Daily review 24/08/2023

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, August 24th, 2023 - 36 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

36 comments on “Daily review 24/08/2023 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. SPC 2
    24 August 2023 at 6:37 pm

    The Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill replaces the Public Transport Operating Model (PTOM) 2011.

    The PTOM had aimed to increase competition and curb costs by requiring councils to contract out public transport to a separate company.

    However, a 2020 review by KPMG and Mott MacDonald found it had failed to achieve its aims, with commerciality even falling by up to 12 percent in major centres like Auckland, Wellington and Otago. Driver unions had long complained it also kept wages and conditions for drivers down.

    The new law would allow councils to directly own and run public transport services themselves.

    It also allows recruitment of migrant drivers.

    Simeon Brown responded as it he had not read the 2020 report and said

    it would only increase costs, would not increase efficiency and reliability, and would see services degrade.

    "This government thinks everything should be operated by the government and not be outsourced to the private sector, and they don't even believe in competition," he said.

    How can the bill even support competition when it takes away the requirement for competition to even be considered?"

    The former requirement of councils to prefer the lower tender, drove down wages and conditions and left cities without bus services – failure to deliver on the contract.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/08/parliament-passes-bus-driver-pay-legislation-under-urgency.html

    • Descendant Of Smith 2.1
      24 August 2023 at 8:29 pm

      Evidence clearly shows the cost savings and better services from privitisation are imaginary.

      Similarly, in 2007, Roland Zullo found in his research that governments gained no immediate or long-term economic benefit from contracted bus services. This finding was substantiated in 2009 by Suzanne Leland and Olga Smirnova who found that privately owned and managed transit systems are not more efficient or more effective than government owned agencies.

      https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/High-Costs-of-Privatization.pdf

      Some of the explained real life results can be explained thus:

      Their study suggests that under private production, incentives exist to reduce costs at the expense of quality. Under this framework, incentives work as follows:

      1.With private ownership, the manager has incentives to reduce costs through quality deterioration. The manager does not need authorization from the government, which will bear the political costs of quality reduction. To give the manager incentives to innovate to increase quality, the manager would need to negotiate price increases with the government to ensure compensation for his investment. Most likely, this negotiation will not result in a full appropriation of benefits from the innovation, which reduces the manager’s incentives to innovate.

      2.Under government ownership, incentives work in the opposite direction. Because the manager is government-employed, he will take into account potential quality erosion when considering the implementation of cost-reducing innovations. In addition, the public manager will need government permission for any innovation he wants to undertake (either quality improvement or cost reduction). In the absence of a pay-for-performance scheme, the public manager will not fully benefit from the results of innovation.

      Overall, private ownership offers more incentives for cost reduction, but these incentives can induce quality erosion. Ensuring quality under privatization requires increased oversight, which can blur the line between public and private ownership (Guttman, 2000; Bozeman, 1987). As the difference between public and private ownership disappears, the potential for cost savings from private ownership may disappear as well.

      https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/High-Costs-of-Privatization.pdf

      • SPC 2.1.1
        24 August 2023 at 8:31 pm

        So there was evidence to show that the 2011 approach was wrong and they did it anyway …

        • Descendant Of Smith 2.1.1.1
          24 August 2023 at 10:03 pm

          Gets even worse for water. Note our semi-privatised power companies have been doing the same thing here – taking on debt to pay dividends to share holders.

          And let us not forget

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/gattung-admits-telcos-not-being-straight/CVL6FXSNGGNID32ZGUPGWPQHTE/

          Telecom's public image may take another hit as an audio clip of Theresa Gattung circulating on the internet has the chief executive admitting to the company "not being straight up" with customers.

          "Think about pricing. What has every telco in the world done in the past? It's used confusion as its chief marketing tool. And that's fine," said Gattung in a speech recorded on March 20.

          "You could argue that that's how all of us keep calling prices up and get those revenues, high-margin businesses, keep them going for a lot longer than would have been the case.

          There has been 30 years of experimentation and research now which shows it is a failure in most cases.

          https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/21097/20/21097%20YEARWOOD_The_Privatised_Water_Industry_in_the_UK_2018.pdf

          The Privatised Water Industry in the UK. An ATM for investors.

