Green’s not for growth

The Green party is soliciting funds for its election campaign with an email that says:

 . . . National’s policies of more mining, weakening environmental protections, poor economic management and growing inequality are not the recipe for a fair society and a better future.

 In contrast to National, we have the ideas to deliver a richer New Zealand. . .

Green is supposed to be the colour of growth but these Greens are really reds promoting the policies that have failed in the past.

Take their plan to bring down the exchange rate. Prime Minister John Key says currency intervention and printing money won’t work:

. . . “It didn’t work very well for Argentina, or Venezuela or Zimbabwe and it could never be done in New Zealand at the sort of magnitude we’ve seen in the United States,” said Key.

As for the New Zealand dollar versus its United States counterpart, Key used a seesaw analogy.

“It’s a bit like being a seesaw and if I weigh 85 kilos and you weigh 170 kilos, I’m going to go up when you sit on the seesaw and you’re going to go down. And that’s really the situation we’ve got at the moment.”

“We kind of weigh 85 kilos and the United States weights 850 tonnes. Right up to this point it (the US) has been very unwell. It has got everything from aids to bird flu. It has really been pretty unwell so the market’s just massively adjusting what they’re doing.”

When people say the Reserve Bank should be printing money, Key said you wouldn’t do that with base rates – the Official Cash Rate – at 2.5%.

“All you do is cut interest rates for a start off. The second thing was even if you printed money, it’s never going to work. I think they’ve printed US$5.5 trillion in the US. I mean it’s massive. So what would we print? NZ$50 billion or something? It wouldn’t make an iota of difference.”

“So my view would be I know we want to get the exchange rate down and I know it’s hurting a lot of companies. But it’s a cycle you’re going to have to ride through and all the Government can do is control the things that are in our control. So get out there and reform the Resource Management Act, make sure we don’t spend too much money, make sure we keep pressure off interest rates, manage the place well,” Key said. . . .

The reds want to increase the burden of government, their policies will lead to higher interest rates and they haven’t a clue about good economic management.

. . . Furthermore, he said intervention in the currency markets never works.

Here Key cited an example from his previous career at Merrill Lynch, where at one time he was head of global foreign exchange. One of Merrill Lynch’s biggest clients was the Bank of Japan, which used to intervene in the currency markets through Merrill Lynch.

“To tell you how bad it got, one night we were sitting there and the Bank of Japan rang up and the US$-yen was about 90 or something and they didn’t want it to go down lower. And the guy said to me ‘I want you to start buying dollars at 90′. And I said ‘how many do you want me to buy’, and he said ‘well, I’m going out for three hours so I’ll give you a yell when I get home.’ And I said ‘yeah, but how many do you want me to buy?’ And he said ‘I’m going out for three hours, don’t you understand the conversation?’

“I bought US$4.5 billion in three hours. He said ‘where is it (the US dollar-yen exchange rate)’ and I said ‘it’s 90, you bought US$4.5 billion. And he said ‘ah, well I’m off to bed now give me a ring in the morning’,” said Key.

“It never worked, it just never worked. I don’t know how much money they lost on intervention but it was massive.” . . .

Who do you believe – someone who has worked in international finance and has managed the country through the global financial crisis or people who want to print money and whose power policy would have a chilling effect on on private investment? Rob Hosking writes:

. . . There is something essentially frivolous about anyone who would cheerfully rip up the value of some of the country’s largest firms, and the value of the investment in those firms, simply for a political positioning exercise.

This is why the exchange caught by TV3 between Green energy spokesman Gareth Hughes and party spin zambuck Clint Smith was so telling.

For those who missed it, Mr Hughes was asked if the party was pleased at the reaction: Mr Hughes paused, turned to Mr Smith and asked “Hey, Clint – are we pleased?”

It was telling that he even had to ask.

But the almost palpable glee coming out of the Green and Labour camps at the destructive impact of their policy is highly revealing. 

It underlines – not for the first time – the problem with the makeup of both parties. They are dominated at the MP and the staff level by the sub-genus homo politicus.

That is, they are full of people who have done nothing in their lives apart from politics. All parties have a complement of this group, but with Labour and the Greens the group has reached critical mass.

This group has been involved in politics at university, moved from there to various political/union offices and then into parliament. 

There is little real world experience and everything is viewed through a very narrow prism of political advantage.

It’s the sort of attitude which means the value destruction seen this week can be just laughed off.

