Is God in the house?

Last week Hone Harawera caused somewhat of a stir when he refused to recite the prescribed oath when he was being sworn in. Of course this exercise pointed out how ridiculous it is having to swear an oath to the crown and not the people. Brian Rudman's column does a good job of pointing this out so I don't need to comment further.
This does bring to light the issue of who our MPs are swearing an oath to.
At the start of every parliamentary session the speaker of the house recites a prayer which goes as follows:
Almighty God, humbly acknowledging our need for Thy guidance in all things, and laying aside all private and personal interests, we beseech Thee to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of Thy holy name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen, and the public welfare, peace, and tranquillity of New Zealand, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
In 2007 MPs voted to continue reciting this prayer. Here's what I have a problem with: I don't want those elected by the people to look for guidance from a man in the sky whose book promotes everything from slavery, misogyny, homophobia and many other despicable acts.
These people were elected to use their own minds to solve our problems and guide our society. I don't want the people who work for us to look to a 2000 year old book to find their moral compass.
Of course the other issue is, what about those who are not christian? We have MPs who are Muslim, Buddhist and god forbid Atheists. They have to stand and listen to that prayer and are then expected to say amen. I expect better from my MPs, I want them to have the guts to stand up and say, "I don't believe in this and I will not be taking part in this prayer."
I want them to use rational, empirical evidence to make their decisions, not look to the heavens and hope.

Behind the spin: Bill English edition

Today Bill English, or more accurately his office, sent out a press release which says,

"After-tax wages continue to rise faster than prices, Finance Minister Bill English says.

The real after-tax average wage increased 2.5 per cent in the year to March 2011, after accounting for all consumer price increases including food prices and the one-off rise in GST last October."

Now if you look at Statistics NZ's information release for the March 2011 Labour cost index,  which details how much wages have grown, it says that for the year to March 2011 the before tax wages grew 1.9%.

I do not have the information to back up English's claim of 2.5% but let's take it as true. The after tax increase to 2.5% will be due to the October tax cuts.

English says that this increase is rising faster than prices. This is false. Let's look at two sets of stats, the food price index and the consumer price index.

The food price index information release says that in the year to March 2011 food prices have risen 5.5%. Shocking, I know. Due to the increase in GST in October there is an extra increase of about 2.3% on top of what it would have been without it.

Now the consumer price index, which is what Bill English is referring to in his press release. This is where the changes in cost to consumer goods is measured. In the year to March 2011 the CPI has risen 4.5%. Hmmmm, what do we have here? A lie from Mr English.

So how can Bill English justify this claim he made? Here's where the spin is, after tax wages have grown 2.5%, this is true. CPI has increased 4.5% in the year to March 2011, however in the quarter to March 2011 the CPI has only increased 0.8%.

That's the spin, he doesn't explicitly state it but from looking at the figures the only way I can see his claims line up is to say that he is comparing the yearly wage growth to the quarterly CPI.

So there you have it, another politician twisting the facts to suit.

The Labour party, the ETS and the dairy farm.

It seems John Key has set about trying to destroy Labour's plan to bring farmers into the ETS in 2013.

Key says " the only impact of that will be to make our biggest exporter uncompetitive on a world scale and ultimately make New Zealanders pay more for milk, butter, cheese, meat and all the staples of a New Zealand diet".

Andrew Ferrier, CEO of Fonterra, says that this is not true as the milk and dairy prices are set by the international market.

I have two points to make on this, the first is that last year the average amount of tax paid by a dairy farmer was $1508, the second point is that this year Dairy farmers are set for a record payout of $8-$8.10. So, dairy farmers do not pay their fair share of tax (it is also important to keep in mind the levels of debt they may have and business expenditures because farms are very expensive).

Now here is where we must make some clarifications, so far I have only talked about dairy farms, whereas sheep and beef farms (or any other farm which produces meat) are very different and if Labour gets the chance to introduce this plan they must keep this distinction in mind.

The money raised from this will go to fund a 12.5% tax break for research and development. In order for this to work and gain public support Labour needs to do two things, firstly as the money is coming from an ETS tax it should go to develop technology that will directly benefit New Zealand environmentally, secondly Labour must make sure to explicitly state that dairy farmers cause a lot of harm to our environment (particularly our waterways) and that the R&D tax cuts will go to help alleviate this.

