Parker replaces Cunliffe as Labour finance spokesman; Cunliffe gets Parker's old economic development role, stays on front bench

Parker replaces Cunliffe as Labour finance spokesman; Cunliffe gets Parker's old economic development role, stays on front bench

David Parker is the new Labour Party finance spokesman and is at number three on Labour's new front bench, replacing failed leadership contender David Cunliffe, who takes Parker's old economic development role and remains on the front bench at number five.

New Labour leader David Shearer announced his caucus and front-bench reshuffle in Parliament this afternoon, saying the line-up focused on the party's priorities for a "clean, green and innovative New Zealand."

In recognition of that, Shearer himself took the science and innovation spokesman's role, and gave deputy leader Grant Robertson the environment portfolio, as well as tertiary education, skills and training. Robertson told media at Parliament Buildings in Wellington he would be working closely with the party's new climate change spokeswoman Moana Mackey, who takes the role previously held by Brendan Burns, who lost the Christchurch Central seat in the November 26 election, meaning he did not return to Parliament.

Jacinda Ardern, at number four, was given the task again of taking on Social Development Minister Paula Bennett, with the corresponding portfolio.

Download the full list here.

Finance team much the same

The membership of Labour's finance team looks the same as it did under former leader Phil Goff, although Shearer said he thought Parker would approach the role differently than Cunliffe did.

Parker took Cunliffe's old finance role, moving up one place to number three on the front bench. Cunliffe dropped two places to number five, taking on Parker's old economic development role and an associate finance position. Shearer said he expected Cunliffe to take on National's Stephen Joyce.

The other associate finance spokesman were Clayton Cosgrove, Trevor Mallard and Shane Jones - all of whom had previously been in the finance team.

New MP David Clark took over from Stuart Nash as Revenue spokesman. Nash, who was not returned to Parliament at the election, had played a key role in formulating the party's tax policy, which included a capital gains tax.

Shearer would not say whether he expected Parker to take Labour in a different direction in terms of economic policy.

(Updates with video)

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

44 Comments

"clean, green and innovative New Zealand."

 

I'm waiting for the copyright stoush with the Greens that must be coming.

Of course, the best way to encourage innovation is for the government get out of the way: seems like Shearer is in the wrong party. (What do you think the chances are of a Twitter ever getting to market in New Zealand?)

I wonder how much attention they've paid to Paul Callaghan's presentations and writings?

Like, if NZ had another 100 manufacturers like its current top 40, that would put us near the top of the OECD and ahead of Australia.

THIS should be required reading for anyone running for public office at any level:

http://www.policom.com/PDFs/FLOW%20OF%20MONEY.pdf

"The Flow of Money and Its Effect on Local Economies" by William Fruth

I simply don't know where to start to summarise it. Read the whole thing, and join the ranks of the enlightened.

You keep quoting Sir Paul to support your view that we need to knobble town planning (while increasing population to its max (a developers wet dream). However:

So what are our high-technology businesses, the ones that turn ideas into valuable products? These are the companies whose assets are the brains of their team. No dams, no windmills, no runways and airbridges, but talented people who create employment for other talented people, who might have computers, some machine tools, some circuit-manufacturing capability and some plastics-moulding equipment.

We have a handful of such companies in the $100 to $200 million per year revenue category. These include Rakon with global positioning systems (GPS) on a chip, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare with hospital technology, Tait Electronics with radio communications equipment, HumanWare with technologies for the blind and Gallaghers with security equipment and electric fencing.

None of them beats Fonterra in terms of revenue per employee (around $300,000 per annum), but let's consider for a moment their big advantage. Rakon, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, Navman, Gallaghers, Alphatech, Vega Industries, HumanWare, Weta Workshop and Weta Digital all needed no new resources to start except brains and market understanding. Unlike Fonterra (or Meridian Energy), they need practically no land. They incur no significant costs of transport across the world, because their products are worth tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram or, better still, weightless.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1055...

With all due credit to Sir Paul Callaghan, he is probably not taking sufficient account of the conditions on the ground, that enable these kinds of businesses to get their start in the first place. It is more about "opportunity" than "planning".

http://www.policom.com/PDFs/FLOW%20OF%20MONEY.pdf

http://www.fcpp. org/images/ publications/ Cyprus%20letter. pdf

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002533-the-best-cities-for-technolog...

