Hard News: The smart thing to do
125 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
I can't quit make it out but was Paula Oliver responsible for the two part hagiography of John Key that appeared earlier in the year in the Herald?
Partly, yes. She also spent quite a bit of time on the campaign trail with National.
But I'm not sure if it's worth sniffing around for specific pieces that you can associate with her change of role. I just think in general it's sad when longtime journalists cross over.
-
Ah Mr Brown reminds me of one of those worn out greyhounds salivating like pavlov’s dog at the ACT rabbit. Of course the rise is far too passionate far too irrational to be merely about policy. Its personal.
It is deeply ironic that the commentariat left are winding themselves up in defence of Enron designed carbon trading. I can see the hills and vales of state housing tenants trooping into the polling booths to vote for that. In truth the Labour Opposition is likely to be more sensible than its boosters in blogland. I will return to the issue.
1. Were is the porkNo Right Turn has poor understanding of the confidence and supply agreement between National and ACT. First the flow of public funds is determined by negotiation between the PM (Minister of Ministerial Services) and the Leader of ACT either in bulk of on a per project basis. This gives ACT the capacity to analysis public policy issues and to respond quickly to requests for Parliamentary support for a proposed programme. Existing funding arrangements for Ministers outside cabinet wouldn’t necessarily provide this level of analysis. Likewise support through Parliamentary Services. It’s actually quite sensible given that it much process the entire Government’s policy not just their own portfolio responsibilities.
2. ACT offered two Cabinet seats according Mr Brown
I think this would come as a surprise to both National and ACT. Clearly Mr Brown knows something they don’t.
3. Assessing Climate Change Science is too hard for pols.
This is an argument from expertise. Of course the left don’t run it regarding health say because after all cradle to grave healthcare is so easy; politicians have all the information necessary about my health needs and yours and the human body to make rationing decisions. Fortunately science isn’t faith and politicians aren’t any smarter or more stupid than the rest of us. It’s the system we have.
I actually doubt that the select committee (which will be a proportional reflection of parliament itself) will spend too much time on this. Whatever the doubts about the science it might be prudent to introduce a scheme to send price signals to reduce carbon emissions.
4. Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade.
The upshot is that a tax might be more efficient until a deep liquid market emerges. Most economists (Jeffrey Sachs is one of the many) now agree that a carbon tax might be better first off which could later be converted to a trading scheme. Initially no property rights are created and thus no financial responsibility on the tax payer if carbon trading fails to take off. New Zealand could introduce the tax now which would reduce emissions and MIGHT be revenue neutral and await the global development of the market. Here is good paper on the policy issues from the Congressional Budget Office:
-
I just think in general it's sad when longtime journalists cross over.
Especially if they do it when they're still officially a journalist.
-
Ah Mr Brown reminds me of one of those worn out greyhounds salivating like pavlov’s dog at the ACT rabbit. Of course the rise is far too passionate far too irrational to be merely about policy. Its personal.
It is deeply ironic that the commentariat left are winding themselves up in defence of Enron designed carbon trading. I can see the hills and vales of state housing tenants trooping into the polling booths to vote for that. In truth the Labour Opposition is likely to be more sensible than its boosters in blogland. I will return to the issue.
1. Where is the porkNo Right Turn has poor understanding of the confidence and supply agreement between National and ACT. First the flow of public funds is determined by negotiation between the PM (Minister of Ministerial Services) and the Leader of ACT either in bulk of on a per project basis. This gives ACT the capacity to analysis public policy issues and to respond quickly to requests for Parliamentary support for a proposed programme. Existing funding arrangements for Ministers outside cabinet wouldn’t necessarily provide this level of analysis. Likewise support through Parliamentary Services. It’s actually quite sensible given that it much process the entire Government’s policy not just their own portfolio responsibilities.
2. ACT offered two Cabinet seats according Mr Brown
I think this would come as a surprise to both National and ACT. Clearly Mr Brown knows something they don’t.
