Tory MP Alan Duncan was foolish enough to say MPs live on "rations" and are "treated like shit". Of course, nobody forces him to stand, and given the competition every few years for the job, it would suggest that plenty of people are interested in the job.
Given Duncan is a millionaire from working in the energy sector, you'd have to wonder why he should care.
However, it does show a sad failure by those who get elected seeking to have power over others to recognise that they live a life well beyond the means of many of their constituents.
It is something MPs in New Zealand, on all sides of the house, may think carefully about.
14 August 2009
13 August 2009
Privatisation improved train reliability in UK
Yes, this is according to a BBC report.
"According to Hassard Stacpoole, media relations manager for the Association of Train Operating Companies, the value of improvements to punctuality is greater because the network is getting more crowded.
He said: "You will find that we are running 20%-plus more trains than we were under British Rail, in what is a busier network.
"Overall we would say punctuality is much better than even under BR. We have one of the most punctual railways in Europe.
So the doomsayers are wrong, railways in Britain are carrying more people than they have for over 50 years, and more reliably.
"Mr Stacpoole adds that commercial incentives, which did not exist under the nationalised BR system, work as a safeguard to improvements.
"If the trains are not going to run on time that's going to cost you money. Network Rail will have to compensate the operators or vice-versa (depending on who is at fault).
"There's an incentive to get things right. People expect their trains to run on time. "
You see if it is the fault of the track owner (Network Rail) the train operator, which pays to use the track, gets compensated. If the train operator is late in using its slot, then it pays more to use it later, as others are disadvantaged by the change.
Now there remains mistakes, massive subsidisation of major infrastructure projects that should have been financed directly. Political subsidisation of uneconomic lines and projects, but by and large, it has been a success going this far. Another loony leftwing legend about "good old British Rail" (which closed more railway lines than private railways ever did) is blown away by the facts.
"According to Hassard Stacpoole, media relations manager for the Association of Train Operating Companies, the value of improvements to punctuality is greater because the network is getting more crowded.
He said: "You will find that we are running 20%-plus more trains than we were under British Rail, in what is a busier network.
"Overall we would say punctuality is much better than even under BR. We have one of the most punctual railways in Europe.
So the doomsayers are wrong, railways in Britain are carrying more people than they have for over 50 years, and more reliably.
"Mr Stacpoole adds that commercial incentives, which did not exist under the nationalised BR system, work as a safeguard to improvements.
"If the trains are not going to run on time that's going to cost you money. Network Rail will have to compensate the operators or vice-versa (depending on who is at fault).
"There's an incentive to get things right. People expect their trains to run on time. "
You see if it is the fault of the track owner (Network Rail) the train operator, which pays to use the track, gets compensated. If the train operator is late in using its slot, then it pays more to use it later, as others are disadvantaged by the change.
Now there remains mistakes, massive subsidisation of major infrastructure projects that should have been financed directly. Political subsidisation of uneconomic lines and projects, but by and large, it has been a success going this far. Another loony leftwing legend about "good old British Rail" (which closed more railway lines than private railways ever did) is blown away by the facts.
New reasons to abolish the ARC
Number 1: ARC wants to force people to pay for a tourist tram. It is already going to waste Auckland ratepayers' money on a "feasibility study", even though it doesn't own the roads or property that such a tram would run on. Given the loud silence from the private sector, this is just another toy from the same people who made you pay for a big elaborate train set to replace commercially viable bus services. Of course it hasn't stopped legions of gormless idiots saying it's a great idea on the NZ Herald website, none having the slightest idea as to how to pay for it.
Number 2: ARC wants to force people to pay for a far more elaborate SH20 motorway extension. Whilst there are issues with the government's less expensive plan to complete the South Western Motorway in Auckland (mainly how it wont obtain consent from all property owners), the ARC has shown that other people's money is no object. Again. It is campaigning to extend the motorway from the current end at Mt. Roskill through Rosebank Peninsula to the North Western motorway. Why? It is "superior" strategically, and has less environmental impact. Given the ARC has no responsibility for roads at all, belongs to the railway religion, and the views are expressed by hard-left shrews like Sandra Coney, you can see where economics escaped them all. Mike Lee is "annoyed" this very high cost option was ruled out. Well Mike, it was ruled out by the previous government as well, and nobody sees the ARC coughing up money to pay for it (let alone the private sector).
