Bohemian Rhapsody

Mercury was the god of profit and thieves, amongst other things.  It always struck me as odd that a power company would co-opt the name, however it's a fact that one did.  And so we ended up with Mercury Energy.  A division of the soon to be owned by people apart from you and I Mighty River Power.

Their recent advertising has caught my eye.  They've introduced a thing called GEM, an acronym that stands for Good Energy Monitor.  Good, I suppose, because "Energy Monitor" is dull, though that's all it is, and because it results in a much better acronym.

It achieves two things.  It allows you to read your electricity meter without going outside.  It presents the data from the meter in a user-friendly and flexible format.  And neither of those things are particularly new, it's always been possible to do this, but it's required a little bit of effort and enough knowledge to read the meter.

The introduction of what are referred to as "smart-meters" began a few years ago, and it is being rolled out across the country.  Smart meters do have a couple of genuinely new features.
They can be read remotely, so there's no need to have a meter reader come around every month or two.  Apart from the resulting job losses, there are quite a few positive outcomes from this.
They can also be used to change the price of electricity with time, and this is actually what GEM is about.

Electricity demand has a diurnal profile.  That is, the highest demands occur in the morning (before people go to work) and in the early evening (when people return from work).  Market theory says that as demand rises, so should prices and as demand drops (as it does overnight, when everyone goes to bed), so also should price.
And that's what smart meters can do - allow anyone who wishes to do so to follow the market and bow to its whims.  I won't, because I am sufficiently well paid and the savings I can make from keeping an eagle-eye on a website showing my electricity consumption are not worth the effort.  It seems to me that most people won't be bothered either.  Which does four things.  It leads me to wonder about the fate of people who will watch their meters.  It leads me to wonder why Mercury Energy are doing this.  It leads me to wonder what I should do.  And it leads me ask, once again, could we as a society do this better?  So, in order:

There are people out there to whom an extra few dollars on the electricity bill each month makes a world of difference.  The active promotion of smart meters will focus them for a while on meter-watching and minimising their energy bill by going without when prices are highest.  It will be considered by people who have never gone without as enabling and enhancing individual choice.  Like choosing to go without heating in the middle of winter is a choice.  As someone who went without heating for several winters, I know from experience its not a choice, its using an abstraction ("the market") to inflict cruelty.  Smart meters encourage further suffering.

Why are Mercury Energy (and others) doing this?  It's simple.  They are commercial enterprises, if it isn't making money, it isn't happening.  So it's to make money.  The best I can figure is that it is intended to make consumers feel responsible for the cost of electricity, by giving them the feeling that they are in control of the cost.  Of course, individual consumers have very little control over electricity prices.  The reforms overseen by Max Bradford and National in the 1990s took something flawed but functional and amplified the flaws while keeping the appearance of functionality.  My expectation is that rates and thereby prices for electricity will rise, and the suppliers will use tools like GEM to say "we gave you control and it's up to you to use it", to deflect the criticism directed at them as prices rise.
Why do they need to increase prices?  To pay for the quite realistic 73% pay rise for the directors, perhaps. No, even though most of us got a percent or three if we were lucky, and 73% is genuinely ridiculous, that's not it.  Prices need to be increased to increase profits, which are necessary to meet the requirements of the commercialise model for electricity supply.  That's all.

What should I do?  Very little, I suspect.  All I can think of is that there are appliances coming out that can link to the smart meter and operate when rates are low.  This will mean my washing machine and dishwasher will run late at night and the spin cycle will wake me up.  <sarc>Being woken up will of course be a good thing because when the children tidy their rooms and leave a giant mountain of washing, I will need to be woken so that I can empty the washer and put a new load of washing on.  And another after that.  Because what I really want, after a full day of work, is to be up all night doing the washing.  Waking from my few hours sleep to a dishwasher that needs to be emptied so everyone has clean plates, bowls and cutlery for breakfast will be something to look forward to.  And with the hot water cylinder on ripple control and all the hot water used by the washing machine, a cold shower in the morning will be really refreshing.  I can't wait for smart meters and the opportunity to totally change my lifestyle around to suit the all-powerful market forces. </sarc>.  It seems likely that the first generation of smart appliances will have a premium, and I'll have to work out whether the benefits of buying one outweigh the extra cost, or whether it's better to wait until smart-meter compatibility is the default.