 

With all due credit to Sir Paul Callaghan, he is probably not taking sufficient account of the conditions on the ground, that enable these kinds of businesses to get their start in the first place. It is more about "opportunity" than "planning".

http://www.policom.com/PDFs/FLOW%20OF%20MONEY.pdf

http://www.fcpp. org/images/ publications/ Cyprus%20letter. pdf

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002533-the-best-cities-for-technolog...

 

It is also important to note that if the benefits of high-tech manufacturing firms creating wealth, is to "trickle down" to the rest of the population, then it is essential to have opportunity for affordable housing, affordable commercial land, and a reasonable level of productivity in the rest of the economy as well as the high-tech sector. Otherwise, the result will be expensive de facto gated communities for the wealthy high-tech sector workers, and slums for the rest of the population.

The McKinsey Institute are the experts on this subject. They point out there is a connection between "urban planning", urban land prices, and productivity. The UK economy is 20 to 40% less productive than its main trading partners, including the USA, Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands (in spite of being less land-constrained than Japan and the Netherlands) and the main reason is Britain's urban planning system and inflated urban land prices. The effect is anti-competitive; and also when urban land prices are inflated, there is less space per worker, and this reduces productivity. There is also less efficient warehousing, retailers, and production lines.

 

There is a quote I quite like it sums you up very well and to an extent PC from what I have read. To paraphrase "Academics tend to be philistines on any other area but that of their own expertese"

PC is very much correct in a business as usual context ie infinite growth....but fails to see that Peak Oil / Energy is a paradigm shift which probably impacts his views significantly....the Q is how significantly.

regards

Just like the US Govn got out of the way of the US finance industry....and succeeded in making the biggest mess in history.....that we will be paying for on some many levels for decades...thanks god the libertarians are all of 1500 ppl.....nutty ideas like that we dont need more of.

regards

"The real US economy" is at the centre of whatever hope there still is for the world economy.

http://texanomics.blogspot.com/

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002577-manufacturing-executives-pred...

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002558-which-states-are-growing-more...

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002215-the-best-cities-jobs-2011

If the USA chucked California out of the Union, the USA would power away into the distance and the rest of the world would never see it again.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002569-california-codes-corruption-a...

The popular narrative that "free markets" and "free enterprise" and "capitalism" have failed, is nonsense. The only part of the world that has LEAST succumbed to high taxes, big government, intrusive regulations, State "planning" etc etc, is the only part today that has any hope left.

The finance sector has become merely the top layer on layers of rent-seekers surrounding the economic distortions created by politics. For example, the farmers who bank several hundred percent capital gains when their land is included in an urban growth "plan", are the first layer. The banks providing mortgages under conditions of rationing that force urban property prices up, are the next layer. The trade in mortgage backed securities and derivatives, is the next layer - including the multitudes of investors who flock to these as a "safe bet" because "house prices never fall". The Wasll Street executives paying themselves fat bonuses, is just the remotest manifestation of a rent seeking racket than began with political interference in free markets.

NONE of this happened in the MANY States of the USA with minimal political interference in the process of urban growth.

I haven't even started on the gouging that State employees have been getting away with almost everywhere in the first world. At least the finance sector skims their lucre off the top of a racket in which every single participant is a VOLUNTARY one. But public sector employees retiring at 55, with superannuation based on the income in the last year at work which was artificially inflated by "overtime" etc etc, are scum; they are stealing from every Joe and Jane compulsory taxpayer, struggling to get ahead.

Ha, ha - the national under Key need help from other politicians, who know how economics work. The Green Party has a visionary and inspirational new economic concept for New Zeeland.

Hopefully, we see a trend, which tells infrastructure needs cannot just be imported in the billions to massive costs to the taxpayer. Manufacturing is essential for society, in order to lift wages, decent employment and to stop educated NZyoungsters to leave the country - only to list a few reasons.

clean,green but broke...

 

And where are the minerals coming from to help innovation Mr Shearer ? 

and when you have used the minerals up, what will your children and childrens children use to sustain their lifestyle?

regards

So your choice is dirty, black and even poorer because there is certainly no reason to be clean, green and broke. In fact being green might just save our collective ass as fossil fuels runs out.

but then you cant perceive that can you....

regards

Wow steven, you couldn't think hard enough the first time you had to have 2 cracks at beating the previous response with ignorance.

My arguement to anyone of green leaning persuasions has always been pretty consistent - if there is all this money to be made from having a green economy  then surely the capital markets will pick up on such signals and things will happen. Or are we stuck in a meaningless rhetoric whirlpool where words and actions need not be lined up.

Let's talk first generation biofuels. 43% of this year's US corn harvest will be put into this fuel medium. Clean(ish), green(but what about the intensive fertiliser) but taking food off people's tables? Anything else you wish to discuss? Or is your mind going to remian firmly closed, one-dimensional and somewhat myopic on this matter.

No, you miss my point, or you are so blinkered thet you see only from your perspective, ie the market is right. the "rational market" is an oxymoron.

1) Capital markets, well just look at the state of the global economy...they didnt se this mess coming in 2007 and then spent the last three years trying to make it worse.

2) There isnt a choice on going green....fossil fuel will decline in output.

3) As fossil fuel output declines the costs will rocket as its in-eleastic...so you cannot ration on price...

4) Capital markets are too short term, someone said markets think in terms of 20 days and not 20 weeks, let alone 20 years....there will be a realisation, eventually.

5) "worda and actions not lined up", indeed....seriously so.

when these happen GDP and company earnings, share prices will all collapse, then housing etc....its all a confidence and can kicking game.....in the 70~90s it started off easy but then got harder....now its probably at most a few years....

By all means lets talk fuel because this is or will be a transportation fuel issue.....

Biofuel such as corm etc waste of time, they are not green they are not useful for our society....the EROEI is about 1 to 1....we need 8 to 1 or better and it might be 10 to 1 or better...they are pork barrel politics....

and yes the US's fixation with subsidies means mexicans go hungry.

Im happy to discuss this, so far PDK is the only rational and capable person Ive found in here to discuss such things.....lets see how open your mind is....though my time is very limited.

Food, we eat fossil fuels, the "green revolution" was all about turning oil and gas into food, there was no output revolution....just a "great" conversion process.

and that takes me back to peak oil ...and in tern peak gas which will also occur....

So in terms of food on the table, how do you feed 7billion when oil is decreasing?

Answer is we cant, so food will be off ppls tables,  world popualtion is heading back to 1920s numbers....about 2 billion...

anything else you wish to discuss?

regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is the empirical basis for your assertion that fossil fuel demand is inelastic?

MdM: This might be anecdotal, but during the GFC, US citizenry cut back on their mortgage payments long before they cut back on their travel needs (to and from work) .. which shows a little bit of inelasticity.

Ummm..how about the simple fact that the world economy is in the worst shape its been since 1930 and oil is $100 per barrel...its not that it is necesarily inelastic (and please bear in mind that the concept of inelasticity is a MODEL its not a rule) but there is a lot of emprical evidence that oil/energy consumption correlates with GDP hence any price elasticity in oil will impact GDP, ie the false god of endless growth

"Correlates" in the sense that both move in the same direction, but it is nowhere near one-for-one.  Some quick Googling discovers:

  • In the UK, GDP doubled between 1970 and 2001 while energy consumption rose by 10%; energy consumption per unit of GDP fell by 43%. 
  • The amount of energy needed to produce a dollar's worth of goods and services in the U.S. economy fell by more than half between 1949 and 2004
  • Italy is the most energy efficient country in the G8 and one of the most energy efficient in the industrial world, largely due to traditionally high energy prices which have resulted in more efficient company and consumer behaviours. 
  • New Zealand's consumption of oil per $1 GDP declined by over 50% between 1982 and 2004.

Not what I would understand as inelastic demand.

 

10 points to Ms De Meanour

I have been bashing my head on a brick wall again and again trying to "debate" with Steven and PowerDownKiwi - it's like being Galileo debating the medieval papal theocracy.

I have quoted heaps of intelligent stuff from Jesse Ausubel in particular, on the subject of the energy intensivity of the world economy. Your findings above are entirely predictable.

But evidently some people simply do not have the correct kind of brain to understand these concepts. Ehrlich, Carson, Lester Brown, et al are prominent examples.

 

Wow steven, you couldn't think hard enough the first time you had to have 2 cracks at beating the previous response with ignorance.

My arguement to anyone of green leaning persuasions has always been pretty consistent - if there is all this money to be made from having a green economy  then surely the capital markets will pick up on such signals and things will happen. Or are we stuck in a meaningless rhetoric whirlpool where words and actions need not be lined up.

Let's talk first generation biofuels. 43% of this year's US corn harvest will be put into this fuel medium. Clean(ish), green(but what about the intensive fertiliser) but taking food off people's tables? Anything else you wish to discuss? Or is your mind going to remian firmly closed, one-dimensional and somewhat myopic on this matter.

