a genuine worry that Green policy was anti-business
A line the Nats pushed ruthlessly for several years, yes. Helpfully relayed by our feeble media.
Yup exactly. Again I don't believe the line myself but it is clear that a lot of people were genuinely worried. That Labour might chose to respond to that FUD by distancing themselves somewhat from the Greens is an understandable if irrational response.
What did these voters think the Greens would do, confiscate their houses and cars?
The response I got when asking the question was they were deeply worried about what The Greens would do to “business” and in particular farming. It wasn’t a response that came from lack of thought but rather a genuine worry that Green policy was anti-business. Not helped by some of wittering both from right wing commentators and in some cases Green candidates.
you’ve outlined the problem with the BOI process. Appointments.
If one were really cynical one might suspect the govt had learned from previous mistakes and made sure this time that the panel came up with the answer the govt wanted.
What is TV One thinking
TVNZ has long been the major broadcaster of America's cup - essentially is was self advertising disguised as news
Well, you could just as easily say there are too many graduates for the existing science funding.
No. That would be like cutting funding for teachers and closing schools and then saying because there are unemployed teachers we don’t need them.
Wait, that IS what you are saying - that's bizarre.
While society has exactly the same need for pure science
I don’t know how one could even begin to measure such a thing.
Lots of economic studies have done exactly that. Essentially investment in science is one of the weird factors in economics that is non-linear. They came up with a special category to describe the effect of science investment on economic returns.
Why can’t they just make the committee bigger and have wider representation?
Bigger committees don't necessarily get more done. Also it is a security committee so it requires a certain level of adulthood (something rarer than you might hope in parliament).
barriers to participating at the professional academic level
Also sexism is alive and well in the hallowed halls making some departments unattractive.
demand has been pushed down
In the "pure sciences" (probably what you mean is the science projects without an immediately obvious product) the vast majority of funding comes from the government. This is true in every country, regardless of how you play with definitions to make projects look like they are one thing when they are in fact the other.
Essentially the sole market is society as a whole and the government as their representative.
While society has exactly the same need for pure science - what has happened is the governments (Labour and National) have taken from the science budgets to fund other things (eg tax cuts). Thus in real dollar terms science funding has declined and hence there are not enough jobs for the graduates ... even though society still needs them and their work.
I hate to use an economics word, but pure science does seem oversupplied
Absolutely not true. What has instead happened is that funding in sciences has been steadily cut in order to make room for tax cuts. The value of pure science to the economy (according to economists) has not changed.