Hard News: What I'd really like to know
134 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
I know we have quite a few scientists reading here, and a smaller number who post in our forums. I'd be very grateful if you could all venture some comment, so the readers and I could read perspectives we're not finding elsewhere today.
Indeed -- and I'm pretty disappointed that Morning Report let Helen Clark get away with airily muttering 'we'll work out the details later'; and the analysis seems to be fixated on the politics, rather than substantive analysis on whether its sound policy. Well, the press release is hella impressive, but as the saying goes the devil is in the details and I think the scientific community is entitlted to a certain amount of cautious scepticism.
-
You could be forgiven for thinking the Speaker's Tour exists principally as an annual opportunity for set-piece media outrage, to flare briefly and then be forgotten until the next year's Speaker's Tour.
And to give the junket the little attention it deserves, I was less than impressed by this part of the Prime Minister's "carefully-honed response" (and one echoed by John Key, to be fair):
Clark:
"Obviously in election year a lot of people have other things on their mind, like running for Parliament again...
Key:
"I want my MPs who are seeking re-election to be out there working hard on the campaign trail."
Oy vey... why don't we just shut down Parliament in election year since the poor petals have such difficulty multi-tasking? I don't think I find the junket half as offensive as the rationale.
-
Brilliant initial news - investment economic policy like this is the type of thing I like to hear, especially when clustering, internationalisation and sustainability are all in there.
And while I too would love to hear of current initiatives in the industry that may utilise the funding, I don't think we can be too critical of the lack of these. When establishing a long-term fund like this (note it's not $700m spent, it's a fund whose returns will presumedly fund projects) the Government needs to set the focus areas and funding levels upfront so those setting the detail have a ballpark to play in. But definitely some commentary around the "cool new things" coming up would be interesting - perhaps small start up companies clustering around Ruakura to commercialise some of the research coming out there and take it internationally for example?
-
Which private-sector companies are most likely to pony up matching funds?
According to Morning Report, Fonterra, Zespri and PGG Wrightson have already signed up.
Craig, if Helen Clark had all the details worked out at this time, I suspect you would be tempted to criticise her for for being a control freak.
Interestingly, John Key has got his facts wrong again (thinks the fund will provide funding from interest only - it will actually provide funding from interest and principal) and has called it a "gimmick". I expect a National to backflip and come out with grudging support once they figure out that this is actually a very popular move by the government.
-
Interestingly, John Key has got his facts wrong again
If only that were so Mikaere, unfortunately it's becoming so commonplace that like Bush, and Reagan before him, Key's screw-ups are becoming so commonplace that they're not even raising eyebrows or interest anymore.
It seems the media are just used to his half-baked responses and happily ignore their many flaws. I suppose they're just thankful to be getting any response out of him.
-
Craig, if Helen Clark had all the details worked out at this time, I suspect you would be tempted to criticise her for for being a control freak.
Oh come on, Mikaere, if you're going to call me a partisan hypocrite don't fudge. Somehow, I don't think John Key would be -- or should be -- allowed to get away with making a $700 million dollar policy announcement, then say the details around some pretty basic questions will be sorted out in the fullness of time. As I said, I'm rather impressed but am entitled to reserve judgement until we're a little beyond the initial PR puffery.
Good election year politics, definitely. Good policy that's going to have real results, I'm reserving judgement. Can't be fairer than that, can I?
-
As for the name ... NZFF could be "New Zealand Fast Forward" or "New Zealand Federated Farmers"? ;-)
Interestingly politically ... since my understanding is that Labour is widely loathed in the agricultural sector, which has traditionally been a bedrock of National support, and always likely to view government in general (not to mention DOC in particular) as evil incarnate. Except when it's handing out benefits like this I guess.
The scientists themselves are a different kettle of fish from Bill and Jane Cowcocky of course.
Overall though, new spending in, say, health research might be more likely to rustle up some additional support for Labour.
-
According to Morning Report, Fonterra, Zespri and PGG Wrightson have already signed up.
Ah, thanks. I stayed in bed an extra 20 minutes this morning and missed that, but I think it was the most useful coverage I've come across.
It's here if anyone else missed it too.
Craig, if Helen Clark had all the details worked out at this time, I suspect you would be tempted to criticise her for for being a control freak.
I thought she provided a fair amount of detail, and as much as you'd expect at this stage of proceedings.
Interestingly, John Key has got his facts wrong again (thinks the fund will provide funding from interest only - it will actually provide funding from interest and principal) and has called it a "gimmick"
That's a bad flub, and his subsequent refusal to come on Morning Report to discuss it just makes it worse.
-
Oy vey... why don't we just shut down Parliament in election year since the poor petals have such difficulty multi-tasking? I don't think I find the junket half as offensive as the rationale.
That is pretty much what is happening anyway - only 61 sitting days scheduled by Labour.
Colin Espiner had a blog post on this too.
-
Personally I couldn't get up in fingers, let alone up in arms about the junket. 100K isn't a massive amount of money to send a bunch of people around the world visiting Eastern Europe and meeting with all the local hobnobs.
But I concur with Craig about the lame excuse of 'all the real MPs are busy running'.
This junket is in April. ~6 months before the election. Were the MPs planning to do any real work this year, or just planning to spend the whole year living off us while they run for another 3 years?
-
Interestingly politically ... since my understanding is that Labour is widely loathed in the agricultural sector, which has traditionally been a bedrock of National support
And a pretty flawed understanding, because in my experience farmers are rather pragmatic. I don't think it would be smart politics for anyone to make too many assumptions either way about the rural vote. Then again, I don't think this is the year for anyone to make any assumptions about anything on the political front -- but I seem to be pissing in the wind on that score.
-
The new fund is good news, heck any new funding for science is good news, but the devil will be in the details. Sorry for being cynical but...
The suggestion is that industry will have to be equal partners, what happens if they don't come up with equal money? Does that mean money will only go into research where there is a willing established industry? If that's the case then it's likely only late developmental stage research will be funded since that's really the only research industry is willing to fund.
Who will administer the fund?
If it's The Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FRST) then we are likely to see yet another growth in the size of the FRST administration. And FRST have had a philosophy that they can pick which research will give the greatest economic benefit. Historically, directed funding like that is good for late stage development of products, but it fails miserably at generating new innovations and discoveries that can make large changes economically and socially.If you compare FRST to Marsden, the Marsden fund is administered by the Royal Society of NZ and funding almost completely based on science quality as determined by peer review. FRST "targets" funding to ensure greatest benefit to NZ and has almost abandoned peer review. However the research funded by Marsden is much more successful at generating scientific publications than FRST research and also more successful at generating patents! For the lay reader, research that generates patents is usually the research that allows new companies to be formed and gets new products developed.
So the question of who administers the fund is a very important one for the eventual success. My opinion is that any funding that is not seriously peer reviewed is less likely to result in real innovation and hence less likely to really benefit NZ.
I think the greatest benefit to NZ will come from funding the very best quality science.
Personally I'd rather see a $700 million fund simply given to the Royal Society and tell them to fund more Marsden research. If you want to do any targeting maybe tell them that plants and animals are important to NZ, but even then I'd rather see world class materials science or maths research funded than average plant science - and I work on plants!
But while I'd rather see more money go to Marsden this is better than what we had last week.
cheers
Bart -
I admit I've only been listening to the news with half an ear for the last couple of days but, with the way the "junket" has been presented by the media I was, until I came here, under the impression that retiring MPs were being sent on a nice holiday as some kind of goodbye present rather than it being a working trip that simply included some MPs that mightn't be around this time next year.
-
it will actually provide funding from interest and principal
Anyone provide the link to this information? Interested in how long the fund will be around for/how often it will be topped up if it's designed to provide more than it earns...
-
Sorry for being cynical but...
No apologies required, Bart. Between you and Russell, you've provided more worthwhile -- and healthily sceptical -- analysis, and asked more worthwhile substantive questions than the MSM have collectively managed so far.
Pardon for another digression, but that would be a damn good story idea for Media 7: Where is the expertise that would have put some meat on the bones of this story? Just another victim of staff and resource cuts?
-
I did love the $7 Million being described as a quantum leap on RNZ - I think quoting Fed Farmers.
"And seriously, is it wise to send Brian Connell anywhere?" - Well maybe but it would be undemocratic not too. He was elected by the good people of Selwyn after all.
The Poles can handle him- aren't the Prez & PM twin brothers? My fave Polish political parties are the Beer Party & after a split the Little Beer Party.
-
because in my experience farmers are rather pragmatic
Yes, they'll moan & bitch about anything.
-
Isabel - that's exactly the impression the media want to convey.
Back to Fast Forwarding New Zealand ... my recollection is that there's relatively little employment in farming, even when one adds the work associated with processing primary foodstuffs. (As an aside, a colleague once told me that more people work in cafes in Wellington than in the entire NZ fishing industry).
I fear the government is still labouring under the impression that New Zealand is a rural nation ... when about 86% of the population lives in urban areas.
Now admittedly some of these "urban areas" are actually rural service towns, but it would be nice to see some recognition that, at least, the "Big 6" urban regions (Akld, ChCh, Welly, Hamiltron, Burka Bob Land, and Dunners) have societies and economies that are diverse and not dependent on growing grass.
As a rough guess about 2.4 million people live in these rather consequential "non farming" centres.
-
Oh, and this headline should give ammunition to those who believe the Herald is systematically downplaying the Labour government's achievements.
;-)
-
I fear the government is still labouring under the impression that New Zealand is a rural nation ... when about 86% of the population lives in urban areas.
Yes, but it took a trip to Asia last year to bring home to me how bloody big Fonterra is, and what it's doing to open new markets, especially in terms of creating products targeted to those markets. It is genuinely important.
-
I thought John Key looked tired on breakfast T.V. this morning. And - though I can't believe I am saying this - the petty, hectoring and patronising style of Paul Henry during the interview made me feel sorry for Mr.Key. If John Key had have reached through the monitor and punched Paul Henry on the nose I am sure a mighty cheer would have gone up throughout the length and breadth of the land.
-
i think now it's becoming obvious that Key can't handle spontaneous questioning, you're starting to see more hectoring from journalists too.
-
Now admittedly some of these "urban areas" are actually rural service towns, but it would be nice to see some recognition that, at least, the "Big 6" urban regions (Akld, ChCh, Welly, Hamiltron, Burka Bob Land, and Dunners) have societies and economies that are diverse and not dependent on growing grass.
DC, I agree with you for the most part, but the Tron is a funny one. According to the Hamilton City Council Economic Development Strategy for Hamilton 2005 (http://hamilton.co.nz/file/fileid/217)
"Meat and dairy processing make up approximately 50% of regional GDP"
I haven't done much in depth work on Dunedin, but my impression is that Queenstown's massive growth comes from the viticulture industry and expanding dairying into the lower South Island.
-
I thought Paul Henry's questions were petty and ridiculous. When he tried the old "children with cancer" type question I thought to myself, that would be funny from Ricky Gervais but from a “journalist” it was just sad.
-
I thought John Key looked tired on breakfast T.V. this morning. And - though I can't believe I am saying this - the petty, hectoring and patronising style of Paul Henry during the interview made me feel sorry for Mr.Key.
Yes, he did look tired and yes, that was a predictable exercise in ritual indignation, little children with cancer and all.
The clip is here if anyone's interested.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.