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.

Keeping Stock blogs on the damage control from Labour, and has a caption contest for what the Mad Butcher is really thinking.

The Fenton/Leitch issue seems to keep rolling on. Dene Mackenzie writes in the ODT:

However, it appears that some Labour MPs have had a bit of a brain explosion on Twitter with Trevor Mallard, the Labour campaign co-ordinator, lashing out at University of Otago political scientist Bryce Edwards.  …

But the largest implosion surely must have been Labour MP Darien Fenton, who on Facebook took aim at one of New Zealand’s most recognisable faces and voices – Sir Peter Leitch, the Mad Butcher – for his support of Prime Minister John Key. Sir Peter said he was a friend of former prime minister Helen Clark, but had not voted for her and that he was backing Mr Key.

Ms Fenton posted: “So, Mad Butcher, you have a choice, but so do I.

“Sucking up to John Key big time. I’m never going near him again.”

Sir Peter drove himself to Auckland as a young man, finding jobs where he could, working harder than many around him to get into his own butcher shop in South Auckland. He has become the face of rugby league in New Zealand, supporting the “Mighty Vodafone Warriors” through thick and thin.

Ms Fenton implied she would only shop at places where the owners agreed with her political views, forgetting probably that many workers in and customers of Mad Butcher shops could be Labour voters – especially in South Auckland where Sir Peter’s generosity is legendary.

Mackenzie cconcludes:

Given that Mr Mallard is the campaign manager for Labour, it must be assumed that part of the campaign strategy is to use social media to belittle anyone who disagrees with the party on any issue.

Those latest examples all happened within two days of each other, but it is not the first time it has happened.

It is sure not to be the last.

This cyber-bullying is all too real. Massey University Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor and specialist in political communications Claire Robinson tweeted this yesterday:

In my 9 years of political commentating I have never been attacked by the left as much as this year #bullies

Claire presumably is also a member of the VRWNLLWC.

Russell Brown moans that the media have given this issue so much coverage, but himself notes:

Fenton never complained when Leitch was Clark’s handbag. Leitch, a businessman who built a large retail chain, should also not be mistaken for a class warrior. And mostly, at a time when Phil Goff continues to struggle not to suck all the charisma out of any room he’s in, a Facebook blurt that puts the party on the wrong side of Warriors Fan No. 1 was spectacularly unhelpful to Labour. …

Such sentiments are widely – if somewhat lazily – accepted in the political blogosphere as proof of Labour’s “arrogance”. But Labour doesn’t have a lot to be arrogant about at the moment. What you’re hearing there is grief, anger and frustration.

And finally we have Grant Miller at the Manawatu Standard:

Politicians sometimes say daft things. And sometimes they get caught out saying what they really think. Sometimes what they really think is really stupid.

Labour MP Darien Fenton caused an uproar last week when she slammed the Mad Butcher Sir Peter Leitch for saying nice things about Prime Minister John Key.

Among the idiotic things Ms Fenton said was that she would never go near Sir Peter again. She also labelled him a sycophant and accused him of sucking up to the Prime Minister.

“I choose not to buy stuff from those who support Tories.”

I mean, how dare a working class chap like Sir Peter neglect his moral duty to despise Mr Key – does the Mad Butcher not know the nation’s leader is a Tory? Does Sir Peter not know he is basically obliged to support Labour?

Exactly.

In Ms Fenton’s world, Mr Key is the leader of the enemy.

In her world, the business interests of Tory supporters are legitimate targets. Failure to support Labour can be a moral or intellectual failure if that sin is committed by people who should know better.

They obviously need re-education.

Derek Cheng reports:

Their opponents are calling it desperate opportunism, but the Labour Party insists their black billboards are nothing more than a clever way to show support for the All Blacks.

One can show support by blogging about the team. Spending a large proportion of your limited campaign budget on billboards about the All Blacks is about politics, not sports.

About 40 billboards around Auckland and Wellington have recently popped up with white lettering on a black background: “When things look black, we’re at our best.”

Below that in red letters is: “Go the boys.”

The billboard has been mocked on right-wing blogsite Kiwiblog as desperate, and Labour’s campaign spokesman Grant Robertson was not shy about the link to the national rugby team.

