will be one of each." No Rodney, there will be three core transport infrastructure agencies, Ontrack and the NZ Transport Agency will both be responsible for the railway and the motorway networks. ARTA is the single local transport entity that is meant to co-ordinate local road network development. So no material change here.

However, more fundamentally he evades the core issue.

What should be the role of local government in Auckland?

The government's answer appears to be "whatever local government wants it to be".

ACT's policy appears quite contrary to this.

It states:

• Local government will be required to shed its commercial activity, thereby eliminating the need to separate regulatory and commercial functions between local and regional councils.
• Roads and piped water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.
• Abolish the local government power of general competency.
• Require councils to focus on their core functions.
• Ensure there is much greater scrutiny of regulations that undermine property rights.
• Promote contracting out of many council services.
• Lower the cost of complying with the Resource Management Act and other regulatory regimes.
• Review the two-tier structure of local government.

It's a lot less than I'd want, but it's a start, but all we are seeing is the last point.

So why is Rodney Hide doing next to nothing to implement ACT policy on local government?

It isn't good enough.

If an ACT Minister of Local Government is just going to maintain the Labour/Alliance/Green policy - then what was the point?

Maori Party sympathetic to Tamil Tigers?

Well it is unclear. The NZ Herald reports that the Maori Party blocked a parliamentary motion expressing concern about civilians caught in fighting between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). This has upset Jim Anderton and the Labour Party, who are both implying that the Maori Party is sympathetic to the LTTE.

Hone Harawira preferred "calling for restraint from the Sri Lankan Government in dealing with the last enclave of the Tamil Tigers", which appears to be sympathetic to the Tamil Tigers.

Now I know the Sri Lankan government has behaved appallingly towards Tamils in Sri Lanka, as the dominant Sinhalese minority discriminates against Tamils. There are legitimate issues to be addressed. However the LTTE is a terrorist organisation.

It has carried out suicide bombings, carrying out 168 such attacks over 20 years. It has been responsible for the death of hundreds through terrorist attacks. It uses civilians as human shields, and has previously recruited child soldiers.

The end of the LTTE should be welcomed, there should not be restraint in wiping out that organisation, but the fate of Tamils living in territory controlled by the LTTE is a real issue.

So the question is this. Does the Maori Party sympathise with the murderous LTTE? If not, why can it not simply express concern about the plight of civilians caught in the civil war?

Satirical twitter NZ MPs

Following from David Farrar's handy list of Twitter accounts of NZ MPs, I thought I'd filter out the serious ones and list the funny ones. Most seem to be of Labour "men", suggesting they are good characters to have a laugh at, and that maybe most National MPs don't have enough public personality to poke fun at - and Nick Smith looks like he is absent any sense of humour.

Clayton Cosgrove
David Cunliffe
Hone Harawira (new)
Keith Locke (new)
Maryan Street
Parekura Horomia
Phil Goff (he has a real one here)
Shane Jones
Sue Kedgley (she has a real one, protected though)
Trevor Mallard

Catherine Delahunty on the other hand is funny, whilst being authentic
Nick Smith's one has been suspended (haven't noticed others suspended yet)

I like Cunliffe, Horomia, Kedgley and Mallard, and Horomia looks promising. If the Nick Smith one has been suspended because Smith is a humourless git, then thumbs down to him. If Trevor Mallard, Sue Kedgley, Parekura Horomia and others can take it, then more power to them.

UK's big brother state inches forward

The BBC reports that ISPs and telcos are being "asked" to keep records of all phone calls, all emails and all website visits to assist the Police in surveillance.

Nice.

Maybe the Royal Mail should keep a record of who sends and receives mail too.

Maybe there should be microphones in public places to keep a record of who has conversations with whom.

Why? Well the usual "it's about protecting you from murderers and paedophiles" nonsense is being trotted out, ignoring that most murders are between people who know each others, as is most molestation of children - and it is rarely planned over the internet.

It is the state being lazy. Too lazy to get warrants for interception of communications of people who are suspects of real crimes. Far preferable to hold information on anyone, communicating with anyone, looking at anything online. It has abandoned the idea of a single government database of communications, but wants voluntary agreement from the comms sector (which implies if it doesn't get it, it will legislated).

"Advances in communications mean that there are ever more sophisticated ways to communicate and we need to ensure that we keep up with the technology being used by those who seek to do us harm." says Jacqui Smith.

Of course it would help if the UK didn't have prisons overflowing, with limp wristed sentencing for those committing most violent and sexual offences.

No, we would all be safer under a Police state where we were all watched and if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. After all you can trust the state can't you?

UPDATE: Crusader Rabbit has essentially posted about the same thing.

The smallest most oppressed minority

All governments treat this minority with contempt to a greater or lesser extent, although some do talk respectfully of it, their actions are rarely supportive.

They say members of this minority are "only" that minority, denigrating them as being insufficiently worthy of consideration. Members are told they are "just a ......" or "you're just thinking of yourself as a ........".

Members of this minority are always told they should think of others first, sacrifice themselves.

Members of this minority regularly have violence done to them by governments, gangs and others.

This minority has an endless history of being robbed and its diverse cultures suppressed.

All of its people belong to the land of their birth, and have no common religion.

They comprise a global diaspora seen in every country.

A common philosophy to oppress them is to talk of the "greater good" and the need for "sacrifice for the public good". Schools even raise members of this minority to believe in sacrifice and in a greater power than themselves.

What is most tragic is how some members of this minority turn on their own kind, for power, in collusion with the oppressors.

Perhaps most universal is how the most successful, talented and brilliant are subject to punitive taxes, denigration and told they are "up themselves". Those who set up businesses are thought of as slave merchants. Those who are simple workers are treated as imbeciles incapable of making their own decisions.

You should know this minority well, it is the human individual.

and if governments treated everyone on the same basis, gave everyone's body and property the same rights, and protected this minority as a non-negotiable absolute - then no minorities would be oppressed.

(Reminded of this by Andrei at NZ Conservative)

Auckland's new motorway

9 May will give Aucklanders a chance to walk and bike for the first and last time on a piece of transport infrastructure paid for motorists that motorists can use, and which will deliver significant benefits in reduced journey times and vehicle operating costs, whilst also improving the local environment.

The Mt Roskill extension to State Highway 20 (SH20) will be open for cyclists and pedestrians to have a look around before it is opened for all traffic.

It has long been a worthwhile project, delayed by a group that wanted to save the volcanic cones along the route, and latterly by the Greens, it cost NZ$201 million and will greatly speed travel between west Auckland (Avondale, New Lynn, Blockhouse Bay and Glen Eden), the airport and Manukau City. It also widens the section from Queenstown Road to Hillsborough Road to 3 lanes each way.

What is effectively now the South-Western Motorway will now run from Puhinui/Wiri in the south (where it currently terminates at Roscommon Road) to Owairaka. It will also mean both Dominion Road and Sandringham Road will be connected more directly to the airport, relieving Mt Albert Road of congestion and providing alternative routes from central Auckland to the airport.

The Greens opposed it, pushed for it to be delayed by the government (which it was, briefly), supported protecting the volcanoes and wanted a rail line instead. Keith Locke even claimed that "SH 20 is a waste of public money at a time when climate change, local air pollution and oil depletion will all be much worse by the time it is opened".

Give Labour credit, this is one project that your fuel taxes have been spent wisely on.

Judge for yourselves. The 4.5 km extension will start opening for road users between 15 May and early June.

Already under construction is the next phase of SH20, linking the southern end to the Southern Motorway, then there will be a fast, efficient route from west Auckland to the south.

Funnily enough, whilst there is debate about having a megacity for Auckland, Auckland City Council seems to have stuffed up its small related projects. The foot and cycle path is incomplete because of a 66% cost blowout, and Auckland City Council hasn't prioritised widening Tiverton and Wolverton Roads (which link the motorway to New Lynn) so those routes are likely to remain congested.

Auckland City appears far more interested in My Fair Lady than paying its share to complete roads linking to a new motorway. Having said that, the contract for the motorway was signed at $168.9 million and is finishing at $201 million - nice bit of contract management there :/

While the Mt. Albert by-election proceeds you might ask the Labour candidate (whoever that turns out to be, Labour doesn't seem to care) why it wants to spend $2.9 billion on the final section of this motorway entirely in a bored tunnel when it is a similar length to the section just completed for $201 million? Why is Mt. Albert special?

Anyway, more detail on the exact design of the motorway extension is here and the overall project.

The Economist lays into Gordon Brown

In the leader this week, the Economist talks about the latest UK budget and describes it as "a dishonest piece of pre-election politicking", concluding that "the public is losing patience with him, and so is this newspaper".

It describes his strength as "dour pragmatism", but that he resorts to scheming and incompetent tribal politics.

