Hat Tip: Grumpollie

3 News reports:

Labour leader David Shearer is headed for the United Kingdom and United States for a series of top-level political meetings, including helping lobby for a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) seat. …

A spokeswoman for Mr Shearer said he has no plans to close his US-based UN bank account – where his salary was paid for about 20 years while he worked for the organisation – while he is overseas.

Of course. You’d be mad to bring your money back now. You have Winston wanting to nationalise KiwiSaver funds, and Labour and Greens wanting to nationalise the energy industry – plus Greens planning to print money which means a huge devaluation for NZ.

Every sensible investor will avoid New Zealand.

Tim Hunter at Stuff reported:

The Labour and Green parties’ power policy could wipe as much as $1.4 billion off the values of Contact Energy and Trustpower, says a Forsyth Barr analyst.

And they’re just two of 14 electricity generators.

Brigitte Masters at the NZ Initiative writes:

Last week, the government proposed changing the way food manufacturers label their products. Manufacturers will no longer make health claims unless backed with scientific evidence. For example, food producers will no longer be able to say ‘good for bones’ when there is only an insignificant amount of calcium in their product. This will cover more than 200 pre-approved food health claims.

Food Safety Minister Nikki Kaye told TV ONE’s Q+A that the government is putting in a regulation that will mean consumers can have greater confidence in how food is labelled.

It is important that consumers are given good information about the food they are consuming. But is it enough, and are the government being too cautious?

Labelling laws are designed to help consumers make informed choices based on product information. It would therefore come as a surprise to many diligent, health-conscious consumers that food manufacturers do not have to name ingredients that makes up less than 5% of the total product.

Moreover, manufacturers can ‘hide’ certain ingredients – for example, a product that says ‘no sugar’ could very well contain sugar in a compound ingredient. Food Standards Australia New Zealand says when a compound ingredient like tomato paste (containing tomato, olive oil, dried herbs, sugar, salt, corn sugar, and preservatives) is incorporated into a canned meat casserole, the paste needs to be listed but the ingredients of the paste need not be listed.

Is this sufficient information for the end consumer?

I agree that the changes are good, but there is a case for saying more can be done. The more information consumers have, the better decisions they can make. However labelling requirements need to be practical and affordable.

I find the nutrition labels on food pretty good. I’ve become a zealous reader of labels and always check out the calories, carbs, fats and sugars in anything I buy.  Accurate information is key to empowering consumers to make informed choices.

I much prefer initiatives that empower individuals to make informed choices, than nanny state measures such as banning pies from tuck shops or size limits on sodas.

What would be good is if more retail outlets (cafes, restaurants etc) had available nutritional information on their meals. In the Internet age it is very easy for them to go to a website and calculate (approximately) how many calories a meal has.

When I was in Australia, the food outlets at the airport showed the calories on their meals. That was incredibly useful, as you saw (for example) the lasagna was only 650 calories and the fettuccine around 1,100.

Brian Rudman writes:

Tomorrow, Auckland councillors decide whether candidates’ names in this year’s ballot papers should be listed in alphabetical order.

But plenty of research around the world suggests those at the top of the list have an advantage even without the compulsion.

Researchers from City University in London examined the relationship between vote ranking and the position on the 2010 local government election ballot paper of 5000 candidates in the Greater London area.

This was a first past the post election, won by the top three polling candidates in a ward. Most candidates were on party tickets and names were in alphabetical order.

The outcome was that “on average, a candidate listed first in their party was 6.3 times more likely to get the most votes in their party than a candidate listed third.”

The researchers concluded that “ballot position did indeed strongly influence the number of votes received by candidates … and that some of those who are currently representing London may have benefited from this effect, just as those who are not, suffered from it”.

The authors said there was “some evidence that the strength of this effect is sufficient to overcome voter preference for party, most likely in marginal seats …”

The Local Government Commission, in a July 2008 review, acknowledged a similar effect in the 2007 New Zealand local elections. Candidates whose names appeared early in the alphabetically listed voting papers and candidate profile booklets “were up to four per cent more likely to be elected than those whose names were later in the alphabet”.