          This paper aims to critically evaluate the privatised water & sewage industry in England. We find that the public-owned sector in Scotland delivers the service just as efficiently, albeit at a lower cost to consumers. Our econometric analysis suggests that the 40% increase in real household bills since privatisation was mainly driven by continuously growing interest payments on debt, contrary to the regulator attributing them to growing costs and investments. Finally, we show that the accelerating debt levels are primarily the result of disproportionate dividend pay-outs, which exceeded the privatised companies’ cash balances in all but one year since 1989. We conclude that the way the industry operates may no longer be sustainable and seems to disadvantage consumers greatly without their knowledge, as there is a fog of misleading statements by the companies and the regulator.

        • Shanreagh 2.1.1.2
          24 August 2023 at 10:05 pm

          But, but, but…….neo-lib is all good isn't it even when it is not, so why listen to reason or read objective results? /:sarc

          Neo-lib wormed it's way into many unseen to the general public areas in public institutions/life that it really needs to have detailed investigations when aspects come up for renewal/review as well as an all out approach on the areas we as consumers are aware of.

          (She checks notes to find the aspect she is always banging on about…..)

          Energy costs review of the Bradford changes…..

      • AB 2.1.2
        25 August 2023 at 10:35 am

        Did they really need expensive consultants to demonstrate the obvious? Extraction of passive income by the owners/shareholders of the new private entities tends to produce one of two outcomes – lower quality (bus services) or higher prices (private hospitals). Sometimes it leads to both.

  3. Ad 3
    24 August 2023 at 7:23 pm

    If we weren't in the middle of an election campaign with multiple policy launches per day, the $1.1 billion deal from government to Auckland to buy out properties and remediate a whole regions worth of civil infrastructure would be surely worthy of note.

    "A cost-sharing agreement between the Government and Auckland Council will see the Crown contribute $877 million towards Auckland’s recovery following the Anniversary Day floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, earlier this year.

    In addition to the $877 million which will come from the National Resilience Plan, Auckland Council has submitted an application for further recovery funding which is being reviewed by Waka Kotahi. Auckland Council estimates it will receive about $200 million from this process to help restore the transport network. This would bring the total Crown funding Auckland may receive to up to $1.1 billion."

    https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2308/S00159/government-and-auckland-council-agree-cost-sharing-arrangements.htm

    I'm presuming that Auckland Council will approximately match that with its own contribution.

    We can now see how much it is going to cost New Zealand taxpayers and ratepayers to continue to prop up this country through massive storm after massive storm event.

    That's before the walls start to really break on South Dunedin, or the flood+surge overtops Westport's defences, or a direct cyclone wipes Gisborne off the map.

    It's not being catastrophist to now expect more disasters.

  4. Matiri 4
    24 August 2023 at 9:29 pm

    Rewriggling a stream in the south of England to restore natural flow and reduce the risk of flooding.

    Alan Stewart, a professor of ecology at the University of Sussex, said past construction of straightened, artificial canals to transport vessels had increased the risk of flooding, noting that Lewes had a “devastating” flood in 2000. The flood destroyed about 100 properties, including homes and businesses, and led to six days of power cuts.

    Stewart said removing artificial river banks and allowing streams to create their own natural winding courses was ultimately the most sensible approach to reducing flood risk.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/24/rewriggle-room-lewes-river-channel-project-new-wetland-cockshut-chalk-stream-flood-risk

  5. Joe90 5
    24 August 2023 at 10:07 pm

    Thread.

    (1/17)

    @drsimonwilliams

    Our MAJOR new @royalsociety report out TODAY Evidence shows COVID measures together = EFFECTIVE

    Key findings:

    Distancing/lockdowns=MOST EFFECTIVE measure

    FACEMASKS consistently found to be EFFECTIVE

    Strong evidence for contact tracing apps

    https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/impact-non-pharmaceutical-interventions-on-covid-19-transmission/

    https://twitter.com/drsimonwilliams/status/1694484949666038044

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1694484949666038044.html

    • weston 5.1
      25 August 2023 at 10:15 am

      Not what they seem ?



      [You seem like a typical troll trying to derail a comment with a lazy illegible YT link and an equally intelligible comment. This is your warning – Incognito]

      • Shanreagh 5.1.1
        25 August 2023 at 11:07 am

        So Weston you are commenting by linking to a shouty You Tube video that I had to click away from as it just seemed to be saying '3.4%' all the time (& an enigmatic comment of Not what they seem?) with a scientific study from the Royal Society and Dr Simon Williams.

        I find this positioning concerning as if they are some how considered to be peers?

