Personally, I find the idea that no idea should be discussed if there is a possibility it might whip up well-organised moral hysteria pretty depressing.

The joy of political parties: they can't stand for anything in case someone doesn't like it.

Goff would have been a lot smarter to actually attack the cheapness of such empty words as "nannystate", "politically correct" and " social engineering."

We need adult politics.

Goff would have been a lot smarter to actually attack the cheapness of such empty words as "nannystate", "politically correct" and " social engineering."

He didn't use number one and three, at least not in the published version that Russell linked to. Does anybody know if he did in the?

Dear lord. I understand the bind that Labour finds itself into, but that was an awful speech.

I may have erred on the side of kindness.

Good that they've knocked that on the head though. Wouldn't want to have something evidence based to attack the current government on.

Personally, I find the idea that no idea should be discussed if there is a possibility it might whip up well-organised moral hysteria pretty depressing.

Isn't it just.
If Labour want to draw a line under the story that beat them last time, then OK. But if they adopt the?

I think the move away from pointy-headed urban liberalism back to an old school socialist economic platform is absolutely the way to go. This could be a bit problematic since many of the smartest, most formidable new MPs are pointy headed urban liberals:?

'we'll do whatever we think is right and anyone who doesn't agree can go fuck themselves'

It strikes me that we have an array of political commentators across spectrums that have personal issues with the labour movement because that comment is utter rubbish.

'we'll do whatever we think is right and anyone who doesn't agree can go fuck themselves'

It strikes me that we have an array of political commentators across spectrums that have personal issues with the labour movement because that comment is utter rubbish.

"haters and wreckers"?

You were the natural party of government for nearly?

"haters and wreckers"?,

Go on.

Let's take the EFA. Seems to me a scientific approach to the issue of election funding would have been a comparative study of other countries, and/or an independent body to study the problem with the government seeking to build consensus around the recommendations.?

In other words. Why fight over lightbulbs when it will potentially cost you an election even if you're right.

Because you could actually win votes with logical policy. It's 2009, we area few steps down a death spiral to the end of sustainable economies with global warmimg. We have a?

Key certainly doesn't want to stray much beyond?

But I think that the problem here is the importation of the American style right-wing idiot populism where evidence just doesn't matter.

I don't buy that.

There will always be whack jobs who froth and make no sense all over the political spectrum. And some issues have their time.

But?

Personally, I find the idea that no idea should be discussed if there is a possibility it might whip up well-organised moral hysteria pretty depressing.

I don't think this is well organised moral hysteria. I think it's how most people in our country think.

Look at our immunisation rates, domestic?

It was drawn up in response to utter fucking vileness at the 2005 election. It was drawn up in response to a national party who fucked with the basic fairness of our electoral landscape.

It is an unfinished programme to get fairness back into politics, especially?

The record in the context of the array governments that proceeded them since 1975 is was pretty fucking impressive on many fronts including 9 years of economic growth.

Actually it was 8 and 3/4 years of economic growth, followed by 3 months of economic collapse. But apologising for being in?

There will always be whack jobs who froth and make no sense all over the political spectrum. And some issues have their time.

But the idea that you can't gain reasonable popular support in NZ for policies that all the evidence backs up as being good policies, shows you're not?

Actually it was 8 and 3/4 years of economic growth, followed by 3 months of economic collapse. But apologising for being in government when a global financial crisis hits would appear trite.

Absolutely , Labour collapsed nothing

Instead Clark rewrote the laws around election funding to suit herself and her party and to handicap her political opponents. Her reaction to any criticism of such actions was that all of the (MANY) detractors of the bill were part of some right-wing conspiracy and not worth listening to.

I?

I think what is shows is that most people are ill-informed idiots who like to be spoon-fed conclusions

As oppossed to well educated idiots. Ill-informed is the key phrase here. Goff needs to get Obamafied and start using information as a weapon. We don't have to have predestrian oppositions just?

but it would seem this government is capable of much the same arrogance as the late-stage labour government was.