There will, unless we are careful, be more such frivolous policies to come.

I would use a far stronger word than frivolous and the business community certainly isn’t taking it lightly.

In an open letter to LabourGreen they say the policy would harm jobs, growth and investment, causing interest rates to rise, reducing KiwiSaver retirement savings and making people less well off.

. . .Business shares your concerns about constantly rising power prices and their impact on our global competitiveness. Businesses and consumers work hard every day to minimise their spending on electricity in order to stay in business and

to make their household budgets stretch further.

However, we do not think that electricity policies based on subsidies and greater state control are the right answers. Such policies have been tried in the past and have been shown to be incapable of meeting the challenges of a modern economy

with a complex, real-time electricity market.

 

Putting aside the sheer complexity of their implementation, policies that protect businesses from the full costs of the inputs they use ultimately dull the incentive to innovate and make them less, not more internationally competitive. Reducing retail

prices below the full marginal cost of production encourages households to use more than they should.

Of particular concern with the policies announced is their chilling effect on investment across the entire economy.

 

We are especially concerned at investment analyst reports noting the potential for $1.4 billion of shareholder value to be wiped off the books of the private power companies. A similar amount, if not more, will come off the value of the public power companies.

 

 

Capital destruction on such a scale will severely undermine business confidence.

It sends signals to investors, on whom the New Zealand economy relies, that their wealth and the benefits it provides are not welcome.

 

Investment plans and job creation opportunities are foregone.

 

Rather than remote and intangible, this dampening of investment intentions will have a direct and real economic impact on those of all walks of life who seek to accumulate wealth by working hard to save, invest and grow. It causes interest rates

to rise, depletes retirement savings held in KiwiSaver accounts and means that other economic opportunities such as first homes are foregone and new business ventures as savings are unexpectedly reduced.

 

Individuals are less well-off as a result.

 

With the good of all New Zealanders in mind we ask you to withdraw these damaging policies. We offer to work with you in increasing public understanding of the operation of the electricity market and in ensuring consumers, both small and large,

have better choice from one of the increasingly competitive electricity markets in the world.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 Phil O’Reilly Chief Executive BusinessNZ

 

Ken Shirley Chief Executive Officer Road Transport Forum

 

Catherine Beard Executive Director Manufacturing NZ

 

Ralph Matthes Executive Director Major Electricity Users Group

Chris Baker Chief Executive Straterra

John Scandrett Chief Executive Officer Otago Southland  Employers’ Association

Raewyn Bleakley Chief Executive  Business Central–Wellington

Kim Campbell Chief Executive EMA

Peter Townsend Chief Executive CECC

Michael Barnett Director  New Zealand Chambers of Commerce

These people represent people who employ people, the ones who need certainty and confidence to make investment that creates jobs, earn export income and pay taxes.

These are people who work in the real world.

They know there’s nothing funny about bad policy that would take the country backwards, cost jobs and make us all poorer.

They know that Green isn’t for growth and it doesn’t mean go.

Green economic policy is bright red and it will mean stop to economic growth and job creation.

Own vision beats government’s

Quote of the day:

Individuals in a free and open society should not need politicians to articulate visions on their behalf.

What kind of shrivelled and gutless soul needs a government to set out a vision for them?

The only vision any government should require is fostering a society where each of us can pursue our own visions. That is the only vision worthy of its name.

All the rest is just politicians’ windbaggery and ego-boosting, which is funded, of course, by taxpayers . . . 

These wise words came from Rob Hosking in the print edition of the NBR.

They were written before David Shearer made his threat to run a more hands-on government but serve as a warning against state interference in matters best left to the people.

Ignorant or shameless?

Supporters of David Cunliffe criticise David Shearer for erring towards the centre rather than the left.

That says more about their place on the political spectrum than Shearer’s, but how different are the policies of the two men anyway?

Rob Hosking  says they’re not:

Nothing in Labour leader David Shearer’s Sunday speech was at odds with anything economic development spokesman David Cunliffe has been saying, not only this year but before the election, before his demotion from the finance spokesmanship. . .

But there is a problem:

. . . It should be stated that all these policies or goals are not bad in themselves. Some are highly desirable.

It is just they do not hang together as a coherent programme. Economically, they are contradictory and they will cause more problems than they solve.