“There’s multiple layers of meaning. We want to show some support for the All Blacks.”

The message was not meant to convey that Labour was close to toast this election, he said. “We’re facing a significant challenge. We recognise that. We think we can win.

“People shouldn’t be reading deeply into the tea leaves … We’re showing support for the All Blacks while having a light-hearted poke at ourselves at the same time. …

The billboards were put up within hours of being conceived, but Mr Robertson did not have the exact cost of the billboards.

Labour are trying to have you believe that this was almost done on a whim. First of all I seriously doubt any billboards were up within hours of being conceived. I’ve stuck billboards up and you need to generally get artwork in days in advance so skins can be produced, and then dried off. And then after that specialists have to put the billboards up.

As for the costs, the minimum tends to be $2,000 a month. Some sites can get close to $5,000 a month. And ballpark production costs are $1,000 per board to produce the skin and stick it up. So those 40 billboards would have costed Labour around $120,000. So they have spent $120,000 not on promoting their key messages or policies, but in trying to associate themselves with the All Blacks.

Prime Minister John Key’s DJ shows are likely to come under close scrutiny after Labour complaints to the Electoral Commission about a radio segment he hosted last week.

Mr Key hosted an hour-long programme on RadioLive on Friday. It included interviews with a number of celebrities including Sir Peter Jackson and Richie McCaw.

During the show, Mr Key told listeners the hour was an “election-free zone”, and spent the time discussing issues ranging from his cat to Coronation St.

At the time, a spokeswoman for the PM said the station had stipulated the hour had to be free of politics, after advice from the Electoral Commission that political content could breach election rules.

However, the Labour Party is arguing that his stint still broke the rules and yesterday lodged complaints with the Electoral Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

The PM went out of his way to refuse to talk politics on the show, specifically to avoid it being an election programme.

I actually think Radio Live should have given Phil Goff a one hour show also. Never mind that no one would call in!

UPDATE: The media story referred to billboards. Trevor Mallard has pointed out they are hoardings not billboards. In that case, my cost and time estimates are not correct. Billboards are 18 (and up to 60) square metres in size and are printed on special skins. They need to be put up by specialist crews. A hoarding or yard sign of up to three square metres and is on corflute and get erected on temporary structures or attached to fences.

The terms “billboard” and “hoarding” should not be interchangeable!

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Labour has forced the Government to back down over controversial video surveillance laws.

After insisting the legislation go before a select committee before agreeing to support it, Labour has secured changes to more contentious aspects of the proposed law. …

Labour will now lend its support after winning concessions from Attorney-General Chris Finlayson. It is understood ACT is also willing to support the revised legislation. The Green, Maori and Mana parties are all opposed to the legislation.

In pending cases, courts will be left to determine if evidence is admissible. To prevent convictions being overturned, the law that applied at the time of the verdict will stand.

The legislation will only apply for six months – not one year as National hoped.

It means the next government must make the passing of the Search and Surveillance Bill, which will replace it, a priority.

“Over the fence” surveillance – where cameras film property from outside its boundaries – will have to be “reasonable” as set down in the Bill of Rights Act.

And only police and the Security Intelligence Service will be allowed to carry out “trespassory surveillance” – when a warrant is used to place secret cameras on private land in the investigation of serious crimes.

Looks pretty reasonable to me, with an interesting compromise on the retrospectivity. There is still a degree of retrospectivity in that the it states the law at the time of previous verdicts will apply. The restriction on who can do a “trepassory surveillance” also seems a good improvement.

Kudos to Labour for some good changes.

At Stuff I ask the question Will Winston be back? I note:

Voters tend to fall into three camps when it comes to Winston Peters.

The first camp is the loyal supporters. They think Winston is the only honest politician. They hang on his every word, and will never hear a bad word about him. They believe that the media and the other politicians are jealous of Winston and conspire against him.

The second camp are those who see Winston as a slightly disreputable but charming rogue. This is probably the majority of the population. They don’t entirely trust him, but they don’t see him as different from most politicians, except that Winston at least is fun and livens things up. They’re not opposed to Winston being in Parliament, and could even vote for him if no other options appeal.

