You can get out any time you like, but you can never leave

It's very interesting to see how Australia is handling the planned Australian Cricket team's tour of Zimbabwe, especially when compared with New Zealand's more hands off approach to the same issue.

John Howard has announced that the Australian Government will ban the Australian players from going on the tour, apparently by using government "powers over [players'] passports".

While I think it is great that the tour won't be going ahead, and its even better that Mugabe won't be receiving the proceeds of the contractual fine which would otherwise be levied on the ACB by the ICC (unless the Zimbabwean government or the ICC are able to make the Australian government liable for the fine), this is still pretty worrying.

In this case, it seems pretty clear that the ACB, and the individual players are not keen to take part in this tour, and that the travel ban will probably be welcome. However, the prospect of a government banning people from leaving the country on political grounds is quite disturbing. While I sympathise with Howard's objectives here (and no, I never thought I would say that either!), I think it could have been achieved in a much less disturbing way, either by the australian Gvoernment issuing a travel advisory recommending the avoidance of travel to Zimbabwe, which the ACB could then use as an excuse not to tour, or by the Australian government agreeing to indemnify the ACB for any losses or fines incurred. This would also have allowed the ACB to make a principled stand on their decision to not tour Zimbabwe, rather than pretending it is not really their idea not to tour!

It all depends on where you look....

So Winston has found another stick to beat immigrants with. He is right to say that immigration leads to increased inflation, as spending by immigrants pushes up prices, especially for housing. While he is right about this, it is a pretty typical case of looking at only part of the picture, in order to get the answer he wants.

Firstly he is ignoring the beneficial side of the money immigrants bring to this country. The inflationary impacts of this really are just an unfortunate by-product of the extra spending, which is necessary for our economy. If asked to choose between an economy that is growing, along with a little inflation, and an economy where there is no inflation, and no growth, I would be very quick to choose the former. He is also ignroing all the other benefits that immigrants bring, both in terms of their (usually skilled and motivated) labour, and the intangible benfits of diversity.

Finally, I think he is overstating the extent to which inflation is really a problem. Inflation in NZ is lower, and tracking down. I think Winston is quite right to say that the Reserve Bank Act needs to be change to broaden the focus of monetary policy, in order to require a focus on New Zealand's wider economic interests, rather than solely on inflation. However, I think that viewing immigration as a negative thing because of its inflationary impact, while ignoring its wider benefits, while accusing Alan Bollard of being too narrow in his focus, is quite ironic, and unwarranted! Its actually a shame that the useful remarks Winston has made on inflation will inevitably be overshadowed by this latest dog-whistle on immigration.

Subway/Subpar

Much amazement has been available in the slowly unfolding car wreck that has been Subway's handling of one of their employees sharing a drink with her friend. Not only have Subway apparently entirely misjudged the amount and nature of public interest and feeling in this issue, they also seem to have blundered badly in terms of their adherence to employment law.

On the first count, it has been interesting to see the apparently cross-partisan support for this unfortunate woman. Even DPF has come out in support of her. One can only imagine what the other Subway franchisees think about their Dunedin-based counterpart dragging their brand through the mud!

I initially assumed that this dismissal would be substantively ok, procedurally dodgy, and politically stupid. Turns out though, this dismissal looks like being as substantively illegal as it was unwise. Trawling through various employment law databases as I was today, I found a case which was quite similar to the Subway case, and which suggests that unless Subway settle this pretty promptly, they might be in for an embarrassing time in the ERA/Employment Court.* Of course, thanks to the legendary minginess of our courts, any award given is fairly unlikely to be overly generous!

Essentially the case cited above involves a Hoyts employee who ate some popcorn without authorisation. The ERA was pretty scathing of the employer's conduct, and despite the occurrence of a technical theft, reinstatement was ordered. The amazing thing is that the Subway franchisees in question apparently haven't chosen to check the legal situation before sacking this woman. One can only assume that a person with the capital to buy a Subway franchise could afford a couple of hours of a lawyer's time to devise a plausible disciplinary proceedure. come to think of it, why didn't Subway head office either have a proceedure in place themselves, or at least intervene at an early stage to rescue their brand from the inevitable damage.

For the record, the employer in Hoyts actually followed a stronger proceedure than in the Subway case, and had a stronger substantive case too. As such, it seems likely that Subway are either going to have to settle, or fac an embarrasing and public day in court.

*Here's the citation, if you're into that sort of thing. HOYTS CINEMAS (NZ) LTD (HOYTS MOORHOUSE) v JACOB [[2002] 2 ERNZ 638] (Palmer J, 20 December 2002, Employment Court, Christchurch ( CC29/02))

Silver linings

It was hardly surprising when the black caps were eliminated in the semi-finals of the cricket world cup by Sri Lanka, they reach the semi finals frequently, but are yet to advance into a final.

Less predictable though, was today's feeling of relief that they were eliminated before the final! At least that way, they did not have to be involved in today's farcical final. The match was stopped for bad light three overs before the end, and the scoreboard declared Australia the winners. Ground staff even started erecting the podium for the presentations. The umpires then decided the match was not over, and either play would have to resume, or the game would have to be completed tomorrow, despite the fact that an Australian victory was a foregone conclusion. Eventually the Sri Lankan players returned and play was resumed, in near darkness.