        What does your comment mean and can you summarise the YT vid so we don't need to be subjected to this stuck record commentary of '3.4%'?. I have my suspicions that the link may be anti all sensible measures placed around Covid transmission.

        • The Chairman 5.1.1.1
          25 August 2023 at 12:42 pm

          My take on the vid/link Weston posted.

          The mainstream media talking heads were claiming the death rate from the virus was 3.4% while Trump was claiming it was under 1%. Leading to the talking heads claiming Trump was touting mis/disinformation. Yet (as shown in the vid/link) it turned out the WHO and the talking heads were wrong and it was under 1%.

          So (as shown in the vid/link) it seems the talking heads and the WHO were the ones spreading mis/disinformation.

          [please provide evidence for your claims here. No, you can’t use that video as a source. I want credible sources (imo you will need multiple sources), and explanations from you on each point, short quotes to back that up, and links. I’m not willing to accept video/audio as I want to limit my time on this and your claims should be easily backed up in text.

          You will also need to explain what you mean by ‘death rate from the virus’ as well as the time periods you are referring to.

          If you can’t do that then retract your claims.

          The claims are:

          1. that many MSM reported the death rate from covid was 3.4%
          2. that Trump claimed it was <1%
          3. that many MSM said Trump was spreading mis/disinformation
          4. that the WHO was spreading mis/disinformation in the virus death rate
          5. the known death rate was <1%
          • weka]

          • weka 5.1.1.1.1
            25 August 2023 at 2:31 pm

            Mod note. Because I warned you recently about not treating TS like FB and I had to use my own time to fact check your claims, if you waste my time on this again I will ban you until well after the election. We have an expectation here of a high level of debate and evidence.

            You are in premod and none of your comments will appear on the front end until you attend to this.

            • The Chairman 5.1.1.1.1.1
              25 August 2023 at 2:34 pm

              Seeing as you won’t take the vid/link as evidence, I can’t be bothered so I will retract.

              [that’s not a retraction. A retraction would be something like “I made claims I am unable to back up, so I will retract them”. Further, you seem to not understand why evidence matters.

              That and saying you can’t be bothered tells me that you have little respect for debate here. This is the third time you have been warned about this and wasting moderator time in the past week or so. You seem to have no intention of changing how you comment here.

              You are banned for six months. – weka]

              • weka …
                25 August 2023 at 3:32 pm

                ban extended to 1 year, after follow up comment in Trash and looking at moderation history. You patently don't respect moderation here, repeatedly waste moderator time, and you've had plenty of warnings.

            • weston 5.1.1.1.1.2
              25 August 2023 at 11:43 pm

              Weka that vid i posted came from a piece by Matt Taibbi called " Mashup the covid lie that started it all "

              Esentialy MT is piggy backing on an article by Matt Orfalea called "Memory Hole : the original covid lie "

              Both articles [ behind a paywall ] refer to an original estimate by the WHO in early 2020 that the death count from covid was likely to be 3.4 % when in fact as established down the track it was less than 1% which was what Trump claimed back then which in turn was what pretty much ALL the MSM used to beat him up with .!! Trump was correct and the media sock puppets were wrong .

              If you read the original article weka you will see all of Orfaleas info is credible and well documented .

              Incidentaly The Chairman made no "claims " he merely interpreted the vid as in "my take " [ did you miss his first two words ?? ]

              Even if you did mis read what he actually said are you suggesting its some kind of HEROSY that someone question a so called " expert or experts " seems to me there's not an expert on the planet who doesnt get something wrong at some stage .

              For heavens sake weka how can you expect reasonable discussion on a subject if you're gonna come down on someone like a ton of bricks you sounded to me like some sort of censorship police unfortunate cause i thought you were the fairest .

              [please supply the two links you are referring to and read the mod note below. – weka]

              • weka …
                26 August 2023 at 8:02 am

                Mod note:

                Please read the bolded note in your comment and respond to that before commenting again.

                Please also read this post before commenting again, and let me know when you have read it and that you understand it.

                https://thestandard.org.nz/moderation-notes-in-election-year/

                You are in premod until I see those two things completed. This means your comments won't appear in the front end until this is sorted.

              • weka …
                26 August 2023 at 8:20 am

                as to your criticisms of moderation, you don't seem to understand why and how we moderate, so I will explain.