One particular question pops into my mind when I think about National's objection to this. Why are they really opposing this? Farmers are a big part of National's constituency and if they did support this they would very likely lose a lot of votes. It may very well be true that National does support this but because of their financial backing from the rural sector and the possible loss of votes, they just can't say so.

Is this just another case of the corporate interests driving our politicians?

I call him Gamblor, and it's time to snatch NZ back from his neon claws!!!

So it is budget day eve, tomorrow we will see exactly what it is this Government has in store for our economic future.

By all accounts we are going to see English present us with a budget that has many plans which will n0t take effect until after the election. It looks like John Key has said to Bill, "Hey Bill, do you think New Zealand likes me? I want to know but I'm afraid to ask. I know, you could write New Zealand a note and ask if he/she likes me." If New Zealand votes Key back in, we like the budget, if he doesn't get voted in Labour may reverse the budget.

So, what are we going to see tomorrow? Cuts, cuts, cuts is the short answer. For the first time in a very long time we will see a zero budget (no increase in spending), yet at the same time Key has promised us increases to health, education, justice and infrastructure. In order to keep spending the same over all yet increase it in certain areas they have to make big cuts.

Where are the cuts going to come from? Kiwisaver, student loans, working for families and "government departments" are where Key has said there will be cuts but beyond that we have no specifics.

Within the "Government departments" the chief executives are being left up to their own devices as to how they meet their targets. The most likely outcome is the slashing of backroom staff. What we keep hearing from Key and co. is that our Government departments are too big and inefficient, we must put more emphasis on the front line staff. In some cases this may be true though I have seen little evidence of it. In reality, the place where memorable, emotive five word catch phrases don't work, it is the back room staff who do the necessary work so that the front line staff can do theirs.

This Government is currently borrowing over $300 million per week and they plan to get us back in the black by cutting services and leaving it up to the private sector. Hang on a minute, wasn't it the private sector and de-regulation that got us into this mess?

So with Key and English placing their bets, how will it end? Red or black?

So it has come to this...

So it has come to this, Rodney Hide has resigned as leader of the ACT Party (though he will stay on as a minister) and I am unhappy about it. First off, Rodney Hide is everything I despise in a politician and over the last two and a half years ACT have been the tail that wags the dog. They have passed hard line policy against the wishes of the National Party, but of course National need ACT for the big policy changes that they can't pass alone. Act managed to pass the three strikes law despite the fact that wherever it has been tried around the globe it does not work, they passed the 90-day right to sack law against the research saying it will not work and against the wishes of Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson.

At the time of writing this Rodney has resigned and Don Brash is tipped to be the new leader though it has not yet been formally announced.

So why am I unhappy with this, well ACT have been poling below 2% and with all the strife they have been in over the past two years there was really no chance of them getting anyone but Rodney elected, and I was looking forward to seeing him getting his ass handed to him in the election.

I think what worries me most about Brash taking over is twofold, one: what kind of a prick would come out and state that he wants to be the leader of a party he is not even a member of, performing a coup de grace on that parties current leader within a week.

Secondly, and perhaps what worries me most is that Brash is a hard line, free-market, worshiping at the alter of Milton Friedman type politician, he will make it his job to implement these economic principals of a free for all, low tax corporate orgy when what we need now something else, something more linked to the brilliant Mr John Maynard Keynes (funny how the economist I like the most has a name very similar to one of the politicians I like the least).

Now lets try and figure this whole situation out a bit, Brash announced his interest in running ACT on Saturday, but we have no idea how long he has been in talks with the party.

The party may have even been wooing Brash for a while as Rodney has become a liability.

The quick and decisive nature of the deal puts Brash on the front foot, it makes him look like a strong leader and Rodney like a little bitch who will just roll over when he is told.

How much influence did the National party have on this? Brash is Key's predecessor and they are very likely still good pals.

Rodney seems to have gone along with this very easily, which leads me to believe that this decision has been in the works for some time.

So what does this all mean come election time? Brash is going to look good in theory, a strong man willing to take control and save the sinking ship, but how will he fare with the voters? I think we will see very little change in the poling up to the election, some will like him for getting rid of Rodney and some will resent him for the same reason.