In reality Corn ethanol is little more than a Gas to liquids process, Gas -> Ammonia -> Soil -> Corn -> Ethanol with a little sunlight and erosion thown in. The impact of the US attempting to continue BAU when they need to flattern out are going to be globally felt one way or another

Wow steven, you couldn't think hard enough the first time you had to have 2 cracks at beating the previous response with ignorance.

My arguement to anyone of green leaning persuasions has always been pretty consistent - if there is all this money to be made from having a green economy  then surely the capital markets will pick up on such signals and things will happen. Or are we stuck in a meaningless rhetoric whirlpool where words and actions need not be lined up.

Let's talk first generation biofuels. 43% of this year's US corn harvest will be put into this fuel medium. Clean(ish), green(but what about the intensive fertiliser) but taking food off people's tables? Anything else you wish to discuss? Or is your mind going to remian firmly closed, one-dimensional and somewhat myopic on this matter.

Wow steven, you couldn't think hard enough the first time you had to have 2 cracks at beating the previous response with ignorance.

My arguement to anyone of green leaning persuasions has always been pretty consistent - if there is all this money to be made from having a green economy  then surely the capital markets will pick up on such signals and things will happen. Or are we stuck in a meaningless rhetoric whirlpool where words and actions need not be lined up.

Let's talk first generation biofuels. 43% of this year's US corn harvest will be put into this fuel medium. Clean(ish), green(but what about the intensive fertiliser) but taking food off people's tables? Anything else you wish to discuss? Or is your mind going to remian firmly closed, one-dimensional and somewhat myopic on this matter.

Sigh.

Technology experts like Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute have been pointing out for years that humanity's energy systems have been "decarbonising" all along, and on continued “market” trajectories, CO2 emissions will all but disappear within a century or so. This is because humanity has tended to both urbanise and become more mobile; hence energy requirements favour sources that are less bulky and more easily transported. This just happens to involve less carbon; carbon represents most of the "mass" in energy sources. We do not heat buildings in high urban density locations with log fires any more (the famous London smog used to kill thousands of people every winter), or run trains by shovelling bulky coal into their boilers while on the move.

Current energy systems compete with each other based on their own economic advantages and disadvantages. Electricity runs down wires; the ultimate thus far, in unobtrusive energy supply to multitudes of fixed locations. A tank of liquid fuel is sufficient for a vehicle to drive hundreds of kilometres. Batteries are not yet as efficient as tanks of liquid fuel. Liquid fuels are not suited to delivery to end users by pipe, but gas fuels are.

Natural gas is a lower-carbon source of energy than petrol by a factor of about 25%, and coal by a factor of about 50%. We have reached an economic tipping point with its use, where better methods have been devised to extract it, and investment in extraction and distribution are profitable. The international "Oil and Gas Journal" and "Oil and Gas International" often contains several announcements of the discovery or the commercialisation of new significant natural gas and/or oil "fields" in each of their weekly issues.
 

However, Ausubel predicts that oil will be supplanted as an energy source before humanity runs out of it, and coal is already in the process of being supplanted. Potential for total "de-carbonisation" of the energy system is offered by hydrogen fuel, which releases no carbon at all in combustion. Ausubel suggests that eventually, methane will be economically extracted from coal beds, leaving the coal behind; and hydrogen extracted from the methane. He suggests that most people do not sufficiently credit the energy industry with knowing what it is doing. Meanwhile, hysteria regarding scarcity of resources is a handy excuse for higher prices and profits for energy companies.

The economist George Reisman of Pepperdine University, California, in a 2001 article called "Environmentalism Refuted", discusses the misunderstandings that lead to the belief that the earth's resources are running out. Men have seen photographs of earth from outer space, and have forgotten how vast it is compared to us. We have actually barely begun to prospect the entire surface of the earth, and under the sea bed, for all known resources. Resource extraction industries tend to wait until a resource's known reserves are running out before looking for more. Hence, the economist Julian Simon was confident to bet against the doomsayer environmentalist Paul Ehrlich in 1980, that the price of five commodities chosen by them would be cheaper in 1990. Simon won the bet. Ehrlich declined any of the new bets further offered by Simon. Simon had spent much of his career tracking resource price trends for publishers of business forecasting information; a true expert who was appalled by the uncritical coverage given by the media to people like Ehrlich.

As mankind becomes more technically advanced, we discover uses, and substitutes, for more and more resources. Many of the resources we use most today were not discovered until the last century or two. Fossil fuels were unutilised in the 1700's, let alone nuclear energy. There is no reason to believe that we have come to an end of this process of technological advancement. 

