Two polls out tonight. A One News and 3 News poll. They differ significantly.

The weighted average of the last three polls is above. What they show is that the centre-right would have 58 seats, centre-left 60 seats and Maori Party the balance of power with three seats.

Now three polls in as many days have had quite different results – Roy Morgan, Colmar Brunton and Reid Research. The Roy Morgan was over a different time period, so it is less surprising that it has a different result.

The differences between Colmar Brunton and Reid Research are a bit surprising. I regard both companies as good ones, and it is worth pointing out that their results are just within the extremes of the margin of error – ie one may just be at the high end of the normal range and one at the low end. And also recall 1 in 20 polls will fall outside the normal margin of error.

But people often ask when they differ this much, how to decide which one is accurate.

Generally my advice is to average them out. This tends to be pretty reliable, and the recent US elections found the polling averages very reliable.

You can look at how each polling company did in regard to the last election. However I’d be careful about putting too much weight on that, unless a company was way off-beam. Judging the accuracy of a company off one single poll that has a 3.2% margin of error is dangerous. It may be that the final pre-election poll was accurate, but that things changed in the final few days after the poll was taken.

However for those interested the average difference between the polling company’s results and the average result for all parties was

1. Colmar Brunton 0.9%
2. DigiPoll 1.1%
3. Reid Research 1.3%
4. Research International 1.6%
5. Roy Morgan 1.6%

A difference in the average variation by 0.4% is not great, in my opinion. And as I said, I’d be very careful judging off a single poll. In the US they have polls covering scores of elections, so can get a good idea there if a company systemically has one party too high or low.

Now we can’t do that in NZ, but we can look at how each company has rated the major parties over an electoral cycle. Now again be wary of this comparison because over a three year period, the polls will be done at different times. If I get the time, I might try and do a comparison of polls done within say the same week, but for now thought a quick and dirty analysis could be interesting.

Over the 2008 to 2011 period, the average for each polling company and party was:

• Colmar Brunton – National 53.6%, Labour 31.1%, Greens 7.3% = Lead for National of 15.2%
• Reid Research – National 55.0%, Labour 29.6%, Greens 8.5% = Lead for National of 16.9%

So in the last term Colmar Brunton on average had the gap 1.7% tighter than Reid Research. Now again, that is not saying company A is correct and company B is incorrect. As I said these are polls generally taken over different time periods. But it is interesting there is some difference.

The SST reports:

Extremists “inspired by millionaire Gareth Morgan” are accused of deliberately killing cats in Northland, sparking a bitter fight between conservationists and cat-lovers.

Images of cats caught in traps – described by cat supporters as “horrifying” – have been posted on a Far North conservation group’s Facebook page.

But cat-lovers are accused of extremism too – sending abusive and threatening emails to community board members considering the fate of a controversial cat colony, sparking complaints to police.

The ugly spat centres on a colony of about 10 strays being fed on a council reserve in Paihia in the Bay of Islands.

Morgan labels the colony “vile” and a threat to wildlife. But its supporters describe themselves on Facebook as “soldiers” in the “Battle of Paihia”. Their “war” is against conservation group Bay Bush which seemed to revel in posting photos of dead cats on Facebook, and a community board that last week voted to remove the stray cats permanently.

Their hate figure is Morgan, the businessman and philanthropist turned anti-cat crusader. Auckland Cat Coalition member Anne Batley-Burton squarely blames him for the trouble.

“Gareth Morgan is inciting the conservationists and getting them all worked up about the cats going out and killing all the birds. It’s causing so much trouble between people in communities.”

Another Cat Coalition member, Diane O’Connor, believed Morgan’s crusade had encouraged “radicals” to harm cats. “There are extreme people who now think, ‘yay, we’ve got the green light to hurt, maim and make animals suffer’.”

She said some of the cats were caught in possum traps that had been converted especially to lure them.

The Bay Bush Action Facebook page featured images of trapped cats, including one graphic picture of a black tom hanging by its mouth.

Several people commented on the page that the pictures were like something

from a horror movie and were inappropriate, but others cheered on the killers. “Well done . . . I wonder how many baby kiwi that evil cat killed,” one post said. The images have since been removed, the group conceding they were inflammatory.