I think because Brash is an old National leader, that National will do whatever they can to get him in, primarily running a weak candidate, a patsy if you will (and probably a list MP anyway), to give Brash the electorate win.

National know there is a slim chance of them governing alone but it is unlikely so they need to set up their coalition partners, and if they have to form a coalition they would prefer to do it with just ACT, so expect to see some compliments coming ACT's way from John Key.

We're seven months out from the election and already it's getting interesting, I can't wait for things to really heat up.

Update: turns out this leadership change had been in the works for a while, here's what the Herald has to say.

The hijacking of climate change

It could be very easily argued that Al Gore's documentary changed the world. It has also hampered the change that is necessary. An Inconvenient Truth labelled this problem as global warming, we now know this was wrong because what was really happening was the colds getting colder, the hots getting hotter, the winds getting windier and so forth. The change in title to climate change has put the movement on the back foot.

I have two major problems with the way the debate has gone thus far, the first is that it is a debate with one side saying "We have to use clean fuels or the climate will deteriorate further," the other side retorts, "The science isn't there to back up climate change, this change to clean energy will put people out of work and will cost too much."

I am on the side of the former, however I have a suggestion as to how the argument should be put forth. We should say, "If we are wrong all that will have happened is we have implemented clean energy, which we will need for when it is no longer viable to use fossil fuels. If you are wrong we are fucked."

My second point is that climate change is only half of the problem, we are not giving enough importance to the fact that what has caused climate change has also poisoned the hell out of the planet. If we implement change we can also begin to clean this place up.

If you are looking for a good book about how we can begin to combat climate change check out Thomas Friedman's Hot, Flat and Crowded.

Free speech requires a bit of common sense

Last weekend Tiki Taane was arrested and has been charged with disorderly behaviour likely to cause violence. He sang Fuck the Police when cops were doing a routine check through the bar he was playing at.

I believe, as I think it is safe to say many of you do, that the right to free speech must be upheld completely and in all likelyhood when this case gets to court on friday it will be dismissed pretty quickly.

Free speech is one of the tenets of our society that make it a great place to live. We have a society in which a painter can paint whatever he or she desires or a writer can say anything (though obviously there are still defamation laws in place which must be observed and upheld).

Tiki claims it was a tongue-in-cheek act and most cops would have seen it as this an laughed it off. This is where the problem comes in, a song such as this sung in the wrong place at the wrong time could well incite violence. By all accounts this was not one of those occasions.

It seems luck just wasn't on Tiki's side and he got the cop that took it the wrong way.

No one was really at fault here, the cop took things too far and Tiki's choice to sing this song was perhaps not a great idea but neither of them can be blamed, they both did what they thought was right.

I have to give the cop credit for coming back later to arrest TIki when the crowds were so as not to antagonize the situation further.

Free speech is essential to our culture but with it comes the need for common sense and the realization that what you say can have consequences.

Tax cuts for the rich will cost us all.

In Bernard Hickey's Herald column he illustrated how the National Government's tax cuts for the rich have not worked and the same problems of over investment in property still prevail.

Some of those tax cuts probably have gone into paying down private debt as was hoped but they have not lead to more investment in industry and infrastructure, just more property speculation even with the depreciation tax loopholes closed.

When will the Nats finally come to see that a capital gains tax is really the only way to fix this problem properly.

One of the things I really like about Bernard Hickey is that he is unafraid to admit that he was wrong, such as in the great column he wrote last year stating the final nails have been driven into the coffin of free-market capitalism.

On the subject of the rich and their greed Radio New Zealand published a story this morning on the issue of the "super rich" not having contributed anything towards the Christchurch recovery.

It 's the same thing that has been happening for the last 30 or so years, you give the rich tax breaks and they just want more without giving anything back when the should be helping out.

Favouring the rich in such a way just furthers the growing plutocracy of New Zealand, when you cut taxes for those who don't need their taxes cut you have to cut spending, and the people who need the Government services the most are certainly not earning enough to qualify for a five percent tax cut given out last year.

Then of course out finance minister comes out this week and says our low wages are good for us, but I think that deserves a post all of its own, so more on that later.

If we are looking for services to cut my first suggestion would be to pull our troops out of Afghanistan and get them into Christchurch.

