David Parker on exchange rate – do something different

Oddly not listed on their The Nation webpage is the panel discussion between Winston Peters, David Parker and Don Brash. It was covered briefly in a news item: Labour supports bill to lower NZ dollar.

Labour Finance spokesman David Parker:

“Inflation targeting for New Zealand has passed its usefulness, it was very important at the time to focus solely on inflation, but at the moment we face competitive devaluation abroad. This is hurting our exporters – ordinary New Zealanders who are losing their jobs and leaving to Australia as a consequence.”

Brash was strong in the discussion. He agreed with the Parker on the benefits of having a lower exchange rate. But he kept asking what Parker would actually do that might be effective.

About all Parker could say was “time to do something different”.

In a recent speech Parker to EPMU said:

But if monetary policy drives them away, then it needs to change.

Labour is not afraid to make these changes

Time and again exporting businesses say their greatest challenge is volatility in and overvaluation of our exchange rate. The IMF agrees our currency is overvalued.

Our dollar is volatile against all currencies except Australia, and is sustained at uncompetitive levels.  This is often the difference between profit and loss. Between employing, exporting and not.

In my view, we face competitive devaluation abroad and ignore it at our peril. Other countries are competing to increase their exports by devaluing and manipulating their exchange rates.

But we operate monetary policy as if the history of the last two decades didn’t happen.

Our Reserve Bank Act was written in a time when the main economic threat was inflation.

A more pressing challenge now is how our exporters, and their employees, are hindered by an uncompetitive dollar.

But no indication of what specifically Parker suggests is done differently.

David Cunliffe has also recently been talking on this.

But a huge factor is National’s not-my-responsibility approach to the over-inflated and over-speculated New Zealand dollar. Manufacturers and exporters and now even the bankers know it’s just not sustainable for things to go on as before.

Today should be a day for action. Instead it’s shaping up as a day when National will vote down Winston Peters’ Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill at first reading.

The New Zealand First leader has a flair with words, and I expect he’ll accept that the language of his Bill can be moderated and polished.

However, the purpose of Mr Peters’ Bill is valid:

The simple fact is that interest rates, the only tool available to the Governor of the Reserve Bank to combat inflation, impacts on far more than just inflation—it is not a siloed effect. Most obviously it impacts on the exchange rate…. A far more co-ordinated approach between monetary and fiscal policy is required to both combat inflation and keep the economy balanced.

What’s crucial is expanding the scope of the independent Reserve Bank Governor to take action based on measures of New Zealand’s welfare additional to inflation – measures such as the strength of the dollar, the external balance, GDP growth and the level of unemployment.

But no solutions offered, effectively Cunliffe is just saying “do something different” but all they offer is talking about it.

I think it’s still important to target inflation, as Brash said, inflation erodes the value of wages.

And one of the biggest problems with trying to compete with monetary devalution measures – many other countries have much bigger money printing presses than us. We can’t compete.

Something different for Parker, Cunliffe and Peters would proposing an actual workable solution. Otherwise they are just poliwaffling.

The state of the leaders

John Key: Still leader and still popular

Phil Goff: gets credit for his campaign and preventing a rout but still a bad result. He hasn’t been able to lead Labour and some in the party have let him down as a result. Should offer his resignation as leader but should see out the term to help Labour at least try and rebuild after a disastrous first term in office.

Metirea Turei: has raised her game and helped raise her party. Her real challenge will be to demonstrate if she can mature from idealism to realism with aims and policies.

Russell Norman: has raised his game and helped raise his party. His real challenge will be to find a way of getting Greens into government. This isn’t going to happen in the next term. Needs to keep building Green credibility but if he keeps showing up Labour too much he won’t have a major party to go into coalition with.

Winston Peters: pulled off yet another political miracle with help from the media and luck. He’s a born campaigner but will find it difficult to lead an inexperienced team and maintain enough energy and relevance to last out three years with support intact. His success will really depend on some of his fellow MPs really stepping up, and quickly.

Pita Sharples: hanging in there with mana intact but needs to find a way of making the transition to new leadership.

Tariana Turia: still there but needs to make this term worthwhile as she tries to help the Maori Party on a new path.

Don Brash: his last Act? Has already resigned and destined to political history as expected after Act disaster.

Peter Dunne: did well to hold Ohariu but will find this tougher next time especially if Labour find a strong candidate. His challenge is how to reinvent United Future as a credible alternative party.

Hone Harawira: his challenge will be to find a way of being erelevant and effective as a sole MP party and keep interest and support in the Mana Party.

United Future protects against Peters/Brash/Banks

The reality of the election has become clear. If you don’t want National to rule on their own there are obvious choices. Two of those choices are worrisome, one is safe.

  • If you don’t want Brash and Banks holding the balance of power and pulling National right vote United Future.
  • If you don’t want Parliament and the country being held to ransom by Winston Peters vote United Future.
  • If you do want the continuation of a steady reliable government in precarious economic times vote United Future.

And wait, there’s more.

  • If you want sensible policies vote United Future.
  • If you like a family friendly party vote United Future.
  • If you value continued access to the great Kiwi outdoors vote United Future.

The media likes drama and division. United Future demonstrates common sense and working together.

It’s a no nonsense no brainer – vote UnitedFuture.

Cannabis deserves a decent debate

Don Brash has raised the decriminalisation of cannabis as an election issue, but it’s far more complex, and more important, than to rush policy in the heat of a campaign. Various issues around cannabis use – social, legal and medical – deserve decent public exposure and debate.

It would be a mistake to simply decriminalise cannabis and hope that the change will make things better. If the inevitable problems turn out to be greater than any benefits of giving people more free choice on use of drugs it would be difficult to undo.

The Act Party is deeply divided over Brash’s thoughts. The Green Party gives low-key support to relaxing drug laws. The rest of parliament does not support decriminalisation of cannabis and has no plans to change the status quo. The best way to test if this is the best stance or not is to examine it with informed debate.

There’s much more to the cannabis issue than giving a few recreational users the legal right to smoke as they please.

Kate K, who has just published a book called “Matters To A Head: Cannabis, mental illness & recovery” suggests on Dim-Post that “the decriminalisation argument is far less important to NZ than the real issue of providing and resourcing appropriate treatment and services to those who become unstuck by the drug.”

Russell Brown agrees and asks “this is actually the debate we should be having: how do we prevent early use of cannabis?”

Young people are much more susceptible to the adverse effects of drug use – it is unlikely there would be widespread support for unlimited use of cannabis for all ages. We need a process were we can debate and decide as a society what we want, and put that to the politicians.

I’m going to initiate more debate on cannabis. There are too many distractions for the rest of the year, so I propose planning this for next March, once the University year has restarted. In the meantime I will find what organisations and interest groups want to contribute information and want to participate in debate.

I will promote this debate on two levels, online and based publicly in Dunedin:

  • publish an initial discussion document
  • public meeting involving any interested legal, medical and social inputs, and local and national politicians
  • debate in local media
  • a possible organised public debate
  • utilise online media extensively for discussion and debate – this can extend nationally
  • close the debate period with a public meeting
  • poll or referendum on what the people of Dunedin prefer to be done, if anything

Other regions would be welcome to link in with this process.

Politicians will be involved as much as possible with the results. Ultinmately any action will be up to parliament, but this will provide a good indication of public preferences.

This will be a good test for establishing better ongoing community involvement in the social/political process.

Notes:

I am the UnitedFuture candidate for Dunedin North. These plans for cannabis debate will proceed regardless of the outcome in the electorate or via the list.

Current UnitedFuture policy includes “Oppose the decriminalisation of cannabis for recreational use.”

UnitedFuture party leader Peter Dunne has “no problem at all” with this debate proposal – the party encourages debate on issues as is open to alternate opinions.

My personal position is to support the status quo unless good evidence and informed public opinion supports change. I have never smoked cannabis, but I have inhaled party bong pong.