I never saw Clark as arrogant.

I saw her as competent and intelligent and with geniune leadership talent.After Muldoon,Douglas, Lange, McClay, Richardson, Bolger, Brash, Moore, Shipley I saw her as a?

I do think some of the criticism of the EFA was frankly hysterical, but the means of its creation was indefensible; a shambles.

What about the criticism of the EFB?

If a bill banning MPs from issuing press releases isn't an attack on democracy, I'm not sure you'll ever find?

They appear to have calmed down somewhat now

Wait till 15:00 Tuesday. It'll be back into urgency to pass the SuperCity (eating a member's day in the process), essentially "just because we can".

That bill at least has had a select committee process, even if it was ignored and corrupted?

The lack of any decent science or empirical basis for policy seems endemic to most political parties, in most?

Goff needs to get Obamafied and start using information as a weapon.

But it's not even working for Obama particularly well. He's trying to Sinatra his way to health care reform because he knows he can't talk facts. People don't give a shit. Information no longer as any value if?

The act was written in response to a fucking potential nightmare of invisible, anonymous high impact last minute campaigning but hey we've all forgotten about that ....that assault on democracy.?

But it's not even working for Obama particularly well

Well he did get elected and he got elected out of camp nowhere.

Well he did get elected and he got elected out of camp nowhere.

Which is unfortunately what most politicians are now good at: elections. To bad that they suck at governing. Obama is good on TV. He talks in sweeping phrases even if he's talking about nothing important. People believed?

People don't give a shit. Information no longer as any value if most people watch 4-5hrs of bad TV a day and think Close Up is the news.

Didnt know Close Up is shown in the US. Yeah I know its a cheap shot but you seem to be confusing?

Obama is not george w, he's not billy clinton, he's not bush the elder

There is a progression. Have a listen to him closely. He's trying to walk 260 million odd people into this century. He's got talent that dude but yes winning elections is a?

I blame the death of WWII vets. They came back as victims of foreign policy decisions and the welfare state was born. When they started to retire the welfare state was destroyed.

Everyone gets away with everything: Noelle McCarthy, Lockwood Smith, Cheeky Darky, Tony Veitch (but not Clint whathisname) ,?

That perception is a false one, and most of us appreciate that. But it exists nevertheless, and nobody on the?

it would seem this government is capable of much the same arrogance as the late-stage labour government was.

You're not wrong there – after years of insisting that Clark and her party were the most corrupt party in our history, worse than Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe etc, the current right-wing talking?

They should avoid being distracted by other matters.

Or make the distraction a big issue ...if the matter is serious enough it needs representation. That's their job.

Maybe victory in 2011 shouldn't be at any cost?

No, it shouldn't be at the cost of stamping on progressive solution scientifically based policy like efficient lightbulbs.

right-wing idiot populism where evidence just doesn't matter

The only reason this occurs is because of the lack of will and talent displayed by journalists. When journalists only want a one sentence answer then complex issues can never be explained. When interviewers interrupt and derail experts who are trying to?

I blame the death of WWII vets. They came back as victims of foreign policy decisions and the welfare state was born. When they started to retire the welfare state was destroyed.

The people you're describing are/were Muldoon's "Rob's Mob". There certainly was a sense of entitlement, often in the?

It makes no sense for the main opposition party at a time of recession to be focusing on anything other than economic issues, unless it wishes to remain in opposition.

I think you can wrangle a lot of things into making economic/financial sense.

If the first thing out of the?

Dismiss that as electorally stupid if you want, but a lot of the unpopular social engineering was the right thing to do.

No one is disputing that civil unions were the right thing to do: National didn't campaign against it, Labour haven't apologised for it. You're trying to reframe the?

No one is disputing that civil unions were the right thing to do: National didn't campaign against it, Labour haven't apologised for it. You're trying to reframe the debate to more defensible territory.

So are you!

It's a fact that civil unions were part of the urban-liberal-minority-lovin' grab bag that?