I have no doubt the order of names assists those as the top. Not so much for elections with few well known candidates, but especially for ones like District Health Boards.

I think all local body ballots should have randomised order for its ballots. With bar code scanning, they don’t need to all be in the same order.

Clint (of Hey Clint fame) tweeted a link to a spreadsheet of power prices since 1979 adjusted for inflation, per kWh.

So this data is from the Green Party itself. So let’s have a look at in graphical form.

So what does it show. The average cost of power was less in 1999 than it was in 1990.

Also that after the 1998 Bradford reforms, the price dropped.

And then under Labour the price skyrocketed.

Since Labour left office, power prices have increased only 2% a year when you exclude the one off GST and ETS decisions which have nothing to do with what generating companies charge.

Labour created the problem, and despite the fact of far lower increases under National, they are using their legacy as a pretext to nationalise the industry.

The Press reports:

Speaking to The Press yesterday, Labour deputy leader Grant Robertson said Dalziel has been “upfront” about chewing over challenging Parker.

Upfront is not quite the word I would use.

On 12 May 2012:

“I’m sick of every time I try to get debate around the real issues, they say, ‘It’s the beginning of her mayoralty bid’. So I’m taking it off the table.

Off the table sounds rather final.

“I intend to re-stand for Christchurch East in whatever form it becomes, because obviously there will be major boundary changes. I could end up the MP for Christchurch Central again by accident,” she said.

And

Lianne Dalziel’s refusal to stand for the Christchurch mayoralty should scotch the gossip that has been swirling about the city for more than a year.

Alas such denials do not scotch the gossip, because you can’t believe them!

And in today’s stories:

Dalziel ruled out her recent demotion as reason for considering a shot at the mayoralty.

“I don’t want anyone to believe that the mayoralty of Christchurch was somehow second-best. I crossed that hurdle when I realised how serious the issues actually are [in Christchurch].”

You mean Lianne didn’t realise there were serious issues last May when she ruled out standing?

Bernard Doyle from JB Were writes:

The first blush of the NZ Power policy is another variation of models that have been tried, tested and failed for well over a century. That is, the state looks askance at the messy process of market-discovered price and production and figures it can do a better job.

Labour says as much in its policy document stating; “No one plans the New Zealand energy sector and ensures it operates for the benefit of all New Zealanders”.

The idea of a central planner co-ordinating supply and prices is superficially alluring. But almost invariably it ends in either taxpayer funded over-supply or rationing.

 A brief look at New Zealand’s own history in the energy sector provides ample evidence, with the Think Big projects of the 1970’s an example of well-meaning but ultimately financially crippling supply-side state intervention.

Reuters reports:

Canadian security forces have thwarted an al Qaeda plot to blow up a rail line between Canada and the United States, police and intelligence agencies say.

US security and law enforcement sources said the suspects had sought to attack the railroad between Toronto and New York City. Two men had been arrested after raids in Toronto and Montreal.

With this plot and the recent terrorism in Boston, it seems a very bad time to be arguing that there should be no capability to do intercept domestic communications in New Zealand. One professor was recently in print saying that this would make us a totalitarian state in a hysterical rant.

Of course any domestic spying must be strictly controlled and have rigorous oversight.  But those who argue New Zealand never has and never will have domestic threats are dangerously naive.

Labour and The Greens say their policy will reduce the cost of electricity to households by around $300 a year, or $6 a week. But there are some very good reasons to doubt that power charges would be even one cent cheaper under Labour. Here’s four reasons why.

1. David Parker said so

“As Minister of Energy he said that “a single buyer would likely result in higher capital and operating costs”. He went on to say that: “The risks involved in changing arrangements could be significant. The resulting uncertainty could lead to investment proposals being put on hold. Direct implementation costs could be large.” And, he admitted that “The single buyer would be relatively poor at sustaining pressure on operational costs.”

