The Herald editorial from Tuesday:

From time to time, national referendums have thrown a spanner in the European Union’s plans for closer ties between its members. But never has there been such a broad renunciation of that process as that delivered in the recent European Parliament elections. In an alarming number of the EU’s 28 member states, populist parties from the far right and far left triumphed over their mainstream opponents.

The impact was most notable in Britain, where the UK Independence Party topped the poll with 28 per cent of the vote, and France, where the anti-European National Front did likewise with 25 per cent support. Centrist pro-European parties will continue to be the dominant force in Brussels, but this is not an outcome that can be shrugged off.

It is clear that after 60 years, during which the EU and its forebears have, by and large, orchestrated peace and prosperity, many of its 500 million people have fallen out of love with the pan-Europe ideology.

They complain about the arrogance and expense of bureaucrats in Brussels who are intent on reducing the important of their national parliament. They regret replacing their national currencies with the euro, which, rather than making Europe more equal, has created instability. And those in the north decry an expansion that has saddled them with indebted nations in southern Europe. The EU has, says David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, become “too big, too bossy and too interfering”.

Especially the European courts over-riding national legislatures.

Others, however, believe the EU can be saved by reform.

The latter course can prevail if the European Parliament heeds the unmistakable lesson of this election and puts a brake on the drive towards ever closer union. It needs also to be less intrusive in the everyday affairs of its members. Equally, it must convince Europeans that it provides the framework to outperform other developed countries economically. The most convincing answer to the eurosceptics lies, as Germany’s Angela Merkel suggested, in “improving competitiveness on growth and creating jobs”. At some point, those countries using the euro must also embrace a more comprehensive fiscal union. If that is not done, a return to national currencies is the logical step.

You can’t have monetary union without fiscal union. Which is one reason Scotland won’t be able to keep the pound if they vote for independence – which is unlikely on the polls.

The economic tide is swinging in favour of the pro-Europeans. Much of the EU has been late to catch the global upswing, but even the weaker economies are starting to benefit. They will gain also from the tough measures taken over the past few years. Further, the conclusion of a successful free-trade pact with the United States would hammer home the message that union can deliver more wealth than individual endeavour.

A focus on free trade and freer economies is what the EU needs, not more regulations.

Oliver Hartwich also writes on the EU lack of democracy:

What is democracy? Well, usually democracy is when the people vote in an election and the winner then happens to form a government. It is as simple as that. And what is European Union democracy? It is when the people vote in an election and, regardless of the outcome, German chancellor Angela Merkel decides on the next president of the European Commission.

Oliver’s article is a fascinating analysis of the power games currently going on.

Dana Johannsen writes:

Team New Zealand should not enter the next America’s Cup.

Considering the Kiwi syndicate’s long association with the event, and how agonisingly close Dean Barker and his crew got to snatching the Auld Mug away from Oracle last September, that is not an easy statement to make. But scouring the 78-page document released yesterday outlining the rules for the next America’s Cup, it is difficult to find a compelling reason for Emirates Team NZ to be involved.

The terms imposed by defenders Oracle Team USA are among the most self-serving rules that have been tabled in the 163-year history of the event. Team NZ, and the other potential challengers should not play any part in it.

Hear, hear.

Those that do make it through to the playoffs will have to ensure they design a boat to meet the conditions of two potentially very different venues, with the timing of the America’s Cup qualifiers suggesting a Southern Hemisphere venue, while the playoffs and Cup match will be held at a yet-to-be-determined venue in the US or Bermuda.

The defenders, meanwhile, have the luxury of being able to build and test two boats, insuring them against a catastrophic failure. How this rule got sign-off from the challenger of record is a mystery. Iain Murray, who heads Team Australia, the challenger of record, admitted there was a lot of “arguing” over this particular clause but hasn’t offered any explanation as to how Oracle won the argument.

Only allowing the defender a second boat is outrageous.

Given the defenders are quite comfortable to impose such blatantly self-serving rules, the challengers should leave Oracle to sail their two catamarans against themselves. 

Yep. The challengers have the power if they are united.  Team NZ should lead the way and say they won’t be there unless the rules change.

News.com.au reports on some new features for iOS8.

1. Can interact with notifications without switching apps
2. Can send temporary audio messages
3. Allow apps, music ad movies to be shared within a family
4. Synchronized photo editing
5. Enhanced Airdrop to wirelessly share content
6. Keyboard can be amended by third party apps
7. A Health & Home bundle of products
8. Can answer your iphone on another device (such as your laptop) rather than have to get up and grab the phone
9. Enhanced spotlight

The ability to answer your phone on your laptop is great. iPhones are always charging (mine only lasts a few hours now – will get an iPhone 6 when out), so not having to get up to grab the iPhone when working on my laptop will be useful.

And something scenic to finish the week with.

This is Pohuehue Falls, on the road between Orewa and Warkworth.  The water motion was given a blur with an ND-filter, slowing the exposure to around a minute.  It’s not a particularly impressive waterfall from the lookout, but it is framed nicely within the native bush.

Click for larger, higher res image

Trans-tasman hit the nail with their piece on Laila in Wonderland:

But we kind of crashed through the looking glass last week with the anointment of Laila Harre as leader of Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party. It is possible, back when she was an ardent campaigner for feminism and against capitalism, racism and corporatism, Harre foresaw the day she would sign up to front a party funded by a convicted German fraudster who made much of his money from pornography and who also has a fetish for racist, not to say out- right Nazi, humour. Harre wasn’t even elected: she was anointed by the aforementioned convicted German fraudster who has trafficked in pornography and who thinks n-word jokes are hilarious. 

There are many terms for this sort of thing, none of them complimentary. We will avoid the ‘h’ word – not just because MPs are not allowed to use the term hypocrisy in the House, but mostly because hypocrisy is part of the human condition. All of us fall short of our ideals. But this is not mere hypocrisy, not a minor falling short. This is moral bankruptcy of a particularly shameless kind.

Sold out for 150,000 pieces of silver.

The Judge in the Banks case has not yet entered a conviction as he could discharge John Banks without conviction at the sentencing on 1 August. This means that Banks would not lose his seat. There is a reasonable chance the Judge could grant this, as the offence he has been found guilty of was not committed while Banks was an MP.

However that would not change the fact that John Banks has been found guilty, and if he continues as an MP until 1 August (or beyond), the Opposition will try to paint the Government as being held up by an MP found guilty of an (local body) electoral offence.

The reality is that the Government doesn’t need the vote of John Banks. With him they are 64-57 on confidence and supply and without him they are 63-57. Banks going would have some potential political impact as it would mean that any laws voted on in the next two sessions would need the support of the Maori Party. However I’m not aware that there are any likely votes on laws that they opposed.

I don’t think the Judge has actually helped the Government by delaying the decision on entering a conviction. Nowt that it is the Judge’s role to care about the impact on the Government. I’m just saying I think it would have been cleaner to make the decision as the same time as the guilty verdict.

Constitutionally there is no question that Banks is entitled to remain an MP until such time as he is convicted, and he has not yet been convicted – only found guilty. Many people get discharged without conviction.

However politically I think the honourable thing to do would be to accept that a guilty verdict has been rendered, and to resign from the House of Representatives before sentencing and the decision on a discharge. Not doing so would be a significant distraction for the Government, which should be talking about the economy, better schools, more operations, welfare reform etc, rather than having to be defensive on an MP remaining in Parliament after he has been found guilty of an offence which would result in a loss of his seat once if a conviction is entered.

This is a decision purely for John Banks, not the Government. He has every constitutional right to stay on until a conviction is entered, if it is. But I think John Banks came into politics with very honourable motives, and I think resigning would be in the same spirit.

Some very interesting data in the annual poll by the Lowy Institute on views held by Australians. Some extracts:

• 31% say best friend in Asia is China, 28% Japan, 12% Singapore. I wonder how Kiwis would answer that question?
• 65% say acceptable for Australia to spy on China, and 51% say on New Zealand.
• The biggest critical threats to Australia’s vital interests are terrorism 65%, nuclear proliferation 64%, Iran’s nuclear programme 53%, cyber attacks 51%, asylum seekers 48%, climate change 46%
• 71% support the Government turning back boats, when safe to do so. 59% support off shore processing. 42% support an outright ban on asylum seekers coming by boat being allowed to settle in Australia
• Given a polar choice, 53% would choose a good democracy and 42% a strong economy if it is one but not the other.
• 52% say alliance with US is very important and 78% say very or fairly important
• On a warmth scale from 0 to 100, NZ is country Australians feel most warm about at 84 degrees. North Korea is bottom at 29 degrees. Obviously Gareth Morgan needs to do a tour of Australia extolling how great they are. Canada is 81, US 71, France 71, Japan 67, China 60.
• Only 22% say Australia should be its current population of 23 million, or less. 42% say target should be 30 million, and 34% say 40 million or more.

The Herald reports:

Plans to make grieving families apply for permission to scatter their loved ones’ ashes in public have been labelled crass and insensitive.

As part of a wider bylaw covering cemeteries and crematoria, Auckland Council wants to prevent people from scattering ashes in any public place – including beaches and reserves – unless they have written approval from the council or Wahi Tapu Maori Kimiti (a Maori committee that oversees sacred areas).

Even people wanting to scatter the ashes in a public cemetery would need to fill in forms for approval and pay “applicable fees” to the council.

The proposal, which could come into effect as early as November, has angered many people who feel the act doesn’t harm anyone and often helps grieving families to find closure by honouring a loved one’s final wish.

It’s ridiculous. Having to apply in writing and pay a fee to scatter ashes.

The Council should scrap its proposed bylaw. What need is there for one? What is the problem they are trying to fix?

If they do pass one, then everyone should ignore it. Dare the Council to prosecute you for scattering the ashes of a loved one at a local beach (for example), and watch the community rise up in outrage.

The latest Roy Morgan poll is here.

• National 52.5% (+7%)
• Labour 29.0% (-1.5%)
• Greens 9.0% (-4.5%)
• NZ First 4.5% (-1.5%)
• Maori 1.5% (+0.5%)
• Act 1.0% (+0.5%)
• Conservative 1.0% (nc)
• Mana/Internet 1.0% (-0.5%)
• United 0% (nc)

Also right direction is 64.5% (+4.5%), wrong direction 24.0% (-4.0%).

Only one poll and Roy Morgan always bounces around a lot. But still quite a result.

The Press editorial:

By just about any measure, New Zealand driving is worse than in any comparable developed country. When, 40 years ago, the carnage on the roads was much higher it was taken as the price to be paid for road travel. The losses suffered now, while tragic for individuals and families, are looked upon in the same way. They should not be. Just as 40 years ago a very large proportion of them were avoidable, so they are now. We should all be doing more to avoid them.

This is not true. We are near the middle of the OECD.

In 2011 18 OECD countries had a higher road toll per 100,000 population and 18 had a lower one. On 2013 data we would appear to be doing even better with 22 countries having a higher toll and 14 a lower toll.

This is not to say we don’t want to keep reducing the road toll. But an editorial which claims we are worse than any comparable developed country is quite simply wrong. The 2013 road toll was 5.7 per 100,000 population.

One News reports:

John Banks has been found guilty of knowingly filing a false electoral return after his failed Auckland mayoral campaign in 2010. …

Banks faces a jail sentence of up to two years or a $10,000 fine.

He won’t get a jail sentence, but unless he is discharged without conviction, he will lose his seat in Parliament.

S55(1)(d) of the Electoral Act states:

The seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant if he or she is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or by 2 or more years’ imprisonment

The Speaker will declare his seat vacant once he receives the judgment.

S131(a) also states:

Notwithstanding anything in section 129, no writ shall be issued for a by-election to supply a vacancy in the House of Representatives if the vacancy arises in the period of 6 months ending with the date of the expiration of the Parliament and a resolution that a writ not be issued to supply the vacancy is passed by a majority of 75% of all the members of the House of Representatives

I expect a motion to this effect will be moved on the next House sitting day (Tuesday) and after a two hour or so debate, passed.

It will mean that the Government will only have 60 out of 120 seats for the remainder of its term and will be unable to pass laws without the support of the Maori Party or some other party or MP.

A very sad way for John Banks to end his political career, but a lesson for all politicians to take the utmost care when doing donation returns – and err on the side of transparency.

Brian Rudman writes in the Herald:

Which brings us back to Laila Harre, the newly appointed leader of the Internet Party, Mr Harawira, her Mana Party equal, Pam Corkery, the press officer, and the others who are poised to join the Dotcom-backed party. They are all proclaiming they will be unsullied by the $3 million that has brought them together. Yet I can’t help recalling a quote my colleague Fran O’Sullivan attributes to banker Michael Fay. He lived by the golden rule – “he who owns the gold, rules”. This is the same Michael Fay, remember, who reportedly contributed up to $2 million into Labour Party coffers before the 1987 election in gratitude for the Rogernomics reforms of the previous three years.

In that case, the money came after the deed. We’re now expected to believe that Mr Dotcom won’t want anything in return for his $3 million except a party that pushes for, among other things, internet freedom. Other than that, he will let his new-found socialist partners get on with building their social justice dream with his money.

Yet nothing I’ve read about Mr Dotcom conjures up visions of Gandhi. What does come to mind are his promises to get even with the Prime Minister. Over the past few weeks, we’ve had a good show of what he’s made of. He’s been the star witness in the trial of 2010 Auckland mayoral candidate John Banks for not declaring the $50,000 donation Mr Dotcom gave him. Their once cosy relations split asunder when Mr Banks failed to rush to Mt Eden prison with a soft mattress after the police raid that whetted Mr Dotcom’s interest in New Zealand politics.

This is a key point. He vowed to destroy John Banks, when John Banks didn’t help him out after he got a $50,000 donation.

He’s put $4 million into the Internet Party. That 80 times $50,000. And Laila, Hone, John and Annette all think there are no strings attached. All he wants in Internet for everyone and socialism implemented universally.

Now on bail, he’s invested $3 million in the upcoming election as the long fight by the American law enforcement agencies to extradite him drags on.

This could well carry on until next year. By then, all going to plan, the Internet-Mana coalition will be part of a leftish coalition government. Once the courts have decided whether the extradition can go ahead, it is up to the Justice Minister to make the final call. A government possibly propped up by his people.

Exactly. If they extradite him – they lose his funding. Let him stay, and I guarantee you they’ll get $4 million for the next election also!

Rose Patterson writes at Stuff:

This week the Minister of Education, Hekia Parata, released a report on the details of the government’s $359 million policy to create a new career structure for teachers (Investing in Educational Success) following consultation with the education sector.

The Beehive media release makes it sound as if everybody is happy as a result of the consultation, and most are, including the secondary teachers’ union, the PPTA.

But the primary teacher’s union is far from happy. The New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) say they have a better plan for how they would spend the funds.

I think the NZEI would just like the $359 million paid directly to them, to spend as they see fit.

This is all symptomatic of a broader issue in New Zealand education: the NZEI wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to ensure that the allocation of education funding is controlled centrally, and they want to have control over education policy. Yet, they are not the ones accountable for education funding, so they shouldn’t be expected to make those hard decisions.

This is pretty dead right. The NZEI doesn’t think parents, taxpayers or the Government have a significant role in education policy. They seem to think our job is to just pay money to them.

NZEI spokesman Ian Leckie says that the policy “is a one-size-fits-all plan and totally ignores the particular circumstances of each school.”

But if you want to get away from the bureaucracy of centralised policy making, and give teachers the power to make their own policies and to allocate funding in the way that’s best for the children in their schools, then by definition, you cannot also have a centralised model.

You would have to give schools full funding and allow them to negotiate their individual employment agreements at the local school level, and they would need to be fully accountable for that funding.

That’s what I would do. Fully fund each school for salaries, properties and operation and let them decide locally how to divide it up.

The problem with NZEI wanting decision-making power in education policy is that it’s not the group accountable to the person footing the bill, AKA the taxpayer.

Policy making is an exercise in trade-offs between having your cake and eating it too, and the accountable party has to make those difficult decisions. The buck stops with government.

Teachers have a wonderful opportunity to work constructively with government on the execution of this policy. Let’s hope the NZEI realise this instead of going into automatic resistance mode, because the $359m for teachers is icing on the cake.

The only union in NZ fighting bitterly against a Government wanting to give payrises of between $10,000 and $50,000 to some of its own members!

We’ve seen with manufacturing and immigration the Labour curse in action. After a few months of them declaring something is a crisis, it improves massively. In fact immigration has improved so much they’re now claiming it is a reverse crisis with not enough people leaving which has turned Auckland house prices into a crisis.

Well the curse has struck again. The Herald reports:

Auckland house sales, prices fall in May

I’m going to write to Labour and ask them to declare my love life a national crisis. That should result in a hugely improved winter for me 🙂

The Taxpayers Union states:

Yesterday afternoon we received a tipoff that Auckland Council recently funded a one day conference to explore the practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the consent of all the people involved, also known as polyamory. 

Last month the gaynz.com website reported that among the first recipients of Auckland Council’s first ever ‘Rainbow Door Fund’ was ‘Poly Panel, Discussions around Queer Polyamory’, a one day event exploring a framework of ethical, healthy polyamory relationships.

This is just as inappropriate as the Auckland Council funding a one day event to explore chastity. They should concentrate on parks, libraries, roads, sewers, trains, buses etc and stop funding every pet cause people think of.

Phil Quin writes in the NZ Herald:

Some Labour Party cheerleaders have convinced themselves they can capture the Treasury benches without winning an election. They’re wrong.

They also seem to think Labour can afford to play nice with the Greens, play wordless footsies with Internet Mana, and avoid direct combat with National over the centre ground. Wrong, and wrong again.

This theory of September’s election relies on the fantastical notion that a million-strong army of erstwhile non-voters (and, presumably, opinion poll non-responders) are set to storm the nation’s polling booths once Labour has lurched exactly far enough left.

Such self-serving delusions are reminiscent of the American right’s insistence prior to the 2012 elections that polls pointing to Obama’s re-election were “skewed” against Republicans and Mitt Romney was heading for a landslide win.

In almost every policy area, Labour are proposing policies to the left of what Helen Clark and Michael Cullen implemented.

In the First Past the Post era, the “middle” took the easily recognisable form of places like Gisborne, Horowhenua and Hamiltons East and West.

Labour had to compete in provincial and suburban marginal seats because forming a government wasn’t possible in urban strongholds alone.

Some in the party took MMP as a cue to abandon marginal seat campaigning in favour of the party vote, diminishing Labour’s geographic as well as demographic reach.

Inevitably, the party’s standing took a hit in former battlegrounds: Labour, which topped the party vote in Hamilton West in 2005, won just 29 per cent last time.

Ironically for a party preoccupied with meeting diversity quotas, Labour’s highly centralised approach has failed to produce a caucus notable for its dynamism or breadth of experience.

Would the recent proposal to ban trucks from fast lanes, for example, pass muster in a caucus with an assertive regional voice? It’s highly doubtful.

And only in the fast lanes of three lane roads which is stuff all.

Cunliffe, Shearer, Parker or otherwise, no David can match Key’s Goliath without competing across the spectrum: stemming the flow of millennial voters to the Greens; peeling swing voters off National in the regions and outer suburbs; and maximising so-called base voters in Labour’s heartland.

The fear that such approaches are mutually exclusive – that appealing to the centre will invariably alienate the left and vice versa – reflects a deficiency of policy imagination and political confidence in roughly equal measure.

Labour is losing, and losing badly. And it’s doing so for deep, structural reasons.

The party is too small, too monotonous, too narrowly focused.

Quin is a former staffer for both NZ and Australian Labour.

The Parliamentary Commission for the Environment has published a final report on fracking, and concluded that on all the science it should not be banned. Will the Green Party accept the science, or do as they did with GE, and ignore it?

The PCE has a Q+A which I quote:

3. Is drilling and fracking for oil and gas safe?

The Commissioner has found no evidence of major environmental problems from onshore oil and gas drilling in New Zealand. The risks of a major problem are low, if best practice is used. If not, the risk is greater and can cause serious environmental damage. It is therefore essential that New Zealand’s laws and regulatory agencies are adequate.

No evidence. I repeat, no evidence.

5. Why hasn’t the Commissioner recommended a moratorium?

The Commissioner has identified a number of problems that need to be fixed by Government and councils. The Commissioner has found that a moratorium is not justified because New Zealand has laws in place that can be used to prepare for a rapid expansion of the industry.

No moratorium needed.

So what do the Greens say:

“The Green Party is calling on the Government to take a safety-first approach and put a halt on fracking. 

They were probably against the wheel being invented also, if they were around then.

Now let’s be clear. The PCE has very usefully identified six areas where better regulation is needed. That’s exactly where the debate should be – getting the regulation right. But the Greens don’t care about getting the balance right. They will never ever support fracking, mining or drilling because it is against their near religious world view that Gaia must be left alone.

So what did the PCE recommend:

1. Providing national direction
2. Improving regional council plans
3. Assessing well integrity to protect the environment
4. Paying when something goes wrong
5. Enforcing the controls on hazardous substances
6. Dealing with solid waste from oil and gas wells

Stats NZ reported:

Both residential and non-residential building activity volumes grew strongly in the March 2014 quarter, Statistics New Zealand said today. 

“Overall building activity increased 16 percent in the March 2014 quarter,” business indicators manager Neil Kelly said.

Non-residential building activity volume grew a seasonally adjusted 17 percent, just ahead of 15 percent growth in residential buildings.

This is great. We need more homes, and they are being built. Expenditure on new residential buildings are up 58% from two years ago. And residential building consents up 30% on a year ago.

Westpac comments:

Instead, it appears that the country went on a building spree worthy of the characters in ‘The Lego Movie’. Building work put in place saw the biggest quarterly increase on record (going back to 1990 by volume and 1981 by value). The level of activity is now about 5% below the peak reached in the middle of last decade’s boom, and is on track to exceed those levels during this cycle, with the post-earthquake rebuild in Canterbury still ramping up.

This was a huge surprise relative to our forecast, with major implications for the March quarter GDP figures, to be released on 19 June. The construction sector contributes about 5% of GDP (though that includes infrastructure work, not covered in today’s release), so a 10% upside surprise for the sector equates to a 0.5% upgrade to our GDP growth forecast, all else equal. Until now we felt that there were modest downside risks to our forecast of 1.1% GDP growth; now the risk appears to be to the upside.

We await the GDP results with interest.

David Cunliffe yesterday on Radio Live:

SEAN PLUNKET:        So you’re going to leave family reunification completely out of it?

DAVID CUNLIFFE:     Yep, we’ll leave family reunification out of it.

And Stuff last week:

Labour is taking aim at work visa and family reunification categories as it eyes ways to limit the flow of migrants to the country. …

Labour immigration spokesman Trevor Mallard said there would be no change to the rights of Australians to come here, or to quotas under agreements such as with Samoa or the annual refugee quota.

Instead, it would target the numbers getting work visas, which according to Statistics NZ were granted to about 30,000 last year, as well as visas in the family reunification category.

This is policy on the hoof. They’re making it up every day.

If they can’t even handle opposition, how could they handle Government?

UPDATE: Cunliffe this morning still denying the comments of his own immigration spokespersoon. On ZB with Rachel Smalley he said:

I mean he has frankly made up the suggestion that we would decrease the Samoan or Pacific quotas or cut back on family reunification.  At no stage have we said we would do any of that and frankly it’s not our policy.

The Stuff article makes it very clear they were talking family reunifications.

It seems the only category they’re willing to now concede they may change is investor migrants. We have only a few dozen of those a year. You could scrap the category entirely and impact migration by around 0.5% only.

The Internet Party tweeted:

Thousands of NZers have been blocked from #Netflixhttp://bit.ly/1rF1H6a  We need meaningful #Copyright reform and better infrastructure.

Throng points out:

Let’s be blunt. Not having Netflix in New Zealand has nothing to do with infrastructure.

This tweet was 2 days after the Sunday Star Times published a story about how an estimated 30,000 Netflix subscribers had been unable to access the streaming content service. The problem had actually been resolved 3 days earlier to that as we reported.

The Internet Party’s statement seems to overlook entirely the number of subscribers to Netflix. 30,000 is not an insignificant number for a service that isn’t technically available in New Zealand. With that number of subscribers being prepared to hand over cash every month it would be safe to assume that the current infrastructure is entirely capable enough to deliver the service its subscribers are paying for.

Throng is correct that the Netflix problem had nothing to do with infrastructure.  Also NZ copyright law has no impact on Netflix not being available to NZers. There is nothing the NZ Parliament could do to change the non availability. The issue is the decisions by content producers to not grant Netflix a licence for their products in NZ. I want that to change, but again it is not something NZ can do unilaterally.

Throng also notes Laila Harre tweeted:

Reaching out to Postie Plus workers. I know @FIRST_Union will be there in force. @GayMaxine@SamHuggard

As I’ve said before, Laila is an effective and passionate advocate for unions and workers. But not so for Internet issues. What helped kill Postie Plus? The Internet.

