"This was the election in which our political leaders declared, very loudly, that they weren’t here to fix the nation’s deep and evident problems."

"[T]his was the election in which our political leaders declared, very loudly, that they weren’t here to fix the nation’s deep and evident problems. They were here to ensure that things remained broken and they were prepared to go against the nominal values of their own parties to do so. ...
    "My contention is that this government was simultaneously too centrist and not centrist enough and I predict the next government will be the same. Instead of an economy that is built around either an interventionist state or free markets we have a hybrid of private and public sector solutions that never seem to solve anything; they deliver little value to the public, vast profits to private sector providers and high salaries to the senior public servants provisioning them, who seem to be completely unaccountable – no matter how dire their performance....

    "New Zealand is a liberal-democratic-free market-social welfare state – Francis Fukuyama’s 'End of History' model. But – as Fukuyama pointed out – all of the institutions that make the model work are vulnerable to oligarchic capture. Over time the people who manage them reorient them towards their own self-interest."

~ Danyl McLauchlan, from his post 'Notes towards an alt-centrist manifesto'

'Co-governance is not our term ... not the final destination."

"This young cohort of new [firebrand Green and Te Pati Maori] MPs will undoubtedly have an influence in the House and on political discourse in the country. The self-described kōhanga reo generation promises to be vocal and controversial. To borrow Rawiri Waititi’s phrase, they represent the 'unapologetically Māori' perspective that he and his co-leader, Debbie Ngawera-Packer championed over the course of the last government.
    "It’s a strategy that has paid dividends for both Te Pāti Māori and the Greens in this election cycle, and has seen both Hipkins and his Minister, Willie Jackson, express their disappointment that Labour was not rewarded in a more fulsome manner for their government’s work progressing Māori issues over the last six years. ...
    "Much of that disconnect[ion] must be put down to co-governance. Whilst the term proved massively unpopular with the public, for politically active young Māori, co-governance is not an aspiration and certainly not a final destination given that it falls short of self-determination which they consider to be enshrined in tino rangatiratanga. It is, therefore, a concept that only retains popularity amongst Wellington’s political establishment. ...
    "Iwi leaders, such as Tūhoe’s Tamati Kruger, have been very clear about this point in the past.
    "'Co-governance is not our term. Mana Motuhake is our term. ... raising maximum authority for Tūhoe people.'
    "'I don’t see it as the final destination. ... I think it’s the next bus stop in a journey that has to be made. It’s everyone’s journey. It’s like gravity, you can’t defy it. It’s on its way,' Kruger said last year."

~ Philip Crump, from his post 'Gen Z in Da House'

"Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further ...
    "[And], so often, compromise sacrifices the higher value to the lesser. It comes down to the parties’ fundamental principles: The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

~ Ayn Rand, composite quote, from her articles 'Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?' and 'The Anatomy of Compromise'

What "blue tsunami"?

 

I keep hearing talk, from early on election night 'til now, that the election result was a "blue tsunami." 

If that's so, if the vote was so overwhelmingly Blue, then why is the Blue Team still struggling to put a team together?

In what universe is a vote of fewer than 40% a tsunami? Less a tidal wave, and more of a simple tidal movement.

It's not so much a blue tsunami coming in, as it is a red wave going out.

See if you even notice the difference. in what they do.

"Labour is a big time election loser, but is not the only one. ..."

