Stupid celebrities

The latest is Sheryl Crow who wants everyone to use one square of toilet paper per toilet visit. Does she shit little self cleaning pellets or something? Seriously, the idea is revolting, although men could presumably save up their single ones for the main event. Silly cow, especially silly for even mentioning it!

^

Of course this follows Madonna, who is so concerned about CO2 emissions, she flew on a private jet to Malawi (yes you can fly to Lilongwe, via South Africa, from London), and is opposed to the London congestion charge (presumably she is too stupid to remember paying). She has quite a carbon footprint.

^

Play your music and shut the fuck up

Anzac Day

There is no trace of it where I am at the moment (north of England), but I am quietly commemorating it.
^
Not PC has made most of my points, in that war is the second worst state of being for any country. The only thing that would've been worse than World War 2 is surrender.
^
Very few people in New Zealand today lived through war – directly. I don’t mean the country being at war, but the fighting being far away, which in itself is bad enough for the families of those fighting – but war on your doorstep. In that respect New Zealand is fortunate because of its isolation from invasion. Australia is less fortunate. East Asia carried a tremendous cost during World War 2, and subsequently in Korea and Vietnam specifically. The UK bore a high cost in World War 2, though this was little compared to the cost born by citizens of most other European countries (with the exception of those too gutless to do anything to fight the evils of fascism – there is nothing honourable in neutrality in World War 2, how can it be moral to be indifferent to the bigoted murderous tyrannies of Nazi Germany or militarist Japan?).
^
Those who have lived through war have seen many things most of us would choose to not think about. The destruction of buildings, places, utilities we take for granted, the fear of being bombed or shot, the disintegration of normal life in pursuit of day to day survival and avoiding death. When all people do is that, there is little capacity to build, grow or have recreation. At worst, war sees the death and injuries of people, day after day. It is not like a one-off accident, because in war most of the deaths are deliberate. The enemy is out to destroy you, to destroy the means to retaliate, it is out to defeat you so it can conquer and pillage.

^

Part of the price of this is destruction, the death of civilians - but then one should never forget who started it. World War 2 was started by Germany and Japan, the Korean War by North Korea, the Vietnam War by North Vietnam. Fighting war to fight tyranny is a virtue, appeasing tyranny is being complicit in the spread of evil - as Neville Chamberlain was to the peril of millions.

^
Consider how the allies treated Germany and Japan after the war, how its citizens were treated, cities rebuilt, infrastructure repaired and modern thriving peaceful liberal democratic countries built. Consider how Germany and Japan treated those who it conquered. It was true imperialism, at best pillaging the natural resources, at worst executing the local population or using them for military experiments.
^
The so-called “peace” movement would have you surrender for that. It is not that different from saying you shouldn't defend yourself against a murderer, rapist or thief - because you don't want to hurt the source of the harm.
^
Liberal democracies don’t go to war lightly. Wars are expensive in terms of money and lives, and unpopular. Liberal democracies go to war in defence of themselves and their allies. Korea and Vietnam were both about that. In the first instance the war ended roughly at the same point as where it started, before North Korea attempted its conquest of the south. In Vietnam, the non-communist allies were so incompetent and unpopular that none of what the West could do saved a rotten regime from being conquered by another rotten regime, which was more popular. More recently, Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been engaged in war had their respective government not started them by their own aggression.
^
I understand why people oppose the glorification of war, but ANZAC Day does nothing of the sort. Those who reject commemorating it are happy enough to have the day off work, and are happy enough to enjoy the freedoms protected by those who did fight.
^
Those who do not recognise that are either naïve, stupid or sympathetic to tyranny.

Regional petrol tax (sigh) again?

So a regional petrol tax is proposed for Auckland, a really stupid idea.
^
Why?
^
1.Last time it was tried (early 1990s by National, but don’t expect them to remember it) to help fund Auckland and Wellington public transport, the oil companies levied the tax across the country at a level equivalent to what it necessary to raise the same revenue from only Auckland and Wellington. Why? Because petrol is taxed at the “border” it is the equivalent of a customs duty, and it is was administratively simpler to simply apply it to all petrol sold across the country. Unless a new retail sales tax is applied to petrol on top of fuel excise duty, and oil companies are legally forced to charge it in Auckland alone (better define that), this tax is likely to be applied to the whole country at a lower rate.

^
2.Even if it IS applied to Auckland only, it will kill off service stations not far from the Auckland “border”, after all, why would you fill up in Pokeno if you could go to Mercer and pay 10c a litre less?

3. If you have a diesel or LPG vehicles you pay NOTHING extra. Why? Because diesel vehicles don’t pay a fuel tax (because the majority of diesel is not actually used on the roads, and a diesel tax for road use would mean a refund scheme for that diesel), but instead pay road user charges (which charge according to distance and weight). Since road user charges are bought in advance, and there is no way of detecting where in the country they are bought (or used), expect sales of diesel cars to go up in Auckland to avoid the new tax.

4. The money raised isn’t to be spent on roads, but on a rail electrification scheme that at the very best could serve perhaps 10% of Auckland commuters (though so could improved buses at a small fraction of the cost). 87% of Aucklanders don’t work downtown, and around 40% of the remainder wont be anywhere near a railway station. Perhaps an additional 2% work near a station outside the city, but in short this project will do next to nothing for most Aucklanders – except those living near a station who work in town and would rather ride a train than a bus.

This tax is to force you to pay for most of the cost of their journey to work, because the fares raised from these trains pay around a third of the operating costs, and they wont pay a cent towards the capital costs.
^
This idea is going ahead, despite official advice, because Helen Clark wants to electrify Auckland rail – it’s like a toy, a big expensive toy she wants to leave for Auckland and be remembered for it. Despite record levels of transport funding through both road user taxes and Crown funding through Land Transport New Zealand (LTNZ), it is telling that LTNZ is NOT willing to fund electrification of Auckland rail. This tells me it is an inferior project to all of the other road and public transport projects that it funds, remember it is spending $2.3 billion this financial year, this is 2.5 times the funding it allocated in the year Labour got elected, and this is after Labour changed the legislation around LTNZ so that public transport projects could be funded at a lower threshold for appraisal than road projects.
^
The Greens will support it because they have a fetish for electric trains – the economics don’t matter, it is a matter of pure faith that forcing people to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for trains they will never use is “good”. It is a matter of faith that this will reduce congestion, even though there is a not a single city in the new world that has electrified an existing railway service and seen traffic congestion reduce on the parallel corridors because of the electrification. If you can find, please show me the report on the marginal congestion costs for the parallel corridor before and after the electrification – because I actually would like to see the conditions necessary for that TO work.
^
This is about totems – Helen Clark and Michael Cullen are building a electric network of totem poles in Auckland, paid for by a stupid tax that is probably going to be paid for by all petrol motorists, but not paid for at all by around 15% of Auckland motorists who don’t use petrol. Setting aside the foolishness of heavy subsidies for public transport, a network of bus priority lanes across Auckland and luxury buses could do nearly the same job for a fraction of the price – but no, we must bow down to the altar of the railway.
^
Auckland is not London, Paris or New York, where new electric metropolitan railways can make a difference (in a few cases). Auckland’s entire rail network carries 3.8 million trips a year with around 70 carriages, in London the Waterloo and City tube line (perhaps one of the least used) alone carried 2.5 times that with 20 carriages (and no the tube cars do not have 3.5 times the capacity of the Auckland ones, they would be lucky to be able to carry double).
^
That gives you some indication of the difference in economics.