The more “capital” accumulated by mankind, the more access we get to resources. We can drill deeper, extract elements more efficiently, access the resources under the sea bed, and so on. Furthermore, that accumulation of capital enables the discovery and "commercialisation" of new technologies. Non-capitalist economies never managed to get new technologies even as obvious as the automobile, into mass use by their citizens.

Apart from what has been fired into space, every molecule in every substance “used” by man, is “still here”. Every carbon molecule that has been “burnt” to extract energy, returns to the biosystem after a short period in the atmosphere, and will be able to be accessed again for the purpose of energy by our descendants at some time in the future, if the earth exists for long enough or if the process by which these molecules become energy again can be speeded up. Nature’s processes require a longer amount of time to produce a lower-carbon energy source from re-absorbed carbon – crude oil takes a lot longer to form than trees and plants. “Biofuel” is a short-cut that so far, unfortunately, requires more energy to produce than it provides on combustion.

It is actually more “moral” to continue to invent and innovate and adapt as rapidly as possible, and suffer possible “nature strikes back” consequences if and when they occur, than it is to “play god” and do actual harm to humanity immediately, and worst of all, to reduce our ability to accumulate capital, invent, innovate, commercialise, and adapt. In such cases, the “solution” is entirely likely, going by historical example, to be far worse than the "problem". Any breakdown of the monetary system, for whatever reason, would therefore have very serious consequences in any case.

 If humanity consisted entirely of pagan tree worshippers, certainly the earth might be wonderfully forested and lightly populated – by primitive people living primitive and short lives, having never discovered fossil fuels or any other “modern energy”. We could do something like this today, entrenching the status quo conditions of humanity, and never know what advances we didn't make. These are actually issues of religion and ethics, not science or economics at all.

 

Steven

Have you herad of Norway???  Obviously not.. 

Like any good story, there are two sides; a good and a bad side.. same as mining. 

Don't concentrate your argument on one side.  I thought they taught it at school!

Norway? context?

Two sides, sure read both, research, contemplate, discuss....conclude....then there is either a truth or an opinion....

In the case of fossil fuels I have spant over 5 years on it, I have an opinion that im 99.99% sure witll be proven true...in the next few years alsmost certainly 5 and definately 10.

We get to watch...we are in the same test tube.....come back and remind me say this time next year?

regards

goNZ - I think Shearer lives a healthy life style to get his minerals.

He doesn't sound too convincing.  I hate the word "innovation".  It sounds of grandeur but always result in lack of substance. 

Just like the voting re-count for Waitakere, most of rogue votes were going to Labour.  So what we need is more of Labour's innovation in our voting systems.... and more innovative accountants.

Good luck! 

phhh, keep in mind we have heard this all before! The 9 years of BS has finally come home to roost eh. Just remember this, "real growth is NOT more debt" personal or government

Well well well ! eh.....if that's not the next best thing to a demotion I don't know what is.....once again it's the old don't stand so close to me. 

never far.

Cunny couldn't count , Count ...... he was a re-distributionist as per Michael Cullen , believing that there's a static quantity of munny floating around , thereby necessitating the need to cut a stale old economic pie into ever diminishing sized pieces .......

...... David Shearer ( bless him ! ) believes in enriching the populence by assisting in growing the pie by policies friendly to small business operators ( not sure why he omits the taller business owners ? ) .....

 

I see your logic GBH.....I don't see us with Cunny back on the chair for a chat n a squint.

 i told you that damn squint would be the undoing of him........talk soon.

Are you implying that Cunny didn't just hang around Captain Calamity and us because he's our buddy ? ........ come to think of it , the squint hasn't been sighted hereabouts since the election ......

..... ooh ooh ooh ...... I feel so dirty & used ! ........ cunnifiled .........

Hooton in the latest NBR, points out that major shifts in which major party holds power, has usually involved a major re-invention for the party concerned.

Eg Muldoon - Bolger - Key

Kirk/Rowling - Lange - Clark

So there is plenty of scope for "Shearer Labour" to position itself as a new REAL alternative to John Key / Helen/Mikhail Lite government.

I suggest Labour champions the cause of urban land supply reform; after all it is in the interests of THEIR political constituency. It is time Labour started to wake up to this.

Maybe labour will turn to the past and keep the country nice by limiting population growth.