"Labour is a big time election loser, but is not the only one. ... The other group to lose was the Parliamentary Press Gallery, which is broadly left of centre and operates within the Wellington bubble. Given the Greens hold two of the three Wellington electorates and Labour maybe the third seat, it’s perhaps hardly surprising they have shown themselves to be so out of touch with wider public opinion.
    "It’s time for them to do some serious soul searching. One area that has particularly irritated me over the past three years, is their reaction to those who have questioned the modern radical interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi. ...
    "I know of no country where power is allocated on the basis of tribe or race, in which I would care to live in the event I was forced to find another country. What the history of the human race has shown us is that the market economy and a quality democracy has produced better results than all the alternatives.
    "You might think political journalists would be interested in preserving a quality democracy and in finding out why some people ... don’t support the concept of equal partnership. ...
    "Instead of genuine inquiry we have had [those who question  the concept of a treaty partnership] labelled as 'racists' or 'dog whistling.' There has been a determined attempt at shutting down any serious questioning of the partnership concept, or even why Maori is often used instead of English with government agencies. I have seen no serious attempt at analysing the issues in depth.
    "While they reflect on the election results the Press Gallery might like to think about engaging with people outside the Parliamentary precincts and then venture further afield outside Wellington ..."

~ Barrie Saunders, from his post 'Labour one of two election losers'

"Election campaigns often disillusion people, and the current New Zealand election illustrates this well."

"Winston Churchill is often wrongly credited with saying that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. 

    "If a modern-day Churchill sought an argument against democracy, he could easily find one in New Zealand’s election campaigns.
    "Civics classes (If they still exist) traditionally teach students that elections are the apex of democracy, an open contest for the best ideas.
    "The truth, however, differs greatly. Election campaigns often disillusion people, and the current New Zealand election illustrates this well.
    "New Zealanders had much to discuss with their politicians this year. After six turbulent years under a Labour government, many policy topics are demanding serious debate. These include education, law and order, housing, government spending, public debt, civil service, and even road quality.
    "Yet, New Zealand’s election campaign has, once again, been derailed by distractions.
    "It is not that the pressing issues failed to appear in the campaign. Rather, they received scant serious attention. ...
    "The election campaign was a wasted opportunity. It should have been a comprehensive review of the nation’s state and a forum for serious policy discussions. Instead, it trivialised important issues, reduced politics to a mere spectacle, and made a farce of democratic ideals.
    "On Saturday, New Zealanders will elect a new Parliament. But what they truly need is a new approach to politics."

~ Oliver Hartwich, from his post 'All sizzle, no steak - NZ election menu short on substance'

 

A fair, if depressing, summary

"The last National Party campaign leaflet ... urged me to 'Please party vote National.' Unlike the bold promise of 'A Brighter Future' ... National's message [this time] looked like more like a plea for help than a call to arms.

    "In a way, it summed up the whole election campaign. None of the parties [apart from the only-party-based-on-race] has offered anything substantially different from what is already happening. The election campaign has been far less a contest of ideas, than one of which grouping of parties dislike each other least but think they can manage the status quo best.
    "Labour’s campaign has focused almost entirely on what a National/ACT government might do. Its own achievements over six years in government have been barely mentioned. ... National’s campaign has fluctuated from the quiet confidence of a party being a government-in-waiting two or three weeks ago ... to something far more hesitant after the own goal regarding New Zealand First. ...
    "So, at the end of the campaign it looks like coming down to this. Labour wants your vote to keep National, ACT and New Zealand First out. ... National just wants to be back in power and will do 'whatever it takes' to get there."

~ Peter Dunne, from his post 'Thursday, 12 October 2023'

"...the lack of thought going into the demands that will be placed on the grid with increasing amounts of electric vehicle adoption."

The Harris Ranch Tesla Supercharger station is an impressive beast. With 98 charging bays, 

the facility in Coalinga, California, is the largest charging station in the world. But to provide 

that kind of power takes something solar can’t provide — diesel generators.