And this is the first difference between the two. Mr Cunliffe is economically qualified enough to know they are incoherent and will strain against each other. Mr Shearer has no such knowledge and probably believes what he is saying. . .

What’s worse – a party leader who is ignorant of economics doesn’t understand economics or one who wants to be leader and pretends ignorance?

. . . As noted, Mr Cunliffe is economically savvy enough to know all this, and is shameless enough to peddle it to people who do not know any better. It is one of the ironies of all this that many of those who do not know any better are in the Labour Party and include its current leader. . .

Many of those who don’t know any better support the party too.

The only other reason they could favour policies which would increase spending, taxation, and welfare for people in greed rather than need is putting their short term interests before the longer term interests of the country.

Has the screech been silenced?

Rob Hosking writes it’s all in the numbers for 2013 and starts with the Labour Party:

Start the year with the calculus involved in Labour’s new electoral college: from February any leadership change will be determined by 40% of caucus vote, 40% membership vote and 20% union vote.

This need not be destabilising over the medium to long term but it will almost definitely be so in the short term. Any new voting system takes a while for people to adjust to, and the first round or two inevitably suffer from that instinctive human desire to test the limits of any new toy. This ‘what’s this button do?’ syndrome is as prevalent among political operatives as it is among children and computer users and there are inevitable scabs on knees and viruses as a result. For reference in the political sphere, examine closely New Zealand’s first MMP election in 1996, and the first few leadership changes in UK Conservative and Labour parties after they gave their members greater voting powers.

If Labour’s members were content with their caucus and leadership this would not matter so much. But Labour members so manifestly are unhappy: the 2012 conference was a screech of rage aimed at its MP. . .

Has that screech of rage been silenced or is it still fomenting?

Conspiracy theory

Finding it difficult to believe just how stupid the Labour Party constitutional changes and leadership debacle are?

What if it’s a deliberate ploy to take attention away from its policies?

Fortunately at least one journalist is on to them.

Rob Hosking writes in the NBR (not online) about former Labour Prime Minister Norman Kirk’s avoidance of economic matters and continues:

Mr Shearer appears to be similarly uncomfortable with economic issues. The focus of his speech was the symbolism of the era; what has been called “candyfloss liberalism” . . .

Labour’s new housing policy . . .  is pure 1970s feel good socialism with little regard to economic realities.

Housing will be made affordable by government fiat, by way of a national policy statement under the Resource Management Act. Implicitly, the policy requires price control either on house sales or on the building and construction industry. . .

In short, Mr Shearer presented himself as a political leader with Kirk’s wilful blindness of economic issues and Rowling’s charisma. . .

Few if any in Labour can be enjoying the attention the party’s internal strife is getting.

But they’d be even more unhappy if attention shifted from that to the economic stupidity of their policies.

Who would do better?

Richard Long ends his parting shot in Dominion Post by telling Labour to take it easy on David Shearer.

. . . He’s got what the public relations people describe as the ideal “legend” to make an outstanding Labour leader. He’s also doing better than Helen Clark in Opposition: her polling was in margin-of-error territory. Give the man a break.

What he hasn’t got is traction with the public nor any significant runs on the board against the government.

But Rob Hosking points out no-one else in his caucus has done much either.

. . . And while Mr Shearer’s performance has been somewhat ill-starred, look at the rest of the caucus.

Few have managed any substantial hits on the government. . .

. . . It can be argued Mr Shearer should be judged by the same standard he set his MPs, and by that standard there is no doubt too many opportunities have gone begging.

On the eve of Labour’s annual conference later this week, the party’s question is whether any of the alternatives could do any better.

On recent performance the answer to that question would be no.

 

 

 

Marriage Bill good news for Conservatives

It’s not easy for a party with no MPs to get into parliament.

The Maori and Mana Parties managed it in by-elections but their candidates had just resigned to stand under a new banner. NZ First got lucky at the last election but it and, more significantly for its supporters, its leader had been there before.

A party with neither at least one MP nor a previous term in parliament has yet to win a seat in an election.

But Patrick Gower thinks Labour MP Louisa Walls might have improved the chances of the Conservative Party doing that.

. . . On  the other hand, Key and  National may want to look liberal; the party has just  taken up the idea of  same-sex adoption. Going for the bill could help Key in the   centre-ground.

And  that, of course, would open  up room on the right for, guess who? The  Conservatives leader Colin  Craig. . .