However, that is tinkering at the margin compared to the real challenge?

you seem to be confusing your populace's a bit there

My populace's what?

So you are saying that WWII soldiers got a welfare state as a reward?

Yes

Obama is not george w, he's not billy clinton, he's not bush the elder

Oh, I reckon he's all of those with?

But this, in turn, raises the question of why the media is in such a sorry state? If a majority of the public really wanted better journalism, wouldn't we have it?

No, we wouldn't. The public – all of them that I've encountered – do want higher quality reporting and?

Goff would have been a lot smarter to actually attack the cheapness of such empty words as "nannystate", "politically correct" and " social engineering."

I agree. I understand the concern of The Standard writer and some here who see the need to choose your battles, but that seems to have?

If we're going to pull stuff from the book of Marx, sure. But if it's about maintaining a decent welfare state, education and healthcare paid by a central tax system, these are still at heart popular?

If a majority of the public really wanted better journalism, wouldn't we have it?

I don't think the public have much say in what the media presents. I'm not an expert – if only there were someone here who had years of experience in the media...

My understanding is that?

But if it's about maintaining a decent welfare state, education and healthcare paid by a central tax system, these are still at heart popular concepts in New Zealand, despite being 'old school', and pretty socialist.

I'd sign up to all those as core principles. But I was at a grassroots?

I'd struggle to vote Labour if it really were to turn wholesale to the "old school socialist economic platform" that Danyl is recommending

As would I. The second-term of the last Labour Govt was their highlight for me – what with Kiwisavers and prefunded Supers and (poor, but something) R&D credits?

I take your point, but still think that the movement really needs to have a conversation about the influence of the New Left, and the long-term viability of its associated ideologies.

Alternatively, we could have one about the deadness of the Old Left, and its long-term viability.

In case you?

Condom provision must be free because, as with any consumer product, the higher the price, the lower the take-up. In the July 2004 edition of The Lancet the RAND corporation reported an interesting experiment that proves the point. The corporation distributed?

What does it say about a government that thinks it needs to take such an easy choice out of the hands of ordinary New Zealanders? Do they think we are stupid?

I'd even go so far as to say it would have been a good idea to put a surtax?

When you add into the equation the factor that many media people believe the public can be convinced to want something they don't otherwise want...

This is a very good point, and – if true – goes a long way to negating my position. But, as to the truth of?

What does it say about a government that thinks it needs to take such an easy choice out of the hands of ordinary New Zealanders? Do they think we are stupid?

You can make the same argument about any form of consumer regulation: unsafe food, unsafe cars, products that do?

What does it say about a government that thinks it needs to take such an easy choice out of the hands of ordinary New Zealanders? Do they think we are stupid?

There's a straw man argument which would only make sense if everyone had rushed out and bought power-saving lightbulbs,?

My Father was very angry with the lightbulb ban, not because he's a climate change denier but because almost every light switch in his house is on a dimmer switch, CFLs blow up if you put them into those sockets

There are CFLs which are made just for dimmer controls,Danyl.?

It's a prerequisite for taking executive power. I guarantee he won't change jack shit and by the end of his last term he'll be as hated and compromised as every other president.

Oh, go and play with Ralph Nader would you? Elections matter.

(In fact, Obama has changed things; look?

I also understand that constant bleating about rights and discrimination and lesbian maori whales?

If we're going to pull stuff from the book of Marx, sure. But if it's about maintaining a decent welfare state, education and healthcare paid by a central tax system, these are still at heart popular concepts in New Zealand, despite being 'old school', and pretty socialist.

I've been saying?

If there were some serious government?

If there were some serious government carrot/stick, we might convince our landlord to replace the fittings similarly to how he has improved the insulation since that became subsidised.

I'd suggest regulating for minimum standards to solve the problem of split incentives in rental properties, but someone – probably a landlord?

(And, er, you have premises and then you draw conclusions that aren't warranted, of course it is about the damn premises; either that or the logic you are using.)

