Kiwiblog

As readers will know there has been a lot of scrutiny about how much extra debt there would be under a Labour Goverment over the next four years. Labour says it would be around $4b, National says around $16b and my calculation has it at around $12b (of which half is the Goofynomics borrow to save strategy for the Super Fund).

Let’s go with my figure of $12b for now (which is in fact only $2b different from Labour’s $4b as they acknowledge that excludes borrowing for the Super Fund). Now that is what the extra debt would be for a Labour majority Government. If Labour got 50%, then they could implement their policies without compromise.

But if Labour does manage to put together a government, they will comprise (based on current polls) only around 55% of the Government. On the Roy Morgan poll they would in fact be just 50%.

This means that the parties they need to negotiate with to form a Government will have massive power, much more power than any other minority partner under MMP. Because the larger your proportion of the votes the Government needs, the more say you get. This is an issue that as far as I know, no media has seriously looked at – what would be the policy mix of a Government that had Labour on 25%, Greens on 15%, NZ First on 5% and the Maori and Mana parties on say 5% between them.

That $12b of debt would be just a start. Let us look at the policies NZ First will want included in a budget:

• universal student allowances
• match student loan repayments $1 for $1
• Cut tax rate for new exporters to 20%
• lower company tax rate to 27%
• lower GST to 12.5%
• tax free threshold of $100/week
• turn TV One non-commercial
• Increase Govt R&D spending from 0.3% of GDP to 2% – a 600% increase
• Accelerated depreciation for specified industries
• 10% off power prices for pensioners
• Increased funding to decile 3- 10 schools
• reduce class sizes for lower decile schools
• increase health expenditure to 10% of GDP
• Increase defence spending to 2% of GDP
• abolish GST on rates
• abolish income tax on secondary jobs
• abolish tax on savings
• cap tuition fees, eventually reducing them to zero

There’s probably even more than this but I can spend only so long reading their manifesto. I can’t even begin to add them up but I’d say we are talking ten billions dollars a year in lost revenue and extra spending. Now let’s say he even gets 20% of his wishlist, and that is probably an extra $8 of borrowing over four years.

And bear in mind also that Winston is saying he would refuse any agreement in advance for how much extra spending will be needed to have him vote for the Government for three years. So every year Labour would have to feed him as much money as he can get, to keep their Government in office. This is not scare-mongering – this is exactly what Winston is promising to do, and there is no way Labour could govern without him.

But Winston is only the entree. Let us look at what the Greens want. At 15% they would have over half of Labour’s support, and be around one third of the Government. So they may get up to one third of their wishlist. That includes:

• tax-free income threshold of $10,000/year
• Write off all student debt, even for those not in paid employment
• tax-deductible study costs for those with no allowance
• A full universal student allowance for those aged 16+
• Increased accommodation allowance for students
• Reduce then abolish tertiary fees
• Increase school operations grant by 10%
• Maximum class size of 20 for schools
• Increase benefit levels to “sufficient for all basic needs”
• Increase public health spending to 10% of total health budget

There are again many more beyond that. And again the bill will run into the billions, and even the Greens can only come up with so many extra eco-taxes to plug the hole.

The two major parties are normally the ones who get the most intense scrutiny over the costings of their policies, and that is because they form the bulk of the Government. For example even if National reaches out again to ACT, United Future and Maori parties, National will be probably 90% of the Government. Hence, highly likely their debt track will hold up (especially as ACT ask for less spending not more).

But Labour is looking to be 50% to 55% of a Labour-led Government. This is vastly different to when they were last in power and they were over 80% of the Government. At 50% to 55% they will be comparatively weak, and the parties they will need to vote for their budget will have much more power and say than in the past – hence why it is important to also scrutinise their tax and spending plans.

I haven’t even looked at what spending one might have to agree to for the Mana and Maori parties, but it will not be nothing, and a Labour-led Government is only possible if Labour, Greens, Maori NZ First and Mana parties all vote for their budget.

So forget about $12b of extra debt. That is just the starting position. It is inevitable it would be significantly more than that.

This is the annual trade deficit with China over the last decade. Both the Greens and Winston rail against imports and say we need to export more and reduce the trade deficit.

They also both voted against the China-NZ Free Trade Agreement in 2008. They both still maintain it was a mistake, and a bad thing to do.

The results speak for themselves. After the trade deficit rose from $1b to almost $4b, it has reduced to $1.5b in just three years.

The Greens, like all of us, care deeply about the environment. But on economic policy, they and Winston are consistently wrong. They are skilled at talking about problems, but their solutions are toxic.

Exports to China in the three years prior to the FTA were $5.7b. In the three years since, they have been $13.1b. Those exports have helped keep kiwis in jobs, have grown the economy and provided billions more in tax revenue to help pay for schools, hospitals and welfare. And if the Greens and Winston had their way, it would not have happened (unless you wish to argue the massive unprecedented growth in exports was a coincidence).

Former Green party member Jolyon White has said he co-ordinated the sticker campaign, but did not take part himself.

But how curious is it, that a man and a woman riding the motorcycle registered to him were seen vandalising billboards in Christchurch with the stickers?

The most likely explanation is that this Anglican Church employee is lying. And if he is lying about this, why would he be telling the truth about how he arranged the nationwide campaign.

The Greens have not said how many of their parliamentary staff knew about the campaign. We know at least one did. They have said they will not investigate until after the election. This leaves open the possibility that several of their staff knew, or were involved, in the campaign.

Stuff reports:

On a bus in Wellington yesterday, the Green Party announced it would scrap Transmission Gully, the Kapiti Expressway and the Basin Reserve flyover roading programmes and reprioritise the $2.4billion spending.

I don’t know why the Greens just don’t come out and ban cars, rather than mess around with half measures. Their strategy is for roads to become so dangerous and congested through lack of spending, that people will abandon their cars, which will of course save the planet.

Road Transport Forum spokesman Ken Shirley disputed the Greens’ figures and said that over the next three years National had proposed spending $10b on roads and $7b on rail, despite roads taking 75 per cent of freight while 15 per cent of freight was moved on rail. The Greens were politicising the national highway process because of their love of other transport modes, he said.

This is what I call a balanced approach. You needs both roads and rail.

Porirua Mayor Nick Leggett called the Greens’ policy “madness” and said Transmission Gully and the Kapiti Expressway were essential to help develop the economic capabilities of the region.

A sensible chap that Leggett.

I blogged yesterday regarding the vandalism by stickers of National’s billboards that it was almost inevitably done by people involved in a political party. I was right, and the Greens have fessed up today. Stuff reports:

The Greens have revealed a party member and the partner of one of its staff members were behind the vandalism of 700 National Party billboards.

Co-leader Russel Norman said Jolyon White, who is the partner of his executive assistant, co-ordinated the defacing of the billboards.

First some history, about this. Whale first blogged about the plan for the stickers on 14 October, when he heard about the call for quotes for the stickers. Despite this publicity, the arrogant Greens involved decided to proceed.

Then Whale got sent photos of two motorcycles used in the stickering. From this point it was just a matter of time until those involved were exposed. I should point out that Whale is getting more page views than me at the moment – deservedly so.

So the co-ordinator is Jolyon White, who is the Social Justice Enabler for Anglican Church. Surely the church can not condone one of its staff doing this vandalism?

He is such an arrogant idiot, that he even went on radio boasting about what he did, and it seems some recognised his voice.

But it is the Greens who have the most questions to answer, based on this report:

Norman said his executive assistant had known about her partner’s plans for about two months and he was disappointed with her for not mentioning it.

It was an employment issue but the party had not spoken to Parliamentary services about the matter.

Okay imagine that say Labour party billboards were vandalised all around New Zealand. And it turned out the person who co-ordinated it was the husband of the Prime Minister’s executive assistant, and that the PM’s executive assistant had known about it for two months. Would Labour (or any political party) accept that the Prime Minister knew nothing at all about it? There would be calls for resignations, and for an official inquiry.

If the executive assistant knew about it for two months, and did not tell Dr Norman then it must be a sackable offence. She has failed in her most basic duty of care to her employer. How can the Greens possibly say they are disappointed over this, if they take no action?

I have worked for four parliamentary leaders. If my partner who is a party member did something like that, and I knew about it for two months and didn’t tell anyone in my office, I would absolutely expect to leave the office the day it came out, and not return.

But what the Greens have avoided saying, is who did know. Dr Norman says he did not know, and I take him at his word unless there is evidence to contradict that. But did other staff members in the Greens parliamentary office know? Did any Green MPs know?

And also, who were the 50 activists involved, and how many of then are Green party members or activists? My guess is the vast majority.

A related question is who paid for the commercial printing, and who paid for the distribution of them?

The Greens complained bitterly about the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets in 2005. But at least the Execlusive Brethren complied with the law, and put a name and address on the pamphlets as required.

Green party member Jolyon White has broken at least two laws I would say. The stickers are a form of election advertisement designed to discourage people from voting National. Not only were they not authorised, they were put up in the middle of the night. It is as flagrant a breach of the Electoral Act rules around transparency as you can get. I have no doubt the Electoral Commission will refer the matter to the Police, and hopefully the Police will ascertain how many other people were involved and what roles they hold in the Greens.

There is also the secondary issue of damage and vandalism.

Some will try and claim this was not the Greens, just an isolated party member. But the fact remains that the co-leader’s own executive assistant knew about these plans (and presumably endorsed them), and did nothing to stop them, despite the fact it was obvious if the co-ordinator was identified it would reflect on the Greens. I find it very hard to believe that no one else in the Greens office knew about this.

Remember there is form here. The secret taping of National MPs last election was done by a green (lower g) activist who was living with a Green Party staffer, and Green staff knew he had done it before his identity was made public.

UPDATE: While it is good Russel Norman has said the Greens do not condone vandalism, this press release from 1999 reminds us that they do condone “direct action”, saying it is a right and responsibility.

The Greens has said their policy is to scrap Transmission Gully, and use the money to fund Auckland rail.  Wellingtonians should be outraged by this theft.

If there is a Labour-led Government, the Greens will have massive influence as their vote is around 1/2 that of Labour’s. Will the death of Transmission Gully be one of the conditions in a coalition agreement?

Gordon Campbell (a former Green press secretary) has an extremely insightful column at Scoop on the Greens:

Let’s assume for instance, that once the election dust settles Prime Minister John Key will offer – in the name of broad church, representative politics and a desire to split the centre left vote in order to ensure his thirdterm – a couple of ministerial posts outside Cabinet to the Greens.

No strings attached. Something ministerial for Russel Norman say, in the Conservation/Environment era, and an associate Health post for his colleague Metiria Turei, where she could work alongside Tariana Turia. What would the Greens do if such an offer is made? What should they do?

I think there would be some strings attached. At a minimum it would be that those who are Ministers abstain on supply and confidence. A Minister can not vote against confidence in an Executive they are part of.

The Greens have been out of real power for 12 years. Helen Clark spurned the Greens after the 2005 election, and chose to go with Peters instead. As a junior player on the centre left, the Greens traditional role is to wait in the parlour until Labour brings home the election bacon. Yet Labour can only govern when Labour is in the ascendancy on the centre left, which usually means the Greens will have been reduced to hovering just above the 5% threshold. Perversely, in years (such as 2011) when the centre left vote goes to the Greens in large numbers, it is in a context where the Greens can’t be in government, not in any significant way.

That’s the Greens dilemma, in a nutshell. It may say that it is centrist – and it has been saying so for some time – but relatively few voters see it as such. And thus it remains in its current bind – strong when there is little chance of it governing, and able to join a centre left government only when it is in a position of relative weakness vis-a-vis Labour. And regrettably, Labour tends to treat the Greens like an abused spouse in those circumstances.

This is exactly the problem. The Greens get their votes from Labour when Labour are weak, hence a Labour-led Government will not generally occur when the Greens are strong.  And then when the Greens are weaker, Labour pisses all over them, and chooses Winston Peters and Peter Dunne over them.

That’s the basic argument for making a dramatic break away from the centre left and heading into unknown territory. Arguably, it is only by reaching some meaningful form of co-existence with National (beyond home insulation) that the Greens can break the mould, and put itself in a position where it could hope to poach votes from National in large numbers ( and not just from despondent Labour voters) to add to its core support.

If the Greens want to be able to grab significant numbers from National, they need to show they can work with National, beyond the current arrangement.

If the Greens did try to break out of their current ghetto would that pose a substantial risk to the brand? Absolutely. Political virginity is a valuable commodity, and one reason for the Greens’ longevity is that it has stayed away – or has been kept away – from the boiler room of executive power. The party strategists have also noticed the fate of others before them. Notably, the Maori Party has tried to make gains for a far more defined constituency than the one served by the Greens. If it is that hard for the Maori Party, how hard could it be for the Greens? Very hard indeed.

It is definitely a risk. One way to mitigate the risk (and I recommend this to all minor parties) is do not have your leader or all your leaders become Ministers. You need a leader to remain outside the Ministry so they can provide the political leadership to their party. If they are spending all their time signing off departmental papers, they are not making the constant case for support.

So if I was the Greens I’d push for an economic role for Norman and a health role for Hague, and keep Turei to fly the flag outside the Ministry.

So… even as Labour flounders and the Greens pick up the flotsam and jetsam from the good ship SS Goff, a lot of hard decisions lie in wait further down the track. The Greens’ current place on the political spectrum simply doesn’t allow them to harvest a big enough vote on the centre left to enable an escape from their current dependency on Labour which – on past performance – will treat them like deckhands once Labour is back on the quarterdeck again. Whatever the risks, it strikes me as unlikely that Russel Norman will be willing to tolerate subservience, in perpetuity.

As I said, Gordon Campbell has done a very nice job looking at the pros and cons.

Good God, the war against science never stops. The SST front page tells us how radioactive uranium has been passing through NZ ports, and the Greens say it should be banned.

Five thousand tonnes of radioactive uranium is being transported through New Zealand waters and docked at Kiwi ports every year. …

“Radioactive yellowcake uranium is on between six and 30 containers on these fortnightly shipments and it is deeply concerning that the government has allowed these shipments to occur. I think many Kiwis will be shocked.”

Last night a spokesman for Prime Minister John Key described yellowcake as “Australian dirt, which is essentially harmless”.

“The occasional transport of yellow cake through New Zealand ports has been taking place for many years. The shipments meet strict international regulations, and are described by the National Radiation Laboratory as posing little risk to the general public,” the spokesman said.But Hughes said that stance was far too carefree.

If we are going to ban uranium from our ports, are we going to ban it from our soil also?

If you have a 10 by 20 metre lawn, then the top metre of soil will have around 1 kg of uranium in it. Quick let’s ban soil also.

Of course we can’t stop there. Uranium exists in water also. We better ban water to be safe.

And then oh shit uranium particles are also in the air we breathe, Not sure how the Greens will ban air, but am sure they will try.

But of course uranium is not the only substance that is radioactive. So is potassium. And guess who is chock full of potassium giving off radiation? Bloody human beings.

So just to be safe, we better ban human beings also, along with the air, the water and the soil.

Last night saw the televised opening broadcasts from National, Labour and the Greens.

Here’s my scores on the following attributes

• Style
• Policy Focus
• Creativity
• Team Focus
• Relevance

National

• Style – 1/10 – the technical quality was appalling, both in terms of sound and lighting. May have been a deliberate decision to go for substance over style, in which case they wildly succeeded. There is a difference between no style and not overly flashy though!
• Policy Focus – 8/10. Key talked on the major issues. He talked both about what the Government had done and what it will do if re-elected.
• Creativity – 0/10. Did not inspire.
• Team Focus – 2/10. In that environment had to be Key only, but could have mentioned other Ministers more.
• Relevance – 9/10. It wasn’t about trivial stuff, but stuff that people are interested in and want to hear about. Stayed current
• Positivity – 8/10. Talked about themselves, didn’t knock opponents. Focused on a brighter future.

Labour

• Style – 8/10. Was well done and engaging. Used the visual medium well. You actually wanted to hear the next few minutes of the story.
• Policy Focus – 3/10. Did not hardly mention any of their current policies at all. Solely Basically attacked National’s policies and records – not just the current National either, but those of the last 80 years!
• Creativity – 7/10. Not the usual format. Was a good focus on why their MPs are Labour.
• Team Focus – 6/10. Sensible to use attractive and personable MPs such as O’Connor, Nash, Ardern, Robertson etc. However no mention of Deputy Leader, David Parker. And use of O’Connor was cynical as he is not even on the party list and probably won’t even be an MP.
• Relevance – 2/10. Not only failed to mention a single policy they were promoting, also spent far too long campaigning against Sid Holland and Rob Muldoon.
• Positivity – 3/10. Spent most of the time knocking National, and revisiting past grievances. However balanced that a bit by positive statements from some MPs.

Greens

• Style – 7/10. Good use of outdoors scenery. The odd technical hitch with lighting and camera shaking. Nice start talking about richer NZ, then having co-leaders talk.
• Policy Focus – 9/10. Talked relentlessly about their policies, and how they planed to achieve them.
• Creativity – 6/10. A basic concept executed well
• Team Focus – 5/10. Brief mention and profile of rest of the team.
• Relevance – 7/10. They talked well about the issues around their brand. However not necessarily the issues for all NZers. Nice linking of environment and economy.
• Positivity – 9/10. Relentlessly positive about what could be achieved if you voted for them. Highlighted their achievements with National. Even when negative such as state of rivers, talked on turning it around.

How did you find them?

I might rate the other party ones tonight, but not sure I can be bothered watching them all

I blogged last week on how Labour’s policy was to look at bringing the self-regulatory Press Council under Government control (and to tax Internet users).

Well the Herald reports the Greens are also keen on the idea:

The Green Party wants to make independent media watchdog the Press Council answerable to the Government.

So if there is a centre-left Government of Labour, Greens and Winston, the Government looks likely to bring in Government censorship of print media. I mean can anyone imagine Winston thinking it is a bad idea?

If print media lose their independence by a Labour/Greens Government, then the possible penalties they could face from a Government appointed BSA regulator include:

• Compulsory publication of a statement from the BSA
• an order to refrain from publishing for a set period of time
• an order to refuse any advertisements for a set period of time
• $100,000 fines for non-compliance
• Pay costs (which can be huge)

The Minister of Broadcasting appoints all four members of the BSA. I have no criticism of the current BSA members and their decision to date. But extending their reach to include all media would be a huge step backwards for press freedom, and would inevitably lead to more politicised appointments.

The Greens are offering:

Enrol to vote and be in the draw to win cool prizes, including a custom-fitted bike, in our Mobilising Aotearoa Competition!

I think it is very much a thin end of the wedge to have political parties offering money or prizes to people to enrol. Even worse, there appears to be no checking that said person actually enrols, or was not already enrolled.

Think if you had MPs or candidates knocking on people’s doors handing out cash if residents there promised to go off and enrol?

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Green Party corrections spokesman David Clendon said the changes were unacceptable.

“A private manager can be fined if they allow escapes. In that context they are going to be very risk averse and use the high classification rather than the lower one.”

Oh dear because there will be incentives to have fewer escapes, then we may have fewer escapes because the prison managers will be more risk averse.

How awful!

The Press editorial:

As might have been expected, the Green Party has jumped on this incident to advance its campaign against exploration for oil in deep waters off New Zealand. This is just political opportunism. There can be no comparison between a properly run deep-sea drilling operation, far offshore and subject to rigorous environmental safeguards, and an accident in which a ship has hit a well-charted reef a few hundred metres off the coast. As the Prime Minister said, the only connection is that both are at sea.

How it hit such a well charted reef is yet to be determined. Hopefully there will be some accountability for what has happened.

Adam Bennett at the NZ Herald reports:

Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty has said she will resign if her party entered a coalition deal with the National Party – a call that undermines the credibility of the Green Party’s bid for more mainstream political appeal by leaving open the possibility of such a deal.

Ms Delahunty did not return calls, but Otago University politics lecturer Bryce Edwards confirmed she made the comment when responding to his questions during an interview on Friday.

“I clearly asked her: ‘If there was a Green Party MP that was a minister in a National-led Government, would you resign from parliament?’ She said, ‘Yes I would’.”

This undermines the Greens positioning considerably.

As I have said many times, let there be no doubt – if the Greens hold the balance of power they will always choose a Labour-led Government over a National-led Government. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Phil Goff to be Prime Minister.

But what Delahunty is saying goes beyond that. There could well be a scenario where National is the only viable Government, such as if National has over 61 seats. Both National and the Greens have not ruled out that in such a situation, they could possibly do a deal which sees the Greens taking up a portfolio or two. It could perhaps involve the Greens abstaining on supply and confidence.

However this is now effectively off the table, as Delahunty has said she would resign as an MP if this happens. I suspect her statement has pissed off her colleagues because what she has done is impose her unilateral view on the rest of the party – the exact opposite of things are meant to work in the Greens.

Of course you could argue they could just let her resign, but no party lightly does something which they know will lead to an MP resigning.

The chance of there being Green ministers in a National-led Government was always low, but Delahunty has now made it effectively zero, meaning her colleagues will have to wait until Labour gains office, which may be some elections away. Delahunty has also gone against the majority of Green voters, as a recent poll showed 60% of Green voters said the Greens should accept Ministerial positions in a National-led Government if John Key offered them.

I blogged at Stuff around two weeks ago how the Greens were in danger of being seen as an astro-turfing party. Of course the usual suspects denounced me and ignored the unethical behaviour of the Greens in this regard.

It has now come back to bite them, with their astro-turfing on Reddit being slammed by a moderator. Reddit is one of the most popular sites on the Internet.

A Reddit reader has posted screen shots of the Greens “alerts” mechanism, where you can see which posts they are being alerted to and encouraged to interfere with. They are here, here and here.

The moderator posted:

This is not cool. In fact, it’s utterly disingenuous and really sucks.

I (and the other mods) are happy for (any and all) political parties to have a presence on reddit – particularly as we lead up to an election. We’re very happy that people want to chat about politics and things they care about. We’re very very happy that we’ve had politicians do AMA’s on the site. This is great, and part of what makes /r/nz great.

HOWEVER, these drive-by posts pimping the Green Party are one very small step above spamming. These will be removed and the people doing it will be banned when we find them. I’ve already banned 3 accounts that I’ve spotted doing this. Note that we will not be banning anyone who expresses a political opinion – as long as you’re an active member of the reddit community. If you’re here to gain “stars” on the Green Party website, then you’re not welcome.

Everyone else, if you spot any astro-turfing asshats, then report the comment or send one of the mods a message. Please don’t report people who just disagree with you, or are fans of a political party you disagree with, but those who are just here to promote a viewpoint (e.g. they signed up today to post one comment that says “political party A is great!”).

Some of the comments are interesting also, coming from their own supporters. LordDavethe7th:

The Greens job document says:

… encourage employees to take an ownership stake in their companies.

I absolutely agree with the Greens on this. Employee should be encouraged to become share-holders in their employers. But why should the employees of Contact Energy be able to do so, but not Meridian Energy?

TV3′s political reporter Paddy Gower lost a bet to the Green Party about who would win the USA versus Russia Rugby World Cup match. Paddy reckoned Russia, and the Greens had their money on the USA.

This must be the first time in history that Keith Locke backed the USA over Russia

Unfortunately for Paddy, the USA cleaned up 13 points to 6 so he had to came along to the Greens Caucus meeting and sing the Star Spangled Banner.

Duncan Garner reports:

We asked voters that if John Key opened the door to a formal coalition deal with the Greens – should the Greens say yes.

• 55 percent said yes
• 30 percent said no

But a breakdown of the votes into a party-by-party basis tells a different story.

Amongst Green voters:

• 60 percent said yes
• 27 percent no

Amongst National voters:

• 63 percent said yes
• 25 percent said no

This shows remarkable support for a formal deal – from both National and Green voters.

Sir Paul Callaghan is one of our leading scientists and was the 2011 Kiwibank New Zealander of the Year. He writes on the Greens jobs plan in the NZ Herald:

The Green Party announced last week a policy of focusing significant government investment in the area of “Clean Technology”.

In their document they correctly quote me as saying that New Zealand needs to be a smart country where talent wants to live. As part of that view, I strongly believe that we have to protect and restore our environment.

Surely, then, I should support the Green Party suggestion. On the contrary, I oppose it wholeheartedly. Let me explain why.

So they quote Sir Paul in their document, which almost implies he endorses their policy, yet he opposes it entirely.

So what are we good at? New Zealand is 0.2 per cent of the world’s economy. In other words, the world’s economy is 500 times bigger than our own. As a result, we tend not to succeed in highly obvious technologies like cell phones, computers, flat screen television sets or energy technologies.

Indeed, the higher the profile of a new wave of industry the less likely it is that New Zealand will be world leaders in it, for the very reason that anything that sounds pretty important to the world will attract the attention of the big technology investors, the General Electrics, the Samsungs.

What we excel in are the niches, the little pieces of the world of technology where the big players can’t be bothered, but which, because of the 500 times factor, can be huge for us.

Sounds very sensible to me.

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare dominates the world market in respiratory humidifiers and sleep apnoea devices, As a consequence it exports $500 million per annum and employs over 2000 people.

I didn’t know that.

Our brilliance has been in the “weird stuff” that the big players don’t think to exploit.

So here is the risk. Politicians latch on to fashions, and the latest fashion is Clean Technology. Ten years ago it was Biotechnology. There is a huge danger in the application of political bias to the “smart economy”.

My view is that to succeed, New Zealand businesses need to be the best in the world at what they do. I do not care what they do, so long as it is legal and not morally objectionable.

There is absolutely no reason why we can expect to be best in the world at Clean Technology. Indeed, our major wind turbine manufacturer has struggled to sell products and NZ energy companies like Meridian buy their wind turbines offshore.

This is a good reality check against the fantasy that just because we wake up and say we want it, we can grab 1% of the world’s market in clean technology.

Let me quote from the Green Party document: “Boost government R&D funding through a combination of tax credits and grants costing $1 billion over three years. R&D in clean technology industries would be prioritised, specifically in areas where we enjoy a competitive advantage, such as: sustainable agriculture, organic farm production, fisheries management, forestry management, renewable energy generation, and conservation.”

This is exactly the mistake of the past 10 years, prioritising according to some perceived international trend – then Biotechnology, now Clean Tech. And the Green’s idea of a Clean Tech line-up is remarkable.

Putting aside the paradox of organic farming, unscientific to the core that it is, the rest is an absurd list.

It is absurd, in particular, because we have proven particularly dreadful at developing advanced knowledge-based industries or leading technologies in any of those areas.

Absurd, and a mistake to think the Green caucus will be better at picking these “winning” industries than those who are actually prepared to invest their own money into such businesses. Even worse, the Green caucus have a near religious belief in these industries, not even a cold hard clinical analysis of which areas we have an advanatage in.

Basically they are proposing Muldoon’s Think Big, on an even bigger scale.

Sir Paul puts it better:

So the evidence suggests what we are actually good at is not at all what the Green Party would like us to be good at. What we are good at is a result of brilliant entrepreneurship and business expertise. Such genius does not follow politicians’ prescriptions.

And I endorse this comment:

Of course, I am for cleaning up the environment. That’s the basis of the “Place where talent wants to live” mission statement. But cleaning up the environment will be a consequence of prosperity improvements.

So long as we remain poor, we are destined to let the possums destroy our forests.

Hear hear.

I understand that the Green Party have de-selected their Hamilton West candidate, after the controversy over the Waikato Times article where his partner said she was a swinging voter who had decided to support the Greens, without revealing her partner was the local Green candidate.

In my “By the numbers” blog at Stuff, I ask whether the Greens have become an astro-turfing party.

I’ve noticed that this election that the Greens have billboards and slogans along the lines of “Vote Green to grow the economy”. This is radically different slogan from their rhetoric of a few years ago when the Greens would denounce economic growth as evil and actually argue against growing the economy.

I’m not convinced that their policies have changed, just that they have a better advertising agency. The so called policy to create 100,000 jobs  in fact has less substance than an anorexic Leptotyphlops carlae. Take their claim of 47,000 to 65,000 new jobs from renewable energy. They said:

The global market for renewable energy technology is forecast to reach an annual value of $590–$800 billion by 2015.6 If we can secure just 1% of this market, we can build a new $6–8 billion export industry here at home, creating 47,000–65,000 new cleantech, high-value jobs

Translation provided by a financial analyst:

So if the global market for green tech gets to an incredibly high number and if we could secure 1% of this incredibly high number and if those were highly-paid jobs and if they didn’t replace any other jobs in the economy then hurrah – we would have 65,000 jobs!

If the Greens were promoting a prospectus, you could get them jailed for securities fraud. But it doesn’t stop there. ACT candidate Stephen Whittington points out their massive mistake, which would have them fail NCEA Level 1 Maths. He explains:

I honestly cannot believe that the Greens have made such a simple mistake, in a document which is intended to set out how they will finance their plans to significantly increase Government expenditure.  

The Greens predict that increasing minimum wages will increase tax revenue by $519 million.  Even assuming that people don’t lose their jobs, which they will, increasing the minimum wage will reduce tax revenue.

Increased wages will increase the amount of PAYE collected by the Government.  But wages are also a deductible expense to businesses.  Given that the marginal personal income tax rate is lower than the corporate tax rate, increased minimum wages will decrease revenue from corporate income tax more than will be increased from PAYE, even assuming no increase in unemployment.

In the Green fantasy world, increasing the cost of Labour doesn’t decrease profits and hence taxes on profits. I am amazed they are not lobbying for the minimum wage to be immediately raised to $50/hour as this will cause employers to become more productive to be able to afford to pay the wages. No I am not kidding – this is what they actually argue.

Now in case you think it is only nasty right wingers using evil weapons such as mathematics and logic to attack the Greens policy, let’s look at the comments by Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn. He supports their policies but slams their advertising:

I’ve spent the morning reading through the Greens’ “Green jobs initiative” [PDF]. The short version is that the Greens are promising to “create 100,000 new green jobs through business incentives and government leadership”, specifically through increased investment, building a clean energy sector, and increased support for a green economy. But when you look at it, its not really about jobs at all; rather its about greening our economy, with jobs as a byproduct. Political marketing means that that byproduct is being highlighted, in a way which is at times outright deceitful.

He continues:

 The “big idea” in the policy is government support, through our energy SOEs, for a major new renewable energy industry:

“The clean energy sector is booming internationally. Currently, renewables supply only 15% of the world’s primary energy demands but its share is growing rapidly. The global renewable energy market grew by 6.8% in 2010 alone to reach a value of $389 billion. It is forecast to reach an annual value of $590–$800 billion by 2015. By securing just 1% of this market, we’d create a $6–8 billion new export industry here at home, creating 59,000–81,000 new jobs.”Which is a nice dream, and something we should aim for. Our economy is not very diverse (basically, we export butter and bungee jumping), and if it is to grow we need to start doing other things. Exporting wind turbines, geothermal technology, and smartmeters, and the technology, services and IP related to these is a good idea, and something that potentially fits well with what we already do. But a $6 – 8 billion export sector is enormous – bigger than meat; it would be our third-largest export industry after tourism and dairy. And that’s not something that’s going to happen overnight. Its a good idea, its something we need to do, and its something government needs to help with (after all, pretty obviously the market isn’t going to do it if left to itself), it will benefit New Zealand in the long run. But pitching it as an immediate job-creation plan, and implicitly suggesting we’ll have those jobs by 2015 (rather than in 20 years time) is deceitful and misleading.

I/S concludes:

This isn’t just wrong, it is a mistake. Quite apart from raising questions of the Greens’ honesty and integrity, one of their chief selling points, it undermines the policy itself. This is a perfectly good policy, and it can stand on its merits (hell, even MED agrees that we need active government intervention to build new export industries, up to and including direct investment in growth areas). Fudging things like this hands a gift to detractors, allowing them to dismiss it out of hand: “100,000 new jobs? Yeah, right”.

So, a good policy, but very disappointing marketing around it. Deceit is not the green way, and if you use it to sell your policies, then people will start treating you as liars, just like all the rest.

At the end of the day, the Greens are politicians seeking power. They’re just like all the other politicians – neither saints nor sinners. Just politicians.But politicians who can’t even do simple maths.

Fresh from having conned the Waikato Times into profiling his partner as a swinging voter who has decided to vote Greens, their Hamilton East West candidate Max Coyle has sent this e-mail out to various people:

New announcement in the Max’s Daily Green Machine Mission group:
________________________
One of the easiest ways for us to get good steady stream of Green presence in the media is when a good letter to the editor is published.

It’s always a great feeling when your letter is published!

Not only do you get the 3 stars for this mission but there’s also newspaper specific missions you can grab stars for too, check em out

https://my.greens.org.nz/greenmachine/write-a-letter-to-the-editor

Have a wonderful weekend machinists and a huge kia ora for all your work!

So the Greens have actually set targets for each newspaper in terms of how many letters to the editor they want. No, that isn’t manipulation. All parties encourage supporters to write letters, but as far as I know only the Greens assign targets per newspaper, and have an online tool which presumably will insert stock slogans and phrases to use.

The Nelson Mail reports:

A spat has developed after the Greens took exception over Labour MP Maryan Street labelling them more blue than green in Parliament.

Nelson Green candidate Aaryn Barlow, who is on his first election campaign, hit back at Ms Street saying she was desperate for votes while she maintained National could not be trusted.

In Parliament, Ms Street had been making reference to the Greens voting for National’s Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, which establishes an environmental protection system for the ocean beyond this country’s 12-mile territorial limit.

She claimed: “This Green Party is beginning to align itself in a foreshadowing of its possible coalition arrangements with the National Party that makes it look now more blue than green.”

The bill passed its first reading by 76 votes to 44 on Tuesday with the help of the Greens, United Future, Act and the Maori Party. Mr Barlow said the Greens would support it until select committee stage, but did not believe it went far enough to protect the environment.

He said: “I find it rich for Labour to accuse us of aligning ourselves with National when Labour have voted for National’s bills four times as much as the Greens this term. Maryan is obviously concerned about Labour voters who are leaving them in droves for the Greens and she is getting desperate.”

I think Labour are starting to get very worried about the extent of their possible vote loss to the Greens.

Let’s say you are a centre-left voter. You’d like a centre-left Government but like over 90% of New Zealanders, think National will win. You then have a choice. You can either vote Labour, knowing they will oppose pretty much everything the Government does, or you can vote Greens knowing the Greens will work with the Government to make it greener in areas they can find agreement, and that the more votes the Greens get the more influence they will have with Government.

Whale Oil has a great scoop.

The Waikato Times had a big article on a family struggling to make ends meet in Hamilton. The mother is quoted as saying she could never vote National, used to vote Labour but this time thinks the best option for her is to vote Greens.

Nowhere in the article do they mention her partner, and father of her child, is the Green Party candidate for Hamilton East – Max Dillon.

This is not a trivial oversight. It undermines the entire article.  It means either the Waikato Times never asked if they had a political affiliation, or they knew and didn’t care.

I think the fault lies not only with the newspaper though. To agree to be interviewed as a typical struggling family, who have decided to vote Green, without disclosing the father/partner is the Green Party candidate is rather unethical.

UPDATE: This appeared today:

This is very interesting. First it tells us that this was pretty much a Green Party sting. Even worse according to the Waikato Times they say they specifically asked Ms Campbell if she had any links to the Greens.

It is interesting that they used Twitter to obtain interview subjects. It makes it far more likely those with a political agenda will be interviewed as they are more likely to volunteer. Once upon a time media would have used networks to hunt out a family to profile. Better to profile someone who does not volunteer but somewhat grudgingly consents. They are more likely to be genuine.

If the Waikato Times did ask Ms Campbell for any links to the Green Party, then one can’t hold them responsible for being lied to. However we don’t know exactly what they asked and exactly what the answer was. I think there is still a lesson here – they could have searched Twitter or used Google and discovered the link quite easily.