So who do you believe? The David Parker of 2006 when he was a Minister or the David Parker of 2013 desperate to regain power?

2. Their plans for the Emissions Trading Scheme

Steven Joyce pointed out:

“When National was elected to Government in November 2008, Labour’s Emissions Trading Scheme was estimated to cost an average family of four around $330 a year based on a carbon price of $25/tonne,” Mr Joyce says. 
 
“The National Government amended the ETS and more than halved the cost to families and businesses. However the Greens-Labour coalition have stated publicly as recently as the beginning of this year that if they were the Government they would increase the price of carbon to $50/tonne.

“This would see a family of four paying $495 extra a year on electricity and fuel; which would more than wipe out any of their claimed savings from their plan to nationalise the power supply.

3. Their policy ignores costs

Economist Matt Nolan commented at Dim Post:

walking out and saying “I’m gonna get people to give you guys $230-$330 a year at no cost if you vote for me” is a incredible load of crap – it isn’t even a bribe because they can’t deliver, it is a lie.

3. The Government will be both the monopoly buyer and seller

This is an aspect overlooked by many people. Not only will the Government be the sole monopoly buyer of electricity from generators, it will be the sole monopoly seller of electricity to retailers. And it will clip the ticket with a margin between buying and selling.

Now sure at first that margin may be modest – just to cover claimed costs. But think about what is likely to happen in the medium to long term. What will happen when inevitably a Government wants more money to fund its spending? They’ll be able to do it by just increasing their margin on electricity sales. A 10% margin would bring in $600 million a year. A 20% margin $1.2 billion. This will be like a special slush fund for politicians who like to spend.

At the moment if the Government wants to significantly increase its revenue, it has to go to Parliament and ask for a change in tax rates. A special law change has to be enacted. It is a public accountable transparent act.

But why go through that process, when you an bring in hundreds of millions of dollars by just picking up the phone to the appointed chairman of NZ Power, and telling him you need some more money. And NZ Power will be the sole buyer and seller of electricity in NZ. No one at all can avoid paying.

Now some may say no Government would do this, as it would be unpopular. And sure in the first couple of years they may not. but if we now have Winston Peters talking about raiding our private KiwiSaver accounts to fund his promises, why on earth would they not use NZ Power as a revenue source in future?

You might even trust the next Government not to use a monopoly buyer and seller to generate revenue for the Crown. You might think the fact Labour took in $3 billion of dividends from energy SOEs was an aberration. But what about the Government after them? And the one after that? Do you really think no future Government will ever try and use a monopoly to generate revenue when it is needed to fund promises?

So I’d be very very wary of the claims that power prices will come down. Sure maybe for a year or two. But I think the more likely outcome is this becomes a cash cow for future Governments.

Current Power Price Increases

Labour have gone on a lot about the increases in power prices in the last 15 years, neglecting to mention most of the increases occurred on their watch. I thought it would be useful to calculate how much power prices have increased since 2008, when you exclude two external policy changes.

The electricity CPI in December 2008 was 1175 and in March 2013 was 1368. That is an increase of 16.4% over 17 quarters.

But GST went from 12.5% to 15% in that time. So to calculate the underlying increase, we should exclude that. That means 2.2% of the increase was due to GST.

Also the Emissions Trading Scheme was implemented. Officials estimate that the impact of this on electricity prices would have been 5%.

So take 7.2% off 16.4%, and this means that underlying power prices have increased 9.2% over 17 quarters.

A 9.2% increase over 17 quarters is equal to a 0.52% compounding increase per quarter, which is very close to 2% a year – which is the midpoint of the target inflation range.

On Thursday May 9th, the annual EPMU media freedom debate will be held in the Backbencher. These debates are to raise money for the Media Safety and Solidarity Fund which provides support to journalists and other media workers under threat in the Asia-Pacific region. Just a month ago three Pakistani journalists were murdered in a single day.

The previous debates have been hilarious. with only vague references to the topic, they are a cross between a roast and a debate.

The moot is “That you can trust a blogger, a lobbyist and a journalist, but not a politician.”

Patrick Gower is chairing the debate, and it is safe to predict there will be as many insults and jokes at his expense, as there will be at the participants.

The knuckleheads team is:

• Myself
• Chris Bishop, lobbyist for Philip Morris
• Andrea Vance, Dominion Post

The politicians team is:

• Annette King
• Tau Henare
• Grant Robertson

If you want a great nights entertainment, then order tickets from Brent Edwards at brent.edwards@radionz.co.nz or 04 817 9564. Tickets are $25 each and turn up  after 5 pm for dinner and drinks with the debate starting at 7.30 pm.

The tickets often sell out fast, and the venue gets packed to the brim so I recommend getting in quick.

I’m looking forward to a fun night for a good cause.

The SMH reports:

Against all expectations, US emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, since peaking in 2007, have fallen by 12 per cent as of 2012, back to 1995 levels. The primary reason, in a word, is “fracking”. Or, in 11 words: horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to recover deposits of shale gas.

Yet the Greens wanted it banned here. This is the difference between being pro-environment (which many people are) and anti-science (which the Greens often are).

One can virtually prove that shale gas has been the major influence driving the fall in US emissions. Just ten years ago, the natural-gas industry was so sure that domestic production was reaching its limit that it made large investments in terminals to import liquefied natural gas (LNG). Yet fracking has increased supply so rapidly that these facilities are now being converted to export LNG.

Natural gas emits only half as much CO2 as coal, and occupies a rapidly increasing share of electricity generation – up 37 per cent since 2007, while coal’s share has plummeted by 25 per cent. Indeed, natural gas has drawn close to coal as the number one source of US power.

Half the emissions of coal? If the Greens honestly thought climate change was the planet’s biggest threat, they’d be promoting fracking.

If your Energy Spokesperson is asked if he is pleased about something, you’d think he’d be able to answer without having to check with his political advisor.

Twitter has a fairly amusing hash tag running on #heyclint.

There is nothing wrong with checking lines with your staff. But generally you are meant to do that before the interview – not halfway through it!

Labour’s Energy Spokesperson is not in their shadow cabinet, so presumably Gareth will be Minister of Energy in a Greens/Labour Government and in charge of nationalising a $6 billion a year industry. I guess Clint will be a busy man if he is!

Paul Quinn has confirmed he does not wish to become an MP again, hence Paul Foster-Bell will return from Saudi Arabia where he is Deputy Head of Mission to become a List Member of Parliament. It will be good to have an additional National MP in Wellington.

I was actually Paul’s boss before he worked for MFAT. He is a hell of a nice guy who will be a very conscientious and effective MP.

Paul is an ardent monarchist and I am of course on the National Council of the Republican Movement. So when we shared an office, a large picture of The Queen was hanging on the wall. I never followed through on my threat to make it a dart board (and wouldn’t as I have huge respect for her personally).

Max Rashbrooke blogs:

New Zealand has too many Cabinet ministers and too many government agencies – but more departmental mergers is not the solution, Labour MP Trevor Mallard said at a joint lecture for the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies and the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand.

Mallard, a former Minister of Education and State Services Minister, said New Zealand’s government was too fragmented, with “Crown entities for Africa” and agencies like Work and Income New Zealand that were “a body with no brain”.

Too many ministerial positions had also been created to tie caucus into Cabinet, he said, and most of the “talent” in a Cabinet was in the top half. Under Helen Clark, the Cabinet committee of the 10 most senior ministers “worked extremely well … Those ministers were much more likely to have read – which is a good start – and understand – which is even better – the papers they were being asked to consider.”

The “ideal” Cabinet, Mallard said, would have 10 members and 5-6 positions outside Cabinet “with training wheels attached”. However, he admitted this was not a popular view among those ranked 8-20 in his own party.

I agree with Trevor Mallard in terms of size of Cabinet and the Executive. I’d have 12 Cabinet Ministers and say eight outside Cabinet. The 12 Ministers would each be in charge of a cluster of portfolios.