Technically, the umpires were correct, but the whole thing was just so disorganised, as if their was no co-ordination, or any plans as to what to do if the light deteriorated. surely twilight is foreseeable? How can the ICC hope to have the confidence of the cricketing world, or hope to expand cricket into new territories if it cannot co-ordinate the showpiece of its own major tournament? The other question is, why was the game scheduled for a venue without lights?

Great Easter Traditions

We have a few Easter traditions in New Zealand; Creme eggs, hot cross buns....and whining about the Easter trading laws!

Why is it that people just find it so hard to deal with the shops being closed for two (non-consecutive) days? I am not at all religious, but I think Easter is a really important chance for people to have a break with their friends and family, and maybe even discover that not all pastimes have to involve the purchasing of consumer goods. And of course, if you really need to buy some stuff, you could always do it on one of the other 361.5 days of the year when the shops are allowed to open!

It also really irritates me that people frame this as a freedom of choice issue, given that the staff who would be forced to work at Easter would not have any real choice in the matter. They will be directed to work, simple as that. Personally, I remember my father having to work publc holidays, and he was never "asked" to work. He just had to work.

In fact I would like to see the list of exceptions to easter closing narrowed, and the fines for breaching the laws increased. I think the fine should be a certain percentage of sales for the day, and the exceptions should be reduced to only include fuel and restricted hours for small shops and restaurants. If that inconveniences some tourists, well, thats sad, but can't they find something to do outdoors? Surely they can cope with waiting one day to buy that greenstone pendant?

Patching it up

What an unedifying spectacle Michael Laws provided on Campbell Live tonight. Campbell had a reasonable go at holding him to account, but the item really did show up the futility of trying to discuss even a simple political story in five or six minutes.

Laws seemed to have two justifications for banning gang patches, a measure which combines that oh so appealing mix of freedom abridgement and ineffectiveness!

1) Gang members commit lots of crimes, so we really ought to introduce a law to allow us to prosecute them. The question one has to ask is, if they are committing so many crimes, why can't the police prosecute them for those crimes? Is this just providing a handy stick with which a lazy/incompetent police force can beat the gangs?

2) Gang members intimidate people, even when they arent committing crimes. The problem here is twofold. Why should we criminalise a certain form of dress, just because it makes others uncomfortable? Also, does Laws imagine the average Mongrel Mob member is going to stop being intimidating, just because their patch is removed? He might have to ban tattoos, leather jackets, bandanas and menacing expressions as well. Maybe we should just have a Laws approved dress code and be done with it!

I don't have any affection for the gangs. But the thing about civil liberties is, you can't just protect them for people you happen to like.

Another thing I have been thinking about recently, which is linked to climate change, is New Zealand's power generation methods. Currently we rely on big power plants, be they Hydro, gas, geo-thermal or coal. This is quite inefficient, as much of the power generated is lost in transit. This is especially so in the case of the big South Island Hydro plants, which are located well away from New Zealand’s main population centres.

It seems to me that we ought to move to smaller, local projects to reduce this wastage, and to reduce our dependence on one particular type of energy. Currently, if there is a drought in the South Island, we are in deep trouble! This does not mean that we will generate less electrical from the big Hydro projects, just that they will produce a lower proportion of our power.

Specifically, I think we should be increasing our use of commercial wind farms, and investigating tide-based generation. These forms of generation are clean, and will help to diversify our sources of power. Also, they can be sited closer to centres of population. The Kaipara and Manukau Harbours spring to mind as good sites for tidal power, close to Auckland. Ultimately, I think people are going to have to accept the widespread installation of wind generators, as part of the price of continued secure, cheap, and cleaner energy.

We should also be encouraging households to install solar and small wind generators on their own properties. If each household could generate even 10-20 per cent of their own power, this would significantly reduce our dependence on large, new developments. As it stands now, solar generation is already cheaper than other forms of generation. A solar panel pays for itself in 3 to 5 years of operation. The only losers from households generating their own power are the commercial generators and retailers of power.

By giving incentives to households to install their own clean, cheap power source, we can reduce our reliance on big, central projects, lower the cost of electricity, and reduce our carbon footprint. Ideally, we might be able to permanently decommission our coal and gas plants, possibly retaining them as back-up generation options.

These options seem to me to be a pretty easy choice to make. Cheap, cleaner energy, with greater efficiency and security.

Climate change

I don’t think there is any real doubt that climate change is happening, or that human activity is an important cause. There is still doubt as to the nature and extent of the effects it will have. These sorts of questions are largely imponderable. This sort of change is unprecedented in recorded human history, so we cannot realistically expect to get any sort of precise idea of the likely impacts.

At this point, the debate seems to have become about what should be done. I think this move can be put down to a number of factors, including the noticeable effects climate change is already having on the environment, the widespread agreement in the scientific community, and the increasing support of public and political figures, such as Al Gore.