By the way, you already pay a 0.66c a litre tax to every territorial authority in the country (it's the same for them all making it easy to distribute), you might ask Auckland City Council and all of the others whether they spend their share on transport? Go on, few of the so called journalists in the New Zealand media can be bothered to research these things you see.

^

Oh and why are Auckland roads congested? Simple. Everyone pays the same to use them regardless of demand - it is tragedy of the commons. Singapore charges according to demand and congestion is kept at a low level - but no doubt most of you think public ownership and funding of roads works, even though virtually everywhere it happens you get chronic congestion in major cities.

nрощальное Boris

Given my very long hours working at the moment (midnight is a good time to finish and start again at 0830), I am saying not much, but it is important to comment on Boris Yeltsin, because he hammered in the last nails for the coffin of the Cold War.

^

Baroness Thatcher said "He deserves to be honoured as a patriot and liberator.” She is correct. His passing isn't mourned by the leader of the current Russian Communist Party and wont be mourned in Pyongyang or Havana. Indeed neither of the monopoly news agencies in those countries have reported his death yet, the official (and only legal) viewpoint no doubt not finalised yet. That was how the USSR once was, and that is all that is left of its legacy thanks, in part, to Yeltsin.

^

Yeltsin was a reformer, who believed in more freedom. By and large he did not censor the Russian press, unfortunately that has been a short period of freedom in Russian political discourse that is now somewhat suppressed (although current Russian authoritarianism still pales compared to life before Gorbachev). Yeltsin is responsible for confronting the bullies who orchestrated the "putsch" against Gorbachev in August 1991, his courage in doing so brought the downfall of the USSR. Citizens of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, now citizens of the European Union instead of the Soviet Union can thank Yeltsin for his determination, because the Baltic States gained their liberty shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, the rest of the Soviet Union has not fared so well, ranging from some liberty in Ukraine to totalitarian madness (now easing) in Turkmenistan.

^

His strength was his firm belief that Marxism-Leninism had no future, and that setting Russians free from the shackles of that oppressive system was a priority. His weakness was in not being able to build up the institutions needed to replace it. The justice system, without adequate protection of property rights, contracts and with enormous corruption in the police force saw the excesses of the Soviet state transferred in part to organised crime. His willingness to privatise and dismantle state monopolies was not matched by the patience to establish a means to privatise the behemoth of Soviet businesses in a way that gave all Russians a fair stake in those businesses. The crisis in the rouble, the fiscal crisis of the Russian state (unable to pay wages on a regular basis, providing another route for corruption) saw "firesale" privatisations that clever Russian entrepreneurs took advantage of. Desperate Russians sold their privatisation vouchers for cash, while the shares of major energy, media and telecoms concerns went for excessively low prices (remembering that foreigners were not entitled to buy them).

^

It is tempting to focus on his shortcomings such as alcoholism (which was more an embarrassment than anything else), the disaster of Chechnya (which should simply have been granted independence and been left alone) and effectively anointing Putin as his successor. Putin is a disaster for freedom, but he offered Russians the order and control that they yearned after Yeltsin failed to build the core state institutions needed under liberal democracy. Sadly liberal democracy seems largely absent from modern Russia, but most Russians are more pleased with the order under Putin (and the growing economy largely due to the high price of oil and gas) than the lurches from crisis to crisis in the 1990s under Yeltsin.

^

However Yeltsin should be seen as, on balance, a hero, although like most, a very flawed one. Had he not stood up to the putsch in August 1991, the old Soviet Union could have at best been plunged into a civil war, at worst back to the dark ages of authoritarianism and confrontation with the West (albeit without much of its lost empire). It is that he should be thanked for. Sadly it was a lost opportunity, probably because seventy years of an oppressive, brutal, anti-life, single-minded, irrational system built and sustained on lies that could only be challenged at one's peril, stripped the spirit of individual initiative, responsibility and genuine community from generations of Russians. A people, most of whom were used to be told what to do, where to go, what to buy, what to produce and expected to do their work and be grudgingly happy, or else. A soulless system based on telling other people what is good for them, scaring them into accepting it as it is, and damning those wishing to do better for themselves, worshipping those who sacrifice themselves.

^

Yeltsin stood for something better, it is a shame he didn't appear to know what it was, other than it wasn't what he had experienced under the Communist Party.

^

FOOTNOTE: It is notable how the UK papers have responded to this news:

^

The Times reported on its front page that Yeltsin buried communism and what was most notable was how his death was not reported as the death of previous Russian leaders "Television screens in Russia did not go blank yesterday. The music of Tchaikovsky did not play. The greatest legacy of Boris Yeltsin’s extraordinary life was the ordinary manner in which his death was announced. " Anatoli Chubais noted that "He brought us from captivity into freedom. He took us from a country of lies . . . to a country which tried to live in truth"

and this quote from Michael Binyon rings true "Yeltsin tore his country away from its crippling past and offered it the chance to become a respected moral member of the world community. Russians have still not found their place there. But without Yeltsin the search could not have begun. "

^

The Daily Telegraph also reported his death on the front page, with John Kampfner noting "out of the chaos that often epitomised the 1990s, something has grown that I believe has not been extinguished. Thanks to Yeltsin, and, to a lesser degree, Gorbachev, a whole generation of Russians has become used to international travel. Much has, rightly, been made of the "Cartier, Courchevel and Chelsea" set, as they call themselves, but foreign travel and foreign influences are not just the preserve of the super-rich. Many ordinary Russians now live lifestyles that are similar to those in the West - holidays in, say, Cyprus, trips to Ikea, that sort of thing." What we in the West take for granted, is now becoming accessible to more and more Russians. Daily Telegraph obituary here.

The Guardian, apologists for the Soviet Union's apologists said Yeltsin was a destroyer not a builder. Which is largely true, but he did destroy the most evil empire of the 20th century.

The Independent continues its fetish on global warming, pointing out an apparently new island appearing off the Greenland coast. Nothing on Yeltsin on its scaremongering front page.

Remembering NZ culture

New Zealand culture, almost forgotten. A kids show called “A Haunting We Will Go” starring a Count Homogenised, who was vampire like but loved drinking milk.
^
Virtually no sign of it appears online, except kiwis asking about it.
^
Someone must have a video recording of it somewhere, or have acted in it or the like. How good (or bad) is TVNZ in archiving its past?

^

even more parochial is Buzz O'Bumble and Lindsay Yeo. As a Wellington kid, this was part of the staple morning radio diet in the car on the way to school. Of course, absolutely nobody outside Wellington in the 1970s and 1980s knew anything about this, and there were records! Buzz O'Bumble and his girlfriend/wife Belinda, but funniest of all their kids were Bimbo, Bonnie and Bobo ("three little bees we all know" so went the song). So politically incorrect was Wally Weta (who was bad, which is wrong nowadays because they are endangered yada yada yada, but I knew as a kid that they look scary and horrible so i didn't care did I?). Lindsay Yeo apparently did Buzz's "voice" by some humming with a comb and a piece of paper (well sounded like it).