And could we do better?  Certainly.  The service that is delivered (and it is a service, I can't fathom why Mercury refer to it as a product) is the same everywhere, 50Hz 230V electricity.  Does having ten retailers marketing their service to me make that service any better?  No.  Does having five generators selling bulk electricity to the retailers make the service I receive noticeably better?  Still no.  Could it be run more efficiently if we applied some brains to its operation, instead of saying "It's in God's hands.  God will look after it, and make it work" (Pick your own god, the current ethereal abstraction is most commonly referred to as the market.  You can read about his recent works in the business section of tomorrow's paper)?  Yes, we could.  We just don't, and so we pay the price.  Literally.  Fortunately for people like me we have the aforementioned market to distribute the costs to those who can least afford it, and to absolve me of responsibility.

Footnote - smart meters, coming soon to a water supply near you.  Why restrict yourself to getting rorted for electricity when you can get rorted for water too?

Queen - A Night at the Opera, 1975

Hey Hey, My My

A while back I compared the governments actions to actions typical of dictatorial regimes.  And that caused a bit of a fuss, at the time.

But it occurred to me that the present government has committed some significant time and effort into attacking what it sees as competition, specifically, local government.
National and its coalition partners have and continue to actively interfered in local government in our two major centres, are implementing changes to the Resource Management Act, have acted to undermine the Local Government Act and confidence in local government (halted only by Nick Smith's last fall from grace) and have fostered discussions around reform of local government that would make the reorganisation of Auckland look like a good thing for democracy.
The unicameral parliament we have, with weak oversight by the governor-general, and the terrible Speaker we currently have in Parliament are tempered only by MMP (no wonder we voted to retain it) and local government.
It is my opinion that we need stronger and more democratic local government, to balance the power of central government and to keep local decision-making, well, local.
The National government are not dictatorial; they have a majority (of one) in parliament and were democratically elected.  However, they are, in my opinion, acting in a way the dictators act, and in the long term this benefits only a very few people.  And that's just wrong.

Neil Young - Rust Never Sleeps, 1979

The Gentleman Soldier

Louisa Wall's bill to create marriage equality came up for its first reading this evening. I've just looked outside and while it is quite dark, there is nothing to suggest the sky has fallen. My relationship with my partner is much as it ever was, maybe slightly better than usual.
Winston Peters was amusing with his speech about how conscience votes are an anachronism, and issues of morality should be decided by referendum. Firstly, no thanks to referendums on morality. And secondly, this is not an issue of morality, it's about equality.
Imagine if the law compelled someone who wanted to be married to choose based on gender. Wait, there's no need to imagine, it already says that. Louisa Wall and Bruce Logan, who wrote an op-ed in the Herald today, have something in common; neither of them wanted to be compelled to marry a man. Solution, let them marry whoever they want and don't discriminate on gender grounds. I honestly couldn't care less, it concerns me more that the government would stand in the way of people's happiness and the resultant consequences.
It's heartening to see that the bill passed its first reading 80 for to 40 against.

I had not thought much about polygamy until it was raised by opponents to this bill. I've not formed an opinion, but I have noted that many adults manage to carry on relationships that are similar in nature to marriage with several people at the same time. And it's not for me to judge them, and it doesn't affect my relationship; again I don't care if others choose to do it. Personally, I identify with the sentiment expressed in the song that I've used for the title of this post:
"Two wives are allowed in the army, but one's too many for me". Maybe not "too many", more like "just right". I have quite enough to worry about to consider polygamy to be a good thing for me.

The Pogues - Rum, Sodomy and the Lash, 1985

Real Friends

I overheard half a telephone conversation, between my father-in-law (though to be true to my "relationship status is not confirmed" I reiterate that he may or may not be my father-in-law in a legal sense) and my partner.  He must have asked my partner who we vote for, and was told that we usually vote for Labour or the Greens.  Or both, now that we get two votes.  I guess he asked why.  "Because we are working class" my partner explained.  And that gave me cause to think.

• I sit at a desk all day, and breath air-conditioned air.
• I wear work attire.  Leather shoes, linen, silk.
• I cultivate my appearance.
• My work involves brains, not brawn.
• I am well rewarded

but:

• I am a small part of a very large machine.  If I break I will quickly be replaced.
• I get the same pay every time.  The increase and decrease of profitably of my employer (a publicly listed company) has no impact.
• I have no say in or control over the direction my employer takes, beyond "take it or leave it".
• I have no say in my conditions of employment, beyond "take it or leave"
• I have no other form of income, such as shares or rent, or through the direct sale of the fruits of my efforts
• I struggle to pay my mortgage on my home and I am in the thrall of an Australian bank
• I have no inherited wealth.

In short, I am a wage slave.  That might not make me true working class, in terms of the original meaning, I have more in common with the working class and my interests are most closely aligned that way.
Quite a revelation for me.

