There is a Light that Never Goes Out

Labour and the Greens announced today their plans to reform the electricity sector.

It's not a bad start, and the message that power bills will drop by more than $20 per month is simple and powerful, especially when compared to the likely retorts from National, which will be "bad economics/stalinism".

I read some commentary that this will leave a hole in the government's accounts.  The other side of that coin is that it will leave money in people's pockets; it's kind of like a tax cut.  So National can't really use that line of argument, because they say they like tax cuts, though their actions say the opposite.

In my opinion it is just a start.  Labour and the Greens still appear to believe that electricity is a commodity, whereas it is in my opinion an essential service.  As a commodity the system is run to maximise return on investment, or in simplified terms, profit.

There's a school of thought that says by maximising the profit the system becomes efficient, through competition.  It's a reasonable theory, the practice is somewhat different (the same applies to communism - good as a theory, doesn't work in the real world).

So even with Labour and the Greens plan implemented (and the latest Roy Morgan poll tells us they will get the chance, because National are festering in their own muck), we still have competing electricity generators supplying a single buyer of electricity.

The change of mindset I think is necessary follows on from treating electricity as an essential service is this:
the system should be run to provide electricity at a minimum cost.
The way to achieve this is not by "hoping it will be achieved as a by-product of competition between companies trying to maximise their profit".
It is quite possible to work out, every year, month, week, day, hour and minute, how to run the generation, transmission and distribution system as components of a single system to produce electricity for the lowest possible cost.  It is a complex task and requires clever people, however, the techniques are well known and the data are available.  The obvious question is - "if it's that easy, why hasn't it been done?" and the obvious answer is "electricity is sold on a market, there's no money to be made from changing how we produce and sell it".
Disappointing, really, the money saved could surely be put to better use.

The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead, 1986

Franz Kafka at the Zoo

What with the next election not due for at least two years, what the polls say means very little.  It's always the trend.
Ever since I've been hanging around political blogs (I think that's back to mid-2009) the polls have said "National".  Except recently, when they have said "Too Close to Call".
And then, late last week, the Roy Morgan poll said:

If a National Election were held today this New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll says a combined opposition of Labour/ Greens & New Zealand First would be favoured to form a new Government.

Which is nice news for someone who has had a goal of "seeing National out of government" since, well, probably 1981 when I opposed the Springbok Tour.  Well, as much as you can when you are under ten.
The next step is to see the words "...& New Zealand First..." omitted.
What I find telling is the Government Confidence Rating.  I've copied the graphic from the Roy Morgan website.

It shows that the government, up to the start of last week, is inspiring about as much confidence as Labour did in their last year in government.  And that was a pretty awful year for Labour.  National have two to go, if they go to full term.
Meanwhile I'm still wondering two things:
first, for Labour, the gift begs to be taken, the lucky find is waiting....
and second, for National, when will the desperation will surface, and like 1998, when the rats will start leaving.  Can't be long now.

The Clean - Unknown Country, 1996

Dialling a Prayer

For a while I have pondered what is wrong with the Labour Party, and where it went wrong.  Today I saw a new twist in the traditional "blame Roger Douglas" and "First ACT government" meme, in a comment at The Standard.

As a polity we badly need some bravery from our elected representatives to stand up for something, anything but “managing” a bad lot better than the other side. There is a paucity of vision and a vaccum of purpose in Labour. Such is the strange legacy of Palmers managerial reforms. Maybe that is more damaging than the legacy of Roger.

The first two sentences I completely agree with.  We can not manage our way out of the state we are in, neither party has shown they can capably manage their way out when they have been in government, and in opposition.  Labour appear to be adrift and I couldn't bring myself to vote for them, at this stage.
The last two sentences are speculative and I don't have the information to prove or disprove either.  They are certainly worth considering.  Thanks Bored.

Straightjacket Fits - Life in One Chord, 1987

This Guy

The left seemed, last week, to have been overcome by a strange desire to find something to fight about.  Not a good fight with the government, an internal fight.  The battle grounds selected were Julian Assange and David Shearer's leadership of the Labour Party.