One company was producing a dimmer bulb wasn't it?

I have 90% CFLs in my house, but dimmer switches in the lounge and I can honestly say I've never seen dimmer CFLs for sale. I'm sure I can source them on the internet someplace, but I'm a lazy, lazy man?

in that case why make claims about the mental state of actors you haven't got a clue about?

On the grounds that if they really gave a shit, they'd do a lot more. They don't, therefore they don't – classic modus ponnens.

It is not as if the solutions to?

So you are saying that WWII soldiers got a welfare state as a reward?
Yes

But... Rob already showed you that they didn't. The welfare state was instituted long before World War II, and leftists all over the world had been agitating for those benefits since the 19th century. Don't?

Clearly those of us who take the language of equality seriously and believe that it isn't just about rich and poor should just STFU, take our lumps, and bow our heads in obediance to our self-appointed leaders of the economic-only left.

Oh, come on. That's hardly what I was saying.?

]]> Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:07:14 +1200 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131060#post131060 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131060#post131060

My Father was very angry with the lightbulb ban, not because he's a climate change denier but because almost every light switch in his house is on a dimmer switch, CFLs blow up if you put them into those sockets and he was going to have to get his whole?

And secondly, it does seem to imply a kind of top-down, shadowy cabal, kind of deliberate manipulation.

It's not necessarily for there to be any conspiricy, R A. That's the gist of Manufacturing Consent, and other commentary on this matter; it could be a systemic problem.

Clearly those of us who take the language of equality seriously and believe that it isn't just about rich and poor should just STFU, take our lumps, and bow our heads in obediance to our self-appointed leaders of the economic-only left.

Oh, come on.?

Sue Kedgley:

I will officially open this inaugural Natural Health Expo

...

My topic at 10.30am is:
"Why the NZ Government needs to embrace Natural Healthcare into?

Intellectual charity demands I believe they are evil instead.

Hanlon's Razor demands otherwise.

Well, no. I'd even accept: they are willing to let inequality increase in exchange for increased economic growth, etc. But `happy for inequality to increase'? Yeah. No.

(And the attendant social?

If the left isn't for individual freedom (in its substantive sense of requiring the economic resources to be actually realised rather than merely theoretical), then what is it for?

So, what are you saying? 4WDs and flat-screen TVs for everyone? The Left is a broad church, and I, for one,?

After the election a cousin said to me as we argued about politics "but you must admit we needed a change". That told me all I needed to know about why he?

"Why the NZ Government needs to embrace Natural Healthcare into the Health System"

(disclaimer – Green Party member)

Oh god... what pains me most here is the hijacking of the word "Nature". If "Nature" is the system of intrinsic laws which governs the universe, then surely a dose of antibiotics?

The only reason this occurs is because of the lack of will and talent displayed by journalists. When journalists only want a one sentence answer then complex issues can never be explained. When interviewers interrupt and derail experts who are trying to explain things then the public never even has?

Well, no. I'd even accept: they are willing to let inequality increase in exchange for increased economic growth, etc. But `happy for inequality to increase'? Yeah. No.

And yet, I see a spectacular lack of hand-wringing from them. Let alone any effort to explain the compromise and why they made?

it does seem to imply a kind of top-down, shadowy cabal, kind of deliberate manipulation.

God no. Didn't mean to imply that. It isn't a shadowy cabal just accountants maximising the amount of money made in the media. that it no longer meets the wants of the public is irrelevant?

if they really gave a shit, they'd do a lot more. They don't, therefore they don't – classic modus ponnens.

No, that's modus tollens. Modus ponens is "a, therefore b. a. Therefore, b." Modus tollens is "a, therefore b. Not b. Therefore, not a."

I knew the philosophy degree would?

No, that's modus tollens. Modus ponens is "a, therefore b. a. Therefore, b." Modus tollens is "a, therefore b. Not b. Therefore, not a."