3. Assessing Climate Change Science is too hard for pols.
This is an argument from expertise. Of course the left don’t run it regarding health say because after all cradle to grave healthcare is so easy; politicians have all the information necessary about my health needs and yours and the human body to make rationing decisions. Fortunately science isn’t faith and politicians aren’t any smarter or more stupid than the rest of us. It’s the system we have.
I actually doubt that the select committee (which will be a proportional reflection of parliament itself) will spend too much time on this. Whatever the doubts about the science it might be prudent to introduce a scheme to send price signals to reduce carbon emissions.
4. Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade.
The upshot is that a tax might be more efficient until a deep liquid market emerges. Most economists (Jeffrey Sachs is one of the many) now agree that a carbon tax might be better first off which could later be converted to a trading scheme. Initially no property rights are created and thus no financial responsibility on the tax payer if carbon trading fails to take off. New Zealand could introduce the tax now which would reduce emissions and MIGHT be revenue neutral and await the global development of the market. Here is good paper on the policy issues from the Congressional Budget Office:
-
Wow the second paper was just as blank as the first!
-
About time ACT debugged their Torybot.
-
... before it goes random and starts posting 10,000 word exerpts from Ayn Rand books. Torybots do that if misconfigured, you know.
-
-
... before it goes random and starts posting 10,000 word exerpts from Ayn Rand books. Torybots do that if misconfigured, you know.
... or make robocalls at 1:30am.
-
33% of Chinese emissions arise from the production of exported goods.
Hang on, your comment explicitly stated that emissions trading was driving productive enterprise out of Europe?
That is not supported at all by those articles.I'm all for informed discussion on emission penalty at consumption rather than production (it would, for example, negate much of the whining about "but China's polluting too") but you stated business was being driven out of Europe by emissions trading - I'm looking for the backing to to those claims.
-
Profits are Dutch
The Chinese factory owners do it for zip? Maybe Angus can point me in the direction of these benevolent folks? I need....
-
. . . posting 10,000 word exerpts from Ayn Rand books. Torybots do that if misconfigured, you know.
Um, isn't that what they're designed to do? After years spent muttering about the last to leave turning off the lights - while never leaving themselves - they tend to click into overdrive at the slightest hint of a false Dawn of Rationality.
-
Ah Mr Brown reminds me of one of those worn out greyhounds salivating like pavlov’s dog at the ACT rabbit. Of course the rise is far too passionate far too irrational to be merely about policy. Its personal.
Chris, the last time you pranced in here calling me a fool, you proved to have no idea what you were on about. As I recall, I suggested you could work on being a little less patronising. I think you need to practice a bit harder.
The reason I quoted a range of written opinions about Act's cranky behaviour at the top of the post was to emphasise quite how widespread the alarm is.
1. Where is the pork
No Right Turn has poor understanding of the confidence and supply agreement between National and ACT ...Translation: "it's not pork when we do it ... "
2. ACT offered two Cabinet seats according Mr Brown
I think this would come as a surprise to both National and ACT. Clearly Mr Brown knows something they don’t.Or perhaps certain Act officials should keep their mouths shut. Mind you, given the nature of the party he could well have been barking mad. so perhaps I should provisionally grant you that one.
3. Assessing Climate Change Science is too hard for pols.
This is an argument from expertise. Of course the left don’t run it regarding health say because after all cradle to grave healthcare is so easy; politicians have all the information necessary about my health needs and yours and the human body to make rationing decisions. Fortunately science isn’t faith and politicians aren’t any smarter or more stupid than the rest of us. It’s the system we have.We don't expect democratic representatives to know everything. We expect them to seek expert counsel on our behalf. They did that. Our expert agencies, like those throughout the developed world, advised that there was a very serious problem. The politician who hears such expert technical counsel and still insists on trotting out stuff he's read off the internet (see Hide's wacko speech, linked above) is not to be trusted.
And your analogy is daft. People in every democracy vote to some extent for the health system they want. They don't vote for the climate they want.
4. Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade.