"THE HARRIS RANCH TESLA station is an impressive beast. With 98 charging bays, the facility in Coalinga, California, is the largest charging station in the world. ...
    "Superchargers charge vehicles up to the 80% sweet spot in as little as 20 minutes, but to provide that kind of power for nearly 100 bays takes something solar can’t provide — diesel generators. 
    "Investigative journalist Edward Niedermeyer discovered that the station was powered by diesel generators hidden behind a Shell station. ...
    "The station isn’t connected to any dedicated solar farms, which means that absent the diesel generators, the station is powered by California’s grid. ...
    "Energy analyst and writer David Blackmon, author of the blog 'Energy Transition Absurdities,' [says] that the use of diesel-powered generators is not limited to the Harris Ranch station.
    "He used to shop at a Whole Foods in Houston. The company had installed a charging station in front of the store for its customers.
    "'It was the best parking spot in the lot, and it crowded out a bunch of handicap spaces,' Blackmon said.
    "He said there were diesel generators behind the store and whenever someone was using the chargers, the generators would kick on.

"JUST AS THESE CHARGING stations find they can’t run without some fossil fuel backup, the retirement of a coal-fired power plant in Kansas is being delayed to accommodate the energy demands of an electric vehicle battery factory that’s under construction.
    "Blackmon said that these stories illustrate well the lack of thought going into the demands that will be placed on the grid with increasing amounts of electric vehicle adoption."

~ Kevin Killough, from his article 'Largest EV Charging Station In World Powered By Diesel-Powered Generators'

 

"Supercharging EV Infrastructure is part of National's plan to
rebuild the economy," says Christopher Luxon

Why vote for Labour-Lite when it's Labour you don't like.

Kate Hawkesby makes no sense 

Yes, I know, picking on Kate Hawkesby is low-hanging fruit. But there is a serious point to be made. Hawkesby writes:

Based on latest polling, a coalition of Labour, Greens and Te Pati Maori gets 45 percent of the seats in Parliament, even though 66 percent of voters think the country is going in the wrong direction.
    Head scratch.
    A coalition of National and Act, which would arguably change the direction of this country which two thirds of voters think is heading in the wrong direction, on latest polling has only 50.8 percent of the seats.
    This makes no sense.

If you think about it for only a minute (longer head scratch, perhaps) it actually makes perfect sense.

Two-thirds of those polled agree that the country is going in the wrong direction. Yet only half of those polled profess to be voting for a change of government. 

Which suggests perhaps that a fairly large proportion think that a government led by Christopher Luxon doesn't represent any kind of fundamental change of direction at all. 

And unless he's been lying to the electorate, it doesn't.

The response then, so unfathomable to la Hawkesby, actually makes perfect sense: Why vote for Labour-Lite when it's Labour you don't like.

... except for housing

"A major difference between Winston Peters and Seymour can be summed up by the fact Peters is happy to be seen as a handbrake on a National-Act government while Seymour wants to turbo-charge policy reform."

~ Graham Adams from his post 'Will co-governance drive a counter-revolution?'

"Journalists in this election campaign have got suckered into arguing with politicians about trivial, pathetic issues"

"Journalists [in this election campaign have] got suckered into arguing with politicians about trivial, pathetic issues ... The big issues were never debated which has made the reporting of this election campaign the worst ever in our history. ...
    "[T]his election campaign ... comes at a time which marks a turning point for our nation -- and not one thing National nor Labour have proposed has struck me as profound and thoughtful and designed to bring a greater long-term prosperity for all to this nation."

~ Robert MacCulloch, from his post 'NZ's Media got conned by Labour & National's election campaigns & ended up chasing red herrings'

"I don’t want Chris Hipkins to be 'In It For You,' I want him to leave me alone"

"So it’s that time when you get a chance to have a tiny say in what group of politicians pass laws on what you can do, and how to spend a portion of your money, or what to do with your property. ... Fortunately this election comes as a chance to evict the most leftwing Labour Government in decades....
    "This Labour Government in particular deserves to be defeated.... I don’t want a government that believes in constant growth of the state, including the welfare state, to make more and more people dependent on other taxpayers. I don’t want a government that thinks that its role is primarily to take the wealth generated by others to give to other people or businesses.... There is no shortage of failure, but there is a strong pattern seen across almost all of the policies of the Labour Party:

• Obsession with centralising power and control ...
• Distrust of individuals, and individual freedom and property rights ...
• Support for post-modernist identitarianism and the dishonesty about its support ...
• Focus on image and virtue signalling over outcomes ...