D'oh! Shows how much I've forgotten over the years.

Let alone any effort to explain the compromise and why they made it.

You are kidding right? If I had a penny every time some Labour type has said `now we support that in principle but the money just isn't there' then I'd be able to fund half these damn?

Let alone any effort to explain the compromise and why they made it. You know – treating us like adult citizens whose consent must be sought, rather than morons to be spun to.

To follow on from this: when the Greens compromise – on the Prisoners and Victims Claims Act,?

You are kidding right? If I had a penny every time some Labour type has said `now we support that in principle but the money just isn't there' then I'd be able to fund half these damn programs.

But they don't talk about the big compromise, why the money isn't there: their continued commitment to NeoLiberal economic policies.

Why not? Because people might not like it. So they lie to us instead.

If you want to attack consumerism, fine, be my guest. But individualism is perfectly compatible with being on the left.

So, um, what is it we're disagreeing about so vehemently, again?

(Which neatly wraps back onto an earlier part of the thread: why doesn't Labour fight its corner? Why don't they advocate for their beliefs? Why are they so bloody timid? Are they that embarassed about their views? Are they that scared of saying anything?)

Do they have any beliefs? Is?

There are quite a few problems existant that are more complex than choosing lightbulbs – like the appropriate national debt, balance of payments, youth suicide, homelessness, waiting lists, economic growth, Afghanistan, unemployment, Fiji, immigration, over burdened prisons or global warming – to which I'd like to see the government focus?

Hilary, that'd be because in the EU it's possible to carry out some fairly significant degree of "social engineering" without the media and the public screaming and ranting about it.

Also, the European Commission isn't democratically elected. No, really.

This very neat graphic demonstrates where they stand

The decision of the New Zealand Government today to not regulate 170g minimum emissions standards for?

The exception is radio, which is perhaps the healthiest, and still has a public institution.

Hardly. Commercial radio in NZ is a voracious duopoly. The media sector with the most — and the most independent — players is the magazine market.

Hardly. Commercial radio in NZ is a voracious duopoly.

You are absolutely right about the ownership of commercial radio.

I was thinking about the wide range of non-commercial stations. There's healthy diversification even in some very small submarkets. I've heard the anecdote that Auckland has more radio stations per capita?

The light bulb and home water systems minimum standards were a response to climate change, and there is at least some kind of popular mandate for measures to address climate change.

Yes, the measures were a small and meaningless response to climate change.

They were also complementary to minimum standards*?

What's intrinsically "natural" about imaginary made-up bullshit?

Call it another modus tollens (thank you Jack) – Science = Unnatural, imaginary made-up bullshit = Not Science, therefore Not Unnatural. Science is logical and also provable, but stuff like homeopathy feels right. It's one of the most infuriating things about humanity at?

CFL sales were increasing very rapidly, in fact CFLs are one of the great product successes of the past decade.

Jesus H. Christ, Angus, do you even read your own links?

From your link:

A large part of the increase in CFL sales has been due to government action. In?

What does it say about a government that thinks it needs to take such an easy choice out of the hands of ordinary New Zealanders? Do they think we are stupid?

There's a straw man argument which would only make sense if everyone had rushed out and bought power-saving?

Uptake was slow, and there were two main reasons. 1) People were poorly informed about their benefit, safety and functionality. 2) Price signals weren't transparent ? you can't tell how much of your power bill was for your lightbulbs, and how much was for your dryer. So even if your?

This household is nowhere near breaking even, let?

My populace's what?

Here

But it's not even working for Obama particularly well. He's trying to Sinatra his way to health care reform because he knows he can't talk facts. People don't give a shit. Information no longer as any value if most people watch 4-5hrs of bad TV a?

]]> Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:55:14 +1200 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131105#post131105 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131105#post131105 Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:56:38 +1200 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131107#post131107 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131107#post131107 Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:16:48 +1200 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131108#post131108 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131108#post131108 Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:22:38 +1200 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131109#post131109 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131109#post131109 Geez St ephen- what on earth is wrong with the wiring in your house?
I live in an area notorious for power surges, brownouts, and outright lightening strike. I changed incandescent bulbs, on average, every 2 months. That's every bulb in the house (12.) Except for the halogen desklamp (I?