Ideally you would amalgamate as many entities as possible so there was one agency per cluster, with a top class Chief Executive.

I blogged in 2011, a possible structure for a future state sector. So a Cabinet would be:

1. Prime Minister (DPMC, SSC)
2. Minister of Finance (Treasury)
3. Minister of Economic Development (MAF, MOBIE, Fisheries, MORST, Transport)
4. Minister of Social Policy (Pacific Island Affairs, MSD, CYF, Youth Development, Community Sector, Senior Citizens, Families, Women’s Affairs, TPK_
5. Minister of Health (Health)
6. Minister of Education (Education, ERO, TEC)
7. Minister of Internal Security (Crown Law, Corrections, SIS, Justice, SFO, Police)
8. Minister for the Environment (Environment, EPA, Conservation, Biosecurity)
9. Minister of  External Relations & Security (GCSB, Defence, MFAT,  NZDF)
10. Minister of Incomes (IRD, WINZ)
11. Minister of Culture (Culture & Heritage, Broadcasting, Nat Lib, Archives, NZ on Air)
12. Minister of Administrative Affairs (DIA, LINZ, Building & Housing, Customs, Stats)

Also the Speaker would be the responsible Minister for a Department of Parliament which includes the Parliamentary Service, Ministerial Services, Office of the Clerk and Parliament Counsel Office.

Claire Trevett reports:

Japan has been allowed to enter the Trans Pacific Partnership trade talks by the 11 countries already in negotiations.

Trade Minister Tim Groser announced Japan’s entry had been agreed on from Indonesia where TPP talks were held on the sidelines of the APEC trade ministers’ meeting.

New Zealand has been cautious about Japan’s entry into the talks because of its protectionist policies and high tariffs especially in horticulture and agriculture.

Mr Groser gave New Zealand’s final approval after meeting with Japan’s Minister of Economic Revitalisation, Akira Amari who had assured him Japan was committed to a comprehensive agreement.

There are some risk with having Japan join the TPP negotiations, but also great potential benefits. They are a major trading partner for NZ, and getting a reduction in trade tariffs would be very good for New Zealand.

The US proposals for the intellectual property chapter are unacceptable, as they are not balanced enough. Our current law is pretty good (not perfect) in reflecting the balance of rights when it comes to intellectual property. I want New Zealand to maintain the stance they have had for the last two to three years on the intellectual property chapter – which is no change to domestic law.

If a TPP can be concluded with an acceptable intellectual property chapter, I’d regard that as a very good thing.

The Herald reports:

Clips of Mr Williamson’s speech have had 1.5 million views on YouTube, and there were now versions with Spanish and Chinese subtitles. It was tweeted about by celebrities including DeGeneres, Stephen Fry, Perez Hilton and Ronan Keating.

A spokesman for Mr Williamson said they were waiting to hear back from the show’s producers for more details.

In his speech on Wednesday, Mr Williamson, the long-standing MP for Pakuranga, made humorous references to “a big gay rainbow” over his electorate and said the Marriage Amendment Bill was a positive step.

He has since been getting accustomed to his newfound status as a poster boy for gay rights, for which he has received praise from the United Kingdom, Australia and America, offers to stand in as Governor in several states as well as appearances on various television shows.

The already married Mr Williamson said the New York Times called him one of the few “openly gay” MPs in New Zealand. “It’s gone a bit far,” he said. “My wife wanted to know whether the New York Times knew something more than I did.”

Green MP Kevin Hague, who helped Labour’s Louisa Wall with the bill, said there were no sour grapes that Mr Williamson was getting all the attention.

“Louisa and I – and this is tongue in cheek – gave pretty good speeches too but at every stage we’ve been upstaged by straight National Party men. There was Paul Hutchison in the first reading, Chris Auchinvole in the second reading and now Maurice Williamson. But there’s no resentment about that. It’s funny, that’s all.”

He said some people might have been surprised by Mr Williamson, but in Mr Hague’s time heading the Aids Foundation in the 1990s he had worked with Mr Williamson as Associate Health Minister. “He has always been progressive on issues like gay rights, including supporting needle and syringe exchange when it was not popular.”

It is ironic about Hutch, Auchie and Maurice being the stand out speakers at each reading. They have the following in common:

• All heterosexual men
• All married
• All have children, nine between them
• All are National MPs
• All in their 60s

An unlikely trio to be poster boys for same sex marriage.   🙂

The Herald reports:

A white supremacist Christchurch group is planning to distribute anti-Chinese flyers around Auckland, a city council ethnic panel member says.

Chinese woman Bevan Chuang said she had received information that the Right Wing Resistance was planning to distribute leaflets in Titirangi, Manurewa and Onehunga attacking Chinese immigration.

“Safety is the most important thing, so please don’t confront the white power people with your bare hands,” Miss Chuang said in an email circulated to leading members of Auckland’s Chinese.

The Hong Kong-born panel member has also alerted the police Asian liaison officer to the matter.

Two years ago, the same group distributed “Stop the Asian Invasion” flyers in areas with high Asian population, such as Howick, Northcote and Pakuranga, sparking police concerns that the action would lead to racially motivated violence.

The far-right group also tried then to recruit non-Asian immigrants to join its campaign against the Chinese. …

Miss Chuang said she had been receiving “crazy neo-Nazi posts” on her Facebook page, attacking her ethnicity.

An unsolicited post received by Miss Chuang described Chinese people as “the cancer of New Zealand”, bringing mass pollution and “over-breeding”.

It added, “Go back there, we don’t want your rubbish communist politics in our free country”.

Another described Asian people as “fish faced” and said they moved to New Zealand only after poisoning the water and rivers at home.

“You … claim to be Kiwi when you are not born here, so you are not,” one post said.

“Tell your Asian mates they ain’t welcome, spread it around like Chinese whispers we don’t want you here.”

 I’m pretty sure that Miss Chuang’s politics are not communist!

Almost all the communists in New Zealand are Europeans, and are current or former Green Party MPs 🙂

If we didn’t have Chinese New Zealanders, we wouldn’t have hilarious shows such as Flat 3. There are six web-episodes, and its a pretty funny show about three young Kiwis.

Just yesterday David Shearer made the immortal line on television that “John Key is just talking out of his mouth” and today Grant is already leader!

The Dom Post reports:

The Government might be able to help it out of the economic doldrums, but its main focus was on Auckland and Christchurch, while Wellington was perceived in the Beehive as “difficult to deal with”, staff told councillors at a committee meeting last week.

Auckland Council was “tight” with the Government, and the chief executives of government departments, because it had one mayor who spoke for a council with a united vision, strategy and community engagement group general manager Jane Davis said.

“We just don’t have those relationships here in Wellington,” she said. “The Government understands Auckland. It doesn’t understand Wellington.”

Some councillors bristled, believing Ms Davis and her colleagues meant an Auckland-style super-city was the only way forward for Wellington.

When councillor Daran Ponter asked Ms Davis if that was the case, she said it was not.

“No, there are other ways. But we’re failing to nominate a [regional] leader. We’re not pushing any political barrows here. This report is based on evidence.”

She pointed to discussions between Wellington’s nine city and district councils over who would represent the region in talks with the Government over Callaghan Innovation, the recently formed Crown entity for science, innovation and technology.

The councils could not decide who would lobby to have it based in Wellington and, in the end, leaders from all nine took part in the talks. “They said nine voices are stronger than one . . . well, that doesn’t work,” Ms Davis said.

Callaghan Innovation ended up with offices in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, though it is based mainly in Auckland.

Councillor Peter Glensor agreed the Callaghan discussions were “deeply embarrassing” for Wellington.

I think that is a very good example of the weaknesses of the current structure.

The way I see amalgamation is that you actually retain pretty much the same Councils, but they are all part of the entity. The regional council has undisputed authority to talk on behalf of the region, and the local councils or boards deal with all issues in their areas except regional issues.

Stuff reports:

Labour is defending the release of its plan to regulate power prices on the eve of the Government’s sell-off of power company assets.

Yesterday, Federated Farmers accused Labour and the Greens of trying to sabotage the sharefloat.

“There is suspicion this policy may be a tactical response to the Government’s asset sales programme,” Federated Farmers spokesman Anders Crofoot said.

However, Labour finance spokesman David Parker said if Labour had waited till after the shares in Mighty River Power and the other state-owned power companies had been sold it would have been criticised.

Of course it is sabotage. If it was not sabotage, they would have announced the policy months ago before the float document was released. To wait until the offer document is out in the marketplace is a calculated act of economic sabotage.

If their policy was to buy back MRP, then there might be a case for saying they had to wait to see the float details before announcing their policy. But there is nothing in the details of the MRP float that necessitated them waiting until after the float document was out, to announce their policy.

Here’s the good thing for investors. Their policy will probably see the share price set at the lower end of the range, however I don’t think it will ever be implemented which means that actually investors will get shares at a discount. Note this is not financial advice. So the real victim of the policy announcement will be taxpayers.

On the topic of the electricity policy, some must reads:

• An open letter from Seamus Hogan to David Shearer and Parker. He has 10 questions for them, including if they have even read the Wolak report they cite.
• A lengthy article by Lance Wiggs at NBR on the electricity industry and some more sensible alternatives to the Labour/Greens proposal.
• A column by Brian Gaynor on how the Labour/Greens policy would be a “major backward step for the economy” and saying “The best way to keep prices down is to ensure there is a competitive market rather than heavy-handed price regulation that is more reminiscent of the Muldoon era“
• A column by Liam Dann. Some extracts:

We’d all like lower power prices. It’s a clever election bribe. But if a government bludgeons down the returns available to international investors they simply won’t invest, they’ll go elsewhere.

New Zealand taxpayers in the future – my kids – will have to earn or borrow the money to pay for new power generation as the population grows.

 Capital is mobile.

If Labour wants to gain votes from swinging voters who still trust capitalism – rather than just appeasing those on the left that joined the Russel Norman party – then Shearer is going to have to do a very good job of convincing them that Labour is not a destroyer of wealth.

Shearer needs to distance himself from the gleeful schadenfreude of those who celebrated the $600 million value destruction suffered by Contact, Infratil and Trustpower in the day and a half after the new policy was announced.

As the policy was designed to sabotage the float of MRP, and destroy wealth, I can’t see any distancing.

He will need to communicate clearly how this policy ensures we have enough foreign capital investment to grow power supply as GDP grows. Presumably Labour still hopes it will grow. The Greens, remember, aren’t so wedded to GDP growth as a concept.

Despite Norman’s efforts to normalise the Greens by talking more about economics than core policy, this is still a party living in a hippie fantasy world. It is a party that “envisions an organic nation” in its policy on food production. Good luck with that. New Zealand owes its first-world status to a world-class, technologically-driven machine of a farming economy. We don’t put that on the tourist posters but let’s be realistic.

People don’t realise how extreme the Green policies are. Now Labour is buying into them, their joint policies are looking to be the an extremely radical policy change – at a time of huge global uncertainty.

The Press reports:

Student Volunteer Army founder Sam Johnson will not challenge Mayor Bob Parker in the upcoming Christchurch elections, despite agonising over an offer to team up with Labour MP Lianne Dalziel.

The Weekend Press revealed Dalziel – the MP for Christchurch East and Labour’s earthquake recovery spokeswoman – invited Johnson to be her running mate and would-be deputy mayor in October’s local body elections.

Neither Dalziel nor Johnson would comment on Friday, but Johnson admitted last night he “very seriously did consider” the offer. He finally decided against it on Saturday afternoon.

“I really wanted to do it,” he said. “It was a really difficult decision to make, but I don’t think it is the right thing for me right now.”

Johnson did not intend to run for a seat on the Christchurch City Council and was undecided about standing again for the Riccarton-Wigram Community Board.

He planned instead to finish his law and politics degree and focus on the Volunteer Army Foundation and his work with the Ministry of Awesome.

I often talk to young aspiring politicians, and my advice almost always is not to stand too early. I think it is crucial that people do not just go from student politics to a job in Parliament to being an MP. While there are exceptions, you are a better MP if you have some life experience.

Now Sam has had some pretty incredible successes and experiences, and would have been a credible figure at a young age. But his decision not to rush things shows a good level of maturity.

However, he did not rule out dipping a toe back into politics in the future.

“I’m not a career politician. Later in life, maybe, but right now there are many other things that need to be done.”

Sensible.

Despite Johnson’s defection, Dalziel has not ruled out a mayoralty bid.

She would have been “exceptionally happy to stand alongside Sam”, but maintained she was not committed yet.

Oh, of course Lianne is standing.

Dalziel had previously ruled out standing for mayor but had been persuaded to reconsider, she said.

Oh, yes persuaded against her will I am sure. There’s nothing wrong with saying you want to be Mayor, but I can do without the false reluctance.

Even since Shearer dumped Lianne from the shadow cabinet, the bid was near-inevitable.

Lianne has said she will resign as an MP, if she stands. That means a by-election in Christchurch East. Who would stand for Labour?

UPDATE: I am told my multiple sources that Labour has already had their normal democratic selection process and the unions and hierarchy have chosen Tony Milne. Tony used to work for Tim Barnett, and is currently the National Manager of Public Health at the Problem Gambling Foundation.

Just as I thought you couldn’t get a crazier policy that Labour and Greens on energy, Winston has upped the stakes and is basically proposing to steal money from all our retirement accounts.

NBR reports:

New Zealand First is proposing the Cullen Fund and Kiwisaver funds be used to re-nationalise Mighty River Power and possibly Contact Energy. …

But speaking on TV3’s “The Nation”, Mr Peters said the Government had the ability to access the Cullen Fund. 

“You’ve got the ability to access Kiwi Saver in the short term,” he said.

He said buying back Mighty Rover Power would be bottom line for NZ First support for any Government.

You’ve also got the ability to internationally access the market and borrow, which as you know according to Treasury, because this is a high yielding asset, that makes economic sense to do that, he said.

Mr Peters said to use Kiwisaver funds the Government would need to change the investment rules.

“You could quite easily do that in the short term …

This shows what happens when politicians start competing for the most extreme policy in order to win votes.

KiwiSaver funds do not belong to the Government. They are the private property of those who have one. My KiwiSaver fund is just as much my private property as my bank account, my shares, my house, my car etc.

Winston has said that he wants to forcibly legislate to force anyone with a private KiwiSaver account to purchase back Contact Energy and MRP shares on behalf of the Crown.

That is outrageous. This is like saying we will force every homeowner to take on an additional mortgage, so the Government can build a new office block.

If you elect a Government that treats your private retirement savings as a play-thing for the Government to take over, then the boundaries between public and private will be shattered for ever.

These crazy policies will see us become a banana republic. Who the hell would invest in New Zealand? Why would I keep my money in a KiwiSaver account if Winston and his allies plan to take control of it after the election?

3 News reported last week:

JBWere has sent a strong message that it and other investors will flee the New Zealand stock market if the state intervention signalled by Labour and the Greens this week comes to pass.

“The steps the Labour/Greens are suggesting, if enacted, are significant enough for JBWere to consider a reduced allocation to the local share market,” the firm which oversees $1 billion of client funds in the New Zealand share market said.

“We doubt we would be alone in making this judgment.”

Of course they won’t be alone. We live in a globalised world where capital and labour are highly mobile. The combined policies of Labour, Greens and NZ First will send investment fleeing. And it is investment that creates jobs.

Labour and Greens want to nationalise the electricity industry. NZ First want to nationalise KiwiSaver. How confident are you that is where they’ll stop?