    "Most of all though, I am fed up with this meddling government. I don’t want Chris Hipkins to be 'In It For You,' I want him to leave me alone, I want him and his group of mediocre minor achievers to get out of the way."

~ Liberty Scott, from his post 'New Zealand election 2023 - The case against Labour'

"Debate"?

"Typically, political debate in modern democracies is akin to male walruses fighting over a patch of beach. Abetted by the media, politics is more of a blood sport than a forum for well-reasoned debate."

~ Michael Johnston, from his post 'Palaeolithic walruses in the age of reason'

Why does National's modelling matter? [updated]

"I have no idea why Luxon and Willis will not release their working [to detail their foreign-buyers tax plan], or a detailed carefully written up description of them, or why they won’t release Castalia to describe in detail what they did on this item.
    "But it isn’t reassuring. Not, as I’ve said repeatedly, that it matters much at all macreconomically, but because it seems to say quite a lot about their likely approach to governing. Trust matters in politics and government, but trust is earned, and is reinforced by verification. It isn’t won, in functional polities, with a smile and some bluster and a refusal to provide any supporting detail, all while in interview after interview actively misrepresenting what they have done."

~ Michael Reddell, from his post 'Marketing Brochure?'

UPDATE: on Twitter John Elliot makes a fair point, albeit well soused in whattaboutism:

I must confess I was surprised at the time, since Kiwibuild's numbers at the time were so clearly laughable.

As was Ardern's pledge to "fix"child poverty by throwing money at people. Sadly, she never learned PJ O'Rourke's should-be-famous welfare dictum:

"You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money."

This is not to say that the political press gallery here is party political. No. It's to say that they're as f'ing useless as the politicians on whom they purport to report.

"So why did the current Labour government go so wildly off the rails?"

"People want stability, which is all the Nats ever offer. That’s why since the war every National government has received 9 year terms, except the Holyoake one which lasted 12 years. Helen got 9 years by behaving like a National government and not rocking the boat but every other post-war Labour government has lasted respectively, one term (twice) or been bumrushed out after two terms before they go power crazy.
    "I last voted National over 40 years ago when I woke to their reality as a Party of not rocking the boat, uninspiring, minding-the-shop-style dullards. I certainly wouldn’t give them sixpence, nor do they need it ...
    "But periodically radical changes are required and these are only ever delivered by Labour which is a Party of malcontents.
    "So why did the current Labour government go so wildly off the rails?
    "Blame the public for that, specifically a phenomenon that saw the nation lose its head; the only time I was embarrassed to be a New Zealander. I refer to the ludicrous Jacindamania phenomenon which induced in Labour a thousand-year Reich, faith in their longevity, and a corresponding dictatorial mentality resulting in sheer totalitarian insanity in so many ways....
    "The next Labour PM is not in the House yet but will probably emerge after the 2026 election...."

~ Bob Jones, from his post 'Political Donations'

National's Tax Cuts [updated]

 

UPDATE: Eric Crampton:

"Paring government spending back to what Labour had promised, pre-Covid, would ... free up over twelve billion dollars, or about seven thousand dollars per household.
    "Instead, they're embroiled in disputes about the amount of money that would be raised by a tax that never made much sense in the first place....
    "The only real tax cut is a spending cut. ... Is it crazy to expect a National-led government to not want to outspend Ardern 2019?"

Punters are questioning National's promised tax cuts at this election. But National promises tax cuts at every election. 

Do they deliver?

Do their figures add up? 

Do they even care? 

Because when we look at promising tax cuts before an election, and breaking that promise thereafter ... well, on this very thing National has form. Just think back to the election in which John Key came to power ...