Rob Hosking has a similar thought:

New Zealanders are increasingly liberal on the issue of gay marriage – the National Party conference, which, pretty much by definition, is one of the country’s more conservative bodies, voted last weekend in favour of gay adoption.

And various polls show a fair majority of New Zealanders polled are in favour of allowing gay marriage. . .

I was at a marriage celebrants’ education forum yesterday. Walls’ Bill came up during a panel discussion, none of the panelists had any objection and the body language of the audience suggested theyw ere reflecting the views of the majority of the audience.

But a small but significant chunk of New Zealand voters march to a different drum.

One poll, in the run up to the 2008 election, showed that about 15% of New Zealanders polled would consider voting for a Christian-based party. . .

It is not too difficult to see a Christian-based party pulling in some churchgoing Labour voters, especially from the Pasifika community.

Mr Craig is already campaigning hard on the issue. It is a gift from Heaven for his party, and his party’s approach to politics is much more aligned with that of National than of Labour. . .

Craig has been pilloried for saying that it is “not intelligent to pretend that homosexual relationships are normal”.

He’d need a far more intelligent argument than that to change the minds of people who aren’t opposed to the idea of liberalising marriage laws but those aren’t the voters he’s chasing.

His party is Conservative by name and it’s moral conservatives whose votes he’s after.

Walls’ Bill could make it a lot easier for him to get them.

Rural round-up

Crafar decision imposes defacto tax on foreigners says lawyer – Rob Hosking:

There is still a higher hurdle for foreigners buying New Zealand land after today’s decision, says Wellington lawyer Mark Ford.

The decision by ministers to approve the deal for Chinese company Shanghai Pengxin to buy the 7892 hectare, 16 Crafar Farms properties is accompanied by a series of conditions . . .

Good riddance baby boomers; Why the sale of the Crafar Farms to the Chinese serves you right, from generation Y - Alex Tarrant:

I’ve been asked to pen my thoughts as a Gen-Yer over the sale of the Crafar Farms to a Chinese company

Well, I have to say, I’m actually loving watching and hearing our Baby Boomer politicians, media commentators, and talkback hosts getting all up in arms over it.

What a travesty, they all argue, the way we sell to the highest foreign bidder. These farms shouldn’t be allowed to be sold overseas. Kiwis can’t compete with the vast hordes of cash foreigners have.

First of all, I don’t buy that. If a Kiwi investor, or a group of Kiwis, believed it was economical enough to pay what Pengxin’s offering for those 16 run-down farms, I’m sure they would have found the money.

We supposedly know about farming here. We supposedly know the economics behind it. We supposedly know the business models.

The fact no Kiwi bidder put up over NZ$210 million for the farms should be a sign that Pengxin is paying way too much for them. So good luck trying to turn it into an economic business. Let them pick up the pieces for a failed piece of lending by Westpac and Rabobank. . .

From socialite to sheep farmer:

It is an extraordinary landscape – one of this country’s iconic high country  stations and it is up for sale.

For the last eight years Canterbury’s Castle Hill has been owned by Christine  Fernyhough – the one time darling of the Auckland social scene and now a  successful sheep farmer. . .

Video here.

Legendary farming education centre for sale:

A pioneering rural education institution that taught thousands of young New Zealanders the rudimentary skills of farming has been placed on the marked for sale.

Flock House near Bulls in the Manawatu was founded in 1924 and was initially used to accommodate and train the sons of British Naval personnel who died during World War One.

In 1947 the school was opened to young New Zealand boy aged between 14 – 18 years of age wishing to gain an education in farming. The introduction of a ‘full fee’ structure in the 1980s led to a dramatic fall in student numbers, and in 1988 the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries which administered Flock House, closed the centre. . .

Little impact on farmers from latest strike:

Affco says the latest strike action from the Meat Workers Union will have little impact on farmers sending stock for processing.

The latest strike began at 5:00am this morning. The week-long strike is the 16th by the union since negotiations over a collective agreement started in December.

Affco Operations Director, Rowan Ogg said all of Affco’s plants are fully operational with the majority of Affco’s staff not impacted by the dispute and many union members had chosen not to strike. “Good conditions through summer and autumn also mean there is no shortage of feed giving farmers more flexibility in when they send stock away.” . .

Last call for applications for 2012 farm managers’ programme:

Applications are to close at the end of this month for young farmers to join this year’s Rabobank Farm Managers Program, a course specifically designed to strengthen the operational and strategic management skills of emerging farm leaders.

The program, now in its seventh year, is open to all progressive young farmers from across New Zealand and Australia from a range of agricultural commodities. .

Dare we hope?

Dare we hope that Rob Hosking is right:

. . . Underlying this appears to be a further calculation: that the Kyoto Protocol and its various policy offshoots is not going to be around, at least in its current form, by the time anyone has to make a decision on this. . . .

The Kyoto Protocol is the triumph of politics and bureaucracy over science and sense.

Initiatives like the Global Research Alliance which Climate Change Minister Tim Groser launched in Copenhagen are far more likely to do some good for the environment than the protocol which in some instances will do more harm than good.

Whether or not the suggestion that the protocol won’t survive is right, it does appear the government is sticking to its word that it won’t force agriculture into the ETS until the industry has the technology to counter emissions and our competitors face similar measures and the costs which go with them.

Quote of the day

. . . Anyone decrying Mr English’s comments as some big revelation is showing not only their ignorance of economics but also the worst kind of old fashioned, command-economy statist mentality.

Of course it’s just a guess. No one is going to know for certain until the shares are floated on the market. That’s how markets work.

The idea that someone can sit in the Treasury – or the Minister’s office – and come up with a sure fire figure on what the market is going to pay for those shares is living in some kind of economic fantasy land. . . Rob Hosking.

Labour’s little helpers short on facts

Quote of the week from Rob Hosking (print edition of NBR):

The PSA’s claim of political neutrality is a bit like the Japanese whalers’ claim they are only killing whales for scientific purposes. They have to say these things but there is no particular reason for the rest of us to believe them.

He goes on to show that Labour’s little helpers are long on emotion and short on facts. Public servants have done much better than the private sector over the last decade:

For 26 of the past 40 quarters, rises in public sector earnings outstripped those of the private sector.

What is more, in seven of those quarters, rises in the public sector were above 6$, something which never happened in the private sector in the entire decade. . .

But the fact is the public sector is not suffering anything like as badly as its professional bleaters would have you believe – and certainly not as badly as much of the private sector.

One of the reasons for New Zealand’s economic problems is the way Labour let the public service grow on the back of high tax takes. That was bad enough when the government was running surpluses, but it was unsustainable and one of the reasons its now running deficits.

The private sector is doing a lot of belt tightening. In spite of what the PSA would have us believe as they campaign for Labour put their case for higher taxes to keep them in the style to which they’ve been accustomed, the public sector has not been doing as much.

Te Tai Tokerau close – iPredict

People putting their money on iPredict are favouring Hone Harawira to hold Te Tia Tokerau in tomorrow’s by-election.

Vote share contracts were launched this week for tomorrow’s Te Tai Tokerau by-election, and the market is predicting an extremely tight race. Hone Harawira is expected to receive 41.1% of the vote, with Labour’s Kelvin Davis a close second with 40.1%. The Maori Party’s Solomon Tipene is expected to receive 18.0% of the vote. However, Mr Harawira’s position in November’s General Election has strengthened over the past week, with the market indicating he has a 70% probability of winning Te Tai Tokerau in November (up from 52% last week).

The Electoral Commission website still isn’t showing Mana as a registered party but Graeme Edgeler has a media release saying it has been registered.

That means if Harawira wins his gamble will have paid off with extra funding as the leader of a registered party.

iPredict isn’t a poll but that result does reflect last week’s poll showing Harawira just ahead of Labour Kelvin Davis.

Maori electorates have a low voter turnout in general elections and people are usually even less enthusiastic about voting in by-elections.

The result could hinge on the parties’ ability to motivate people to vote, if indeed the race is as close as polls and iPredict suggest.

Can we rely on them? The last word on that goes to Rob:

   Chris Trotter – and others – are saying the polls understate Hone Harawira’s support because a lot of his supporters use cellphones, and/or are young.  . .

Ah, yeah.  Parties doing badly in the polls always seem to argue that for some reason their supporters aren’t getting polled.  . .

There might be a bit more variation in tomorrow’s byelection, because it is for the country’s northern-most Maori electorate, and if the stereotypes are true, there is a disproportionate number of the country’s drug dealers in that electorate – people who famously buy cheap prepaid cellphones on Trademe rather than have a landline.   But I’m always dubious about stereotypes, especially self-serving ones, and this one is a bit too pat. I’m also not too sure if drug dealers are particularly conscientious about voting.

