Scoopit!

A column in The Times on why being 'green' is no longer cool. Adam enjoyed this piece as it encapsulates what he has long seen as some of the nonsense spouted in this connection, or should he write 'sprouted':-

Julie Burchill can't stand them. According to her new book, Not in my Name: A Compendium of Modern Hypocrisy, she thinks all environmentalists are po-faced, unsexy, public school alumni who drivel on about the end of the world because they don't want the working classes to have any fun, go on foreign holidays or buy cheap clothes.

Adam's emphasis of what he thinks is so true, just look at the NZ Greens with their mixture of joyless existence and hatred of business, and their desire to impose control over every aspect of our lives.

Michael O'Leary, the chief executive of Ryanair, agrees. In an interview with Rachel Sylvester and me, he told us that the “nutbag ecologists” are the overindulged rich who have nothing better to do with their lives than talk about hot air and beans.

Alice Thomson's article, which may have been written to be provocative and why not, then comments:-

So the salad days are over; it's the end of the greens. Where only a year ago the smart new eco-warriors were revered, wormeries and unbleached cashmere jeans are now seen as a middle-class indulgence.

But the problem for the green lobby isn't that it has been overrun by “toffs”: it's the chilly economic climate that has frozen the shoots of environmentalism. Espousing the green life, with its misshapen vegetables and non-disposable nappies, is increasingly being seen as a luxury by everyone.

Then a little further on:-

According to Andrew Cooper, director of the research company, Populus: “There is a direct correlation between how people perceive the economy and the importance they place on the environment. When times are tough people resent paying more to salve their conscience.” This means that fewer people are now buying organic chickens from smart supermarkets when they can pay £3.99 at Lidl. With all food prices rising, the organic market is being credit-crunched. Demand for it grew by 70 per cent from 2002 to 2007; now it has stalled, according to the consultancy Organic Monitor.

The vast new organic Whole Foods Store on Kensington High Street in London is so quiet you can hear the cheese breathe in the specially designed glass room. Meanwhile the demand for takeaway pizzas and McDonald's has risen as people find the cheapest way to eat.

So if this is the case, is the future for NZ really to be found in becoming a big organic food producer, as some seem to want? Note takeaway outlets prosper because they sell what people can afford, not what somebody thinks you should eat. Plus, strange as it may seem many of us actually like fish & chips, or pie & chips we are not all vegetarian zealots and organic bigots.

The article then discusses how some politicians have responded by downplaying green issues including David Cameron, Gordon Brown and the left's messiah Barack Obama, who is now trumpeting thrift and how good he is for not giving his daughters birthday and Christmas presents.

Then Thomson notes:-

It's not just the economic downturn that has harmed the green order. People have become wary of environmental causes that can turn out to do more harm than good. They don't want wind turbines marching across Britain's moors when nuclear power stations can do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They worry that washing and bleaching all those non-disposable nappies may be damaging the ozone layer, that the massive incentives for biofuels have distorted the world food market, and that green taxes are actually stealth taxes.

Quite, Adam thinks we should take note of this as well in NZ. He totally agrees with the comment on stealth taxes, especially when you consider some estimates of the huge revenues that might flow to 'gummint' under the ETS regime. Indeed, just as one might expect to see more freedom in the world the environmentalists want to regulate and control everything and bring it under state control.

But paradoxically, just as Britain is turning its back on the environment, the country is finally becoming greener. Fewer people are moving house so they are buying fewer new white goods such as washing machines and fridges. They may not be queueing up for £9 organic Poilâne bread, but for the first time in a decade they are discarding less food. They buy less impulsively and think more carefully before their weekly shop. Children are wearing hand-me-down uniforms rather than new ones made in sweatshops.

Adam has thought for a long while that when people can see a tangible personal direct benefit to doing something they will do it of their own accord, economic personal incentive drives behaviour more effectively than regulation or tax. Further, it will cause business to respond as they see profit in supplying more efficient product.

Predictably the piece has attracted a large number of comments, which display a wide variety of views.

Of thread comments Adam liked this:-

It's one thing to not be wasteful or destructive; it's another to use environmentalism as a tool to control or suppress private enterprise and property. In their guilt over affluence, their zeal to save the world is nothing more than contempt for mankind.

and this one:-

Halfway through the article is the jackpot statement, which should have been the way to go from the start.
Reward people for going green, dont penalise them for not.
Simple, incentives are better than penalties, how comes it takes a credit crunch for our dullard MPS to realise this?

Murray Webb-Stuff 5 June 2008

Tuesday was Red Russel's first day as an MP.

Here is what happened on :-

TUESDAY Russel Norman’s big day. The Greens’ co leader receives a smattering of applause from Labour MPs and a handshake from the Prime Minister after being sworn in as an MP. He then sets about exhausting Labour’s reservoir of goodwill.

Norman obviously doesn’t believe in Keith Holyoake’s famous dictum about MPs breathing through their nose for their first few months while they get the measure of Parliament; instead he kicks sand in ministers’ faces on his first day.

For his first parliamentary question, he picks that most sensitive of subjects— ministers’ VIP transport. Norman demands to know when ministers are going to get out of their Crown cars and catch the bus to work. Transport Minister Annette King bristles, telling him a large number of her Labour colleagues walk to work, while she has on occasion caught the bus. But Norman persists. King suggests Norman work co-operatively on improving public transport rather than ‘‘whipping up a political storm’’.

What she doesn’t say is that Norman had better watch out he is not caught cadging a ride in a ministerial limo, ever. Having ruled himself out of using a limo— perhaps the firstMPin history to have ever done so— there is the small question of what Norman will do if he becomes a minister in a Labour-Greens coalition. They may be a perk, but the limos also have a purpose. Ministers simply don’t have the time to jump on a bicycle between engagements, let alone bussing or walking. And is getting a taxi any better carbon footprint-wise than hopping in the back of one of the ministers’ swish new fuel-efficient BMWs?

Boy, that Red Russel really knows how to win friends and influence people does he not? No learning the ropes for Red Russel. Up and at'em.

And on :-

WEDNESDAY Norman has another question, this time to Agriculture Minister Jim Anderton.

It is the Young Turk of the left up against the Not So Young Turk still very much of the left.

Norman is fired up about the water quality in the rivers and streams in the Manawatu-Wanganui region. He claims the Ministry of Agriculture, state-owned enterprise Landcorp and Federated Farmers made almost word-forword submissions opposing steps to improve water quality.

Rather than do battle, Anderton plays the wise old uncle offering the new boy some sage advice.

Rejecting Norman’s claim that his ministry has been hijacked by Federated Farmers, Anderton mentions the Holyoake dictum. ‘‘I suggest to the member that he takes a little bit of quiet time after getting into Parliament . . . and stops making cheap political points.’’

Now you might think that after 2 days of this Russel might be getting the hint, but no there is more:-

THURSDAY Norman is still talking about water— and continuing to plunge in the deep end. The Greens give their co-leader his third question in three days— their total allocation for the week.

This time he is up against against Parliament’s most skilful debater— Michael Cullen.

Norman’s sermon today concerns the threat to Auckland’s drinking-water posed by dairy conversions in the Waikato River catchment. He wants a moratorium on such conversions.

However, as his questions get lengthier, some MPs are not so quietly wanting a moratorium on Norman. Winston Peters raises a point of order: ‘‘The reason why you are hearing a rising tempo in the House is that this is not a question any more. It is becoming a speech.’’

Speaker Margaret Wilson reminds Norman he needs to be succinct. He tries and isn’t.