On Julian Assange:
He's accused of rape.  He's actively avoiding extradition to the country where he is accused of rape and is wanted for questioning.
That's it, for me.  The rest is a side show.
The thing about sideshows is that they are ephemeral, and illusory.  The discussion at The Standard reflect this in spades.  Extensive threads of people with entrenched positions that they will never budge from.  It makes for dull reading.
What I saw in the sideshow is:

• Wikileaks is not Julian Assange, nor vice versa.
• "I'll get extradited to the USA and will face the death penalty" is just "the dog ate my homework" on amphetamines.
• Ecuador have offered asylum on the principle that "my enemy's enemy is my friend".  More often than not this is wrong.
• Britain must respect the Ecuadorian Embassy, under the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
• Avoiding the justice process on outlandish pretexts is cowardice, not the actions of a freedom fighter.

I really don't care how the sideshow turns out.

On David Shearer:
I'm merely someone who votes for Labour, occasionally.  Usually the electorate vote, in a rural electorate where the National candidate regularly wins by more than 10,000 votes.
The issues that are beguiling the Labour Party seem to be complex.  And Scott at Imperator Fish helpfully compiled a list of what to do about it.
Since I'm not nearly as clever as Scott, I'm tempted to leave it at that.  But I can't, so I'll observe that the Greens seem to have got themselves together and are working coherently, without frightening the horses.  I think that copying the Greens or stealing all their policies is not a good idea for Labour.  But maybe asking them how they do it might be a start.  And it's a lot more palatable than asking to be a junior coalition partner with the Greens in a few elections time.

The Clean - Odditties, 1982

Nightmares

To be fair to Labour, they did manage to take a patsy question in parliament yesterday and turn it into an embarrassment for the government.  It all started off fairly simple, with Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi asking the Minister of Commerce about legislative changes intended to "protect NZ's reputation".

It occurred to me that this may be a way of keeping Russian gangsters, South American dictators and various terrorists and fraudsters from stuffing up National's plans to steal everything it can, but I couldn't find my tinfoil hat.

It all went wrong pretty quickly, with Trevor Mallard asking about how John Banks helped NZ's reputation, and it ended up here:

Grant Robertson: In light of his desire to maintain New Zealand’s reputation as a trusted place to do business, is he satisfied that the Hon John Banks has the required ethical standards to be his Associate Minister of Commerce?
Hon CRAIG FOSS: I do not appoint Associate Ministers.
Grant Robertson: In light of his desire to maintain New Zealand’s reputation as a trusted place to do business, is it his intention to withdraw the delegations of the Associate Minister of Commerce, John Banks, in light of the revelations that he solicited donations from Skycity, Kim Dotcom, and a third party, and then signed a donation return that could not recall those donations?
Hon CRAIG FOSS: These reflections reflect pretty badly on the questioner. I have no responsibility for the delegations or any of the roles. That is at the will of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know, and I know, that that Minister signed those delegations—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Trevor Mallard: —not the Prime Minister. It is just not true.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, order! The member is now questioning the answer. The Speaker has to take the Minister’s answer as it stands. I cannot question whether or not Ministers are giving correct answers; I can only assess whether or not they have provided an answer, and the Minister has certainly provided an answer.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Did he sign the delegation for John Banks as an Associate Minister?
Hon CRAIG FOSS: Yes; the member is correct that this Minister does sign those delegations in consultation with the Prime Minister.

Yes, in the end Mr Foss had the choice of lying to parliament or admitting he was wrong.  I was pleased he chose the latter, however in parliamentary terms this was a Minties moment, and almost as good as when Gerry Brownlee forgot to object to a proposal to urgently debate Stephen Joyce's tertiary qualifications.

The Bleeders - As Sweet As Sin, 2006

Shivers

Regular John's most ardent fan has become openly critical.  Not scathing, yet, but openly critical.

The comments from the acolytes of Fran and John are numerous, and have a common theme of "it's ours, we earned it and you can't have it".

There's a theory that the government is a few months away from collapse.  It's possible, but I'm not convinced.  However, ignoring the truism that a week is a long time in politics, National have lost the next election.  Labour can sleep-walk to power.  And that's not a good thing.

Hallelujah Picassos - Hateman in Love, 1992

The Best

The Herald has covered the reaction on the more serious political blogs to three Labour MPs wearing vests to a meeting.

Much sharper and better connected minds, including Danyl McLaughlin, Jane Clifton and Lew Stoddard have all has their say.  I think they've over analysed the situation, it is my opinion that what Messrs Shearer, Robertson and Lees-Galloway have done is (sorry, I can't resist) simply the vest.