He's not he leader we want, he's the leader we deserve

It took me a while to realise the true blue popularity that John Key has, it seems no matter what he does the public will worship the ground he walks on.

Talking to people for the last couple of years about what it is that they like about our dear Optimus Prime I keep hearing the same set of words thrown at me, "He's just such a nice guy."

That's fucking bullshit, he's a goddamn greedy merchant banker scumbag who wants nothing more than to sell us down the fucking river and get famous along the way.

Does he have the gift of the gab? Hell no, put him in front of a journalist who actually wants to talk policy and doesn't fall for his nice guy act and then you'll see Key on the back foot, if he hasn't got a script or someone talking into his ear he's fucked.

The problem with this is twofold; firstly our TV media are too gutless to ask him the hard questions and the owners of the media won't let them because National love corporate welfare and tax cuts for the rich and secondly Key's handlers have him on such a tight leash that he doesn't do anywhere near the amount of interviews he should and when he does do them it's only with the one's who will ask him softball questions. Now you might be saying to yourself, "But I see John Key on TV all the time," Yes you do, but don't be fooled a post cabinet press conference or staged photo-op do not mean a leader is being held to account for his actions.

I do not believe that John Key operates ideologically, he spent time on Wall Street, if you're not willing to put personal views aside the big deals will slip by. I think he knows that there are some things he has to do to stay in power and get the bill through that he (and by he I mean Bill English and most of National's front bench) wants, for example 90 day right to sack was pushed through against Kate Wilkinson's advice but was done to ensure that National would have ACT's vote when it needed it, the foreshore and seabed bill is the same.

What we have is a public that doesn't want to be challenged, to sacrifice or be told the truth, that is why Key won.

Key refuses to give bad news, he let's his ministers do that, this is a (somewhat) clever way to allow the government to give the bad news and then have nice old Uncle John there to say, "Don't worry every thing's alright. Hey hey look at me I'm on a catwalk. Aren't I funny."

While he is distracting you with his cavorting in front of the media his cabinet are pushing through hard line policy that will fuck us all (and by "us" I mean anyone earning less than $70,000 a year).

We now have a Labour leader who has been unable to rise to the challenge, he fucked up the Darren Hughes issue, how could he think the media wouldn't pick up on that story, it's got everything that makes a front page headline.

Phil Goff has now become your other grumpy uncle who can't really get his shit together.

You know what, we only have ourselves to blame, it's our obsession with making the news infotainment and celebrity, I don't give a fuck what John Key's wife is wearing to William and Kate's fucking wedding.

It's time to grow up New Zealand, the news and politics are not there purely for your entertainment, it's the fucking news not where you go to see stories about the cat with the worlds loudest purr.

Until we say to our politicians, "Sit down and tell us the fucking truth, no more of this doublespeak and no more photo ops."

In the immortal words of Howard Beale, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."

It's up to us New Zealand, we have to ask the hard questions and be prepared to hear the brutal unpleasant truth, we're not heading in the right direction politically, socially or morally and it's time for this to end.

That's future NZ's problem

It seems the government is taking the route that all students know too well, it's a week out from an assignment being due and it's nagging at the back of your head but there's a Simpsons marathon on, what do you do? Quite simple really, write yourself a mental note saying: "I'm going to watch The Simpsons, that assignment's a problem for future me." Then when it's the night before due date and it's not done all you can do is say, "damn it past me, why didn't you handle that when you had the chance, now I've got to stay up all night doing this."

I'm referring of course to borrowing for the re-build of Christchurch. Bill English has ruled out a temporary levy for those earning over $48,000p.a. in favour of borrowing an estimated $10billion over the next two years.

First of all lets look at the reasons they should borrow and then we will come to the reasons they should not borrow.

At the moment there are actually some very good reasons to borrow the money. Because of the recession interest rates are very low which means that we can get a big influx of cashish now and use it to boost our economy, this will mean when we pay it back we will not have a huge interest bill and the boost it has caused will (hopefully) be a long term one if the funds are used correctly, for example investment in not only rebuilding of Christchurch's necessities but also investment in forward thinking infrastructure like clean energy innovation.

What I see as the main reason for borrowing over a levy is that when Standard and Poor's put us on notice last year it was because of our large private debt more than our public debt. Our private debt does rival that of PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain), but our public debt is well below theirs.

If we were to implement a levy it would leave less money in the hands of the private sector to pay down debt.

Now to the reasons for a levy.

Last year's tax cuts did not promote investment in infrastructure, they instead enabled people to pay down private debt or invest offshore as this was a smart move with the US currency hovering around the 75 - 80 cent mark.

If we were to cut those tax cuts in half for those earning over $48,000p.a. we have $1billion per year more to invest in NZ, this grows the private sector and prevents us from having more foreign debt on our shoulders.

Those earning over $48,000 have the ability to shoulder more of the burden, they live in a country were it is possible to get ahead and as they have achieved good standard of living and have the means to help out they should.

In times of crisis we must pull together and those who can help out should do so.

Is borrowing for the future really how we want to deal with this situation?

The skeptic in me sees a few more reasons for borrowing as well, this Government has always had the plan of cutting public services, and by spending the last two and a bit years harping on about our debt problem, they have realised that debt may very well be a viable way to pay for the earthquake recovery and tell the NZ public that this is the best option but in doing this we have to make cuts.

I also think that the Government realises that last years tax cuts did not work but if they were to implement a levy it be like saying this very thing to the public.

Borrowing the money in some ways makes more sense but I am still erring on the side of a levy because I would like the public to see that NZ can do things on its own and a tax rise is not the end of the world and in fact it can be a good thing.

Over the last 30 or so years NZ has been force fed the mantra of "Government should be smaller, lower taxes are good and the market can fix everything." A levy may well be just the thing to show the public this is not exactly true.

Check out the Herald's point of view on the matter.

Tau Henare Twitter

Today I took saw a tweet that National Party MP Tau Henare posted regarding Breakfast reporter Tamati Coffey, I saw what Mr Henare said as homophobic. I tweeted back to the MP my thoughts it is now six hours later and he has tweeted me back three times check out what he said: http://twitter.com/#!/JamesIrelandNZ

I thought an MP was supposed to act with some dignity.

We don't have a spending problem

Last week on Real Time with Bill Maher there was and excellent point made, the US Government doesn't have a spending problem, they have a revenue problem.

The main reason given is that corporations now screw the tax system so much that GE, the second largest company in the world made a profit of US$14.2 billion, yet they got a tax rebate of US$3.2 billion.

Until corporations pay their fair share we will continue to see Government cut public services while these companies get tax rebates and their executives get huge tax cuts.

Spending Cuts Loom

This week on Radio NZ's panel spoke to Dr Ganesh Nana from BERL (Business and Economic Research Limited) he spoke about the looming state sector cuts saying,

"The easiest and simplest way to get the Government's books back into any sense of balance is to get economic growth out there and that's what's sorely missing...I havn't got any evidence that we've got an unproductive public service. I'm just waiting for the facts of how much the minister is suggesting we can cut out of the public sector whilst still retaining a growth scenario and the quality of services. In 1990 we did go down the road of cutting public spending at the depth of the recession and we elongated that recession significantly and I would argue that one of the causes of our productivity problems we have now is those sorts of cuts that do impact the economy over the long term."

There you have it, an economic expert who is critical of the public sector cuts. We are still waiting for the facts, so far all we really no is Mr English is planning on at least cutting back (if not eliminating altogether) the services he deems to be "nice to have" and will be retaining (if not cutting as well) those he deems as necessary.

I'm desperately looking forward to this years budget, you can always count on budget day under National for a good ol' pace around the house saying "What do they think they're doing, am I the only one who thinks this is bullshit?"

Last year we saw tax cuts for the rich and a decrease in new spending, it looks like this year we are going to see a continuation of those tax cuts (and possibly more of them if Peter Dunne's income splitting bill goes through which it looks likely to) and severe cuts in services.

If we had any wastage in public spending I would gladly say "Yep, that money is not being used effectively, let's fix that situation." but as Dr Nana said above there really is no evidence to say that our public sector is inefficient.

All that can happen in the situation following budget day is that it's going to be harder for those who really need these services, the rapidly disappearing middle class will be pushed further back.

When the gap between rich and poor reaches breaking point a rebellion will happen.