Later I came across the Communist Party USA (I didn't know there was such a thing) definition of working class, on wikipedia:

The Communist Party USA's Constitution defines the working class as a class which is "multiracial, multinational, and unites men and women, young and old, employed and unemployed, organized and unorganized, gay and straight, native-born and immigrant, urban and rural, and composed of workers who perform a large range of physical and mental labor–the vast majority of our society."

The emphasis is mine.  I guess they think I am working class, and I'm OK with that.

Mint Chicks - Crazy? Yes. Dumb? No, 2006

Three To Get Ready

Yesterday I mentioned, in passing, the recent questionable behaviour of three  current ministers; Paula Bennett, John Banks and John Key.  In a spare moment I took the opportunity to compare their actions:

John Banks had a fit of pique over the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, which include some minor changes to the MMP system.
I have a little empathy for John Banks.  He senses a threat to his seat on the gravy train (though it seems obvious that he will be off the gravy train at the next election, I reckon I can count the number of people who think otherwise with a few fingers and thumbs to spare), the increasingly bizarre ideals he stands for are at risk, and he is doing his best to defend them.  No problem with that.
His inability to comprehend that his actions, and those of his ACT predecessors in the last parliament are the best and most recent example of what is wrong with MMP.  Their behaviour has been a model for many of submissions to the Electoral Commission's review and as such this is like a case of contributory negligence.  The bronze for bad politics goes to John Banks

I'd like to try to defend what Paula Bennett did, even as an intellectual exercise.  Play the devil's advocate.  But I can't.  There are only a limited range of circumstances where the government should use information it holds on a person against that person, and this is not one of those circumstances.  Otherwise the information must be held securely.  End of story.
The only bright light I can see is the suspicion I have that some form of confidential settlement was made.  It's not much of a bright light, then, especially when you consider that the issue involved the government intimidating people who criticise government policy.  At least it stayed out of court.  With that bit of grasping at straws done, the silver for bad politics to Paula Bennett

Which means the winner of the gold is John Key, for going to the game, and not going to the funeral.
Ultimately it is the Prime Minister who decides to deploy troops to combat zones.  It is therefore beholden upon the Prime Minister to do the right thing by these troops.  When they are killed in action the PM must attend the funeral.  It's that simple.
I do understand that politics is hard on families, especially children.  But like the duty to the troops, it's part of the job.  Anyone who thinks politics is easy has not had much to do with it.  And it's been that way for ages, anyone who is not up for putting their duties to the country ahead of their family should not run for public office.  It's that simple.
I have a guiding principle - you should always attend funerals.  Because the dead only die once; it's not like you can attend their next funeral.  Whereas the living will, in all likelihood, be here tomorrow.

Dave Brubeck Quartet - Time Out, 1959

Memories In Future Tense

A few things have happened in the last 24 hours that have taught me a lesson about trying to be too clever.

I wrote a post about water, and specifically whether it is capable of being owned, and I scheduled it for a few days time.  My instincts say, even now, to leave it to post as scheduled.

Meanwhile, Puddleglum has gone a step further and identified what lies behind the current discussion about water.  I'll not steal his thunder, it's a hell of a good post and you should read it.  Even Bryce Edwards thinks so.

And in the end I got back to where Every Tiny Straw started - back in June last year when wildcrafty said:

wildcrafty said...

Wish you had a blog AC.

"I reckon the whole "the land belongs to me" concept is a failure. I much prefer the idea that "I belong to the land". As such, I am its property and thereby I am responsible for looking after it."

There's a conversation I'd like to see NZ having more of.

June 14, 2011 11:38 PM

over at Cr Guyton's blog.  Gosh, that feels a bit weird, quoting someone who was quoting me.  However, that's kind of where it all started - a seminal moment, if you will.  If you read this blog, wildcrafty, thanks.

So, and acknowledging that this pre-empts a post that is already written and scheduled for publication, but is as yet unpublished.  I've fallen back to a principle I explained a year ago:

I reckon the whole "I hold water rights" concept is a failure.  I much prefer the idea that "I belong to the water, and the land".  As such, I am its property and thereby I am responsible for looking after it.

The concept of ownership, as we understand it in our culture, may be too simplistic to allow us to manage water properly.