^

Lindsay Yeo of course is now a memory for Wellingtonians, appearing mostly on local TV ads as a voiceover, he went from number one to slide down the ratings pole before disappearing off air when 2ZB became Newstalk ZB and Classic Hits was set up. However, I DO thank Lindsay Yeo for having created Buzz O'Bumble (and who can forget the song sung by a group of kids, maybe Yeo's kids who must now be in their 30s) which simply went "Buzz O'Bumble Buzz O'Bumble Buzz O'Bumble Bee..... " ad infinitum or with a "have a banana" thrown in for comedy effect.

^

there is also Chic Littlewood and Chic Chat (with Willie McNab) and Chic Littlewood is at least still around and getting work.

Tough on youth crime?

Two people killed and two seriously injured because a 16yo brat thought he could do what he liked.
^
His punishment? 3 months supervision. He’s away laughing, the poor bubba.

^
Look how effective the criminal justice system is. The NZ Herald reports he had first embarked on a criminal life five years ago. At 11! Last year he faced 43 motor vehicle, burglary and theft charges.

^
43!

^
So every time he steals, violating people’s property and their lives, he’d get the proverbial wet bus ticket and be told “don’t be so naughty”, and he does it again and again.
This time he deserves ten years. Ten years will deny him a good part of his youth, given he has denied life to others and doesn’t care. Meanwhile his parents can be sent the bill if they think he isn't a grownup yet.
^
Either he is a child and they are responsible, or he is an adult and can be punished. How much damage can an individual cost in terms of property, people's personal wellbeing and time before you decide that it is time to protect people from a petty thug.

^

and yes I know he wont come out better, but you might have avoided hundreds of thefts, burglaries and the like, and even deaths and injuries by keeping him locked away.

^

See how little of a disincentive the criminal justice system to youth offenders?

Women are special according to AA

American Airlines thought it was clever targeting women with a special website dedicated to female travellers. According to the New York Times, many women are far from happy about being patronised by the airline, and treated like they have "special needs".

^

It talks about women connected to each other, because after all, an airline that is not sex specific clearly baffles women, and they feel alienated to those big phallic things called planes! No wonder women (ha!) need a special website, which when you look at it, has exactly the same information that I'd expect it to have for men - except it's a women's page (all breath "aaaaaaah") so you can't feel oppressed by the testosterone of aviation (which let's face it, is about planes and jets and speed, damned manly stuff right?).

^

However, it does have slightly different advice for safe travel. Points like "If you need directions, ask other women or couples". Yes, don't trust those men, they are just out to lure you back to his dungeon for a good ol' bondage and discipline session. Couples, after all, are always safe, none of them are twisted and perverted.

^

One comment on this attempt is:

^

"As a female frequent traveler for both business and leisure, I’m quite indignant that AA thinks this kind of silly fluff is going to appeal to me. I want a clean plane, a comfortable seat, and good service at a fair price (not cheap, just reasonable). That’s what my husband wants. That’s what my colleagues of both genders want.”

^

Yes American Airlines is a private company (mollycoddled by US protectionism that reserves the domestic airline industry to US owned airlines, and the subsidies thrown at it), and can do what it likes, but there remains an absolutely yawning gap between the standards of virtually all US airlines and the likes of BA, Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific and even Qantas and Air NZ.

^

This is because US consumers don't demand better, and because the US airline industry lobbies for less competition.

Congratulations Tesco

How sad it is to see and hear the evil envy dripping rhetoric from the BBC (which every TV owner is forced to pay for), about Tesco (which nobody is forced to pay for).
^
Tesco has made a record profit of £2.6 billion. I would like to say simply – well done! This is a 20.3% increase in profit on last year, with a 10.9% increase in sales. Why has this happened? Two reasons:
^
1. Tesco is selling what people want to buy at a price they are willing to pay;
2. Tesco runs an efficient tightly managed operation that keeps costs down low (and as a result avoids waste).
^
Tesco has not got a statutory monopoly, or a de facto monopoly (there are plenty of shops selling the different merchandise Tesco sells), nor is it subsidised (unlike many of its suppliers, such as European farmers who whinge and moan about their buyers wanting a good price – which effectively means they want consumers to pay more).
^
Britain is the only country I know of that considers a market with four major retailers, all competing vigorously on quality and price, and umpteen smaller retailers, a “monopoly problem”. What is DOES have is an envy problem, arising from middle class Guardian reading, Radio 4 listening wankers who decry that Britain doesn’t always have the smattering of small, high priced, low variety shops that add so much quaintness to the shopping experience – while at the same time they sneak off to Waitrose to get their organic mungbean surprise (or whatever).
^
Tesco succeeds for the most democratic of reasons – people choose to shop there. Despite all of the media bashing by the envy classes (who look down their nose at the average family who simply want cheap good quality groceries, instead of locally grown or fair-trade organic, hand made, in season chelseaberries), shoppers have voted with their pounds and pence. It is a more honest expression that any vote at any election.
^
You don’t see people traipsing into Tesco begrudgingly wishing that everything wasn’t so expensive, or the selection were better or that the queues were shorter, like they do with the state owned Post Office here in the UK. They go out of choice. Within 15 minutes walk of my place I can choose Tesco, Waitrose, M&S, Sainsbury’s or Budgens, and a smattering of smaller retailers each of whom sells some of the things those shops sell, usually at a higher price, and sometimes at better quality. I go to Tesco when it offers the best deal for what I want.

^

According to the BBC Fiends of the Earth claim that "The supermarket giant's market dominance is bad news as it allows it to dictate conditions to suppliers and to drive High Street stores out of existence". Well tough shit frankly. Suppliers are in business, they don't exist as charities, and British farmers in particular are already protected and mollycoddled by Brussels, unlike Tesco. Perhaps when they face the full force of competition from efficient and more environmentally friendly suppliers they can talk, and then maybe they might start embarking on more efficient production techniques and respond like businesses, rather than like spoilt children. After all, Tesco's suppliers would love to be monopolies screwing Tesco and consumers for all they can. The High Street stores go out of business because people don't want to shop there, because they can't buy what they want at a better price. What do Fiends of the Earth expect?
^
Tesco is a highly successful British company embarking on a worldwide expansion. The sort of expansion that should make it and its shareholders proud. The global presence usually seen in large firms from the USA, Japan, continental Europe and the like – you know the flipside of those who bemoan how the British car sector has largely disappeared. They forget that Britain’s recent economic success has been on the back of the service sector. Long may it grow.