Cullen refers him back to the answer to Norman’s first question ‘‘from which the member continues to draw a false conclusion to base his pre-written supplementary questions on’’.

By Cullen’s standard, it is a mild rebuke. When Norman returns to the chamber after the coming two week recess, he will be just another MP. He might find his stroppiness is repaid in kind.

The above is taken from John Armstrong's Political Diary as published in the NZ Herald today 5 July, which is not as far as Adam can find on line. It can be found at the bottom right of Page A20. This is a regular feature by John Armstrong each week.

Red Russel, from the above vignettes has got off to a flying start. With any luck he has irritated Peters, King, Anderton and Cullen such that down the line they will happily take him to pieces in the House on a regular basis. Whether he likes it or not, places such as the House have their own rules and conventions and Russel will be taught one way or another to play by those rules.

What did his posturing achieve. Nothing. His delivery in the House was stilted, ah what the hell he irritates me!

Though Adam got considerable enjoyment from reading John Armstrong's piece and determined to share it with others.

]]> http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/?p=1483 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:49:22 +0000 adamsmith1922 http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/?p=1483

All four of the recent 'extreme' polls and the average or Poll of Polls.

All four had National over 52%.

The gap between National and Labour is of the range 21 points Roy Morgan and 26 points Colmar Brunton, or 23.4 points on the average.

Now one poll might be rogue, but all four that seems unlikely.

These trends have now been there for some considerable time.

<a
Graphic shows the 3 polls recently released and the average of all three.

A long way to go to the election and much can still happen, but it does not look good for Labour at present, nor for Winston unless he can win Tauranga.

The polls will repay further analysis.

<a

Scoopit!

Bill English revealed why IRD pulled a brochure on Kiwisaver - because of the EFA, this NZPA item at Stuff has the details, brief extract follows:-

Inland Revenue canned a KiwiSaver brochure because of fears it would be used for electioneering, despite at the time saying it was pulled for commercial reasons.

National Party deputy leader Bill English tabled in Parliament today IRD emails that showed the brochures were pulled because they were deemed to be to political.

"I remain concerned that in the current environment it (the KiwiSaver brochure) leans too far towards the promotional," one IRD adviser said in an email.

The emails show that officials were concerned about the possibility of politicians using IRD material for electioneering.

Too right the officials should be concerned.

Yet again this law is shown to be ridiculous, but for once it may have saved taxpayers money and stopped us being force fed government propaganda.

Perhaps an unintended consequence, but positive in this instance as it appears to be causing officials to think more carefully about promotional leaflets and what they might be used for.

Though no doubt the politicians were not happy.

Adam hates to say it, but this time the Act has been beneficial as it has stopped Labour from raiding the public purse to promote their activities. Though not what they had intended when they rammed this partisan law through, with their cronies the Greens and WInston First.

Scoopit!

Scoopit!

Browsing the NZ Herald, late yesterday Adam came across this opinion article, in the NZ Herald, on Citizen's Assemblies, an idea promoted by The Greens and funding for which was included in the budget.

As explained by the article's author, Jonathan Rose,himself a past member of one in Canada, the idea would seem to have merit.

Why therefore does Adam have concerns.

In the Ontario example noted the assembly spent time over some 12 weekends in their deliberations and some 103 people where involved for the Ontario province. In addition the selection process was through a mechanism that resulted in a random selection, as per the extract:-

The Ontario Citizens' Assembly, in which I was involved, was a body of randomly chosen citizens of all walks of life, ages and backgrounds. Random selection ensured their diversity and helped to guarantee that the assembly was blind to race, colour, age, professional standing, learning ability, and class. Through an intensive learning phase, citizens were taught that policy is a product of values and complex issues have no easy answer. Over a period of 12 weekends from September 2006 to April 2007, its 103 members learned from experts, fellow citizens and most importantly, each other. They examined the strengths and weaknesses of all options including the status quo and its recommendation was put to all voters in a referendum.

First problem, Adam doubts that we would have a truly random selection in New Zealand, we would have to have a quota for Maori, Women etc. So the assembly would from the start be dogged by the fact that it was not a random selection and the results would be likely to be skewed.

Second problem, he doubts that in NZ sufficient time would be allowed or resource devoted to learning phase and briefing phases, as well as the deliberation and recommendation phases. You only have to look at the time spent by politicians on reviewing legislation now.

Thirdly, this concept is the product of a deal between the Greens and Labour as noted in this extract from another article also in the NZ Herald:-

The Green Party wants a "citizens' jury" into taxpayer funding of political parties to get well under way before the election to try to stop it being scuttled if National wins.

During negotiations last year over the electoral finance legislation, the Government promised the Greens it would hold a "citizens' assembly" comprised of ordinary voters to look at the funding of parties.

The jury was allocated $4.3 million in the Budget, but the terms of reference and logistics of running it have not been finalised.

The jury is unlikely to survive a change of government. Yesterday National deputy leader Bill English said his party did not support it and described it as "part of a grubby deal done between Labour and the Greens over the Electoral Finance Act."

Green co-leader Russel Norman said the party wanted the assembly running before the election so it was harder to derail if there was a change of government.

Dr Norman said the jury was the best way to consider the issue of party funding, because it was non-partisan.

Because of the EFA and the lack of all party consultation the concept at present appears to be tainted, further given that it is to consider only taxpayer party funding and that "Red" Russel wants the assembly up and running pre-election, it is hard to escape a conclusion that the desired result is a pre-determined one, especially as Adam suspects the expert panel to run in concert with the assembly would be likely to be stacked with a one way view given the past track record of this administration.

The Greens were a willing party to driving through the EFA. Thus in some respects their democratic credentials are tarnished.

There appears to be no intent to allow any review of the EFA, despite the fact that clearly it is a badly drafted law which would appear more than suitable as an area of consideration by a citizen assembly.

Whilst not against the concept in principle, Adam would need to be certain that the expert panel selection is from a 'broad church' of views, that assembly membership is truly random, that the assembly was given generous time to meet, be briefed and to hold sessions. Further, the terms of reference should not be constrained to drive conclusions to a foregone conclusion.

For this reason Adam supports the conclusions reached by David Farrar at Kiwiblog in his earlier post on 5 June on this matter in which Mr Farrar suggested in his conclusions:-

Now this is not to say the concept of Citizen’s Juries do not have a place in electoral law making. I think they do. They can provide some very useful input if done the right way. But the way I would use such Juries are as follows:

1. The independent experts must be chosen by a super majority of parliamentary parties, not just by the Government of the day. The formula which I like is that any appointments must be agreed to by party leaders representing over 75% of the MPs and over 50% of the parties in Parliament. This means that not only must both major parties agree, but so must at least half of the minor parties.
2. The issues, terms of references and high level process must also be signed off by that super-majority. The most unforgivable crime that Labour and the Greens have done with the EFA is to treat electoral law as a bauble for the winner, rather than a bipartisan constitutional law.
3. Issues referred to a Citizen’s Jury should be in totality, not just a narrow aspect such as taxpayer funding of political parties. It is ridicolous to exclude from consideration all the issues dealt with by the Electoral Finance Act. In fact the EFA should be abolished immediately upon a change of Government, and a citizen’s jury could be used as part of the process of consulting on and determining its replacement.

It is a shame that what is a perfectly fine concept is being damaged by its use by the Greens and Labour in such a partisan fashion. I mean Russel Norman is already calling for its timelines to be determined so that National can be attacked over it, rather than any sense of what a proper time-frame would be.

This post is possibly the first of several by Adam on this topic. He references this resource page from British Columbia for others who might be interested in the topic.