The upshot is that a tax might be more efficient until a deep liquid market emerges. Most economists (Jeffrey Sachs is one of the many) now agree that a carbon tax might be better first off ..The "most economists" meme is the latest talking point amongst the kind of people who two years ago were screaming about the damage a carbon tax would do, isn't it? I've seen the claim made repeatedly on right-wing websites, but I've never seen it quantified.
But at least you're making an actual argument. Act's unilateral terms of reference for the review and Hide's speech are just kind of blurts. I think that still leaves you in the position of polishing your leader's turd.
-
Randroids are amazing creatures. I wonder if they use the market to drive their cars? If the market says the car is to veer off the road and smash to pieces, killing all the occupants, then it is right, God dammit!
-
A friend of mine is known to quote "you can't polish a turd, but you can cover it in glitter"
-
(hence I guess 'dancing with the stars')
-
Russell don't you know that a turd from leadership is merely the manure from which life springs to the minions below? To polish it would be a positive joy.
-
Some argue that both sides of the argument about Climate Change should be explored. That they say, means getting two even teams to the debate. This is daft of course as the those who deny Climate Change number a few hundred scientists + Ian Wishart and Rodney Hide, whereas those pro Climate Change number an estimated 300,000+ scientists. The rationale for revisting the debate is....?
-
Russell don't you know that a turd from leadership is merely the manure from which life springs to the minions below? To polish it would be a positive joy.
Reminds me of a Singaporean shopping mall, where a running stream, complete with tropical vegetation, flowed for several stories between the escalators. The higher you got, the stronger was the whiff of raw sewage. The trickle-down theory, applied.
-
No Right Turn has poor understanding of the confidence and supply agreement between National and ACT. First the flow of public funds is determined by negotiation between the PM (Minister of Ministerial Services) and the Leader of ACT either in bulk of on a per project basis. This gives ACT the capacity to analysis public policy issues and to respond quickly to requests for Parliamentary support for a proposed programme.
That is exactly how I understood it. Where we differ is that I also understand the funding rules for Ministerial Services rules. This sort of broad, cross-portfolio funding is simply not within the appropriation. And that makes it illegal.
-
That they say, means getting two even teams to the debate. This is daft of course as the those who deny Climate Change number a few hundred scientists + Ian Wishart and Rodney Hide, whereas those pro Climate Change number an estimated 300,000+ scientists. The rationale for revisting the debate is....?
It's not the outcome of the debate that matters so much as the fact of the debate itself. It suggests there are two sides, and accordingly that there is uncertainty, doubt, competing explanations, etc. Which in turn suggests that policy responses should be delayed, postponed, reviewed, etc. ad infinitem.
The (ahem) heavily outnumbered and intellectually outgunned creationists do the same thing in their attempts to 'debate' evolution. They don't win the debate, they win by having the debate.
-
Ah Mr Brown reminds me of one of those worn out greyhounds salivating like pavlov’s dog at the ACT rabbit.
Do worn-out greyhounds often salivate like Pavlov's dog at the ACT rabbit? Oh I see, it's a metaphor; yet still, Pavlov's dogs salivated at the sound of a bell; and does ACT want to be compared to a stuffed toy running on an electric track?
I think we should be told.
-
Gareth,
Hang on, your comment explicitly stated that emissions trading was driving productive enterprise out of Europe?
No, what I said was:
They are "making it" by exporting productive industry to places outside of Europe.
I meant to imply Kyoto is green lipstick on a globalised pig. It imposes some costs on EU production that add to the advantages of low cost labour, lax regulation, non-existant health & safety that drive capitalists to move production to China, India, etc. But no one in their right mind can say it is driving.
-
*sigh* And I was having such a nice day... But I will have a minor quibble with one statement Russell made:
The ditching of the ETS has undermined New Zealand's carbon credibility, and made difficult for us to argue our own virtue in the face of Britain's proposed new departure taxes.
I'd like to think an argument could be made that it's junk policy, rather than some eco-holier than thou walk-off. But perhaps a warm day and a divine lunch with a chum I've not seen for ages has softened the natural cynicism.
-
Kyoto is green lipstick on a globalised pig.
I wish I could get that image out of my head.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.