Green fascism

Russel Norman telling you how to live you life:
^
“In a world of poverty and starvation, to spend $109,000 on a gas guzzler is downright wrong in my opinion. If you’ve got that much money spare, donate it to Oxfam and get a normal car.”
^
Why stop there? Why should you own a boat, or indeed a holiday home, or a second car, or how about designer clothing, or how about a house that has more bedrooms than the number of inhabitants, or how about that overseas holiday?
^
It is comments like this that simply want me to tell the likes of Russel Norman to fuck off.
^
Besides how leftwing and deluded Oxfam is on many things, what right does he have to tell anyone how to spend their own money?
^
If I want a luxury car, then so be it – I am likely to get something called pleasure from it – happiness, and I’m willing to pay for the petrol. I am not making Russel pay for ANYTHING, it is my money. Besides the lump of taxes the state gets from this exercise (which Russel will happily want to decide on where that is spent), it employs people producing and maintaining the car, but most of all – it is MY life.
^
Russel may think he knows best how to run other people’s live, to dictate how they spend their money, to give people guilt trips about spending money on what he thinks is “wrong” vs what others like. I think fairtrade goods are a complete scam, hiking up the price of products so that everyone along the way can cream an “over market” premium, whilst encouraging poor people in developing countries to produce goods that are in overproduction. However, Russel probably buys them. I think it is a waste of money to buy anything produced by Michael Moore – a socialist fatcat who flies first class and enjoys the high life while bleating on about poverty that he never actually experiences. I also think it is downright wrong that ultrarich “celebrities” vomit forth platitudes about “saving the planet” and making average citizens feel guilty, while they consume goods and services without that guilt.
^
The problem is Russel has the strange Green religious obsession about being “anti-car”.

Want to be forced to fund political parties?

I don't want to say too much on this.
^
Whatever way you cut it, this is compulsory funding of political parties.
^
Nobody spinning this one way or another can escape that it is making you pay for the activities of a voluntary association that you may or may not have ever chosen to join or support financially.
^
You might ask why everyone isn’t forced to pay for all other voluntary associations?
^
You should. You’ll be told “that would be ridiculous and unaffordable”, and that would be correct.
^
You next question should then be – why should I be forced to pay for YOUR voluntary association? Why is YOUR one more important than mine?
^
You may ask why the proposal is NOT that all political parties should get the same amount of money, after all, the advocates of this often go on about equality, and how unfair it is that some have more than others. They spit out their own jealous venom at those who are richer than others. However no, the biggest recipients will be the two encumbents
^
You may ask what the proposal means for you wanting to fund a campaign by your own money – remember it “your” money. Money you haven’t stolen, defrauded or cheated from anyone else, but money you have property rights over (something politicians don’t often understand).

^

Think about what it will do to that, your choices will be restricted.
^
In North Korea, Ceaucescu’s Romania, and indeed under any totalitarian government, the one think people could never escape was politics. In a free society it is something people take for granted. You need not vote, you need not be a member of any political party, in fact you can enjoy getting on with your own life peacefully.
^
Those of us in politics sometimes think that those who are completely outside it and do nothing about it are stupid, naïve or even lesser people as a result. In fact, some of those outside politics simply think there is something more interesting than choosing or supporting people who, by and large, want to tell others what to do. Unfortunately those outside politics make the biggest mistake by thinking it will all be ok, until they find some politician has actually interfered with something that matters to them.
^
I have voluntarily supported several political parties in my life, including one very small one. One reason I never joined a trade union was because I refused to support the Labour Party by proxy (another was because I didn’t think it offered me anything).
^
Political parties have come and gone in New Zealand’s history, and maybe one day Labour and National will go too. The spectre of this has haunted both parties quite recently, but survival is a fairly strong incentive to change.
^
I don’t care which part of the political spectrum you come from – it is absolutely immoral to force private citizens to pay for political parties – organisations that are not publicly elected, and are not accountable to anyone for their activities.

^
People elect political parties based upon the individuals put on the party lists and a desire for those people to govern – but they do pay taxes to fund government NOT the parties. It is the job of MPs to represent the views of their electors and to govern or to oppose. That is what they are paid to do. We do not pay political parties directly through taxes because it opens the door to corrupt, biased funding that nobody can be clearly accountable for.
^
Quite simply, if a political party cannot convince people that it is worth funding by their own choice, then by what twisted logic is it moral to force them to do so?
^
The argument that “the Labour Party exists for your own good” does not wash – in fact it is eerily reminiscent of the attitude taken in one party states. Now "the two main parties are good for you, and the smaller ones a bit less good for you, and the smallest not at all".
^
And no, the fact that some other countries do it is not a rebuttal. In fact is the argument of a person without an argument – it is like the child who tells his parents “but Johnny’s parents let Him do it?”.
^
So that is it – do you want to be forced to pay for political parties? And if so, why aren’t you paying for them now? Why can’t you and your supporters convince people to choose to pay for political parties?

French Presidential elections - Sarkozy please...

France’s Presidential elections are important for the world and for New Zealand. France is the 7th biggest economy in the world (on a PPP basis), and it is one of Europe’s dominant powers, a nuclear power (both militarily and in electricity generation, with over 70% of its needs met by nuclear power), and without doubt the most important roadblock to achieving substantial liberalisation in agricultural trade, with perhaps the important exception of Japan.
^
France inspires romance, and has an arrogance than in many ways can be understood. It is little coincidence that the term “joie de vivre” seems to mean more in French than its English translation. Examples of French prowess continue to impress, such as its recent achievement in rail engineering (who can fail to be impressed by a rail speed record of 575 kph– albeit at a cost the French media tends to ignore. France’s relative wealth has been static for some time, it simply has a state and an economy that is not conducive to new business, tends to ossify large state owned infrastructure companies, shielding them from competition. This economic stagnation is not yet fully reflected in its social services. Healthcare continues to be the envy of many in Europe, but growth last year was the 2nd lowest of any EU member state.
^
France’s malaise can be seen in how it has slipped in per capita GDP (PPP basis) to between 17th and 23rd depending on measurement, leaving it rivalling Italy for being bottom of all western European states besides Spain and Portugal. 25 years ago France was 7th, a parallel somewhat akin to the slide New Zealand suffered from being 1st or 2nd in the 1950s to being 22nd by the 1980s.
^
Unemployment remains high at 9%, exacerbated by labour laws that make it difficult to fire, that keep the working week at an underproductive 35 hours by law, while the fiscal situation has bled red ink for some time. Public debt at 66% of GDP is costing more and more of the high tax take. The rejection of the EU constitution was the delivery of two messages, one was the curious hard left anti-globalisation message that rings strong in France and which is about hanging onto what France has. The other was a rejection of the status quo, fed up with the Chirac years of saying much but doing little.
^
So for many in France this time the Presidential elections are about the decisive question about what happens about the French economy. The 2002 election saw the socialist candidate Lionel Jospin fail to oust racist old fool Jean Marie Le Pen from the runoff, so that the runoff election was a case of Chirac being the lesser of two evils. This time Le Pen is still promoting his filth. However there are three other serious candidates.
^
The poll leader is Nicolas Sarkozy, who is touted as the Thatcher of France, but frankly if he proves to be as liberal as Blair it will be a surprise. He plans to liberalise labour laws, lower taxes, cut public debt and give universities more autonomy. He clearly is the only candidate interested in serious reform, and the fact he remains ahead in the polls indicates a substantial French acceptance of the need. He wants a new slimmer EU constitution, which is clearly welcome.
^
Closely behind is Segolene Royal, the socialist candidate who has consistently been behind. She, by and large, represents the past, including increasing the minimum wage, pensions, abolishing flexible employment contracts for small firms and create half a million subsidised jobs. She wants a big socialist EU, though her weirdest comment has been “Chinese courts are more efficient than French ones”. Her plans are expensive, she wants new public housing, a big spend up on education, on other words she is promising much with no way to pay for it.
^
The possible dark horse is Francois Bayrou, a centrist candidate who embraces some modest reform, he wants fiscal prudence, mild tax cut, but would also renationalise gas and electricity utilities, and is a huge fan of agricultural subsidies. He polls closely behind Ms Royal.
^
So next weekend the question will be, who will be in the runoff. Most likely it is Sarkozy vs Royal, in which case Sarkozy will probably win. If it is Sarkozy vs Bayrou, Bayrou may win.
^
However, from a libertarian point of view there is little to be cheerful for, but to hope that for the sake of the French economy, the EU and international trade, that Sarkozy wins. As the man least enamoured about subsidies and a big EU, he is likely to be most conducive towards moving on trade in agricultural commodities in coming years, and to reject the big bureaucratic centralised EU that is the dream of many European socialists, keen to snuff out diversity across the 27 member states.

^

Sarkozy is far from perfect, he still embraces microeconomic meddling, he engages in negative rhetoric about immigrants and is far too hostile to Turkish membership of the EU - which while problematic, should not be rejected outright.

^

So my greatest hope is at least that Sarkozy gets through to the second round (the French Presidential elections demand a runoff between the two top polling candidates if none gets 50% in the first round), and that Le Pen does not. The former is necessary to save France from those who look backward, and the latter is necessary to save France's reputation.

Stupid and evil

15 April is Kim Il Sung's birthday. Yes I know he is dead, but then there are fools all over the world who worship this murdering tyrant.

^

The British group has a poor quality website here, but you have to see them copying the doctored photos of Kim Il Sung (all nicely touched up in the shit quality North Korean style) and the official history of one of the 20th century's most totalitarian bullies. Few things piss me off more than bunches of hand wringing apologists for murderous, anti-life, brutal regimes of slavery living in the comfort and freedom of the West. They are traitorous and equivalent to apologists for Nazism, they excuse the inexcusable.

^

Kim Il Sung was a very cunning blood thirsty tyrant, Stalin's puppet at age 32 to run the part of Korea that the USSR would not let have democratic elections (although the South wasn't that much better at least anarchy is better than Stalinism). However he did not save Korea from the Japanese, and did not spend the war fighting them (he fled to Russia where he was "discovered"). He enslaved the north, launched an aggressive bloody war against the south, and threatened it and Japan for decades. One man can make a difference, and he still is - and how tragic it was that the Korean War was not won.

Hong Kong

Having just returned from a week in Hong Kong, I am smiling. Is it the almost untrammelled free market capitalism? Is it the friendly kindliness that almost all of the locals displayed, albeit most trying to get me to part with $HK? Is it the fact that Easter was almost impossible to detect, as I was shopping at Causeway Bay at 9.30pm Monday evening and the place was more alive than Queen Street any night of the week? Is it the fact that I got 15$HKD for every £1? Is it the £280 I spent getting two high quality suits and five shirts at a tailor recommended to me by a good friend (who always dresses impeccably)? Is it the reliable fast and unsubsidised metro system? Is it the cheap and good Chinese food? Is it Air NZ upgrading me both ways to maintain my “never fly economy class longhaul policy”? Is it the complete lack of chavvy/bogan Brits (except a few in Kowloon around the markets looking to buy crap)? Is it the incredible range of goods you can buy at market prices?
^
I don’t care – it’s a fantastic way to break up a trip between NZ and Europe. It beats Singapore for shopping hands down, and climate – a perfectly pleasant 18-23 degrees not the stinking humid 30 degrees, as well not being the stuffy fear driven smiling face of nanny state.
^
Yes there were things to complain about, the smog, the annoying little South Asian men offering “copy watch” or “copy bag” every 15 seconds or so in Kowloon (glad I stayed on Hong Kong Island), the preponderance of utter crap in the night markets that would suit chivvy/bogan Brits to their white stilettos and baseball caps. However it has awoken me to some of the splendour of Chinese culture, the appreciation for education, hard work, respect for the elderly, and the fact that as I was taller than most people they simply got out of my way (and I’m only 5’10”). I wonder, do elderly people get mugged and murdered and raped there? Do children get neglected and ignored by whinging trashy parents demanding more money from the government while they sit on their arses?
^
In addition, I noted that there is no competition law in Hong Kong - though there is much discussion about it, but also department stores and malls have a tendency to have competing shops or franchises for similar products (e.g. bedding, clothes). It may be unconnected, but somehow Hong Kong has found ways to avoid free market capitalism being this monopolistic behemoth that so scares the left.
^
So given the variety of options to fly to Hong Kong from London, cheaply (particularly Air NZ, Virgin, BA and Oasis which all offer either premium economy or cheap enough business class to make the 12-13 hours tolerable), I can see HK being an annual trip.

Lite blogging

Well I've been far too busy at work and then been in Hong Kong to utter words about so many things, BUT I am back and things will be back to normal this weekend.

National quislings

So National wont repeal or even offer to amend the law if Sue Bradford's smack ban proceeds...

^

I'd like the Nats to promise to amend the law, somewhat along the lines of the Chester Borrow's amendment, or to make it clear that it is legal to use force in a manner to restrain a child, defend someone or something from a child's actions and only to the extent necessary under the circumstances - and that under no circumstances should objects be used to hit children. I don't know what the solution is.... but it nust include legalising the use of force short of corporal punishment.

^

Whether it be tax cuts, RMA or indeed anything Labour does - National just wont repeal anything. In which case what's the point of this spineless philosophically vapid opposition?

^

John Key said "National would also have to consider whether or not it could deliver on such a promise, because of issues such as whether it was a conscience vote, and potential coalition partners".

^

Why the fuck have any policies at all then, if you're going to not have ANY position to start off with to negotiate with potential coalition partners, or are you going to suck up to the Greens you political whore? What sort of nonsense is it to be a major party, but not have a policy until you know what minor party policies are?

^

Well Libertarianz wants the Crimes Act amended to remove all victimless crimes - so if Libz got into Parliament there's a policy - it's even consistent with National Party principles - if you blow away the cobwebs.

Sometimes a reason to smile

In an age full of those who want to wrap kids in cotton wool, and would probably ban them from driving on private property, Laura Simpson from Longreach, Queensland shows what CAN be done - she essentially helped keep a Greyhound bus in Australia from careering to disaster, after the driver passed out - and all because she was quick thinking, competent, courageous and had been driving around her parents' farm since she was "around 10 or 11".

^

So take that safety nazis - sometimes people are more competent than you think, and this girl saved the lives of dozens of little kids who were on the bus. If she had been brought up by the anally retentive fun police sitting at their desks in Wellington or Canberra, trying to protect her from life - it might have been a tragedy.

Smacking advocates are wrong but...