Tomorrow we might know no more about the drug dealers but we will know how good the predictions were.

Protest for privileged

People are planning to march up Queen Street today in support of wealthy beneficiaries and foreign banks.

They’re not saying that. They think they’re opposing Budget announcements:

Groups opposed to the Government’s planned changes to KiwiSaver, family tax credits and public services and state asset sales, announced in last week’s Budget, will march along Auckland’s Queen Street . . .

If the changes to family tax credits can be criticised for anything it’s not going far enough. Giving public money to high income earners, regardless of how big their families are, is not what the welfare state was designed to do.

People in Kiwisaver will still get $1,000when they join and any further subsidy from the government is generous, even if it isn’t quite as generous as it’s been.

Changes to public services are designed to shift costs from the backroom to the front line. How can anyone protest about that?

The alternative  to the partial sale of state assets is to cut spending  severely or add to already heavy borrowing from overseas banks which would add to our already precarious financial situation.

Given the parlous state of the nation’s books the government could have been forgiven for a slash and burn Budget. Instead it went for what Rob Hosking described as a trim and singe.

Today’s protest is for the privileged and will say a lot more about the politics of the participants than the Budget which delivered moderate measures to solve some very serious problems.

Looking inward not way to electoral success

The dismal state of the Labour Party has commentators from left, right and centre diagnosing its problem.

Rob Hosking joins them in this week’s NBR (not online):

Labour’s problem is it is too obsessed with its own internal politics to pay enough attention to the needs of the rest of the country.

Quite.

Although John Key deservedly gets a lot of credit for National’s high polling, his popularity isn’t the only factor behind the public approval.

He’s leading a caucus which is unified, disciplined and focussed on governing.

Labour by contrast appears to be unified only by the lack of will to challenge its leader – yet.

It is difficult for voters to have much confidence that this party could sort out the nation’s problems when  it is demonstrably incapable of sorting out its own.

Given events of the weekend and Don Brash’s public challenge to Rodney Hide, the same thing could be said of Act.

Inappropriate is the appropriate word

Inappropriate is an often overused word but it is the appropriate one to apply to the most generous interpretation of the story which has resulted in Darren Hughes standing down from his positions of Labour Party whip and education spokesman.

Rob Hosking writes in the NBR:

The 32-year-old Otaki MP may not have broken any laws. But the picture his behaviour paints is hardly that of a diligent and seriously hard working MP. 

No charges have been laid, it is possible none will be and that the generous interpretation is the correct one.

But even if that turns out to be the case, the story has already damaged Hughes’ reputation and calls into question his judgement.

It is also adding to speculation on whether or not Phil Goff will lose the Labour  leadership before the election.

Hughes did the right thing by admitting he was the MP whose behaviour was being investigated which removed suspicion from his colleagues. But even so the personal damage from what appears to be at best inappropriate behaviour could result in equally serious political damage to his leader and party.

Sugar wins more votes but not prescription for health

Rob Hosking, in the print edition of the National Business Review, diagnoses the problem parties on what he says is lazily called the “centre right” or “right”  have more trouble winning elections.

This side of politics – which is more accurately called the liberal-conservative side – has, or should have, a strong emphasis on pushing the virtues of enterprise, small government and self reliance.

The endemic problem for such parties since the rise of mass democracy, with it election based around crude auctions for votes, is that this philosophy puts it at a tactical disadvantage.

It is easier for parties on what is lazily called the “centre left” or “left” – basically the parties whose origins lie in the variants which sprung from the writings of Karl Marx.

These parties, with their emphasis on ever-increasing provisions of government services to an apparently ever expanding pool of needy, can promise more and more goodies, cross their fingers and hope they are not in office when the eoconomy inevitably turns belly-up.

Sugar-coated placebos will almost always win more votes but they are not the right prescription for economic health.

Just as turkeys are unwilling to opt for an early Christmas, voters are unlikely to vote for changes which take away their treats.

Many supporters of National were disappointed when the party went into the last election pledging not to touch policies based on addressing want rather than need, like Working for Families. But there was too great a danger of losing the election had it not done so.

The mood as we approach this year’s election is different. People have got the message that too much debt is dangerous and voters might be more open to stronger medicine now we’ve all seen the damage too much sugar does to economic health.