Tina Turner - Foreign Affair, 1989

Undone

mickeysavage has an excellent post on the claim being put to the Waitangi Tribunal regarding the ownership of water.

The political aspects of the claim fascinate me.

Mr Key's claim that no one owns water is one that will strike a chord with many, because that's what we've been taught.  To some extent that is supported by English common law, though the Americans take a somewhat different approach.  The "no one owns water" idea was batted about on The Standard today, with prompt replies of "how come I pay Watercare for it?" and "it costs money at the garage/cafe/supermarket."  The argument is flawed in that the sellers will tell us the payment is for dams/pipes/pumps/maintenance or bottles/bottling plants/transport/marketing, while the water itself is free.  It's difficult to argue with, because in the case of dams/pipes/pumps/maintenance especially, the convenience they provide is enormous.
It seems that we may have been mislead.  While New Zealand law is based on English common law, this is not England.  It is quite possible that someone does own water.

Oh yeah here we go again, shaking.

The conflicting statements from the Prime Minister today, as reported in the Herald:

But speaking to reporters in Hamilton this afternoon, Mr Key said he had never suggested he wouldn't listen to the Tribunal's findings.

"I've said we'll take on board what they're saying but..."

is totally at odds with

"...the Government's not bound the Waitangi Tribunal findings, and neither have any successive Governments been bound by their findings, nor are we bound to give a response."We're going through a process, we'll be interested to see what the Waitangi Tribunal says, we're acting in good faith. We take the tribunal very seriously but that doesn't mean we're bound it, and that's the law in New Zealand."

If he'd stopped before the "but" he'd be on some mighty solid ground.  Explaining that the government is not bound by Waitangi Tribunal rulings at such an early stage is a threat, because the principle that the government is not bound by the Waitangi Tribunal is well established, everyone who has had some involvement is aware of the fact.  And however many times he says otherwise, it's not good faith to threaten someone.

National have not found their way out of the mire they created when they proposed asset sales.  It looks increasingly likely that they will have to either put the process on-hold or draft legislation as brutal as Labour's hated Foreshore & Seabed Act.


Stellar* - Mix, 1999

Trouble in the Message Centre

Eric Roy (I'm pretty sure it was him) was Speaker for question time today.  He was better this time than last time, but still pretty hopeless at making ministers answer questions.
Question 10 was exceptionally bad, where Judith Collins was asked what knowledge she had of an item of expenditure and she refused to answer on the grounds it was an operational matter.  Messrs Mallard and Little pointed out that a minister's knowledge, or lack thereof, is not operational, but it was to no avail.
Shabby, Mr Roy.
Incidentally, if I were Labour I would be using Little and Mallard to question Collins at every opportunity.  The parallels with the libel proceedings make Mrs Collins look distinctly uncomfortable.

Blur - Parklife, 1994

Losing Touch

It's not the polls that matter, it's the trends.  And the trends don't look too good for National.

Time to ram that legislative agenda through at all costs and hope there's no scandal that results in the loss of that razor thin majority.

The Killers - Day & Age, 2008

The Difference

David Shearer asked Shane Jones, in person, to explain his actions with regard to allegations of improper behaviour.  David Shearer stood Shane Jones down pending the outcomes of an investigation.
John Key had his staff ask John Banks for an assurance he did not break the law, when allegations of improper behaviour came to light.  John Banks has refused to stand John Banks down and has challenged others to instigate an investigation.
That's a fairly clear demonstration of who has higher standards of accountability.

The Wallflowers - Bringing Down The Horse, 1996

Fight Test

Chris Trotter had this (or something quite like it) in the Press earlier on in the week.  It's taken me a while to think it through.

National are in all sorts of strife at the moment.  And Labour have sucked in Parliament in the last two weeks.  But this post isn't about either of those subjects.  It's meant to be more contemplative and not actually give an answer or draw a conclusion.

The government has a thin majority.  It seems unlikely they will be in the position to form another government after the next election.  Which leaves us with the strong possibility of a Labour lead government.

As things sit presently, that would give us David Shearer as PM.

There are persistent bubbling rumours of others holding leadership ambitions.  As you would expect, I mean who wants to be Deputy PM?  That would be like heading for the Olympics with the idea that silver is really quite a nice metal.

Here's the bit where I damn Mr Shearer with faint praise.  He's not done a bad job.  And he needs time to prove himself.