The current immigration madness started with Helen Clarke

http://www.gmi.co.nz/news/514/labours-third-world-solution.aspx

The old FOL protected NZ workers and once NZ was for NZers. The pressure on housing hasn't hurt the well off , has benefitted realestate agents, developers aand property investors but has worked against the lower paid.

"New Zealand is the new Eden, its clean and green image the beneficiary of a public-relations windfall direct from Middle-earth. Americans are not just visiting the country in numbers unimaginable only five years ago—they’re immigrating, drawn by an arcadian ideal (never underestimate the pacifying effect of several billion sheep), breathtakingly cheap waterfront real estate, see-through fish-tank architecture, and an investment climate that, as one Las Vegas resort owner–cum–South Island winemaker puts it, makes New Zealand “the Switzerland of the South Seas.”
One of the most powerful forces in the shilling of the nation is Helen Clark, familiar to all Kiwis as Madame Prime Minister. In her book, there are no bad tourists, only ones with shallow pockets. And in a recent campaign that will go down in history, Clark aggressively packaged and promoted New Zealand as a place where Californians in particular, because of their relative proximity and the kinship in lifestyles, might consider putting down roots. “Active recruitment,” she called it, and some of the state’s richest residents signed up. Vive le marketing.
"
http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/kiwi-country/1

Once Redcliffs was an unprepossessing fishing village, distinguished by a collection of modest fishermen's cottages. Most have now dissapeared, replaced by more luxurious residences, and property values have escalated.

 

“It's a standing joke that we're being taken over by the Americans and British, who have taken advantage of the stronger property markets in their own countires and favourable exchange rates”

 

“I know an English couple who have summer here and go back to England in the winter”

 

“What other parts of the city have such nice walks?.....

Viva The Labour Party! The only workers they know are ponsy trade unionists.

Gonzo and PB - could you collude a priori, and compare your cranially constrained constructs?

Gonzo seems to thing you've got to have physically-extracted stuff to underwrite 'wealth'. Callaghan never - and I'd have taken him on head-on with this - acknowledged the fact.

If you put energy in the list of 'physically extracted' (and there is no viable alternative in sight) then Gonzo is right. Energy available limits work done, 100%. Efficiencies and discretionary use are the only variables, and if the supply reduces, then growth is over, and triage is the order of the day.

Callaghan may well be smart enough to realise that you have to get the dumb bunnies on board, to go where we have to go, but it's a dangerous game to teach liferaft drill without announcing the sinking. You tend to lose the urgency and thus run out of time.

Gonzo has to acknowledge that if wealth is based on minerals, that growth must cease at some point (half-way through the supply of the first one to prove irreplaceable). PB has to acknowledge that comparisons with 'the OECD' are (conveniently) meaningless, given the continued fiscal and environmental debts being run by all member nations.

 

Both are parying to money and chanting, growth...growth.....they have no logic, science or engineering on their side.......I know which way Im betting based on taht...it isnt their way...

PB thinks texas and Houston is THE place to be.....he's so convinced with that that he wont notice the water lapping around him til it reaches his eye balls....why care....

regards

Yes, Labour still fail to address the problem, and do so studiously.

They're closer to being able to do so, though, I think because they will have a greater degree of instinctive altruism in their midst.

I had a coffee with David Parker recently, at which he said "I can't believe we're running out of energy".

Anyone who says 'believe', worries me. He's a genuine, nice, honest, caring human being (there are a lot, lot worst out there!) but "believe"?

Spare me. You either know, or you find out. Then you agree or you rebut.

Believe is wnat idiots do, like the 50% of the USA who 'think' some omnipotent being created the planet (dinosaurs, glacial valleys and all) in the last 4000 years.

Think is what we need from our leaders.

We wait.

Umm I met David Parker while he was a Minister at a function, he was miles away from being "genuine, nice, honest, caring human being".  Infact he was raved on about reducing the carbon footing with his newly acquired luxury European diesel car courtesy of the NZ tax payers..  I was tempted to ask him what's wrong with a hybrid car which was 1/2 price of what we paid for his Citroen.

Ha ha ha ha ha. What a hoot.

You are the medieval papal hierarchy, and I am Galileo. I will be blighted with a curse if I do not bow and scrape to what you say, based entirely on your own authority. Never mind facts that any fool can find out for themself.

 

"genuine, nice. honest, caring human being" - point me in the direction of any politician who meets that description!

Your access to our unique content is free - always has been. But ad revenues are diving so we need your direct support.

Become a supporter

Thanks, I'm already a supporter.