@ my wits’ end

Colin James, in his column for the DomPost and ODT for 25th January 2010, wrote:

Key’s core test will be his response to the tax group’s recommendations, which leave him no excuse for timidity. If he decides to trust his antennae and instincts and use his huge political capital, wide acceptability and capacity to connect to build a genuine “world-class tax system”, he would likely carry the public (and nervy doubters in his cabinet) with him. Witness the lack of fuss over the Maori flag.

“The Key who took large, well-calculated risks after thorough due diligence to accumulate a sizable fortune might have been expected to replicate that in politics. That younger risk-taking Key might also have recognised that this year’s big decisions are not about today’s issues but tomorrow’s: the post-crunch, China-rising, new-communications, mass-migration and maybe greening world. Old ideas won’t do, just as they didn’t do in the 1980s.

Right on Colin.

What do you want John?

Govern for the next election?

• Perpetuate the same old tired poll-driven incompetence?
• Continue the short-term thinking which has seen us fall from the second richest country in the world to about 50th?
• To be Prime Minister for 2 or 3 terms and disappear into historical oblivion?
• To follow the polls into mediocrity?

Or govern for your grandchildren and mine?

• Get back onto the track you started on.
• Make good on your promises.
• Give us policies which benefit us all for decades to come, not just for the next election.
• Use your political capital to revolutionize New Zealand’s political and economic life. Convince the electorate that for some short term sacrifice we can have long term gain.
• You may fail, but you’ll have failed honorably. If you succeed you’ll be  justifiably seen as one of our few great leaders.

In the past New Zealand’s voters have shown the ability to see ahead more than one electoral term. Unfortunately, our politicians haven’t.

Everything depends upon improving our abysmal productivity, rewarding innovation and finding new opportunities. You are our last best hope to lead us on that journey.

What do you have to lose?

You can blame me

I voted for the buggers.

I voted National because they were the least pathetic of a set of sorry alternatives. I had misgivings about their policies but I pinned my hopes upon the faint possibility that they had a cunning plan.

They didn’t. No secret agenda. No sensible plan at all. I’m disgusted with the whole gang of them: government, opposition, hangers on – the pathetic lot of them are worse than useless.

John Key and Bill English have been bleating that they didn’t know how bad the economic meltdown would get. Really? Perhaps they should have read a few newspapers and paid a bit more attention in Economics 101.

They’re incompetent. Dangerously so.

Labour lost the plot years ago, spending outrageous sums on social engineering; the Greens are nothing but watermelons and should confine their policies to saving the planet; Act have the right inclinations but climate change denial wipes their credibility.

It’s hard to envisage any viable future for New Zealand. We’ve been slowly going down the gurgler for decades, the new National-led government has an opportunity to turn things around and they’re squandering it. Our political system doesn’t work. Short term interests totally override sensible governance.

There’s an answer – you won’t hear it from National, but here it is anyway:

John Key shocks the nation

This morning, at a hastily assembled press conference, the Prime Minister announced a snap election.

Mr Key said:

“There will be a general election on August the 1st, 2009. My government accepts that we’ve been constrained by economic circumstances to reneg on our foolish 2008 election promises and we are therefore seeking a new mandate.”

“The National caucus has resolved to allow New Zealanders to make a choice.  Carry on with the same old tired and ineffective policies which we politicians have been pushing since 19 fish and chips or give my government a mandate to make the revolutionary changes necessary to get us back on track to sustainable prosperity.”

“Our policies will concentrate on getting people back to meaningful and productive work and to ensuring that our appalling productivity is dramatically improved.”

“In the medium term all I can offer is hard work and sacrifice. We will introduce a flat tax for individuals and businesses of 20%. GST will rise to the same level. ”

“The NZ Super will not be paid for those who choose to remain employed beyond the new retirement age.”

“The minimum wage will be increased to $18 per hour, but the quid pro quo is that employers will have the absolute right to hire and fire whomever they choose, whenever they choose.”

“Kiwisaver contributions will rise to 10% of income for both employers’ and employees’ contributions. The scheme will be compulsory for all earners.”