As far as responses go, I find it pretty odd to hear people talk about carbon credits, and restricting emissions to say, 1990 levels as solutions. These kinds of measures only serve to keep the emissions where they are now, and to redistribute who gets to do the emitting. The problem with this approach is that it is the current levels that have gotten us into this situation in the first place! Keeping levels static, or somewhat decreasing them will only serve to reduce the rate of acceleration of global warming, but cannot help to solve the problem. An incremental response to global warming is only going to work if the increments are large and frequent.

It seems to me that we need to fundamentally change the types of energy generation we use, and how we use the energy generated. To do this, we need to change the incentives involved. At the moment, oil is too cheap, because the price of it does not represent the environmental costs of using it (these costs are left to be borne by future generations, in the form of a degraded environment). One response to this would be to tax oil. This would be a good response, as it would give incentives to develop alternative energy sources. However, it risks stunting the world economy if it is not accompanied by positive measures to create alternative energy sources.

To do this, I would suggest trans-governmental “prizes” for firms which develop cost effective, clean energy sources and delivery systems.

In theory, the market will provide incentives for the development of alternative energy sources as oil becomes more scarce, and thus more costly. The problem is, I don’t think we can afford to wait that long. Effectively providing a big government incentive would lead the market to take into account the environmental and social costs of our reliance on oil, and would help to jump-start the process of finding alternatives. Basically we would be using positive incentives to correct a market failure. Coupled with gradually increasing taxes on oil, this would steer the market towards sustainable energy.

Overrated

I find the latest interest rate rise by the Reserve Bank pretty frustrating on two counts.

Firstly, the economy seems to be slowing, and inflation is undercontrol. An interest rate rise just seems to be unneccesary. The Reserve Bank seem to have an attitude which views any inflation as a huge problem, and which views growth and low unemployment as problems, in that they cause inflation. It just seems so odd to view economic growth as a potential problem to be overcome in the pursuit of low inflation, rather than the other way round! I think this is a consequence of continued over-reliance on monetarist economic theory across the western world. Note that I am not saying that monetarist economics has no value, or that inflation control is not valid. What I am saying is that too much emphasis has been placed on this.

Fortunately, this is somewhat balanced by Cullen's fiscal policy. While this is seldom recognised, Cullen seems to be running a pretty classic Keynesian programme, running a surplus in times of growth, and hopefully running a deficit in times of recession. It remains to be seen though whether people will actually accept new borrowing when we next have a recession.

My second, more specific point about the Reserve Bank is that Bollard can only seem to use one, blunt intrument to target inflation. Specifically, he is concerned about the residential property market, yet the only tool he can use is one that not only has spillover effects on other sectors (such as business investment). It is not even effective at deterring residential property purchase This is because of the prevalence of fixed term loans, the ability of residential investors to write off much of any losses against taxes, and because of the banks' ability to extend the amount and term of loans to compensate for rate rises. Indeed, probably the only people rate rises will deter are first home buyers who are already on the very margins of being able to borrow.

Even if we do accept that inflation is a problem, and I think too much emphasis is given to it, we need to find more precise ways of targetting the sector of the economy which is actually the problem. Any ideas?

Charity begins in Parnell

There has been much talk this week about which is best, private charity, or public assistance. I highlight the "or" because this seems like a very strange debate to me. Personally, I doubt that the government are really saying that private charity is a bad thing. Of course, if people want to give money to worthy causes, that is great.

However, as far as I can see, charity is problematic in a number of ways. For a start, almost by definition, people will probably only give enough to charity to avert the very worst catastrophes. People will give to charity to help starving people, but they are unlikely to give enough to fix substandard lving conditions, or other less dramatic cases. As such, a charity based "safety net" would not bring in enough money to put an ambulance at the bottom of half the cliffs, let alone fencing the cliffs off in the first place!

It also creates a huge problem in the sorts of things that will attract money. Only causes attractive to coporates, or the wealthy will have any hope of attracting money. If your cause doesn't involve cute kids or fluffy animals, you'd better watch out!

Finally, the whole notion of people being reliant on charity is just so unattractive. I think this is what Cullen is talking about when he derides "tory charity". The prospect of people being beholden to the wealthy, and having to go cap in hand to them just gives rise to a view of society that is the opposite of egalitarian; a paternal, top-down, Victorian nightmare. For all the faults and strange incentives of the welfare states, at least it gives people some rights, and removes the need to grovel in the dust for a muesli bar!

So of course charity is a good thing, or course it is great when people give their money to worthy causes. We just need to make sure it isnt an excuse to reduce state assistance to the needy, or to make people reliant on the good grace of the rich.

My absence

Sorry for the lack of posts this week, I am in the process of buying and moving into my first house, so time is tight! Between yelling at the solicitor and trying to cram my things into altogether too small boxes, I just can't find time to blog. Hopefully I should have some time on Sunday.

It never did me any harm....

This week's award for moral panic goes to....the opponents of the anti-smacking bill. Many of the bill's opponents give the distinct impression of not even having read it!

Apparently once this bill is made law, our jails will be overflowing with parents thrown into chokey for whacking their kids. As the Select Committee report notes, parents could also technically be prosecuted for kidnapping when they send kids to their bedroom, yet amazingly, this doesnt seem to happen! I cannot imagine the police prosecuting a parent for smacking their child on the backside. As it is, police use their discretion in deciding who to charge. The only concern in my mind is that police might use that discretion to prosecute people against whom they have a particular grudge. It is always concerning when police have wide powers of interpretation over the law, but it is worth remembering that this is possibly unavoidable in such a fraught area.

In any case, the Select Committe report includes a recommendation which would allow parents to use reasonable force in the "normal daily care" of a child. I would expect juries to use such a clause to acquit a parent who lightly smacked a child. Incidentally, the Select Committee also recommended an amendment which would clearly allow physical force used to protect the child, or another person (if the child is about to touch a hot surface, for instance).

Frankly, I think the current situation, in which parents can hit their kids with lumps of wood and other foreign objects, is despicable. Personally, I would rather that parents did not hit their kids. However, this may not always be realistic, and we do not want to see good parents in the dock because o a light smack. This bill is a pretty good compromise I think.

Take a look at Michael's post about billboards. These things are just such an ugly intrusion, and the "free and easy with the facts" campaign run in support of them is further reason to get rid of the damn things!

Religion and politics.

There have been a few bloggings recently which have looked at the intersection of religious and political questions. Michael posted on progressive Christianity, while Span posted on sexual politics and religion.

Personally, I am not religious. I have never seen any reason to believe in the existence of god, at least in the specific forms the major religions claim. Further, I think religion does a lot of harm to good political discourse, and is not helpful in constructing a decent moral code. This post has two main points; to say that it is not possible to be a liberal and a proper Christian, and to say that religion is basically incompatible with pluralistic politics. I am not arguing for a return to conservative Christianity! I am arguing that religion ought to be left out of politics, and preferably disposed of altogether. I have chosen to post about Christianity and politics, mainly because I know more about Christianity than other religions, and to keep the size of this post manageable. I do not think Christianity is any “worse” than other religions in terms of its tolerance or compatibility with politics.

Michael’s post outlined an argument for progressive Christianity. He is absolutely right that this is something which has been sorely lacking from Christian politics in this country. If I had to choose a form of religious politics, progressive Christianity would be it. However, there are a number of problems even with this form of religious politics. While progressive Christianity obviously serves to emphasise the progressive aspects of the religion, it cannot totally downplay the fact that there are many regressive aspects of Christianity. It is still hard to deny that Christianity is not a liberal faith. The Bible still contains views on homosexuality, the death penalty and myriad other things which are violently at odds with those of liberals. Basically I think progressive Christians soft-pedal or ignore the illiberal aspects of their faith. While this is absolutely admirable, and certainly results in a much better form of Christianity from a liberal stand-point, it doesn’t gel at all with traditional Christianity as derived from the Bible (especially the Old Testament). People often focus on the New Testament as part of this change in emphasis. This might help to make Christianity more warm and fuzzy, but it isn’t really honest. The Old Testament is just as much “God’s Word”, and can’t be ignored just because it is inconvenient.

It seems to me, that to be a liberal Christian, you have to ignore an awful lot of the supposed word of god. If you have to ignore so much of his word, it doesn’t speak of a traditional Christianity. In fact, I think that if someone ignores that much of the Bible, and of traditional church practice, it essentially means one has created a new religion, based on liberal politics. This is fine if that is what you want to do, but it seems to me you might as well just own up to being a committed liberal and leave the religious aspect out.

Religion and plurality:
Religion is about dogmatic certainties. People have faith in the revealed certainties of their creator. This is totally at odds with the reality of politics, which is that differing groups and people make compromises with one another. If two different groups have conflicting religious beliefs, they can’t reconcile them without setting religion aside. If you believe God has told you to do A, how could you possibly do C, or agree to do B as a compromise? This suggests two things to me, First, religious people of necessity set their faith aside when acting politically, and second, that it would be better for all concerned if religion were punted out of politics altogether.

TV One Poll

The treatment of these polls to me really does illustrate the utter lameness of political reporting in NZ. The focus on the preferred Prime Minister result is quite baffling. We do not have a system in which we vote directly for the PM, so to attribute any direct significance to the result just seems quite bizarre. It may have some indirect significance, in terms of the impact on party votes, but that is really uncertain.

In general the poll is probably reasonably good news for Labour. Although the Nats have a seven point lead, the trend is for the gap to close, and Colmar Brunton polls always overstate the Nats and understate Labour. At the last election they gave the Nats a six point lead. It seems likely that the two main parties are roughly equal now. The difference of course, is that Labour have a sizeable coalition partner, and are coming off the edn of a very bad year.

Why is it that different polls seem to consistently show certain biases? I don't know much about statistics, but I would be very interested to know why it is that tv3's polls always overstates Labour's support, and vice-versa in tv one polls.

And it just gets better!

Ok, I know Taylor had a fair bit of luck, but what an awesome batting display! Even MacMillan got runs, although he did also manage to get caught twice on consecutive balls. Anyway, it seems that our batting may be starting to come right, and not before time.

Sucks to be Australia

They may not have fielded a full strength team, and it may show poor grace to gloat, and Vincent may have had some chances, but I'm not going to let that rain on my parade!

It was good to see Fleming get more runs, even though he looked pretty patchy at times. It's also good to see Vincent's form continue. So many cricketers seem like arrogant and generally unpleasant characters, whereas Vincent emits a certain earnets keen-ness which makes me want him to do well!

All in all, let's enjoy the victories while they last!

Don't let the door hit you on the way out

So, at last the day I am sure the PM has been waiting for has arrived. Field has done something that gives a plausible excuse for expelling him. As serious as the allegations of corruption were, without any real proof, they did not provide a sound basis for his removal from the party.

The interesting questions are what Field will do, and what affect this change in the balance of power will have. I can't see Field resigning and forcing a by-election, unfortunately. I think his sense of self preservation is too strong for him to take that risk. Presumably he will spend the next year and a half either planning a life after parliament, or firming up his support base in Mangere. I would expect him to lose fairly easily at the next election, as long as Labour select a credible PI candidate to replace him.

As for the balance of power, I cannot see any massive changes, National would still need the support of either the Maori Party or the Greens to win a no-confidence vote. I just can't see that happening. It may just make it that little bit harder for Labour to get legislation through, but they are still in fundamentally the same position of needing to secure support from the minor parties on a case-by-case basis.

As such, I think this is a very positive move. Labour has gotten rid of an ongoing nuisance, at little immediate cost. Field was frankly an offence to a party which stands for the underprivileged, as Field stood accused of exploiting just those people. Of course the allegations were unproven, but they was not exactly refuted convincingly. In my view, he ought to have been drummed out sooner on some pretext or other. Still, all's well that ends well!

Cow politics

This is an oldie but a goodie. It is an internet forward, but i have made a number of additions.

SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows, so you give one to your neighbour.

COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk. You are forced to sing a song thanking the state for taking the cows.

FASCISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk. You are forced to sing a song about the superiority of your country's cows.

NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then files the milk away while it investigates writing a comprehensive set of milk quality procedures, and setting up a task force to investigate the health and safety implications of milking...

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. The cows are tended by slaves. You get your cronies in parliament to ban goat's milk. You sell the cows and the slaves and retire on the income.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows.You sell one, and send the other to Indonesia, while forcing it to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM: You have two cows.You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank,then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows.No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows.You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows.You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide. The farm hands work 16 hours a day, and many of them commit suicide.

A KOREAN CORPORATION: You have three hundred cows all living in a 5m square apartment. There are two hundred people tending the cows. The people doing the actual work are women and "guest workers". All the men are standing around spitting and drinking soju, while proclaiming the superiority of korean cows, even though their cows were imported from the USA few weeks ago.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows.You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves. You founded the farm based on the profits of Nazism, but you prefer to keep that quiet.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You decide to have lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows.You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows because you're sobering up and open another bottle of vodka. When you sober up you discover that the President’s mafia-linked goons have taken the cows.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5,000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINA CORPORATION: You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.You tell them that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb you and invade your country.You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy....

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows.Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION: You have two cows. You charge “fart tax” on your two cows and have a 4-1 ratio of sheep/person.

AN IRISH CORPORATION. You have two cows...or is it three? What does it matter? Aren't you well off to have even one?

A WELSH CORPORATION: You have two cows. The one on the left looks very attractive.

Mortgage tax

Dr Cullen has floated a possible surcharge on fixed rate mortgages. I concede that something ought to be done about NZ's bias towards residential investment, and that this proposal is something. However, I do not believe that this is the right something. I have three grounds for this: craven self-interest, realpolitik, and economic advisability.

Craven self-interest: I just bought house, and i really can't afford to pay any more than I already am.

Realpolitik: I think any measure that is going to have a big impact on house prices, or mortgage payments is potentially political suicide, and would need an across the spectrum agreement.

Economic advisability: This measure seems likely to impact disproportionately on those with large mortgages and relatively low incomes. It will tend to be a greater disincentive to those who have not yet gotten into the housing market, not those who already have substantial investment in the sector.

That is, it is likely to do most damage to first home buyers. People who already have high equity will probably be less seriously affected. Their mortgages will represent less of a proportionate drain on their income. For those with investment properties, much of their mortgages will be paid by rent in any case. They can also write some of their losses off against tax.

In fact this measure might force more people to rent for longer, thus exacerbating the divide between the haves and have nots as far as housing is concerned.

If Cullen wants to discourage investment in the over heated housing market, that is all very well, but it should target people who are investing, not people who are buying a first home, which is more likely to be for predominantly lifestyle and personal, rather than economic reasons.

The point I am trying to make is that we ought to be discouraging over-investment, not family home ownership. If Cullen wants genuinely to discourage investment in residential propoerty, he should look at a capital gains tax on second houses.

In her Majesty's Service

Over the last few weeks there have been a few of the periodic public service scandals, especially surrounding Corrections and CYPFS. I used to work in the public service, so I have always been interested in attitudes to the civil service, and whether the civil service really is less efficient and less competent than the private sector.

There is certainly inefficiency in the public service. As long as you don’t actually wedgie the CEO, you probably wont be fired. This hardly gives an incentive to bust a gut. However, on the whole I doubt the public service has less talent or drive than most parts of the private sector. There are certainly more than a few wastes of oxygen in both, but I think the public sector also has plenty of very talented and driven people.

I tend to think that the public service gets the sharp end of the stick in a number of ways.

Firstly, the public service has to do all the difficult things that aren’t profitable, and which the private sector doesn’t want to do. Incarcerating violent criminals; deciding who is a valuable immigrant and not a fraudster or worse; deciding whether a child abuse allegation is a mere fabrication or an urgent warning. All these things are tricky, especially without the benefit of hindsight. When private sector firms get involved in these things, I doubt they are any less inclined to stuffs ups (Chubb’s prisoner transport record is a fine example). This also means that when a government department is involved in something that goes wrong, it tends to be something that will make a juicy story on Close Up.

Further, often whatever departments do, they will cop it in the neck. If CYPFS remove a child from its parents’ care, they are suddenly ogres ripping families apart. If they ignore a warning, and leave a family together, they will be blamed if somethings goes wrong. If immigration tightens entry controls, the left brand them xenophobic. If they relax controls, the right brand them bleeding heart liberals. I always had a particular theory about this. It always seemed to me that people in NZ are somewhat suspicious of immigrants as a group, so it is easy to make mileage with anti-immigration rhetoric. However, when shown the story of an individual immigrant, kiwis will be much more kind hearted. This leads to a lot of strange and contradictory attitudes to immigration.

Other problems for the civil service are created by our political system. The opposition are constantly on the look out for slip ups. In practice, that makes civil servants fairly risk averse. Often the first imperative in government is a negative one: to avoid messing up, and ending up getting chewed out by the boss, or worse, the minister. Now I am not saying the opposition should not be vigilant, but it does create certain perverse incentives.

Also, the Privacy Act means that even when a person goes public with their supposed tale of woe at the hands of some civil servant, the department in question is effectiviely unable to defend itself, even against attacks as vicious as a Dave Dobbyn music video.

If any of the assorted civil servants out there want to comment, I would be interested to hear what you have to say, but remember to be careful, you wouldnt want to breach your code of conduct!

Update: I heard a story yesterday which i think illustrates my point nicely. A friend who works for a major NZ retail chain had taken part in designing a catalogue for the company. it was part of the way through printing when the CEO decided he didnt like the colours. So, they stopped printing, redesigned it, and rep-printed the catalgoue. $75,000 of catalogues had already been printed. If a public sector entity had done something comparable, there would have been an uproar, but because this was a private sector firm, noone even hears about it. Now, obviously public money has levels of accountability that private money doesn't. That is inevitable. However, I think this shows that the private sector is not necessarily more efficient than the public sector, it is just less accountable.

That speech...

I was struck by the sense that John Key’s much awaited speech was a really odd attempt to sit on at least two fences. For a start, he has chosen a theme which is really quite uncertain factually, and which has few obvious or feasible policy solutions. It was a little off-putting that apparently the best he could do in terms of a strategy was deputizing to a back-bencher, and promising that she would come up with some ideas. Where was the integration with the rest of his team? Will it really be just the two of them?

I don’t doubt that the underclass in this country is a problem. It’s not nearly as big as Key makes out though. His assertion on the radio this morning that we weren’t far from street rioting was frankly hilarious. Also, the policy approaches which seem likely to work are likely to be long-term, expensive interventions, which don’t make good sound bites, and which are unlikely to excite the public. This is actually quite difficult stuff, and even if it works, the pay-offs won’t really come through for a decade or more. Hardly the kind of stuff to excite a passionate reaction!

To gain traction on this issue also requires the National Party to frame itself as the party of compassion for the poor. Do they really think they can do this convincingly? It seems to me to be evidence of John Key’s ongoing attempt to be all things to all people. He doesn’t really have a strong policy “rudder”, so he tries to say something, anything that he thinks people want to hear.

It also seems odd that he has chosen to make this speech at a time when both crime and unemployment are actually quite low, and without having any clear to solve the problem. It’s hard to see Key getting much traction on this issue. Not only has he failed to show a major, systemic problem, he’s failed to give us any indication as to how he might actually solve it. At least Don Brash’s Orewa speeches chose issues the public was actually concerned about, and actually generated some passion, support and press for the party.

He also seemed to vacillate between a number of approaches to the problem. On one hand he claims to want the government out of people’s lives. On the other, he wants more government spending and programmes. He is talking about more spending, more government involvement, and more civil servants. I particularly noted the talk about working with the “aunties and uncles” of under-privileged kids. What he is talking about is quite large scale intervention in the community. How will he ensure people’s buy-in, and then devise programmes that actually work.

Another idea he talked about in general terms was private sector involvement. This is really just shifting the expenditure though, not reducing it. Private sector organizations will only get involved in these programmes for profit, and there is no easy way to ensure effectiveness (how does one tie a company’s payment to education or employment outcomes, which might not show for 15 or 20 years?). Even if charities rather than companies are involved, their activities would still have to be paid for. Essentially it would be government expenditure under another name.

He also spoke of plans to ensure every unemployed person is in training or looking for work. WINZ already case manages unemployed people. The fact that his “plan” to do this is already government policy sets him up for an ambush that I would have expected him to avoid.

If I was a right-winger, I would actually be quite worried about this speech. If Key’s best move at this stage is to focus on an issue framed in left-wing terms, and which is not really fed by any great public feeling, it may be a sign of a worrying lightness in policy and political thinking.

Shocking Developments!

Trade Unionists present in Labour Party Caucus!

I don’t know if you have noticed, but there is an odd little argument which seems to frequently pop up in the blogosphere. It goes something like this. The Labour Caucus has a lot of former Trade Unionists in it. Therefore, the Labour party is a Bad Thing, and ought not to be in government. Span has already blogged on this, and it got me to thinking. I think this is a very, very weird argument. The point of this post is not so much to say that unions are a Good Thing, (although I think they are, despite their problems) as to say that criticizing Labour for recruiting a large number of former union employees is just a bizarre and pointless thing to do, and doesn’t seem to show much analytical or political acumen.

First, it seems to ignore a really basic point about political parties. Political parties are actually coalitions of people with broadly similar views on how things ought to be. Of course parties are going to have large clumps of people with similar views and backgrounds, that’s the entire point of a party, to allow people to form a broadly consistent political programme, based on shared values. Can anyone imagine what a party that was totally representative of New Zealand would look like? Frankly it would be unable to agree any meaningful value framework, or political programme. So, of course people with broadly similar views are going to form parties. And it stands to reason that those parties are going to have clumps of people with similar backgrounds. That’s why the National party has clumps of businessmen and farmers, and lots of old white men, Labour has a lot of trade unionists and academics, and United Future has lots of middle aged white fundies!

Secondly, it’s an ad hominem argument. It always seems to me that when someone is unable to critique a policy or action itself, they just default to attacking the C.V of the person responsible for it. I guess it saves some time spent actually thinking about things, but it hardly makes for good or convincing argument. In any case, if the number of trade unionists really put Labour so far out of touch with the electorate, why does that electorate keep voting for them?

It also ignores something quite critical about the nature of trade unions, and to a lesser extent, teaching and academia. These professions do not simply attract a random sample of people, who then form a disproportionately large part of the Labour caucus. Rather, they attract people who already have an attraction to left-wing politics, and a desire to get involved in it. If one did not have fairly strong political beliefs, there is certainly much more money to be made elsewhere, so union work, teaching and academia are obviously going to attract a lot of people who are motivated by principle rather than cash money. Obviously there will be people who go into teaching or academia for other reasons, but the point is still valid. There will be more people who choose teaching or academia for reasons of left-wing principle, than other professions like accounting or tax law.

The people who go into union work especially do so because they want to put their left-wing principles into practice, and the unions are the main means by which one can do this, while still earning some money for essentials, like Laphroaig. It seems to me that anyone who has a commitment to left-wing politics probably has a pretty high chance of working for a union at some stage.

So Labour’s tendency to select from the unions is largely a reflection of the kinds of people who go into the union movement, and is not comparable to simply choosing any other profession to recruit from. Frankly the anti union argument seems to me to be a whinge that can be used as a fall-back when an actual argument based on principle or practicality would just be too hard.

It's just not cricket...

Remember the good ole’ days when NZ always seemed to be fairly good at either tests or one dayers, but never both at the same time? At the time, it was a bit frustrating, but now those days seem positively halcyon!

Frankly, the recent drawn series with Sri Lanka was flattering. Our bowling was ok, but our batting really was quite outstandingly lame. Really, what are the odds of the entire top and middle order being out of from at the same time? It seemed often that James Franklin was our most reliable batsman. No disrespect to the big fulla, he is a handy lower order player, but things have come to a pretty sad pass when our best batting hope is a bowler.

I know plenty of others have already taken a swing at the rotation “system”, but really, couldn’t we focus on trying to find 11 good players, before we worry about the second 11? Rotation is all very well for the All Blacks or the Australian Cricket teams. Both of these sides could field second-string teams which would have a good chance of dominating their respective sports. The Black Craps simply aren’t in that league. We can’t even field one decent, in-form team, let alone a second!

The only real sign of hope to emerge from the tri-series thus far is the return of Oram, who adds a bit of starch to the batting, and provides another bowling option. Without him, Tuesday’s match against England could have been quite embarrassing. Unfortunately, barring a fairly spectacular reversal of form from our batsmen, it seems likely that the rest of the tri-series will be a lame contest to see whether New Zealand or England is the slightly less woeful side, thus earning themselves the right to a 2-0 shellacking by the Australians. The saddest thing is, events thus far have made Australia’s traditional arrogant boasting actually seem quite restrained, compared to the one-sided contests on offer.