Sticking up photos of cats killed in traps is pretty sick.

Meanwhile, two members of the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board have complained to police after a Facebook group called Cats to Stay – set up in opposition to Morgan’s website Cats to Go – encouraged cat lovers from around the world to email councillors and Far North Mayor Wayne Brown ahead of a meeting last Wednesday to decide the fate of the Paihia strays.

“It was severe harassment,” said deputy chair Belinda Ward. “I’m a ‘terminator’, a ‘murderer’, a ‘cat killer’. I had three days of bombardment. It educated me that cyber bullying by extremists is alive and well.”

Extremism on the other side is equally unhelpful.

Stuff reports:

A man has been jailed for watching cartoon videos of elves, pixies and other fantasy creatures having sex.

Ronald Clark downloaded the Japanese anime cartoons three years ago, setting in train events that would see him in court in Auckland and jailed for three months for possessing objectionable material, and sparking debate as to what harm is caused by digitally created pornography.

Clark has previous convictions for indecently assaulting a teenage boy and has been through rehabilitation programmes, but the video nasties he was watching in this case were all cartoons and drawings.

He says the videos came from an established tradition of Japanese manga and hentai (cartoon pornography), a massive, mainstream industry in that country.

They weren’t even depictions of people – Clark’s lawyer Roger Bowden described them as “pixies and trolls” that “you knew at a glance weren’t human”.

Bowden said the conviction for possessing objectionable material was “the law gone mad”.

However, while the cartoon characters were elves and pixies, they were also clearly young elves and pixies, which led to concerns the images were linked to child sexual abuse.

Anti-child pornography group ECPAT Child Alert director Alan Bell said the images were illegal because they encouraged people “to migrate from there to the real thing”.

It is a difficult issue. Should possession of a digitally created image be illegal? Does it encourage migration? Or can you argue it is a safe outlet? But what if the digital images are not of pixies and trolls but are of young children, and look life like? Do you want a law that says you can download digitally created child porn images so long as they do not look too realistic?

In the end my yuck factor wins out, and I think you can’t have a dividing line between actual images and digitally created ones. It would make it too difficult to enforce the law, as you might then need to prove a photo is of real people.

Also the fact that Mr Clark has form for child abuse is relevant. The Sensible Sentencing Trust reports:

Clark was convicted in the Hamilton High Court on charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, attempted sexual violation, five charges of indecent assault, plus a number of cannabis sale and supply charges. The victims were three boys aged 11 to 13 and he had supplied them with cannabis and then taken advantage of them. He had started a relationship when the first complainant was 11 and abused the boy regularly for a year. A second boy was 13 when he replaced the first one. Judge Spear stated nothing good could be said about Clark, who had shown no remorse and continued to deny the offences.

The offending resulted in a 10 year sentence in 1996.

The HoS reports:

The Herald on Sunday has obtained emails from the investigating officer in the case, Constable Paul Sharples, sent to witnesses working for NZTC. We showed the emails to Auckland district commander Mike Clement and he confirmed a review of the case was under way.

In an email from Sharples dated October 11, 2011, to an NZTC staff witness, he explains how his brief would be presented: “I will get this laminated on A3. Judges are like children, they like bright colours.”

Personally if I was a Judge I’d be amused, not offended. I’m sure after wading through thousands of pages of documents, a Judge does appreciate a nice colourful A3 statement!

The reference to being like children is in the context of the case being forged qualifications for a childcare worker, so it probably seemed a witty analogy.

Stuff reports:

The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing lay hospitalised under heavy guard as people across the area breathed easier and investigators tried to piece together the motive for the deadly plot.

Dzhokar Tsarnaev, 19, was reported in serious condition and unable to be interrogated the morning after he was pulled, wounded and bloody, from a boat parked in the backyard of a home in Watertown, Massachusetts. 

The capture came at the end of a tense day that began with his older brother, Tamerlan, dying in a desperate getaway attempt.

President Barack Obama said there are many unanswered questions about the Boston bombings, including whether the Tsarnaev brothers – ethnic Chechens from southern Russia who had been in the US for about a decade and lived in the Boston area – had help from others.