]]> Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:32:07 +1200 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131110#post131110 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131110#post131110 Well, whatever is wrong with our wiring, it doesn't affect incandescent bulbs. There are bigger money and power savers available to us anyway – like uninstalling our heat pumps...

From memory, the Consumer report on the EECA website was only able to recommend three or four of the dozen CFL?

]]> Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:47:47 +1200 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131111#post131111 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-be-the-party-of-good-science/?p=131111#post131111

It's not necessarily for there to be any conspiricy, R A. That's the gist of Manufacturing Consent, and other commentary on this matter; it could be a systemic problem.

God no. Didn't mean to imply that. It isn't a shadowy cabal just accountants maximising the amount of money made in?

http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/emissions-scheme-cost-kiwis-less-2989949

Also, there's an article in the new Metro by Charlotte Grimshaw about the need for Sainsbury and Campbell to "man up" in their respective "current affairs" shows.

I really do read this stuff, a more than tripling of production constitutes a market success:

Between 2001 and 2006, production of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) in China-which accounts for roughly 85 percent of global output-tripled from 750 million to 2.4 billion units.

And since (as you so kindly?

Lets give some credit to the party and voters, National only won by imitation.

Goff needs to start setting the record straight on the last Labour government .The record in the context of the array governments that proceeded them since 1975 is was?

My Father was very angry with the lightbulb ban, not because he's a climate change denier but because almost every light switch in his house is on a dimmer switch, CFLs blow up if you put them into those sockets and he was going to have to?

Eh? That's like putting fluoride — another dialectic in NZ...thought that one died out in the 60s everywhere else

Um here in the UK we are having that exact debate right in the here and now whereas the folate in bread debate was won here a long time ago.?

A dead worldview of DWM union bosses

What is that dead worldview according to you?

...the old market that existed prior to government intervention was tripling every 5 years and we don't want to screw that up.

What those laws will do will increase the price of CFLs by mandating demand uptake in the EU, Japan, Nth America and Aussie; whilst increasing prices might slow?

The problem with the Parliamentary Labour Party isn't that they want bad things; it's that they are going about good things the wrong way.

To be fair Labour suffered with plodding electoral partners. The second and third terms were compromised by the greens, its most logical electoral partner not getting?

Did the Maori Party perhaps decide to have another crack at cutting a forestry deal with National to support their ETS, having reportedly failed?

The centre is just a concept that was thought up to sell newspapers.

Sure it's not a feature of MMP?

It disturbs me that Labour appears to be trying to woo voters back by being more like National.

Well National won last year by becoming more like Labour, so you can't blame Labour for thinking the reverse might be worth a crack.

Call it another modus tollens (thank you Jack) – Science = Unnatural, imaginary made-up bullshit = Not Science, therefore Not Unnatural.

Actualy, I'd call that "denial of the antecedent".

Your government never proposed restricting people?s showers or forcing them to use a particular type of light. You probably never understood that ? certainly your minister for Building?

Isn't it more likely that manufacturers will greatly appreciate the advance signal provided by regulatory certainty, and duly plan to increase CFL production? It's not like China is short of capacity.

Yes reckon you are right, but production was growing at 30% each year so perhaps the regulatory approach is?

We need adult politics.

Well, jeremy, I'd respectfully suggest throwing up your hands and blaming "the Kiwiblog right" or the media is a pretty piss poor way to go about it. Been rather ironic that I'm in Melbourne as Labour celebrates a decade since the State victory that just wasn't?

Labour moved up to the centre in order to set up 1999, National moved down to the centre in 2008 and yet the centre is going to be the deathslide of this country. The centre is stale and sterile.

Goff needs to ignore the tired political geography and smash around?