The Church - Of Skins and Hearts, 1981

How Many Times

The recent brain-fart from Paula Bennett, where she mused on the virtues of eugenics, compulsory abortions and mandatory sterilisation, was notable.  Apart from revealing the ignorant or vacuous nature of Ms Bennett (why should we be subjected to a Minister who muses about eugenics?), and the baser side of the populace in responding to her dog-whistle (ugh, the non-scientific polls make awful reading, at times), and the blatant attempt to distract from Mrs Parata's debacle (gosh, that's almost enough of a list), it's part of a developing theme.
Today Stuff has an article of a baby that died unnecessarily.  While a lot of the circumstances are not stated, it seems clear that the baby and family were living in terrible conditions and dire poverty.
The blame for the death is then sheeted home to the family.  The article reflects on how messy their house was and how there were inconsistencies in the descriptions of the circumstances that lead to the baby's death.  But that's avoiding the underlying issues of why the government is not addressing the issue of poverty and the consequences.  Apart from the obvious and pragmatic response that there are few votes in it.
I don't care if it was the state or private charity that should have been working with this family, it seems likely that there has been a serious systemic failure here (and throughout the country) and our media blithely dismiss it on the grounds of individual responsibility.  Here's how I'm calling it - the failure of an individual to fulfil their individual responsibilities does not affect or negate the collective responsibility we all have to look after the weak and the vulnerable and people in their time of need.
Heads should roll, and the MSM need to take a good hard look at their attitudes.

Brother Beyond - Get Even, 1988

Redemption Song

Tomorrow, being the eleventh day of May, is an important anniversary.  Here is what the Prime Minister said:

His voice was an omnipresent cry in our electronic world. His sharp features, majestic looks, and prancing style a vivid etching on the landscape of our minds. [He] was never seen. He was an experience which left an indelible imprint with each encounter. Such a man cannot be erased from the mind. He is part of the collective consciousness of the nation.

Who was he talking about?


Bob Marley and The Wailers - Uprising, 1980

Shitlist

I don't have a list of right-wing blogs I trundle around every day.  I won't read Farrar's blog, or Slater's, and won't link to them or follow links to there blogs.  Because I don't care what they think.  Or what they say.  I think going to their blogs is kind of like a tourist coming to New Zealand on the basis of (what remains of) our clean green image, but only visiting landfills and wastewater treatment plants (which are, and take my word for it, the same the world over).
Am I being deliberately and wilfully ignorant?  And am I missing something?  Anything?

L7 - Bricks Are Heavy, 1992

Gouge Away

A post over at Robert Guyton's blog, on the subject of education, got me thinking.  The basis for the post was a post by Chris Trotter, at Bowalley Road, so it's come quite a way to get here.  And the posts themselves were not that exciting, it's more the comments, and what we can draw from them.
In this case it's the effectiveness of National's message-management back in the first part of their first term.  Case in point - The decision to axe night-classes was petty, poorly thought out, and economically unjustifiable.  We are worse off, as a society, as a direct result.  Yet the stupid meme that was used to sell the destructive change still persists.  The simple message was that there are courses on notionally pointless stuff like making stained glass.
Night classes were mostly about learning much more practical stuff, like languages, wood and metal crafts cooking.  I learned about computer aided draughting and small business accounting at night school., and put both to practical use.
The more abstract stuff is, well, more abstract, but using abstractness as an excuse for destroying something good is a poor reflection on our obsession with monetary value.  In business terms the value of similar concepts is referred to as "intangibles", or "brand value".  The night classes for abstract things were good for the soul (I presume, I never did one) and helped people weave their way into the fabric of the community.
I wonder whether our rapid change into a society that imports everything except food* means we have given up our crafty roots, abandoned our desire to actually build the stuff we need, and want.  Our innovative spirit has let overseas IP become a barrier.  Our talented people flown overseas to escape the miasma that is low quality jobs and poor management; visionless leadership.
We let another institution go for no good reason at all, just a simple concept expressed effectively - "night classes in making stained-glass".
*acknowledging the massive generalisation

Pixies - Doolittle, 1989

Losing My Religion

I'm constantly fascinated in people's belief in, and reverence of, money.  It seems to be some form of religion.
"Economic grounds" are used to justify all sorts of bizarre stuff, without a hint of common sense.  Previously when there was no other explanation, some form of deity was assigned responsibility.
We dedicate whole sections of our media, newspapers, TV, radio, internet etc. to "the economy"
The wealthy are to be respected, because their wealth demonstrates that they understand the new deity, money.
We have places of worship where the deity lives, previously referred to as churches and now called banks.
We have symbols of the deity, previously crosses, stars or statues, now called currency
I quit this religion.  Money is little pieces of metal, sheets of plastic and some record kept on a server somewhere.  That's all.
The real rich have true friends, and the skills to stay alive under wildly changing circumstances, like being able to feed themselves and their family, and provide them with shelter and warmth, without taking from others or the environment in an unsustainable manner.  The wealthy only have money.