Out of power for 9 years before that 2008 election, and desperate to get back in, National in opposition had been promoting tax cuts for six of those years. "Significant" tax cuts. In May of that election year, after the delivery of Michael Cullen’s budget, John Key reaffirmed that “We believe in tax cuts. We believe in the power of tax cuts. And we will deliver them.” Asked to quantify it, Bill English promised “significant personal tax cuts” of “about $50 a week to workers on the average wage."

And as they watched their poll numbers go up on the back of that pledge, they kept right on promising.

But 2008 was also the year the Global Financial Crisis began, remember?

Didn't bother them in the slightest. They kept right on promising those tax cuts even as the housing collapse hit the US economy and the Dow Jones began its year-long slide. They kept up with the promises as NZ was declared officially in recession and our own housing markets began to slide.

And as John Key's former employer Merrill Lynch collapsed, and the US Federal Reserve started bailing out banks and bond buyers with billion-dollar loans, Bill English promised voters “a credible economic package to take account of the changing economic climate.” “Our tax cut programme will not require any additional borrowing,” he lied, comparing Michael Cullen’s record with his own promise to deliver “an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts.”

The promised programme never arrived. The borrowing did.

Even in October of that election year, after “the books” had been opened and several more dead rats fell out, Key and English both said “the pledge to deliver about $50 a week to workers on the average wage remained on track." And then 18 days before the election, they doubled down: "National is not going to be raising GST," John Key told journalists. "National wants to cut taxes, not raise taxes."

Readers, he lied. After the election, he broke that promise without even blinking.

GST was raised.

No taxes were cut.

And instead of those tax cuts of about $50 a week, with "no new borrowing," they delivered lots of the latter,* very little of the former, and a whole raft of tax increases and new taxes,:from rises in GST to increases on ACC levies and excise taxes, topped off with Nick Smith’s "ETS taxes" on fuel and power to counter climate change, and Steven Joyce's fuel tax hike to pay for more roads.

They flat-out-lied to voters. Baldly. (And no fear saying they couldn’t know about the economic crisis when they made their promises.)

Here's what I said back in April 2009, 

Significant tax cuts were a key election-winning promise for National, remember?
    And now they want to recant on that promise, just as I told you they would back in October. “Economic conditions” and a projected "decade of deficits” make it impossible, say Prime Minister John Key and his Finance Minister Bill English, to deliver the latter two of the three rounds of tax cuts they promised so loudly back in November.
    Excuse me boys, but isn’t it the case that these tax cuts, promised less than five months ago, were a key reason that the public gave you the jobs you have now? Shouldn’t you be doing now what’s necessary to do what you promised then?
    Isn’t it just a bit rich to say that “economic conditions” now make it impossible to deliver what you promised back before the election, because it was obvious back then to anyone with eyes to see that economic conditions were going to make it necessary to cut the government’s coat according to the cloth it could afford.
    To say that it wasn’t obvious to you back then is not an excuse not to deliver now, it’s a reason for your supporters to realise that you're either not competent enough to do your jobs -- since the whole world and his grandson could see back in October what was coming -- or else you’re a pair of liars.
    No other alternative explanation is possible.

So: can you believe this Party this year when they promise significant tax cuts? That you'll ever see their promised "Back Pocket Boost"? Says Michael Reddell, who has been examining one part of it:

When the fiscal deficit as it as large as it is, a major political party promising tax cuts really should be able to convincingly suggest to the public that the cost will be fully covered and that if their programme was adopted it would not worsen the already-large deficit. National’s package does not pass that test at present.

Fool me once ...

* Taking the debt from ten billion to sixty-six billion dollars...

Hey, big spenders!