Gordon Brown brought "two all-too-political sleights of hand: a string of over-optimistic economic assumptions and the misleading message that soaking the rich could absolve the other 98% of the population from personal sacrifice"

It assumes the UK economy will be growing by the end of 2009, and will grow by 3.5% in 2011, meaning public sector spending need only grow at 0.7% that year, which the Economist says is "a far more optimistic view than either the IMF or most private-sector economists take. No prudent prime minister would have allowed it." The prediction that state spending would go up so little was due to strong economic growth.

The implication being that assuming Labour loses the next election, the Tories face cutting spending significantly to meet this target if the economy does not recover so rapidly.

The higher tax on incomes over £150,000 is just as problematic, as it fails to address the need to drastically cut spending (or increase other taxes if that isn't done).

The Economist concludes:

"This must seem like clever politics to Mr Brown and his crew: folk have been inflamed by the greed and grubbiness of bailed-out bankers. In the short run, a bit of class war may work. But, like Nixon, Mr Brown is already struggling to escape the suspicion that he has a grudge against the world. And for every voter who likes the idea of soaking the rich, there may be several who remember that Labour pledged at the last election not to raise tax rates during the life of this parliament. "

It is worse than that, as the tax free allowance starts withering above £100,000 - a psychological threshold that now says "don't bother".

The Labour government has pretended for far too long that the top rate taxpayers will tolerate being milked for the inefficient and inept NHS, and the enormous welfare sector that includes huge state spending on housing, cheap education and a multitude of programmes for business and the general populace. The truth is UK taxpayers can't afford it - the Tories also know that if they win in 2010, they will have to tell taxpayers this, and cut spending, harshly. Then Labour will say how "cruel" the Tories are, without proposing to hike taxes up by a similar proportion.

It shows how utterly bereft of moral authority Gordon Brown's government is, systematically wrecking the public finances for the next government, delaying the inevitable, so it can blame the Tories for doing what could have been done years ago - balance the budget.

Hone Harawira vs Steve Baron

David Farrar has blogged the case of Steve Baron, who Hone Harawira MP "shut down" using rather strong language according to the Waikato Times.

Hone called him "racist" because Baron apparently

Steve Baron has his own blog and presents his view here.

He said:

Here is the question I was trying to ask, as requested.

""Given the injustices past governments have imposed on minorities like Maori, Chinese, homosexual (he became very agressive and cut me off here), would you and or the Maori party support the introduction of binding referendums as a check and balance on governments."

I attempted to rephrase the question so as not to refer to any of the three as a minority but got shouted down again. His opinion is that Maori are not a minority, but tangata whenua."

Now I don't know Steve Baron from the proverbial bar of soap, he was an independent candidate in the 2005 election in Pakuranga, and came third (beating the ACT and NZ First candidates). However, that is besides the point.

Of course National relies on the Maori Party for confidence and supply, so I expect little concern to be expressed about Hone Harawira's outburst from government quarters.

Hone sees Maori as "special" being "tangata whenua" (well some of the tangata whenua, if you're born in New Zealand you are not tangata whenua), and indeed this is the fundamental point of difference.

For Hone, (and Metirei Turia and many others) this is why they do not see being Maori as a matter of race, for being Maori is more than just being ethnically different - it is being ethnically special.

For for him, who your parents and grandparents and great grandparents are really matters as to how he wants the law, government and himself to treat and judge you. Calling you "racist" is a simple way to dismiss you as irrelevant and call on the hounds of others of your race to evade argument.

John Key questions more sin tax

Yes, what a shift from Nanny Helen!?!

According to Stuff, the Prime Minister John Key on NewsTalk ZB said:

"I think you've got to be very careful you don't get in a situation where you simply whack up the price of booze and everybody gets affected because some, particularly young people, are going out on benders," he said.

"Because they (the Labour government) did that with the sherry tax and all that did was stop grandma having a sherry at night as opposed to the real purpose. . . I am not saying we have a closed mind to this issue, we will look at solutions.

"It is a problem, alcohol abuse, but not everybody drinking is abusing alcohol."

Yes - don't punish everyone for the bad behaviour of a minority. We no longer have a Headmistress running the country, but someone who actually believes that it is ok that many people drink alcohol responsibly, and that it is NOT ok to just tax them more because some people behave criminally while drunk.

This will amazingly confuse many bureaucrats. It is OK some people drink alcohol? Not everyone who drinks should be punished for it? Who would've thought?