The Moonwalk Superstar

This really is super.

2008 Crystal ball gazing

It seems to be widely expected that National will win the next election. To be honest, I used to agree with that received wisdom. But the closer we get to the election, the less sure I feel.

Poll after poll seems to suggest that while a National led government is certainly possible, a Labour led government still seems the most likely outcome. And these polls came after a real stinker of a year for the government. They bungled both the Phillip Field saga, and of course the pledge card farrago. The point is, that despite having a dreadful year, Labour are still within striking distance, and indeed still seem the most likely to be able to form a government. Of course there is still a long time to go, and the odds are probably only 60/40, but on balance, as long as the economy doesn’t nosedive too badly, I think Labour are still in a fairly strong position.

So why do I think the Nats will be warming the opposition benches for a fourth term?

First, I think Key’s leadership abilities are unproven. Of course, he has made it as a successful investment banker, but that does not necessarily provide him with all the skill needed to win an election, manage a caucus, or form a stable government. Frankly, I have been unimpressed with his handling of a number of fairly straightforward questions, especially about his religious beliefs and his views on the Springbok tour. The actual importance of these issues is beside the point. The point is that he seemed unsure as to how to answer questions in a clear, honest manner. This apparent uncertainty may constitute a huge weakness in debates against the PM.

I also wonder whether he has the breadth of knowledge to foot it in areas other than finance. What exactly does he know about health, education, or any of the other areas that matter to New Zealanders? It might be very difficult indeed for an economy focused opposition leader to defeat an incumbent with a good economic record.

Whether or not one agrees with Labour’s policies, I think it is bizarre to suggest that Helen Clark is not an astute political operator. I think Key’s ability to out-maneuvre and outperform Clark over the next eighteen months is unproven at best. If National party insiders simply assume that he will lead them to an easy victory over Clark, they are setting themselves up for a rude shock. After all, Clark has already seen off Shipley, English and Brash, each of whom was touted as a certainty to lead the Nats to victory. Maybe it really will be a case of fourth time lucky, but I honestly doubt it.

I do think English and Key will prove an able leadership combination, probably more able than Brash. However, given the broader situation, both within the National Party, and in the country as a whole, Clark and Cullen can still lead Labour to victory.

I see two major problems for National arising from their parliamentary position.

The first of these is that Key may have serious problems reconciling the centre-right and neo-liberal factions of his party. Essentially, in order to increase National’s vote by the few percent he needs to form a stable government, Key needs to persuade centrist Labour voters that a National government will actually be centrist, and not neo-liberal in nature. I think it will actually be quite hard to do this while placating the neo-liberal MPs and their supporters. I also think there is a very real risk that as the Nats drift towards the centre, Act will increase their support at National’s expense, and grow increasingly militant. I doubt that a rejuvenated and vocal Act party will help to convince centrist voters that a National/Act ministry will be moderate. This may reduce National’s chances of gaining the votes they need to form a government.

I also think the Nats are suffering from a lack of possible coalition partners. If the Nats cannot take enough of Labour’s support base, they will have to form some sort of arrangement with the Greens or the Maori Party. While anything is possible, I just can’t see either of these parties entering into coalition with National. Even if they did support a National government, the result would have to be so centrist as to prove a huge frustration to National core supporters, as well as their corporate donors.

I also suspect the government’s tax cut plans will take a fair bit of steam out of the National party’s campaign. Given that tax cuts are one of National’s key points of difference, a well-targeted package of tax cuts will help to shore up Labour’s support, and possibly take a few percent off National. Personally, I do not agree with tax cuts from a policy standpoint, but they may well be tactically necessary.

At the moment, I would say Labour have a 60 percent chance of forming the next government. I think the election relies on three factors: Key’s performance compared with Clark’s, the Labour Party’s fundraising ability and most importantly, the economy. If these three factors develop in a way that is moderately favourable to Labour, I think Labour will win the next election.

My Grand Entrance, so to speak

You might well ask what a single malt social democrat is. Well, I used to think of myself as a Chardonnay Socialist, until one day I realised that I actually prefer a good single malt to a chardonnay, and I'm not actually all that keen on that whole "socialisation of the means of production and distribution" thing. Don't get me wrong, i like a bit of nationalisation as much as the next fellow, but I'm not so much intent on destorying capitalism, as installing a nice new bit of decking, and maybe a jacuzzi.

My Blog is going to be mainly a forum for me to write about politics, other interesting ideas, and the odd bit of popular culture.

My politics are left-liberal. I tend to vote for the party I view as the Labour party's potential left-wing coalition partner. I am a semi-regular commenter, and regular lurker on a variety of political blogs, especially Spanblather , Red in Roskill , Just Left , and of course No Right Turn .

I am hoping to write some stuff which might provoke a bit of thinking, both mine and yours. I very much welcome correspondence/comments, especially if they are constructive, and not just witless personal attacks.

I am planning my first proper post tomorrow night. Hopefully I will see you then.

Carl