So couldn't Auckland local government reform simply wind up the ARC as a good start?
Number 2: ARC wants to force people to pay for a far more elaborate SH20 motorway extension. Whilst there are issues with the government's less expensive plan to complete the South Western Motorway in Auckland (mainly how it wont obtain consent from all property owners), the ARC has shown that other people's money is no object. Again. It is campaigning to extend the motorway from the current end at Mt. Roskill through Rosebank Peninsula to the North Western motorway. Why? It is "superior" strategically, and has less environmental impact. Given the ARC has no responsibility for roads at all, belongs to the railway religion, and the views are expressed by hard-left shrews like Sandra Coney, you can see where economics escaped them all. Mike Lee is "annoyed" this very high cost option was ruled out. Well Mike, it was ruled out by the previous government as well, and nobody sees the ARC coughing up money to pay for it (let alone the private sector).
So couldn't Auckland local government reform simply wind up the ARC as a good start?
Simple policy lesson on energy
The Electricity Commissioner position was created by the Clark Labour Government.
It was never needed before. Jim Anderton and Helen Clark were keen on Ministerial Inquiries into industries that had no fundamental problems.
The Electricity Commission isn't needed, nor is an Electricity Market Authority.
My first step would be to choose another electricity SOE to privatise. Although whilst National has promised to sell nothing, there is no reason why it cannot issue shares in an electricity SOE watering down the shareholding. Similarly, shares could be distributed to everyone. Private owners, after all, demand better performance and seek to be more competitive than the state.
Lines companies should be allowed to retail electricity, as the recent review recommends.
So hopefully Cabinet will agree on modest steps to liberalise and get crony bureaucrats out of the way - and so the question will arise as to why the government owns the majority of the generation and retail market.
It was never needed before. Jim Anderton and Helen Clark were keen on Ministerial Inquiries into industries that had no fundamental problems.
The Electricity Commission isn't needed, nor is an Electricity Market Authority.
My first step would be to choose another electricity SOE to privatise. Although whilst National has promised to sell nothing, there is no reason why it cannot issue shares in an electricity SOE watering down the shareholding. Similarly, shares could be distributed to everyone. Private owners, after all, demand better performance and seek to be more competitive than the state.
Lines companies should be allowed to retail electricity, as the recent review recommends.
So hopefully Cabinet will agree on modest steps to liberalise and get crony bureaucrats out of the way - and so the question will arise as to why the government owns the majority of the generation and retail market.
Driving distraction
I'm not surprised at the ban on using handheld mobile phones while driving.
It is politically popular with older drivers, and undoubtedly there are people who can't drive while talking on the phone.
Although I recall discussions with the then Land Transport Safety Authority a few years ago which confirmed that far more accidents at the time happened while people fiddled with the car stereo. Changing radio stations and fumbling about for CDs (and before that cassettes), was a bigger distraction because it involved a fairly short burst of activity and frustration.
There are other distractions while you drive. Talking to other passengers, controlling children, pretty girls on the side of the road as you drive by. All of these can contribute to a driver failing to take care.
However isn't THAT the issue? The philosophical belief that when people cause an accident, it isn't them to blame per se, but because they did something they shouldn't have. Why is it easier to produce a rule to ban something, than to focus on people who drive dangerously and cause an accident?
Is it because it is easier for the Police, who can treat talking on the cellphone as the reason to prosecute, rather than negligent driving?
Or is it because of ACC? ACC remember removes your civil liability from being to blame for causing personal injury by accident to anyone else (although not property damage). Indeed your ACC levies for owning a car (equivalent to accident insurance) don't vary if you have a good or bad driving record. So perhaps opening THAT up to competition, so bad drivers pay far more for accident insurance, and good ones pay less, might make a modest difference?