Whale points out:

Now we all know that the Internet Party is nothing but a scam, and the whole process of using MMP to score a hit on Key on behalf of Mr “I’ll destroy, anybody” Dotcom, but to have it so clearly illustrated mere days into her job is rather sooner than I expected.

She has absolutely no idea what she’s doing.   How this is possibly going to make it to the election without some sort of a complete structural and public failure is beyond me.

She now heads a party that has, as one of its objectives, the aim to optimise the use of the Internet.  That means this will destroy traditional employment as we know it.   You only have to look at postal workers as an example of the steady transformation that the Internet has caused within their industry.

A mail order company that doesn’t embrace the Internet is a dead duck.  

The Internet is the greatest creator and destroyer of jobs we have known. An Internet Party should be embracing the change.

Sent in by a reader.

Forbes reports:

This will come as a surprise to those who have bought into the marketing malarkey about Fairtrade products and not as a surprise to any of those who have really looked at the issue. Which is that there doesn’t seem to be any great benefit in the system for the poor peasantry that it’s supposedly designed to help. In fact, it actually seems to make people worse off, not better off. This isn’t I hasten to add, the result of a study done by some hateful neoliberal like myself. No, this is the result from a four year long research program by the impeccably liberal (and veering over into Marxian third world nonsense at times) School of Oriental and African Studies in London.

So what did they find?

What did surprise us is how wages are typically lower, and on the whole conditions worse, for workers in areas with Fairtrade organisations than for those in other areas.

Careful statistical analysis allowed us to separate out the possible effects of other factors, such as the scale of production. Still, the differences were in most cases, and especially for wages, statistically significant. Explaining why it should be that workers in areas dominated by Fairtrade organisations are so often worse off than workers in other areas is a complex and challenging task. 

Indeed. A good reminder though that good intentions often have perverse consequences.

Forbes looks at why this might be:

The first is implicit there, in the way that they talk about the scale of production. Fairtrade is really only open to people working at the level of an individual peasant. Indeed, some of the various schemes insist that mechanisation should not be allowed as one example of the resolutely small scale that they insist everyone work at. And in agriculture (where almost all Fairtrade is) is one of those sectors where there are huge, vast even, economies of scale. This matters, this matters a lot.

For the maximum amount that labour can be paid is of course the value of the production from that labour. And it might be all very well to insist that people using the most basic hand tools to grow something should get a bit more money. But their productivity is still going to be that of someone growing something using only hand held tools. Whereas mechanising the production process (which inevitably means much larger scale production) will mean vastly more productive labour and thus at least the potential for much higher wages for that labour.

So the insistence that there’s a bit of extra money but only if you stick with the inefficient methods therefore means that Fairtrade is putting a cap on the possible earnings. For they’re resolutely ruling out the possibility of using some more efficient production method. Fairtrade might make the poor peasantry marginally better paid but at the price of insisting that they remain poor peasants.

The second thing is that about the community projects. Some of that Fairtrade premium is meant to be spent on public goods in those areas. Which is just absolutely great, assuming (as in the case described, it isn’t) that the public good is actually available to those it is supposed to benefit. But even then we come back to the same old problem. They might now be poor peasants with free toilets. But they’re still poor peasants, free toilets or no. And this is something that hateful neoliberals like me have been saying for a long time now. Fairtrade is simply a vastly inefficient method of making the lives of the poorest people in the world better.

Liberalising markets has been beyond doubt the best way to lift people from poverty. China and India have shown this with several hundred million people.

All of which leads us to one final difficult question. There is a substantial premium paid for Fairtrade products. If it’s not going to those peasants and the community projects aren’t all that much either, then where is it all going? The answer being that there’s an awful lot of Sebastians and Jocastas being employed on western world middle class wages to run these schemes. And that’s where the money is going. Sure, non Fairtrade products have marketing systems too but which do you think is going to be more efficient? That of Nestle or that of some well meaning and not very driven do-gooders?

To be frank about this Fairtrade simply doesn’t do what it says on the tin. Imagine that you are worried about the poor of the world (I am, it’s a morally good thing to worry about, to try to do something about). And that you’d like to do something about it. The best answer is to go buy things made by poor people in poor countries. And if they’re not charging you enough, if you want to pay a premium over their price, then simply bundle up that extra money and send it to one of the better development charities.

It’ll make the world a better place both more efficiently and more quickly if you do that.

Good advice.