The proposed law to criminalise corporal punishment of children concerns me, I've already written about why. Fundamentally I believe there are many bad behaviours parents undertake that I wish would end - smacking is one, but even more important I want parents (in relation to children under 16) to:

^

- Not ignore their kids, teach them to read, listen to them, spend time with them. It is the most important thing you can do, and parents who don't give their kids attention may supply the material necessities, but nothing more;

- Regulate who has contact with them, don't leave them with kids for babysitting, don't hold drunken parties in the same house as them, and for single mothers especially, be very very careful who you bring home if you form new relationships. The chances for abuse or negligence in these cases are considerable;

- Not be intoxicated around your kids, if you need to ask why then you're too stupid to even debat on this;

- Not verbally abuse or humiliate their children, don't tell them you never wanted them, that nobody loves them, that they are useless, stupid, ugly or anything else. All your doing is reflecting that this is what you really think of yourself, and in which case it's true, you don't deserve to be a parent;

- Feed your children adequately. Ensure they get breakfast, a packed lunch and a decent dinner. Most of the time these don't come from fast food outlets or the snack section of supermarkets. It isn't about money, it's about time and attention;

- Play with your children, go on holiday together, spend quality time with enjoying who they are. If you don't, they'll find others to do this with - often other kids who are also ignored, and then you complain when they get into trouble;

- Not teach children one religious or political belief system. Leave them be until they ask questions, and let them read and learn about all those out there. Let them use their minds, don't close them;

- Not use the TV as a babysitter, again if you don't know why you're too stupid to be a parent;

- Not give children everything they want, even though you might think "society" owes you the very same;

- Not teach children that people of different sexes, races, gay/lesbian/bi/straight or other backgrounds are inferior/superior by virtue of these features. Bigoted children are also being denied their minds;

- Not feed them guilt about their bodies, they own them and they should have ever growing control of them as they develop understanding about choosing how to use it, and their bodies are not objects of sin.

^

That and many other poor parenting practices are the core of the characteristics of most crime, underachievement, and possibly much suicide and self-destructive behaviour. Could you legislate against it? Not without creating an authoritarian, bureaucratic arrangement that would send shivers down the spines of anyone who values personal liberty.

^

and that is why I oppose the anti-smacking law. Force is sometimes necessary to restrain children or rescue them from their own foolishness, and indeed in self defence in extreme cases, and I fear the law change will jeopardise this. The agenda to nationalise parenting is my concern. I don't believe most supporters of the Bill agree with that bigger agenda (you know the Cindy Kiro one), I believe they genuinely are opposed to smacking, the way I am.

^

I hate smacking. That's why, by and large, I am very uncomfortable with those who protest the anti-smacking law because they think smacking is good and positive.

^

It's not, and I viscerally despise those who protest with slogans that imply that smacking IS a good thing. Religious fundamentalists are violent people, they glorify corporal punishment and support capital punishment. They devalue life, and glorify the judgment of their ghosts after death and existence after death. They advocate the use of an authoritarian state to impose their religious will on us all, in plenty of cases where peaceful people are hurting no one.

^

It is like another issue - the banning of bigoted speech.

^

Christian fundamentalists want the right to denigrate homosexuals, lie about AIDS and generally be completely vile about them in their literature. I believe they have this right because it is a right of free speech. However, I absolutely despise these sentiments, and despise those who advocate them.

^

Leftwing gay activists support such a ban on such speech. I oppose that ban, but completely agree with their sentiments.

^

So let me make it perfectly clear. I will defend the right of parents to exercise very limited physical force over their children, because it is necessary in some cases and because banning it is worse than not. However, I believe any individual who roundly advocates smacking is either:

1. Lazy and/or old fashioned (and hasn't bothered to think about it); or

2. Evil.

^

If you think it is a good thing to hit your children from time to time then I don't like you, and I think you're at best a failure, uncreative and having a bad day, at worst abusive and incompetent as a parent. What sort of person LIKES hitting a child?

^

A sadist that's who.

^

This is the sort of image that disturbs me (Hattip Kiwiblog)

EU birthday

Reasons to celebrate the birthday of the European Union
^
1. Peace among all of its members (no small achievement).
2. Free trade in goods and (largely) free movement of labour among all of its members (again no small achievement).
3. A mechanism to expose and confront corruption when it affects other member states – particularly helpful in the Mediterranean and ex.socialist bloc states, with much needing to be done (still relatively new)
4. The most recent sets of new members are very sceptical of big statist visions for Europe, having lost two generations of their population to the stagnation of the last great vision – imposed by Stalin and his sycophantic lackies. In other words, the weakening of the dominance of France and Germany (very welcome!).
^
Reasons to mourn the birthday of the European Union

1. The world’s most highly subsidised and protectionist agricultural and food market, with little sign that it will do anything more than stand still (the biggest travesty in international trade, particularly for NZ).
2. Bureaucratic directives en masse that add compliance costs to EU business (and a reason for higher unemployment on average).
3. Neo-mercantilist style industry support and protectionism that costs Europeans a fortune – witness endless projects that are expensive and uneconomic (e.g. Euronews, Galileo).
4. Desire by the backwards looking protectionists to have a European superstate that denies diversity on many areas of public policy (because the less competitive countries don’t want to admit the failure of their policies – e.g. France, Germany and Italy vs. Poland, UK and the Netherlands) which have nothing to do with trade. This desire is in spite of the democratic desire of citizens of several European states to have nothing to do with the proposed EU constitution.
5. Enormous numbers of well paid jobs for European bureaurats in Brussels who contribute next to nothing.
6. A European Parliament elected by a minority of European voters and barely accountable for its actions because it is remote and unknown – and it knows it.
^
I agree with No Right Turn that it brought freedom of travel and trade (within Europe, while raising barriers to trade from outside), but it did NOT bring democracy or human rights to Europe. Besides the UK (lets not mention the countries too gutless to be anything but neutral in one of the decisive wars between good and evil in world history), democracy and human rights were brought by the United States, and indeed the UK in defeating Nazi Germany. Remember democracy and human rights did not exist in some states (Greece, Spain and Portugal) until well into the 1970s, and that came from within, with more pressure from the UK and USA, than from the then far smaller EEC. Furthermore, it was NATO that defended Western European democracy and human rights against forty four years of threatened Soviet imperialist aggression.
^
It is far from politically correct to admit it, and I doubt the European Union will mention it, but European democracy and human rights have everything to do with the UK/USA winning World War 2 (the Soviet Union winning enslaved the other half of Europe), and NATO (and France) deterring Soviet aggression. In the east, that deterrent and the Helsinki Agreement planted seeds that saw the downfall of (almost all) Soviet backed tyranny.
^
Finally, it is woefully incorrect to say that the European Union ended war in Europe. I think there are hundreds of thousands in the Balkans who would disagree. The European Union and its predecessors were about peace among themselves, but Europe is far from a peaceful continent – and frankly the European Union disgraced itself over the Balkan situation. However, that is a story for another day.