The third camp (of which I happily disclose I am a founding member) regard Winston as the most dishonest politician of the last few decades. If Winston said there’s a thunderstorm outside, we’d change into our shorts and T-shirt and head to the beach.

In the blog post I lay out the five reasons why he shouldn’t make it back, but then also some reasons why he might make 5% after all.

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.

Chris Trotter blogs:

YOU JUST DON’T GET IT, do you Labour? You don’t understand, even now, what National’s done to you? Well, let me tell you. They have transformed you into auslander – foreigners, aliens, exiles in your own country. You’ve been excluded from the ranks of “the people”. You’ve been pushed outside the circle, beyond the Pale. You no longer belong among “us” – you belong with “them”.

And you’ve no one to blame but yourselves.

The Herald reports:

Rowan Atkinson says a fifth season of hit comedy series Blackadder could be on the cards. …

Fans have long given up hope of a fifth season, but Atkinson told ITV’s Daybreak show in the UK that he hadn’t ruled out making another series.

“It could be reprised in some form or other. I think there is a possibility of a fifth series,” he said.

But the 56-year-old Mr Bean star said the time difference meant there would have to be some changes to the show’s format.

“We’re all getting a bit old, sadly, to play the characters in the way we did so we’d have to shift it a bit to make it work.

“They’ve all got slightly different attitudes and experiences to call upon now. It would be nice to get them all back together.”

Yes, yes, yes. Please let it be.

The latest iPredict update notes:

There has been a change of forecast winner in West Coast-Tasman. For the first time since March, National’s Chris Auchinvole is expected to retain the rugby league loving West Coast-Tasman (55% probability up from 47% last week). This follows media reports of attacks on prominent rugby league supporter Sir Peter Leitch (“The Mad Butcher”) by two Labour MPs.

Now of course we don’t know why this has changed, but O’Connor has been in front since March, so you would think there is some specific event which changed this.

Sir Peter is popular on the Coast. He helped a west coast old lady “fleeced of life savings” and the Warriors played a match for Pike River Miners.

Now what is interesting is that Damien O’Connor is not on the party list. If he does not win West Coast-Tasman, he is out of Parliament. Now what this means for Labour is that they get one extra List MP. And you know what if Labour get around 24% to 25%, Darien Fenton would lose her list seat if Damien O’Connor wins West Coast-Tasman, but will keep her seat if he loses it.

So was her outburst on Facebook just a stupid unthinking outburst, or was it not so stupid after all?

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

UP & DOWN—THE FINANCIAL ROLLERCOASTER: New Zealand was hit with a double-downgrade last week. But what does that mean to our financial stability? With the EU and the United States facing a double-dip recession—are we also facing another recession? Or will we be protected by China and Australia? What does the ratings downgrade mean for kiwis? Will we pay more for our mortgages? John Key seems optimistic but the opposition doesn’t agree. Who’s right?

PUBLIC & PRIVATE: Social media, facebook and twitter, are big ways the politicians reach the public. But are privacy changes, by facebook in particular, putting us all at risk? Are we exposing too much of our lives to too many people? What can we do to protect themselves?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 5th of October. Our Panel: ACT MP Heather Roy, Green Party MP Kevin Hague, Labour MP Lianne Dalziel, and National MP Todd McClay.

Key Points:

* iPredict’s forecasts better for Labour than TV polls
* Greens again at an all time high and National still at 50%
* Labour attacks on Mad Butcher may have cost Damien O’Connor his seat
* David Cunliffe’s New Lynn majority expected to be slashed
* Government more vulnerable on Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill
* Inflation, growth, and unemployment figures remain steady
* OCR to increase in March but second rise not expected until June

Commentary:

This week’s snapshot from New Zealand’s online predictions market, iPredict, forecasts an election-night gap between National and Labour much narrower than that suggested by the average of this weekend’s TVNZ and TV3 polls. While the average of the TV polls suggests National will win 56.7% of the party vote and Labour 27.8% – a gap of 28.9% – iPredict is forecasting a National party vote of only 50.0%, with Labour winning 28.5%, a gap of just 21.5%. The Greens have built further on last week’s all-time iPredict high, with their forecast party vote reaching 10.7%. In electorate contests, Labour’s electorate-only Damien O’Connor now risks leaving Parliament, with his chances in West Coast-Tasman deteriorating to just 45%. In economics, Fonterra’s payout predictions have deteriorated slightly, while inflation, growth, and unemployment figures remain steady. The OCR is expected to be increased in March but a second rise, to 3.00%, is not expected until June.

Continue reading »

Go to 3 News and read this story:

Labour leader Phil Goff will be clinging to the unexpected results of a new poll in which his party has picked up twice as much support as National.

But he is well behind John Key in the preferred prime minister stakes, according to the TVNZ Marae Investigates Digipoll, released today.

Labour’s on 38.4 percent support in the poll, followed by the Maori Party on 22.2 percent, while National’s on just 16.4 percent.

That is in stark contrast to other media polls, which put National above 50 percent support, with Labour rating at 30 percent or less, and the Maori Party on around one percent support.

So the quarter-finals are:

1. Ireland vs Wales Sat 8 Oct 6.00 pm Wellington
2. England v France Sat 8 Oct 8.30 pm Auckland
3. South Africa v Australia Sun 9 Oct 6.00 pm Wellington
4. NZ v Argentina Australia Sun 9 October 8.30 pm Auckland (corrected)

If NZ wins, we will play the winner of South Africa v Australia. That match arguably will be the effective final.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Thousands of jobs have been slashed from the state sector during the past three years, yet more voters believe the standard of public services are better under the National-led Government, a new poll shows.

The Government says that it is evidence cutbacks have not impacted on core services, but the Public Service Association believes only the goodwill of civil servants working extra hours has maintained standards and cracks will start to show.

The problem for Labour and the PSA is that of the boy who cried wolf.

I certainly believe there is a limit to how many jobs can be cut from the public service, without affecting performance. But Labour (and the PSA) in 2008 said even National’s policy of freezing numbers would be a disaster and would impact services. And then as the freeze became a reduction with a need to stop the deficit getting even worse, every single reduction was met with cries of doom and destruction.

And the reality is, that the reductions have in fact led to improved services (as the public acknowledge) because it has freed up resources for the front-line. The health sector especially has had some great improvements in performance in the last couple of years – many more operations, quicker times in ED, shorter waiting times for cancer treatment etc.

As I said, there is a limit to how far cost cutting should go. But an ideological opposition to any reduction in costs or staff numbers in the public service doesn’t help with the decision making.

Judith Collins says:

Increased pressure on criminals and a greater focus on crime prevention has contributed to a further drop in the recorded crime rate, Police Minister Judith Collins said.

Reported crime dropped 7 percent on a per head of population basis during the fiscal year ended 30 June 2011, statistics released today show. This compares to a 1.3 percent drop in the year to 30 June 2010 and a 6.7 percent drop for the 2010 calendar year.

There were 34 murders in FY 2010/11 compared to 65 in the previous year. This is the lowest number of murders in a fiscal year since fiscal year crime statistics began being published in 1986.

A falling crime rate is a good thing, but I always like to look at the breakdown by category of offences. The overall crime rate figure can be a bit misleading for two reasons:

1. It treats all crimes as equal – one minor assault is the same as one murder
2. Some categories of crime are related to how much police effort goes into busting people there, such as minor drug crimes. So hence an increase in crime might just mean more active Police. For this reason I prefer to look at mainly violent crimes, as they are the ones most likely to be reported.

The big one is murder, and as Judith Collins said it is at a 25 year low. From 1999 to 2008 the murder rate went up 3.8% and since 2008 it has dropped 36.5%. But to be fair these are low numbers, often variable.

The overall serious assault rate went up 35.6% from 1999 to 2008. Since 2008 it has dropped 9.2%. This is especially pleasing as we have had a recession and increased unemployment. Some on the left say that crime is just a function of poverty and unemployment, but while they can be factors, this shows other policies do have an impact.

There will be a number of factors in the decline, such as the extra police numbers. I personally think the three strikes law may also be starting to have a deterrent effect. Many criminals are not stupid. They know how often they get arrested on average, and how much time they normally get. To some degree crime is a calculated risk (for some). The certainty of no parole on strike two and a maximum sentence with no parole on strike three may be making the price of crime too high for some of them.