                1. your comment here https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-24-08-2023/#comment-1965724

                this is a youtube link with zero explanation. We have long said this isn't ok. What we need is an explanation by the commenter of two things: what the video is about, and what the commenter thinks about it.

                When you put up a link with no useful comment it lowers the quality of debate because we can't see what the video is about and most people aren't going to watch it.

                As Shanreagh pointed out, the video is constructed in such a way as to put most people off.

                We are also resisting letting TS be turned into FB. We're here for the political debate, not memery.

                If instead, you had written an explanation like you have today, the debate would have gone much differently.

                You also need to link if you are going to reference articles, it doesn't matter if they are behind a paywall.

                We require debate here to be robust and evidence based. Everything I am writing here is about that, none of it is about the content of what your comments. By that I mean, if you put the effort into explaining your position and doing basic things like linking, then you won't get moderated.

                2. The Chairman has a history of making misleading statements in his comments. He's been warning about this multiple times. He's copped a ban for wasting moderator time (again, read my link above).

                In addition, he made the same mistake as you whereby his comment didn't explain anything for others.

                He did indeed make the same claims as in the video and could have provide back up for those claims but refused to and instead doubled down.

                He also has a history of litigating moderation, and I'm not willing to waste my time on that any more.

                3. You said,

                For heavens sake weka how can you expect reasonable discussion on a subject if you're gonna come down on someone like a ton of bricks you sounded to me like some sort of censorship police unfortunate cause i thought you were the fairest .

                No-one has been censored here. TS lets people say most things so long as they can do so within the boundaries of robust debate. The Policy (written long before I was a mod),

                We encourage robust debate and we’re tolerant of dissenting views. But this site run for reasonably rational debate between dissenting viewpoints and we intend to keep it operating that way.

                What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others. We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate. This includes making assertions that you are unable to substantiate with some proof (and that doesn’t mean endless links to unsubstantial authorities) or even argue when requested to do so. Such comments may be deleted without warning or one of the alternatives below may be employed. The action taken is completely up to the moderator who takes it.

                https://thestandard.org.nz/policy/

                You have both been given the opportunity to meet the debate standards of the blog. If you can't do that, then stop making the claims of fact. If you are unclear on what evidence is required, then ask.

                Please take the time to understand that the problem here is lack of debate etiquette.

                Please also understand that taking up moderator time is the quickest way to a ban. It's taken me 25 mins to do all the various things around moderating your comment today, and I am not going to do that again.

          • Shanreagh 5.1.1.1.2
            25 August 2023 at 2:34 pm

            But The Chariman the report of the Royal Society and Dr Simon Williams were about non pharmaceutical interventions such as mask wearing, distancing etc. I feel that as anything about so called % rates was not mentioned in the reports

            In short:

            Covid measures WERE EFFECTIVE including lockdowns, contact tracing & masks

            So not sure why the topic was raised by Weston, well I do, to derail any learning about effective measures especially those that were top of the anti-vaxx hit list. Such as mask wearing and distancing…why I do not know.

            They were measures to help the individual as well as the people they came into contact with. I've never understood why, even if you felt you were unlikely to spread or catch covid you would not mask or distance to help others. Seems quite selfish to me.

      • Incognito 5.1.2
        25 August 2023 at 1:06 pm

        Mod note

      • joe90 5.1.3
        25 August 2023 at 1:46 pm

        What is it about pigs like Orfela that appeals to soft-headed pricks like yourself?

        (Orfela's content nsfw)

        @receiptmaven

        Matt Orfalea made the most offensive video about Martin Luther King, Jr. I have EVER seen. It's vile. Repugnant. Racist.

        @BernieSanders just hired him as a member of his video team. MLK's famous "I Have a Wet Dream" speech

        https://twitter.com/receiptmaven/status/1183455116827021316/photo/1

        https://twitter.com/receiptmaven/status/1183448789333532673

        @receiptmaven

        ·

        Oct 16, 2019

        These are just some of the pictures Matt Orf used on his videos about Hillary Clinton:

        https://twitter.com/receiptmaven/status/1184085027199602688

    • Shanreagh 5.2
      25 August 2023 at 11:10 am

      Joe90 I am amazed looking back that antis were able to make people doubt the efficacy of commonsense provisions around the transmission of a virus.

      That several measures taken together were effective shows that the Swiss Cheese Model of prevention had much going for it.
      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/coronavirus-swiss-cheese-infection-mackay.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/coronavirus-swiss-cheese-infection-mackay.html