Prince of Wales hypocrisy continues

It's not really news that Prince Charles is a Royal hypocrite on environmental matters.

So his latest antics say it all - according to the Mail on Sunday he decided to embark on a five day tour of Europe to promote environmental issues. He, with an entourage of 11 are flying to Rome, Venice and Berlin. For a man who is "so concerned" about climate change, you might think he'd avoid flying all over the place.

To top it off, he has a chartered a plane for the trip instead of booking commercial flights. Apparently 52.95 tons of carbon will be emitted by his trip, "nearly five times the average person's 11-ton footprint for an entire year".

Really, it does demonstrate how clearly having this man as a head of state is ridiculous. Of course he does a wonderful service is discrediting almost everything he says by his own actions.

David Farrar gets it but...

Yes on Kiwiblog he posts about "The Stalinist Wellington City Council" because WCC does not want new town centres and shopping malls to compete with existing shopping districts.

He is decidedly libertarian saying "So the Council has decided Kilbirnie and Miramar can get big shops, but Rongotai and Seatoun can not? I’ve got a better solution - let every business decide where they want to be located, and let the public decide if they will shop there."

Yes exactly David of course.

Now in the comments he gets some flack for saying Stalinist, given WCC doesn't run gulags, suppress free speech or have gun toting secret Police. Of course it is a hyperbole, but it is one with a core underlying point. Stalinists were central planners, those who thought they knew what was best for everybody and everything, and believed human beings could be moulded according to what was best for them, nor for their surroundings to be moulded into what human beings wanted.

That you see is the problem - planners want people to fit a plan, not for plans to fit people.

The comments are well worth a read, with Owen McShane, PhilBest and Paul Walker making perhaps the best.

Take this from Owen:

"Stalinist planning is planning from the top down based on the notion that central planners have superiour skills and knowledge and have the authority to direct and control the economy and of course the use of land. Stalinist planning refuses to acknowledge the efficiency of market led allocation of resources and the resulting spontaneous order..

We used to have a Town and Country Planning Act which gave councils the authority to direct and control the use of land and to manage the local economy. The RMA was supposed to have reversed this Stalinist approach by removing that authority and replacing it with the mandate to focus on adverse effects on the environment. Of course the central planners did not like this at all and soon persuaded the courts that you could not manage environmental effects without directing and controlling the use of land.

Climate change alarmism has now provided all the excuses they need."

The market "failures" are actually government failures to use the market, roads being the classic example.

Now what I'd like to know is why David persists with the National Party when it seems to positively embrace this in the RMA, and is doing nothing to change it, whilst promoting a mega-city that will enable Auckland to do one "Stalinist" plan for the whole region?

Why is Libertarianz now the only party that is fighting is?

The Standard distorts the idea of "service"

The Standard has made a peculiar post saying:

"All those engaged in service violate the neo-lib/neo-con ‘ethic’ of looking out only for yourself. Since neo-liberals depend on the stable running of society to pursue their own interests, they operate as free-loaders on the efforts of others to maintain a civil and just society. Since they do not understand the urge to help others, they denigrate."

Where is the evidence for this? When has anyone either conservative or laissez-faire liberal ever condemned those who either choose to be in the armed forces or engage in voluntary or paid work that is primarily about helping others?

It goes on to claim those who "denigrate service" are "parasites on society" because they rely on the stability that comes from those who "give service".

What?

What planet of Orwellian doublespeak and lies is The Standard coming from?

The condemnation of Helen Clark as "engaging in service" is valid because she has NOT engaged in defending the country, or providing health, education, food or housing for ANYONE? Politics is not some sort of self-sacrificial "service" it is a relatively well paid (for a fair number who enter it) activity that is primarily about controlling people and spending their money. How is this service? What else would she have done? Who can possibly say Helen Clark feels unsatisfied or that she has sacrificed herself for what she did? Moreover, how can this be compared to being a doctor, cop or an entrepreneur who sets up business and employs people?

The "stability of society" primarily comes about because most people most of the time get on with their own lives, look after themselves, families and loved ones, and don't try to meddle in or control the lives of others. The Police play a role in being called upon in last resort when people initiate force against each other. This is seen as "service" because it isn't obviously self interested, but few join the Police to suffer. The Police are paid, and most enter the job for a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction. THAT is part of the selfishness Ayn Rand talked of, the virtue of looking after yourself as the primary goal.

You see for virtually everyone there is satisfaction in providing for yourself materially and emotionally, and in being benevolent to your friends, family and loved ones. It is what being human is.

Sadly some on the left think they have a monopoly on this, bizarrely translating "service" into meaning the superstructure of their beloved state - a series of interlocking institutions which initiate force.

That's where the two visions of human benevolence differ.

Statists believe your primary goal should be to "serve others", to "sacrifice yourself" is the highest virtue, and the best way to do this is through the state. You do this by working for the state and "doing service" through this, or you can surrender your taxes and know you are "caring" somehow by having it all done through this mammoth collective exercise.

Objectivists believe your primary goal should be to "live" and "enjoy life", and that is up to you. Human nature means people are social beings, so will be generous, benevolent and kind to family, friends and loved ones. It is, after all, how families are created. By maximising your life, you also maximise your own capacity and willingness to give to others - witness the generosity of Bill Gates.

Human beings who live their own lives pursuing their own values produce enormous positive externalities to others, as well as often being generous in their own right.

However nobody exists to satisfy the needs and wants of others. That is slavery.

Time for ACT to do something for freedom

It doesn't take much. Given this repulsive childishness from the Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association (of which I was a member under protest, without choice), which I now understand includes the following in the past:

"In 2007 exec member Heleyni Pratley laid a communist wreath on ANZAC Day, reading “To the dead and the dying in the struggle against imperialism, victory shall be theirs”. The same wording featured in the wreath laid by 1973 VUWSA President Peter Wilson in protest against the Vietnam War and again 30 years later by 2006 President Nick Kelly."

No different from putting a swastika down - unspeakably vile.

Rodney it is time to set students free from being forced to fund these lowlife scum, enjoying the freedom of liberal democratic Western capitalist civilisation to spread their filthy philosophy of theft, death and denial of truth.

They have ever right to be Marxist fools, but no student should be forced to fund the cheerleaders of the most murderous philosophy of the 20th century.

I said it earlier this year here. What's stopping you?

ANZAC Day 2009

I have nothing to say that I have not said before, or others have said so well. So here are my sentiments:

"take time today to remember those who lost it all for your freedom. They did more for peace than anyone who protests for it ever have" (ANZAC Day 2008 post)

"The only thing that would've been worse than World War 2 is surrender" (ANZAC Day 2007 post)

and to conclude, I like Not PC's post this year very much " if you want to give thanks for peace, then thank a soldier. But do not forget to thank the trader more"

So take a moment to remember the loss of those who gave their lives so you can have one in relative freedom and peace. Very few of us can begin to comprehend how hard that job is.

Zimbabwe's troubles? blame capitalism!

So says the Standard

Setting new high standards in blogging by linking to a four year old article on a US Marxist website (nothing like those articles that make assertions without any back up evidence) to damn the IMF and World Bank for wrecking Zimbabwe's economy in the 1980s.

"Mugabe’s government which followed the IMF and World Bank’s neo liberal plan for their economy to the letter, has shown us all how these policies will finish up."

Welcome to the Orwell's world of doublespeak.

No, I am not making this up.

Referendum on mega city for Auckland?

Don't make me laugh. There wasn't one for the 1989 local body amalgamation. There wasn't one for the Local Government Bill 2001 (now LGA 2002) which fundamentally changed local government from being prescribed specific powers to having a "power of general competence".

There certainly wouldn't have been one had the Royal Commission recommendations been adopted in full, by a Labour Government, which instituted the Royal Commission in the first place.

If I had a vote, I'd vote no in a referendum. For the reasons outlined succinctly by Not PC.

However, for the likes of Jordan Carter, Idiot Savant and the Standard to lobby for a referendum smacks of stinking hypocrisy. These promoters of big local government didn't even raise a peep when Labour, the Alliance and the Greens let local government off the leash in 2002.

More fundamentally

If the Opposition's only concern about the mega city are:
1. It should have race based political representation (saying that non raced based representation "shuts Maori out";
2. It should be subject to a referendum.

and if National and ACT are happy to create a mega city with the power of general competence (power to do anything).

Who the hell is against the mega city and wanting LESS local government for Auckland?

It all comes back to Libertarianz. Read the Libertarianz detailed policy on local government - after all, it's the only policy around that is substantially different from the Labour/National/United Future/ NZ First/ ACT/ Maori Party/ Progressive idea of a mega city for Auckland (as these are the parties which support the current government and supported the last one for calling for a Royal Commission).