"And so we go into the PREFU this afternoon, and [to] whatever spin the two parties’ spokespeople are going to put on fiscal prospects,with (a) a governing party that has already run up really big deficits, adding more fiscal expansion in their election year budget, with no specifics on how they might close those deficits (including in the face of ongoing cost pressures), and b) a main Opposition party which was seemed content to go along with Labour’s expansionary stance (just rearranging some of the tax and spending pieces), but in fact seems to have ended up with an even more expansionary stance themselves....
    "We have had 20 years in which New Zealand governments ran net debt as a share of GDP materially lower than the median OECD country. [But now with] the big Covid spending well behind us, both parties seem okay with debt still rising rapidly (they may say otherwise, but judge them not by the handwaving medium-term rhetoric but by their specific and immediate actions and commitments)."

~ Michael Reddell, from his post 'Previewing PREFU'

"At some point the kind folks who are funding our lifestyle will discover that we are insolvent."

"The key data point here is that since the GFC, Wellington has been piling on debt like there is no tomorrow; because when you are running on a three-year electoral cycle, there really isn’t....
    "Because we can no longer afford to pay our own way we borrow heavily. Not just the government; all of us. Our trade deficit is 8% of our GDP and the crown accounts are a mess. At some point the kind folks who are funding our lifestyle will discover that we are insolvent."

~ Damien Grant, from his column 'Skycity had a nasty tumble, and Prefu could bring the same for NZ economy'

Hipkin's five economic priorities: "Run for the hills"

"The odd thing is that there's nothing in [Hipkin's five stated economic] priorities for ordinary men or women. The PM may like to pretend he's on the side of bread-and-butter working-class folk concerned about things being affordable, however, at least in the US, such folks would read his five economic priorities as something concocted by Hollywood producers, Silicon valley weirdos & Prince Harry types, with help from Hilary Clinton. And run for the hills."

~ Robert MacCulloch, from his post 'There's not one thing in PM Chippy's "Five Economic Priorities" for Chippies in the Hutt'

Yay! NZ is leading the world in ...

 

... can you guess? *

Discussion here.

(And note that: the price-to-rent percentage represents 0% change in 2000 from 2000 prices, and (for NZ) a whopping 280% change in ratio from 2000 prices. Note that over the long run (centuries) the real cost (inflation adjusted) of housing should remain relatively unchanged, as should this ratio. So these price increases are unsustainable.)

But ... but (I hear some of you say), this doesn't measure housing affordability per se. Just the rent-to-price ratio. True. But we also "lead" in the all-important price-to-income ratio (which historically has been around three, and here in NZ is now over 10!) and in our Housing Bubble ranking (see below). 

And it does demonstrate the disastrous trend in unaffordability over the last two decades -- two decades of excessive monetary pumping and ever increasing restrictions on building and developing. A trend that is so much worse in this place. A trend that has (in David Stockman's words) "capriciously conferred financialised prosperity on selective pockets of ... society." An ever-accelerating trend that every government here has only made even worse -- and no government has bothered to arrest. 

And with all this in mind, and since it's election time, let me remind you that the goddamned Blue Team (Luxon, Seymour, and Bishop) have disgracefully squelched, on a whim, the only thing in living memory, however imperfect, that would do anything at all to improve it.

Arseholes.

* Have you guessed yet? Next question: whom (and what) do you blame?

"It's time NZ looked at our return on bureaucrats."

"It's time NZ looked at our return on bureaucrats.
    "In the year 2000 New Zealand had 1200 Bureaucrats working in the ministry of education. We had 2800 schools and according to the M.O.E we had 750,000 students. We ranked highly on international metrics such as the program for international student assessment (PISA) We were ranked fourth in reading, sixth in mathematics and fifth in science. Fast forward to today and student numbers have risen a little over 11% and the number of schools has decreased to 2600, but bureaucrat numbers have ballooned, nearly tripling, a rise of 166.7%. And what have we got for it? Nothing. In fact, we have gone backwards rapidly, now ranked 13th in reading, 27th in Math and 20th in science.
    "This same pattern is repeated across almost all Government departments...."

~ Nick Mowbray, from his looong tweet [hat tip Bob Jones]