Kiwiblog

Jordan Carter has a thoughtful post on what Labour must do to win the next election. Some extracts:

We lost in 2008 for reasons I have canvassed before – people thought we were focused on issues that weren’t important to them; we’d been in office for a long time; there was a recession; people had fallen out of love with our political style; some of our policies were not working out or were unpopular; and failures of political management added on top of this combustible pushed us over the edge.

That’s what we did wrong. The Nats also did things right: they really did move to the centre, and they selected a leader who people like. Actually, they *really* like him – for the time being anyway.

Jordan seems to be one of the few in Labour not in denial about Key.

That’s policy, in some areas, but it is also in the politics or statecraft of the party. For better or worse, the fifth Labour government was a baby boomer government. The political methods of the 70s and 80s were those which ran it: it was tightly managed and focused.

I get the sense though that people are looking now for something a little different. Some in Labour look at Key’s hands off approach and see a weakness. I see a strength. The rise of ICT, the end of “deference” towards authority, and growing generations of people who are as comfortable online as offline mean that a political party that is centralised and top down cannot really capture the public imagination.

These are wise words for National, as well as Labour.

What Labour must do is turn itself inside out. As we say “this is what we are hearing, what do you think?”, we also have to invite people in to join with us and help shape what we are doing next. We have to use the best technology there is to do it, as well as the traditional means of face to face and direct mail politics. We need to be the party that people see as grassroots based, and where they know that if they want to raise an issue or a concern, it will filter through to what our policy is and what our politicians are saying and thinking.

We have to do this if we are to be relevant, and if we want to win there is nothing more important than being relevant.

National in 2002 was not relevant. Labour in 2010 are not relevant. The challenge for Labour is can they become relevant by the end of 2011?

I’m very very happy with today’s announcement from Steven Joyce:

Communications and Information Technology Minister Hon Steven Joyce today released the details of the government’s $1.5 billion ultra-fast broadband investment initiative. …

Key highlights of the proposal include:

• An open, transparent partner selection process, which will be initiated in the next month.




• Government investment directed to an open access, wholesale-only, passive fibre network infrastructure.




• A new Crown-owned investment company (“Crown Fibre Holdings”), which will be operational by October, to carry out the government’s partner selection process and manage the government’s investment in fibre networks.




• Crown Fibre Holdings and each partner establishing a commercial vehicle, a “Local Fibre Company” (LFC), to deploy fibre network infrastructure and provide access to dark fibre products and, optionally, certain active wholesale Layer 2 services.




• Provision for national and regionally-focused proposals, as well as consortium and proposals aggregating any combination of LFC regions.




• Independence, equivalence and transparency requirements for LFCs.




• Expansion to 33 candidate coverage areas based on the largest urban areas (by population in 2021).

What is really good is the commitment to open access to dark fibre, and the regional approach to the issue. The Government has held firm to most of their draft proposal, with the main change being an increase in the number of coverage areas to 33.

Computerworld reports on positive reaction:

“This ushers in the biggest and most fundamental change to telecommunications in New Zealand since the privatisation of Telecom 20 years ago,” TUANZ CEO Ernie Newman said in reaction to the news.

“The paper builds very constructively on the work done previously,” Newman says. “It takes into account most of the key issues raised in submissions, and sets a timetable with milestones. It is an excellent blueprint on which to build.” …

InternetNZ also welcomed the plan, saying it is “delighted” with today’s announcement of a regionally-based approach to investment.

“This is a world-leading programme that can be expected to deliver the infrastructure New Zealand needs,” spokesperson Jordan Carter says.

“Steven Joyce and the Government have put in place a framework that over time can deliver a widespread fibre rollout across urban New Zealand.”

Those unsure about the benefits of ultra-fast broadband, might want to read the guest post from Rod Drury earlier this week.

Chris Keall (and Kelly Gregor) at NBR cover the proposal in detail. Keall highlights a new focus:

In the proposal document released today, the minister also flags that “The capacity and reliability of New Zealand’s international data connectivity will become increasingly important as LFCs’ [local fibre companies'] networks are deployed over the course of the UFB Initiative.”

The Commerce Commission recently identified slow international data as a roadblock to better domestic broadband performance, with testings showing that overseas pages take twice as long to load as those hosted locally – even with our current copper-dominated networks.

International bandwidth and data costs are often cited as a big issue also.

In a fit of good timing, Juha Saarinen has an article in Computeworld on dark fibre, and how you basically can not get it from Telecom or TelstraClear. Have a look at this price comparison and weep:

James Watts, who runs Palmerston North-based ISP Inspire Net, says the reason dark fibre is attractive to his customers is because they can “do whatever the hell they want with it.” Inspire currently charges $595 and $995 for intra-town dark fibre pair leases, depending on contract terms, and double that for inter-town unlit circuits.

To light the circuits, Watts says his company sells Gigabit Ethernet transceivers for $140 each.

A similar 1Gbit/s circuit from Telecom apparently costs $7000 a month, plus installation charges.It’s $69k a year according to Telecom’s pricing book.

Finally a focus on the issue of fibre providers being discouraged from also operating retail telecommunication services, both here and in Australia. Steven Joyce said in a Q&A:

Will Telecom have to structurally separate its network business to participate?

Any such decisions are up to Telecom.  The Government has made it clear that it will only invest money into fibre companies that are not controlled by shareholders who also operate retail telecommunication businesses.  The Government is also clear that potential partners who already own fibre assets can table options that involve those fibre assets being vended into any new fibre companies.

Preventing vertically integrated monopolies is crucial. This basically means Telecom can not be a majority shareholder in any regional fibre company unless they structurally separate (ie sell off Chorus). They can have a minority stake however.

In Australia, the Government has done similiar:

The government could also deny Telstra access to new spectrum for advanced wireless broadband unless the telco sells off its cable network and 50 per cent stake in Foxtel (25 per cent owned by News Corporation, owner of The Australian)

If you want to be part of the future, you need to be separated.

For those who think separation is not a big issue, think what it would be like if Air New Zealand owned the airports and could set access terms for other airlines. Or if Ford owned the roads and set the rules for what other cars could drive on them, and for how much.

So as I said, very pleased with the announcements today, and now working my way through the details.

Jordan Carter has done an excellent post on Labour’s future. First he notes the comments of two lefties – Tane:

Labour, on the other hand, just seems utterly bereft of vision. In the midst of the greatest economic crisis of our age, when they should be putting forward a bold alternative vision, Labour doesn’t seem have a clue where it’s going. Their miserable poll ratings don’t so much represent a rejection of their platform as a complete lack of relevance.

and Danyl:

I’d argue that left-wing bloggers are more relevant now than ever since they’re now in a position to critique the government instead of apologise for it, and the primary left-wing party is off on it’s own, weird journey into political irrelevance and oblivion leaving a great void for progressive voices to fill.

Jordan comments:

I am always interested when I read comments like this. Part of the purpose of the Labour Party is to be a credible voice for progressive politics that progressive people regard as being on the right track.

It seems obvious in retrospect that our alliance with Winston Peters and NZ First in the last Parliament did some serious harm to that part of Labour’s reputation, both with non-aligned progressives and particularly with supporters of the Green Party. The Labour leadership made a call about the stability and sustainability of the government it wanted to run, and we now live with the consequences.

I won’t declare I am happy with the state of Labour. Who could be right now?

We got beaten in last year’s election for five or six broadly credible and understandable reasons. We face the unpleasant and somewhat daunting task of rebuilding our party, our policy agenda and our reputation in the face of a very popular government that people think is quite centrist. And we do so having baggage with both of the political parties with whom we will need to build rapport and support to form a government in the future.

Jordan Carter blogs:

Michael is a smart, funny, warm and caring man who is already clearly one of my party’s more successful finance ministers.

Now this got me curious, as this suggests that Jordan thinks that Labour has had other finance ministers more successful than Dr Cullen. Because he did not say “the most successful”.

Who have been Labour Finance Ministers, and which ones do he think were better than Dr Cullen? The post WWII/1949 list is:

1. Arnold Nordmeyer 1957 to 1960
2. Bill Rowling 1972 – 1974
3. Bob Tizard 1974 – 75
4. Roger Douglas 1984 – 1988
5. David Caygill 1988 – 1990

Nordmeyer was the author of the infamous Black Budget that made Labour a one term Government so we can assume it wasn’t him.

Rowling was Finance Minister during the oil crisis, and has a pretty disasterous record. So presumably not him.

No one could seriously think you would rate Bob Tizard abaove Michael Cullen.

So hence, the only possible conclusion is that Jordan rates Roger Douglas and David Caygill as Labour’s most sucessful finance ministers!

This will endear him to Leader Phil Goff, as Goff was once Sir Roger’s most loyal disciple. As was Annette!

Jordan Carter gets very excited over National raising the minimum wage:

Yesterday’s announcement of the government’s decision to increase the minimum wage by 50c marks the formal beginning of National’s 2011 election campaign.

Make no mistake about it. The neo-liberal shibboleths of the 1990s have been left behind. The New National Party has decided that its raison d’etre in the 21st Century is one thing and one thing only: to be in power. To achieve that objective, it has one tactic and one tactic only: to destroy the relevance of the Labour Party in New Zealand electoral politics.

Oh my God, National does something centrist and suddenly it is an evil campaign to hold power at all costs, regardless of principle.

I mean National putting up the minimum wage by the rate of inflation is like, umm, well a Labour Government announcing massive tax cuts!!

So does Jordan think Labour decided its raison d’etre in the 21st Century is one thing and one thing only: to be in power, when they announced tax cuts.

That means everything is fair game. Policy crosses to Labour’s left; moderate-seeming approaches to some sensitive issues (the category the minimum wage increase falls into); dirty tricks when it comes to campaign and finance law (see this fortnight’s repeal of the EFA);

That’s the repeal his own party is voting for. And you have to appreciate the hypocrisy of someone from Labour talking about dirty tricks in relation to electoral law. Even Phil Goff admits they fucked up, but no Jordan still insists it is all the evil Nats.

close relationships with other minor parties to build a solid Parliamentary position post-election.

Oh no. That evil National Party. They are building relationships with minor parties. This just can not be allowed to happen. Quick pass a law against it.

It is the mirror image of Labour’s 2002-2005 approach, with one important difference. Labour’s purpose in government was to build a fairer, freer and more equal society. We did that through more progressive taxes and tax credits; socially liberal legislation that expanded people’s rights; investing for long term economic security; genuine treaty settlements… the list goes on.

National’s purpose is to be not-Labour in government.

Sigh, and once agin we get back to the “Labour good”, “National bad” meme. Yes National hates fairness and freedom. They are just about power.

Yes John Key is doing some centrist things. But National is also implementing its manifesto promises, and I am pretty sure that when Jordan was a candidate, he did not endorse those policies.So how can he argue National now stands for nothing.

They’ll do whatever they think can deliver that.  It will be dressed up, eventually, in some swish narrative that appeals to some Kiwi values. But it won’t be values based. The only value it seeks to serve is power itself. That will be National’s eventual undoing: the task for Labour is to uncover that moral bankruptcy, expose it, and persuade the public of its reality.

The task then for the progressive Left is to stop tilting at shadows. Some of you wish that National would relapse into Ruth Richardson style politics. Get over it. The Nats are not mad and they are not stupid.

What it will not do is make progress, and that is what we need to show and to promise to deliver. In so doing, we have to call this what it is: a National government with power at the heart of its ambition for New Zealand.

Oh I do like that solid blue look. And in 2002 only a handful were blue.

Hunua is a new seat. The party vote is another 60:20 type solid seat. On the electorate vote Paul Hutchison narrowly beat Jordan Carter by 14,738 votes and Roger Douglas another 2,700 votes behind Jordan.

Waikato is 58% to 22% on the party vote. And Lindsay Tisch drove his majority from 7,000 to almost 12,000.

Coromandel went from 45% to 31% up to 51% to 26%. And Sandra Goudie scored a 13,400 majority for the seat she won in 2005.

The two Hamilton seats are no longer marginal weathervanes. Hamilton East went from a 9% party vote lead for National to a 19% lead. And David Bennett turned a 5,300 majority into one of over 8.000. Hamilton West saw an 11% lead in the party vote for National after being 2% behind in 2005. And Tim Macindoe turned his 1,100 loss in 2005 to a 1,500 victory in 2008.

Bay of Plenty is another 60:20 seat on the party vote. and Tony Ryall got a massive 16,500 majority up from 11,000 in 2005.

In 2005 in Tauranga, National had a 15% lead in the party vote. In 2008 the lead was 32%. Bob Clarkson beat Winston Peters by 730 votes in 2005. This time Simon Bridges beat him by 10,700. Simon will be happy to be the Member of Tauranga for some time.

Rotorua saw National lift the party vote from 43% to 51%, and Todd McClay scored a majority of almost 5,000 over a sitting Minister.

Taupo saw a party vote victory of 15% and Louise Upston beat Mark Burton by almost 6,000 votes. She ran a good campaign and for a big enough majority to make it safe for National. Burton got 2300 more votes than Labour so even harder for any future Labour candidate.  I also heard a rumour that Louise held the first meeting of her 2011 campaign committee at 8.15 am on Sunday morning

The East Coast had a 15% lead in the party vote (the graphic has it wrong) and on the electorate vote Anne Tolley turned a 2,500 majority into a 6,000 majority.

The growing seat of Napier saw National go from a 1% lead in the party vote to a 12% lead. And Chris Tremain drove his 3,300 victory over Russell Fairbrother in 2005 to a 8,400 margin. Remember this is a seat Labour held for all but three years from 1928 to 2005 and Tremain is building John Carter or Nick Smith type majorities as a brilliant local MP who owns his seat.

Over on the west coast, we have the huge Taranaki-King Country seat which is another of those lovely 60:20 seats.  And the 12,000 majority motors up to 14,500.

Finally we have New Plymouth. National was ahead on the party vote last time by 8% and this time it was 20%. And it was too much for Harry Duynhoven who lost the seat by 300 votes. In 2005 he held it by almost 5,000 votes and in 2002 his majority was a staggering 15,000. New candidate Jonathan Young will be watching the special votes though.

Labour will struggle to form a Government again, while so many seats have them getting just 1 in 5 party votes. Every seat in this region had at least an 11% gap in the party vote, with many having a 40% gap.

Salient interviews Jordan Carter, who is standing for Labour in Hunua. I’m even one of the topics discussed, and Jordan is very generous with his comments.

One part I’ll quote, which I agree with:

Do you think that the struggle for gay rights has largely finished in New Zealand, do you think that the battle has been won?

No, no, I think the battle for gay rights quote, unquote, will be won when there isn’t a battle for gay rights anymore. When the idea of someone being gay is no more particular or significant than them having red hair, or them being short…

I know not everyone is there, but to me someone being gay is about as significant as them having red hair. Except of course gingas deserve to be persecuted. More seriously, when I do find out someone I know is gay, it is just a feature of who they are.

I pinged Jordan yesterday for what I thought was a simplistic ascribing of selfishness to those who are not of the left. Jordan has done a clarification which I think reflects the situation better, even though I still disagree that the right want to constrain the poor.

If I was to attempt some generalisations it would be that the right focus too much on incentives and not enough on the short-term while the left do not focus enough on incentives and on the short-term over the long term.

To take one example – the widely disliked market rentals in the 1990s. If you look at the issue in terms of incentives and the long-term, having accommodation assistance delivered to low income families by way of supplement would be fairer than having your level of assistance decided by who your landlord is. It was never about making poor people pay more – in fact total assistance increased off memory.

But where National fell down is not looking at the short-term effects, in its desire to get the long-term incentives right. It was seen as callous for the plight of the family who suddenly had big rent increases on the property they had lived in for years.

I know of no-one in National who thinks the state does not have a role in helping low income families meet their living costs. But as I said what National may have been guilty of is being indifferent to the short-term pain imposed by its policies.

Likewise Labour often (in my opinion) looks at the band-aid solution rather than the core problem, which means they do stupid stuff such as interest-free student loans rather than more sensible ways to help students such as lower tertiary fees or increase allowances.

Another difference in world views tends to be the degree of faith or optimism in the ability of the state to fix problems. Views on the right tend to view the state as ranging from a necessary evil to competent in some areas, but not all. And views on the left probably range from competent in some areas but not all to favouring the state over the private sector at every opportunity.

This is why people on the left and right come up with different solutions (in my view) and different priorities. Not that one side are selfish and one side are not.

I really despair when intelligent people resort to cartoon type caricatures of their opponents. Jordan blogs today:

I was watching the video of Michael Cullen at the Drinking Liberally gig in Wellington last week (where I was standing was a bit out of hearing range at times), and thinking about why people bother with progressive politics.

After all, sometimes it would seem much easier to adopt a selfish approach to life. When you’re only looking after yourself, only caring about yourself, and when your politics is shaped around that point of view, then things must seem much easier. There would be none of the difficulties involved in having due regard for other people.

Oh yes everyone on the left is good and caring and warm and those who have a different view on politics are selfish evil people. It would be laughable if it wasn’t said so earnestly and seriously and with such a tone of moral superiority. I mean how does one survive with such a burden of the “difficulties in having due regard for other people”.

Yeah it is so much easier on the right. I mean none of us donate to charity. None of us spend hundreds and thousands of hours of our time volunteering with charities, service clubs and non-profits. None of us
care for others. Hell we don’t even have friends and we are created in test tubes we are such inhuman bastards.

An interesting post from Jordan Carter on Sir Roger Douglas, whom he will be up against in Hunua. Some extracts and comments:

He is the prime salesman of the concepts which created poverty in New Zealand for the first time in two generations.

Okay so there was no poverty under Muldoon. Must remember that.

He stands for an unfair society based on concepts of right and privilege that are abhorrent to ordinary New Zealanders.

Now note here he doesn’t just attack Sir Roger’s policies but says Sir Roger is motivated by privilege. He can’t possibly concede that Sir Roger (as someone who served in Labour for far longer than Jordan) wants the same outcomes as Jordan, but just disagrees on the way to do it. No, there is an inability to credit your opponent with noble motives. You disagree with them, so they must be bad people is what he is saying.

His agenda is the same agenda he had in 1988: it is pulled right out of the deep freeze, an obsolete, out of date prescription for the problems our country faced twenty years ago. Everything has moved on except the Year Zero fanaticism of Sir Roger Douglas, ACT and most of the National Party.

Nice allusion to Pol Pot there. And note that Jordan doesn’t just paint Sir Roger as that, but all of ACT and most of National.

So I appreciate ACT’s honesty: Sir Roger and friends know what they stand for and are prepared to talk about it. Which is why having him as an opponent in Hunua is just brilliant. We’ll be able to debate reality, not the faux shadowboxing that is my National Party opponent’s only offer.

What would be nice is if he debates policies, instead of slogans.

Stephen Franks has ordered a book: Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. I must borrow it after he gets it!

Jeanette Fitzsimons blogs, asking whether the wheels are falling off the ETS. She addresses the issue of the so called thermal moratorium and how Genesis, an SEO, is using a loophole to get around this.

Whale Oil has photos of more potential EFA breaches. Russell Fairbrother’s caravan certainly looks like an advertisement with statements about proud to support interest free loans, nuclear free NZ.

Blair Mulholland asks whether it is worse to have a swastika on your roof, or preventing someone from doing it. While I think Councils go way overboard with their controls on what you can do on your house, I think there is a property rights argument that there should be some restrictions. Put it like this. If you buy your place for $500,000 and someone buys the house either side of you and covers them in swastikas, or even paintings of men’s penises, then your house value will drop significantly as there won’t be many buyers. Note in this case the swastika was the Hindu one, not the Nazi one.

The Visible Hand in Economics looks at the case for and againgst a tax free threshold.

Jordan Carter looks at the travails of Gordon Brown in the UK.

It has been interesting to see the various posts and press releases on National’s Fibre proposal. I’ll try and cover most of them:

Phil at Whoar labels it as “what could well be an election winning policy.

Bomber at Tumeke calls it a “Bloody good idea”. Heh shouldn’t that be damn good idea

Mike at Morphyoss says:

“good on you National for releasing a good policy that will massively benefit New Zealand should they win the election. Now it is up to Labour to respond, remember fibre is extremely important to our economy and it is important that labour do something about that or they will lose the election”

David Slack at Public Address is unimpressed with some of the arguments against:

Here’s my response to the snide folk who have been saying: faster downloading for your YouTube and your porn and your pirated movies. I spend thousands on hosting in the USA because no-one here can set me up with a fast enough server and a big enough data allowance. That money could be being spent here. Ask Rod Drury what it could mean for the Software As A Service businesses he’s involved in.

It’s becoming trite to say it, but it’s nonetheless true: internet infrastructure is as important to us as roads, railways and refrigerated ships. Why not have it in abundance, rather than relatively scarce and expensive? Let a thousand e-commerce sites bloom!

Business NZ says

National’s plan to speed up provision of broadband to most premises is welcome, says Business NZ.

Chief Executive Phil O’Reilly says a public-private partnership is a logical way to spread the cost of such a huge undertaking.

“The challenge would be in working out just how the partnership would operate to ensure as many investors as possible could contribute, and in finding an appropriate regulatory regime.”

The EPMU is also reasonably supportive:

The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union says John Key’s policy of rolling out fibre optic cable to 75% of New Zealand homes is a step in the right direction, but is concerned the task may be impossible given the current skills shortage.

“We really want to see this sort of project happen as any investment that will increase productivity in New Zealand is good for our members but until we see details on wages and training around this it’s hard to see how fibre roll-out will be possible.”

In terms of the issues the EPMU raises about skills and capacity, I don’t think it will be a major barrier (but certainly is a factor). When InternetNZ met with David Skilling of the NZ Institute last week to discuss his fibre proposal, one of the issues we raised was whether there was enough capacity to physically get fibre laid out by 2018 (note National is proposing 2014 as a target). Off memory Skilling indicated that they had talked to two separate engineering firms and their advice was there was enough people and and capacity to do it within 10 years, and even within five years if you really pushed it.

Now that is second or third hand so it doesn’t mean there may not be issues, but it does show some work has already been done looking at the capacity issue. One reason it is important is if supply can not meet the demand, prices could go up significantly. This has been an issue in the roading sector.

Jordan Carter is also pleased:

I am pleased that with John Key’s policy proposal, launched yesterday at a Chamber of Commerce lunch in Wellington, the debate about New Zealand’s broadband future has shifted from “whether” to do fibre to the home, to “how and how soon” to do it.

Professionally speaking, I am pleased there is now a political commitment from one major party to putting money into this. I am looking forward to assessing the various plans that come forward, and I’m sure that InternetNZ will be looking to persuade all parties to invest in this critical infrastructure.

As a Labour person I am quite sure the Nats’ proposal can be bettered, and that Labour will do so. David Cunliffe’s comments have critiqued what the Nats have proposed – the specifics of it, such as they are – but he has not criticised the goal. That’s good, because it is important for New Zealand to get on with it.

As Jordan says, the ball is in Labour’s court. A win-win will be as many parties as possible commited to the goal.

Final point, I ended up next to Williamson at the launch lunch. His zeal for this is impressive, given his record in government. It’s nice to see a genuine change of view and broad, cross-party acknowledgement of the importance of this kind of technology.

I was at the same table, and it is generous of Jordan to note Maurice’s enthusiastic advocacy of this proposal. Some have suggested he would have problems with it, but far from that – he has helped John Key with a fair bit of the research going into this.

In fact I joked to one person, that Maurice was now so enthusiastic about this type of intervention, it was a bit like how a smoker who gives up smoking becomes the most passionate anti-smoker

Also somewhat amusing was that a fellow guest at our table (not knowing Jordan’s political background I think) stated his view that Labour had done an awful job in this area. Now the last thing one wants is a big political debate over lunch, so Jordan was being very tactful with his response. I actually interjected into the conversation and praised most of what Labour and David Cunliffe has done in this area, and said the work they had done to date built a good base, but this was really about taking a big step up from that base.

Anyway I found it amusing to be defending Labour’s record in this area, in front of National’s IT/Comms spokesperson. I must say though I was disappointed with Cunliffe’s response to the policy, but I suppose he didn’t have much choice unless he could convince Michael Cullen to lend him a quick $1.5 billion

Finally on the luke-warm but positive side we have Russell Brown at Public Address:

National’s new $1.5 billion broadband spending proposal — it’s a bit soon to be calling it a “plan” — is nothing if not ambitious: 75% of homes with fibre connectivity in by 2014 is not a goal that has been envisaged as realistic before.

It is ambitious.

The initial step is a doubled of the Broadband Challenge Fund to $48 million, and there’s a very welcome commitment to “open access” (whether that means dark fibre or open access on the operator’s terms isn’t clear). There’s no indication as to whether National is talking about a monolithic FibreCo-style operator, or multiple providers whose interconnection is subject to regulation.

They are critical details, and that is why it is not planned any actual digging and laying will start until 2010. One has to get the structure and policy right and you really need time to do that. However while those details are being worked out there are things one can do in the very short-term which will make the task easier – such as ensuring duct or fibe is laid every time a current road is dug up. Some firm guidance (or instructions!) to local government can help reduce the cost a lot, as can environmental regulations.

What benefits would this massive investment bring over new DSL technologies via the existing residential copper network? For a start, it would work as advertised: 24Mbit/s DSL is more a theory than a reality for most users (although Telecom’s programme to bring the fibre closer via cabinetisation will help) and it’s extremely asymmetric — much fast down than back up. The problem of long cable runs basically disappears when you install fibre. You’d be doing it eventually anyway: when the existing copper expires, there’s no point in replacing it with more copper.

Absolutely. Fibre to the Home is inevitable. It is just a matter of timing – do we want to wait until 2040 and be last in the OECD, or try and secure some advantages by being early, to counteract our geographical disadvantage.

Russell also points some credit my way for “tireless advocacy”. While obviously I am an advocate, and have been for some time, I don’t think anyone should doubt this came about because of John Key’s personal belief and commitment to this infrastructure investment. I understand he has spent scores of hours in talks and discussions on the issue, and probably knows the ins and outs better than most industry specialists now.

Two others who are influential and helped make it happen were Maurice WIlliamson and Bill English. Jordan Carter has already noted Maurice’s passion for this plan. Bill has had a bit of stick for his comments a year ago which were sceptical of crown investment. The role of the Shadow Minister of Finance is to be sceptical and hard nosed on colleagues spending ambitions. I wouldn’t quite say his or her initial response should always be no, but hey it’s a reasonable negotiating position to start from

I am not Bill’s spokesperson (for which we are both grateful ) but I think people will find he is fully behind the initiative (in fact I understand all of Caucus is quite wildly enthusiastic about it) and his job is to help make it happen as Minister of Finance. If anyone thinks there is some violent behind the scenes struggle about this policy, I think they will be sadly disappointed.

Now of course not everyone has been positive, and for those who want a libertarian critique I refer you to Liberty Scott who labels it as Think Big Mark II and argues in favour of leaving it to the market.

Also against is NZ First (they just whine about Telecom) and Kiwiblogblog which claims it will be wasteful government spending as we will never need home Internet speeds faster than Telecom’s ADSL2+ rollout.

Sounds to me a bit like the infamous “640K ought to be enough for anybody” statement in 1981, attributed to (and denied by) Bill Gates. I am very confident they will be wrong by similar levels of magnitude!

UPDATE: The Standard has also come out against it.

I think it is has been extremely enlightening that basically all the left wing blogs where the authors use their real names have been supportive of the policy, while the left wing blogs where the authors are anonymous are against. I’ll leave it to others to draw conclusions on whether this is a coincidence or not, and what this may indicate about who the authors are.

UPDATE2: I missed a couple of comments. No Right Turn labels the policy as good at first glance. And since I wrote the blog post, Dancer at The Standard has labelled the policy as a good thing.

By coincidence, Jordan Carter was seated next to me on the flight up to Auckland on Saturday morning. I was heading on holiday, while Jordan was off to his selection meeting for Hunua for Labour, where he was selected unopposed. Congratulations Jordan.

I offered to help Jordan write his acceptance speech, but he declined!

On the way back on Monday night, Russel Norman and Jeanette Fitzsimons were on the flight (which was delayed 50 minutes).  Russel chatted to me for a bit and I told him that I had actually praised the Greens online communications, and his blogging specifically, at the Chamber of Commerce meeting on Friday. I’m not sure if he believed me but Adam Smith has blogged that I did speak well of those, who are less charitable towards me.

I find it very amusing to see so many on the left start to hug the Maori Party and claim that it is unthinkable for the Maori Party not to support Labour after the next election. Because some of them used to say the exact opposite.

Jordan Carter blogged in 2005 on how the Maori Party is *not* on the left:

It seems to me that the Maori Party’s ambition is to work back towards an illusory golden past of Maoridom, where individuality is subsumed under collective whanau, hapu and iwi identities. This is highlighted by the constant references to whanau, hapu and iwi in their speeches; by their hostility to the inevitable effects of modernity and the Enlightenment on Maori society; by their desire to see social services dominated by a Maori “Aristocracy” (also known as iwi-based service agencies) rather than the universal services provided by the welfare state.

A more conservative – in fact reactionary – approach to politics is hard to imagine. If a pakeha-based party was out campaigning for the restoration of the great landed estates as there were in England; supporting the putting of economic and social power back in the hands of the elites; undermining the national institutions of common citizenship that bind us together – that party would be laughed out of political existence within minutes.

And it gets better:

That party stands for the antithesis of left wing politics, and of liberal politics. It seeks to turn around Maori society and take it back to some non-existent glorious past, and in so doing create a new privileged elite that can exert the kind of social control of the past. These are not its policies – the policies are more middle of the road than this analysis allows; I am talking about the values and the direction they want to go.

It has nothing to do with the challenges that truly face Maori society in the 21st century. It has no answers to poverty or disadvantage or structural racism or the fight for social and economic equality. It has nothing to do with the left. On that basis, the miracle of Turia’s time in the Labour Party is that it lasted so long; not that she left. The stunning ineptitude of most of our media means that the party has been pained as Labour friendly, when it is the opposite.

And finally:

I know some wet urban liberals who are thinking of voting for the Maori Party. I just hope they realise that if they do, they are voting for a party of the conservative right, which would be much more comfortable in coalition with parties that shared its hostility to the State and to national collective institutions – National and ACT – than it would be dealing with the progressive elements in National and with the bulk of the Labour Party.

Sadly the realities of politics may mean that my party has to deal with these people post election, just as it may mean we have to deal with NZ First, but even NZ First is not as bad (from my point of view) as the Maori Party. At least they fall within a recognisably relevant set of issues – fear of cultural change, populism, economic and social nationalism and so on.

And more recently in 2007:

But when the rubber hits the road, in real hard edged policy debates, they always seem to end up siding with the right.

Anyone on the left who supports the party is simply making a National government more likely. I thank the Maori Party leadership for continuing to demonstrate that on a regular basis.

Now I’ve fairly consistently advocated the opposite – that in fact the Maori Party is more left leaning than right leaning. Their voting record backs up my assertion. Over time I believe the Maori Party will support Labour more often than National. But that is not to say they will back Labour every single time.

So having said that, I think anyone who states with certainty what the Maori Party will do post 2008 election is just jerking off. There will be multiple factors in play:

• What policy agreements can be reached
• How much vote each major party got (like NZF and UFNZ last time they may give first option to the largest party)
• Personal relationships between MPs
• What Cabinet positions are offered, if sought
• How many seats the Maori Party wins
• What they think their supporters will want
• What deal they think will be best for the Maori Party and for Maori

John Armstrong in the Herald reports on a faux pax by Pita Sharples though:

Commenting on National Radio on Sunday’s Marae-DigiPoll survey, the Maori Party co-leader initially said the findings made it “easy” for his party to go into some kind of governing arrangement with National after the election.

No sooner had he uttered the word “easy” than he had modified it to the much safer and less definite “easier”.

Labour have used this to attack the Maori Party by saying a vote for them is a vote for National. Not the most sensible tactics I would have thought as on current polls the Maori Party is Labour’s only hope of a 4th term.