Read the blogs, the papers or listen to talkback and all you get is “I voted National but never again blah blah blah….” Classic Labour party talking points all over the place at present.

It may be that Phil In is trying to get the polls up before the BBQs come out for summer.

There are ructions between the left and right of the party – the usual spotty hacks are not happy with Phils moves in the right direction.

Why has the British National Minimum Wage had Little or No Impact on Employment?
David Metcalf
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 50, No. 3, 489-512 (2008)

In fact, if reading peer review papers is something too hard (even for Ms Ardern), then at least, one can Google the name Neumark and you can find lots of references to him, in which they are readable to the general public. Here is one from Wall Street Journal.

The Young and the Jobless

The WSJ article above is digestible to non-experts if peer review is something to be avoided, since peer review is not aimed for the general public.

So, if I am a policy-maker and I want to peer into the internet to find out if drafting a legislation to set minimum wages is a good thing or a bad thing and my preconceived idea is that it is a good thing (with no shred of evidence to support that), then what should I expect to find? Nil. Do you still go on to draft legislation based on no evidence or you should do it according to evidence right in front of your eyes? I’ll leave it to you to digest that question, since it seems to me that you have a hard time understanding of what I am talking about.

Do you understand what peer review research publication is about

Yes. It is different from peering into the Internet to find something you want to see.

http://nominister.blogspot.com/2009/11/pissing-on-twyford.html

He’s certainly received a fair old watering from within his own party!

Bevan (1697) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 10:26 am

Maybe Labour have noted the groundswell of disgust about the ETS fiasco and are anticipating the physical removal of the current totally corrupt shower by mobs of justifiably angry citizens and are preparing for the soon-to-follow (we hope) elections.

Why on earth would Labour think we want them back – they would be ten times worse and I shudder to think what kind of ETS monstrosity they would fource upon the country.

I quite agree (except with the spelling).

Note I never said anything about them winning, just that they have noted that the level of disgust at the current shower has nearly reached the point where a civil insurrection will happen.

As an aside the ETS bullshit currently being purchased by the corrupt few will cost NZ a damned sight more than the $2b train set.

Yes, the reference that I posted on her blog post was a link to an economic peer review paper, which backed up the fact that when you set minimum wages, then youth unemployment will rise. Do you understand what peer review research publication is about Pete? Ms Ardern can ignore blog opinion of commentators which we all do, but you can’t ignore case studies, if you’re a person that sits on a committee and with a stroke of a pen, you could in fact, affect the lives of many citizens.

I agree with you here. I posted a reference to a paper (on her blog post on rising youth unemployment) which was published by one of the world’s leading expert economic professor in youth unemployment & minimum wage issues, that pointed out that setting minimum wages is the problem. She then came back with a similar post a week later at Red Alert still proposing that the government should do something because it failed to come up with policies that combat rising youth unemployment. I wondered if she had any attempt to read the article or not? If she read it, the question to ask, did she understand it? If she did, then why did she post the same blog post topic a week later , given that the paper must have highlighted the problem clearly to her. It is beyond belief, if she didn’t attempt to read the document because I think our MPs should read as much as they can, so their minds could then widen up and see the issues clearly when they draft or propose new legislations.

Why on earth would Labour think we want them back – they would be ten times worse and I shudder to think what kind of ETS monstrosity they would fource upon the country.

I have asked MPs at Red Alert to verify whether Mr Shearer won the floor vote at the Mt Albert selection, as there were credible reports that he did not. First Ms Curran said she was going to “verify” with Mr Shearer. She then responded that I was engaging in “deliberate mistruths” about the selection. Grant Robertson has then edited a further comment I made on the issue saying that my suggestion that Mr Shearer may not have won the floor vote was “unverifiable”.

This unverifiability surprises me, since Mr Goff at the time claimed that there were 200 local members at the Mount Albert selection. Surely one of those present, including Mr Goff, could confirm whether Mr Shearer won the floor vote.

Either Mr Shearer won the floor vote in Mt Albert or he didn’t. This cone of silence is very unusual.

It will be interesting to see if this lack of transparency plays out in the Auckland Central and Waitakere selections.

Happy days, the idiots are running the Labour asylum.