“We will ensure that jobs are available for all able-bodied current beneficiaries who are not caring for young children. Jobs will be found, starting with military or civil national service, re-afforestation, pest control, assistance to the aged and infirm, countryside beautification and a general government labour pool.”

“We will ensure that recalcitrant fathers pay for the care of their children.”

“ACC will be privatised: insurers will be given the right to sue parties at fault in accidents. ACC insurers must be majority New Zealand owned companies.”

“Boy racers, drunks and other anti-social pests will be press-ganged and their cars auctioned on Trade Me.”

The Mongrel Mob, Hell’s Angels and similar organisations will be disbanded. If necessary with the aid of the armed forces. We will win this confrontation. Recidivist criminals and former gang members who refuse to be reconstructed as useful contributors to society will be rehoused in a minimalist facility on the Auckland Islands.”

“100% tax relief will be provided for legitimate research along with loan guarantees for promising high tech industries. We will pursue the re-establishment of shipbuilding and the manufacture of locomotives and rolling stock.”

“The complete rail network will be restored and road user charges for heavy vehicles will be increased dramatically to cover the true cost of the road damage they cause.”

“All recreational drugs will be de-criminalised. The state will control the sale and distribution of all illicit drugs, including tobacco, to registered addicts. A high excise tax on all recreational drugs will provide funding for education discouraging the use of such drugs.”

“The drinking age will rise to 21. Public intoxication will become a criminal offence.”

“We will be resurrecting our armed forces from their present moribund state. This will include the restoration of the air strike force and the local construction of a fleet of 75 metre patrol vessels.”

“Student loan repayments will be suspended for competent New Zealand students in the science, engineering, architecture and IT faculties and for the productive trades for as long as they remain in this country.”

“Non-residents will no longer be allowed to buy land in New Zealand.”

“The canned Mighty River hydro scheme will go ahead.”

“All beneficiaries who are physically able will be required to…”

The rest of Mr Key’s speech was drowned out by the subsequent uproar. But his final words seemed to be, “…like it or lump it.”

Another knee jerk reaction from the Greens

Today the government released their proposals for a long overdue streamlining of the Resource Management Act. If ever something was in need of an overhaul it was the RMA.

Predictably the Greens are having conniptions.

I have a confession:

I’m a potential Green Party supporter

1. I’m a concerned environmentalist.
2. I accept that climate change, overpopulation, species loss, deforestation, desertification, diminishing resources and myriad other frightening prospects are the real deal and that the planet needed drastic intervention yesterday.
3. I’m unimpressed with the performance and policies of the major parties. I’m particularly unimpressed with National for whom I voted because the alternatives were even less inspiring.
4. I’m a rightish centrist swinging voter looking for a home.

So what’s wrong with the Greens?

Are you kidding? Continue reading ‘Just how green can a watermelon get?’ »

Don’t get your hopes up

Unless you’re an American or you’ve been hiding under a very big rock you won’t have missed the unseemly glee with which various cricketing nations have greeted the demise of Australia’s perennial world champions at the hands of South Africa. The Proteas have beaten the Aussies for their first time ever in a test series in Australia. If they win the final test they’ll knock the Aussies off the world #1 pedestal where they’ve been since the old king died.

All this on top of the stunned Australian nation watching the victorious Kiwis thump the Kangaroos in the Rugby League World Cup final.

It’s enough to make a dinkum Aussie swear off Fosters and take up chamomile tea. If you’re not an Aussie, enjoy the feeling while you can. The sporting world is littered with the festering corpses of sports folk who underestimated the Australian will to win.

The legendary Australian Book of Etiquette may be somewhat short but so too is the list of Aussie chokers. I predict with some confidence that their run of defeats won’t last long.

Just like oil at $40 a barrel

When oil was pushing $150 a barrel a few months ago I recall reading that the pundits’ predictions for the medium term ranged from $80 to $200 a barrel. Nobody predicted that the economic downturn would lead to it going below $50.

Not even your trusted blogger. I got it right about the economic meltdown, I even expected Helen Clarke’s relinqushment of the NZ Labour leadership. I did not expect to see oil south of $80 again.

Interesting to speculate upon why OPEC have allowed it to happen.

• A big chunk of the peak was a result of speculation. That bubble has well and truly burst. Some investing biters have been bitten. Historically speaking, $40 a barrel is still not cheap, nevertheless if I had a million or two to spare I’d be partial to oil futures about now.
• We can safely assume that OPEC don’t want to send the planetary economy into even more of a tailspin right now, so they’d be wise to keep their powder dry until the battle lines are clearer.
• It’s also a fair bet that they don’t want to push oil prices up to the point that the USA, the European Union and Japan start getting serious about alternative energy. The Persian Gulf is hardly a hotbed of conservationism – they desperately need us to keep on burning that black stuff.
• Nevertheless, the oil czars are not in the charity business. Don’t be surprised if those outlet valves are eased closed a smidgeon in the very near future.

I’m rather partial to prediction myself, so let’s look at some facts

• Two billion people in China and India are still on a growth curve, albeit having slowed a little. Their oil consumption will probably increase steadily. Another couple of billion people in the emerging world are also aiming at living the high life. The pressure on the price of oil will increase.
• Although oil pumping capacity exceeds demand right now, that happy situation for consumers will last months rather than years.
• The OPEC folk really do want your dollars. How else would we in the West continue to fund Al Qaeda, Hamas, fundamentalist Islam and all the other hate groups whom we pay to hasten our downfall?
• Russia has climbed out of an economic mire on the back of high oil prices. They’ll be partial to staying out.
• The Gulf states are heavily committed to some big spending to keep the peasants from revolting. Some are even running out of oil — are they happy right now?
• Struggling Nigeria, Indonesia and Venezuela are hardly likely to be impressed with the status quo.

Just like the Aussie battlers, they’ll be back.

I’m punting for a stable oil price of at least US$100 a barrel within two years. Possibly within one year. If we had any common sense we’d be putting a tariff on it to bring it up there right now. Fat chance.

More about that soon.

Hmmm… anyone detect a bit of a trend here?

Growth in productivity is good. We desperately need it.

Growth in bureaucracy is bad. Very bad. Unless tightly controlled, it leads to a decrease in productivity, an increase in compliance costs for both business and government and we get bureaucrats finding makework to justify their continued employment and departmental growth.

The Tsarina bangs on about TRUST.

You gave her your trust and she presided over massive growth in both the number of pen-pushers and the salaries some of them are creaming.

From The New Zealand Listener October 25th:

Since 2000, he (John Key) said, the number of doctors and nurses employed by district health boards had grown by 28% while staff numbers at the Ministry of Health had risen 51%. The number of people employed in government departments providing services, like WINZ, for example, had increased by 34% while the number in departments offering policy advice to the Government had risen 72%. Overall, according to the Quarterly Employment Survey, the number of bureaucrats had grown from 26,200 in 2000 to 36,000 this year.

An incensed reader, Peter Conway (below), Economist for the NZ Council of Trade Unions responded in the following week’s Listener’s letters:

The Editorial about the public sector was misleading. Employment growth in the public sector since 1999 has been roughly similar to job growth in the economy as a whole. There has been a modest increase since the public sector was run down in the 1990s.

In 1990, there were 52,194 in the public service (4.5% of overall employment in New Zealand). By 1999, this had fallen to 30,702 or 2.2% of employment.

By 2007, this had risen to 44,335 or 2.6%. In the overall state sector (not including local government), the number of jobs went from 283,745 in 1990 (24.2% of overall employment) to 245,201 in 1999 (17.4%) and 282,486 in 2007 (16.3% of overall employment).

Forty-one percent of public service staff work in Wellington. The rest work in other parts of New Zealand or overseas…

Well, Peter seems a nice bloke, but he would say that wouldn’t he? He does have a constituency to placate.

The Listener’s editor responds:

The spreadsheet provided by Conway reveals that the total number of jobs in the economy has grown 23% since 1999, and over the same period the number of jobs in the public service has grown 70%. The Listener stands by its editorial.

Good on ya Ms Stirling. Mr Conway also neglects to take into account the movement of jobs from the public to the private sector through ongoing privatisation and the fact that computerisation should be increasing efficiency.

Time for a cultural change.

This is exactly right:

Bad move National.

I heard a university lecturer talking on National Radio a while ago. She said that some of her students were discussing the forthcoming elections and one said:

“Wouldn’t it be weird if we had a man as Prime Minister?”

Think about that. A newly qualified voter in this country would have been 7 years old when last we had a male PM in New Zealand and 2 years old at the last First Past the Post election.

Puts in perspective the life experience gap between me and a quarter of a million voters.

What do they teach these people?

A poll of sixty 18-24 year-olds by the Dominion Post was more disturbing.

Everyone knew who Prime Minister Helen Clark was but barely more than half could identify National leader John Key.

• They all identified the Tsarina, not surprising in that she’s opened every kindergarten and school fair for 9 years – as long as it was televised.
• Almost half couldn’t identify John Key.
• A whole 2 of the 60 picked out Greens’ co-leader Dr Russell Norman.
• Just 7 of these Wellingtonians could identify long-time Wellington Central MP Marian Hobbs.
• Most worrying. A third year political studies student thought Maori Party co-leader Dr Peter Sharples was a Labour MP.

These people may well decide the next election.

It’s a worry.

Little wonder the vanquished schoolteacher on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” was ignorant of David Lange’s “uranium on the breath” quote. We’d be lucky if anyone under 30 knew who he was. The future for newspapers, broadcast news and current affairs programming is looking bleak.

What have the Maori seats ever actually accomplished for Maori?

Pre-MMP, Maori were disadvantaged by the Maori electorates’ very existence. The very large Maori Labour vote was concentrated in just 4 seats. This was a major factor in allowing National to become government with less overall votes than Labour on more than one occasion.

If the Maori vote had been spread over the general electorate, Maori would have had a more realistic say in their choice of government.

Not that it would have done them any good. After the initial burst of humanitarian zeal by the first Labour Government what have Labour actually done for Maori?

Bugger-all

This is an issue of emotions and perceptions. If more Maori were to take note of what’s happening around them and what’s in their long term best interests instead of giving in to knee-jerk reactions whenever Labour, Maori sovereignty or tino rangatiratanga are mentioned, they’d have ditched the Maori seats years ago.

The gains Maori have made in recent years, particularly the laudable treaty settlements, were a direct result of National Government initiatives.

Nevertheless, the future of Maori seats is an issue for Maori to decide. Not for the rest of us and not for a National Government.

Right on, Doug!

In today’s Sunday Star Times, Sir Douglas Graham drew attention to a further reason to be very nervous about MMP.

There’s a strong likelihood that the Maori Party will gain 7 electorate seats in the next government even if they only gain 3% of the party vote. Maori voters have proved more astute than most in strategic voting and getting two for the price of one.

This would lead to an overhang and a 123 seat parliament.

There’s a less likely, but solid possibility that National will get an outright majority of, for instance, 51% of the party vote.

That would give National 61 seats whether or not there’s an overhang.

Oh dear me!

So they get an outright majority of the popular vote, but if Tariana and Peter get 6 or 7 seats the poor old Nats don’t have a majority of seats in the house. Would that hack them off or what? Is that what MMP was meant to accomplish?

I think not.

Sir Doug in the Sunday Star Times:

If the Maori Party still receives only 2.1% of the party vote, it will be entitled to three seats again. But if it wins all seven of the Maori seats the overhang will be four and we would temporarily have 124. Now here’s a real problem. Let’s assume one party gets 51% of the party vote, giving it 61 of the fixed 120 seats. This would reflect the wish of the public that it should be able to govern alone. But to its horror it suddenly finds that even though it has a majority of the party vote, it doesn’t have a majority of the seats in parliament.

New website launch – Dead Rats & Broken Promises:

I hope my website tracking politicians’ promises will be of interest to concerned Kiwis in the run-up to the election.

This was once the best country in the world — bar none.

Not any longer. Koreans and Slovenians are better off. Luxembourgers have nearly three times our income. We’re sinking fast.

Whose fault is it?

Yours and mine.

What’s needed?

Research and development in areas which will increase our abysmal productivity.

Who can fix it?

You and me.
Please visit mistywindow on politics at http://www.mistywindow.co.nz/