I don’t have a strong stance either way, I’m interested in helping determine what people want and supporting the popular view.

If anyone wants to join the planning of this debate please contact me at petedgeorge@gmail.com

Act – chick magnet and brown brothers?

Bring on the naivety?

Bring on the girls… Brash acts to fight white blokes image (Herald)

Act leader Don Brash says the party needs more young women and brown faces as candidates to more broadly represent New Zealand society at the election

Maybe he should ask John Ansell to run an advertiseing campaign that appeals to “young women and brown faces”.

It’s worth repeating the Ansell/Act attempts to attract voters in the weekend, in print:

In short, [ACT's] catchment is men and women who think like men. Not men and women who think like women. ACT is the party of the strong father, not the soft mother.

(By strong father I include strong women like Rand, Richardson and Thatcher, and by soft mother I include weak men like Key.)

And on blogs:

The women who support ACT are not squeamish about speaking bluntly about rational issues (including racial issues). I respect them very much.

In short, they’ve got guts.

More typical women are less rational and more emotional. They’d rather preserve relationships than rock the boat. Is that not true?

If it were not for the female vote, Don Brash would have become prime minister in 2005 and we’d be a much more prosperous country today.

But women, by a reasonable margin, preferred to cuddle the various minority groups and spend more of other people’s money on welfare that to take the hard economic decisions. These ‘soft mothers’ voted for short-term gain and long-term pain.

The ‘strong fathers’, also by a reasonable margin, voted for short-term pain and long-term gain. The rational (or should that be Brashional) approach.

Now of course I’ll be branded misogynist as well as racist. But again, I’m just pointing out the simple truth.

The soft mother model doesn’t seem to be universal. In Britain, women ‘got’ Margaret Thatcher’s bold approach (a woman who thought like a man if ever there was one).

But in New Zealand, when it comes to strong policies that actually allow the country to move forward, the girls let the side down. Three terms of Clarxism was not a rational answer to any rational question.

New Zealand is awash with parties that represent the female view of the world: Labour, the Greens, the latter-day Nats.

But only ACT represents rational women and rational men. The party should not be ashamed to say so.

And that’s just the chick magnet, Ansell’s and Brash’s “brown face” attraction has been widely covered, since about 2004.

So chicks, if you have guts (not a Mackers mound), you’re not the “typical less rational and more emotional” sort of girl, you’re not into “cuddling minority groups”, and you can get on with a dysfunctional of old white men then give Don your number.

And if you have a brown face and are happy to ignore the Brash race brown arming you could be just the sort of broad representation he’s after.

Act doesn’t broadly represent white New Zealand men, let alone all of New Zealand society. Brash has shown his tactics are those of a divider, he just hasn’t manged the conquer bit yet and it’s not looking likely he ever will, especially if continues to look this out of touch with the real world, and out of touch with most New Zealanders.

Bribe the tribe, clash of Brash

The Brash and Sharples debate was more careful than brash, and more dull than sharp.

After a weekend of trying to use deliberately attention seeking rhetoric to bribe the fed-up-with-Maori tribe for votes, followed by an apparent crashing and burning and burning of a party, Don Brash challenged Pita Sharples to debate the issues raised in the advert.  Sharples accepted and Maori TV obliged with the coverage.

Overall I doubt whether the debate will cause many of any to change their voting intentions or indecision. It will satisfied supporters of both and rolled the eyes of those opposing.

The language of the debate was far more reasonable, but when Brash was questioned on the provocative “Maori bashing” tone he talked it down.

“Bribe the tribe” in relation to RMA was suggested as a being a bit of the bash phrase, and Brash responded that it was using “poetic license” in advertising. Ok, be wary of what Act advertises, as if we didn’t already know that of any party.

Otherwise Brash pushed his well worn “one law for all” lines, nothing much new. Enough to save the party? We’ll see in due course but instead of pushing for a racial divide he should stick to his financial knitting, that’s what Act supporters want him there for.