At present Adam is in a learning phase on this subject.

He is concerned that this sort of body, whilst potentially useful, may be subject to politicisation in some manner, under the guise of ensuring balance and equity.

Adam is concerned that the promoters of the concept have apparently not sought to obtain all party agreement on the concept.

Adam would prefer to see progress made on true constitutional reform and the introduction of appropriate checks and balances on the powers of an at present over mighty executive. He thinks that these result in far too much poorly drafted and ill considered legislation being drafted and passed into law with a consequently deleterious effect upon the compliance with and attitude to law.

The worst outcome of all would be to have such a 'jury' foisted upon us with an 'Ingrammed' terms of reference.

Scoopit!

When annoyed by someone they simply sink to the bottom of their muddy pool and stay there in blissful silence for 15 minutes or so until the nuisance goes away.

No doubt Faith, Fudge and Snorkel, the zoo's three hippopotamuses, are doing exactly that in the face of a peculiarly annoying assault from the Green Party's co-leader Russel Norman. Sadly, Norman shows no sign of going away, no matter how long the hippos remain submerged, as he seems to have finally wangled his way into Parliament, thanks to Nandor Tanczos' quitting.

As befits his newfound status of MP-in-waiting and protector of the environment, Norman last week launched a stinging attack on the hippos' bowel habits.

The problem is that there are issues with the hippo ponds, but as Ralston drily points out:-

Global warming, the melting of the polar icecaps, the removal of the Amazon rainforest, Third Word famine and genetic modification, however, must take a back seat for the time being because the Green Party obviously believes hippo doo-doo is the issue of the day.

It is vital the Green Party finds a single key issue to galvanise its potential support, as it did with its opposition to genetic engineering a couple of elections ago. It could win its biggest slice of the votes ever at the next election because it is a handy alternative for disillusioned Labour voters and a magnet for the youth.

Hippo crap is not that key issue.

Well Bill is right, but "Red' does not view the world like normal people.

No doubt it is a case of hippo crap today , tomorrow world domination.

Whilst feeling very sorry for the hippos having to put up with 'Red' Russel, Adam would much prefer it if the only damage 'Red' ever did was to upset the toilet arrangements for the hippos, rather than impose the Greens autarkic, Stalinist vision on the rest of us.

Today there is an editorial in the Dominion Post on the Greens manipulation of MMP to bring 'Red" Russel into Parliament.

As the Dominion Post notes:-

The appointment of Green Party co-leader Russel Norman as an MP shows that, when push comes to shove, the Greens will put party needs above voter preference and shuffle the deck to deliver the MPs the party wants rather than delivering the ones on the list the public voted for.

It is easy to be sympathetic to the Greens' plight after the untimely death of former co-leader Rod Donald, and Dr Norman might very well make a fine MP.

However, when the Greens drew up their list for the 2005 election, they decided that he would not make as fine an MP as either Mike Ward or Catherine Delahunty, both of whom were placed above him on the list.

Now, despite an initial refusal by Mr Ward to accept an arrangement reached in a smoke-free party backroom, both have put party ahead of democracy and defied voters' intentions by declining to serve as an MP right now - though both continue to want to do so after the next election.

Later the DP says, after noting 'Red' Russel will not be in a position to contribute much in the house:-

What it will do is give him a platform from which to expound his views, and access to the resources, such as taxpayer-funded air travel, that give MPs a massive advantage in campaigning nationwide.

The Greens' shuffle - and Labour's mid-term dumping of old list MPs as a way to rejuvenate the party without bothering the ballot counters - simply illustrates the need for MMP to be reviewed and for another referendum to be held on its future.

It is this that makes the Greens and Labour's actions so abhorrent. We now have several MPs in Parliament who were not elected, even on the list. This is not acceptable no matter which party is involved. NZ First, as might be expected, adopted a similar cynical and manipulative tactic to bring Dail Jones in when Brian Connolly took the bauble of High Commissioner to the Cook Islands.

The DP notes as well the present view of the Prime Minister:-

Prime Minister Helen Clark says she is not sure voters want another say on MMP. That might be true, but she can be sure what they don't want is parties deciding they know better than voters who should be an MP.

Adam finds that very interesting.

Why?

Well several people Adam knows who proudly told Adam at the time of the referendum on voting systems that they had voted for MMP would now have Adam believe they either voted for FPP or for STV. They like many another voter do not believe MMP has turned out as they thought it would. Many are fed up at the way the tail, usually the Winston Peters tail, has wagged the dog and thus meant that policies many would support cannot be enacted.

In any event why should H. Clark make the decision. It should be up to the voters not H. Clark

Incidentally, Adam recalls that Rod Donald was an advocate for MMP a very vocal one, yet later he was an advocate for STV for local body elections.

Adam considers that if we are to stick with proportional representation then STV would be better as all MPs would then be elected, thus removing the list completely and reducing the influence of party managers.

Full story from the NZPA is here.

Adam wonders how Anderton and Kedgley are getting on on their Rome trip to the FAO.

Adam wonders what Kedgley thought of Mugabe's attack on NZ?

What did she think of the FAO heads attack on bio fuels and protectionist policies thwarting freer trade?

All too often in their actions and pronouncements they lay themselves open to charges of unreality, loopiness and far left beliefs.

For example look at Kedgleys announcements last week on food and trade which are at total variance with what for example the UN Secretary general is calling for. No doubt Kedgley would argue that his call just proved that there was an agri-business plot to rule the world and that Ban Ki-moon had been subverted by the evil United States.

Despite what they may believe there are those on the right of centre who have some sympathy with and share some of the Greens concerns.

These shared concerns need not necessarily be environmental some are likely to be on social issues. Unfortunately the Greens seem to have hi-jacked the phrase social justice and transformed it into code for left wing activist.

However, by positioning themselves to the left of Labour, they have confined themselves to being a doormat for Labour.

Labour knows the Greens effectively have nowhere else to go, unlike possibly Maori, definitely Winston First and United Future. Many of us as voters may dislike the Winston option being there, but it is and may well depend on the bauble quota.

Vernon Small the other day in the Dominion Post had an item on the Greens conference, amongst other things he wrote:-

.........they are sick of being Labour's "gimme" on support, and hanker for a more independent and principled stance that . . . under some circumstances, even if only to give Labour the organic raspberry . . . gives them some show of a deal with National.

Delegates at the Greens' annual conference in Auckland this weekend wrestled, in a consensual way, with how to express that feeling in a process during the election campaign and after.

The debate was so long (behind closed doors) that it squeezed out a Saturday session on "other topical issues" and ran through to yesterday's annual meeting.

Finally they resolved, as Dr Norman put it, to "announce our preferences for post-election negotiations prior to the election" but wait for more policy – particularly from National it seems – before saying so. In the meantime, and beyond, they remain "an independent party of principle".

It sounds anodyne, but does mark a major shift from the 2005 campaign, when the Greens at the same point in the cycle made it clear they would back Labour on confidence and supply – just in case their predominant Left-leaning base deserted them for fear of a Brash-led National administration.

Whether it makes a lot of difference in practice is a moot point.

Quite.

No one is likely to take seriously that the current Green leadership would seriously negotiate with National when the Top 10 on their list include Jeanette Fitzsimons, Russel Norman, Sue Kedgley, Sue Bradford, Keith Locke and Catherine Delahunty.

Adam was bemused to see one paper refer to Red Russel as being from the Greens social justice wing. He is not. In Adam's mind Red Russel is from the Marxist-Leninist wing and he and his fellow travellers need to be exposed for what they are.

It is just not credible that the MSM give the Greens so little searching examination. They need to have the spotlight of attention shone on them, their beliefs, backgrounds and policies. Though it is possible that this situation is beginning to change, albeit slowly.

Economists and commentators alike need to examine just what their policies will mean for NZ especially their wish to move to an eco-tax regime, because if it is based on their past voodoo economics approach, the consequences will be dire.

Through allowing themselves to be captured from the left, the Greens are unlikely to ever be a major force in NZ Government, unless it is the only way Labour can retain power. The probable scenario enabling that is one that could well see National having the largest number of votes, but Labour cobbling a coalition together that is likely to be inherently unstable and extremely unpopular with the electorate.

Small also wrote:-

And you do have to wonder how the traditional Green message would go down with the stretched middle classes; that high fuel bills ought to go higher, in the interests of setting a price for carbon, incentivising households and encouraging innovation.

The problem is, that even though there are some legitimate arguments for their position - the composition of much of their leadership and membership will frighten the punters.

Further, their anti business, anti trade posturing worries many as it is likely to mean dis-investment by business, factory closures and job losses.

Attacking the farmers' co-op, by calling for it to be a good Kiwi, putting a resource levy on irrigation water, as Dr Norman suggested, and excoriating "dirty dairying" may win some votes among the Greens target voters.

Superficially, until people start to think through the implications of the message and see that this is an attack on business, jobs and the economy.

The Greens in their speeches are long on the evils of today, but say very little about what they would put in it's place and what this would mean for the economy.

Small concluded:-

But as for making the Greens a more appealing partner for National – which at last check had a fairly strong rural support base? No show.

On that score, the Greens have called their own bluff.

Now Adam knows that people can say, but Adam you have resisted calls for National to state all it's policies so why apply a different test to the Greens.

Well, the fact is we know what many aspects of National policy are likely to be and further National have been in government before.

The Greens have not. They need to sell themselves to the electorate.

Further, they need to reposition themselves from a being a party of the left to a party of the centre. If they cannot or will not do this, then the way could well be open for a new truly Green party to emerge and occupy the centre ground, picking up votes from both Labour and National.

This might be no bad thing in the long run, in many respects both Labour and National are peddling old fashioned nostrums. There is no sense of real vision from either of the two main parties.

There was an interesting editorial in the Herald this morning discussing the Greens and the Maori party and the challenges/options they face.

The editorial concluded:-

Despite their durability, the Greens should be a stronger party in this country. Environmental values are widely held and can offer a political identity outside the normal social divide. The party in our Parliament, however, has not offered a separate identity, it adheres to a left-wing view of environmentalism, opposed to free trade, preferring public ownership to private property, distracted by issues it calls social justice.

A broader Green Party would build some conservation projects on private property rights and recognise the power of market forces to ensure resources are used sustainably. A party of that stamp would draw support from across the spectrum and could contemplate dealings with any government.

The Green Party needs to move out of left field and become a central player.

Adam doubt that this Green party has the will, wit or wisdom to do that. he thinks they are too wedded to dogma and 20th century agit-prop. They as much as Labour and National are fighting the battles of the past, rather than girding themselves for the challenges of today. Just as much as the others they all too readily take refuge in self righteous rhetoric and on some issues exhibit no signs of being prepared to listen to any alternative voice.

Vernon Small notes in his piece in the Dominion Post today:-

Insiders at the party's conference wanted a change soon to give Dr Norman the chance to lift his profile and to use the extra resources available to an MP.

It was also feared that waiting till closer to the election could cause a public backlash, a delegate said.

Claire Trevett has an item in the NZ Herald also.

Nandor will now step down, and 'Red' Russel will step up, so that the Greens can obtain extra funding for him at the election.

What a blatant piece of manipulation of the rules under MMP. Someone who none in the electorate voted for is now propelled into Parliament.

Adam hopes that the second comment in the article extract above comes true.

There should be a backlash and a mighty big one at that, against this unprincipled move by the Greens. Indeed, Adam would trust that there would be similar opprobrium heaped on any party that indulges in such shameless manipulation.

So now we know that if you vote Green in November you are likely to not see Jeanette as leader, (photo credit Herald/Mark Mitchell)for the full term, according to this NZ Herald article by Claire Trevett.

Instead the Greens will be led by Dr Russel Norman and probably one of the following, potted bio and photos from the Greens website:-

All photos below are from the Greens website and as such are believed to be

"Photo (c) the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand" -http://www.greens.org.nz/home.shtml

The biographical details are from

http://www.greens.org.nz/election2008/candidates.asp where more detail can be found on each candidate

Sue Bradford

"One way to create change is to protest about the system from the outside. Another is to build people's organisations within the shell of a malfunctioning system. The third way is to go inside and change the system from within." An activist for social justice, peace and women's issues since 1967 and a Green MP since 1999, Sue has worked for change in one or other of these ways since her early teens.

Metiria Turei

Metiria's experience over the last 20 years ranges from anarchist activism to establishment party politics, being unemployed to practising as a lawyer. But through all these different stages of her life she has been motivated by a need to remedy injustice - "being the most useful for the biggest number of people". She is humorous, questioning and courageous: "Ideas are meant to be tested," she explains. "Some people can't cope with having their ideas challenged, but I have no problem with it."

Sue Kedgley

According to Sue "the best preparation for being an MP is experience in campaigning." She is impeccably prepared; a veteran campaigner in the fields of women's rights and a former Wellington City Councillor. Sue is also the face of safe food campaigning in New Zealand politics, a profile built on ten years of meticulous research - including visiting the factories, battery hen farms and slaughterhouses where food starts its long journey to our plates.

Catherine Delahunty

Catherine describes herself as an "activist, feminist, mother, gardener, writer, teacher, mediator, advocate - and stand-up comic." A political activist since her teens, she has worked for change in the areas of social justice, Te Tiriti and environmental issues. She has a history of challenging corporate polluters, and a deep interest in developing decision-making processes which involve everyone.

]]> http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/?p=931 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:00:53 +0000 adamsmith1922 http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/?p=931
As Adam wrote in another post Sunday ,on the Greens, he was thinking then about the mis-perceptions concerning the Greens which many seem to have. Indeed he commented on this fact in the post concerned.

So why is he writing another post on the Greens so soon. Well when he saw the TV News last night he heard the familiar comment between newsreader and reporter on where is National's policy.

So many times we hear TV, Radio and Newspapers demand National comes clean with it's views and policy. Well why should they? We are some months still away from the election. If National releases all policy now it will enable Labour to either spike the policy or take other action.

Indeed we do not hear the media demanding what Labour's vision is for the future. After 9 years surely we are entitled to know what, if any, vision Labour has for New Zealand.

In fact we do not hear many in the media, if any making similar demands of the other parties.

However, in the context of this post Labour and the others are peripheral.

Nowhere does Adam see any of the MSM conducting a detailed and searching analysis of what the Greens are all about.

Given that the Greens have been in the Parliament now for several terms and have some influence on government policy and may have more; it is time that they were put under the spotlight.

Yes, Red Russel was on Agenda recently, but it was like watching a cross examination by a wet bus ticket.

Adam then remembered an article which he read in the print edition of one of the papers and then found on Stuff this NZPA item about Red Russel's speech to the faithful at the Greens conference.

The Green Party wants a resource levy on commercial water use with the levy used to reduce rates and income taxes.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman outlined the levy during his speech to the Green Party conference in Auckland.

He said the right price signals needed to be put in place so the economy became more efficient at using finite resources.

The levy was the first part of the Greens' approach to "ecological tax shifting." Its full tax shifting policy would be released closer to the election.

So the Greens want to place another impost on business to reduce presumably domestic rates and personal taxes.

• What modelling and costing have they done to determine the impact of such an impost?
• Have they assessed the long term impact on employment, job creation, investment, trade etc?
• Is water in NZ truly a finite resource? Adam agrees that in some places around the world that it is? But in NZ?

Red Russel says this is the first part of the Greens' approach to ecological tax shifting.

• What does he mean by this?
• What does he mean by its full tax shifting policy?
• How will this policy impact the economy?
• What will it do for growth?

Red Russel than made a number of statements over growth in water use. He said:-

"As a general rule there is no price paid to use this globally valuable natural resource."

Dr Norman said the Greens were not proposing to privatise water or introduce tradeable water rights.

It was not proposing to charge for drinking water for humans or for stock.

"But if you use a public resource to make a profit then the public should be paid rental for that use."

Now Adam finds elements of this statement confusing.

In Auckland for example water is metered and charged for. Adam has no problem with that. He thinks there are issues with infrastructure, but he has no objection in principle to such charges. Further there is an element of rates which covers water issues. So he finds Red Russel's comment there confusing, as in effect in many if not all parts of the country one is effectively charged for drinking water. Indeed, such charges encourage efficient use of the domestic water supply.

In principle Adam has no issue with a water levy, provided that the impact is fully understood by the community and the community understands the consequences of such a levy.

Adam has concerns as to the extent NZ is converting to dairy farming and thinks that such use does place potentially excessive demands upon water supply and quality of water, especially but not limited to the South Island, so considers some such measure may be appropriate - particularly if it aids the shift to a service based economy, but not if it is brought in without a full understanding of impacts and the costs of change.

• Further, Adam suspects that some of the power companies may be big water users, so is Red Russel proposing to levy them and cause power costs to rise?
• What would be the impact on industry?

Adam, in common with others on the right, does not automatically assume that all Green policies and approaches are bad, but he thinks the approaches and policies should be subject to searching review. The Greens and the left, despite what they arrogantly assume, do not have a monopoly on environmental concerns - the more so as mitigating many such concerns has a strong economic rationale anyway.

If policies such as these result in the overall burden of tax being reduced, rather than simply adding to the existing burden, and such new approaches did not discourage investment or growth then it might well be that people might find some of these worth thinking about.

Those policies and approaches would need to be economically sound, not ideologically driven.

The problem is that he suspects that what may appear rational on the outside will not appear quite the same when considered in the light of the total Green agenda, particularly their social justice agenda and their anti-business and anti free trade focus. Especially when the full extent of the impact of these policies is known.

Adam would like to know what business, services and industry the Greens would see replacing those which would be displaced through their measures.

• What industries and services will be impacted and how through their tax shifting approach?
• What new industries will be started and where will the investment capital come from?

What is the Green vision for NZ and especially the economy which after all pays for everything?

He suspects that their 'vision' is one based on a import substitution economy with all sorts of import controls etc, etc. Precisely the sort of economy which will restrict choice, growth and development. Further the sort of economy investors shy away from, so look forward to disinvestment by existing foreign investors, exchange controls, rising interest rates and a falling dollar. In addition our exports would decline because of Green trade views, our FTA benefits would not eventuate and we would probably run foul of the WTO. All that for starters.

Bear in mind Red Russel has been described as coming from the social justice wing of the party not the environmental wing. He is of a similar ilk to Kedgley and some of the others.

The point is we need to more critically examine just what policies the Greens are proposing and what their impact might be in various areas:-

• tax
• social welfare
• trade - Adam is concerned that the Greens attitude to free trade may well materially imperil the entire economy
• tourism
• transport

these are just a few key examples.

We need to be able to assess what the Greens impact could be on this country, before the election on the basis of a clear understanding of their policies and the implications.

At this time the media is providing us with little assistance.

It is time for there to be much more focus on what the NZ Greens really wish to impose on this country.

We need to dispel the warm fuzzy, tree hugger image and reveal these people for what they really are .

NZ Herald Saturday 31 May - illustrating John Armstrong's column

Greens - once just a pest, now a dangerous and invasive species

]]> http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/?p=883 Sat, 31 May 2008 15:15:32 +0000 adamsmith1922 http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/?p=883
An article at the NZ Herald site, plus TV One News item on their conference this weekend, confirmed Adam's view that the Greens are very, very dangerous. Far too dangerous to be allowed to ever have their hands on the levers of power.

More and more they reveal themselves to be anti-business, anti-trade and prepared to beggar the country to meet their objectives.

Under a veneer of tree hugging they are in fact a group of control freaks.

Janette Fitzsimons with her anti Fonterra polemic is yet another example of how the Greens seek to direct business to meet social objectives. Business is not a charity.

Further if the Herald item is correct it implies that Fitzsimons does not understand that Fonterra is a co-operative established to obtain the best possible returns for it's members the farmers who own it. Fitzsimons was quoted as saying:-

"Today I want to issue a challenge to Fonterra. Show us you are a good Kiwi company.

"Give something back to the country that has provided you with a great climate, cheap energy and hard working farmers that have allowed you to become so successful.

"Sell your products in New Zealand at a price our people can afford."

After her speech she said she had not yet put it to Fonterra, describing her call today as a "challenge" to the company.

The quote implies that she thinks Fonterra and the farmers are somehow different and that Fonterra exploits the farmers. Well Janette, the farmers own Fonterra and it is therefore in the farmers interests for Fonterra to be successful.

The farmers may be making money at the moment, but they have bad years as well, plus they have increased costs to meet,including the cost of meeting necessary regulatory requirements.

Fitzsimons needs to understand that Fonterra is not a charity nor a social service. Applying her logic all exporters of primary produce should offer product more cheaply in the domestic market. No doubt she would take it further and apply it to other product as well.

It is that sort of twisted logic and stupidity that will ensure that productivity will fall and businesses will move elsewhere.

No doubt she would be quite happy with a fifth world agrarian economy, as it would be green.

No one would want to live here and as the economy would be crap there would be no money to pay for anything, but it would be green.

People need to wake up to the fact that the Greens in NZ are very hard left in their beliefs and many of them on economic issues and things like property values make Labour and Jim Anderton look dangerously and radically liberal.

Yet still many quite rational people still seem to think of them as a warm, fuzzy, comfortable half way house between Labour and National. They are not.

The Greens do not believe in free trade - NZ economy depends on this

Many seem to believe that business is intrinsically evil and that profit is bad. Yet without business and profit there would be no economy.

Many Greens are possessed of an arrogant self righteous view of the world and have no tolerance of any alternative world view.

Imagine these people holding the balance of power post the election.

Frightening, truly frightening.

Amongst the key factors affecting supply and therefore prices have been the issues of :-

• protectionism - EU, US Farm Bill, tariffs
• poor land use - Japanese rice farmers
• inefficient farming practices - see IAASTD reports
• governance - EU CAP sending wrong signals, Zimbabwe exporter to importer, Burma major loss in production prior to Nargis, similar position in other countries
• impact of natural disasters - drought in Australia, cyclone Nargis,
• failure to invest in agriculture and agri-science, thus squandering the benefits of the Green Revolution
• impact of mis-information and politically inspired campaigns re GM and GE foods and seeds
• 'green ' pressures and fears of oil shortages, causing switch of food production to bio-fuels, often in a grossly inefficient manner, depleting food and water supply for little if any energy benefit

Next week there is a major conference on Food Issues in Rome being held under the auspices of the FAO.

One of the aims of the conference, according to the FAO:- "a historic chance to re-launch the fight against hunger and poverty and boost agricultural production in developing countries."

Per Scoop - copy of NZ Govt Press Release:-

New Zealand is to have an 11-member delegation at the summit meeting, led by Jim Anderton.

It includes Green MP Sue Kedgley, who is personally paying her own costs, and NIWA principal climate scientist Jim Salinger and Fisheries Ministry chief executive Wayne McNee.

Not exactly a high powered delegation given the importance of the topic and of agriculture to NZ.

This last week, immediately prior to the FAO conference, the OECD and the FAO issued their most recent survey of agriculture.

The FT has an article on that survey of agriculture here, the article concludes:-

Still, the margin for error is minuscule. In 2012-13 cereals production is expected to exceed consumption by just 0.3 per cent. That makes prices sensitive to any market distortions. The state promotion of biofuels is one such factor: since the end of 2004 about 60 per cent of higher grain production has been eaten up by biofuels use. The OECD assumes this ratio falls to 40 per cent, but the medium-term direction of governments’ policies remain unclear.

Meanwhile, emergency export bans and other impediments to free trade could easily prevent the extra forecast production from fulfilling demand. The OECD may be counselling calm, but given that empty stomachs are involved it is hard to relax.

Key to resolution of the crisis is to avoid adopting measures which will exacerbate the problem rather than assist in resolving it.

This one of the reasons Adam is so appalled at the failure to conclude the DOHA Round and the various protectionist statements made by the French and German Agriculture Ministers recently. Coupled with passage of the US farm Bill with sufficient margin to over -ride President Bush's veto.

The article referenced above may appear to conflict somewhat with a recent OECD/FAO forecast that food prices will stay high for 10 years, but in fact it does not, food prices will fall but not back to the once prevalent low levels:-

The price projections imply falls from the current records but suggest that food inflation will continue to be a long-term problem, particularly for poor countries.

“Without exception, average real prices are likely to remain above those observed during 1985-2007,” said the report summary. The OECD said the projections were preliminary numbers.

Alexander Müller, an assistant director-general at the FAO in Rome, said the world needed to get used to higher food prices. “In the near future, we will have to live with higher prices for agricultural commodities.”

The report referred to in the articles quoted above is the joint OECD - FAO Agricultural Survey which was presented in the last couple of days.

Interestingly, from an NZ viewpoint, the articles make no mention of dairy - although demand for dairy product is rising in a number of countries.

At the launch:-

OECD chief Angel Gurria - in a Reuters report, threw his weight behind genetically modified crops as an antidote to high food prices. Gurria, speaking after he and the head of the UN food agency presented a report forecasting high food prices over the next 10 years, was asked by Reuters when he left a news conference if he was calling outright for promotion of GM crops and a moratorium on government-supported promotion of biofuel. "I am saying genetically modified crops are part of the solution," Gurria told Reuters.

The food price report by OECD and UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), published before the world food summit in Rome next week, suggested GM crops could help boost output to feed more people and livestock.

A video of the press conference may be found here. The report:-

also questioned the merits of government-sponsored plans to promote the grain-guzzling production of ethanol fuels as an alternative transport fuel, but without calling outright for a repeal of big ethanol targets, such as exist in the United States and the European Union. "I'm saying it's time for a serious review," he said when asked by Reuters to elaborate on the report. "We'll see then what action should be taken."

It is to be hoped that the FAO meeting sees serious and rational discussion on the issue of bio-fuels and on GM crops. Adam is of the opinion that for political protectionist reasons, and to protect some powerful lobbies, some countries are hell bent on maintaining artificial barriers against efficiently produced bio-fuels for example based on sugar cane and on GM crops for different reasons. They are aided and abetted in this by some NGOs who seem to have little if any regard for the truly poor and starving and who cloak themselves in moral self rectitude of a sickly green hue.

FAO head Jacques Diouf, in Paris for the presentation of the report, declined to be drawn when asked if he too was demanding a freeze of government-aided, biofuel-promotion projects, but he said he feared further distortions were afoot. "We mustn't repeat the same farm policy errors of the past, for which developing countries have paid dearly," he told the news conference, where he said the FAO-hosted food summit would draw 40 leaders and 1,500 envoys from 150 countries. He said he hoped the summit would come up with both urgent answers to the rising hunger risk -- a matter of humanitarian aid primarily -- and ideas on long-term food security.

Adam hopes that amongst other matters the FAO will focus on the factors he outlined at the start of this post.

In another article on World Bank actions,FT World Bank :-

The World Bank on Thursday unveiled a $1.2bn fast-track funding facility to help combat the impact of rising food prices on the poor.

The facility includes a $200m trust fund which will pay for grants targeted at the world’s poorest countries.

and:-

“The World Bank has shown impressive leadership on the food crisis in the last few weeks. We need to see similar political momentum and serious response from next week’s meeting in Rome,” Elizabeth Stuart, senior policy advisor at Oxfam, said.

The World Bank’s plan comes as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation confirmed an earlier report by the Financial Times that food prices would remain high for the next 10 years, although they would fall from current near-record levels.

The organisations said in their Agricultural Outlook that the world needed to reconsider the use of geneticically-modified organisms to boost agricultural production, as well as embark on a “serious review” of biofuel policies.

This news is extremely heartening, it is to be hoped that the politicians and officials meeting in Rome achieve something concrete and not just a series of resolutions to meet and discuss the matter further.

Unfortunately Adam fears the worst when he reads comments attributed to Sue Kedgley of the Greens and a member of the NZ delegation.

Ccomments from Ms Kedgley, via Scoop copy of Greens press release,:-

"I expect there will be intense debate between the free trade marketeers and those who believe the free trade agenda is one of the causes of the present crises," Ms Kedgley says. "As a long time food campaigner I am looking forward to hearing the perspectives of people deeply affected by the world food crisis."

Ms Kedgley says she will bring a different perspective from the standard 'free trade at all costs' policies of many developed countries. "The conference will seek solutions to the global food crisis and rising food prices which are causing growing anger around the world, as people find themselves unable to afford food to eat. Some are warning that rising food prices pose more of a threat to political and social stability than the current crisis in global markets.

Well Adam agrees that food is a major geopolitical issue which along with water constitutes the emerging conflict flashpoint.

Where Adam takes strong exception to Ms Kedgley is in her remarks concerning free trade at any cost.

In the area of food many developed countries are rampantly protectionist, often to the point of absurdity, eg the EU, Japan and USA for example, but they are not the only ones. Other countries must of necessity embrace free trade in food because they do not have the land or other physical resources to feed their populations, or because through governmental incompetence they cannot.

As noted above the rush to develop bio-fuels has been a major cause of rises in grain prices, in rice a failure to build on the Green Revolution plus government incompetence has added materially to the problems - in addition rising oil costs have been a factor.

So Adam considers Ms Kedgley's remarks to be ill judged though no doubt music to the ears of European protectionists who will use this as a means to try and further restrict NZ food trade to Europe. Which of course will not worry Ms Kedgley, because after all, despite trade being an essential to the NZ economy the Greens are against it, or if not against it would like to reduce it and thus reduce us to penury by hobbling it.

Ms Kedgley goes on:-

"We need to challenge the doctrine of free trade and accept that people's right to food, to be free from hunger, must have priority over an ideological fixation on allowing market forces to prevail at all costs."

What rubbish she does speak. It is trade in food that has put food in the mouths of many, not protectionism. What parallel universe does she live in.

It is free trade in food that is the life blood of the NZ economy.