Part of the reason for choosing Mr Shearer was to match the regular john image that the incumbent PM nurtured.  Except that image is all in the past now, the tea tapes have inspired the media to change the narrative around the PM.

Labour's caucus and media/strategy team have failed their leader and party, for the last three and one half years.  Did they choose the wrong guy?  Not with Phil Goff, they just got their strategy wrong.  With David Shearer?  Time will tell, give him another year.

I can't help but feel that a lot of the reasons for choosing Mr Shearer are no longer relevant.  He doesn't seem like a politician, but I want the PM of my country (whichever party they are from) to seem like a politician.  And David Cunliffe seems like a politician.  What about the deputy leader, Grant Robertson?  At the moment his ambition has out-stripped his capability.  Once it catches up, I will re-evaluate.

The Flaming Lips - Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots, 2002

I Am The Resurrection

Who?  Well, first, Christianity has a strangled-hold on the use of the term "resurrection" and unfairly so because it can be applied quite generally.
David Cunliffe could be the next great Prime Minister.  He's made several good speeches over the last couple of years about the fundamental flaws in the neo-liberal approach to money and the management of the economy, as below:

[I argue] that, post GFC, the “invisible hand” of neoliberal economics has failed, that New Zealand cannot cut or sell our way out of a hole, and that Labour must therefore present a clear alternative economic approach to the current government based on our own enduring values

Hell Yeah!
He's realised that Labour is too far right*.  And he's not afraid to say so.
Is he Jesus?  No.  Is he like Jesus?  No more so than anyone else.  Am I suggesting some association?  No.

*Labour, before it was infiltrated and overtaken by ACT in the mid-1980s, regularly received more votes than (a much more left-wing than they are today) National party, foiled only by the vagaries (and that's the nice word for it) of FPP.  A swing to the left could have the dual benefits for Labour and NZ of (a) actually getting Labour into government, now we have MMP, not FPP, and (b) forcing National to abandon some of their radical right-wing agenda.

The Stone Roses - The Stone Roses, 1989

Tell It Like It Is

vto, a regular commenter on a number of NZ political blogs, nails my problems with the Labour Party in abut 20 words with this comment at The Standard.

Where are the politicians to stand up to this? Shearer, stop listening to your goons and get stuck in like a mongrel. Slacker.

 Emphasis is mine.  That's exactly what is needed.

Aaron Neville - 7" single, 1966

Isolation (part 2)

A couple of things happened after I posted about transport links to Gisborne.
First, a rally in Gisborne to support the retention of the rail link.  This can only be a good thing.  However it needs to be followed up with further pressure via the council, and the Eastland Community Trust.  The talented Mr Nash, who is leaving Wellington for Hawkes Bay, could do with an issue to use to raise his profile in the region.  It wasn't so many elections ago that the East Coast was red, not blue, and the turn-around has to start somewhere.
With his comment

'Nothing's changed from our perspective,'

Jim Quinn of KiwiRail demonstrates, by the bucket-load
a) management in New Zealand is generally of poor quality, and
b) KiwiRail should not be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the rail network.
What he really means is "KiwiRail doesn't care one iota about Gisborne"?

Meanwhile, over at The Standard, the usually flippant Zetetic posts in support of repairing and re-opening the Gisborne rail line.  And gets over 100 comments.
They disappear off to the "trucks and roads are massively subsidized" argument*, but what has surprised me is that no one has played the "the latest report says trucks aren't subsidized at all, in fact it's quite the opposite" card.  I'm left wondering whether no one has thought of it yet, or because "the latest report" is linked strongly to the seriously discredited Ports of Auckland CEO - Tony Gibson.
* Trucks and roads are subsidized compared to rail.  I'll provide coarse evidence if requested and I think I can prove it, but that will cost money.  Since this is my own private and personal blog and I don't solicit for business through it, anyone who really wants proof will have to track me down using other methods.  And bring a cheque.

Where is my mind?

Gawd it's been an awful week in parliament.
How is it that the worst government in a generation is in office at the same time as the worst opposition in a generation?  And at a time when the media are at a low ebb?
Yesterday's question time was particularly awful, today was better from the Greens and Mana, but Labour and NZ First were missing in action, or letting National wipe their feet on  them.  Lucky no one pays attention to parliament, then...

A New Season

David Shearer has finally shown some teeth. Perhaps they will be bared in Parliament this week, I await with bated breath.