You see, I by and large don't give a damn if stupid people cause accidents damaging their car and themselves. The state has better things to do that protect people from themselves. I do care about such people taking me or others with them. That is where rights to drive should be removed and penalties imposed.
It would be simpler though, if roads were privately owned. Road owners wouldn't want accidents to be common. Accidents generate blockages and cause congestion, making it less attractive to use the roads. Accidents can damage road property or property of adjoining road owners, which could see the road owner liable for letting idiots use its property in a way that could reasonably endanger the neighbours. Other road users may feel the same way. So the incentives to have a safe road are quite high, much like airlines which know a bad safety record is devastating to revenue. Korean Air was aware of this in 1999 and made radical changes, because non-Koreans would deliberately avoid the airline due to safety concerns.
However, selling roads may be a step too far for this government - but changing the incentives around ACC, and encouraging the Police to do their job (enforce dangerous drivers not victimless offences) would help. Dangerous driving causing death, injury or damage should subject people to prosecution and removal of their driving licence for any period from 6 months to life. Dangerous driving recklessly endangering people or their property should mean fines commensurate to a disincentive to stop. Driving in a way that poses a slightly higher risk than otherwise (and is no different from other behaviours that are legal) shouldn't.
Otherwise, the next road safety initiative will be to ensure all good looking women (and men) dress to cover themselves up when they walk adjacent to any road.
It is politically popular with older drivers, and undoubtedly there are people who can't drive while talking on the phone.
Although I recall discussions with the then Land Transport Safety Authority a few years ago which confirmed that far more accidents at the time happened while people fiddled with the car stereo. Changing radio stations and fumbling about for CDs (and before that cassettes), was a bigger distraction because it involved a fairly short burst of activity and frustration.
There are other distractions while you drive. Talking to other passengers, controlling children, pretty girls on the side of the road as you drive by. All of these can contribute to a driver failing to take care.
However isn't THAT the issue? The philosophical belief that when people cause an accident, it isn't them to blame per se, but because they did something they shouldn't have. Why is it easier to produce a rule to ban something, than to focus on people who drive dangerously and cause an accident?
Is it because it is easier for the Police, who can treat talking on the cellphone as the reason to prosecute, rather than negligent driving?
Or is it because of ACC? ACC remember removes your civil liability from being to blame for causing personal injury by accident to anyone else (although not property damage). Indeed your ACC levies for owning a car (equivalent to accident insurance) don't vary if you have a good or bad driving record. So perhaps opening THAT up to competition, so bad drivers pay far more for accident insurance, and good ones pay less, might make a modest difference?
You see, I by and large don't give a damn if stupid people cause accidents damaging their car and themselves. The state has better things to do that protect people from themselves. I do care about such people taking me or others with them. That is where rights to drive should be removed and penalties imposed.
It would be simpler though, if roads were privately owned. Road owners wouldn't want accidents to be common. Accidents generate blockages and cause congestion, making it less attractive to use the roads. Accidents can damage road property or property of adjoining road owners, which could see the road owner liable for letting idiots use its property in a way that could reasonably endanger the neighbours. Other road users may feel the same way. So the incentives to have a safe road are quite high, much like airlines which know a bad safety record is devastating to revenue. Korean Air was aware of this in 1999 and made radical changes, because non-Koreans would deliberately avoid the airline due to safety concerns.
However, selling roads may be a step too far for this government - but changing the incentives around ACC, and encouraging the Police to do their job (enforce dangerous drivers not victimless offences) would help. Dangerous driving causing death, injury or damage should subject people to prosecution and removal of their driving licence for any period from 6 months to life. Dangerous driving recklessly endangering people or their property should mean fines commensurate to a disincentive to stop. Driving in a way that poses a slightly higher risk than otherwise (and is no different from other behaviours that are legal) shouldn't.
Otherwise, the next road safety initiative will be to ensure all good looking women (and men) dress to cover themselves up when they walk adjacent to any road.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)