However, as Scott says it's pretty clear where most of the voters are from any 'side'. Perhaps?

And Idiot/Savant has a graph.

Which doesn't show what I think it does. Its not millions of tons of CO2, but percentage of 2005 emissions.

it would be nice if supposedly professional government departments remembered the first rule fo graphs: always label your axes.

That's my reading of Patrick Smellie.

Sadly, it does seem to leave a fairly obvious avenue for populist attack:

The Maori Party put a similar deal to Labour before the last election, which declined because?

Sure it's not a feature of MMP?

I think it's a feature of the bell curve, which pre-dates MMP by some time.

Though I do wish that politicians would spend more time trying to move the curve in their direction, rather than letting it rule their lives.

Um, did the Maori Party just throw the rest of us under the bus there?

Yes – to the tune of $430 million a year, excluding agriculture.

That's serious money, which could be used for serious policy (alternatively, it could just not be borrowed). Instead, it is going straight from?

I think it's a feature of the bell curve, which pre-dates MMP by some time. Though I do wish that politicians would spend more time trying to move the curve in their direction, rather than letting it rule their lives.

And I want decision-makers to get that all points on?

I/S – is the $430m fiscal cost they reference?

Yes – to the tune of $430 million a year, excluding agriculture.

If we include agriculture, then it's over a billion dollars a year in ongoing direct subsidies.

That's around $230 dollars in subsidies from every single New Zealander.

The way this story goes will be intriguing to follow. Does the media take the "electricity is cheaper for a bit, business is saved" line, or the "it costs taxpayers $430m a year and emissions won't come down as much" line.

The Dom-Post seems to be taking the latter line:?

The people crusading for their light-bulb liberty were, in effect, declaring their wish for the government to spend more tax dollars on one or two new electric power stations.

Well, I have to say I'd definitely like some more power stations much more than I'd like light bulb restrictions. But?

George could you explain the workings behind that $1b number?

In 2007 (the latest year we have figures for), agriculture was responsible for 36.4 million tons. With the ongoing expansion of the dairy industry and resistance by farmers to any improvement in practices which could reduce emissions (even when it?

That's around $230 dollars in subsidies from every single New Zealander.

John Key was on Sunrise this morning saying that it would cost us $3 each / week, less than the $6-7 each that the Labour scheme would cost.

Does that include the $230 above? Is the saving by just?

George could you explain the workings behind that $1b number?

This is very back of the envelop stuff, but;

Assuming a $20 carbon price (conservative, compared to international prices, and the Government is offering a $25 locked in subsidy price from 2013 for transport, energy and industry) and 35MtCO2e emissions?

So, next time you see some farmer, ask him for your $200 back.

I might be a simple person, but it seems to me that what you've just described provides virtually no incentives for changing behaviour etc.

If it cost more to produce the goods, then farmers might change their?

Thanks I/S – one other thing, they reference ~$400m over the four year period, not p.a. Agree with that?

Nope. Those sectors were responsible for 37.8 millions tons of emissions in 2007. A 50% subsidy means we pick up the tab for 18.9 million tons a year. At current carbon?

The key idea underlying an ETS?

Kyle: different costs to different people.

Yeah I get that. But the average of $3/person/week. Does that include the vast taxpayer subsidies, or is that just increased prices for power, transport etc, the taxpayer subsidies are on top of that?

National has committed to a 90% subsidy of whatever agriculture is emitting in 2015

Wait, so we're subsidising agriculture almost fully past 2015?

Head-desk

If it cost more to produce the goods, then farmers might change their methods, consumers will change their purchases. If the government subsidises 90% of it,?

Whatever happened to the sacrosanct "user pays" "principle" when you need it

It only applies to poor people. If you want to incentivise rich people, you have to give them money.

I might be a simple person, but it seems to me that what you've just described provides virtually no?

Yeah I get that. But the average of $3/person/week. Does that include the vast taxpayer subsidies, or is that just increased prices for power, transport etc, the taxpayer subsidies are on top of that?

The latter.

Wait, so we're subsidising agriculture almost fully past 2015?

Yup. Though to be fair,?

Umm, was there any good news in it?

If Roger Douglas votes for huge subsidies to farmers, the irony will be delicious.

If Roger Douglas votes for huge subsidies to farmers, the irony will be delicious.

He voted for (effectively) large subsidies for Faye and Richwhite and everyone else who bought up everything he helped flog off in the 1980s, so I suspect irony is something that slips past him.

Well National won last year by becoming more like Labour

As far as I can tell National won by telling people it was more like Labour but has actually shown itself to be very much like National with a good dose of ACT.

If the Maori Party was going to?

I'm sure that it will slip right past.

The key idea underlying an ETS or any market mechanism is "polluter pays"...

...so we consumers don't have to.

An ETS is a politically contrived piece of BS that has consumer society politicians portraying producers as "the problem".

We are a consumer society wallowing in carbon footprints 4x larger than?

And it brings the whole idea of market mechanisms into disrepute.

An ETS was never a reputable mechanism. It was always a market mechanism to impose pollution costs on producers. It was put forward (unsurprisingly) by rich consumer societies as their preferred solution to climate change and inherently unfair to?

Does anyone know if ACT supports this?

I was thinking exactly that this morning – putting aside whether or not "it" exists or how the world should respond if it does; given that we have a Kyoto (and Copenhagen) liability,?

Umm, was there any good news in it?

That depends on whether you think that this ETS is better than none.

I don't, I really don't.

It is actually possible to follow some of the core beliefs of the left (e.g. equality, helping others) while adhering to some on the right (e.g. self responsibility, individualism).

That's a New Zealand Herald summation of left and right. Self responsibility and individualism weren't invented by the right.

The centre is just a concept that was thought up to sell newspapers.

Sure it's not a feature of MMP?

Sure, good point....and my point was lazy. Interestingly IMO our history of MMP has thrown up only one term that could really be called centre left, the one that destroyed?

Hamstring the bastards, I say!

That's a New Zealand Herald summation of left and right. Self responsibility and individualism weren't invented by the right.

Do you have a link to that Herald summation? Or are you just intent on dismissing counterarguments as "Herald" ones?

It is possible, you know, not to be of the 'Left"?

Quite. $500 dollars per year.

Sorry, got to call bullshit on that number. To save $500 dollars a year implies spending $625/yr on lighting (CFL bulbs use 20-30% of the electricity of a comparable incandescent, here I have used 20%, which is a very generous assumption).

According to [[http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/64612/QSDEP.pdf|this survey?

According to this survey of household electricity prices most consumers pay between 22c and 28c per kWh. Let's be generous again and say 30c/kWh.

Holy shit, really? And I thought we were being stung during winter at 21c. I don't even want to think about what our power bills would?

This 2005 press release from the then New Zealand Government speaks volumes. We had a good climate policy, the price was set too low but could have been raised eventually, and it priced carbon directly for all sectors?

...Don't upset the farmers. But the farmers, cheeky bastards (there are some good ones of course) were always going to fight until they were completely insulated, and got the kind of giveaway that National has just put up. Hell, they were storming Parliament after an 80cent?

The key idea underlying an ETS or any market mechanism is "polluter pays". National and the Maori Party have reversed that to "pay polluters".

I can see "corporate welfare" written all over the whole deal.

Cue this photo, or this photo. Caption: "This is what your tax dollars are subsidising."

It is actually possible to follow some of the core beliefs of the left (e.g. equality, helping others) while adhering to some on the right (e.g. self responsibility, individualism).

Alright brother it's your summation then. It's still poor.It is a disservice to characterise the left as being deficient in individualism?

We had a good climate policy, the price was set too low but could have been raised eventually, and it priced carbon directly for all sectors of the economy.

It was crap, it was designed in anticipation that the world would adopt an Emission Trading approach and that is not?