It is investment in agriculture and agri-science that has enabled growth in productivity, both in NZ and globally. It is the failure to build on past investment that has contributed to the current position.

Does she really think that farmers in poor countries do not want to make a living. Indeed, in developing countries as well as developed one, farming lobbies can be just as big a barrier and as tenacious in defending themselves to the detriment of the majority.

It is the long term manipulation of markets and tariffs by governments that causes much of the problem, not free trade.

What on earth is the NZ Government doing in allowing this Luddite to form part of our delegation?

Why is she paying her own way, does this mean she has negotiated an arrangement where she can speak against government positions?

After all as earlier FT article quoted by Adam in a post some 8 weeks ago pointed out:-

There is, no doubt, an element of speculative bubble in some of the big recent leaps in commodity prices but some of the underlying trends look more permanent. A combination of a larger and richer world population, the threats to agricultural production from climate change and rising subsidised demand for biofuel - the latter another example of producer interests capturing government policy - suggest the food crisis is more than a blip. Supply can expand in the medium term, by bringing new land into cultivation or improving farming techniques, but by how much remains unclear. In the meantime, the voices of the non-farming poor are becoming too strident to ignore.

It often takes a mounting sense of crisis to get politicians to focus on allowing markets to deliver cheaper food. The ancestor of modern cheap food policies, the repeal of the Corn Laws in Britain in 1846, was spurred by growing unrest within the swelling cities of an industrialising economy. In 1848 that unrest burst out into a series of revolutions across western Europe - though not in Britain.

Governments across the world need to plan to deliver cheap food - not to please truculent farmers - and to let free markets deliver it as far as is prudent. The world's poor need to be freed from the hunger that threatens once more to entrap them.

As that same article argued:-

The reality is that most of the real distributional conflicts over food take place within the same country between rural and urban dwellers (or, indeed, between cash-crop farmers and others within the countryside), not between rich nations and poor ones. Exhibit one is the cause célèbre of the rice farmers of Ghana, whose protective import tariffs have been cut, exposing them to international competition. The likes of Oxfam have for years led a succession of pliable celebrities and journalists by the nose round the markets of Accra and invited them to be outraged by the sacks of cheap, subsidised American rice stacked floor to the ceiling.

But if they look carefully, they will also see sacks of largely unsubsidised rice from Vietnam and Thailand, both of which provide the urban poor of Accra with cheaper staple food than can domestic producers. Tariff protection for Ghanaian rice is not global trade justice. It is a transfer from everyone else in Ghana, particularly city-dwellers trying to feed their families, to the rice-growers.

Let the FAO focus on removing all the barriers, internal and external. Let us seek to eliminate distortions and allow a free flow of food to where it is needed. It should be noted that market distortions tend to cause speculation and send false price signals not the other way around.

Further, as part of agreed actions from the Rome conference let there be an unequivocal message to the WTO and its membership that conclusion of the Doha Round is an essential element in resolving this crisis.

Let us hope also that no one takes any notice of Sue Kedgley and any others of her ilk.

In the column du Fresne took aim and clearly got 2 of the more sanctimonious targets around.

Target 1 - the smug, unctuous people of Fair Go. he pointed out their intimidatory tactics and self satisfied approach. Tangentially he managed to target also TVNZ and the use of the word 'iconic' by them and by implication others. I.E. the misuse of the word. Excellent writing, please read.

Target 2 - the Greens - for their sanctimonious, moral high ground approach to everything in public and their being prepared to do a grubby little manoeuvre to get Russel Norman into Parliament.

Great stuff.

What has made this setback for the Greens so sweet for Adam is the Greens propensity to adopt a 'holier than thou' posture at every opportunity.

By their actions here they have proved themselves to be a lacking in principle as every other party and just as venal.

In addition, the longer Russel Norman is kept out of Parliament the better.

The Greens in NZ have yet to realise that by positioning themselves to the left of Labour they have nowhere else to go, thus Labour will always treat them like dirt. throwing them legislative scraps only when they have too, whilst adorning the likes of Winston Peters with baubles and trophies galore.

They really do not seem to understand politics very well.

What is doing them down is their social agenda and economic stupidities, rather than the environmental ones.

Adam would go so far as to suggest that the Greens have all on their own made John Key's case for him over the need to review the workings of MMP.

Now Adam thinks we will not go back to FPP, but he would like to see us move to STV in a variation which would see every MP represent an electorate, so there would be no backdoor list for party grandees to manipulate.

Some initial entries in NZ internet political advertising. Hopefully it will improve!

But would you buy a used car from any of these people?

Well for the Greens that maybe academic, as they will not want to let us have one.

**************************

All the usual suspects have been fully rehearsed on both sides of the argument. Adam fully expects the Exclusive Brethren to emerge as part of the issue shortly, to be followed by Nicky Hager and the Hollow Men.

In a number of instances regard for the facts has not come into the equation for example comments by Minister David Parker and Prime Minister Helen Clark. Accusing National of upping the cost by wishing to delay is nonsense given the actions Clark took last week to delay the matter. Further, given the EU took 5 years to put their regime in place and are still working on it, what is so bloody important that we in NZ have to rush an ETS into place now?

Oh, Adam knows, an election.

Some pieces worth reading are here:-

Keeping Stock - has 2 pieces one on the Key announcement and the second on what bribes Labour might offer the minnows.

The Hive has some excellent comment as per normal, viz:-

A question over the Business Council for Sustainable Development, now given that Peter Neilsen of the NZBCSD has been under fire several times for making statements which many of his members do not concur with, it would have been more sensible for him to keep quiet. Indeed, one wonders how much longer the membership will tolerate this man as CEO.

A comment on David Parker and what perhaps might charitably be described as a very economical view of the truth. The same comment suggested that Morning Report on National Radio might adopt a suitably challenging view when examining this question in future.

They draw attention also to Audrey Young's article in the NZ Herald today and to a Dominion Post editorial. The Herald article sums up the problem, titled Clark Digs In. The Dominion Post editorial is here.

NZ Right Wing Leftie has this earlier piece on the ETS resemblance to a lemon.

David Farrar has a good post on the regime's spin push to discredit Key's announcement and one on the Peter Neilsen pronouncement

As might be expected Just Left parrots the Labour spin and assumes that as the NZ ETS 'is world leading' it must be good. Nor does Just left seem to think the rushed legislative process is a problem. Many commentators not just in NZ have queried why we wish to do this.

Indeed, Adam still does not see why NZ with such a small proportion of greenhouse gases wishes to do what it is doing. Moral example be dammed. Russia, China and India amongst others will not care one iota what we do.

Many other countries are having second thoughts about their approach.

No Right Turn thunders away about what National and Key have said here and here. It is perhaps unfortunate that rather like David Parker his assessment of where the blame for the costs lies is perhaps misplaced. Adam does admire the moral consistency and the passion though.

Adam enjoyed this comment from frog. Wryly amusing and clear and concise.

The Standard have a piece here written as appropriate from their viewpoint.

SO as they say-'you pays your money and takes your choice'

Some will not make it. Others such as the Emissions Trading Bill will be the focus of Government attempts to ram through legislation to enable them to wave their 'green credentials' at the electorate.

This tactic is just not acceptable. This legislation is critical to our economy and must be properly considered.

Stuff has an item concerning Lockwood Smith's substantive concerns about the flawed nature of the Select Committee process as regards the Emissions Trading Bill.

He said:-

Senior National MP Lockwood Smith said the finance select committee's consideration of the climate change bill should be slowed down to allow proper examination of the bill.