Regeneration strengthens a caucus

North Shore MP Wayne Mapp will not seek re-election next year.

The Minister of Defence and Science & Technology says he’s stepping down for personal and family reasons.

He is a popular electorate MP and has made significant progress in his portfolios. But in choosing not to seek re-election he is doing a favour for his party because regeneration strengthens a caucus.

New members bring fresh energy and a new perspective to add to, and sometimes challenge, the experience and views of longer serving MPs.

Although, as Rob Hosking pointed out, that doesn’t happen if a party chooses replacements from the same limited pool as Labour does.

One of National’s strengths is its MPs come from a wide range of backgrounds with different skills and experiences. It has always been a broad church party and continuing regeneration helps keep it that way.

Quote of the week #1

“The starting point of political correctness is a perfectly well-intentioned desire to give previously marginalised groups such as other races and cultures, women and homosexuals what in New Zealand we call a “fair go”.

The problem with political correctness is that this generous impulse is taken over and twisted into something else, something far less healthy.

“While exhorting us to be as ‘inclusive’ as we can,” writes [Roger] Scruton, “political correctness encourages the denigration of what is felt to be most especially ours . . .  Although they involve the deliberate condemnation of people on the grounds of class, race, sex or colour, the purpose is not to include the Other but to condemn Ourselves.

“The gentle advocacy of inclusion masks the far-from-gentle desire to exclude the old excluder: in other words to repudiate the cultural inheritance that defines us as something distinct from the rest.”

This definition is important in many ways because it makes the battle lines between a kind of non-ideological conservatism and the forces of political correctness much more clear.”

                                                                                                                         – Rob Hosking – print edition of the NBR.

He gives an example from the economy of what Scruton calls the culture of repudiation - environmentalists’ attempts to wreck dairying and says:

“It is a target not primarily because of its pollution – dairy farmers now have to be far more careful with their wastes than they did a generation ago – but because it is successful.

P.S.

If you’re interested in reading more from Roger Scruton,  a writer, philosopher and public commenter, he has a blog.

Blogging takes insiders beyond the Bowen Trianagle

Colin Espiner has posted his last post at On The House:

 . . . It’s true that blogging has changed the way political journalists write; the style is more colloquial, and the topics we choose to write about are not always the ones that would fill the august pages of The Press or the Dominion Post.

But I’d argue – certainly for myself – that the standards never wavered. Off the record remained just that. Gossip over a glass of wine did not find its way on to these web pages – at least not without the author’s express permission.

For a while On The House became required reading in the Beehive, and I’m proud of the fact that Prime Minister John Key and many of his ministers read most of what I wrote.

I’m even more proud of the fact that he often went on to read what you wrote, too.

Because if there’s one thing that blogging has taught me about journalism it is that the old “sermon from the mount” approach to writing – particularly opinion writing – is no longer acceptable in the new multimedia environment.

Readers expect to have their own say about what is served up to them. I have certainly had to develop a thicker skin to cope with what has been served back to me.

I learned not to question Idiot/Savant on climate change issues, since he’d read all the United Nations reports. I learned to double-check what I wrote about Labour, because if not Jennifer would correct me – all the way from Texas.

I learned that whenever I wrote anything about law and order it would earn a diatribe from Adolf Fiinkensein (is that really your name, Adolf?) or that if I wrote about the smacking debate I was asking for trouble from Alan Wilkinson.

Other regulars on the site . . . helped keep me on the straight and narrow and were quick to correct me when I was wrong – or simply misguided.

It must be all too easy for those inside what Rob Hosking calls the Bowen Triangle – the confines in which political insiders operate in Wellington – to become insulated from other people and views, to think their views are the only views.

Blogging – and the response he got to it – took Espiner beyond the Bowen triangle’s boundaries.

Political analysis and journalism are the better for it.

Quote of the week

The announcement from Minister of Finance and Infrastructure Bill English yesterday that government agencies are now being told to consider such partnerships for any new projects brought a predictable, if illogical, howl of protest from Labour, the Greens and the Council of Trade Unions.

Probably the largest single public-private partnership in this country’s history was initiated by the last Labour government. That is the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, known to friend and foe as the Cullen Fund.

Rob Hosking on the Left’s private hang-ups.

These two paragraphs are part of a  column which exposes Labour’s confused position on privatisation but it’s part of the subscriber-only content so unless you’ve paid up you’ll have to take my word for it.