Inner City Bypass Part One

In this series I will trace the history of this project, although for now I wont be doing it in chronological order. The first part actually considers the project from 1999 when Labour got elected, through till 2003 - when the decision was about to be made on whether or not to fund it. The second part will trace that decision, how the Greens were demanding Labour halt funding of the project and how the Greens failed miserably in their objective of drafting legislation that would stop it - fundamentally objective analysis showed the inner city bypass to be consistent with the government's transport strategy and the legislation as passed. The third part will be what COULD have been - the long history starting with the De Leuw Cather report in the early 1960s which included a transport strategy for Wellington including very grand motorway and railway plans, and how politics saw much of that ignored.

^

PART ONE - ACCOMMODATING THE GREENS BY CHANGING THE SYSTEM

^

One of the more significant reforms in transport funding in the late 1980s, and built upon in the 1990s was to remove politics from decisions around what road projects would get funding approval from central government. There was a good reason for this. For many years (and you can see it writ large in the USA and Australia for example), MPs in government would pull strings to get roads built in their electorates to help attract votes. It is no coincidence that Taranaki got some of its greatest road improvements when New Plymouth was a marginal National seat in the Muldoon government. The Minister of Works once chaired the National Roads Board. The result, of course, was that areas without such political patronage would be neglected, and money would be wasted on poorer projects in other areas. In short it meant that the best value was not gained for the motorists taxes.
^
As well as dedicated a portion of fuel taxes, and all road user charges to the National Roads Fund (unlike road taxes in Australia and the UK), in two steps the decisions for funding particular projects would be up to a statutorily independent board, which Ministers could not legally direct to fund (or not fund) particular projects. This board still exists, and Ministers can still not direct it on particular projects – the organisation today is Land Transport New Zealand (which succeeded Transfund New Zealand). However when you’re a political party obsessed with stopping one project, that doesn’t matter – and in 1999 the Greens had the Inner City Bypass in their sights, with their front organisation – Campaign for a Better City (led by Green party Parliamentary advisor Roland Sapsford, more about him later) having just lost its Environment Court case against Transit.
^
In 1999 Labour needed both the Alliance and Greens to govern, so with a confidence and supply agreement in place the Greens demanded something be done about “major urban motorway projects” which to the Greens meant four projects they wanted stopped:

- Auckland’s Eastern Motorway;
- Auckland’s Mt Roskill extension to SH20;
- Auckland’s Waiouru peninsula link road;
- Wellington Inner City Bypass.
^
Now the Eastern Motorway (backed subsequently by John Banks) died because it had been goldplated, so became a hugely expensive project with benefits that didn’t justify the expense. Tolls wouldn’t come close to paying for it (although a scaled down scheme may have worked). The Mt. Roskill extension (which will take SH20 from Hillsborough Rd to Richardson Rd) after some delays (more on that later) finally got funding approved in 2003 and is now under construction. The Waiouru peninsula link road is also under construction, having been supported loudly by Manukau City Council and indeed Judith Tizard, MP for Auckland Central.
^
However the Wellington Inner City Bypass was in a different league. While Keith Locke meekly opposed the Auckland projects, the Wellington one was personal. Sue Kedgley almost maniacally went on about it being a big motorway which would see the destruction of much of central Wellington, not far short of a complete lie. A 400 metre 2-lane street along an old designated motorway corridor, with all the land owned by central/local government (bought as it became available), is hardly the behemoth. However, Roland Sapsford as one of the Green’s chief negotiators and advisors took this personally. As far as he was concerned the bypass wasn’t just a road he didn’t like, it was something that viscerally cut at the heart of his being. Sapsford takes a radical view of urban transport. He was heard at public meetings saying that people simply should drive far far less and then there would be no congestion and plenty of room on the roads for vehicles with a “legitimate” reason to be there – buses, delivery trucks, disabled drivers and that’s just about it. He doesn’t believe people should own a car with more than a 1.3 litre engine, otherwise they are “evil”.
^
The Greens demanded the newly elected Labour government do all it could to stop the project. As (newly elected as Wellington Central) MP Marian Hobbs was also against the project, and other Labour Wellington MPs were quiet on it, the process began.
At this point the project was ready for design funding (which follows investigation and precedes construction).
^
The Transit New Zealand Act 1989, which then governed the land transport funding system explicitly stated that the Minister of Transport could not direct the Transfund New Zealand board on the funding of specific projects. This meant that even if he had wanted to, the first Labour transport Minister after 1999 – Mark Gosche – could not tell Transfund to delay or accelerate the Inner City Bypass. The Greens wanted him to direct Transfund in specific ways that would have effectively have done the same, but this would have likely broken the law as well. So, unless the Greens could change the law – Ministerial direction would not work.
^
However, one thing was offered up – after all, despite legislative independence, Crown entities do respond to political pressure, however indirectly it is expressed, so as an act of goodwill Transfund got Transit’s project evaluation of the bypass independently peer reviewed, hardly a radical step (in fact this sort of review was not unknown). However, unlike other reviews, which were purely inhouse, Campaign for a Better City was allowed to comment, and did extensively. The independent peer review raised a few minor issues, but did not question the fundamental analysis, the Greens were unhappy – but then Transfund was following what was then the law.
^
The inner city bypass got the tick, and was granted design funding. While that proceeded, there were some other funding issues. The was partly because the then benefit/cost ratio was between 3 and 4, whereas the funding cutoff was hovering between those levels. The Greens hoped it would come below the cutoff of 4 (which was how things were looking in 2004), but this would soon not be an issue.
^
You see, the Labour government backed by the Greens were embarking on radical reform of the land transport funding framework. The Land Transport Management Bill was at first at attempt by Labour to have more political control over funding allocations, as well as allow tolling and private investment in roads (under rather tight conditions), but with the confidence and supply agreement with the Greens, Labour had to closely involve the Greens in every aspect of policy surrounding the legislation. In effect, officials had to negotiate with the Greens, with very close involvement from the Prime Minister’s office, as a Bill that was acceptable to Labour and the Greens was presented to Parliament. The Greens supported all measures to loosen up transport funding, and were concerned that as few barriers as possible would exist to funding public transport. By contrast, the Greens wanted new barriers against road funding – carefully calculated to kill off the Wellington inner city bypass. The chief negotiator on this was Roland Sapsford – and Sapsford is savvy.
^
Without going into the detail, the Bill was crafted in order to prevent the bypass from being funded. The Greens wanted on the one hand the removal of anything that would restrict the ability of public transport projects to be funded, and on the other hand wanted the ability of “local communities” to block road projects. The negotiations and the Bill went over the 2002 election, after which United Future played a crucial role – Peter Dunne wanted Transmission Gully, but was so poorly advised that he thought that simply allowing tolling and private investment in roads would allow his piglet project to proceed. Of course, he didn’t realise it is such a dog that neither the private sector, nor tolls could ever pay for it without massive subsidies.
^
Anyway, after the election the tensions increased, as Labour accommodated the desire by United Future to be as open as possible about private investment in roads and tolling, while there was still a post election agreement with the Greens to work closely on transport issues.
^
Jeanette Fitzsimons echoed the rhetoric of Sapsford when the Bill finally passed its third reading saying:
^
“It means freeing up the roads for those who really need them – short haul goods traffic, emergency vehicles, car pools and individual cars where circumstances make that necessary. The ‘more motorways’ crowd are really the ‘more congestion’ crowd – only those cities with a balanced approach have come anywhere near tackling congestion.”
^
“Those who really need them”, doesn’t mean you. It’s actually quite a fascist approach, the idea that it might not be necessary for you to use the car and you shouldn’t if it isn’t – but the government will decide.
^
This was in November 2003, and the Greens thought they had won. The Land Transport Management Act after all was intended, with the New Zealand Transport Strategy, to put a stop to building major urban roads – or so they thought. Certainly this was not the objective of Labour, which was more concerned about mitigating negative effects, allowing more flexibility to fund the types of projects they wanted, rather than have funding dictated by economic efficiency (which it largely had been before). However I have moved too fast.... and for the Greens, the Bill had moved too slow.
^
You see by mid 2003 the inner city bypass detailed design work was coming to a close, and the Greens had used all other available legal tactics to delay the project. One was to oppose the application to the Historic Places Trust for the shifting of archaeologically significant (in Wellington!) objects in the way of the bypass. Campaign for a Better City tried to appeal the case, but the Environment Court rejected it on the grounds that it had insufficient interest in it. So having lost the Environment Court case against the resource consent, having lost the review of the project appraisal, having lost the Historic Places Trust appeal, and with the Land Transport Management Bill still in the House and finally with Wellington City Council extending the resource consent as an administrative act (after all Transit couldn’t use the resource consent because of all of these appeals), there was one final act. The Greens wanted the Inner City Bypass stalled until the Land Transport Management Bill was law. (Meanwhile don’t forget that when the Environment Court had found against Campaign for a Better City it also demanded that it pay half of the court costs faced by Transit – Campaign for a Better City dissolved because it couldn’t afford to pay – even though it was, in effect, backed by the Greens who are very capable of fundraising when they want to – clearly not so interested when their supporters are found to have wasted taxpayers’ money and time).

Five good and five bad for Labour?

Others are doing this, so given my recent underblogging I thought I'd give my thoughts:

^

GOOD

^

1. Civil Unions. It wasn't Labour policy, but it gave legal recognition to adult relationships that should be treated exactly the same as marriage. Should've legalised gay marriage full stop, and it was made more complicated than it need be, but fundamentally this was a GOOD step.

^

2. Legalising prostitution. For most in it, it isn't a profession of choice, and for most people it is unthinkable to sell yourself. However, finally those working in this industry have some legal protection. Yes, this was made more complicated than it need be, but ultimately it must be up to adults to decide what they do with their bodies - and that includes selling for sex.

^

3. NOT surrendering on genetic engineering. For all the lies and scaremongering, Labour did not surrender completely to the anti-GE movement's hysteria. There was some courage needed on this in 2002, as TV3's leftwing pinup boy John "I vote Alliance" Campbell tried to make something of nothing.

^

4. Remaining pro-free trade. Again, despite the economic nonsense propagated by the Alliance (in the early stages of the government) and the Greens, Labour has continued to promote free trade (although it froze tariffs for far too long, and these are now going to go on a slow track of reductions). On this light it allowed Fonterra to be set up, abolishing the Dairy Board's export monopoly (at least for non-quota markets).

^

5. Clark, Cullen and Simpson run the show. Most Labour MPs are not the sharpest knives in the kitchen, most Labour Cabinet Ministers are not either. Clark and Cullen both are, Heather Simpson even moreso. Of the rest maybe only Hodgson and Goff have got some intellectual grounding worth commenting about, and Clark knows it. Labour has run a very tight ship, fools are swiftly disciplined internally, and there is no question of Cabinet Ministers running off on their own hobbyhorses. This external cohesion, despite considerable personal differences between many MPs is what people expect. It also shows how irreplaceable Clark is - without her hard work, discipline and sharp mind - the government would have fallen apart years ago. Cullen is also irreplaceable, with only Mallard coming close to taking on the Finance role, and only because he is a hard worker. When Clark and Cullen retire the rest will miss them, and Hodgson and Goff can't do all the work.

^

BAD

^

1. Frittering away enormous surpluses on bureaucracy and pork barrel schemes. Beyond any doubt, the greatest lost opportunity is Labour's willingness to literally piss taxpayers' money down the holes of policy advisors (which have grown in huge numbers, if not in quality), administrators and lots of small schemes to spend money to deliver pork to their different constituencies. Government departments have grown and grown, and delivered little in return except reams of reports and studies and strategies. Oh how Labour love having strategies. Strategies on the disabled, on the elderly, on "youf", on the environment, on local government, on transport, on energy, on the internet and the list goes on and on. However, more disconcerting is the money poured into healthcare, for little gain in productivity or quality of service. Money poured into "Working for Families" creating middle class welfare, instead of giving people back their own money. More recently in transport has been the massive increases in road costs, because of the enormous increases in spending fueling inflation in the construction sector and the ambitions of engineers always willing to choose the more expensive options. Labour has wasted billions of dollars, and the sad thing is Dr Cullen knows it.

^

2. Nanny tells you what to do. Along with these strategies and bureaucracy is an insipid chardonnay socialist view that the world would be a better place if only people were "educated" to do the right thing. Whether it be to stop smoking, exercise, eat better, drive safely, take a bike instead of drive, watch less TV, be multicultural etc etc, it is a patronising attitude that most adults can't look after themselves, but that bureaucrats in Wellington know what is best for them. What is most disturbing is that it always shys away from blaming people for being stupid or expecting them to carry the responsibility of being a lazy crystal meth addict, but to parent you, give you money and tell you to be better next time. The government treats most people like children, so it is no surprise that so many act accordingly.

^

3. Buying the election. It is very simple. Money voted by Parliament to pay for the administrative activities of the government was used to pay for one of Labour's main electoral advertising tools. It was illegal. Labour with its current mix of sycophants, voted to legalise what was illegal. The election was very close in 2005, and Labour lied and deceived the public about this until the last moment. No contrition, just sheer power hungry politics of the kind many of its members would have shouted "foul" at had National done it. Many of the same people who thought George Bush stole the 2000 election, happily cheered when their lot acted to do just that. It simply shows how blind to morality those closest to politics can be.

^

4. Local Government Act 2002. Giving local authorities the power of general competence - a blank cheque to do whatever they liked with ratepayers' money, own and run businesses, engage in any new activities - and ratepayers wonder why rates continue to rise above the rate of inflation and above the rate of property value increases. Giving local petty fascists nearly free rein, with barely any accountability (and denying some ratepayers the vote).

^

5. Meddle buy meddle. From renationalising and remonopolising ACC, to renationalising the railway network, to renationalising Air New Zealand (and refusing willing investors from saving it), to set up commissioners for electricity and telecommunications, to setting up emergency electricity generation, to unbundling Telecom's local line property rights, to increasing political direction in land transport funding, to banning certain used car imports.... an unwillingness to just let things be and let people pay for what they want, and make business decisions. This meddlesome approach means gameplaying is rife in those sectors the government in interested in. Telecommunications is an obvious one.

^

So yes mine match some of Not PC's but I have tried to be a bit different. All I'd add is that one good thing was that Labour gave the Nats the chance to rebuild after a couple of years of appalling coalitions.