“When a tragedy like this happens, with public safety at risk and the stakes so high, it’s important that we do this right,” Obama said. 

“That’s why we take care not to rush to judgment – not about the motivations of these individuals, certainly not about entire groups of people.”

However, Watertown Police Chief Edward Deveau told CNN the early indications were that the brothers did act alone.

That appears to be the case. In fact it seems the (deceased) older brother probably put his younger brother up to it.

It is still a very distressing case. The two killers were relatively well integrated it seems, but the older brother appears to have become a radical Islamist. Hopefully we may learn from the surviving brother if there was a specific trigger that led to this.

The Herald reports:

More than 10 jobs will be axed at the Human Rights Commission under a proposed shake-up which could see its head office moved from Auckland to Wellington.

The commission launched an organisational review after the Government signalled it would receive no extra baseline funding until 2020.

Chief Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford said the review aimed to determine how the commission could make human rights more relevant and valuable to all New Zealanders.

But the Public Service Association said the shake-up would impact on the commission’s ability to ensure human rights were upheld.

Staff were told Thursday that 10 full-time jobs would be cut, as well as a number of part-time and fixed-term positions.

PSA national secretary Richard Wagstaff said the scale of the proposal, which would reduce staff numbers by about 15 per cent, had taken staff by surprise.

“In an organisation of its size with only about 72 full-time staff, that’s a pretty big hit and will have significant flow-on effects in terms of workload and efficiency.”

I’m amazed that the Commission currently has 72 staff. Some of the work the Commission does is very valuable, some of it less so. But for some reason I assumed that it had around 20 staff or so.

The Herald editorial:

The Green Party is upset that Trade Minister Tim Groser’s international travel costs soared to almost $250,000 in the first three months of this year as he lobbied for support for his bid to be the director-general of the World Trade Organisation.

As far as I can tell the Greens don’t support there being a WTO, or in fact trade. The logic seems to be:

1. Trade requires transport
2. Transport requires power and fuel
3. Power and fuel cause greenhouse gas emissions
4. Greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming
5. Global warming will destroy the planet
6. Hence trade is evil and must be stopped

True, that sum is more than the combined totals of the Cabinet’s other frequent flyers – the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister.

But it pales into insignificance when viewed alongside the potential gains for this country, and for global trade, if Mr Groser were to succeed Pascal Lamy at the end of August.

The main advantage for New Zealand, if Groser wins, is that he is the best person for the job. This means he represents the best chance of getting a global trade agreement to conclude the Doha round. Such an agreement would be worth billions.

The knowledge and experience gained from these ventures into areas of huge complexity make him the candidate most likely to achieve a successful conclusion to the Doha round talks.

It may well be that the fact that no director-general has ever come from Latin America will thwart his bid. That, however, is no excuse for pettiness.

Well said.

I don’t think people realise the precedent that will be created if you allow a Government to nationalise the entire power generating industry, on the grounds that they are not competitive enough and charge too much.

I said that using the same logic, you could nationalise supermarkets on the grounds we do not have enough competition there. Any politicians from the left have been going on about the lack of competition there for some time.

Now Fran O’Sullivan says the energy policy is a Chavez style nationalisation. Well read this story to understand where things may end up:

Citing price-gouging and “multiple violations of Venezuelan laws”, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez has nationalised Exito, a chain of supermarkets under French and Colombian ownership.

 

Chavez accused the chain of raising food prices without just cause, after Venezuela devalued its currency earlier this month.

Now both Labour and Greens want to devalue the NZ currency. The inevitable impact from doing so, is price increases. So if supermarkets increased their food prices, it would be the perfect excuse to introduce a single buyer for food also, effectively nationalising supermarkets also.

Some people may say Labour’s policy is not nationalisation, but it substantially is. In theory the power companies remain privately owned, but they will be forbidden by law to sell to anyone but the Government at whatever price the Government demands. That is effective control.

Chris Finlayson has announced:

Today’s signing between the Crown Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu at Onetahua Marae in Golden Bay marks the final deed of settlement for historical claims in the South Island, Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson announced.

“This government is committed to resolving all historical Treaty grievances, and so it is a monumental occasion as we sign the last outstanding deed of settlement for historical claims in the South Island,” Mr Finlayson said.

This is the 62nd deed of settlement signed by the Crown since 1990. It is the 36th to have been signed since November 2008.

“This government is committed to just and durable settlements of these grievances in a timely fashion,” he said. “We have increased the rate at which settlements are being reached, so that full and final resolution of these issues is accomplished sooner for the benefit of Māori and all New Zealanders.” …

“Over the past four years the completion of all historical settlements has gone from being a vanishing point constantly beyond the horizon, to being recognized as an achievable goal that is now well advanced,” Mr Finlayson said.

The only major area which has a settlement yet to progess is in Northland, where Iwi find it difficult to agree on who does the negotiation.

Over around 25 years, the settlements will total around $1.5 billion. That is not a huge amount of money considering the Government is spending around $70 billion a year.

I expect the final historical settlement to occur in this decade. That will be a very good thing. Many Iwi such as Ngai Tahi have gone from grievance mode to achievement mode.

The completion of historical settlements will not mean an end to Treaty issues. There will still be arguments over resource consent issues, water rights, airwaves and the like. You can’t pass a law saying people are not allowed to argue!

I blogged on Wednesday the following graph:

I was pointing out the Greens are against nuclear, coal and large hydro which doesn’t bode well for the future cost of power.

Now Gareth Hughes has responded with this graph:

But do you see what is missing? The cost of capital or construction. These costs are often the largest part of total costs.

Of course once you have a dam in place, or a wind turbine in place, the operating costs are less than having to keep digging up coal from the ground. But capital is not free (unless you print money!) and there is an ongoing cost to capital – either interest or opportunity cost.

So if you look at the graph I provided, it shows that solar has no operating costs (of course) but huge construction costs.

Now don’t get me wrong. I think renewables are the future. I think wind, hydro, solar and even tidal are part of our future energy supply. But they need to be cost effective. Blanket bans on coal and large hydro are not the way to go.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil. Original here.

Bryce Edwards has a great collection of images around the same sex marriage debate. They range from cartoons to the voting sheets to newspaper headlines. Some of my favourites are:

Fran O’Sullivan writes in the Herald:

The ghost of Hugo Chavez is alive and thriving within the Labour Party as it turns its back on its free-market past to buy itself back into power courtesy of the taxpayers’ chequebook.

And not just nationalisation, but free electricity!

If David Shearer and Russel Norman muster enough votes to win the next election, they say they will toss us all the equivalent of a free 300KW block of electricity

Just as the Greens think you can print money, they and Labour also think you can just give electricity away for free, and somehow new generation will be built.

We are asked to believe this policy will also produce 5000 new jobs and generate $450 million worth of new economic activity because two pages of bare analysis on Berl’s equilibrium model tells us so.

I don’t think so. No one with any residue of grey matter left will believe Shearer’s protestations that the timing of this joint announcement has nothing to do with the pending Mighty River Power IPO.

This policy has all the signs of being rushed out with one aim in mind: To spook the private investors (including the many smaller shareholders who are being enticed back into a New Zealand sharemarket, which was on the verge of its own demise a few years back) who are lining up to buy shares in the forthcoming float.

Indeed.

But the decision to insert a state-owned monopsony – or monopoly buyer – called New Zealand Power between the supply and demand sides of the electricity industry without first undertaking any stringent analysis and submissions from existing privately listed companies like Contact Energy, TrustPower, Infratil and the privately owned Todd Energy really amounts to nothing more than effective renationalisation of the competitive sector.

And why are they nationalising them? Because they hope it will gain votes?

But what is really instructive from the BusinessDesk report (a good scoop, by the way) is Jones’ admission that not only do asset owners need dividends but “politicians need dividends as well”.

The report went on to note that to win the 2014 election, Labour needed to move about 5 to 7 per cent of the voting public to favour it.

Jones suggested energy analysts’ capacity to “make 5 to 7 per cent of the public hate us [because of this policy] is zero. Our capacity to impress that percentage [with this policy] is infinite”.

In other words, the sniff of power is so enticing to Jones that he is prepared to give away the return on state-owned assets to consumers to bribe his party’s way back to power.

Their next policy may be to announce that if you have more than one house, the government will confiscate it and give it to an aspiring home owner.

The word has been that Lianne Dalziel will announce her candidacy for Mayor in the next two weeks, despite over a year of denials.

The Press reports:

Labour MP Lianne Dalziel has asked the founder of Christchurch’s Student Volunteer Army, Sam Johnson, to stand together to challenge Mayor Bob Parker in this year’s local body elections, The Press understands.

Speculation has been mounting as to who will run against Parker in October. And The Press can now reveal Labour’s Canterbury Earthquake Recovery spokeswoman Dalziel has asked Johnson, 24, to be her running mate and would-be deputy mayor.

Johnson himself would have to be elected as a councillor to assume the deputy’s position, and Dalziel is believed to have sounded out other running mates too.

But Johnson’s reputation soared after he organised the much-celebrated student army to help quake-affected Cantabrians and in 2012 he was named Young New Zealander of the Year. He currently sits on the Riccarton-Wigram Community Board and in January indicated he could seek a seat on the city council .

Maybe Sam should stand for Mayor, rather than be Lianne’s deputy!

Stuff reports:

One of the country’s worst drink-drivers has been sent back to prison but has exposed the “pathetically weak” sentences available to judges.

Dean Murray Holder clocked up his 47th conviction yesterday for driving either drunk or disqualified. He was hit with the toughest sentence the judge could give him – 18 months in prison.

A drug and alcohol expert who works with repeat drink-drivers said extreme offenders such as Holden were worse than paedophiles and the law for dealing with them was “pathetically weak”.

Eventually a repeat drink driver will kill someone, so is there a case for preventive detention for them? Not after three strikes by say after 15?

If people are addicted to alcohol, that is fine (not fine, but only hurtung themselves). But take a bus or taxi. There is no excuse to drive drunk hundreds and hundreds of times.

UPCOMING THIS WEEKEND 0930 SATURDAY – 0800 SUNDAY TV3

www.frontpage.co.nz will have all video and transcripts at 10:00 Sunday
Labour’s energy plan – David Parker
The Greens Energy plan – Gareth Hughes
NZ First’s energy plan (and why he’s supporting the GCSB legislation) – Winston Peters
Former Energy Minister, Max Bradford, on all the plans
Colin James on the politics of it all
On the Sunday Media Panel – Brian Edwards, Bill Ralston and guest, Investigate editor Ian Wishart on how the Christian media covered the gay marriage bill.

The Herald profiles the Sensible Sentencing Trust and details their policy wishlist. Some good issues to debate.

no bail for anyone facing a violent offence

I think that is a step too far. I think bail is too easy to get, and far too many offences are done by people on bail. But if you are a first time offender, there is a presumption of innocence.

fewer chances to apply for bail having once been rejected

Not sure how many chances there are, but I agree they should be few.

appeals to carry a punitive cost if they fail, so offenders who appeal and lose go to jail for longer

I agree with the principle that there should be some incentive not to have appeals in cases where there is no chance of success – such as cases where they are caught red handed.

sentences for multiple crimes to be served end on end rather than together

I think cumulative sentences would be a step too far.

prior criminal convictions to be revealed as evidence in court and considered as adding weight to guilt

I don’t think they should be considered as adding weight but I think in the Internet age it will prove impossible to keep previous convictions hidden. I’d have them public, but Judges should warn to judge a case on the facts only.

performance reviews for judges and the ability to sack those who did not meet standards

I think collection of data on decisions of Judges is a good thing, but Judges should only be sacked for misconduct – not for making unpopular decisions.

simpler sentencing laws because the current laws have been developed to deliberately confuse the public.

Need to know details to comment.

Whale asks whether Maurice Williamson should run for Mayor of Auckland?

As Building and Construction Minister, Maurice would be a very credible candidate standing on policies to make Auckland a more affordable place to live – in contrast to the policies of the left which are to make land as expensive as possible.

And as his speech becomes a global sensation, it is a reminder of what a formidable speaker and debater Maurice is. As an economic and social liberal he would be a very good fit for Auckland.

An interesting documentary on Prime TV this Sunday at 8.35 pm:

THE FORGOTTEN GENERAL is a documentary which charts the life and career of Major-General Sir Andrew Hamilton Russell, Commander of the NZ Mounted Rifles at Gallipoli and overall Commander of the 20,000 strong NZ Division on the Western Front in World War I (a division which at any one time comprised 20,000 New Zealanders, and over the course of the war was responsible for over 70,000 soldiers). Russell is regarded by some as New Zealand’s one true military genius of the 20^th century, and one of the very best commanders on the Western Front, from any nation. Russell is the one leader who emerged from Gallipoli with his reputation enhanced – not in tatters.

 Once a household name, Russell’s life has been lost in the sands of time. Until now.

Based on the best selling book by Jock Vennell,  The Forgotten General (New Zealand’s WWI Commander Major-General Sir Andrew Russell) the television documentary takes the viewer into the life and world of Russell as he found himself at the head table of some of most successful and devastating campaigns for New Zealand in WWI.

Using a mixture of interviews with internationally regarded military historians, carefully staged dramatic reconstructions, rarely compiled WWI newsreel footage from archives here in NZ and  around the globe, and an amazing array of still photographs, the production brings to life the journey of Russell and his New Zealanders through the First World War.

Starring Colin Moy (Go Girls, Spartacus, In My Father’s Den, (and Peter Webber’s upcoming Emperor ) the dramatic reconstructions take the viewer into Russell’s life in the front line and his journey through the war.  Filmed in Auckland, with a talented and award-winning creative crew including Production and Costume Designer Tracey Collins (Bliss – The Katherine Mansfield Story, What Really Happened: The Treaty of Waitangi, This is Not My Life)   and Cinematographer Simon Raby (District 9, The Lord of the Rings, Predicament) , reconstructions dramatise some of the key moments faced by Russell and his men.   These moments include the brilliant taking of the Gallipoli foothills of Chunuk Bair; the New Zealanders’ spectacular but costly success at the Third Battle of the Somme, the brilliantly executed Battle of Messines; the controversial build up to the horrific Battle of Passchendaele (New Zealand’s worst ever military disaster);  and the leading role of Russell and his New Zealanders in the liberation of France. By this stage of the war the New Zealanders were regarded as the crack troops of the Allied Forces, a position many attribute to Russell’s leadership.  

Given Russell’s role in all of these battles, his journey is New Zealand’s journey and for the first time this journey is being told through through one hour of television.

The reconstructions also examine Russell’s personal life: his childhood on the family farm in Hawkes Bay, his education at boarding schools in England and the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (where he won the Sword of Honour for being top of his class), and too the effects of war on his family life, including his son John  who fought in WWII.

This production has had incredible support from local institutions. Commissioned by Prime TV and the NZ On Air Platinum Fund, key support and rare newsreel film has been provided by the The New Zealand Film Archive Ngā Kaitiaki O Ngā Taonga Whitiāhua, the Kippenberger Research Library – National Army Museum, Alexander Turnbull Library and Archives New Zealand. International archives have been sought from the Imperial War Museum, Australian War Memorial and Getty Images. Interviews include key world-class military historians including Dr Christopher Pugsley, Ian McGibbon, Dr Andrew Macdonald and Lt. Col (Ret) Terry Kinloch.  Historical Consultant is John Crawford. The documentary is produced and directed  by Karl Zohrab for Kingfisher Films 

I must confess I had never heard of General Russell. I am looking forward to the documentary.

Te Ara has a page on him, that details his achievements.

The Herald reports:

You meet someone, there’s chemistry, and then come the introductory questions: What’s your name? Come here often? Are you my cousin?

In Iceland, a country with a population of 320,000 where most everyone is distantly related, inadvertently kissing cousins is a real risk.

A new smartphone app is on hand to help Icelanders avoid accidental incest. The app lets users “bump” phones, and emits a warning alarm if they are closely related. “Bump the app before you bump in bed,” says the catchy slogan.

Some are hailing it as a welcome solution to a very Icelandic form of social embarrassment.

“Everyone has heard the story of going to a family event and running into a girl you hooked up with some time ago,” said Einar Magnusson, a graphic designer in Iceland’s capital, Reykjavik.

Iceland sounds a fun place!

It reminds me of the town in Tasmania, where the local community directory only had five different surnames in it!

Karl du Fresnse writes in the Dom Post:

Wellington could save itself a truckload of money by getting rid of its mayor and 14 councillors and replacing them with teddy bears.

Would the quality of governance be affected? Not a jot. The council bureaucrats would continue to run things just as they do now.

Maybe someone should should set up a ticket of teddy bears to run?

Wellington is hardly unique. In local government, real power often resides with the managers. But in Wellington’s case, it’s a lot more obvious than usual.

Hence my suggestion that the council abandon the facade of participatory democracy and replace the councillors with stuffed toys. Meetings would be over faster, the petty bickering and point-scoring would cease, ratepayers would be saved more than $1.3 million a year – which is what they pay the mayor and councillors – and council officials would be free to get on unhindered with what they do anyway, which is running the show.

I am personally fond of koala bears – I had nine of them growing up!

In Wellington’s case, Helene Ritchie is the standout survivor, having first been elected in 1977. Other long-serving councillors are Andy Foster (1992), the mayor, Celia Wade-Brown (1994), Stephanie Cook (1995), Bryan Pepperell (1996), John Morrison and Leonie Gill (both 1998), and Ray Ahipene-Mercer (2000).

Admittedly, it can be useful to have councillors who have been around a while and know the ropes. Besides, some long-serving councillors are conscientious and hard-working. But there are others you couldn’t trust to feed your cat. The trouble is, voters often can’t tell which is which.

Wellington is a dynamic, creative city that deserves a council to match. Unfortunately many of the incumbents give the impression of having run out of ideas and energy years ago and now merely keep their seats warm.

There are some good incumbents. But they are a minority.

This graph is based on the data from Stats NZ for the electricity segment of the Consumer Price Index. It shows the annual increase in consumer electricity prices.

Labour are saying that it was the Bradford reforms that led to increased prices. in fact the four years after the reforms saw the smallest increases in 25 years.

Also worth noting that of the increases in the last four years, two of them were due to external factors – the GST increase (which had compensating tax cuts) and the introduction of the Emissions Trading Scheme.

UPDATE: David Parker is on record as saying a single buyer will increase the cost of power. Simon Bridges quotes from a 2006 cabinet paper by Parker:

“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.”

Also another Labour MP has admitted what is driving the policy:

“Not only asset owners need dividends,” said Jones. “Politicians need dividends as well.”

To win the 2014 election, Labour needed to move about 5 to 7 percent of the voting public to favour it.

He suggested energy analysts’ capacity to “make 5 to 7 percent of the public hate us (because of this policy) is zero. Our capacity to impress that percentage (with this policy) is infinite.”

Parker has admitted the policy will not reduce costs, and may in fact increase them.

Jones is basically saying we are doing this because we think some of the public will like the idea of the Government promising cheap power (even if it never happens).

Also this report makes clear that power generators are unlikely to invest in new generation under a state monopoly. Why would you risk investing hundreds of millions of dollars in extra generating capacity when a government department will unilaterally decide what price they will buy it off you for?

Contact Energy shares dropped almost 6 per cent in early NZX trading, with the company saying it was “hard to see” how it would have justified investing $2.5 billion in new power plants if the Labour-Greens electricity policy had been in place.

In a statement not issued to the NZX but received by BusinessDesk, Contact chief executive Dennis Barnes says “under the proposed model, it is hard to see whether such investment would be made viable and who would pay.”

“Competitive and efficient electricity markets attract investment and talent from companies like Contact,” said Barnes. “Over the past five years Contact alone has invested over $2.5 billion in building generation capacity to ensure the reliable, safe and secure supply of power to New Zealanders now and in the future.”

Maybe this is the master plan from the Greens? No new generation means no increase in greenhouse gas emission? We can become carbon neutral!