Colin James on Key and Broadband
April 26th, 2008 at 10:04 am by David FarrarA typically thoughtful column from Colin James:
So Key wants voters, especially those under 45, to contrast big plans for broadband against buying back the trains. There is a century-and-a-half between the two inventions. …
But that misses the electoral purpose. That is, as one party notable put it, “to establish the character” of Key as bold and imaginative – investing in infrastructure for an unimaginable future – and to contrast that with a business-as-usual Clark. …
Over time, however, National’s general policy thrust presumes Labour has reached a high tide with its redistribution of the fruits of strong economic growth – that there is not much more to do – and that from here on, once the economy gets back to 3 per cent growth after the current slowdown, the fruits should go to tax cuts and investment in innovation and education to lift productivity.
So Key’s tax focus will not just be on cuts but on a bold restructuring of the system. …
This week Key stole a march, and he will now bang away on that drum for the next six months, counting on hard times generating eager and hopeful buyers for his promise – and for the meat in the policy.
Clark and Co will try to get the electoral contest down from Key’s atmospherics to the earthbound realities of experience and knowledge where they claim the advantage as dusk draws in on the economic boom.
For now, however, the window shoppers are quite taken with Key. This week he started the hard sell: come and feel the goods, was the invitation in his big bang.
Related posts:
- The final Colin James article in the Herald
- Colin James on strategy
- Colin James on year ahead
- Colin James on the carbon plan
April 26th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Those last two paragraphs in Colin James’s piece are intersting. The Dom-Post editorial this morning suggests that Labour has far more pressing concerns than John Key
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/04/dom-post-savages-labour.html
Vote:April 26th, 2008 at 11:01 am
The last two paragraphs of Colin James’s piece are interesting. However the Dom-Post editorial this morning suggests that Labour needs to do a whole lot more than focus on John Key
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/04/dom-post-savages-labour.html
Vote:April 26th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Lindsay Mitchell just drew attention to the fact that the plan might be 1.5 billion of our money and 2.5 billion of private money. With 1 million homes that means we get fibre for $4,000 per home. Of course no one would have fibre in their home at that price, that’s how insane this proposal is. But business as usual: if you’re spending other peoples money and not on yourself, you don’t care about the price, nor about the quality.
[DPF: There are more than one million homes but regardless a one of capital cost of $4,000 is quite minor - $400 a year for 10 years, which is less than $10 a week.]
Vote:April 26th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Another article in the Dom points to voter’s belief the Nats are a safer pair of hands. There are two basic factors that drive all human behaviour: move away from pain and move toward pleasure.
In terms of this economy, the pain comes from the looming slowdown and that is driven by fear much more than by reality. The pleasure comes from new initiatives such as the broadband policy.
Humans are hard-wired to avoid pain, it comes from our fight-or-flight response which is controlled by our reptilian part of the brain which takes care of the automatic functions like heartbeat and breathing, and is I repeat, automatically triggered and controlled by the sub-conscious. This is why humans will do much much more to avoid pain than to move toward pleasure.
So one successful tactic for National would be to emphasize their safe pair of hands which would play to the sub-conscious fear factor that is going to become increasingly prevalent as we move through this and the next year. If I was them I would put at least as much, if not more, effort into emphasizing that; as I did into developing and promoting all of their policies.
If any lefties think this is rather cynical, just exactly what do you imagine Liarbore and the Greens do in their spare time? Hint: Refer to Tamahere’s comment about scheming made during Wishart’s interview at the winery.
Vote:April 26th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
berend is quite right , remember its only to 75% of homes so the comparison is accurate.
Plus it leaves 1 million people left out, everbody in towns under 15000 or maybe the suburbs where the rich pricks DONT live
So lets not hear any more about a possible Labour promises before the election being a bribe, it can only be $10 a week , or $2 day and so on
Vote:April 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
“[DPF: There are more than one million homes but regardless a one of capital cost of $4,000 is quite minor - $400 a year for 10 years, which is less than $10 a week.]”
David….thats the most socialistic “we know best” bullshit comment I,ve seen you make…..what if people don’t want this super broadband forced on them at gunpoint and with their own stolen money?
Dude you are sometimes so Labour-lite its not funny….
Vote ACT for a real change this election!!!
Vote:April 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
James has a point, and it’s one I’ve been turning over in my mind since the announcement (the geek part of me having said “wheeeeee!” immediately upon hearing it, then having been wrestled to the ground by the political part).
When what is now Telstra Saturn started laying its own lines to homes (six or seven years ago, IIRC) I was overjoyed – it seemed as though the private sector would be willing to fund what was clearly a “must have” if NZ was to remain competitive in the future.
But the economies of scale just aren’t there. NZ is too small a country for it to be financially viable for the private sector to recover the enormous capital cost of laying cable to even 75% of homes. And the end user can’t possibly pay for it – if 1 person at the end of a road is the only one who needs it (perhaps because they run a home business) then presumably the provider won’t charge them the same amount as they would someone who lives in a road where everyone wants/needs it and thus the cost can be shared between them.
So I’m led to the inevitable conclusion that – as much as it may go against principle – Key has made the right decision, indeed a bold decision. To leave NZ without true broadband would be to condemn it to the 21st century equivalent of the Dark Ages.
Taxpayers will recover their investment through the increased productivity that will result, from the greater number of people who will be able to work from home (and thus reduce their carbon footprint), perhaps from removing a barrier that would have made foreign investors think twice about basing an enterprise here, and through the simple fact that NZ will be perceived by the world as something less of a backwater than if it didn’t have broadband.
Vote:April 26th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Unfortunately Colin James see this as a political problem and misses the actual economics of it. But he is, sadly, right. As normal “good politics” – vote buying – overrides good economics.
Vote:April 26th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
This is an interesting policy, one I’m still somewhat undecided on. Current criticism from the government seems a bit ridiculous though, not criticising the policy but rather the issues with implementing it. It seems like a knee jerk reaction from the government, that they must find a hole in the policy, they just don’t know where it is yet. My issue is: Should the government be involved in this area? Should it be left to the private sector? If it is as great an investment as John Key claims it is why are there no private investors willing to fund the total cost? (It is a big cost, but one foreign investors could easily manage). The idea behind it seems sound, making New Zealand more competitive with the rest of the world. But should the government be spending public money to do this? Any thoughts?
Vote: