According to McCully the job was created and then Jones was identified as the top prospect for it. Jones says it was purely his’ decision to leave Labour
So you believe what politician say?????
He’s saying the right things, even if they’re not all the things
Not being able to fix all the problems is no reason to stop trying to fix some of the problems. And who knows maybe if you fix the problems one at a time you might find someday there isn't a next problem.
I’m inclined to go with Paddy Gower’s assessment: it has McCully’s pawprints all over it. I would not be surprised if the timing was McCully’s.
If correct, it is a spectacular misuse of taxpayers money for National Party political gain.
A salary in the order of half a million plus expenses and a staff of how many?
Incidentally, you can read about Texas’ recent efforts to reduce prison populations here.
That was an interesting article. The aim was to save money, but the method was to reduce re-offending rather than simply punishing. Pity it took them so long when that approach has been in place in other countries for decades. That means it will only be another decade or so before NZ tries it.
Because putting people in jails frequently and for a long time has been shown again and again to reduce criminal offending … no wait.
Arguing about the breadth of crimes this might apply to is utterly beside the point.
Official business stats would understate R & D conducted too though. I used to have to fill out the quarterly Statistic NZ form and it was so annoying to constantly have to do that you would fill it out as fast as possible and simply put down 0 for R & D rather than the actual number.
That changed for a little while when Labour introduced a tax incentive for R&D. The numbers went up rapidly and it turned out that the big accounting firms were doing lots of R&D that they hadn't previously reported. In fact, surprisingly, they were doing almost exactly the maximum amount of claimable R&D that it was possible to do!
Seriously though, industry R&D is quite reasonably mostly D. While D is critical, if you don't have someone doing R then the only D you can do is with R from other countries.
We need more of both, but isn’t our private share less than half what it should be?
Agreed of course. Industry R&D is a third or less of OECD averages. As far as anyone can tell from the experiences in other countries (bearing in mind every country is, well, a whole other country) industry investment usually lags behind government investment and that lag is bigger when government investment is lower. So the countries with low government investment have even lower industry investment, as the government investment increases the gap between government and industry gets smaller.
Now the problem of course is cause and effect and our governments have always insisted that they can increase industry investment (by some magical means) without needing to increase government investment.
My problem with that is that over 20 years none of the magic has worked. So my thinking is how about we stop doing things that don't work and simply do the thing that has worked in every other country.
And in case someone thinks I'm talking about huge amounts of money we don't have, science funding is pretty damn small in the scheme of the budgets Keith's data tool is fun and every study shows it pays back non-linearly.
the real issue for New Zealand R&D
is that our private sector has never invested their share
That is propaganda by the governments (Labour and National).
While it is true that business funding is low, the government funding is at best two thirds of the OECD average (depending on how you count it). That's the average!
All the evidence from overseas shows that business funding only rises after government funding rises so the government(s) pointing the finger at industry is bollocks.
I meant what I was saying over short time period, like 5-10 years.
In 2004 I had two massive CRTs on my desk. 3D printers barely existed then, now people are making their own for fun, in five years there will be 3D print shops in shopping malls (a guess but not an extreme one). Change happens really fast sometimes. New York is currently switching its city lighting over to LEDs. When aid agencies think about taking electricity to developing countries they take solar not diesel generators.
There are bits of energy saving technology all over the place that need only a small change in attitude to be implemented. It seems to me that we don't need much effort on the part f government to change quite dramatically in a short period of time, but we do need the government to stop actively obstructing change and actively promoting inefficient technologies.
The middle ground where all (including deniers and vested interests, governments etc.) can agree on the goal would seem to be somewhere about here;; increased efficiency, reduced wastage and squandering , and finding cost -competitive alternative energy sources.
Who would lose?
No many. Sadly those who would lose (big oil etc) have a lot of power.