The editorial last week from The Press:

The average of the public polls for the last three years, on a monthly basis, is shown above. It includes the two polls published last night as they were undertaken in September.

The graph is from Curia’s monthly newsletter, whose summary is below:

September saw five political polls published – two Roy Morgan polls, a One News Colmar Brunton, a 3 News Reid Research, and a Fairfax Research International poll.

The average of the public polls has National 27% ahead of Labour and able to govern alone. The gap in August was 24%, so the gap widened in September. The gap has grown every month from 19% in May to 27% in September

Australia still has the Government 16% behind the Opposition, but Gillard’s personal ratings recover slightly.

In the United States Barack Obama approval ratings remain low at a net -11%. His re-election chances are rated at 48%, close to even odds. Texas Governor Rick Perry has lost much of his momentum from last month and Mitt Romney is back as the front-runner for the Republican nomination.

In the UK Labour have just had their annual conference and lead by 5%.

In Canada the Conservatives solidify their position up 2% to 39%.

Two tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment and head of government approval sentiment for the five countries.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on the Maori seats, the Rugby World Cup, the Maori Party, the Christchurch earthquake, Labour’s leadership and the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

I could write this in my Stuff blog, but I’m going to write about Winston instead for them. So I’ll do a little fisking of this graph published by John Pagani in his blog (and originally from The Standard he says).

First of all John uses gross migration to Australia. Most people would say that the more useful figure is net migration, taking into account those Kiwis who move back to New Zealand.

Secondly it almost makes it look like no-one left to Australia before that nasty John Key took power. But let’s add on the three years prior to that, using the quarterly net migration stats from Stats NZ.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that things are good, just because they are not as bad as the three years previously. I think the level of migration remains a big concern, and that the Government needs to undertake more extensive economic reform to lift productivity and hence wages.

I’ve blogged at Curiablog the full results from the Marae Digipoll. There’s heaps to read there. The electorate numbers are quite small per electorate, so rather than just look at who is in the lead, I’ve analysed the probability that they actually lead. I make it:

• Waiariki – Maori Party ahead with 100% probability
• Tainui – Labour ahead with 100% probability
• Tamaki Makaurau – Maori Party ahead with 96% probability
• Ikaroa Rawhiti – Labour ahead with 85% probability
• Te Tai Hauauru – Maori Party ahead with 80% probability
• Te Tai Tonga – Labour ahead with 78% probability
• Te Tai Tokerau – Labour ahead with 58% probability

Personally I’d still regard Harawira as ahead in Te Tai Tokerau. I also think Tariana Turia will bolt in Te Tai Hauauru. Flavell is looking unbeatable in Waiariki, even with Sykes having just confirmed, as he has over 50% support. And at this stage Sharples looking pretty safe in Tamaki Makaurau.

Party Vote – Maori roll Maori voters (2008 result in brackets)

• Labour 35.7% (50.1%)
• Maori 27.7% (28.9%)
• National 13.2% (7.4%)
• Mana 12.0%
• Green 5.6% (3.9%)
• NZ First 4.1% (6.1%)
• ACT 0.0% (0.5%)

This is interesting, as you can compare to the last election. Labour are down 14% from their 2008 result. Maori Party down 1%, National up 5% and Mana Party has sucked up 12%. I do note more people on the Maori roll say they will vote National than Mana on the party vote.

Also of interest is that amongst Maori on the general roll, ACT had 3% support.

Overall the poll has some good news for everyone. Labour looks to pick up Te Tai Tonga, Maori Party elsewhere is looking okay. Mana is off to an okay start, but at this stage can’t guarantee they will get a second seat – list or electorate. National will like the answers to the questions on Marine & Coastal Area law (only 28% say Maori Party should not have supported).

Just had a laugh at the results of the vote of Telecom bondholders on the demerger. It was:

• 435,374,978 in favour (99.9993%)
• 3,000 against (0.0007%)

I wonder who was the sole grumpy bondholder with $3,000 of bonds?

I suspect the share-holder vote will be a bit closer, but still a huge majority.

How desperate is this, to try and associate themselves with the All Blacks?

I wonder if they’ll do them for the league also, to repeat the damage from the attacks on Sir Peter Leitch?

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.