"This select committee process is one of the worst I have seen," Dr Smith said.

"I have argued that we should be extending the hearings and submissions period for what is probably the most important legislation, economically and socially, for the last 20 years."

The bill sets up a scheme intended to reduce polluting emissions by penalising polluters and rewarding those who reduce emissions or plant trees.

The bill lays out a 20-year plan touching every part of New Zealand life in an attempt to tackle global warming.

Adam considers that we are seeing a re-run of the process adopted by the Government in ramming through the Electoral Finance Act. The ETB is being continually modified, the government is riding roughshod over submitters and others in an attempt to get a bill, any bill into law. See this item from Stuff.

This needs to be stopped.

In fact, Parliament needs to review the processes adopted for legislation. we have far too many of these ill thought out, poorly considered bills making it onto the statute books.

When they are as major as the ETB, the Public Health Bill and the budget this is wrong, very wrong. It is wrong in principle all the time, but even more so here.

Yet again, the Clark administration is demonstrating arrogance and an intolerance for the rights of people to be adequately heard on legislation.

This is another example of the Clark/Cullen manipulation of our polity to enable them to 'win the contest for power'.

Spectator - 10 May 2008

[Update: This was perhaps on my mind as an issue because of my rant post earlier today. That was in turn fuelled by an article I saw in the papers and this post over at Kiwiblog.  The issue was not the post itself, but the attitudes displayed by some of the commentators. In fact when I first read David Farrar's post and today on reading it again, I thought then and do now that he was being sardonic. Living up to his motto of 'Fomenting Happy Mischief'.]

Firstly is

The Myanmar Junta

How on earth can this regime despotic though it is, adopt the callous and unfeeling attitude it is doing in the face of the massive calamity to hit their country.

Only this morning I heard that they will only allow one US aid flight and that not until Monday, other relief workers are refused entry and apparently the regime 'confiscated' 2 plane loads of World Food programme supplies.

The Americans have a task force in the area for an exercise on helping countries suffering natural disasters. Yet these unfeeling , evil despots will not allow them to help.

Though I suppose given everything else they have done to the country it is only to be expected.

The ruling junta, their acolytes and lickspittles have looked after themselves for years at the expense of the common people. The country's natural resources have been plundered for their benefit.

Adam is no socialist far from it, but he understands how socialist revolution can flourish when you have regimes as corrupt as this one.

Yet again though the West has stood supinely by, as to a large extent it has in Darfur, Congo, Liberia and elsewhere.

It was to be hoped that in the 21st century we could finally learn to conduct ourselves differently, but mans' inhumanity to man continues in a myriad of different forms.

Their present actions are outrageous and they should be dealt with as a pariah state once the aftermath of this calamity is worked through.

Myanmar is a member of ASEAN, what is it doing to ensure relief is made available to the people of Myanmar?

China is supposed to have influence, what is it doing?

Indeed, if China wished to improve its' global standing now is a great opportunity for it to do so.

I wrote the above before I read this morning's print edition of the Dominion Post, this had a major article on the front page of the World section of the paper. The article made me fume in sheer frustration and anger at the generals who put themselves before everything else.

This disaster will be a much greater calamity through their sheer ineptitude and incompetence, let alone their paranoia, even if they let aid workers in immediately, because for many it is too late.

The article referred to above, is as usual not yet on Stuff.

My second target is:

Nanny Statism

What has happened to this country. I saw an item in the paper on school tuckshops and the items they were to be allowed to sell.

Then I read a thread on Kiwiblog on the subject,

Why will parents not take responsibility for educating their children as to what they should eat and when?

When did it become acceptable to have the government saying what we should eat, how often and when?

I think people should eat more healthily and yes, obesity is a problem. However, you will not achieve the objective by coercion or regulation.

Far, far too often New Zealanders look to the State for an answer rather than thinking and acting for themselves. That does not bode well for the future of this country.

An adjunct to this is why do the Greens think they have the right to sit in moral judgement on the rest of us in respect of lifestyles, and everything else. They have such a totalitarian approach to everything do the NZ Greens, everything must be regulated and imposed upon us for our better good.

The are such a load of bigoted, zealots, hell bent on 'improving' things to meet their own peculiar world view.

Unfortunately, under MMP they get to have influence. May heaven preserve us from them and those like them.

Do not vote Green.

Finally today

Two Tom Scott cartoons

Now as can be seen from my blog I like cartoons. Especially those I think are clever, they do not have to be funny per se, but they need to have a valid point.

I am not saying in this rant that Scott did not have a perfect right to draw and publish the cartoons in question, he did and does.

My rant is that I think the juxtaposition of subjects was inappropriate and that he could have found more apposite ways of making his point.

In reality, I think what I am saying is that many of his cartoons have given me pleasure, amusement and caused me to think over the years. These two, in particular caused me to think that Tom Scott was off form when he drew them, or maybe I just did not get the point.

Whatever the actuality, these two cartoons made me cross, probably because they equate the Myanmar tragedy with two much more prosaic situations.

I will comment after each cartoon.

Cartoon 1- Dominion Post - May 8, 2008

Title - Everyone wants to know

Given the appalling conditions so many in Burma lived in before the cyclone and the way in which the junta controls things, I hardly think that a cartoon suggesting 2 peasants seeking to save their lives would be talking about Obama and Clinton makes sense, especially as I doubt if either would have had a TV in the first place and they definitely would not have CNN.

Strange as it may seem to Tom Scott people do have interests other than Obama/Clinton. Indeed, in NZ many do not know this is a NZ election year.

My main objection though is the idea given in the cartoon that people fighting for survival in a river in Asia would be thinking about US politics.

It was appallingly insensitive. he could have chosen alternative imagery.

At the time I was just unamused, until I saw this one

Cartoon 2 - Dominion Post - May 10, 2008

Title - Much needed aid

This one made me want to vent my frustration and anger in earnest, which is when I determined to include both in my rant for today.

I know we have problems in NZ. I know that by NZ standards we have poor people and that South Auckland is an area which by NZ standards is seen as a deprived area.

My anger is over the following:

• A great many decent people live in Burma and South Auckland, this cartoon denigrates both places
• It is offensive, to me at any rate, in the extreme to suggest that the immense suffering in Burma is in any way equivalent to the social issues present in South Auckland
• The cartoon suggests that South Aucklanders are starving and need massive aid - that is balderdash
• By world standards our poor are not poor - indeed many of the truly poor living on US$1 per day or less would regard our poor as wealthy beyond their dreams - with their TVs, cars and multi room homes
• This cartoon may be seen by some as a biting critique of lack of government action to solve problems in Auckland - to me it is just an insensitive comment- and shows a lack of judgement

Peter Brookes - The Times

Now this cartoon was about the tribulations of the UK Labour Party.

Yet as Adam looked at it, it seemed to him that it had resonance here as well.

In recent days we have seen the re-arrangement of the deckchairs on the Titanic with the rushed moves to change climate change and regional petrol tax policies, and as usual when the going gets tough in the electoral cycle the contemptuous disregard of the Greens . In Adam's opinion the Greens have brought that on themselves by positioning themselves effectively to the Left of Labour and electing the deeply unattractive Russel Norman as co-leader.

No doubt the forthcoming budget will have more 'initiatives' geared to retaining power.

Plus given recent polls the need for re-launch seems daily more and more apparent

]]> http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/?p=459 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:52:41 +0000 adamsmith1922 http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/?p=459

Stuff

Given the problems that NZ faces, does this person have any relevance?

In the light of the economic issues facing the country, why does she wish to put even more people out of work?