Pita Sharples sounded reasoned and well acquainted with his role and with Maori and treat issues. One thing that I specifically didn’t like was when he said it was their country and people from overseas were here at “the invitation” of Maori. I haven’t come from overseas and I’m not here due to anyone’s invitation, I’m a New Zealander by right.

Ironic Twists

Sharples openly pushes for Maori rights and aspirations, he’s very much working for his own people, his own constituency, but he kept repeating last night how he was offering an inclusive way forward, everyone together.

Brash pushes “one law for all” and equal opportunity, that we should all be treated the same and he uses openly divisive tactics, aggressively attacking one group to try and get support from another.

I guess that’s political poetic license.

Final Words

Message to Brash – if you’re not prepared to say things face to face why say them in print? It’s false advertising.
Message to Sharples – I was born here, I have a right to live here, I am not here at anyone’s invitation.

Women and Act

How well does the Act Party represent women? Is it mostly a party of dis-empowered and frustrated old men?

If you don’t support Act are you a cowardly irrational gutless soft mother lover?

In his latest outbursts John Ansell has been blunt about his views on Act and women.

In short, [ACT's] catchment is men and women who think like men. Not men and women who think like women. ACT is the party of the strong father, not the soft mother.

(By strong father I include strong women like Rand, Richardson and Thatcher, and by soft mother I include weak men like Key.)

Maybe that’s why Rodney Hide had to be rolled, he pandered to “soft mothers” with his dancing and re-marriage and triping around the world with his partner.

Ansell continues to reveal his  gender views on Kiwiblog.

The women who support ACT are not squeamish about speaking bluntly about rational issues (including racial issues). I respect them very much.

In short, they’ve got guts.

More typical women are less rational and more emotional. They’d rather preserve relationships than rock the boat. Is that not true?

If it were not for the female vote, Don Brash would have become prime minister in 2005 and we’d be a much more prosperous country today.

But women, by a reasonable margin, preferred to cuddle the various minority groups and spend more of other people’s money on welfare that to take the hard economic decisions. These ‘soft mothers’ voted for short-term gain and long-term pain.

The ‘strong fathers’, also by a reasonable margin, voted for short-term pain and long-term gain. The rational (or should that be Brashional) approach.

Now of course I’ll be branded misogynist as well as racist. But again, I’m just pointing out the simple truth.

The soft mother model doesn’t seem to be universal. In Britain, women ‘got’ Margaret Thatcher’s bold approach (a woman who thought like a man if ever there was one).

But in New Zealand, when it comes to strong policies that actually allow the country to move forward, the girls let the side down. Three terms of Clarxism was not a rational answer to any rational question.

New Zealand is awash with parties that represent the female view of the world: Labour, the Greens, the latter-day Nats.

But only ACT represents rational women and rational men. The party should not be ashamed to say so.

So the 98.3% of people that don’t currently support Act (and the TV3 poll won’t have been influenced by the Acting out over the weekend) are, according to Ansell:

  • Cowards
  • Soft mothers
  • Irrational
  • Gutless

Effectively Ansell is saying that Act represents REAL MEN and everyone else are sissies, and worse.

How much of this is an Ansell only view?
What is the wider Act view on women (and sissy men)?
What are Don Brash’s views on women?

Or does any of this matter now?

Don’t pander to radicals

Act have launched a  campaign -  Fed up with pandering to Maori radicals?

That seems a bit radical. I guess they have to try something different to try and boost their poll ratings. Hang on, it’s not really different, it’s just a bit more confrontational than the Orewa speech.

Maori radicals have as much right to stand for election as financial radicals. If enough people vote for them to get MPs, they deserve representation.

That’s why Act is acting like this – 15% is a lot harder than they hoped.

Many people are fed up with attack politics, they’re fed up with deliberate antagonising and attempts at polarising.  They want a party that acts with integrity. Not Act like this.

There is more need than ever for a party of reasonable, sensible, middle New Zealand people representing middle New Zealand voters.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers